Ages of People in Genesis

[ghost7584]

MarcacJust a note: The day (time taken for the Earth complete one revolution) is lengthening and has been lengthening and probably will continue to lengthen. The current rate is approximated to about 0.0017 seconds per day per century, however this varies on the small scale. Extrapolating back to 2500 yrs ago the day length may have been 4 hrs short of what it is now [Learn more]. Additionally, the month lengthens as the Moon slowly recedes from the Earth and thus takes longer to complete one revolution of it. When, considered these may aid in the explanation of the remarkable ages mentioned in the Bible.

Biblical years of the Hebrews in the old testament are 360 days per year. Not the 365.25 days in our years.

 

[ghost7584]

dreamwalker
As far as I know, our body cannot even use all the vitamins that we ingest every day (assuming you live in the land of plenty ), so I do not suppose that intaking even more vitamins will help in any way.

No. The real truth is from the nutritional books I studied, by the time you get the food from the supermarket the vitamin content has gone way down. Food that is fresh out of the fields is loaded with vitamins, and fresh killed meat has alot of vitamins. The days and weeks and months (for canned goods) that goes by before you get the food, causes the vitamin content to go way down. The minimum daily vitamin requirement of vitamin bottles was originally designed for the least amount of vitamins necessary to keep a soldier alive in World War 1. The nutritional book said that to be really healthy, you need about 8 times the minimum daily requirement of everything. To significantly slow down aging you would need more than that. To stop aging, more than that. To heal your age and start getting younger, more than that still.

 

[ghost7584]

Yorda

On tv they told the true story of a man from England that lived hundreds of years ago. It is recorded history. He lived over 150. He was a farmer, which makes sense because farmers get fresh food loaded with vitamins, right out of the field and have access to freshly killed meat which also has alot of vitamins. He said he ate "oatmeal in the morning, bread in the afternoon and meat and potatoes at night". The king of England heard how old he was and took him to live in London. After eating the King's food for a few months, he died.

 

[§outh§tar]

I wonder, does he have diarrhea everyday from taking all that?

 

[Prester John]

The unprecedented rise in social development of the Sumarians that cannot be explained by evolution is scientific data.

Stop right there!
before you go any further do you....

ooops sorry Meatloaf mode

Anyway

That would be because evolution doesn't explain social development. Its like criticising a cooker because its 0-60mph acceleration is rubbish.

I think it sets the tone for the rest of the post.

sigh

 

[Prester John]

Yorda

On tv they told the true story of a man from England that lived hundreds of years ago. It is recorded history. He lived over 150. He was a farmer, which makes sense because farmers get fresh food loaded with vitamins, right out of the field and have access to freshly killed meat which also has alot of vitamins. He said he ate "oatmeal in the morning, bread in the afternoon and meat and potatoes at night". The king of England heard how old he was and took him to live in London. After eating the King's food for a few months, he died.

I don't suppose theres any chance you could provide a reference for this......... er recorded history?

 

[Silas]

The unprecedented rise in social development of the Sumarians that cannot be explained by evolution is scientific data. The Sumarian clay texts are qualified data also.

Biological evolution as I understand it has nothing to do with social development. Texts are not "scientific data" in the sense that I meant it. Those texts had one ancient king ruling for 65,000 years. Do you believe that text just because it says so? What is written on them is not evidence of what actually happened, since they were written by human beings, and human beings are capable of creating fiction. They are simply evidence of the kind of people the Sumerians were (and the Hebrews in the case of the Bible).

Scientists, today, are not in a position to judge past events when they theoretically reject forms and sources of data. The bible claims beings that are referenced non-biblical sources.

Scientists have to work with what will be accepted by rational people - questioning, skeptical people. That is why they deal with physical evidence that anyone can examine, and repeatable experiments. It could never become the scientific consensus that giants existed solely on textual evidence because it only takes one person to say, "What if they made it up?" and that's such a reasonable point, the case collapses completely. Science deals for the most part for what is definitely there. Science does not say that there were no giants nor long lived people, it states only that the evidence shows that primitive man was generally smaller and shorter-lived than modern man.

Your limiting the motivations of those who conncocted the story to create religions is specious and without any attempt on your part to justify your statement. The exception is the rather smug elevation of the scientific community as the only qualified interpreters of our history.

Your outré claim of a different race of ancient beings needs more than textual reference for me to accept it. And I didn't say a single thing about concocting a story to create religions, in fact I have great admiration for the great storytellers and mythmakers of the past. The stories were frequently nothing to do with religion, and were co-opted into it at a later date.

