PDA

View Full Version : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.



divaD
May 2nd 2009, 02:38 PM
This one's no big deal to me however you choose to interpet it, yet it is somewhat interesting to find out why one might choose one interp over another.


AFAIK, there are basically 2 main interpretations. God was giving man 120 yrs before He destroys him. God was changing man's overall lifespan to 120 yrs.

The latter doesn't make sense to me for several reasons, one being that the context is concerned with the destruction of man. Why would God be putting a general lifespan of 120 yrs on mankind, if He was planning on wiping out mankind? For example, if countless people were born 20 yrs before the deluge began, then how did they get a fair chance at this alleged 120 yr lifespan?

If Noah was 600 yrs old when the floods came, and if Noah died at age 950, that was 350 yrs right there, already way past this alleged new lifespan put on man in general.

The only correct conclusion is that God gave man 120 yrs, then He was going to destroy him. This also agrees with the NT.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


The way I read it, the part in bold would explain the 120 yrs in Gen 6:3.

Kahtar
May 2nd 2009, 03:49 PM
I think you are correct, diva.
Just out of curiosity (and showing my age) what does 'AFAIK' mean?

divaD
May 2nd 2009, 03:54 PM
I think you are correct, diva.
Just out of curiosity (and showing my age) what does 'AFAIK' mean?


As far as I know, it means as far as I know.:)

BroRog
May 2nd 2009, 04:39 PM
This one's no big deal to me however you choose to interpet it, yet it is somewhat interesting to find out why one might choose one interp over another.


AFAIK, there are basically 2 main interpretations. God was giving man 120 yrs before He destroys him. God was changing man's overall lifespan to 120 yrs.

The latter doesn't make sense to me for several reasons, one being that the context is concerned with the destruction of man. Why would God be putting a general lifespan of 120 yrs on mankind, if He was planning on wiping out mankind? For example, if countless people were born 20 yrs before the deluge began, then how did they get a fair chance at this alleged 120 yr lifespan?

If Noah was 600 yrs old when the floods came, and if Noah died at age 950, that was 350 yrs right there, already way past this alleged new lifespan put on man in general.

The only correct conclusion is that God gave man 120 yrs, then He was going to destroy him. This also agrees with the NT.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


The way I read it, the part in bold would explain the 120 yrs in Gen 6:3.


Compare the ages of people before and after the flood.

Also notice Jacob's complaint to Pharaoh at the end of the book of Genesis that his lifespan was too short compared to his fathers.

divaD
May 2nd 2009, 05:02 PM
Compare the ages of people before and after the flood.

Also notice Jacob's complaint to Pharaoh at the end of the book of Genesis that his lifespan was too short compared to his fathers.


Using what was recorded in Genesis 11 as example, I don't see where these records would agree with your conclusions. It apears to me that many listed in that ch lived several hundred yrs.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.


All of these listed would have to be post-flood. The 120 yrs was mentioned pre-flood. So, even if the 120 yr lifespan was to take affect post-flood, it doesn't look like some of these folks were affected by it for some reason.

There is no doubt that as time goes on, man's lifespan gradually decreases. But I don't see where it is connected with this 120 yrs in Genesis 6:3.

BroRog
May 2nd 2009, 05:11 PM
Using what was recorded in Genesis 11 as example, I don't see where these records would agree with your conclusions. It apears to me that many listed in that ch lived several hundred yrs.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:
11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:
13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:
15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.
16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:
17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.


All of these listed would have to be post-flood. The 120 yrs was mentioned pre-flood. So, even if the 120 yr lifespan was to take affect post-flood, it doesn't look like some of these folks were affected by it for some reason.

There is no doubt that as time goes on, man's lifespan gradually decreases. But I don't see where it is connected with this 120 yrs in Genesis 6:3.

It seemed to me that God simply took his time with a gradual decrease. :)

RogerW
May 2nd 2009, 05:12 PM
Compare the ages of people before and after the flood.

Also notice Jacob's complaint to Pharaoh at the end of the book of Genesis that his lifespan was too short compared to his fathers.

Hi BroRog,

The age that Jacob died still exceeds 120 years. In fact all of the patriarchs down through Moses exceed 120 years. If 120 years speaks of lifespans of individuals, what about all of those who die before reaching 120 years of age?

Ge 47:9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

Ge 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.

