How Did They Live So Long? What if they didnt?

[curtis07 0]

Why is it so far-fetched that an all-powerful God could tell each animal to start making their way to the ark with enough time for each to get there on the right day? Anyway, in Genesis 6:3 God gives mankind 120 years, much like in the story of Jonah, only much longer. I think that's plenty of ark-building, animal-gathering time. I mean, I can't think of a zoo today that's that old. Just a thought.

[ORene 0]

Very interesting, I've read the bible and analyzed a lot of stuff about the flood, but never thought about that. I like your point of view and you convinced me, it is by far the most logical explanation I've heard about the topic. I give your theory 5 stars

[room2593 0]

I think you already asked that question (which i already answered), but perhaps this is a paraphrased form. Anyway, i think there are a few points to be made out first since it'll be the premises my conclusion will rely on: (1) God doesn't go back on His Word. (2) God declared the annihilation of the entire species on the planet and the birds of the sky, not under the planet (i.e. e.g. in the ocean and perhaps also anything that live deep underground), with some exceptions. (3) God found Noah righteous (at least compared to the wicked nation that was destined to be wiped out), therefore Noah and his family was (were to be) spared. (4) It took Noah, i would say, at least 50 years to build the Ark. (5) Noah was ordered to bring into the Ark (note: not necessarily go around the world picking up these animals) animals that he was not allowed to eat?whether they were clean or unclean?and some for those animals and him and his family to eat. (6) God brought all these animals to Noah before the flood event started to occur. (7) They, Noah and his family and all the animals brought to Noah, entered the Ark when Noah was 600 years old. (8) It took a little over a year for the water to dry up from the earth. (Conclusion:) Following from the premises, if all of them prove right, then it is a local flood.

1. Agreed.

2. Agreed. I'm betting a lot of them died anyway (what with the fountains of the deep blowing rocks and plants around in the water, but they survived.

3. Agreed.

4. I agree with Curtis07 down there, that it was longer, but still.

5. Agreed.

6. Agreed. Otherwise he'd go bankrupt trying to feed them if they weren't around for a very short amount of time (a year or so).

7. Agreed.

8. Agreed.

Conclusion: What?

 

I'm assuming that you're saying that God isn't all powerful with his ability to move animals? I'm pretty sure that God would be able to move animals for decades in advance. And he wouldn't have to. Wildebeests travel a massive distance every year looking for water. If all the land was in a single chunk as Pangea, (which I believe) they would be able to make it to wherever Noah was within a year or two, tops. God would be able to move them all to the location where Noah was with ease, and he could do it however he pleases. Animals don't really have a sacred "power of choice" like humans do. For example, God forces birds to bring food to Elijah after mount caramel. He can have them to do anything he needs them to do.

 

So what I guess the point I'm making is that God would only bring all the animals from all over the earth if it were necessary. It would only be necessary in a worldwide flood. I still believe in a worldwide flood.

I realize it's cheap to play the "God rocks socks so don't argue" card, but if he does, and it's valid to my argument, why can't I use it?

[truefusion 3]

I'm assuming that you're saying that God isn't all powerful with his ability to move animals?

The "commentary" i left was supposed to be clear away anything ambiguous or any uncertainty or misunderstandings. Which part of my entire previous post implied or mentioned that i didn't think God was powerful enough to move animals?

 

Animals don't really have a sacred "power of choice" like humans do. For example, God forces birds to bring food to Elijah after mount caramel. He can have them to do anything he needs them to do.

Humans aren't excluded from this. There are many examples or references in the Bible that show God taking away free will from humans. The common examples being the Pharaoh from the time of Moses and Saul from the time of David. It should be noted, though, that this heart hardening occurred before God started hardening their hearts, therefore implying that one of the conditions for God to harden hearts is the person first hardening their own heart.

 

So what I guess the point I'm making is that God would only bring all the animals from all over the earth if it were necessary. It would only be necessary in a worldwide flood.

If the flood was worldwide, He would not need to bring all the animals to Noah. But i have a couple of verses for you that you would have to explain to me if the flood event was not local but as worldwide as you say it is. We'll start at verses 21 through 23 of Genesis 7 for introductory purposes. These seem to heavily emphasize, through repetition, that any animals under the sea and, if possible, any animals under the ground survived—that is, only animals of the sky and that moved along the ground and humans died. The dilemma i want to point out is in Genesis 8, verses 13 and 14. In verses 13 and 14 it says the earth was completely dry. It took the earth, according to Scripture, a little over a year to dry up completely. This i find interesting, as i would expect it to take a whole lot longer for all the oceans to dry up completely, but if the entire earth was completely dry, then the fish would have died along with all the other animals. The entire earth dried up would have been a very interesting sight to see, but since the Bible's way of emphasizing things is through repetition, and this repetition excludes sea creatures, how did the fish survive?

[curtis07 0]

Okay, "hardened his heart" doesn't necessarily mean that God took away Pharoah's/Saul's freedom of choice... it just means that God made them angry and more stubborn when he made it clear they were doing things wrongly. If you "know" you're right, and I try to convince you otherwise, you will just become more stubborn and "harden your heart".And goodness, "completely dry" can mean lots of things. It could mean that all the water had run off of the land that was going to. Say I have 20 acres (our family actually used to) with a creek. It rains 2 feet one day and floods the banks, covering several acres. Over the course of a week, all the water has gone back down to a normal level. I would say that our 20 acres have finally dried up, even though the creek is still flowing, just at a normal level. It's just the way people talk. People in the Bible didn't spell out everything in technical language, nor do we now. Genesis was not written as a science textbook, more as a history book. And for the entire earth to recover from such a flood, it would probably take a year for all the water to dump back into the oceans. I believe that the Grand Canyon is a great example of a "flood river". It's still flowing today, but I doubt that Noah heard from North America that there was still some runoff, seeing as how he landed on a mountain in present-day Turkey.

