120 years
- Thread starter Lanolin
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I remeber reading that Jesus had a completley new set of chromosomes and even his blood type was different from what humans had at the time.
From my knowledge of biology, sexual reproduction happens when two sets of chromosomes join and get copied but it all gets mixed up and a new DNA is formed (everyone has two pairs of alleles, and they cross over and so everyone ends up with a mixture of one random set from each parent) That is why, children have their fathers nose and their mums eyes etc.
But in asexual reproduction, the DNA just copies itself or it splits up and copies. If this what happened with Jesus then all the DNA had come from Mary (not Joseph) and what would have happened is that the DNA had just split and copied and then rearranged itself perfectly to form Jesus. Mary already had all the DNA or genes required.
From my knowledge of biology, sexual reproduction happens when two sets of chromosomes join and get copied but it all gets mixed up and a new DNA is formed (everyone has two pairs of alleles, and they cross over and so everyone ends up with a mixture of one random set from each parent) That is why, children have their fathers nose and their mums eyes etc.
But in asexual reproduction, the DNA just copies itself or it splits up and copies. If this what happened with Jesus then all the DNA had come from Mary (not Joseph) and what would have happened is that the DNA had just split and copied and then rearranged itself perfectly to form Jesus. Mary already had all the DNA or genes required.
The other explanation would be that Mary was only the host and Jesus was not connected at all with Marys DNA but then that would have been a cuckoo in the nest situation, (or surrogacy) I dont know if thats what happened though because Jesus was recongnisably Jewish he didnt look completely different from everyone else.
O
Deuteronomy 3:11 For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.
The cubit of a man is measured from his elbow to the tip of his fingers which is about 18 inches. If a grown man would measure himself today it would be the same. So, using those measurements his bed was 13.5 ft X 6 ft.
The cubit of a man is measured from his elbow to the tip of his fingers which is about 18 inches. If a grown man would measure himself today it would be the same. So, using those measurements his bed was 13.5 ft X 6 ft.
The Bible verse about this is: "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years "
The sons of God (meaning saved persons) had mingled with the daughters of men (unsaved) and God made that statement. However, God says 'yet' - meaning despite this fact. Yet his days shall be. The number 120 is a multiple of 12 and in my opinion this simply means that just as the 12 twelve tribes of Israel are a picture of all saved persons (including saved Christians) so God has saved the persons he has saved to keep them as his own. The term days is used to indicate that Christ is with the saved persons. God called the light day in Genesis 1. The light is Jesus. Jesus is day. As long as Jesus is with us it is called day. So, saying that despite the fact that persons had become evil, yet God would still save a group of persons out of the world: "yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years"
The sons of God (meaning saved persons) had mingled with the daughters of men (unsaved) and God made that statement. However, God says 'yet' - meaning despite this fact. Yet his days shall be. The number 120 is a multiple of 12 and in my opinion this simply means that just as the 12 twelve tribes of Israel are a picture of all saved persons (including saved Christians) so God has saved the persons he has saved to keep them as his own. The term days is used to indicate that Christ is with the saved persons. God called the light day in Genesis 1. The light is Jesus. Jesus is day. As long as Jesus is with us it is called day. So, saying that despite the fact that persons had become evil, yet God would still save a group of persons out of the world: "yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years"
Well the discussion pre-flood sons of God isn't on topic so I won't comment on that...but I will say that I had a LONG reply typed out addressing many points and I feel that it's a pretty solid "minor" issue that isn't salvific so I'll refrain...
So also though the 120 years is considered by most to be "minor".
It's actually one of my few questions that I had when I was in college...I asked someone who was all about people asking him hard questions and to me this IS a hard one.
and unfortunately I was brushed off. Like if scripture says no man shall live past 120 years and then Aaron did...umm?
Is there some error in scripture or what?
People have posted other examples of people that did after this was said. Sure reads to me like 120 years is the cap for human longevity.
For people that don't say that is what that verse means...does it not seem odd that no one lived past 200 post flood (excepting those that were born before the flood)...so then it certainly seems that this is what that scripture meant.
Any claims that people lived past 120 are dubious at best without proper records. You hear stories of mystics/gurus/yogis etc. etc. Living to be 130 or even 121 (just to exceed what the bible says by a year) but cannot be verified.
I did hear when I was in middle school that the odds of someone living 116+ is 1/2,000,000,000 which I carried with me as a reallly cool statistic for some time. I forgot about it until now and maybe that was based on the average amount of people living past that time. Either way, past 90 is rare and past 99 seems very very rare.
