Did Genesis Patriarchs Live 900 Years?

[VideoGameJunkie]

It seems everyone back in the early Bible days lived hundreds and hundreds of years and were still able to have children. How was this possible and why do people now die out at 90 or 100? Tell me if I've made this thread before because my mind is drawing a blank.

Edited October 11, 2014 by VideoGameJunkie

[JLHPROF]

IMO - Yes.  They 100% did.

 

I'd give you the old school "folklore" doctrine explanation but people seem to have issues with those...

[erdoch]

I don't think so. I think Joseph Smith assumed that they did get that old when he was creating the Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation, but that the Book of Moses should be taken as at least partially non-historical inspired pseudepigrapha rather than actual history. I admit this is a more liberal or even "revisionist" view of Joseph Smith's revelation, but it is one that I have come to terms with as fitting faith and science best.

[The Nehor]

I really do not care either way. I am leaning towards they did but that their lifespan was not usual even then.

I can say I would rather not live that long. This world has not been so kind to me that I would regret leaving it.

[JAHS]

Many have suggested that time was counted differently back then than it is now, but there is at least no evidence in the scriptures that a year then was much different than what we call a year now. After the fall of Adam, the genetic line of his descendants would have been very pure, perhaps providing for very healthy long lives.

 

It is interesting to note that after the flood, the lifespan of people started to decline rapidly, as if the flood caused some alteration in the atmosphere that had an effect on the aging process. The theory goes that the rains that came during the flood destroyed the "canopy" or inversion layer of the atmosphere, permanently changing the earth's climate. This canopy had until this time caused a nearly uniform, warm climate over all the earth and had prevented moist air from rising and condensing to form rain: " . . . the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth. . . ." (Genesis 2:5.). Rather, plants were watered by dew that formed "in the cool of the day." (Genesis 3:8.) Destruction of the canopy also allowed small amounts of ozone, formed from oxygen in the upper atmosphere by ultraviolet light from the sun, to reach the earth's surface, greatly shortening the lifespans of people born after the time of Noah.

Now if you believe all this I can get you a good deal if your'e interested in purchasing the Eiffel Tower ;-)

[danielwoods]

From a young earth creationist...

The long ages only occurred during pre-flood times.

Contributing factors:

1) Perfect DNA

2) Protection from Radiation from the sun (from the firmament in the sky).

3) Higher atmospheric pressure and increased amount of Oxygen.

4) Tropical climate throughout the earth, which produced an abundance of plant life to eat.

After the flood God set the age limit for man to 120 years.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Many have suggested that time was counted differently back then than it is now, but there is at least no evidence in the scriptures that a year then was much different than what we call a year now. After the fall of Adam, the genetic line of his descendants would have been very pure, perhaps providing for very healthy long lives.

 

It is interesting to note that after the flood, the lifespan of people started to decline rapidly, ....................................................

..................................................................

We still have some long lives after the Flood:

 

Non-Mormon scholars like Eric Lowenthal, Nahum Sarna, Mordechai Cogan and William W. Hallo note, for example, that some of the Patriarchs have curious numerical relationships among their biblical ages:

 

Abraham...... 7 x 5² =...................175 years .................................(5 + 5 + 7 = 17)

[sarah..........................................127 ............(2 x 60) + 7 = 127]

Isaac.............5 x 6² =.................. 180 .............3 x 60 = 180 .........(6 + 6 + 5 = 17)

Jacob........... 3 x 7² = ..................147 .............2 x 70 = 147 .........(7 + 7 + 3 = 17)

Joseph .........1 x (5² + 6² + 7²) = 110 ...........................................(8 + 8 + 1 = 17)

 

Moreover, note that Joseph spends 17 years with Jacob in Canaan, and 17 years with him in Egypt (part of the chiastic symmetry of the Joseph Narrative).

