Google Answers Logo
View Question
Q: Human life span in the Bible ( No Answer,   27 Comments )
Subject: Human life span in the Bible
Category: Relationships and Society > Religion
Asked by: halejrb-ga
List Price: $10.00
Posted: 28 Jun 2005 17:58 PDT
Expires: 28 Jul 2005 17:58 PDT
Question ID: 538112
In the book of Genesis it's not unusual for people to live several
hundred years.  (Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969)  It's also widely
accepted that much of the old testament was written around 1200 to
1000 BC.  Now obviously the ancient Jews of 1200 BC knew what a solar
year was.  After all they lived in an agrarian culture.  So is there
any reasonable explanation for why life spans in Genisis seem to be
off by about a factor of 10?  Were they counting months, not years? 
Are there any mis-translations in the text?  Is there any widely
accepted selcular explanation?
There is no answer at this time.

Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: pugwashjw-ga on 29 Jun 2005 03:20 PDT
There is not a doctor on earth [ secular] that can give you a
'secular' answer. But might this suffice. In the days when King David
wrote Psalms, 460 years before Jesus, which complies with your
requirement, Psalm 90; verse 10 states that people then were not much
different from today. " In themselves, the days of our years are
seventy years. And if because of special mightiness they are eighty
years....It begs the question, why did not King David doubt the
lifespan of his forebears, Adam, Methuselah etc., He realized that the
scriptures were inspired and truthful. 900 plus years for both. They
were that much closer to perfection. And when the prophecy at
Revelation 21;4 is fulfilled, we might again aspire to such ages.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: politicalguru-ga on 29 Jun 2005 04:50 PDT
Dear Halejrb, 

An interesting question indeed. I am posting the information here as a
comment, but if you feel that this would satisfy you as an answer,
please let me know:

Explanation A: Myths and symbols. The Bible would like to distinguish
the antediluvian era (before the flood) and after flood. Please note,
that these longevity myths were common in those periods, and similar
myths could be found among other ancient cultures. Enoch, Methuselah's
father, hasn't died according to the Bible: "Enoch was a just man,
walked with God, lived 365 years, and then was taken by God without
dying" (Wikipedia, Enoch, <>).
Several books that have been left out of the "official" version of the
Bible give us this impression, in particular the pseudepigraphical
apocryphal Book of Enoch (ibid and see: Wikipedia,
<>). This era is also
marked, for example, by the Nephilim.

Explanation B: "Some maintain that the unusually high longevity of
Biblical patriarchs is the result of an error in translation: lunar
cycles were mistaken for the solar ones, and the actual ages are 12.37
times less. This gives 78 years for Methuselah, which is still an
impressive number, bearing in mind the life expectancy of Biblical
times. Methuselah's fathering of Lamech would correspondingly have
occurred at solar age 15 (18712.37). (This theory however, seems
doubtful to others since patriarchs such as Mahalalel (ibid 5:15) and
Enoch (ibid 5:21) were said to have become fathers after 65 "years."
If the lunar cycle theory were accepted this would translate to an age
of about 5 years and 2 months." (Wikipedia, Methuselah,

Explanation C: " Creationists have proposed a number of ideas for the
dramatic decrease in lifespans following the flood of Noah's time. One
was that conditions before the flood caused much less ultraviolet
light from the sun to impact the earth, and that this allowed for
longer life spans. The latest proposal is that it is due to the
genetic bottleneck that would have been caused by the flood, causing
loss of longevity genes." (Wikipedia,
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: pugwashjw-ga on 29 Jun 2005 18:38 PDT
The Wickipedia answer supplied by Politicalguru implies that Enoch was
'taken' by God 'without' dying. To many people, this could be taken to
mean that he was transported to heaven. When the scripture at John
3;13 is taken into account, "Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven
, but he [Jesus] that desc ended from heaven, the son of man". So
Enoch did die an earthly death, but in a way known only to God, that
probably caused no pain or discomfort. It is possible that because of
Enoch's judgement against the ungodly [ Jude 14,15]he was in mortal
danger from them and was rescued from a cruel death. The Bible says
little in the way of explanations, but if all the scriptures are
considered, it is possible to clarify the situation. Enoch's body,
like that of Moses, was nowhere to be found. Deuteronomy 34; 5,6 &
Jude 9.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: halejrb-ga on 29 Jun 2005 18:56 PDT
I like the idea of confusing lunar months with solar years.  But it
just doesn't hold up.  The ancient Jews knew how to tell time and they
knew the difference between a month and a year.  It's hard to see how
mis-translations could account for fantastic life spans. One of the
Dead Sea Scrolls contains a copy of the Book of Isaiah.  It's a couple
thousand years old and yet it's almost word for word the same writing
that's been passed down through the centuries.  The bottom line:  The
Jews didn't make errors or "mis- translations" in copying their sacred
texts.  Also if the month/year confusion was due to mis-translations
some linguist would have discovered it by now.