God did eventually shorten the lifespans of individuals after the flood to around 70 to 80 years. Pretty average, would you not agree? How many live to around 120 years? 120 years is the length of time God gave Noah to build the ark before He destroyed all life on earth.

Ps 90:10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

Many Blessings,
RW

BroRog
May 2nd 2009, 05:55 PM
Hi BroRog,

The age that Jacob died still exceeds 120 years. In fact all of the patriarchs down through Moses exceed 120 years. If 120 years speaks of lifespans of individuals, what about all of those who die before reaching 120 years of age?

Ge 47:9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

Ge 47:28 And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.

God did eventually shorten the lifespans of individuals after the flood to around 70 to 80 years. Pretty average, would you not agree? How many live to around 120 years? 120 years is the length of time God gave Noah to build the ark before He destroyed all life on earth.

Ps 90:10 The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

Many Blessings,
RW

I guess the answer would depend on whether God intended to fix every person's age at exactly 120 years, or if his purpose was to establish the statistical average or mean to be set around 120 years.

But it isn't as if the other interpretation is without problems. :)

I believe the correct understanding of this passage must account for verse 3.

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." Genesis 6:3

What exactly does God have on his mind here?

God intends to end our existence early:

Statement:

My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh;

Meaning:Mankind is made of perishable stuff, which means God will not be required to strive with his transitory race forever.

Statement:

. . . his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Meaning:

Despite this fact, however, God will end man's existence in a short 120 years. After 120 years, mankind will cease to exist.

Question:

Why didn't mankind cease to exist after 120 years?

RogerW
May 2nd 2009, 06:20 PM
I guess the answer would depend on whether God intended to fix every person's age at exactly 120 years, or if his purpose was to establish the statistical average or mean to be set around 120 years.

But it isn't as if the other interpretation is without problems. :)

I believe the correct understanding of this passage must account for verse 3.

Then the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." Genesis 6:3

What exactly does God have on his mind here?

God intends to end our existence early:

Statement:

My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh;

Meaning:Mankind is made of perishable stuff, which means God will not be required to strive with his transitory race forever.

Statement:

. . . his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.

Meaning:

Despite this fact, however, God will end man's existence in a short 120 years. After 120 years, mankind will cease to exist.

Question:

Why didn't mankind cease to exist after 120 years?

With the exception of the eight souls saved mankind did cease to exist after 120 years. And God tells us why He saved only Noah and his family.

Ge 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

It was never God's intention to wipe out humanity forever, or He would not have spared Noah and his family. Nor was it God's intention to change man's average lifespan to around 120 years. If it were, we would find confirmation of this in Scripture, but we don't. God only intended to wipe out an evil generation whose "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." It was God's intention to start over with Noah, who found grace in the eyes of the LORD. We find this new beginning in the following:

Ge 8:15 And God spake unto Noah, saying,
Ge 8:16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Ge 8:20 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
Ge 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
Ge 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
Ge 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

Many Blessings,
RW

divaD
May 2nd 2009, 06:28 PM
Why didn't mankind cease to exist after 120 years?


Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.


This would be my guess. Plus the following fact.


Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel



This prophecy can't occur if there is no remnant of the woman remaining when God decides to destroy man. And I believe this was exactly what satan was trying to accomplish here.
Apparently satan didn't take into account, God's grace upon a certain family, who's roots were linked to the woman, IOW Seth's line. satan would have been estatic if all mankind were wiped out by God. There would be no way to ever fullfill the prophecy in Genesis 3, even if God started completely over and made new people. The link to the woman would be broken, thus the link to satan's destruction.

Anyway, this is basically the perspective that helps me to understand how we got from Genesis unto Revelation, IOW, the beginning and the end.

BroRog
May 2nd 2009, 06:50 PM
It was never God's intention to wipe out humanity forever, or He would not have spared Noah and his family.

Okay then, given the fact that God never intended to wipe out humanity, we misunderstand his statement "his days shall be one hundred and twenty years" to mean "after 120 years, mankind will cease to exist."

So the question remains; what did God mean? If God meant to say, "with the exception of eight people, mankind will cease to exist", then we are still left to explain why we have over 6 billion people here today. In what sense did mankind cease to exist except for 8 people?

divaD
May 2nd 2009, 08:06 PM
Okay then, given the fact that God never intended to wipe out humanity, we misunderstand his statement "his days shall be one hundred and twenty years" to mean "after 120 years, mankind will cease to exist."

