Did people really live hundreds of years?

[clem456]

The Fall of Adam doesn’t mean that he and his descendants had the same bodies with the same mutations we did. The Fall of Adam led to original sin but that doesn’t mean that it made his body as mutated as ours. Something like 200 mutations get introduced every generation. So, back in Adam’s time and a few generations after, there were way, way less mutations. Their bodies were purer and less mutated. So who’s to say that they couldn’t have lived far longer?

And the Bible actually shows how lifespans declined gradually. Noah lived to be 950 years old, while Abraham lived to be 175. Moses, who lived to be 120, was unusually old for his time. “The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10). So unless Moses and his kin died extremely young, we know that the years the Bible says they lived to are the same or similar to our years and that lifespans gradually declined.

Gradual mutation /=/ Gradual Fall.

What kind of time frame are you proposing for these mutations?

 

[randomusername]

What kind of time frame are you proposing for these mutations?

I don’t know. It would have to be a large one and that would go against a literal 7 24 hour day creation but that never made sense anyway since you can’t have 7 days without the sun and ancient Israelites would have been well-aware of this even if they weren’t inspired.

 

[FrDavid96]

The Fall of Adam doesn’t mean that he and his descendants had the same bodies with the same mutations we did. The Fall of Adam led to original sin but that doesn’t mean that it made his body as mutated as ours. Something like 200 mutations get introduced every generation. So, back in Adam’s time and a few generations after, there were way, way less mutations. Their bodies were purer and less mutated. So who’s to say that they couldn’t have lived far longer?

And the Bible actually shows how lifespans declined gradually. Noah lived to be 950 years old, while Abraham lived to be 175. Moses, who lived to be 120, was unusually old for his time. “The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10). So unless Moses and his contemporaries died extremely young, we know that the years the Bible says they lived to are the same or similar to our years and that lifespans gradually declined.

Also, the flood and the scattering after Babel would have led to huge genetic bottlenecks which would have severely reduced genetic variety. Adam and Eve and the people a few generations later would have had huge genetic variety being the world’s first humans.

Gradual mutation /=/ Gradual Fall.

That’s still trying to force (in some way) a literal interpretation into texts that were never meant to be literal in the first place.

One simply cannot use genetics to justify what is first-and-foremost a misunderstanding of the biblical texts.

Those texts are simply not literal.

 

[clem456]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

 

[FrDavid96]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm

A word of explanation:

The term “literal sense” does not mean that every sentence of Scripture is to be taken as literally accurate; in other words, accurate history.

Some readers, who might not be familiar with the vocabulary, might easily misunderstand the term “literal sense.”

 

[randomusername]

That’s still trying to force (in some way) a literal interpretation into texts that were never meant to be literal in the first place.

One simply cannot use genetics to justify what is first-and-foremost a misunderstanding of the biblical texts.

Those texts are simply not literal.

If their ages are metaphorical, what exactly are they metaphorical of? You can keep saying that they aren’t literal but if they aren’t then it makes no sense.

 

[clem456]

If their ages are metaphorical, what exactly are they metaphorical of? You can keep saying that they aren’t literal but if they aren’t then it makes no sense.

Literal has to do with literature. Words have meanings that can’t be overlooked.
Literal, as Fr said above is not the same as literalist.
Literalism has to do with ideology, giving literature rigid meaning out of context, essentially robbing them of the full truth they are meant to convey.

 

[buffalo]

That’s still trying to force (in some way) a literal interpretation into texts that were never meant to be literal in the first place.

One simply cannot use genetics to justify what is first-and-foremost a misunderstanding of the biblical texts.

Those texts are simply not literal.

Teachings of the Church

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings andall kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

 

[FrDavid96]

If their ages are metaphorical, what exactly are they metaphorical of? You can keep saying that they aren’t literal but if they aren’t then it makes no sense.

I said it from the very beginning. Read the thread. Long before all these distractions took us off-track, I posted the answer.

The other point is that trying to explain how they are metaphorical is nearly impossible unless the reader first understands the fact that the numbers are not literal.