My own theory is that the Book of Genesis is fiction.  Some highly
intelligent thinker (call him Moses) was wondering how the world came
to be and why men have to work so hard.  So he derived a creation
story that is not that far off from the Big Bang theory and the theory
of evolution.   The idea of the Fall of Man is not that different from
the idea of the evolution of consciousness. The evolution of
consciousness is the equivelant of eating from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil.  Once men became conscious beings they
realized that they were different from other animals and that the
world was not a garden.  In short Genesis is a remarkable intellectual

But just as Homer added gods and goddesses in writing about the
history of the Trojan War, so too the author of Genesis couldn?t'
resist exaggerating.   Hence we get extreme life spans, world wide
floods, talking snakes etc.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: pugwashjw-ga on 29 Jun 2005 19:16 PDT
Dear Halejrb. Consider this. All the books of the Bible were written
over 1500 years. And they have a common theme. The restoration of man,
through Jesus, back to perfection. No one Bible writer ever denies
what another has written. 40 men over 1500 years? The thought of only
one mans ideas, in this case, Moses, exaggerating life spans, floods
and snakes being totally supported by all those other writers is
really stretching credibility. One single scripture covers the whole
Bible. 2Timothy 3;16 "All scripture is inspired of God....
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: fruitfly_-ga on 30 Jun 2005 01:49 PDT
Hi all!!
I agree  - it's a very interesting question. But ? hey - it's also one
that DOES have the aswer, so there's no need to say something like
?It's all a lie? in resignation.
(I hope the length of the post won't discourage you from reading it ? )

As it was mentioned,some have concluded that the years listed in the
Bible for these men must have been shorter, perhaps only a month in
length. However, it's very easily ruled out; this does not agree with
the context in which the Bible mentions the age at which men such as
Kenan and Mahalalel died:
 ?Kenan lived on for seventy years. Then he became father to
Mahalalel. And after his fathering Mahalalel Kenan continued to live
eight hundred and forty years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and
daughters. So all the days of Kenan amounted to nine hundred and ten
years and he died. And Mahalalel lived on for sixty-five years. Then
he became father to Jared.? (Gen. 5:12-15)
Now, if we were to replace the word ?years? with ?months,? this would
mean that both Kenan and Mahalalel became fathers before they were six
years old. This certainly is unreasonable! ?:-)
I can find you more proofs in the Bible that deal with this way of
reasoning, but I guess this will do. If not ? say so.

Next, I just dont get the logic that stands behind trying to explain
this question by ?confusing lunar with solar years and/or months????
The Bible speaks of ?lunar months.? (Ex. 2:2; Deut. 21:13; 33:14; Ezra
6:15) Our modern months are not lunar months, for they are not
determined by the moon. They are merely 12 ARBITRARY divisions of the
solar year. A lunar month is a month that is determined by the new
moon. There are four phases of the moon, which make up one lunation
averaging 29 days, 12 hours, and 44 minutes. One has only to look at
the shape of the moon to tell approximately the day of the lunar
month. Neat, huh?
Until the time of Christ, most nations used lunar years for counting
time, employing various ways of adjusting the year to coincide more or
less with the solar year. The common lunar year of 12 lunar months has
354 days, with the months having 29 or 30 days, depending on the
appearance of each new moon. The lunar year is therefore about 11 1/4
days short of the true solar year of 365 1/4 days.
The Hebrews followed the lunar year. Just how they adjusted this year
to coincide with the solar year and the seasons is not explained in
the Bible, but they must have added additional, or intercalary months
when needed. The arrangement of intercalary months was later
systematized in the fifth century B.C.E. into what is now known as the
Metonic cycle. This allowed for the intercalary month to be added
seven times every 19 years, and in the Jewish calendar, it was added
after the 12th month, Adar, and was called Veadar, or ?second Adar.?
As the lunar calendar is thus adjusted to the sun, the years, which
are of 12 (or 13!) months, are known as lunisolar years.
The bottom line is the lunar and solar years (thanks to that
intercalary month) come to the same!
So even if they were confused (wich they weren't) ? so WHAT!?