So the question remains; what did God mean? If God meant to say, "with the exception of eight people, mankind will cease to exist", then we are still left to explain why we have over 6 billion people here today. In what sense did mankind cease to exist except for 8 people?



BroRog, I'll be the first to admit, perhaps this is not as cut and dried as I had thought. You indeed bring up some rather interesting questions. Now if I or someone else can just come up with some answers to them...

Kahtar
May 2nd 2009, 08:39 PM
As far as I know, it means as far as I know.:)
Thank you!;)....................................

BroRog
May 2nd 2009, 08:57 PM
BroRog, I'll be the first to admit, perhaps this is not as cut and dried as I had thought. You indeed bring up some rather interesting questions. Now if I or someone else can just come up with some answers to them...

Agreed. Actually, I was just thinking out loud and enjoying the company, not really trying to give an answer. :) Thanks for raising the issue.

THOM
May 2nd 2009, 11:19 PM
The latter doesn't make sense to me for several reasons, one being that the context is concerned with the destruction of man. Why would God be putting a general lifespan of 120 yrs on mankind, if He was planning on wiping out mankind?

Now that's an interesting question you asked, considering you don't ask the same question about why HE states, "MY SPIRIT shall not always strive with man...". . .since, after all, HE "was planning on wiping out mankind". Why haven't you asked that question? Seems to me, the latter would be far more logical to ask than the former.


For example, if countless people were born 20 yrs before the deluge began, then how did they get a fair chance at this alleged 120 yr lifespan?
Let's just expand on your "For example", what if "countless people were born" 1 week, or 1day, or 1hour, or 1minute, or 1 second, "before the deluge began, then how did they get a fair chance at this alleged 120 yr lifespan?" You've got an imaginary extra "20 yrs", you're trying to account for, when all Scripture is giving you is no extra "20 yrs", added to the 100 years between the birth of Noah's son, when Noah was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), and the time that the flood began when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6).


If Noah was 600 yrs old when the floods came, and if Noah died at age 950, that was 350 yrs right there, already way past this alleged new lifespan put on man in general.

Which is more likely, GOD would snatch the life expectancy rug from under mankind all at once, or very gradually? How many folks today live 120 years or longer? GOD stated, ". . .his days shall be...", meaning this could happen anytime later on, and still we just as TRUTHFUL, as when GOD First Uttered it.


The only correct conclusion is that God gave man 120 yrs, then He was going to destroy him. This also agrees with the NT.

Conclusion are not facts; what you've concluded is contradicted by other Scriptures.

I've given you Scripture that, obviously, you had not examined up to this point; you claim now that all you can present is your "conclusion". Who's right, THE WORD of GOD, or your "conclusion"? Even the Scripture that you used, 1Peter 3:20 doesn't mention any number of years, does it?

Butch5
May 2nd 2009, 11:34 PM
This one's no big deal to me however you choose to interpet it, yet it is somewhat interesting to find out why one might choose one interp over another.


AFAIK, there are basically 2 main interpretations. God was giving man 120 yrs before He destroys him. God was changing man's overall lifespan to 120 yrs.

The latter doesn't make sense to me for several reasons, one being that the context is concerned with the destruction of man. Why would God be putting a general lifespan of 120 yrs on mankind, if He was planning on wiping out mankind? For example, if countless people were born 20 yrs before the deluge began, then how did they get a fair chance at this alleged 120 yr lifespan?

If Noah was 600 yrs old when the floods came, and if Noah died at age 950, that was 350 yrs right there, already way past this alleged new lifespan put on man in general.

The only correct conclusion is that God gave man 120 yrs, then He was going to destroy him. This also agrees with the NT.

1 Peter 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


The way I read it, the part in bold would explain the 120 yrs in Gen 6:3.

I agree totally!

Walstib
May 3rd 2009, 01:33 AM
I am tending to stick with what I had always figured and that it has to do with our lifespan.

I found a literal version interesting...


Gn 6:3 And saying is Yahweh Elohim, "Not abide shall My spirit in the human for the eon, in that moreover, he is flesh. And come shall his days to be a hundred and twenty years." (CVT)Seems as the form of the word used for man in "with man forever" seems to have an within man context. If so, I don't think the nature of how the spirit is within flesh-man changed at the flood. But it does at death.

What I found too was that the word strive or abide looks like a negative version of what is most often for adjudicating or judging. Strongs H1777. A leading on a straight course context if I have it right. Then God not doing this would be the point.