If you were correct regarding the age of the author of the post you responded to is also specious, even if you guessed corectly. 21 year olds have minds and reasoning powers and desires to learn the truth without qualification.

ghost specifically claimed to be in his fifties. I wasn't claiming he was too young to think or reason, I was claiming he was too young to pretend he was in his fifties. I now believe him, thank you.

By you paring off huge volumes of unanalyzed material is criminaly without penalty. I suppose the free speech philiosophies save you this time (as I have been save by previous, and even current, hpocirisy).

Again, I stated the absence of any physical evidence for such incredible beings, and will retain my skepticism about them until something other than a mythological tale points to their existence. This is not hypocrisy, because it would be hypocritical for me to behave in any other way.

I can guess your age. It has been approximately 55 since you were 21 biolgical year and smugly adopted the professorial pronouncements of scientific truth and history.

Wrong, though it makes no difference to me. I'm a little concerned about your ad hominem attacks on me, but I'll leave that be. I turn 40 in May, but I would say the same if I was 21 or if indeed I was 76 as you seem to think. I'm not really sure what difference my age makes, as long as I'm reasonably experienced and educated enough.

Yours is a lazy mind, and I insult you not, as even my "smug" charge was not insulting, well not intended as such.

But saying that I have a lazy mind is not insulting? Well, I'm really not one to hold a grudge, but I would point at the boring length my posts go to and suggest that there is at least some evidence that I think about what I write here. Please do not accuse me of having a lazy mind simply because you disagree with me. I'm sure you have good reasons for thinking the way you do, and have thought them through.

This post is, partially, the recordation of an observation. I sob to consider that you would consider your present biological age as too advanced for serious modification, so I predict you will maintain your separation from various sections of the library and will continue to answer posts as you answered the last post, that is, with a stilted and time worn echo of academic dogma: AKA The Mental Fire of the Academic Sloth - Only My System is of Value..

Oh, no - "stilted and timeworn" - I've bored someone! I'm heartily sorry for this.

There are the Sumarian Clay Texts which qualify as "evidence". (See zecharia sitchin and his Story of the Smarians - well documented and rational)

Oh, yes - the author of the twelve-volume epic The Earth Chronicles. It's safe to say that he bases his conclusions upon this question he frames in the early pages of his first book (available to read at amazon.com):

The real puzzle, however, is not the backwardness of the Bushmen, but our advancement; for it is now recognized that in the normal course of evolution Man should still be typified by the Bushmen and not by us. It took Man some 2,000,000 years to advance in his "tool industries" from the use of stones as he found them to the realization that he could chip and shape stones to better suit his purposes. Why not another 2,000,000 years to learn the use of other materials, and another 10,000,000 years to master mathematics and engineering and astronomy? Yet here we are, less than 50,000 years from Neanderthal Man landing astronauts on the moon.

The obvious question, then, is this: Did we and our Mediterranean ancestors really acquire this advanced civilization on our own?​

Strangely, given the absolutely exponential curve in learning, technology and achievement by humankind only in the last century, I do not find this a convincing argument. Or were Michael Faraday, James Clark Maxwell, Max Planck and Albert Einstein aliens sent to advance us another stage? Humans speak to each other and pass knowledge on and that knowledge is built on straight away by each succeeding generation. That's why memes work much faster than genes, and do not require millions of years to make their mark.

You are somewhat pitiful as you are restricted in information to the simple minded denial of the accuracy of your excluded data. You cannot carry on the simplest conversation, by your admission, with anyone except to hog the conversation with smug demeaning of data of which you have absolutely no familiarity.

My rejection of nutjob theories like those of Mr. Sitchin is about as far from pitiful as you can get.

Some more non-science: Personally I would not want to be perceived by a significant number of the public (one or more) as I perceive you. I believe (yes the religious believe type) that you do not want the same perception of yourself.

Indeed, I don't particularly want to be perceived the way that you perceive me, but unfortunately I have no control over your perceptions. I made what I thought was a reasonable point. As an atheist I did ghost the courtesy of arguing with him on his own terms, ie the Bible.

You may avoid this crippling state of affairs (mentality) by appreciating that someone is trying to help you includinvg me) without the inferred quid pro quo. You don't have to answer to me for anything. You need not thank me or tell me to go to hell as I will treat both kinds of responses equally. I divert them to the trash barrell.

I've taken the trouble of reading your post and indeed answering it, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy to me? Because you've somehow read something in my post that paints me in your mind as a totally worthless person? I wish I could even determine what it was in what I said that produced this stream of vitriol, but it beats me.

