Long, long lives in the Old Testament

Select 'any number,' and make your argument. Show us the validity of your assertion. I do not practice 'numerology'. Please demonstrate a scheme which produces satisfactory results in this case.doctrbill writes

quote:

---

Isn't it convenient how the total time works out to exactly one year?

---

Are you attempting to fool anyone besides yourself? If this is not self-contradictory, then the additional time allotted to Noah's stay in the ark must have had some special significance to the author.Consider this: This corresponds exactly to the length of the year set by the calendar of Enoch. Symbolizing what, exactly? My intent was simply to point out that there have been many different calendar schemes and considerable controversy over which of them should be used and when. It would not surprise me if, for example, the religious (lunar) calendar were used to state the age of a man from his barmitzva while the civil (solar) calendar was used to state his age from birth. I believe you can see how confusing this might become to editors in subsequent millennia. Unlikely that they live to 90 but likely that they live to 900? Many people today live more than 90 years. Both my mother's parents lived more than 100 years. But modern medicine is not the sole reason for longevity. Those 'primitive early farmers' represented strong genetic stock. The weak and sickly died early in life.I can only wonder why you quibble over the spectacle of a 90 year old farmer and yet, presumably, accept without question that some of them lived more than 900 years.{Edited for spelling.}
------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 09-08-2003]

quote:

---

I disagree, Doctrbill's argument is numerological.

---

Then you are using a very non-standard definition of 'numerology.' That an argument contains numbers does not make it 'numerology.' That is utterly silly. If you ask a mother, "How old is your baby?" and she answers, "Sixteen" but you notice that the infant cannot yet walk, what is the first thing that goes through your head? "Hmm... maybe she's talking months, but the child is too small. She must mean weeks!" That is what Doctrbill is doing, essentially. This is not numerology.

quote:

---

Whether the numbers are significant or not is irrelevant to whether the argument is numerological or not.

---

It damned sure is relevant. If you take a 30 day month and divide it by 10-- Wow, three sets of ten! Both numbers are associated with the divine, hence a thirty day month is holy. That, Mr. Jack, is numerology. However, dividing the month seven is not numerology, because our calendars are based on seven day weeks. Whether you know it or not, you are taking the odd position that things like how a culture measures time is not relevant to how time is measured in the culture.

quote:

---

No matter what the numbers in the biblical myth were there would be, in all likelyhood, be some set of significant looking numbers that could be used to transform them into meaningful looking set.

---

You are missing the point. If we count 24 hour days, then the number 24 is very relevant to time keeping. The numbers 5 or 17, would not be relevant. What makes Doctrbill's speculation different from pulling numbers out of a hat is the fact that he is using numbers which the Isrealites themselves used to count spans of time.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

My apologies, a bit of a search reveals that what I was meaning by numerological is rather different from the usual definition. I did not mean to insult you.My problem with your scheme is this: suppose, instead of ages in the eight to nine hundreds, the bible had given fictional ages in the three to four hundreds. What then would stop the same argument being given, just arguing from seasons rather than lunar months? Or if the age of birth had been too low after correcting for lunar months, arguing that they were counting years from marriage rather than from the Barmitzva (is that correctly rendered as one or two words? I've seen both used). What if they'd had ages in the 18,000 to 30,000 range? Easy, just argue that they meant days, not years (after all the bible uses the term 'and all the days of Noah were').To sum up then, I find your argument unconvincing because:1. Similar arguments could be found for almost any set of fictional ages. The apparent significance of the numbers chosen does not impress me.
2. The tale of Noah uses a correct usage of the year length.
3. While your scheme deals reasonably well with some of the given ages (although giving longer ages than I find realistic), it fails to account so well for others (Nehar, Serug, Terah, for example), or explain why the ages seem to decline across the 'begats' following Noah, rather than showing a sharp divide between believable solar ages and excessive seeming lunar ages.If you could find and present evidence that the Jews have ever counted the age from the Barmitzva, I might find it more convincing, as it is you seem to me to have simply found a significant seeming mathematical formula that works inconsistently across the accounts. What a bizarre conclusion to draw. I think the ages given are purely fictional, just as the characters they are assigned to are fictional or, at least, so far removed from the real figures to be meaningless.edit Forgot to respond to one part of your post: Nah, just failing to read past the passage I quoted...[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 09-09-2003]