 

[FrDavid96]

Teachings of the Church

• God created everything “in its whole substance” from nothing (ex nihilo) in the beginning.
  (Lateran IV; Vatican Council I)
• Genesis does not contain purified myths. (Pontifical Biblical Commission 1909[1])
• Genesis contains real history—it gives an account of things that really happened. (Pius XII)
• Adam and Eve were real human beings—the first parents of all mankind. (Pius XII)
• Polygenism (many “first parents”) contradicts Scripture and Tradition and is condemned. (Pius XII; 1994 Catechism, 360, footnote 226: Tobit 8:6—the “one ancestor” referred to in this Catechism could only be Adam.)
• The “beginning” of the world included the creation of all things, the creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall (Jesus Christ Mark 10:6]; Pope Innocent III; Blessed Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus).
• The body of Eve was specially created from a portion of Adam’s body (Leo XIII). She could not have originated via evolution.
• Various senses are employed in the Bible, but the literal obvious sense must be believed unless reason dictates or necessity requires (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus).
• Adam and Eve were created upon an earthly paradise and would not have known death if they had remained obedient (Pius XII).
• After their disobedience of God, Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. But the Second Person of the Trinity would subsequently pay the ransom for fallen man (Nicene Creed).
• Original Sin is a flawed condition inherited from Adam and Eve (Council of Trent).
• The Universe suffers in travail ever since the sin of disobedience by Adam and Eve. (Romans 8, Vatican Council I).
• We must believe any interpretation of Scripture that the Fathers taught unanimously on a matter of faith or morals (Council of Trent and Vatican Council I).
• All the Fathers who wrote on the subject believed that the Creation days were no longer than 24-hour-days. (Consensus of the Fathers of the Church)
• The work of Creation was finished by the close of Day Six, and nothing completely new has since been created—except for each human rational soul at conception (Vatican Council I)
• St. Peter and Christ Himself in the New Testament confirmed the global Flood of Noah. It covered all the then high mountains and destroyed all land dwelling creatures except eight human beings andall kinds of non-human creatures aboard the Ark (Unam Sanctam, 1302)
• The historical existence of Noah’s Ark is regarded as most important in typology, as central to Redemption. (1566 Catechism of the Council of Trent)
• Evolution must not be taught as fact, but instead the pros and cons of evolution must be taught.
  (Pius XII, Humani Generis)
• Investigation into human “evolution” was allowed in 1950, but Pope Pius XII feared that an acceptance of evolutionism might adversely affect doctrinal beliefs.

This might come as a surprise, but there is actually such a thing as current Church teaching–especially on this particular topic.

 

[buffalo]

This might come as a surprise, but there is actually such a thing as current Church teaching–especially on this particular topic.

Please furnish a magisterial document showing the date of change and specifically overturning these.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I would invite anyone here who believes the Bible in a literalist way:

Take a 100 level Geology course at any college, or high school for that matter.
In this course the origins of man won’t even be discussed, so nothing threatening there…
But you will gain an appreciation for time, for fossil records, for how the natural world changes, how long it takes, how agonizingly slow it is. And how small of a time mankind has been present on this earth.

We are here for the blink of an eye compared to the world we entered into. Before true man became flesh, God spent billions of years forming the earth according to his goodness. Pondering this reality should lead one to an awestruck appreciation for who we truly are in God’s eyes. We are very tiny in this whole plan and God is huge beyond measure. Yet we are created by him as the pinnacle of all his goodness.

An appreciation of science should lead one to appreciate the magnitude of God’s goodness.

I have taken a 100 geology as an elective (fascinating!) but I have found science to be a bit incomplete.

First of all, recognizing the “agonizingly slow” way for the natural world to change/evolve (For the most part).

I always had a problem taking science at face value as well. So I find myself in the middle.

Here’s why:

We have absolutely no idea of what were the conditions of the natural world before we started to gather scientific data. Meaning that there is no chain of custody for the conditions of the natural world throughout its history. So what we are left with are “approximations” that offer an educated response, IOW a theory that we are unable to reproduce.

In the absence of a reproducible experiment we can’t confirm that what science tells us is actually what happened and how it happened.

