A question of ages.

[Kurieuo]

It is interesting that in my head, the number that always comes to mind when thinking of the maximum years that a person can live to is 120 years.

This may be inspired the Scripture or society, but generally 120 years is the figure and I feel many others generally accept this. Anyone else feel this?

So, sure, there could be some that live a few years longer, and many live a lot of years shorter, but as rounded upper limit 120 years seems good to me.

I haven't re-read the passage with your possible interpretation Jac, but even if taken literally, I have no issues with someone having lived to 121.

Or even if we have a scientific break through and people end up doubling their lifespans or what-have-you since contextually without circumventing, it would still be generally true.

When someone feels it is unnatural that people in the past may have lived to 1000 years, I kind of scratch my head. Does a long age really sound "mythical" to some? I just don't feel that. If one is quite accepting of evolution, since it is very plausible genes on what-not could be involved, even change in environment with radiation levels or what-not could have affected age.

[Jac3510]

Sure, we can say 121 wouldn't be problem.

But what about 600? (Shem) 205? (Terah) 175 (Abraham)? 148 (Nahor)? 180 (Isaac)? 147 (Jacob)? 137 (Ishmael, Levi, Amram)? 130 (Jehoida)?

I suppose if we allow 121, then 122 shouldn't be a problem, which was the age of Jeanne Calment (1875-1997). There are reported cases of people well over 120 over the last few centuries. Unverified, but all the same . . .

So I suppose if we still think that 120 refers to the maximum age of humans as per Genesis, then we only have two options:

1. The text is wrong (unacceptable)
2. The text is not giving a maximum age, but a maximum "average" (seems odd or forced . . . most people don't make it anywhere near that)

Neither of these seem terribly good answers to me. And besides, I still don't see what the value of inserting this random maximum age of people in the middle of the story is. It doesn't seem to contribute to the narrative. At best, it seems on that view that it becomes an explanation for why Abraham and those following him lived such shorter lives (<300) than Noah's predecessors, but then I feel like I should say, "He doth protest too much" . . . especially in light of the repeated biblical assertions just a few chapters later of people who broke this "rule."

Nah. Just doesn't fit for me. But I've been wrong before. I know because my wife insists on it!

[Kurieuo]

Obviously there are exceptions, but we see a progressive down-turn in age though from the point of Noah and his sons including Shem. Seems to clearly support for me some sort of genetic thing going on.

Perhaps there is also some numerical significance to 120 rather than say 130. Besides "13" being unlucky, obviously numbers did play an important part to Israel, especially the number 12. So perhaps there is some merit to be found in the article if I read it more fully.

However, at the same time, there is a clear reduction in ages reported in Scripture. I think one will be harder pressed denying this point which is to me more of an issue than accepting some "special cases" who lived past 120 years.

[Jac3510]

Yes, there is a downtrend in ages. So precisely because of that, what function does the verse in Gen. 6 have since it is so obvious anyway? All the exceptions to is create unnecessary problems, it seems to me.

[Kurieuo]

Yes, there is a downtrend in ages. So precisely because of that, what function does the verse in Gen. 6 have since it is so obvious anyway? All the exceptions to is create unnecessary problems, it seems to me.

Well, many things are repeated in varying ways in Scripture especially in Romans 5.

Given there is the downtrend, and the explicit statement in Gen 6:3 about a reduction in years, then we have the reason in Gen 6:5 -- to restrain wickedness found in humanity. So there seems to be some truth, even if an imprecise truth, to Gen 6:3. Whether this imprecision matters, I don't know. I don't feel it's necessarily wrong or a big issue.

I suppose I'd look into the meaning of numbers and perhaps significance to the 12 tribes of Israel, God's covenant with Abraham and around the number "10" such that 12 * 10 = 120. So what is the significance behind the number "120" such that God did not say 122 or something other?

I'm opening to the possibility that Gen 6:3 may refer to those at the time. I'd have to re-read to ensure other Scripture doesn't exclude this interpretation, or the even the words and language itself. If you have done some research and believe nothing else excludes such an interpretation then I'm very open to it.

Nonetheless we both agree 1) humanity lived much longer (e.g., up to ~1000 years); and 2) humanities' lifespan was dramatically reduced at the point of Noah; and obviously that 3) Gen 6 is the point of introduction to the whole story.

[Jac3510]

Meh. I don't see any significance to the number 120. This was long before Israel was around, so 12 is pretty meaningless here. I try to avoid numerology except where it's absolutely called for. That just goes hand in hand with my overall hermeneutic of taking the text at face value. I think God said 120 because that is what He meant. He was giving them 120 years . . . not 121 or 119.

It's certainly not a hill worth dying on to me. It just seems to me that the reading I've suggested fits better with the overall flow of the text. There is certainly nothing in the account anywhere that disqualifies it. On my view, Noah would have been 480 when he got his call to build the ark (hey, another number divisible by 12! And that by a more interesting number . . . 40! Ah, the fun we can have if we play numerological games ). He worked and preached for 120 years and then was 600 when he entered the ark. He died 350 years later at 950. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

As an aside, I just found out (unbeknownst to me until a moment ago) that Keil and Delitzsch held this view as well, although their comments are passing in nature only, offering no real support. They only say, " “Therefore his days shall be 120 years:” this means, not that human life should in future never attain a greater age than 120 years, but that a respite of 120 years should still be granted to the human race. This sentence, as we may gather from the context, was made known to Noah in his 480th year, to be published by him as “preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5) to the degenerate race?"

In any case, I only raised the issue because of the previous debate about the use of "years" in this passage, anyway. I felt like the whole thing was unnecessary because the passage isn't, in my view, dealing with lifespans, anyway. Beyond that, we are in agreement on the issues you noted, and I think the original biologos argument is a bit silly, trying to taking the "years" to be something other than what the text actually says.

Again, it's no hill worth dying on. There are plenty of people who defend the shortening of life view. I don't, and I don't see any evidence for why we should adopt the view whatsoever. But it's hardly something worth quibbling too terribly much about.