Next ? thanks Pugwash; you have nicely explained what the Bible says
about Enoch's death.
And also you, Halejrb, you've got it right; Dead Sea Scrolls nicely
proove there were no mistakes in copying the Biblical text through the
However, before we start saying ?I guess it's...? ?My idea is that...?
,  a word of caution:
You all know very well there are more opinions on a certain subject
than there are people participating the discussion. :)
Obviously - it's impossible to reach an agreeable conclusion without
having a reference.
If the subject is ?say- languages, the reference is  grammar and
dictionary. But if we talk about the Bible, the reference is not
peoples' impressions and opinions on the Bible, but the Bible itself!
So, finally, let's see what the Bible has to say on the subject:

In the perfect state, Adam?s body had the potential of being SUSTAINED
forever and that would also have been true of other sinless humans.
But, through his disobedience, he ruined his perfection and this
shortened his life-span and that of his descendants. ("...just as
through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin,  and
thus death spread to all men...")?Rom. 5:12.
Another point: Adam's eternal life (not immortallity ? the Bible makes
a distinction between the two, but that's a different subject) was not
something he had as his property. It was a GIFT, SUSTAINED by Jehovah!
 So, since man was created to enjoy an endless life-span, it logically
follows that Adam and his early descendants must have lived far longer
than their later descendants who were FARTHER REMOVED from perfection.
This is exactly what the Bible shows to have been the case. After the
great flood of Noah?s day that occurred over sixteen centuries from
the time of Adam?s creation, human life span dropped sharply. Among
those born after the Flood, life span continued to decline more
Adam 930
Seth 912
Enosh 905
Kenan 910
Mahalalel 895
Jared 962
Methuselah 969
Lamech 777
Noah 950
Shem 600
Arpachshad 438
Shelah 433
Eber 464
Peleg 239
Reu 239
Serug 230
Nahor 148
Terah 205
Abraham 175...
...and than we have Moses who says (in 15th century BC) ?In themselves
the days of our years are seventy years;  And if because of special
mightiness they are eighty years,...?(Ps 90:10) The same we would say
if asked, don't you agree?
(N.B. life span and life expectancy are not the same!; if you were 40
or 50 in Moses' time, you wouldn't be considered old just like you
wouldn't today. People don't live longer today than 1000 years ago.
It's only that there are more people who live to their old days and
less infants' deaths, so the AVERAGE!! is higher!!)

Anyway, we can see  ? further from perfection ? physical and moral
decay becomes more prominent.

Hence, according to the Bible, men once did live for centuries. 
But this is of more than passing interest. It testifies to the fact
that God?s original purpose for man was that he might enjoy an endless
life-span. This purpose will yet be realized when Jehovah God fulfills
his word to bring into existence an earth free from sickness, pain and
death.?Rev. 21:3, 4.
Knowing that it is not easy for people in our position to believe it,
it adds further on:
 "Write,  because these words are faithful and true."
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: adiloren-ga on 30 Jun 2005 20:52 PDT
It's a metaphor and it is much more than a factor of 10. People didn't
even live until 90 years back then.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: fruitfly_-ga on 01 Jul 2005 00:37 PDT
Hmmm... seems many still don't understand the difference between
lifespan and life expectancy?

See... Life expectancy in our time is - say- 74-75. This means the
statistics say people on average live that long. It doesn't mean
people don't die at the age of 100. Nor that you won't get sick and
die at 40. it only means that when you add up the age of all the
deceised ones and divide that number by their number, you've got the
AVERAGE age of their death!

Now you may think 'but it may be that majority of people really die at
their let's say 67, but those that died at 99 raise the average?'

