Explaining Noah's Age to A Biblical Literalist

[jmcrae]

Pro Life Expectancy - a look at the actual actuarials

Lifetimes to die for….
930 - 912 - 905 - 910 - 895 - 962 - 365 - 969 - 777 – 950
The numbers are astounding, stunning our modern sensibilities, a far-off dream for modern medical science. Is it possible that the original patriarchs from Adam to Noah really completed these incredibly long lifetimes?

more…

Interesting article. What they fail to point out is that averages don’t reflect reality. (And in answer to their question, where do we get statistics on birth and deaths that occurred previous to 1900 AD? From grave stones.)

Mary Shelley, who lived in the 1800s, had four children. Three of them died before they reached the age of five; the fourth lived to be in his seventies. The average age of her children at death was, therefore, 17 years old - but she had no children who died at age 17, because this is just an average.

So, when they say that the average age of death prior to 1900 AD was 25 years old, what they mean is that there was a large number of people who died before age 25, and a fewer number who lived a natural life-span of about 60-70 years old.

 

[ziapueblo]

If I wrote an email to a friend and said that I was at a concert the night before and that there were a billion people at the stadium, I would mean that there were lots of people at the concert . . . correct? If someone a thousand years from now read that email they would have to study our culture to know that I meant that there were just a lot of people at the concert and not a billion. My brother lives in Seattle and if he said that it is raining cats and dogs I would know that he meant it’s raining really hard. What would someone 5000 years from now think of that statement? Well, if they studied the culture they would know what was meant.

Literal interpretation of scripture takes into account the meaning that the author intended to convey. There were a million people at the concert means that there were a lot of people there. It’s raining cats and dogs would mean that it is raining really hard.

Literalist interpretation takes the exact meaning of the words without consideration of popular cultural meaning or the meaning that the author intended to convey.

What is the Old Testament author trying to explain? If they wrote that Noah is 600 years old, maybe the author is trying to tell us that Noah lived a really long time.

 

[jmcrae]

further on down that page;To me it made sense… yes, I did study the Bible more, really get into it away from the Catholic Church and been back since last year so if I’m still approaching all wrong, I apoligize.

Besides, creation tells us the first day was the sun up and then sunset… unless the earth didn’t rotate at the same speed it does now.

Well, considering that the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day of Creation, no - it was evening and it was morning, but there was no sunset or sunrise, and there is no indication in the text itself of a specific time-span.

Also, it occurs to me that there could have been periods of time in between the Days of Creation - there’s nothing in the text to require them to happen right away, one right after the other.

 

[buffalo]

If I wrote an email to a friend and said that I was at a concert the night before and that there were a billion people at the stadium, I would mean that there were lots of people at the concert . . . correct? If someone a thousand years from now read that email they would have to study our culture to know that I meant that there were just a lot of people at the concert and not a billion. My brother lives in Seattle and if he said that it is raining cats and dogs I would know that he meant it’s raining really hard. What would someone 5000 years from now think of that statement? Well, if they studied the culture they would know what was meant.

Literal interpretation of scripture takes into account the meaning that the author intended to convey. There were a million people at the concert means that there were a lot of people there. It’s raining cats and dogs would mean that it is raining really hard.

Literalist interpretation takes the exact meaning of the words without consideration of popular cultural meaning or the meaning that the author intended to convey.

What is the Old Testament author trying to explain? If they wrote that Noah is 600 years old, maybe the author is trying to tell us that Noah lived a really long time.

Except if you apply it unformly then;

Then what of Gen 5:21 ?
When Enoch was sixty-five years old, he became the father of Methuselah.
If years are really months, then Enoch sired his first son when he was about 5 1/2 years old!

 

[Roza]

Well, considering that the sun and moon were not created until the fourth day of Creation, no - it was evening and it was morning, but there was no sunset or sunrise, and there is no indication in the text itself of a specific time-span.

Also, it occurs to me that there could have been periods of time in between the Days of Creation - there’s nothing in the text to require them to happen right away, one right after the other.

Like I said, wanting to learn what I missed the first time, have been going to non-Catholic Bible studies for several years. I thank you all for being understanding w/ someone like me.

It’s comforting being here between threads like this and the reaction to people like me who did dabble in NAM junk for a time. I appreciate it more than you’ll ever know.

Thank you

 

[Ghoti]

Except if you apply it unformly then;

Then what of Gen 5:21 ?
When Enoch was sixty-five years old, he became the father of Methuselah.
If years are really months, then Enoch sired his first son when he was about 5 1/2 years old!

Why is that any less reasonable?

Maybe you had to grow up real fast in them days…

“Son, when I was your age, I was already ‘begettin’, as well as walking to school in knee-deep snow, uphill both ways!”

 

[ziapueblo]

Except if you apply it unformly then;

Then what of Gen 5:21 ?
When Enoch was sixty-five years old, he became the father of Methuselah.
If years are really months, then Enoch sired his first son when he was about 5 1/2 years old!

You are right. I would apply it to the two creation stories of Genesis 1:1-2:2 and Genesis 2:4-22. Neither of these stories are intended to be a chronological account. John Martignoni has some great talks on Bible Christian Society. One of them deals with this specific issue about the interpretation of Scripture.

 

[rccaristotelian]

Hello and good afternoon, it is Sunday here in Denton, Texas. I was just looking something up on Google and came across this page. I have a few comments to make on the subject(s) at hand. I currently attend the University of North Texas where I am concentrating/majoring in Philosophy. With that being said, I am a “newbie” to this philosophy discourse, but I’m making A’s. Too, I will attempt to address my comments on the subject(s) from the last comment I can identify or counter, working my way up the list to the beginning thread.

On the first comment, I concur with “Neil_Anthony”. I will attempt to summarize the interpretation mechanisms of both, generally. Protestant ideas can be seen mingling here with that of the Roman Catholic Church. On the subject of metaphorical or literal analysis I would like to consult the philosopher Ian G. Barbour. Barbour introduces us to an idea that one can use to identify these differing viewpoints. For the Protestant, the idea would be biblical literalism. Biblical literalism differs from that of the Roman Catholic Church in that it isn’t Aristotelian interpretation. Protestants generally don’t agree with the philosophy take on Christendom. The Roman Catholic Church borrows ideas from the philosopher Aristotle to metaphorically interpret the bible. That’s why the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t have such a philosophical objection to evolution, compared to Protestant doctrines that actually clash heavily with it. Protestant doctrines are usually far less forgiving of a prescribed interpretation on ideas that relate to the individual Christian, if that makes any sense. They favor a more personal interpretation in that aspect. So the answer for the old ages could then be described in the Protestant biblical literalism to be taken at face value. In the Roman Catholic Church, it would be far less scrutinized because it’s meant to be metaphorical.