I only know of one person my parents loosely knew that got to either 98 or 99 and that's the oldest person I came across. My great aunt was born in 1919 and died in her late 90s also. I'll try to find the obituary and confirm.
but then Aaron and I think Isaac, Jacob or Joseph? I know there's another one somewhere. Someone mentioned it I'm sure but I cba to go back and reread (apologies).
The only explanation that I've heard is that Jewish year counting was pretty vague or somehow different than the way we count. Doesn't really make much sense because even Native Americans counted "winters". How do you not even know how old you are? Is it possible that they were just poor personal historians? That'd make no sense to be honest because other people would have recollections of their ages.
A year is a long time, it'd be pretty difficult to lose track of it. I've lost track of what the date is but not ever the month and certainly not the year. Doesn't happen often though and even if I lived near the equator with little sense of time (I can let time go mostly and stop counting the days if in the right set/setting) there are still minor seasonal shifts and I just can't imagine losing track entirely of the year...or if I did, not being able to track it back down.
As I'm typing though I "guess" I could think of another explanation and it may be similar to the case of Enoch and Elijah. Which I suppose if taken at face value that makes sense. It is a strange one though because it doesn't "feel" the same way somehow. Or maybe it's just new to me to think about it like that. Not sure.
So also though the 120 years is considered by most to be "minor".
It's actually one of my few questions that I had when I was in college...I asked someone who was all about people asking him hard questions and to me this IS a hard one.
and unfortunately I was brushed off. Like if scripture says no man shall live past 120 years and then Aaron did...umm?
Is there some error in scripture or what?
People have posted other examples of people that did after this was said. Sure reads to me like 120 years is the cap for human longevity.
For people that don't say that is what that verse means...does it not seem odd that no one lived past 200 post flood (excepting those that were born before the flood)...so then it certainly seems that this is what that scripture meant.
Any claims that people lived past 120 are dubious at best without proper records. You hear stories of mystics/gurus/yogis etc. etc. Living to be 130 or even 121 (just to exceed what the bible says by a year) but cannot be verified.
I did hear when I was in middle school that the odds of someone living 116+ is 1/2,000,000,000 which I carried with me as a reallly cool statistic for some time. I forgot about it until now and maybe that was based on the average amount of people living past that time. Either way, past 90 is rare and past 99 seems very very rare.
I only know of one person my parents loosely knew that got to either 98 or 99 and that's the oldest person I came across. My great aunt was born in 1919 and died in her late 90s also. I'll try to find the obituary and confirm.
but then Aaron and I think Isaac, Jacob or Joseph? I know there's another one somewhere. Someone mentioned it I'm sure but I cba to go back and reread (apologies).
The only explanation that I've heard is that Jewish year counting was pretty vague or somehow different than the way we count. Doesn't really make much sense because even Native Americans counted "winters". How do you not even know how old you are? Is it possible that they were just poor personal historians? That'd make no sense to be honest because other people would have recollections of their ages.
A year is a long time, it'd be pretty difficult to lose track of it. I've lost track of what the date is but not ever the month and certainly not the year. Doesn't happen often though and even if I lived near the equator with little sense of time (I can let time go mostly and stop counting the days if in the right set/setting) there are still minor seasonal shifts and I just can't imagine losing track entirely of the year...or if I did, not being able to track it back down.
As I'm typing though I "guess" I could think of another explanation and it may be similar to the case of Enoch and Elijah. Which I suppose if taken at face value that makes sense. It is a strange one though because it doesn't "feel" the same way somehow. Or maybe it's just new to me to think about it like that. Not sure.
Thanks Lanolin. The way to read the Bible is by comparing scripture with scripture. We read about that in 1 Cor 2:"Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. " This means to compare scripture with scripture. So I was not retro-creative at all. Just doing what we are told to do by the author of the Bible. Nor was I reading backwards. I was simply looking at how the words in the scripture (you say you are interested in) have meaning throughout the book which God put together. If I had been individually creative, I would have missed the point, for God tells us that his word is not subject to individual interpretation: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. " Certainly, the Bible verse concerning 120 years would be relevant even to a person not aware of this fact, simply by considering that "And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. "
-
1
- Show all
Thanks for responding Lanolin. You seem to be implying that I have no reference in chronology? Although I have read the Bible from beginning to end, should I not refer back to any part of it that is relevant? Did God tell us to never go back to relevant parts of the Bible when we compare scripture with scripture? If that command were in the scripture I think your put down would be in order but it is not at all in scripture no matter how you feel we should read the Bible. Rather, I think you have come up with rule of your own devising which goes against God's command to compare scripture with scripture. There is no scripture saying when you compare scripture with scripture, don't ever look back at Genesis to help you explain Revelation, or any later part of the book. In fact, Jesus was cluing us in to this when he spoke of the days of Noah being like the coming of the son of man. He was letting us know that the time of Noah was a picture of the latter time. In fact, the Old Testament is absolutely chock full of references to New Testament times: "Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. " This is saying that the Old Testament ministers throughout its pages to those in the New Testament church age. Certainly, we should look at the Old Testament then as relevant to today.