Precisely!!! And to be more specific, life expectancy has increased in
the last decades VASTLY because the infants death rate has
significantly decreased due to the good health care. And since we
speak about an AVERAGE - less children die - higer the life
So it's not that people suddenly started to live longer!
This number doesn't even represent the age at wich MOST people die,
let alone a number of years that can't be surpassed.

When we talk about the number of the years we are LIMITED to live, we
talk about life span. (Logically, it is always higher than life

Let's put all of this into the perspective:
When Moses says ?In themselves the days of our years are seventy
years;  And if because of special mightiness they are eighty
years,...? he is talking about life span. It's very unlikely they were
keeping statistics in the desert like we do today and calculated life
expectancy. :) But even if he was refering the life expectancy, 70-80
years would still be the same like in our time!

So.. the people they were calling old were of the same age like the
people we would call old nowdays; if somebody died at 45, people would
say 'too bad; he died YOUNG'. They wouldn't call him old even if on
average (life EXPECTANCY) people lived 45. That's a mere average, and
since the medicine was not like ours, it's only natural that ON
AVERAGE they lived shorter.
But they life span was just like ours - they were old when 70-80 .
Hope that makes it clear.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: ilmag-ga on 06 Jul 2005 09:58 PDT
adiloren - How do you know that people didn't live that long back
then?  How are you certain that it is a metaphor?  What are your
sources?  Do you have any historical sources from the same era that
show otherwise?  If so, please share.  I would be interested in
reading them.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: fruitfly_-ga on 06 Jul 2005 14:38 PDT
The Encyclop?dia Britannica (Macrop?dia, Vol. 10, p. 911) states: ?The
exact duration of human life is unknown, although there is presumably
a maximum life-span for the human race established in the genetic
material. At first thought, this statement seems irrational. Surely no
human being can live 1,000 years. Even though all may agree that the
likelihood of an individual living 1,000 years is infinitesimal, there
is no scientific proof that this statement is or is not true.?

Accordingly, from a scientific standpoint, no absolute evidence can be
presented to prove or to disprove what the Bible says about the long
life-span of certain men in ancient times.
The Biblical statements, therefore, stand on their own merit.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: sachinkotak108-ga on 21 Jul 2005 09:59 PDT
It is not just bible history where people lived for almost a thousand
years. Vedic (Indian) history and scripture also agrees. This comes
from the idea that there are four ages of eternal time called yugas.
Those who lived in earlier yugas had a longer lifespan and used more
of their brain (i.e. we only use upto 10% today)! These four ages /
yugas are...

Satya-yuga (Golden Age) - 1,728,000 human years
Life span - 100,000 years

Treta-yuga (Silver Age) - 1,296,000 human years
Life span - 10,000 years

Dvapara-yuga (Copper Age) - 864,000 human years
Life span - 1,000 years
** age of Biblical times **

Kali-yuga (Iron Age) - 432,000 human years
Life span - 100 years
** we are 5000 years into this age **

More information can be found on

Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: justme22-ga on 26 Aug 2005 12:52 PDT
One simple fact seems to escape those who don't think Adam and others
lived to be over 900 years literaly. That fact is that bible dates and
chronology are accurate and if 900 years were something different then
years then bible dates would be way out of whack as to when specific
people such as certain kings and so forth lived, however secular
history confirms bibles dates as regards all information that has been
uncovered by archeologists.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: zerosystem-ga on 08 Sep 2005 09:23 PDT
I'm posting my "answer" in to comments section because no one else
than God could answer this question properly.

If you read the book of genesis 1:7 God seperated the water under the
firmament from the water above the firmament, the firmament wich he
called heaven in verse 8. In genesis 7:11 The Bible speaks of the
windows of heaven being opened and water pouring out of it.

One could speculate that in the days of Noah, there was a physical
barrier that contained large ammounts of water, which caused the
athmosphere to have different pressure and humidity values than
today's. It is believed by some CHristian scientist that these
conditions werefavorable for a long life span. (this theory resembles
the paleonthologist's theory that in order for the dinosaures, which
were enormous, needed higher pressure and humidity to live)

Further more, after Noah's flood, The longevity of man started
decreasing, due to the athmosphere changing to what we now have.

