Does the bible date humans correctly

1. 51

   leperlord666posted 9 years ago

   I found this forum on Does the bible say the earth is only 6000 years old
   thread . It was suggested the thread has been inactive for over 2 months , and to start a new thread .
   
   This is still at least loosely on that topic
   
   If we all agree the bible does not date the earth , and the fact that earth is  billions of years old does in no way contradict the bible ,can i ask how/can does the bible explain evidence of humans long before the dating we find in the bible ?
   
   Ie evidence of humans in cave drawings/paintings and the aboriginals of australia ? Also , as im not as versed as many here , have nt many fossils ? of humans been dated long before the bible dates humans ?
   
   Not wanting to start an arguement while at same time admitting this almost always does
   
   Im simply searching for the answer to this question . At this point im not searching for a debate , because concerning this as of today im feeling un armed in regards to this question
   
   Cheers

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Freeway Flyerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think that the Bible was intended to provide any accurate dates. The people who originally wrote and read the books of the Bible were not fundamentalists. Mythology was the accepted means of communicating truths about the past. The kind of narrative history that one finds in modern history books is a relatively recent invention.

      replyreport
   2. 62

      bBereanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      leperlord666, if you are looking to expose yourself to a full view of the debate, and decide for yourself, (because many here will mock your considering the full view), here is a good link:
      http://www.creationtoday.org/tag/age-of … pe=article
      
      Here is a link to a very unique and well researched view of the bible, including laying world history alongside the portions recorded in the bible:
      http://planbible.com/
      
      Like I said, you are likely to get heat in the forums for even considering it, but you sound like someone willing to research and decide for yourself.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         leperlord666posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks mate
         
         Thanks for  recognizing i want and search for facts . I really dont mind the heat , the most someone can do here is hurt my feelings . And i have some pretty thick skin .
         
         Im now reading the link i supplied , im not sure if its actually smithsonian or not ? And im finding literature on the Lucy fossil and Ardi fossil , and trying to wrap my head around dating techniques etc .
         
         Understanding wont happen over night . Im kind of a layman here
         
         Odd i almost missed your reply , it appeared in the middle of all the others and not in chronological order
         
         Cheers

         replyreport
         1. 62

            bBereanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            After responding, another excellent resource came to mind.  "Cosmos, Creator and Human Destiny" covers a much broader scope than your question, but I still think you might like it.  Sorry to just throw materials at you, but it would only take a few minutes to view the preview on Amazon and decide if this looks like anything you might find of value.  I found it to be extremely thorough and well presented.  If you have little time for reading, as I do, this covers a lot of ground.
            http://www.amazon.com/Cosmos-Creator-Hu … =dave+hunt

            replyreport
            1. 51

               leperlord666posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Thanks mate
               
               Plz dont feel bad about feeding me info . i will find the time . A few less episodes of game of thrones will free a few hours up lol
               
               Cheers

               replyreport
            2. 51

               leperlord666posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Berkley has a good online resource
               
               http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/ … index.html
               
               Im a tad embarrassed . Its for grades 5-10 . Where was this info when i was in school ?
               
               Thanks mate

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  bBereanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  It doesn't matter what age it was for.  Concise and clear info is always good.

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     leperlord666posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Agreed

                     replyreport
2. 89

   Zelkiiroposted 9 years ago

   The Bible, like any collection of mythology, is only concerned with the people around which it centers. Wonder why the Bible never talks about the Shang dynasty in China, even though much of the Old Testament takes place during that time...

   replyreport
3. 51

   leperlord666posted 9 years ago

   thank you so kindly for prompt friendly replies .
   
   But if i can still beg the question , if we can even hypothetically  accept the notion that the bible does reveal a human creation date , even an approximation , is there scientific evidence of human beings before this accepted date Ie: six thousand years ?
   
   Or leave the bible outside for this re phrase
   
   Is there scientific evidence of the age of humans ? Cave writings , remains etc ?
   
   If so where can i read this .
   
   im not being confrontational , this is something i am genuinely interested in .And after a many  hours of reading have come to the conclusion i may not be as learned as i thought i was and as much as many are here .
   