Why not just treat what is proposed to you on face value, not on precious, and basiclly worthless scientific constructs. I say this because you and I both know neither has a structure of scientific credibility that is impervious to slow or rapid change. Why run from the inevitable. Of all the wonders I yet have heard it seems to me most strange that one would fear, knowing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.

There was a point of view emerging that man used to live longer and I simply pointed out the fact that there was no evidence to suggest it. That even casual experiential evidence would suggest the exact opposite - that thanks to hygiene and advances in medical technology, humans are living far longer now than they ever have in the past. All the vitamins in the world will not make up for the fact that pharmaceutical knowledge was primitive and hygiene was zero.

Pax

Geistkiesel.

You say pax as if you haven't repeatedly denigrated my opinions and my person as worthless. I would not do the same to you.

 

[Silas]

The first suspicion is derived from your handle: ghost7584. It's not uncommon for people with four digits after a name for those digits to represent their date of birth, in which case although you could be as old as 30, you're more likely to be just 21.

That handle comes from posting on deja.com or google, 5 years ago. The numbers may have been given when I tried to use ghost and it was already being used.

I apologise and accept your explanation completely.

As you believe every word of the King James Bible, I think you would do better to assume what the Bible is clearly intending you to assume from these outstanding ages: that the patriarchs were especially blessed by God, and being directly descended from the original Creation, the first Man, had more of a fill of the Spirit of God and consequently lived for much longer.

What you are saying here cannot be true because Methuselah, the one that is recorded to live the longest, died in Noah's flood. Everyone that died in Noah's flood was evil, that is why God destroyed them in a flood.

What you say is true, Methuselah lived until the year of the Flood. But he achieved such an outstanding age of almost an entire millennium still speaks to me of supernatural means rather than vitamin intake.

 

[spidergoat]

I would say that people in the "civilised" West don't really live life as it should be lived.

True enough.

They were sophisticated only because the sons of God were with them and teached them, just as with the Mayans, Incas, the Greeks, Sumerians and Indians. Modern humans, I would say, are more primitive than the Egyptians and Greeks who lived so long ago. But there were also very primitive Egyptians at that time because of the cross-breeding.

All modern humans, and quite a few ancient ones had enormous brains, you don't give them enough credit. Why don't you want to believe we are capable of grand architecture? The structure of a pyramid is rather simple compared to the Parthenon.

I don't think the Egyptians could have built 2.3 million symmetrical rocks using simple tools.

Why not? Quarrying rock isn't too complex. Smoothing it is just a matter of chipping off the high points. The pyramid only looks perfect from far away. Up close, the surface is very rough.

People wonder how they could make the walls so smooth inside the pyramid, and they will not get answers if they think slaves built them.

It turns out many of the pyramid workers were not slaves, but professional masons.

The skeletons of the workers are not the workers who built the great pyramid.

Yes, they were. The whole community of workers was found in close proximity to the pyramids. They showed signs of heavy labor, there is no other explanation. Read National Geographic.

The great pyramid wasn't built by slaves.

Not entirely, but there was slave help. Remember Moses- "Let my people go"?

 

[Yorda]

All modern humans, and quite a few ancient ones had enormous brains, you don't give them enough credit. Why don't you want to believe we are capable of grand architecture? The structure of a pyramid is rather simple compared to the Parthenon.

A long time ago there were giants on earth who had much larger brains than the people today. The Sphinx is also built by them, but it's much older than the pyramids. The size of the Parthenon is rather small compared to the great pyramid.

Why not? Quarrying rock isn't too complex. Smoothing it is just a matter of chipping off the high points. The pyramid only looks perfect from far away. Up close, the surface is very rough.

It might not be complex, but it takes much time. I know the surface is very rough near the pyramid, but notice that it has been standing there for 5000 years.

It turns out many of the pyramid workers were not slaves, but professional masons.

It wasn't built with "hands" or simple tools.

Yes, they were. The whole community of workers was found in close proximity to the pyramids. They showed signs of heavy labor, there is no other explanation. Read National Geographic.

Why do you think they were the one's that built the great pyramids? There were many other palaces and structures in Egypt where slaves were used.

Not entirely, but there was slave help. Remember Moses- "Let my people go"?

Huh? The pyramids were already standing there at the time when Moses was there, the slaves were not building the great pyramid.

 

[spidergoat]

It wasn't built with "hands" or simple tools.

Why do you keep saying this?

A long time ago there were giants on earth who had much larger brains than the people today.

Tell your bedtime stories to your children.

It might not be complex, but it takes much time.

It did take a long time. Granite is very hard, but brittle.

I know the surface is very rough near the pyramid, but notice that it has been standing there for 5000 years.