So would God stop adjudicating for mankind after 120 years or would he stop doing this after the death of the flesh. I would lean toward the second.

I am no Hebrew scholar though, help with something if I have it wrong always appreciated.

5112

divaD
May 3rd 2009, 04:21 PM
Now that's an interesting question you asked, considering you don't ask the same question about why HE states, "MY SPIRIT shall not always strive with man...". . .since, after all, HE "was planning on wiping out mankind". Why haven't you asked that question? Seems to me, the latter would be far more logical to ask than the former.


Let's just expand on your "For example", what if "countless people were born" 1 week, or 1day, or 1hour, or 1minute, or 1 second, "before the deluge began, then how did they get a fair chance at this alleged 120 yr lifespan?" You've got an imaginary extra "20 yrs", you're trying to account for, when all Scripture is giving you is no extra "20 yrs", added to the 100 years between the birth of Noah's son, when Noah was 500 years old (Genesis 5:32), and the time that the flood began when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6).



Which is more likely, GOD would snatch the life expectancy rug from under mankind all at once, or very gradually? How many folks today live 120 years or longer? GOD stated, ". . .his days shall be...", meaning this could happen anytime later on, and still we just as TRUTHFUL, as when GOD First Uttered it.



Conclusion are not facts; what you've concluded is contradicted by other Scriptures.

I've given you Scripture that, obviously, you had not examined up to this point; you claim now that all you can present is your "conclusion". Who's right, THE WORD of GOD, or your "conclusion"? Even the Scripture that you used, 1Peter 3:20 doesn't mention any number of years, does it?




Could you remind me once again about this math you were discussing on another thread, as to how it was 100 yrs or something like that? How was it that you came to that conclusion? Something to do with when Noah's sons were born, right?

I want to put your math to the test, in order to see if it adds up according to the Scriptures.

divaD
May 3rd 2009, 04:33 PM
What I found too was that the word strive or abide looks like a negative version of what is most often for adjudicating or
judging. Strongs H1777. A leading on a straight course context if I have it right. Then God not doing this would be the
point.

So would God stop adjudicating for mankind after 120 years or would he stop doing this after the death of the flesh. I would
lean toward the second.


IMO, this does make very good sense. I can see where you're coming from here. Something to consider for sure.

THOM
May 3rd 2009, 08:53 PM
Could you remind me once again about this math you were discussing on another thread, as to how it was 100 yrs or something like that? How was it that you came to that conclusion? Something to do with when Noah's sons were born, right?

I want to put your math to the test, in order to see if it adds up according to the Scriptures.


Sure thing DivaD,

According to Genesis 5:32, "And Noah was five hundred (500) years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.";
and
According to Genesis 6:10, "And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.";
and
According to Genesis 6:18, "But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.";
and
According to Genesis 7:1,5-7, "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. . .And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. And Noah was six hundred (600) years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood."

Now then, put the "math to the test, in order to see if it adds up according to the Scriptures", and be sure to let me know what you come up with.

BTW, did you know that Noah's 3 sons were probably Triplets?

divaD
May 3rd 2009, 09:22 PM
According to Genesis 5:32, "And Noah was five hundred (500) years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and
Japheth.";
and
According to Genesis 6:10, "And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.";
and


What I'm curious about and still fail to understand, which verse or verses in Genesis 6 do you link this to?


Since your next part is this:


According to Genesis 6:18, "But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou,
and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.";
and


Are you saying that when God said this in verse 18, Noah was 500 yrs old?

THOM
May 3rd 2009, 10:30 PM
What I'm curious about and still fail to understand, which verse or verses in Genesis 6 do you link this to?

No, the whole thing is seen in Genesis 5-7.

\Are you saying that when God said this in verse 18, Noah was 500 yrs old?[/quote]

DivaD, the verses are in chronological order and run between Chapters 5-7 (From the time that Noah fathers 3 sons is first mentioned through to the time that GOD commands him to come into the Ark that Noah has built, just before the Flood waters begin.):

Noah is 500 years old when the following happens:


According to Genesis 5:32,

"And Noah was five hundred (500) years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.";
and

According to Genesis 6:10,

"And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.";
and

According to Genesis 6:18,

"But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.";



and
Noah is 600 years old, when the following happens:


According to Genesis 7:1,5-7,

"And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. . .And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. And Noah was six hundred (600) years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth. And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood."