   Thanks mates

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Eh....I wouldn't be too quick to say that anyone around here is very learned about scientific things!  LOL.
      But we all do have the ability to exhibit common sense,  and to research all the theories that've been thrown at us for years.
      
      
      No, there is no reliable scientific data or fossils of humans before that date.   
      I don't think there are any near that date,  but I could be wrong about that.
      Biological evolution is simply a theory,  one that's been perpetuated by people who would love to debunk the Bible's account, but cannot.
      There has been much trickery and fraud where this is concerned;  faked "fossils",  fossils that were wrongly assumed to be human but were in fact animals,  and even the so-called scientific methods of trying to (I emphasize "trying to") date any fossils that have been found, are unproven and fallible methods that often do not take into account human error and especially don't take into account human LACK of knowledge.   People don't like to admit they can't figure something out.   But the truth is that no one has ever been able to prove that anyone existed 100's of thousands of years ago.   They can't even prove that the earth is any older than 6000 years!   Although that would be much more likely than for mankind to be older than that.
      God could've created the earth long before He made Adam,  but the Bible seems to indicate that creation was a literal 6-day period.    But there's no evidence at all that proves that mankind were half-intelligent cave dwellers who had to learn to talk to each other etc.      Adam and Eve were created with full capacity to talk, walk, think, etc.    And if there were people or peoples who regressed as far as their learning, after that, then that's possible, if they were isolated and/or repressed etc.,  but no way was mankind ever half-ape.
      
      There's the possibility that the Flood changed the landscape of the earth enough to create features that are misinterpreted and miscalculated.   
      
      
      
      Here are a couple of links for you to consider.
      
      
      
      http://deeptruths.com/articles/big_lie_exposed.html
      
      http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … ssumptions

      replyreport
      1. 60

         BuddiNsenseposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I do not know whether there were any "half-intelligent" cave dwellers but I do know that there are cave dwellers even now and they are as intelligent as me or you though they have no technology like ours. And I also know that if you are placed in a cave dwellers position now with only their technology you will be dead in a day even with all your intelligence.

         replyreport
      2. 58

         A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, Brenda would be one of the first to admit that, but she doesn't represent the rest of us as we'll soon see.
         
         
         
         Unfortunately, common sense is not something Brenda exhibits here.
         
         
         
         Yes, you are very, very very wrong about that.
         
         There are mountains of evidence, Brenda, and common sense would have you actually look that up to find out yourself, which you obviously didn't, but felt compelled instead to say the rest of us are not learned.
         
         There is even evidence of domestication of pigs almost 10,000 years ago, Brenda. Use of pottery some 20,000 years ago. These are facts, Brenda. Do you know what facts are, Brenda? Here's a hint, they don't come out of the Bible.
         
         
         
         We all know that is entirely false, Brenda. Evolution is a theory and a fact and it has nothing to do with debunking the Bible. It is the explanation for all life on earth. Common sense, Brenda.
         
         
         
         We all know that is also entirely false, Brenda. We also know you have never taken the time to understand anything scientific, hence all that you say here is a complete fabrication.
         
          
         
         Yes, they do. Other people are actually honest.
         
         
         
         Again, entirely false, Brenda. It is unfortunate your religion compels you to say these things.
         
          
         
         You are merely regurgitating myths and superstitions, Brenda.
         
         
         
         There is nothing to consider on those sites, they are full of lies and deceptions. They have no idea what they're talking about.

         replyreport
      3. 73

         getitriteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         And after researching all of the theories thrown at us, through the use of "common sense" we should dismiss the ones founded on rigorous scientific study, and adopt the theory that is based entirely on a childish primitive myth, invented by ignorant unlearned charlatans, with almost no understanding of science.  Yep...makes perfect sense.

         replyreport
4. 84

   insearchof truthposted 9 years ago

   When ever I approach these scientific subjects I say this -
   
   Looking in the bible for scientific facts is like trying to work out how a house is built from a cookbook.
   
   It is a document about God, not science.  I have a very strong faith, and I know God is real, and I believe he created the earth and everything in it.  This is not because it says so in the bible but because the Holy Spirit lives in me and teaches me all things.
   
   The more I look at science the more I see God.  There are some anomalies with the evolution theory, such as the lack of fossil evidence of any in between stages of species evolving, but I accept that Christians can have a wide range of views and whether or not you believe in evolution, a 6000 year old earth or billions of years, what is important is faith in Jesus.
   
   Sorry I haven't been helpful on any scientific data. 
   
   Josie

   replyreport
5. 0

   Emile Rposted 9 years ago

   If we operate under the assumption that the creation story is true, then I guess the question comes up, do we accurately understand the chronology.  I've heard it argued that the begets could be documenting famous ancestors, not direct lineage. Kind of like you showing your connection to ancient people. You look at your genealogy and point to famous people in your line, skipping large chunks who no one knows. If this were true then the religious are attempting to condense human history by only viewing information on a small part of it.
   
   This six thousand year old earth argument is impossible to swallow, unless you simply want to throw out all reason.  I can't imagine a deity creating a species capable of reason who would then turn around and expect them up be unreasonable. What purpose would it serve?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "God's ways are inscrutable".  Isn't that the stock answer?
      
      But really, what would ever make you think you even might know what God's reasons or purposes were?  Because He told you?  And did not lie when He did?  God may be growing pet food down here on earth.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I have absolutely no idea what that response has to do with my post but, OK. I hope he isn't making one of those expensive dog foods. If he is, I guess my dog isn't headed for heaven.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "I can't imagine a deity creating a species capable of reason who would then turn around and expect them up be unreasonable. What purpose would it serve?"
            
            Just commenting on one specific part of your post - that we cannot possibly know God's purpose or reason for creating us..  That's all.
            
            But no, the dog food is cheap.  Just plonk Adam and Eve down, wait a few centuries and Presto! - ready made god-dog food.  Simply pluck out what is needed at the moment at toss Fido a yummy Adam Treat!.

            replyreport
6. 61

   Jonathan Jancoposted 9 years ago

   I know I'm gonna get a lot of crap for this but, all religious texts are symbolic, especially the OT and the NT. Absolutely none of it is literal with the exception of what has made it to the historical record. genesis is simply a very primitive, pre-scientific way of trying to explain the natural world. Shamanic journeying and kundalini must have been very strange phenomena in ancient times, so inventing a god myth made perfect sense. But now we know about sex hormones, messenger RNA, the Rh factor, hair follicles, chakras, ether and the electromagnetic spectrum. So, I find religious text to be quaint, outdated and not worth taking seriously except as token of our history and how and how much we have developed as a species.

   replyreport
7. 51

   leperlord666posted 9 years ago

   Thanks for all the replies mates
   
   Im feeling rather new , at least from this particular question .
   
   Anything i learned in school , even uni. was decades ago , and very much in my foggy rear view memory . But im feeling under the assumption im getting from somewhere (LOL) ,that cave paintings from well over 6000 years ago evidenced some human existence , and at least in the case of Aboriginal Australians ,dating near 46,000 years were human fossils found .
   
   I know as well i ve heard of the frauds on both sides . Shroud of turin comes to mind .
   
   It appears i have much to read and learn just on this particular question of dating evidence for human existence beyond 6000 years .
   
   And respected scientific readings as a suggestion will be appreciated
   
   Cheers

   replyreport
8. 51

   leperlord666posted 9 years ago

   Just found this site mates
   
   http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
   
   Hoping to get the time to read it all today
   
   Does anyone know of this site and its claims ? Is it scienticically reliable / honourable ?
   
   I assure you as i click ok , i have never seen this site nor do i know its authours , i am not
   promoting it in any way , commercial or otherwise .
   
   Thanks mates

   replyreport
   1. 76

      DoubleScorpionposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is the Smithsonian...I would say that it is fairly scientifically reliable...based on the current information scientist currently have...

      replyreport
      1. 51

         leperlord666posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks mate
         i ve also found a national geograpic link on the Ardi fossil .
         
         My im behind , Lucy fossil was found in 1974 and Ardi in 2009 . This late in life im still learning . Grampa was right . We never stop learning
         
         Cheers

         replyreport
9. 51

   leperlord666posted 9 years ago

   Thanks again mates
   
   Some things helped me learn , other things made my day with a chuckle

   replyreport
   1. 51

      leperlord666posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      As an addition
      
      Has the 6000 year old earth arguement and proof against it become null and void ?
      
      Yes i have read the bible , it was my understanding all the dates added up to 6000 years (Nope i did nt do the math lol) ,and science obviously obliterates that ideal .
      
      Because now i hear ( not only from Jehovahs at my door a few days ago) ,that indeed the earth was created before humans , and that the 6 day creation story isnt 6 days as we know it . So the earth may well be billions of years old . This proposition kinda stumped me for a moment .
      
      I thought on this and did alot of reading . And now counter that with the scientific evidence for humans existance millions of years ago .
      
      Im not learned enough to counter the explanation of earths age , when told it was gods days not humans , and also the methods used to count the years left out many many generations of people . This seems to be some form of reaching or confirmation bias ? As soon as encountered with good scientific evidence , one resorts to at best , assumptions . They seem to be moving the goal posts everytime contradicting evidence is supplied
      
      At one time questioners were just burned/drowned/stretched to death . Now in most of the world a less violent approach is dictated .
      
      So , whether the bible is true or not ,is the 6000 year old earth debate ,the way the dates have been arrived at reasonably correct . Or is there alot of squirm room to be had there ? Enough where a faithful is able to surmise yes the earth is billions of years old .It was here long before god created humans .
      
      I suppose this will cause perhaps alot of arguing , but i assure im only here to learn .I look at all the evidence , and hope to weigh the evidence for myself
      
      If god really wants us to know her/him , why did he / she leave it to fallible man to tell the story ?
      
      cheers

      replyreport
10. 59

    Jeramiposted 9 years ago

    The best that I can tell, going by what is written in Genesis...  Sometime after the flood someone decided to write down their family tree (to the best of their ability). I believe this was Abraham who was born a few decades after Noah died. It appears he believed his ancestor Adam was the first man created by God.
    
    In my opinion, whether or not Abraham's recollection was absolutely correct is of little consequence as to whether A higher power exists or not.
    
    There is scientific evidence that indicates that civilization existed before the ice age.  Maybe several times. If so, something happened each time that brought mankind to the brink of extension.
    
    It seems to me that the generations of Adam as recorded in Genesis is the earliest record of any particular family's genealogy. Along with this genealogy was a record of historical events from that family's prospective.  The absolute accuracy of these records OR lack thereof, in no way proves or disproves the existence of a higher being.
    
    Due to experiences in my life, I firmly believe in a spiritual dimension that interacts with us on this physical realm. This idea is clearly described in Scripture. It seems clear to me that there are different levels of authority expressed as existing in that spiritual dimension. This highest position of authority, ... some of us call God.
    It also seems to me that the entire spiritual realm is often called heaven (in the bible).  It seems logical to me that "The Kingdom" of God would be all of those entities that were given any position of authority in heaven.   Kinda like ...   Ya can't have a criminal record and serve on the supreme court.
    But, you can have a criminal record and as long as your debt to society is paid, we can have our freedom to pursue happiness.   
         We don't know what is on the other side of the grave, We only know what our intuition tells us.
    Out intuition is fed by everything we read and experience. And everyone reads and experiences different stuff, So it is natural that everyone's intuition tells us all something different.
       Just my humble opinion.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Disappearingheadposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Sounds ok to me Jerami.

       replyreport
    2. 96

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       With a couple of expansions, I could go with all of this.
       
       1)  To those that believe the bible is "the word of God", it would seem that the genealogy must be taken as truthful and complete.  That the earth, calculated from that genealogy, is only a few thousand years old.  No away around that.
       
       2)  Intuition or imagination?  We don't read a Star Wars novel, watch a kid with his plastic light sabre and "intuit" that the Force is real.  Somewhere along the line we have to rely on intellect to tell us what is likely possible and what is just imagination and fiction.

       replyreport
    3. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       But, how would he know that? How much can anyone know about their family tree without actually researching documents? What documents did Abraham use? On what document did he write his family tree?
       
       
       
       Exactly, only a higher power revealing itself to all mankind would be credible.
       
       
       
       You mean, 'extinction', right?
       
       
       
       Your experience in life? What experiences? How do you know your experiences have anything to do with a "spiritual dimension that interacts with us on this physical realm"? How can they be distinguished from mental disorders?
       
       
       
       Come now, Jerami, be honest, you simply have read something in scriptures and that is actually where you get your notions of "spiritual dimensions" just like every other believer? It actually has nothing to do with your alleged experiences, right?
       
       
       
       Yes Jerami, you heard that nonsense when you were a kid and then read it in the Bible, that's called confirmation bias.
       
            
       
       Intuition is very often wrong, Jerami. It is no different than guess work or wishful thinking.

       replyreport
11. 59

    Jeramiposted 9 years ago

    ATM wrote
    But, how would he know that? How much can anyone know about their family tree without actually researching documents? What documents did Abraham use? On what document did he write his family tree?
    ==============
    ME
    According to the generations of Adam (which this thread is about)  For almost 900 years Adam probably talked about these things with as many of his descendents as would listen. That is a lot of people. And most all of them probably knew who their daddies were?   Most of these were still alive when Noah was born.  According to this family tree, Adam died about the time Noah was born.
      After the supposed flood , approx 1650 years after Adam was born/created,  according to scripture, there were eight people on the Arch, who had heard all of these stories.   At this point these stories are first hand.
    Noah and some of his children and many of his grandchildren were still alive when Abraham was born. Noah might have died a decade or two before Abraham was born I don’t remember for sure.
    The point being …   this was a second hand story when Abraham was taught it.   
    That is like your father telling you about your grandfather.    Do you believe your father when he told you who his father was?       I don’t have these calculations in front of me right now, so I might be mistaken by a couple of years BUT ? 
    =========================
    ATM wrote
    Exactly, only a higher power revealing itself to all mankind would be credible.
    
    ME
    It would,   but then your grandchildren would not believe you when you told of your experience.  They would think you were delusional. I don’t know about you, but I would get tired of having to continuously, over and over again having to PROVE myself.
    =============
    ATM    …You mean, 'extinction', right?
    ME …  Yes I did,  You caught me I’m bad!    I’m a bad speller.
    ================
    me   
    Due to experiences in my life, I firmly believe in a spiritual dimension that interacts with us on this physical realm.
    
    atm ...
    Your experience in life? What experiences? How do you know your experiences have anything to do with a "spiritual dimension that interacts with us on this physical realm"? How can they be distinguished from mental disorders?
    
    me ...
    How can you distinguish your state of mind from a mental disorder
    ================
    Atm .. Come now, Jerami, be honest, you simply have read something in scriptures and that is actually where you get your notions of "spiritual dimensions" just like every other believer? It actually has nothing to do with your alleged experiences, right?
    
    me    ...  Can you prove to me that any of your experiences are real ?
    ===============
    atm     Yes Jerami, you heard that nonsense when you were a kid and then read it in the Bible, that's called confirmation bias.
    
    ==========I
    me ...  f you want to call it anything you like ?  I won’t argue.     
    
    atm ...   Intuition is very often wrong, Jerami. It is no different than guess work or wishful thinking.
    
    me ...      How much is very often?    Does sometimes wrong really mean sometimes right?

    replyreport
    1. 58

       A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       Do you actually believe people lived to 900 years back then? Dude, most people barely made it out of their thirties if they were lucky.
       
       
       
       Sure, but they didn't live 900 years, Jerami, which still doesn't account for a family tree, which usually comprises many generations, hence the name family "tree".
       
       
       
       Sorry, but once God revealed himself to us there would be no question for generations to come, we would have hard evidence.
       
       
       
       That is not an answer, that is a lame cop out.
       
       
       
       Another lame cop out.
       
       Seems you're just spouting the same nonsense as before.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          Jeramiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          OH!  I thought we were talking about what is written in Genesis and does  that date human history correctly?  silly me.  I was staying on topic with the OP

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

             Isn't it fun talking to ATM? It's so predictable. I don't think the term what if exists in his vocabulary.
             Thank goodness that isn't typical human nature. If it were, we'd still be in the stone age.
             
             But, I've got to agree that the genealogy as interpreted can't be accurate.  The thought of a human living nine hundred years is difficult to fathom. Unless, of course, a year was calculated differently at one time. Which would bring up the problem of the genealogy covering even fewer years.
             