We can however, based on these same experiments, offer theories that present a *likelihood *of how things may or may not have happened.

ETA: I am not a literalist but wanted to chime in anyway

 

[grannymh]

The Fall of Adam doesn’t mean that he and his descendants had the same bodies with the same mutations we did. The Fall of Adam led to original sin but that doesn’t mean that it made his body as mutated as ours. Something like 200 mutations get introduced every generation. So, back in Adam’s time and a few generations after, there were way, way less mutations. Their bodies were purer and less mutated. So who’s to say that they couldn’t have lived far longer?

And the Bible actually shows how lifespans declined gradually. Noah lived to be 950 years old, while Abraham lived to be 175. Moses, who lived to be 120, was unusually old for his time. “The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away” (Psalm 90:10). So unless Moses and his contemporaries died extremely young, we know that the years the Bible says they lived to are the same or similar to our years and that lifespans gradually declined.

Also, the flood and the scattering after Babel would have led to huge genetic bottlenecks which would have severely reduced genetic variety. Adam and Eve and the people a few generations later would have had huge genetic variety being the world’s first humans.

Gradual mutation /=/ Gradual Fall.

Please, what does one mean with this kind of statement. “Gradual mutation /=/ Gradual Fall.” My apology. But I am getting the idea that Original Sin encompassed years. Surely eating a piece of fruit only takes a few minutes to digest. Please explain. Thank you.

 

[grannymh]

I said it from the very beginning. Read the thread. Long before all these distractions took us off-track, I posted the answer.

The other point is that trying to explain how they are metaphorical is nearly impossible unless the reader first understands the fact that the numbers are not literal.

Post 159 did offer a possibility, not necessarily probable like scientific research, understanding of a possible metaphorical meaning.

The metaphorical meaning of the numbers in the record of Adam’s descendants could be the “mathematical evidence”, as in scientific research, needed for the claim that the Catholic teachings regarding the Creator’s interactions with His human creatures are directly based on the truths found in the first three chapters of Genesis. Perhaps chapter 5 is more devoted to the reality of human preservation of the original Divine Revelation. The repeated phrase that there were other sons and daughters is evidence of the early expansion of the human species which divided into the Hebrews and the non-Hebrews who established their own versions of gods. This is the environment in which the Genesis author lived. Thus, the Genesis author had to affirm the stability of the early Divine Revelations.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have taken a 100 geology as an elective (fascinating!) but I have found science to be a bit incomplete.

First of all, recognizing the “agonizingly slow” way for the natural world to change/evolve (For the most part).

I always had a problem taking science at face value as well. So I find myself in the middle.

Here’s why:

We have absolutely no idea of what were the conditions of the natural world before we started to gather scientific data. Meaning that there is no chain of custody for the conditions of the natural world throughout its history. So what we are left with are “approximations” that offer an educated response, IOW a theory that we are unable to reproduce.

In the absence of a reproducible experiment we can’t confirm that what science tells us is actually what happened and how it happened.

We can however, based on these same experiments, offer theories that present a *likelihood *of how things may or may not have happened.

ETA: I am not a literalist but wanted to chime in anyway

Yes, the science is incomplete. That’s not the issue.

The issue is that the texts (in this particular thread) are not literal history in the first place.

That’s the starting point.

The real problem is that when people attempt to force a literal meaning into that which is not-literal, the real value of the text is completely lost.

 

[grannymh]

Yes, the science is incomplete. That’s not the issue.

The issue is that the texts (in this particular thread) are not literal history in the first place.

That’s the starting point.

The real problem is that when people attempt to force a literal meaning into that which is not-literal, the real value of the text is completely lost.

The solution to the real problem is to start with Catholic doctrines. It is important that Divine Revelation contained in the Catholic Deposit of Faith is properly understood. And then, we consider if science is conducted properly.

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[randomusername]

Yes, the science is incomplete. That’s not the issue.

The issue is that the texts (in this particular thread) are not literal history in the first place.

That’s the starting point.

The real problem is that when people attempt to force a literal meaning into that which is not-literal, the real value of the text is completely lost.