Now then, put the "math to the test, in order to see if it adds up according to the Scriptures", and be sure to let me know what you come up with.

BTW, did you know that Noah's 3 sons were probably Triplets?

divaD
May 3rd 2009, 10:59 PM
Noah is 500 years old when the following happens:

According to Genesis 6:18,
"But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife,
and thy sons' wives with thee.";



Here's the one that I just can't help but to address, lol. If Noah was 500 yrs old at verse 18, and if Noah's 3 sons were born when Noah was 500 yrs old, then I guess according to this verse, babies can get married as soon as they are born. Were their wives babies also?





BTW, did you know that Noah's 3 sons were probably Triplets?



I've thought that as probable, especially if Noah was 500 yrs old when all 3 were born. Since 9 months is the usual amount of time for a woman to give birth, I can see no other conclusion to come to if Noah was 500 yrs old when all 3 were born...they were likely triplets

Walstib
May 4th 2009, 01:57 AM
Interesting...


These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: (Gen 11:10 KJV)
If Shem is the firstborn,

and Noah was 500 years old when he (and most likely his brothers) were born,

and it was the same year he found favor,

And the flood lasted a year,

I am adding this up to less than 120 years...

THOM
May 4th 2009, 02:58 AM
Here's the one that I just can't help but to address, lol. If Noah was 500 yrs old at verse 18, and if Noah's 3 sons were born when Noah was 500 yrs old, then I guess according to this verse, babies can get married as soon as they are born. Were their wives babies also?
DivaD, if Noah became the Father of 3 sons, when He was 500 years old, and then, Noah entered the Ark when he was 600 years old. . .how old would those sons be? Do maybe 99years old, at least, seem feasible? Maybe even 100 years old themselves?


I've thought that as probable, especially if Noah was 500 yrs old when all 3 were born. Since 9 months is the usual amount of time for a woman to give birth, I can see no other conclusion to come to if Noah was 500 yrs old when all 3 were born...they were likely triplets

Genesis, Chapters 1-7, is chalked full of Actual Truths, that have been overlooked by so-called Christians down through the centuries, because the Truth really and truly upsets the apple cart of myths that sprung up about certain thing in Genesis 1-7, long ago and have been believed, and even taught as Doctrine, ever since; Good examples of this is that the forbidden fruit is always portrayed as an apple; Genesis 2:4-25 is a retelling of Genesis 1:26-31; Cain have to had married his sister; etc. but sadly, the truth of these things will not be given an audience here.

divaD
May 4th 2009, 02:01 PM
DivaD, if Noah became the Father of 3 sons, when He was 500 years old, and then, Noah entered the Ark when he was
600 years old. . .how old would those sons be? Do maybe 99years old, at least, seem feasible? Maybe even 100 years old
themselves?



THOM,


Genesis 6:13-21 are simply God's instructions/commands. We can know this from verse 22.

Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.


What does verse 18 tell us?

Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.


Putting 2 and 2 together, when God had first told Noah of His plans, and since verse 18 tells us that Noah's sons had wives, then logically deducing, when God first told Noah about these plans, Noah was already much older than 500 yrs old. Now perhaps you can see where I come up with the conclusions that babies can get married when they're born, if it's true that Noah was 500 yrs old in verse 18.

Also, whom do you think it was that helped Noah to build this ark? Don't you think it's likely that his whole family was involved? Kind of hard to do if they were still babies when God told Noah of His plans and then instructed Noah as what to do.



Genesis 6:3 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


As far as this verse, there is no way to connect this to Noah. The Lord wasn't even speaking to Noah here. The Lord said this after what was stated in verse 1 and 2. With that in mind, verse 3 would most likely be linked to verse 1 and 2.


Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.



The way I read it, the sons of God would be those that follow after the Spirit. But because they're also flesh, they would be in conflict with spiritual things, thus the lusting after the daughters of men. If this conclusion is even in the ballpark, it makes sense why God said what He said in verse 3, thus giving man 120 yrs, then He's going to destroy him. Fortunately He found grace in Noah, but unfortunately for satan, since Genesis 3:15 can still be fullfilled.



BTW, you're one of the few that actually gets my username right. For some reason, many forget to add that capital D at the end. I simply spelled my name backwards, since I assumed David would probably already be taken as a username when I first joined.