I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying about 120 years. I am saying that in my opinion God was countering the fact that man had grown wicked and he did so by giving them a time period in which the true believers would be saved. Once they are saved, they will have salvation forever. We read about this time called day, when salvation is still on offer: "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work " I was saying that the 120 years is a multiple of 12 because 12 is used to refer to true believers in the Bible. The twelve tribes of Israel, for example, are a picture of all true believers. Similarly, it is no coincidence that Jesus called twelve disciples. I see the number 120 simply as a parable number (a picture number) of the time period in which salvation is available, not 12O literal years. The term 'days' clues us in to the fact that Jesus is present during this time mentioned to give salvation to his own, all who turn to him. I see this Old Testament reference as really describing the time of salvation of the church age. Like so many Old Testament references which are pictures of the church age. For example, when Moses strikes the rock and water comes out for thirsty Israelites in Exodus, I see this as a picture of Christ the rock being struck on the cross and the word and spirit being made available for salvation to those who thirst for it. I see this Old Testament story as a description relating to the church age even though the story is chronologically in the Old Testament. Neither does scripture say in Exodus, 'and now here is a parable relating to the church age' Even though it does not say this, if you are like me, you can see that it relates. If you are not like me, you cannot see that it relates to the church age. We read in Psalm 78:1-2 that God's Bible words are in parables. We read in Mark 34 that those who are saved are given to understand his parable words, and those who are unsaved encounter his words but do not understand them.
I think you are misunderstanding what I was saying about 120 years. I am saying that in my opinion God was countering the fact that man had grown wicked and he did so by giving them a time period in which the true believers would be saved. Once they are saved, they will have salvation forever. We read about this time called day, when salvation is still on offer: "I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work " I was saying that the 120 years is a multiple of 12 because 12 is used to refer to true believers in the Bible. The twelve tribes of Israel, for example, are a picture of all true believers. Similarly, it is no coincidence that Jesus called twelve disciples. I see the number 120 simply as a parable number (a picture number) of the time period in which salvation is available, not 12O literal years. The term 'days' clues us in to the fact that Jesus is present during this time mentioned to give salvation to his own, all who turn to him. I see this Old Testament reference as really describing the time of salvation of the church age. Like so many Old Testament references which are pictures of the church age. For example, when Moses strikes the rock and water comes out for thirsty Israelites in Exodus, I see this as a picture of Christ the rock being struck on the cross and the word and spirit being made available for salvation to those who thirst for it. I see this Old Testament story as a description relating to the church age even though the story is chronologically in the Old Testament. Neither does scripture say in Exodus, 'and now here is a parable relating to the church age' Even though it does not say this, if you are like me, you can see that it relates. If you are not like me, you cannot see that it relates to the church age. We read in Psalm 78:1-2 that God's Bible words are in parables. We read in Mark 34 that those who are saved are given to understand his parable words, and those who are unsaved encounter his words but do not understand them.
whatever
I am not like you
I understand it in a different way...God means what He says and says what He means. When He says 'my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years'
He was referring to men at the time. He was not saying 'dear reader skip to the last part of the Bible and infer everything back to it'
but isnt it interesting that nobody these days is living past 120 years in the flesh. No? well you kinda missing the point then.
I am not like you
I understand it in a different way...God means what He says and says what He means. When He says 'my spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years'
He was referring to men at the time. He was not saying 'dear reader skip to the last part of the Bible and infer everything back to it'
but isnt it interesting that nobody these days is living past 120 years in the flesh. No? well you kinda missing the point then.
Thanks Lanolin. I think we have reached an understanding of how we differ in Bible interpretation. When you say God means what he says and says what he means it is your way of saying you believe that the Bible is written as a surface text without a parable or hidden meaning. The meaning is simply exactly what the surface text reads. Although we differ, the difference comes because on my part I believe God says what he means when he tells us in Psalm 78:1-2 that we should take heed to his law (the Bible) and that he opens his mouth in a parable in that respect. Further, Mark 4 describes how this interpretation is to be done. In that chapter, the surface text 'seed' is really the word of God, and the 'thorns' are not really surface text briar thorns but are representing the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches. In that chapter, Jesus lets us know that "but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: ". All these things means all these Bible things - the Bible. The unsaved encounter the parable which is the Bible and do not understand it. Perhaps you will take a look at these verses to see if God says what he says and means what he means. Nevertheless, thanks for communicating.