 

The ten antediluvian patriarchs from Adam to Noah live within a period of 1,656 years according to the Massoretic Hebrew text, with Adam dying at least by the time of Lamech, father of Noah.  Counting the year of the great Deluge, that would be 1,657 years (Gen 8:13) = 600,000 days + 2 x 7 years.  Not only is the sexigesimal implication clear, but Stephanie Dalley shows the tight relationship that exists with Berossus’ version of the Mesopotamian story and chronology in his Babyloniaca:

 

. . . the survivor of the Flood (Xisuthros, Noah) is the tenth antediluvian king in both Berossus and Genesis (Priestly source), that the month in which the Flood happened is named, and that the ten antediluvian kings whom Berossus cites ruled 432,000 “years” (i.e. 86,400 x 5, five years being sixty months) and in Genesis (Priestly source) for 1,656 “years” (i.e. 86,400 weeks), so the two accounts may originally have shared a common chronological scheme.

 

In summing up his comparison of the biblical antediluvian Patriarchs and the earlier Sumerian King List, David Bokovoy concluded:

 

If the total years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years.  Then, if we convert this number to a sexigesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 – the exact total of the Sumerian King List.

 

Something extraordinary is taking place in those lists, and they are definitely connected.  But how?

[Ahab]

It seems everyone back in the early Bible days lived hundreds and hundreds of years and were still able to have children. How was this possible and why do people now die out at 90 or 100? Tell me if I've made this thread before because my mind is drawing a blank.

They had better jeans back then. Now we don't.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Ahab

[AndyDnom]

Here's what I told myself when I believed that the events documented in the old testament actually occured:

 

Adam and eve had perfect genes. Inbreeding messes up genes, we know this. A&E's kids were basicaly siblings having children with siblings, and on and on. So by the time we got to methuselah, he was one of the last who didnt have inbred corrupted genes.

 

That's what i told myself, anyway.

[bcuzbcuz]

From the very considerable abundance of information available from Egyptian records, both recorded in stone and on papyrus, we know that Egyptian royalty lived relatively normal life spans. The average age was in the 30-40's.

Childhood, in ancient Egypt, was fraught with many dangers. Many children died within the first 5 years of life, so much so, to be considered common.

King Ramses II lived into his 90's, one of only a few kings who reigned more than 40 years. Ramses died of old age but suffered from hardening of the arteries and massive tooth decay, including abscessed teeth, that must have been very painful. He lived from approx. 1314 BCE to 1223 BCE. But that would be approximately 1000 years after the biblical flood (listed on many Christian internet sites and calculated by bible scholars to be approx. 2304 BCE) .

The Egyptian kings that lived before, during and after the biblical flood, lived normal life spans.

The king who ruled during the time of Noah's flood, Pepi I, from 2332 to 2283, had a reign of 49 years.

Pepi I ruled near the end of the Old Kingdom, a period of wealth and conquest and organized rule that had covered a period of 500 years. The Old Kingdom was from 2686-2181 BCE and covered the third, fourth, fifth and sixth dynasties. The great pyramids at Giza were built during the beginning of the Old KIngdom, 300 years before the flood.

The kings who ruled Egypt prior to the Old Kingdom, from around 3000 BCE, and the kings that ruled during the Old Kingdom, never lived to the age of 100 years of age.

If the patriarchs of the Old Testament lived for 900 years, living not in cities or towns,, but as farmers and herders, their meals would consist of roughly ground grains, among other things. Such ground grains would have caused considerable wearing down of the molars. Living to 900 years would have left most of them without teeth.

Herding is quite physical, it would require considerable stamina, especially if one is over 100 years old.

Noah would have needed even more stamina to build his ark, considering he was 600 years old at the time.

If one were to move the decimal point one space to the left for all the patriarchs ages, Noah would have been 95 at his death, and 60 when he built the ark. Adam would have lived to the age of 93, Seth to 91, Enosh to 90, Cainan to 91, Mahalalel to 89, Jared to 96, Enoch to 36, Methuselah to 96, Lamech to 77,and Noah to 95. They would have all lived to a ripe old age, even after moving the decimal point.

[HappyJackWagon]

A similar question would be, "Do all Genensis Patriarchs exist?"

[Nofear]

If one were to move the decimal point one space to the left for all the patriarchs ages, Noah would have been 95 at his death, and 60 when he built the ark. Adam would have lived to the age of 93, Seth to 91, Enosh to 90, Cainan to 91, Mahalalel to 89, Jared to 96, Enoch to 36, Methuselah to 96, Lamech to 77,and Noah to 95. They would have all lived to a ripe old age, even after moving the decimal point.