You should not take this "answer" as a truth because it is not founded
on facts(like the big bang and darwin's theory) it is a plausible
explanation to why poeple lived longer back then

I hope you are satisfied with this answer
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: dofknoxville-ga on 20 Sep 2005 21:30 PDT
Hello I will answer this question as quick as I can. The long ages of
these people are simply to show that they are important. They did not
actually live that long. The bible is not something that you tmust do
a background check on by using the writings, geography, and culture of
the time it was written.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: halejrb-ga on 21 Sep 2005 11:47 PDT
Ok dofknoxville, I like your theory that the writer of Genesis gave
people long life spans to show they were important.  However, what do
you base this theory on?  Do you have any evidence that ancient Jews
exaggerated life spans as a literary device to show respect for
important people?  Do you have any evidence that fibbing about life
spans was common in Jewish culture back then?
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: spartacusyentl-ga on 29 Sep 2005 01:41 PDT

Your logic is flawed and diplays the inherent problems when discussing
science with religion.

You stated:
"The Encyclop?dia Britannica (Macrop?dia, Vol. 10, p. 911) states: ?The
exact duration of human life is unknown, although there is presumably
a maximum life-span for the human race established in the genetic
material. At first thought, this statement seems irrational. Surely no
human being can live 1,000 years. Even though all may agree that the
likelihood of an individual living 1,000 years is infinitesimal, there
is no scientific proof that this statement is or is not true.?

Accordingly, from a scientific standpoint, no absolute evidence can be
presented to prove or to disprove what the Bible says about the long
life-span of certain men in ancient times.
The Biblical statements, therefore, stand on their own merit."

Scientists do not make a statement as theory and then say "Prove me wrong!"
They use evidence from experimental practice to make their claims. We
have not had any evidence of anyone in recorded history (3000 years at
least) live past 130, let alone 1000. Why not make it 10000 while
you're at it.

If you're going to use the Bible as your proof for anything, your not
going to get much credibility in the scientific community. Save some
of that kool-aid for your congregation!
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: dofknoxville-ga on 20 Oct 2005 15:10 PDT
I get my view from Old Testament Class at a Catholic Seminary. I
remember the teacher covering this during one class and this is
basically what he said.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: dofknoxville-ga on 20 Oct 2005 17:54 PDT
I have found some stuff to confirm what I said as a better source. I
found this in my Old Testament textbook "Reading the Old Testament An
Introduction by Lawrence Boadt. What I am going to say comes from page
123 in the book which describes this as from the Priestly Source.
"What has always interested readers is the long lifespan in the
Priestly Source. This was not intended as proof that humans lived to
such ripe old ages in the first days of the world, but a device to
show just how vast a distance seprates our own world experiance from
that of the story itself. The "myth" if enormous lifespans was
commonly used in the ancient world to show the superiority of the
person being descirbed. "
A list of Sumerian kings also makes this huge lifespan claim.
King Alulin 28, 800yrs
King Alagar 36, 000yrs
and etc.
Even some Hindu Traditions do this when they tell of humans who lived
to be 8,400,000 years old.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: guru_ghantal-ga on 16 Nov 2005 13:53 PST
I have an entirely different take on it ... according to theory of
relativity, time is actually relative. So, my hypotheses is that a
"year" at that "time" may not be same as the "year" today.

According to big bang theory, all galaxies are moving farther and
farther away, and they are doing that at a faster rate than before.
So, as we move faster and faster, time slows. But the definition of a
year is the amount of time earth takes to go around the sun. So, the
"year" now is bigger than the year before - Simple - eh!!
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: chrisy2sweet-ga on 17 Nov 2005 10:54 PST
pugwashjw, you really helped me a lot with a paper i'm doing on the
life span of man. Are you a Jehovah's Witness?
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: bradleelandis-ga on 17 Nov 2005 15:35 PST
I've always been told that the ultraviolant rays were fewer, like
pugwashjw-ga mentioned. Maybe because the earth was newer than it is
now, and the atmosphere was in better condition.

Also, there were fewer bacterias and viruses back then and the ones
that they had weren't as developed as they are now. Plus, there were
fewer people for bacteria to spread.

