Posted on 07/14/2014 8:10:13 AM PDT by fishtank
Did Adam Really Live 930 Years?
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Genesis 5:5 says Adam lived for 930 years. Judging by today’s standards, this sounds impossible. Many contemporary readers of Genesis balk at such numbers and some end up rejecting the whole Bible. But a few researchers have found reasons to believe it.
Plant geneticist Dr. John Sanford and his colleagues plotted the ages of the biblical patriarchs listed in Genesis. The result shows a systematic drop-off in lifespans after 950-year-old Noah, “in a way that could never happen by chance,” according to an online post showing their results.1
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Schroeder’s view as a physicist is both clear and wonderful and I feel, opinionless...
“Dark Matter” is just a term used to describe the fact that traditional cosmological models don’t conform to the empirical data. Same with Dark Energy.
Don’t hink so. My guess is they were metric years.;-)
That makes sense. I would attribute rare examples of sheer prodigy to pockets of residual genetic excellence. Adam and Eve’s genetic makeup had to be incredibly rich in terms of both mental and physical stamina. Science today can hardly comprehend the extent of human intellect. But then 1/6 of the population voted for Obama, so there is certainly a downside as well.
Like the phlogiston of old natural science, it might end up being a placeholder for a “better” theory.
"When I was a kid, I had to walk five miles in the snow to school..."
Regards,
“Science” resides within the concept of “time”.
Time was created by God.
God exists outside of such concepts (AKA: eternity).
There is no ^real^ reconciliation between those concepts until Christ returns.
I point to the term (and *concept*) of “the end of time”.
The morals of these stories helped many generations progress toward better ways of living and thinking.
Then every few generations, along comes a large batch of total idiots; so desperate in their ignorance and superstition to worship creatures and things, rather than the Creator; who can't seem to get beyond arguing about the literal interpretations, while totally ignoring all the morals of the stories.
These idiots just cannot wait to be (again) enslaved and martyred, just so they don't have to do so much thinking for themselves.
I admire them (and you, for raising great kids). As for the Scriptural angle, I don’t think that what you say is inconsistent with what I said. Yes, God’s creation is great and worthy of study. That does not mean, however, that every detail of Scripture understood at the most superficial level must be “proven” (or even capable of being “proven”) by the scientific method in order for the detail to be defended. Often such details are included for the purpose of presenting a greater Truth about God, and are true insofar as they do that. God EQUALS truth.
The best explanation I’ve heard of this is degradation/corruption of DNA in the human body. Human bodies were optimal but then sin introduced decay into our universe and every began falling apart...entropy.
Using that logic, we can dismiss as not literal the entire scripture! 6 days, burning bush, Jericho, Goliath, Elijah and fire from heaven, feeding of 4000, raising Lazarus, Jesus' resurrection...
Who get to decide what's literal?
I would agree with that, however, I think there is a difference between pointing out the inadequacy of modern science, and positing our own scientific theories as somehow relevant .
Who says Jesus lied? I certainly did not. Neither did I say “there is no Truth in Genesis.” Rather, my point is that to narrowly focus on the superficial aspects of Scripture is to DENY the deeper truths contained therein ... and I think this type of debate (eg whether there is scientific explanation for these people to have lived 900 years, etc.) is such a narrow focus.
Methuselah: Cause of death - Drowning
LOL
Actually, yes there is. From 360 days. However, that’s not what I meant.
I understand. This is essentially the point presuppositional apologists make. To use epirical reason to "prove" God is to put reason above God as something to which he must conform. By definition God transcends the empirical.
> . and I think this type of debate (eg whether there is
> scientific explanation for these people to have lived 900
> years, etc.) is such a narrow focus.
If you work in the engineering community, as I do, any logical inconsistency discredits the whole premise. Unless you have a clear grasp of the scientific aspects of the Genesis account, then you are helpless when trying to bring the witness of the Gospel to these types of people.
The scientists and researchers at ICR have encountered these challenges all their professional lives. ICR was established as a means to answer the negations of the Genesis Flood and of Special Creation by the prevailing atheistic, humanistic “science” that became dominant in the mid-20th Century.
ICR even contributes its own original research with papers on the human genome, Radiometric Decay and the Age of the Earth, Pollonium halos, and other genuine scientific inquiries and studies.
If you follow modern physics, the very nature of reality itself is coming into question. Atheistic physicists are stunned by what seems to be the underlying metaphysical nature of the Universe. I’ve heard one physicist say, “It’s as if we’re living in a vast holographic projection.” (Let there be light)
Niels Bohr said, “Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.”
It never ceases to amaze me that people can accept a God who can speak light into existence but trip up over some small process or trick well inside of that miracle.
“Saying that the patriarch lived a long time was a way of increasing their stature in the eyes of the faithful.”
Which then makes the faithful morons?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.