             Can you imagine if we found proof that any of it were accurate? We'd be stumped for generations.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                Jeramiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Good morning Emile 
                
                It is hard to imagine people living that long.  But just for the sake of playing the advocate; ...   ten thousand years ago, i don't know, ..  maybe 80% ??? of the land mass was covered in ice. There was little if any pollution in the air, oxygen levels were probably higher when the ice melted, the population of disease carrying insects  were at an all time low. There were no chemicals in our foods.  And the jean pool for those that had survived the ice age was probably stronger. 
                
                    Modern medical experts predict that with the aid of modern medical advancement, in the not too distant future mankind could live for periods of time such as these.   
                
                    To me this sounds like they are saying, ...  With future medical advancements we might be able to get back to where we started?   Not really, but kinda?

                replyreport
                1. 96

                   wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   The devil's advocate is interesting but doesn't hold up well.
                   
                   Ice over 80% or the world; 80% of the world has no oxygenating plants; oxygen is probably at an all time low.  Low pollution world wide; probably higher local pollution as a fire is needed 24-7 even a ways out from the ice sheets.  Low insect population world wide; just as high as ever locally where most people (especially Israelites) lived.  Gene pool for those in the northern climes was probably higher, but hasn't much to do with those on the equator.

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      Jeramiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      The devil's advocate is interesting but doesn't hold up well.
                      
                      Ice over 80% or the world; 80% of the world has no oxygenating plants; oxygen is probably at an all time low.  Low pollution world wide; probably higher local pollution as a fire is needed 24-7 even a ways out from the ice sheets.  Low insect population world wide; just as high as ever locally where most people (especially Israelites) lived.  Gene pool for those in the northern climes was probably higher, but hasn't much to do with those on the equator.
                      
                      Devils advocate again  ...  This situation is not unlike any other when a limited amount of information is available. This information can be spun in any number of ways coming to any number of conclusions.   A large population might have been reduced to a relatively  small area. 
                      It could be that  those generations which were born during the ice age, their lungs had to develop such that they absorbed enough oxygen from the air which had less in it. As the ice melted, an abundant amount was being made available, especially for those people that follower the exceeding glacier. For many passing generations there would have been a zone too cold for insects to reproduce (less than 80 degrees) and  warm enough for  tender vegetation could grow, perfect for human habitation. 
                            Much of the area where people were living at that time is now under the oceans.  So I guess we will never know much of anything about that civilization.
                           We can come to any conclusion we choose, defend it if we choose,  but it is mostly hypothetical.

                      replyreport
                2. 0

                   Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Well, I suppose anything is possible. But, I wasn't aware that anyone thought they were close to extending our lived by hundreds of years.

                   replyreport
                   1. 59

                      Jeramiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                      Just stopping by the house for a min.        I wouldn't swear by anything concerning the generations of Adam meaning anything in particular.    I've only heard doctors speaking on TV talking about ;  "as soon as we find the cure for cancer yada yada yada ..   and then we'll see people living for hundreds of years yada yada.."   but truthfully, ... I didn't believe it.

                      replyreport
             2. 76

                DoubleScorpionposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Emile,
                
                From my studies, The most probable answer to the long years a person lived, is most likely the linage of that person...not the person themselves

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   That is the conclusion I have come to. But, who knows? Whoever penned the book could have believed otherwise. I wouldn't put it past a person who would have been considered an ancient by an ancient believing it possible enough to write about.

                   replyreport
             3. 58

                A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Sure, I can use the term "what if" in many instances. For example, what if Emile didn't have reading comprehension issues or actually thought about things before she penned her posts?
                
                
                
                So, you're of the mind that since a book describes people living 900 years, we should take that seriously for fear of not moving forward with our intelligence?
                
                
                
                Imagining is one thing, taking it seriously is another. But, we know that is what you'll do as a believer often does.

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Emile Rposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                   Haha ATM. I would have expected no less in your response. You obviously didn't understand a word I wrote. That's ok. You just keep trying. Sooner or later you'll be able to see around your preconceived notions and be able to offer something worthy of responding to seriously.

                   replyreport