You're quite right, I was using a very non-standard meaning of the word, my mistake. I did not mean to impune Doctrbill in any way. But there are plenty of other significant numbers that could be used. The seasons for example, or the three 'enoch years' between the extra month (as refered to by Doctrbill's link above). To take your example of the day, 24 is very relevant, but so is 12, or 60. Using just 12, 24 or 60 we can transform across a wide range of numbers while still using 'significant' numbers. What makes me even more skeptical is that Doctrbill's explanation transforms the numbers not once, but twice, adding in the extra correction factor of the Barmitzva.

We are all learning as we go. Yes? I asked you to show how any other numerical values can do what my formula does. The hypothesis cannot be falsified by simply asking, "What if?" Once again I challenge you to demonstrate this assertion. The story of Noah may have been instrumental in helping people understand the lunar/solar calendar. One of the benefits of the solar calendar was its ability to more accurately predict annual floods. The story of Noah may reflect this selling point. Considering the fact that Egypt produced the solar calendar at about the same time as the Flood, this possibility seems quite probable. Lifespan is apparently determined by genetics. Do you believe there has been a recent mutation for increased longevity (within the last five thousand years)? Please state the specific problem you find with how the formula works in the cases of Serug, Nahor and Terah. Is it merely the fact that they lived fast and died young? The definitive change appears to begin with Abraham. That is, I believe, where your suggestion of "respect for age" is valid and appropriate. Did you not understand these quotes from Many Moons and the Jewish authority to which the page is linked? Could it be clearer than this? Then why are you kicking up such a fuss about it?doctrbill asks:

quote:

---

Are you attempting to fool anyone besides yourself?

---

Why challenge my work if you think the subject is fantastic? Why does this question matter to you? Are you so intent on discrediting biblical authors that you cannot consider a way to make sense of what they wrote?If you take the whole question to be a waste of intellect, then I can understand why you have not carefully considered the arguments.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

I have not falsified your hypothesis, I am explaining why I find it unconvinicing. You, on the other hand, have offered no proof of your hypothesis. That two significant numbers from Jewish history can be used to normalise the ages is not proof. I have already explained how other numbers (the seasons, the days, the enoch years, count from marriage) could be normalised. Nothing in your link is more substantially than could be constructed around these ideas. Lifespan is determined more by lifestyle and medicine than genetics, average lifespan today is about 76, at the turn of the century it was 47, during the industrial revolution, the average lifespan of city dwellers dropped as low as 18, while remaining about 34 in the country. This is not to deny a genetic component. I understand them. Now show me the one that says they count the age from that day. We consider people to turn adult at 18, do we count their age from that? I thought your explanation was interesting, but unconvincing. This being a discussion forum, I thought we could discuss it. Mathematical oddities appeal to me.

I believe you have misunderstood the process of intercalation. Calendar study is complex and difficult, and that ain't just whistling dixie.If you continue asserting that there are "other numbers" which can achieve the same effect, then you should attempt to prove it. Otherwise I shall have to conclude that you pose no serious challenge the the hypothesis. "Transforms the numbers"? I suppose you could refer to calculation in that way but all I have done is divide the year into lunar cycles and add the age at which an individual in that society became counted among "men."Barmitzva must be considered because it is a tradition of Hebrew civil society; and was, undoubtedly, once upon a time, taken even more seriously than it is today.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

The hypothesis is scientific. It is not intended to "prove" anything. But it does illustrate that the Bible may be understood in human terms if one considers the social, legal and temporal conventions of the society which authored it. You have explained nothing. You have only raised questions and demonstrated a lack of attention to detail. You have even, and especially, quoted scripture out of context in a manner which would suggest that my observations are bunk. "Could be constructed" you say; thus confirming my allegation that you have offered no such construction. So what? Consideration of average lifespan is irrelevant to the hypothesis. How we count is also irrelevant.If you have a better idea, then out with it. So far you have simply shot off your mouth.Show me the money.------------------
"I was very unwilling to give up my belief." Charles Darwin

This is going nowhere, Doctrbill, it seems you are simply getting angrier and more aggressive. I will perhaps respond later when you will maybe be calmer.