[truefusion 3]

Okay, "hardened his heart" doesn't necessarily mean that God took away Pharoah's/Saul's freedom of choice... it just means that God made them angry and more stubborn when he made it clear they were doing things wrongly. If you "know" you're right, and I try to convince you otherwise, you will just become more stubborn and "harden your heart".

I suppose hardening one's heart could be a form of "ultimate persuasion," but if it were concerning on whether or not those whose hearts were hardened learned a lesson, shouldn't, for example, Pharoah have learned plenty of lessons? When you are given absolute proof for God's existence, aren't you supposed to acknowledge such things? It was indeed made clear to both that they were in the wrong, for how many times did they say they have sinned? But how can God make someone more stubborn when Pharaoh agreed to let them go and when Moses and Aaron had already left, if not by Pharaoh losing some freedom? Likewise with Saul with the burdening spirit that God sent to him.

 

And goodness, "completely dry" can mean lots of things. It could mean that all the water had run off of the land that was going to. Say I have 20 acres (our family actually used to) with a creek. It rains 2 feet one day and floods the banks, covering several acres. Over the course of a week, all the water has gone back down to a normal level. I would say that our 20 acres have finally dried up, even though the creek is still flowing, just at a normal level. It's just the way people talk. People in the Bible didn't spell out everything in technical language, nor do we now. Genesis was not written as a science textbook, more as a history book. And for the entire earth to recover from such a flood, it would probably take a year for all the water to dump back into the oceans. I believe that the Grand Canyon is a great example of a "flood river". It's still flowing today, but I doubt that Noah heard from North America that there was still some runoff, seeing as how he landed on a mountain in present-day Turkey.

That is all good within a local flood, but my question concerns a global flood. Genesis does not have to be written as a science textbook to still mention everything we have been discussing.

[ORene 0]

I've been thinking some more about your theory... and haven't you thought that the numbers in the bible are symbolic? there are numbers everywhere... also 120 is referred as a 'number of perfection', many of the numbers in the bible have hidden meanings tho... so it wouldn't surprise me if those long living persons and those big numbers were something symbolic and didn't exactly have anything to do at all with the flood thing

[KansukeKojima 0]

I've been thinking some more about your theory... and haven't you thought that the numbers in the bible are symbolic? there are numbers everywhere... also 120 is referred as a 'number of perfection', many of the numbers in the bible have hidden meanings tho... so it wouldn't surprise me if those long living persons and those big numbers were something symbolic and didn't exactly have anything to do at all with the flood thing

There is a field of study regarding the symbolic meanings of numbers in the bible. However, as far as I know - the people who study this have never found any symbolic meanings in the ages of people. There are indeed numbers in the bible with symbolic meanings, common occurrences, etc., however the ages of people do not have any such special meaning. The ages are simply that - ages.

[curtis07 0]

Truefusion, I'm not saying that God used "ultimate persuasion" on Pharoah. I believe that Pharoah just didn't want God ruining his way of life. Pharoah believed that he was a god himself. He may have been given proof of the existence of God, but he was stuck in his little power struggle, so he completely hated God, hardening his heart. Pharoah didn't like the new competition, so he made a firm stand against God.

And ORene, there are some symbolic numbers in the Bible, but they're written a little differently. In Daniel, for instance, it doesn't refer to days, rather "times". If you do the math, you can see how the prophecies were fulfilled. Here are some links to some charts I found on that topic (the first is to a 5MB pdf, just a warning):

http://sdapillars.org/media/download_gallery/1850chart.pdf

http://www.bibleprophecytruth.com/Biblepro2300dayprophecy

Also, think logically for a moment. On day 3 of creation, God created plants. Then on day 4, God created the Sun. If a day equals a year in Genesis, how did all of the vegetation survive for an entire year without photosynthesis? God had already created light, but the Sun is the main food for most plants nowadays. Plus, the Sun makes the right kind of light for plants. The only argument in favor of day-years is that maybe God put up a temporary fix--a light for the plants until he could get around to the Sun. I just don't see God doing something sloppy like that.

I believe that people actually did live to be 100s of years old. I also believe that people were generally taller, in better health, and were in many other ways superior to humans today. It kinda makes sense that the human race would degrade like that over the course of a couple thousand years. Imagine if McDonald's was around back than! We'd have a 10-year lifespan or something horribly low like that.

[room2593 0]

I'm gonna bump this thread again.So do you still believe in a localized flood? Or do you consent to the "worldwide flood" theory? Just gauging the effect of my arguements.At this point, if you don't agree, then I don't think I can convince you.And upon the topic of the symbolic ages - I agree. The only age that had any significance was that of Methuselah, and that's just because he was going to live UNTIL the flood and no longer. The actual number of years he lived has no significance.

[curtis07 0]

Yeah, I don't see how one could think the ages of people had any symbolic significance. I mean, if it did, Adam's 960 years would turn into what? Less than 3 years? And then he had kids?! Or 960 weeks? That's still something like 20 or 25 years... maybe 960... sorry, I can't think of how that would work.Sorry for the sarcasm. I can't help it sometimes.Yeah, good old Methuselah, with his 969 healthy, long years. Too bad the idiots back then had to screw up the human race. Grrr. And then there were idiots after the flood! Ever hear of the tower of Babel? That would be why there are different languages. Goodness.