Genetic problems with genesis, the great flood, etc

We discussed this on another thread, I believe.Genesis 6:3

quote:

---

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years

---

that can't be what i means. i mean, there are inconsistencies in the bible, i know, but this one's a little huge:

quote:

---

Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

​

Gen 9:29 And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

---

noah lived 350 years after the flood. that's close to three times that limit. after noah, the first person to die before reaching at least 120 is terah, 8 generations after noah (320 years, btw, if you want to do the math). and even then, that's short lived. he's the ONLY person in the book of genesis to die younger than 120 years old.since i happened to have done the math on this one with simple several months ago, i'll tell the conclusion. i takes noah about 100 years to build the ark. that limit of 120 years is 120 years until the flood, not the normal human lifespan.here's the old post if you're interested in the math: http://EvC Forum: Hyper evolution in the bibleThis message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-14-2005 01:44 AM

---

אָרַח

Well, it appears to discuss limiting man's lifespan. The fact it took awhile to take root is not evidence against that, especially since Noah had already been borne. It looks to me God was saying He was instituting a mechanism whereby lifespans would begin to be more limited, and most men borne after this do live much less.A few like Aberaham live a very long time, but the biblical account records men living less and less years.It may be this is adjusted even further down the road, but regardless, I think it refers to God instituting limiting factors into man's lifespans.I've heard the 120 years to the Flood interpretation, and am willing to consider it, but Noah had children 100 years before the Flood, and it seems like Noah already had children when God spoke to him, but God could have been referring to children in the future.Nonetheless, the text seems like it refers to limiting lifespans.

no, what i'm saying is that there is only one person in genesis who actually falls within that lifespan. that's a little more than god taking it slow -- that's god being wrong.rather, since it takes noah 100 years to build the ark, it's quite reasonable to read that verse as saying mankind as a whole will only live another 120 years. because that's when god is talking about destroying mankind as a whole, isn't it? if you click the link above, you can see the statistical variation. he seems to have kids around the same time. shem is 100 2 years after the flood passes. that's a pretty standard way to read it, but it doesn't hold up. from the time of the proclamation to the flood, it's at least 100 years. and then nobody dies younger than 120 for another 320 years, and then he's the only one. it's just standard to read it that way because we see that number close to our own lifespans -- but look at it in context of the longer lifespans of genesis.it can't mean what you think it means.

---

אָרַח

But which laws specifically, and when?The laws which govern viability of small, inbreeding populations are closely tied to mutation. Isn't that what the standard creationist interpretation of the Fall (in a genetic sense) is? That things started to become less perfect (ie mutate) once God had cursed them all?So which is it to be? Either mutation started to happen at the time of the Fall - in which case the flood story has a problem with small populations - or mutation started happening after the flood.If mutation only started happening after the flood then what is the big deal about the Fall?

After the flood, the entire ecology, gerontology and geography changed. It was not the same as before. The earth's atmosphere alsochanged. Life span also was decreased. To assume that mutations occured is only to justify evolution. The flood was real and there are evidence in every preflood and post flood civilization. These cannot be denied.

and the support for this assertion can be found in what book of the bible? chapter and verse?and while we're on it, exactly how many animals did noah take on his ark? (what is a kind?)

---

Hi inkorrekt,Before I get too far into this discussion, can I have a clarification from you: You do accept that the DNA of living things mutates, right?Ta

The evidence for the universal flood is available in the historic accounts of many civilizations. In the old testament, we read that there were giants in those days before the flood. We do not see them a nymore.

Indeed. We also don't see their graves or bones or fossils or artifacts. Or any other signs of a global flood. I wonder why is that?

yet, suprisingly, not in the hebrew one. in modern hebrew, there's an a way to say "the whole world" — — -- kol ha-'olam. it's actually a part of some common expressions.the one time a similar phrase appears in the bible is in job: ‘— — -- tebel kolah.'olam appears to have meant something different then, but when you find references to the entire planet, they use tebel. it's generally translated "world."the flood covers something else: -- 'eretz. land, ground, or in modern usage country. yes, country, as in nation. had they wanted to say "world" they would have used tebel. this has been your hebrew vocabulary lesson for the day.but THAT was not what i asked you. i asked you for the book, chapter, and verse that says that natural law changed at the flood. i have one verse that says people are allowed to eat meat. you got anything else? nor, curiously do we see them in the bible. there's no convincing reason that — should be translated as "giant." the root of the word, nfl, means "fall" as in from heaven, from grace, or in battle. rather, just to further ruin your point...do you not remember the most famous giant in the bible? i'm pretty sure he was around long after the flood.

---

How refreshing it is to see mature adults arguing about the obvious. There is no way in hell that anyone claiming that Creationism (a.k.a. ID) is fact, based on the Bible as truth that he or she will accept ANY scientific evidence. Religious fanatics are oblivious to the fact that science is based on set laws governing what is fact and what is unproven. Evolution is Fact. The whole planet with the exception of the U.S.A has accepted Evolution without relegating religion to the dustbin. Seriously now; anyone debating with the religous fanatic should bear in mind the following FACT:No matter what you say or show or prove in the most stringent scientific manner the religious fanatic will DENY! basically it is a waste of time. Instead of debating, we should unite to banish such hogwash as Creationism (a.k.a. ID) from schools, lest we live to see women burning at the stake for witchcraft in the future.

---

Mighty is the sword that draws blood!
Mightier is the Pen that draws ink!
Mightiest is the tongue that draws ears! (Yiannis Mantheakis)

Yes the evidence is there to prove mass floods. BUT! The floods were a result of the Glaciers melting after the last ice age (which happened when humans had the ability of storytelling. That is how it was passed down the generations to finally enter the Bible. There is no mystery in the fact that 2 kilometre high glaciers melting would cause serious flooding. I am glad my ape ancestor did not carry the religion gene ( you know, the one recently discovered to influence one's tendency to believe in a higher entity such as God).

You have no idea of what is being discussed. Why do you not pay attention? I want you to understand that Neither Bible nor Torah is a Text book on Science.Do you understand? All I wanted to show was there is evidence outside the Bible to show that there was a universal flood. There was no reason for you to scream and be mad. Now, I can quote the scripturte. Do you know what the Bible says about an angry person? Perhaps not. Bible says that an angry person is a FOOL.

I am not an archeologist or a paleontologist. I cannot answer this. Perhaps, the bones were somehow lost in the flood. I do not have the answer.