 

I think the decimal place thing comes up in a few places in the Old Testament (e.g. casualty and/or census reports). But it would mean that the LDS institute old testament bookmark would need some revision (the horror!).

[saemo]

It seems everyone back in the early Bible days lived hundreds and hundreds of years and were still able to have children. How was this possible and why do people now die out at 90 or 100? Tell me if I've made this thread before because my mind is drawing a blank.

I read a short essay once that compared Biblical legendary lifespans to those of Samarian legends. These legends were of deities and half-deities. The point being made, legendary lifespans convey something important but are not literal accounts. In the case of Biblical legendary lifespans, it conveys a continuous portrayal of God involved with his people, and, conveys the ancient age of humankind. So put together, God is always with us, and has been forever.

 

Up until Abraham, the Biblical accounts don't have a historical context.They convey important truths about God and creation. They are religious cosmologies, not histories. For example, where is the Garden of Eden exactly? The Bible does not say it ceased to exist but that Adam and Eve were ejected from it. The tree of knowledge of good and evil still exists somewhere on earth, right? So we can understand literally, such as that, or understand truths are being conveyed but not historical accounts. With Abraham, we see the Biblical account put into a historical context, that of, the Middle East.

Edited October 11, 2014 by saemo

[Robert F. Smith]

From the very considerable abundance of information available from Egyptian records, both recorded in stone and on papyrus, we know that Egyptian royalty lived relatively normal life spans. The average age was in the 30-40's.

The peasantry always lived shorter lives than royalty, but such statistics as 30-40 years can be misleading because they are formulated due to high infant mortality and disease.  The average age at death for ancient humans would be pretty much the same as today, but for the high death rate among infants.  This skews the figures considerably and leads to the false conclusion that everyone is dying at 30 to 40, which is just not true, as you yourself observe in saying that "childhood . . . was fraught with many dangers. Many children died within the first 5 years of life, so much so, to be considered common."  Otherwise, human lifespans were pretty much as they are today.  We get a similar skewing of data with comparison of human lifespan in America in 1900 set over against 2000.  On the surface it appears that people are living longer today, but that is actually not so.  Lifespans are the same, but the infant mortality figures are much lower, making it appear statistically that people are now living longer.

 

...............................................................

The Egyptian kings that lived before, during and after the biblical flood, lived normal life spans.

The kings of Egypt do live ordinary lifespans, but the statement about "before, during and after the biblical flood" is false.  There is no reason to select any particular biblical chronology (which vary widely) for the Great Deluge as historically correct or precise.

 

........................................................

Aside from his coregency with his father (Seti I),from age 25 Ramesses II reigned about 67 years, and fathered over a hundred children (Dynasty 19).  Pharaoh Pepy I (Meryre‘ Piopi), of the "Memphite" Dynasty 6, reigned 53 years according to Manetho.  Pharaoh Merenre‘ reigned around 10 years, then was succeeded by his half-brother Pepy II, who reigned over 90 years (according to Manetho and the Turin Canon).  Pepy II "was followed by eight ephemeral rulers of whom the last four count only 5½ years between them."  In other cases, the lengths of reign are unclear or disconcerting.  Ramesses III reigned 31 years and lived into his 60s, at which point it is not clear whether he was murdered or died of natural causes.  The next to the last ruler of the Hyksos, King Apophis, ruled for at least 41 years.

 

If the patriarchs of the Old Testament lived for 900 years, living not in cities or towns,, but as farmers and herders, their meals would consist of roughly ground grains, among other things. Such ground grains would have caused considerable wearing down of the molars. Living to 900 years would have left most of them without teeth.

Herding is quite physical, it would require considerable stamina, especially if one is over 100 years old.

Your assumptions about lifestyle are misleading or false.

It is always helpful to compare actual herding peoples whom we can observe in modern times.  That is what anthropologists do.  The Masai of East Africa, for example, live long, have no heart disease (despite a high fat diet), and walk nearly all day in taking care of their herds of cattle.  http://sciencenordic.com/maasai-keep-healthy-despite-high-fat-diet .

