Why, if god limited man's life to 120 years, did people live longer?

I read that there were no farmers and no domesticated plants. That allows other, non-farming people and other, non-domesticated plants. From the description in the Bible, The garden of Eden can only be at the location where scientists say wheat was domesticated

I read in Gen. 2:5 that there was no plants at all for two reasons, because the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground. I read this as being no people existing yet, and that Adam was the first man.What we may need to consider is that although the creation of Adam immediately follows the 'no man to work the ground' text, Adam does not appear to be specifically created to work the ground, it isn't until after the Fall that Yahweh tells Adam that he will have to till the land.Genesis 3:23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.

That is more the standard interpretation and has a lot to be said for it. It has its problems, such as two conflicting creation of plants as you mentioned, but it has many strong adherents. One point is Gen 2:4 indicates it was possible that there were generations between the creation of the heavens and earth and Adam and Eve. Remember, it says "there was no man to work the ground" not "there was no man." If everyone was hunter-gatherers, there would still have been no man to work the ground. Since both interpretations are valid, keep them both in mind.

quote:

---

What we may need to consider is that although the creation of Adam immediately follows the 'no man to work the ground' text, Adam does not appear to be specifically created to work the ground, it isn't until after the Fall that Yahweh tells Adam that he will have to till the land.

---

I disagree, Brian. Adam was created to look after the garden planted in Genesis 2:8-9, as stated in Genesis 2:15. (NASB)However, if Adam was not the first man we do have to ask why God needed to create a man (2:7) and a woman (2:21-22) and it makes the whole business about looking for a helper amongst the animals even more bizarre (2:18-20).

Hi greentwiga,I hate to break it to you, but being a hunter -gatherer involves plenty of "work(ing) the land". Why else would anybody need these; Digging for tubers is an important part of most hunter-gatherer lives. Such foods are an important source of carbohydrates and are often a calorific staple. That's where a good sturdy stick comes in handy.These kinds of tool, with cross-over between foraging and farming lifestyles, are just part of the smooth transition between hunter-gatherer and farmer that you are so keen to ignore.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Thanks Granny Magda, you keep me on my toes. I should have been clearer. That is a harvesting tool. It is probably more ancient than the flint sickles or sythes used by the Natufian culture prior to 10,000 BC. I am talking about cultivating the land for planting seeds. I connect working the soil to later references of tilling and cultivating. I can't find that Archaeologists have found any of those tools, just references like:
Stone Age | Definition, Tools, Periods, Peoples, Art, & Facts | Britannica
There is little question that a level of an effective food-producing, village-farming-community way of life had been achieved in certain portions of southwestern Asia by at least 7000 bc. Furthermore, increasing evidence indicated that the effective village-farming level was preceded by one of cultivation and animal domestication and that this incipient level was at least under way by about 9000 bc.Again, they note the change from harvesting to cultivating about 9,000 BC.

Het greentwiga,

quote:

---

I am talking about cultivating the land for planting seeds.

---

That is very much like another hunter-gatherer activity; scattering seeds of useful plants when they are harvested. Native Australians have practised this for centuries. And cultivating the land? That is why they set fires; to encourage new growth. Both practises are ancient.It is yet another example of the smooth transition between foraging and farming. There could have been no "first farmer", simply because the process was gradual with little in the way of a clear cut off point. This speaks directly against the picture you are trying to paint with Genesis.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

I had meant to say that he wasn't created to live off the land, a bit careless of me (either that or the dihyrocodeine i working well ).However, on thinking about it, I don't think it is really that clear why Adam was created. Gen 2:7-8 has Adam created before the Garden of Eden, but I don't think it specifically says that Adam was created to look after the GofE, although he was given that job. I need to think a bit more about this. Yes, Yahweh could have just taken an existing man into the Garden. Well, I think we have mentioned this before, there is a Jewish myth (Lillith) that claims that Eve was not the first woman, and there does seem to be some textual back up for this.Gen 1:27 has male and female created at the same time, yet we read in Gen 2 that Eve was created well after Adam, from one of his ribs, so perhaps there was a woman there before Eve?

Well, I am considering possibilities. One possibility is that you are right. There is another. I ran across a verse where beasts of the field were listed next to wild beasts as if they were different things. Now, I ask you to just consider another possibility. In Gen 1, plants were created. In Gen 2, it talks about plants of the field and shrubs of the field. Could the phrase "of the field" mean domesticated in the ancient culture? Scientists say that there were no domesticated plants until ~9,000 BC. One set of scientists say that wheat was domesticated near a Mountain called Karacadag. If you look at that Mountain on google earth, it seems to fit the description in the Bible. Could the story in the Bible be at the point when wheat was domesticated? I do grant you, the point of the story is a religious one, not history per say, but understanding that, using this possible interpretation, there would be no incompatibilities.

Plant Evolution under Domestication - Gideon Ladizinsky - Google Books qDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4This book shows that even by unconscious processes domestication could take 20-200 years but it says that it was probably was more conscious. Yes, there may have been 2 different steps for full domestication, but each step was relatively rapid. I am not saying this had to be the first step or the second step. Just that it looks to be one of these rapid steps. Scientists are rejecting the very slow theory of domestication.

quote:

---

However, on thinking about it, I don't think it is really that clear why Adam was created. Gen 2:7-8 has Adam created before the Garden of Eden, but I don't think it specifically says that Adam was created to look after the GofE, although he was given that job. I need to think a bit more about this.

---

I think that the implication is pretty clear. 2.5 sets the scene by saying that plants won't grow because a man is needed to work the soil. Then God creates a man, plants a garden and sets the man to work the soil there. There is no other reason given, even by implication.

quote:

---

Well, I think we have mentioned this before, there is a Jewish myth (Lillith) that claims that Eve was not the first woman, and there does seem to be some textual back up for this.

---

I've heard of that, but it's not in the text. And it doesn't make the story much less bizarre, even if Lilith was created before naming the animals.

That is an interesting argument that in Gen 1:27, God made man and woman at the same time. In Gen 2, Adam was clearly made before Eve. I don't accept the Lilith idea, but many do. I believe it is found in some Jewish writings. I might also point out that there are other writings that deal with Adam and Eve. One mentions the cave of treasures, and finds acceptance in Muslim scriptures. Though some accept the ideas as holy, it is not in the Old Testament. Still, your point about the difference between the two passages will give me pause for thought.
By the way, there are two reasons for plants of the field not growing. 1) no man to work the land and 2)no rain. It more seems that God made the garden to take care of man. He did give the man the Job, but doesn't say he made man to take care of the garden.

quote:

---

By the way, there are two reasons for plants of the field not growing. 1) no man to work the land and 2)no rain. It more seems that God made the garden to take care of man.

---

How on earth do you get that reading ? There's nothing to imply it in Genesis 2. It's not as daft as your reading of "generations" but it's certainly odd.

quote:

---

He did give the man the Job, but doesn't say he made man to take care of the garden.

---

As I stated, it is strongly implied.

no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground.It seemed quite obvious.Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the groundtrees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.it is strongly implied that He made the garden to take care of the man.

quote:

---

no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [c] and there was no man to work the ground.

​

It seemed quite obvious.

---

It's quite obvious that the focus is on the plants - the plants require man, thus man is created. To take it the way you want it, it should focus on man, and man's need for the plants. Which it doesn't.

quote:

---

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the groundtrees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.

​

it is strongly implied that He made the garden to take care of the man.

---

No, it is implied weakly at best - and overridden by the far clearer and stronger implication that man was created to look after the garden.
No, it isn't. Anybody capable of reading English should see that.