If the ages aren’t literal, they mean absolutely nothing. Genesis may not be full of details, but God did literally make the world. The Church says that Adam and Eve did literally exist. So why should we take some parts of Genesis literally and not others?

You just keep saying the whole meaning is lost but you never give me any proper things that the ages could mean if they were metaphorical. And why should we take some parts of Genesis literally, like God creating the earth, and not others? The Church says that Genesis is not purified myth. So Genesis is how it happened but it’s just not in great detail because it doesn’t need to be. So why, if we take God creating the earth literally, should we say that the ages are metaphorical? And if, like some people said, years were a lot shorter than due to different timelines, Moses’ contemporaries dying in their 70s and 80s would have died exceptionally young.

Please, what does one mean with this kind of statement. “Gradual mutation /=/ Gradual Fall.” My apology. But I am getting the idea that Original Sin encompassed years. Surely eating a piece of fruit only takes a few minutes to digest. Please explain. Thank you.

Alright so mutation happens when DNA isn’t copied correctly. Hundreds of new mutations are brought in every generation. So if we go back to say, Jesus’ time, even then there was a lot less mutations. And if we go back earlier to Moses’ time, there was way less again(and while Moses lived a long time to 120, his contemporaries lived to their 70s and 80s). So just after the fall of man, there would have been extremely few mutations compared to now. Also they would have had more genetic variety since they were the first humans and there hadn’t been any genetic bottlenecks yet.

But the Fall was different to human mutations. The Fall of Man gave us original sin and made us inclined to sin. That’s different from mutations and is in no way incompatible with it. Mutations existing doesn’t mean that the Fall is gradual as they are separate things.

 

[randomusername]

Please, what does one mean with this kind of statement. “Gradual mutation /=/ Gradual Fall.” My apology. But I am getting the idea that Original Sin encompassed years. Surely eating a piece of fruit only takes a few minutes to digest. Please explain. Thank you.

Alright so mutation happens when DNA isn’t copied correctly. Hundreds of new mutations are brought in every generation. So if we go back to say, Jesus’ time, even then there was a lot less mutations. And if we go back earlier to Moses’ time, there was way less again(and while Moses lived a long time to 120, his contemporaries lived to their 70s and 80s). So just after the fall of man, there would have been extremely few mutations compared to now. Also they would have had more genetic variety since they were the first humans and there hadn’t been any genetic bottlenecks yet.

But the Fall was different to human mutations. The Fall of Man gave us original sin and made us inclined to sin. That’s different from mutations and is in no way incompatible with it. Mutations existing doesn’t mean that the Fall is gradual as they are separate things.

 

[grannymh]

If the ages aren’t literal, they mean absolutely nothing. Genesis may not be full of details, but God did literally make the world. The Church says that Adam and Eve did literally exist. So why should we take some parts of Genesis literally and not others?

Please read post 177 carefully. In addition, please take a look at the “Index of Citations” beginning with Genesis 1: 1, page 689, the universal *Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition. *If there is some available time, then please study CCC 20-21 which is part of the section “Practical Directions for Using This Catechism”.

Links to Catholic teachings, the universal Catechism

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I will be delighted to answer questions about the above instructions.

After the meanings (plural intended) of the above instructions are found, I will attempt a reasonable, common sense answer to this question. “So why should we take some parts of Genesis literally and not others?”

 

[clem456]

I have taken a 100 geology as an elective (fascinating!) but I have found science to be a bit incomplete.

First of all, recognizing the “agonizingly slow” way for the natural world to change/evolve (For the most part).

I always had a problem taking science at face value as well. So I find myself in the middle.

Here’s why:

We have absolutely no idea of what were the conditions of the natural world before we started to gather scientific data. Meaning that there is no chain of custody for the conditions of the natural world throughout its history. So what we are left with are “approximations” that offer an educated response, IOW a theory that we are unable to reproduce.

**In the absence of a reproducible experiment **we can’t confirm that what science tells us is actually what happened and how it happened.

We can however, based on these same experiments, offer theories that present a *likelihood *of how things may or may not have happened.

ETA: I am not a literalist but wanted to chime in anyway

Take a trip to the Grand Canyon.