Personally, I'm not sure if Genesis is fictional or true. But I still
believe in God and the Bible.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: fractl-ga on 01 Dec 2005 09:16 PST
While I will concede that anything is possible, and that disproving a
900 year lifespan cannot be done.  At some point one should consider
that the astronomical improbability of a 500+ year life (and sucessful
reproduction after centuries have passed) happening to so many
biblical figures by chance alone makes the idea virtually impossible. 
Indeed, it's more likely that every translator to read the passage has
made the same error than it is to accept so many extrodanary events
occuring by coincidence alone.

This question is one of many that really strike a chord with me.  I
love the concept of meta-logic, stepping outside of a system to
examine the system itself.  This is done quite often in mathematics
and philosophy, and usually results in revolutionary approaches to
various problems.  Attempts to apply this logic to the Bible tends to
hit a wall, however.  The main reason being that people try to prove
the bibles credibility by citing it.  Not suprisingly, it more often
than not agrees with itself.

The two immediate solutions to your question are:
A. The bible is correct and the figures did, in fact, live as long as it reports.
If one accepts A as true the next step would be reaserching the
possible reason for there to be such a change from the time of Adam
and Methuselah to modern day.  Perhaps simply saying they had a closer
relationship with god, they were closer to perfection, or that there
was a higher miracle per capita ratio then than there is now (its
tough to pay attention to 6,000,000,000 people and still make time to
raise the sun each day).

or B.  The Bible (or at least its interpretation) is incorrect.

This becomes shaky ground, because the validity of the entire religion
rests on the credibility of the Bible.  There are many possible
scenarios here, as well.
Perhaps its a translation error, perhaps it should not be taken
literally, perhaps the whole book is wrong (although this one
discrepancy is harldy enough to support a claim like this).  I'm
concerned that people who feel strongly about religion will
unthinkingly accept the Bibles word, and support any explanation that
proves it consistant.  It's important to realize that doubting the
text does not mean you doubt the events that formed Christianity. 
Perhaps a mistake has been made in translation, wouldn't discovering
the true story only make you more faithful?

I won't presume to know an answer, but I ask people considering this
problem to look beyond the words of a book.  Don't support your claims
on circular logic alone, the only thing that says the Bible is 100%
correct is the Bible itself.  You can question the Bible without
doubting the Word of God.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: damonhoppe-ga on 08 Dec 2005 04:48 PST
Sorry to dispell the great mystery here...Its a simple
misunderstanding...caused by imposing out understanding on time on a
different people...They are not solar years or even lunar ones...The
years refer to events...

The idea of time divided into discrete units based on an objective critera...

The tribe of the Hebrews, was oral tradition and thus did not use such
a measuring technique until much later in life, probably obtained from
the Egyptains.

Rather they measured in the same way we would talk about our personal
lives...In the year of 'the flood', in year of 'the famine' etc. So
someone who had many years by their name probably lived in interesting
times, but may of in fact lived a shorter life, due to all that
stress, than someone with less events and therefore less years next to
thier name...Or so I was told just yesterday (what a concidence) by my
local Biblical Expert and scholar Father Simeon when somone else
brought it up...
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: halejrb-ga on 08 Dec 2005 16:31 PST
An interesting theory Damonhoppe.  I have to ask though:  Who is
Father Simeon?  What are his credentials?  What is his source for this
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: sheryll-ga on 12 Feb 2006 17:10 PST
We are currently using the Julian Calendar that was made after the Old
Testament. They had a different calendar to base their time/date on.
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: doooode-ga on 02 May 2006 18:49 PDT
Hello, i beleive that people in the Old Testament did live this long
because if Adam didnt live as long as he did .. would it be possible
for him to have so many babies to repopulate the earth?
Subject: Re: Human life span in the Bible
From: myoarin-ga on 03 May 2006 08:33 PDT
Good point, Dooode, something to bring up on the next question about creationism.
How does it deal with this little problem?  Hmmm?  Well, it doesn't
seem that there was anything against incest until Moses, a couple of
books later, and Adam and Eve and Cain had no faulty genes to cause
problems, but:

4:16    And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in
the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
4:17	And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he
builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his
son, Enoch.

Where did all those folks in Nod come from, enough to populate a city???

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy