spider:



Spider, would not the holy Spirit have to have been first, in order join 'God' and Jesus?

I don't buy into the fact he never had sex when in fact during that period of time people had children at a younger age due to having shorter life spans at this period in time and if you could live past 40 then you were one of the lucky ones.

There is no first. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit have all existed forever.

Well this is interesting, they lived shorter life terms, so tell Me WarDriverJ did Noah live to the age of 950. They lived much longer life spans. This is somethings I have also studied and here is my result:
Life Spans of the Patriarchs before the Flood

Adam - 930 years Jared - 962 years
Seth - 912 years Enoch - 365 years
Enosh - 905 years Methuselah - 969 years
Kenan - 910 years Lamech - 777 years
Mahalalel - 895 years Noah - 950 years
So your statement is false.

My statement is false and yet you believe people can live to 300+ years or longer? Get some help, serisouly.

If God's not real...how could the Bible agree with science? According to God, the maximum human lifespan is 120 years. According to science, the maximum human lifespan is 125 years, but we have never seen a human live longer than 119 years. Seems to me that science is off by about 5 years and God hit the nail on the head.

So how could a "3000 year old book of myths" be so right on a subject, which shouldn't have even been possible to study? When the Bible was written, the average lifespan was probably between 40-50 years. Just a good guess? Well, you place your money on "it's a guess" and I'll put my money on "God" and we'll know who wins after the wheel stops spinning.

People didn’t always keep track of time the way we do with our modern calendars. In fact, our modern Calendar is based on the birth of Jesus, it’s a very recent method of keeping track of time.

It’s most likely that those early ages mentioned in the Bible were actually counted in months (cycles of the MOON)

There are approximately 12 moon cycles in a year. So let’s just divide all those ages by 12 and see what we get,..


Adam - 930 years = 77 years
Jared - 962 years = 80 years
Seth - 912 years = 76 years
Enoch - 365 years = 30 years
Enosh - 905 years = 75 years
Methuselah - 969 years = 80 years
Kenan - 910 years = 75 years
Lamech - 777 years = 64 years
Mahalalel - 895 years = 74 years
Noah - 950 years = 79 years


If we divide all these ages by 12 we get realistic biological ages for humans.

Seems to me that any sane person is going to then conclude that they must have been counting cycles of the MOON as a YEAR. Or at least this confusion was simply lost in the translations and the re-telling of these stories early on.

Of course, everyone is free to believe anything they like. But if you base these counts on cycles of the moon they fall right in line with possible human lifespans. The average lifespan of people could have still been around 40 years old or so. These men were all famous because they survived to be elderly sages and therefore left their mark in history.

It’s not so right.

You just focus on anything that seems to support it and blow that way out of proportion, and you ignore and belittle everything that doesn’t support it.

You’re creating your own delusion.



I don’t know where you got this, but if it says in the Bible that the maximum human lifespan is 120 years then how do you account for the Bible also claiming the following?

Adam - 930 years
Jared - 962 years
Seth - 912 years
Enoch - 365 years
Enosh - 905 years
Methuselah - 969 years
Kenan - 910 years
Lamech - 777 years
Mahalalel - 895 years
Noah - 950 years

Now, you’re stuck with a Bible that’s ‘so wrong’ it doesn’t even agree with itself!

Following that statement, we see a gradual shortening of human lives until the new maximum set by God was reached.

God doesn't always do what he says he's going to do immediately. God promised Abraham the land of Canaan, but it was 400 years before the Jews entered Canaan. God promised that people wouldn't live longer than 120 years and over several centuries, the maximum life expectancy lowered to that value.

There’s nothing there about any gradual shortening of lifespan.

Clearly you're reading things that aren't there. Why is it that you always demand a literal interpretation when that supports your views, but then you demand an abstract interpretation when that helps you worm out of a bind.

Having your cake and eat it too, again, I see.

As far as I can see you've just demonstrated another inconsistency in the Bible where it states that the maximum age is 120 years in one place, and has people living for almost 1000 years in another. That's a direct contradiction. The book is clearly self-inconsistent when taking literally and the only way to salvage it is to resort to vague abstractions.

I've held that this is the case all along and your need to resort to vague abstraction here is a demonstration of my point. Thank you for the demonstration that the bible make no sense if taken literally and necessarily must be taken abstractly if it is to make any sense at all.

This has been my point all along.

Abracadabra,

I didn't say that it described a gradual shortening of life in that verse, that's a strawman fallacy...again.

But if you read the BIBLE, you will see that after God made that statement, each human described lives a slightly shorter life until you get down to Joseph who lived 110 years and then Moses who lived 120 years. Immdiately following that statement, the next lifespan described was 600 years...a 350 year decrease in life expectancy. This all corresponded with the flood, which is why Christians talk about pre-flood, post-flood as being different. Something changed in the world's environment, which reduced human lifespan and made the world inhospitable to dinosaurs.

Here is a little web site that shows the lifespan mentioned in the Bible, which follows the decrease in human lifespan from close to 1000 years down to 120 years.

http://www.direct.ca/trinity/120years.html

I’m sorry Spider, you totally missed my point.

I’m not saying that your interpretation is wrong.

I’m pointing out the fact that you’ve just shown that the Bible can’t be taken literally, and that a level of abstraction is necessary to make sense of it.

This has been my point all along. This has nothing to do with whether or not the Bible is true or false.

You have been demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible all along. The flood had to have literally happened just as described. The 6-day creation had to have happened just as described in 6 earth days according to you. You have strongly insisted that every word of the Bible has to be taken literally to support your arguments in the past.

And now you are grabbing abstract straws to make a point here.

You’re approach to Bible Thumping is sporadic and inconsistent. It doesn’t matter whether the Bible is true or false. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too by demanding perfect verbatim literacy when that supports your views, and vague abstractions when that supports your views.

Like I say, you accept whatever it takes to support your views, and you deny anything that doesn’t support your views. This is why, from your point of view it appears to be “so right”. You simply ignore and reject anything that might even remotely suggest that it might be wrong.

I’m just trying to help you see the delusional pit you have fallen into.

I’m not concerned with whether the Bible is true or false. I recognized very early on in life that it is impossible for the Bible to be taken literally. If there’s any truth in the Bible, that truth can only be extracted via its parables and allegories. And even those contain self-inconsistencies and errors.

I really don’t care what you believe. I’m just attempting to show you your folly in how you are going about attempting to ‘prove it’ via logical assertions. You’re logic is extremely inconsistent and full of holes.

Religions are faith-based on purpose. As soon as you try to turn them into a science by showing they are logically consistent you risk believing that they are absolute and can therefore be applied to all of humanity as an absolute law. That ideal creates monsters who go around telling other people what they should and shouldn’t believe like as if they speak for God himself.

It’s a dangerous pitfall of religions. Especially of a judgmental religion like Christianity where a person who thinks that they speak for God becomes the judge of all other humans.

Beware of that trap. It’s a very real and sorrowful place to go.

Religion is a personal experience with your maker. It’s not a job-opening for humans who want to become pseudo Gods.

But that's not true in the least.

God made a statement "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years"

As time passed, maximum human life expectancy dropped to 120 years.

What you are saying is that because it didn't happen immediately, that the Bible isn't literal. That's not true, because God didn't state when the change would take effect. It's also true that humans don't live longer than 120 years. So even though some people lived longer than 120 years after God made the statement, the statement is still the literal truth.

If someone says "I'm going to buy a new car" and they spend the next three months comparison shopping before they buy the car, then their statement is still literally true. The person bought a new car, it simply took them three months to pick one out. A passage of time would only effect the literial truth of a statement if the statement explicitly included a time clause. "I'm going to buy a new car next week" for instance.

God = Creator of all.

Jesus Christ = God's son. Who was brought to earth from Heaven to live as a man...And preach the Gospel of His Father God.

When Jesus Christ was crusified and taken back to heaven to wait.......Jesus' presence would bemarked by a time of profound troubles here on earth......were here folks.