And before the rock were quarried and sent up the Nile in barges it stood there for millions of years.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html

"We are lucky because we found this whole evidence of the workmen who built the pyramids and we found the artisans and Mark found the bakery and we found this settlement of the camp, and all the evidence, the hieroglyphical inscriptions of the overseer of the site of the Pyramid, the overseer of the west side of the Pyramid, the craftsman we found, the man who makes the statue of the overseer of the craftsman, the inspector of building tombs, director of building tombs -- I'm telling you all the titles. We found 25 unique new titles connected with these people. Then who built the pyramids? It was the Egyptians who built the pyramids. The Great Pyramid is dated with all the evidence, I'm telling you now to 4,600 years, the reign of Khufu. The Great Pyramid of Khufu is one of 104 pyramids in Egypt with superstructure. And there are 54 pyramids with substructure. There is support (that) the builders of the pyramids were Egyptians. They are not the Jews as has been said, they are not people from a lost civilization. They are not out of space. They are Egyptian and their skeletons are here, and were examined by scholars, doctors and the race of all the people we found are completely supporting that they are Egyptians."

 

[Yorda]

Why do you keep saying this?

Because I know it. How do you explain that Moses divided the sea? You simply say that it's a story, not real, because you're so proud of yourself, because you don't know the people who built the great pyramid.

Tell your bedtime stories to your children.

You just keep shut, it's not a story but history.

No comment other than!
You are hilarious -

You don't know the truth. I tell the truth. That's why it's funny.

 

[spidergoat]

Because I know it.

You make a compelling argument, I must grudgingly accept that the weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly against actual humans participating in the building of a monument to the human ruler of one of the greatest human civilizations on Earth.

 

[Roman]

Have we ever found skeletal evidence of giant humans?

It seems to me, the more old bones we find, the smaller people become. We just discovered a race of hobbit people, but we have yet to discover a Numenorean race of 6'5" strong men.

Height is an attractive attribute; one that denotes power and success. Tall people require more resources to grow and stay tall. Those who are tall have access to resources, and also the strength to continue exploiting them.
It is only natural that the heros and powerful men of any mythos are tall.
Short people just aren't all that imposing.

Your 'textual' evidence of a race of intelligent, powerful good natured tall people is inane. Even in Lord of the Rings, the old, powerful and righteous races were portrayed as tall. Compare the Elves and Numenorians to the likes of orcs and goblins.

Tall heros is probably the oldest literary device in history.

 

[MarcAC]

I'm sorry, I don't see how 0.0017 seconds multiplied by 25 gets to 4 hours (or 14,400 seconds)...

This result is not fully dependent on calculation. It is also dependent on observation; 'observation' of eclipse paths to be precise.

Eclipses tell a lot about the history of the Earth's spin on it's axis (if you assume the heliocentric Solar System ). The occurence of eclipse events are extracted from historical accounts. Some are in the Bible... others are in other texts - these are cross referenced with astronomical 'back calculations'.

Eclipses go through a variety of defined cycles. Basically you will have an eclipse going along the same path every 18 years or so. When you consider the location of some city and the fact that an eclipse was seen there like 2500 yrs ago (historical documents)... and then you consider now... and you realise that the eclipse path would miss that city by say 4 hrs - meaning 4 hrs of earth's spin - in other words the city would be 4hrs late in reaching the location of the shadow of the moon as opposed to 2500 yrs ago - you infer that the day has lengthened by 4 hrs since then.

Oh... one more thing I forgot to mention... the Earth is also moving away from the Sun... so the year is getting longer.

Nice huh?

Conservation of angular momentum (or energy if you wish) is the basic principle... but this is the Religion forum - Let's not go there.

 

[Yorda]

The mystery of the sphinx will not be revealed to you until you reveal your own mystery.
After they left, humans used the pyramids whatever way they liked.
I know it because I saw it, I experienced it.
The cube stands for matter.
An equilateral triangle stands for divinity.
The awakened man uses the bottom only as a ground to walk on, but expresses himself 4 times in the number 3.
The Zodiak, the 4 faces of God.
The circle and the two opposites in the material world.
Lions won't honor humans anymore...
The ark of the covenant wasn't mechanical.
An egg becomes a living thing when it's kept at the right conditions.
The body must have resistance.
What caused the flood? Sahara... the cross-breeding...

But that's the way it must be... so that you would become independent...

Have we ever found skeletal evidence of giant humans?

They stopped procreating themselves long time before the flood, there were only a few giants left in the place where the desert is now, when the flood came. They knew that the flood would come. Moses' body will never be found, there's nothing left, nowhere.

 

[spidergoat]

I must bow down before your superior mysticism.

All hail Yorda!