THOM
May 4th 2009, 02:55 PM
THOM,
Genesis 6:13-21 are simply God's instructions/commands. We can know this from verse 22.
Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.
What does verse 18 tell us?
Genesis 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
Putting 2 and 2 together, when God had first told Noah of His plans, and since verse 18 tells us that Noah's sons had wives, then logically deducing, when God first told Noah about these plans, Noah was already much older than 500 yrs old. Now perhaps you can see where I come up with the conclusions that babies can get married when they're born, if it's true that Noah was 500 yrs old in verse 18.
Also, whom do you think it was that helped Noah to build this ark? Don't you think it's likely that his whole family was involved? Kind of hard to do if they were still babies when God told Noah of His plans and then instructed Noah as what to do.
Genesis 6:3 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
As far as this verse, there is no way to connect this to Noah. The Lord wasn't even speaking to Noah here. The Lord said this after what was stated in verse 1 and 2. With that in mind, verse 3 would most likely be linked to verse 1 and 2.
Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
The way I read it, the sons of God would be those that follow after the Spirit. But because they're also flesh, they would be in conflict with spiritual things, thus the lusting after the daughters of men. If this conclusion is even in the ballpark, it makes sense why God said what He said in verse 3, thus giving man 120 yrs, then He's going to destroy him. Fortunately He found grace in Noah, but unfortunately for satan, since Genesis 3:15 can still be fullfilled.
BTW, you're one of the few that actually gets my username right. For some reason, many forget to add that capital D at the end. I simply spelled my name backwards, since I assumed David would probably already be taken as a username when I first joined.

Okay divaD, I see where you're going, and I'm not going to play that little game with you. You want to play your BID card. . .and, with me, that's not going to work;

I given to you and shown you the Chronological order of Noah's dealings with becoming the father of his sons, his dealing with GOD and with the Ark, and with his time with his family on the Ark.

I have shown you a 100 years time span (101 years if you count the time they came off the ark) that even Stevie Wonder can see. Nothing could have been shown to you any plainer.

You've chosen here to deal with only one chapter of Genesis (chapter 6). I listed all of the Chapters/Verses applicable to the time period in which all this happens.

When you're serious about what I have shown you, I'll discuss further with you, but for now, I'm done with this exchange.

divaD
May 4th 2009, 03:48 PM
DivaD, if Noah became the Father of 3 sons, when He was 500 years old, and then, Noah entered the Ark when he was 600 years old. . .how old would those sons be? Do maybe 99years old, at least, seem feasible? Maybe even 100 years old themselves?







For some reason you're failing to see my point, thus accusing me of playing games. First of all, anyone would know that the sons would be at least 100 yrs old when they entered the ark. But that's not the point I'm arguing against. You stated that in Genesis 6:18, Noah would have been 500 yrs old. I say you are wrong, because the Scriptures say that you are wrong. As of verse 18, Noah's sons had wives. Therefore, Noah had to have been older than 500 yrs old, therefore this 100 yrs in no way disproves anything with the 120 yrs in Gen 6:3.

IMO, it is you that needs to get serious, and for once consider what someone else is saying, instead of it only being about what you state that matters.

Zack702
May 4th 2009, 04:12 PM
I think genesis 6:3 is one of the verses that explains something but fails to explain in detail.

For one today our only known provable record of eldest age is 122 years followed by 120 on the dot.

Nowhere else does it even hint any reason for the decline in years of age.

We know that in the beginning Adam and his family were able to live almost a thousand years old and seamed to decline every generation. Up untill exodus where it seams that right around 120 years was there limit.
Moses himself being 120 when he died.

7And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

29And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being an hundred and ten years old.

So regardless of this verse it is obvious that where man once was able to live hundreds of years now are only able to reach 120ish.

kenramse
May 4th 2009, 04:56 PM
Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth...
Gen 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. Gen 9:23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.

Gen 10:21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born.

Gen 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood.

I don't know if the three brothers were triplets, though I doubt that they were. (I am a twin and my sister is 7 minutes older than I am. There is no distinction between which one of us is the elder or the younger, [except between us], In these scriptures it does indicate that Japheth is Shem's elder brother and that Ham is the younger or youngest, depending upon which translation you use.
Shem was 102 years of age when his first son, Arphaxad, was born. Japheth was older than Shem (Japheth the elder) so he was at least 100 years of age or older when they entered into the Ark. So Ham's age was 100 or less at the time of the flood.