 

...............................................

If one were to move the decimal point one space to the left for all the patriarchs ages, Noah would have been 95 at his death, and 60 when he built the ark. Adam would have lived to the age of 93, Seth to 91, Enosh to 90, Cainan to 91, Mahalalel to 89, Jared to 96, Enoch to 36, Methuselah to 96, Lamech to 77,and Noah to 95. They would have all lived to a ripe old age, even after moving the decimal point.

Now you are starting to think more realistically about the mythic lifespan figures of the Ante-Diluvian (Pre-Flood) Patriarchs, and to consider the possible figurative meanings for them and their Mesopotamian prototypes.  As I suggested above, in post #7, if we examine the numbers more carefully, we are left with something other than ordinary historiography.  The Bible is not a history text:

Much of the patriarchal lore is very old, some of it reaching back, perhaps, into the Middle Bronze Age.  As an epic cycle it evidently existed prior to the epic materials recounting exodus, covenant, and conquest.  There is, on the other hand, no reason to believe that the bundle of exodus, Sinai, and conquest themes ever existed detached from or separated from patriarchal epic tradition – save in its purely mythic prototype.                                  Frank Moore Cross, Jr., From Epic to Canon, 47.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I read a short essay once that compared Biblical legendary lifespans to those of Samarian legends. These legends were of deities and half-deities. The point being made, legendary lifespans convey something important but are not literal accounts. In the case of Biblical legendary lifespans, it conveys a continuous portrayal of God involved with his people, and, conveys the ancient age of humankind. So put together, God is always with us, and has been forever.

 

Up until Abraham, the Biblical accounts don't have a historical context.They convey important truths about God and creation. They are religious cosmologies, not histories. For example, where is the Garden of Eden exactly? The Bible does not say it ceased to exist but that Adam and Eve were ejected from it. The tree of knowledge and evil still exists somewhere on earth, right? So we can understand literally, such as that, or understand truths are being conveyed but not historical accounts. With Abraham, we see the Biblical account put into a historical context, that of, the Middle East.

Thanks, saemo.

Excellent summary of the quandary of reading the Bible naively.  The Sumerian legends should be compared systematically, before drawing hasty conclusions.

[thesometimesaint]

It seems everyone back in the early Bible days lived hundreds and hundreds of years and were still able to have children. How was this possible and why do people now die out at 90 or 100? Tell me if I've made this thread before because my mind is drawing a blank.

 

I don't believe it.

[Guest]

It seems everyone back in the early Bible days lived hundreds and hundreds of years and were still able to have children. How was this possible and why do people now die out at 90 or 100? Tell me if I've made this thread before because my mind is drawing a blank.

If I lived to be 100, much less 900+...my first question to God (with respect) What were you THINKING!!!!!

[mnn727]

It would only matter if you believe the Bible is 100% historical and accurate, and that God put exactly what he wanted to in it, which is not LDS doctrine.

Genesis was an oral history handed down for many generations before someone wrote it down meaning the original tale was embellished by many generations of story tellers (ie not translated corrected)

 

Many people have tried to explain how they could live such long lives. I don't worry about it as I believe much of the OT and Genesis in particular was a primitive tribe trying to explain their origins and how the world worked. There are still lessons to be learned even if not 100% true.

Edited October 11, 2014 by mnn727

[mbh26]

Here's what I told myself when I believed that the events documented in the old testament actually occured:

 

Adam and eve had perfect genes. Inbreeding messes up genes, we know this. A&E's kids were basicaly siblings having children with siblings, and on and on. So by the time we got to methuselah, he was one of the last who didnt have inbred corrupted genes.

 

That's what i told myself, anyway.

 

Well if A&E's genes were perfect, they wouldn't have been messed up by inbreeding.  Inbreeding only presents phenotypic problems for 150-200 years afterwards.  At this point, it actually improves the gene pool because the nonadvantageous alleles are selected against by death.  Society has a phobia against inbreeding because the short term costs are what they see.  