There is a scientific explanation for how it is possible that these ancient men lived so long. Prior to the Flood, there was a blanket of what was basically water vapor stored in the atmosphere. This cut down on the UV rays and other harmful types of rays that the people were recieving. We have seen in todays world that people who do not get the harmful effects of the sun are not subject to the same aging processes. If you magnify this to account for a barrier of water vapor, you have a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation. Amazing how God and science coincide...

When will YECs give up on this preposterous notion?1) If you have enough water in the atmosphere to form several kilometers worth apon falling, that water has to be added to the atmospheric pressure. You're looking at a pressure of about 900 atmospheres, assuming that you assume that half of the water comes from underground instead of rain.2) Water reflects not just UV light, but all light in the visible spectrum. Look it up.3) What is keeping the water up? If it's up through normal means, that requires heat well beyond 100C (increased pressure = increased boiling point) - it rains because water condenses the cooler it gets, and the more water vapor there is in the air. Additionally, the descent of that much water would displace the Earth's atmosphere many times over, and release a preposterous amount of potential energy. I'll leave whether the energy is in kinetic or thermal energy up to you - both lead to very "unpleasant" situations, to say the least If it's in an unstable orbit orbit, you have a far, far greater potential energy to dissipate. How much energy are we talking about? By my calculations (in another thread), if there were 3km of water in the atmosphere (a very low amount if the rain is to even be relevant to the flood), and the rain fell 2km, every 300m x 300m region on the face of the planet would need to dissipate the energy of Hoover Dam.4) I hate to sound insulting, but what sort of person believes that the only reason people don't live hundreds of years is UV light (BTW, "other harmful rays" typically do not penetrate Earth's atmosphere)? So, people who stay indoors all day live many times longer? Wow, I'm going to live forever, then You should market this miraculous fountain of youth! Things like heart disease (rarely ever related to UV) and *most* cancers (all but skin cancers - UV doesn't penetrate very far) don't factor into it, right? Neither do diseases of all kinds, accidents, violence, etc?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I didn't say it was the only reason. I said it was a scientific reason. Personally, I have no problems with accepting the fact that when God said in Genesis 6 that the days of men shall be 120 years from now on, He meant it. There is enough in the Bible that has been proved scientifically and historically accurate that I can accept this story on faith, although it also has science behind it.Also, the water that covered the earth did not come solely from the sky. It came out of the ground and oceans and rivers as well. It is also a scientific possibility that there is enough water within the earth's core to flood the surface far deeper than the mountaintops.

The earth's core is below about 2000 miles of very, very hot rock. Assuming that you are correct that there is enough water there to flood the surface, can you provide a mechanism to do so without cooking everything up here? What, exactly, is the permeability of olivine at 1000 degrees C and 50 GPa confining pressure?

You realize that, proportionally, there would have to be almost no water in the atmosphere to resolve those problems that I listed?About the 120 years: How old was Jeanne Louise Calment when she died? Shigechiyo Izumi? Elizabeth Israel (Ma Pampo)?Have you considered how intensely hot water under intense pressure is? Are you aware that the odds of there being water in the core are about the odds of iron floating in water? Dense things sink, light things float. Have you thought about the energy released from a collapse of most of the Earth's crust?Have you thought of any of this before posting it? What you're saying happened would basically sterilize the planet.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Rei, you have to watch this. There is "water" in the rock. However it is not "water" like is being talked about here. It is part of the chemistry. I don't know enough to spell it out. Some one of the geologists or geochemists would do better.