Old Ages Cited in Scripture

[tyler_1]

What should I say to someone who says “i stopped believing after I read in the Bible about people living to 200 years old” and such and such?

Thanks!

 

[Eucharisted]

Mystical numbers are not to be taken literally. Genesis isn’t a chronological or scientific look at creation, it’s a mystical and spiritual look at creation.

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

Mystical numbers are not to be taken literally. Genesis isn’t a chronological or scientific look at creation, it’s a mystical and spiritual look at creation.

So you’re willing to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, Samson killed around 1,000 soldiers with the jawbone of an ***, prophets raised people from the dead, and Jesus was God Incarnated in the flesh, born of a virgin, but a person living a really long time isn’t to be taken literally?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I believe at one level it was a literary device to show man’s rapid decline in morality as sin took its withering effects on humanity. Originally man was made to be immortal in both body and soul. The progressive negative effects of original sin are seen immediately in the murder of Abel by Cain. From here it degrades rapidly into every more frequent sin and man’s life expectation drops rapidly. In the time of Adam I believe the time of life was 900 years - the logic is that God wanted man to have time to reproduce to spawn a human race. But as sin overtakes man’s original goodness man ages and dies sooner - but there is enough “critical mass” so to speak to sustain the species with an average life of only 70-80 years.

On another spiritual level it is spiritually-literal.

James

 

[survive]

Also, the early Hebrew word for “age” also means “generations”, “descendants,” and, I think, “dynasty”. So, the real meaning of a man’s dying with 900 years of age to his name could actually be that he had 900 living descendants at death, or even that he had 900 generations in his dynasty before that lineage lost their territory, e.g.

 

[tyler_1]

Also, the early Hebrew word for “age” also means “generations”, “descendants,” and, I think, “dynasty”. So, the real meaning of a man’s dying with 900 years of age to his name could actually be that he had 900 living descendants at death, or even that he had 900 generations in his dynasty before that lineage lost their territory, e.g.

right on! thanks everyone for your replies. i think this makes the most sense, but this is probably one of those “no definitive ruling”/“jury still out” type things.

 

[diggerdomer]

right on! thanks everyone for your replies. i think this makes the most sense, but this is probably one of those “no definitive ruling”/“jury still out” type things.

Not at all. The Catholic jury, at least, is not at all “out.”

Anyone reading the Bible and expecting it to give literal truth in every conceivable category (geography, biology, cosmology, sociology, archaeology, chemistry…you name it…you get the idea) is reading the Bible in a way the Catholic Church does not teach.

If your acquaintance requires the Bible to be true in all those respects, well then of course he or she is free to reject it and the faith he or she assumes it proves (?).

The Bible deals first and foremost with matters of faith, and more specifically (according to Catholic teaching) those matters of faith necessary for our salvation that God wanted written there.

The jury is not out, though your acquaintance’s judgment may be.

 

[tyler_1]

The jury is not out,.

woops… poor wording on my part. what i should have said was that there is nothing official from the Magisterium on this particular point… and we shouldn’t take every word literally because the Bible is not a science book, it’s a book on theology like you are saying. i getcha. thanks!

 

[diggerdomer]

woops… poor wording on my part. what i should have said was that there is nothing official from the Magisterium on this particular point… and we shouldn’t take every word literally because the Bible is not a science book, it’s a book on theology like you are saying. i getcha. thanks!

Hi tyler, thanks for the follow up and clarification.

My experience in this arena (these forums) is that it’s far too infrequent people do what you did and clarify statements or acknowledge that what gets posted here is easily misunderstood.

I hope my comment didn’t misunderstand you. sorry if it did.

I am not sure if I know 100% what you mean, still, when you said that there’s nothing official from the Magisterium on this point…sorry if I am unclear…but if it’s important, what point are you referring to?

thanks. Or if it’s not important to follow up, simply best wishes.

 

[tyler_1]

ehh…no worries man. it’s good to clarify.

the point i was referring to was that there is no official church ruling on whether the “200” was:
-calendar years (english literal)
-generations (hebrew literal)
-descendants (hebrew literal)
-a long time (figurative)

while there are parts of the Bible we take literally, this is not necessarily one of them, as the whole point is to say “a long time”… and actually, if our friend survive’s translations are correct, there’s really no need for any clarification at all as questions only result when we interpret them as english literal contrasted with the current state of the world.

however, after having said all that, i checked the liner notes and indeed there IS clarification (lol). here you have it:

“the long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value”
from: usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis5.htm#foot1 (foot 1)

-and-

“Although the ages of the patriarchs in this list are much lower than those of the antediluvian patriarchs, they are still artificial and devoid of historical value. The ages given here are from the current Hebrew text; the Samaritan and Greek texts have divergent sets of numbers in most cases.”

from: usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis11.htm#foot5 (foot 5)

i know not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literaly (for instance, see my post on Noah: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=309699), but some of it is… and i was just seeking clarification on whether the 200 years was one of the literal parts or not.

thanks for the good discussion. i learned a lot!

 

[diggerdomer]

ehh…no worries man. it’s good to clarify.

the point i was referring to was that there is no official church ruling on whether the “200” was:
-calendar years (english literal)
-generations (hebrew literal)
-descendants (hebrew literal)
-a long time (figurative)

while there are parts of the Bible we take literally, this is not necessarily one of them, as the whole point is to say “a long time”… and actually, if our friend survive’s translations are correct, there’s really no need for any clarification at all as questions only result when we interpret them as english literal contrasted with the current state of the world.

however, after having said all that, i checked the liner notes and indeed there IS clarification (lol). here you have it:

“the long lifespans attributed to these ten antediluvian patriarchs have a symbolic rather than a historical value”
from: usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis5.htm#foot1 (foot 1)

-and-

“Although the ages of the patriarchs in this list are much lower than those of the antediluvian patriarchs, they are still artificial and devoid of historical value. The ages given here are from the current Hebrew text; the Samaritan and Greek texts have divergent sets of numbers in most cases.”

from: usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis11.htm#foot5 (foot 5)

i know not all of the Bible is meant to be taken literaly (for instance, see my post on Noah: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=309699), but some of it is… and i was just seeking clarification on whether the 200 years was one of the literal parts or not.

thanks for the good discussion. i learned a lot!

Thank you.

I find these kind of conversations challenging because it depends on how people use the term “literal.”

For example, read CCC 116. We cannot dismiss the “literal sense.”

Thank you, as well, for a respectful and sincere conversation.

 

[tyler_1]

you’re welcome!

cool, thank you for the CCC reference:

(so no one has to go look it up)

CCC 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.”

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt2.shtml

an important part there is “rules of sound interpretation”. no doubt St. Augustine was possibly citing a rule of sound interpretation described in post #11 over on my Noah thread ( forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4788892&postcount=11 ). Not sure where the definitive list is (if one exists).

gotta love footnote 83 on CCC 116:

"The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s magisterium."

take care

 

[thistle]

What should I say to someone who says “i stopped believing after I read in the Bible about people living to 200 years old” and such and such?

Thanks!

Someone like that obviously had little or no faith to start with or they were very poorly educated in the faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

Someone like that obviously had little or no faith to start with or they were very poorly educated in the faith.

Sorry, how does this contribute to the conversation, or help the original question asked?

 

[mlchance]

What should I say to someone who says “i stopped believing after I read in the Bible about people living to 200 years old” and such and such?

I can relate. I stopped believing in justice and honor after I found out that King Arthur didn’t really have a magical sword.

– Mark L. Chance.