 

If I get to the next world and ever find out if people really lived as long as the Genesis account says, I'd rank it up there with God purposely putting out fossil evidence of evolution to sift out those whose faith was weak.  

[Robert F. Smith]

.............................................

Genesis was an oral history handed down for many generations before someone wrote it down meaning the original tale was embellished by many generations of story tellers (ie not translated corrected)

 

Many people have tried to explain how they could live such long lives. I don't worry about it as I believe much of the OT and Genesis in particular was a primitive tribe trying to explain their origins and how the world worked. There are still lessons to be learned even if not 100% true.

The real question, though, is how can the most advanced civilization (Sumer & Akkad) have much the same epic origin stories as the much later Hebrews?  Being primitive then vanishes as an explanation of any kind.  The whole issue is instead cast back in time to a much earlier era and to a very different people.

[ksfisher]

We still have some long lives after the Flood:

Non-Mormon scholars like Eric Lowenthal, Nahum Sarna, Mordechai Cogan and William W. Hallo note, for example, that some of the Patriarchs have curious numerical relationships among their biblical ages:

Abraham...... 7 x 5² =...................175 years .................................(5 + 5 + 7 = 17)

[sarah..........................................127 ............(2 x 60) + 7 = 127]

Isaac.............5 x 6² =.................. 180 .............3 x 60 = 180 .........(6 + 6 + 5 = 17)

Jacob........... 3 x 7² = ..................147 .............2 x 70 = 147 .........(7 + 7 + 3 = 17)

Joseph .........1 x (5² + 6² + 7²) = 110 ...........................................(8 + 8 + 1 = 17)

Moreover, note that Joseph spends 17 years with Jacob in Canaan, and 17 years with him in Egypt (part of the chiastic symmetry of the Joseph Narrative).

The ten antediluvian patriarchs from Adam to Noah live within a period of 1,656 years according to the Massoretic Hebrew text, with Adam dying at least by the time of Lamech, father of Noah. Counting the year of the great Deluge, that would be 1,657 years (Gen 8:13) = 600,000 days + 2 x 7 years. Not only is the sexigesimal implication clear, but Stephanie Dalley shows the tight relationship that exists with Berossus’ version of the Mesopotamian story and chronology in his Babyloniaca:

. . . the survivor of the Flood (Xisuthros, Noah) is the tenth antediluvian king in both Berossus and Genesis (Priestly source), that the month in which the Flood happened is named, and that the ten antediluvian kings whom Berossus cites ruled 432,000 “years” (i.e. 86,400 x 5, five years being sixty months) and in Genesis (Priestly source) for 1,656 “years” (i.e. 86,400 weeks), so the two accounts may originally have shared a common chronological scheme.

In summing up his comparison of the biblical antediluvian Patriarchs and the earlier Sumerian King List, David Bokovoy concluded:

If the total years connected with the names in Genesis 5 are calculated, the list covers a span of 6,695 years. Then, if we convert this number to a sexigesimal number (the form used by the Sumerians), the result is 241,200 – the exact total of the Sumerian King List.

Something extraordinary is taking place in those lists, and they are definitely connected. But how?

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Hill.pdf

Another article arriving at the same general conclusions.

Edited October 11, 2014 by ksfisher

[Calm]

They had better jeans back then. Now we don't.

Has no one really not taken up this glorious typo and instead all we get are serious responses?  I supposed I must restrain myself as well then.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, they all lived those long ages.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, they all lived those long ages.

Decimally, or sexigesimally?

 

And, who is “they”?  Both the Mesopotamian as well as biblical people?

[AndyDnom]

Well if A&E's genes were perfect, they wouldn't have been messed up by inbreeding.  Inbreeding only presents phenotypic problems for 150-200 years afterwards.  At this point, it actually improves the gene pool because the nonadvantageous alleles are selected against by death.  Society has a phobia against inbreeding because the short term costs are what they see.  

 

If I get to the next world and ever find out if people really lived as long as the Genesis account says, I'd rank it up there with God purposely putting out fossil evidence of evolution to sift out those whose faith was weak.  

 

wait - so you are saying there are long term benefits of incest? should we all move to germany?