Now I digress a little but feel that this is an important point. It ties the post-diluvian familial "sin" to the ante-diluvian familial sin. Where Adam and Eve saw themselves as naked and were ashamed after partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and then God covered them with garments, Noah as well became naked in his tent after partaking of the fruit of his husbandry. His "shame" was revealed by his youngest son and he was covered in a garment by his older two children.

This appears to be the first time that there was a blessing and a cursing made by a man over his children.

Gen 9:18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.
This verse was given at the beginning of the narrative about where Noah became a husbandman and drank a little too much of his "home made wine" and passed out naked in this tent. Ham came in and found him that way and instead of covering him or at least leaving him alone, went out and told both Shem and Japheth that "their 'old man' was drunk and passed out naked in his tent." (emphasis mine)
Now how did Noah know that his youngest son, Ham, was the one who found him in his tent, naked and unconscious from the wine? I don't think that when Noah woke up and with hung-over eyes, and seeing the garment that covered him, concluded it had to be Ham that did this. (I would have asked somebody how I got covered with a garment that was not mine while I lay in my tent, especially since nakedness at the time was the one thing that every man and woman had in common, the one thing whereby shame was involved). So Ham saw Noah's "shame" and rather than taking action to cover his father's "shame", he "shamelessly" told his brothers. Shem and Japheth then took what appears to have been the correct action of covering the "shame" of their father without themselves "seeing his shame." There had to have been discussion between the brothers and their father. Then for the first time, at least in our history, the "sin(s)" of the father were visited upon the son. Canaan, the first born child in the "new" creation, the beginning of post-deluvian civilization, became a servant to Shem. Since Japheth was to dwell in the tents of Shem, even though he was the oldest and apparently the "first born" of Noah, he too would be "master" over Canaan.

Gen 9:24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
Gen 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Gen 9:27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

THOM
May 4th 2009, 04:57 PM
For some reason you're failing to see my point, thus accusing me of playing games. First of all, anyone would know that the sons would be at least 100 yrs old when they entered the ark. But that's not the point I'm arguing against. You stated that in Genesis 6:18, Noah would have been 500 yrs old. I say you are wrong, because the Scriptures say that you are wrong. As of verse 18, Noah's sons had wives. Therefore, Noah had to have been older than 500 yrs old, therefore this 100 yrs in no way disproves anything with the 120 yrs in Gen 6:3.

Instead of being so quick to tell someone that they're wrong. . .which is due ONLY to your lack of understanding, maybe if you'd just take things in order of their occurrences. . .you'd begin to see The Scripture the way it really is.

As of Genesis 6:18, Noah sons are not even out of diapers, because Genesis 6:18 is the continuation of the conversation that GOD has with Noah. . .while Noah is still 500 years old. Why can you not see that. That one conversation runs from Genesis 6:13 to Genesis 6:21.


NOAH NOW HAS TO BUILD THE ARK...
. . .IT TAKES HIM 100 YEARS TO DO SO.


Beginning at Genesis 7:1, Noah has built the Ark, and is now 600 years old with 3 sons who are 100 years each. Look at what GOD says to him: "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."


IMO, it is you that needs to get serious, and for once consider what someone else is saying, instead of it only being about what you state that matters.

And IMO, you should have read the Passage from Genesis 5:32-7:24, instead of jumping all around to different passages trying to support your "120 years" myth; and you would have known what I was telling you is the Truth.

divaD
May 4th 2009, 05:52 PM
Instead of being so quick to tell someone that they're wrong. . .which is due ONLY to your lack of understanding, maybe if you'd just take things in order of their occurrences. . .you'd begin to see The Scripture the way it really is.

As of Genesis 6:18, Noah sons are not even out of diapers, because Genesis 6:18 is the continuation of the conversation that GOD has with Noah. . .while Noah is still 500 years old. Why can you not see that. That one conversation runs from Genesis 6:13 to Genesis 6:21.


NOAH NOW HAS TO BUILD THE ARK...
. . .IT TAKES HIM 100 YEARS TO DO SO.


Beginning at Genesis 7:1, Noah has built the Ark, and is now 600 years old with 3 sons who are 100 years each. Look at what GOD says to him: "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."



And IMO, you should have read the Passage from Genesis 5:32-7:24, instead of jumping all around to different passages trying to support your "120 years" myth; and you would have known what I was telling you is the Truth.



The thing is, I've never had a problem with Noah's sons being 100 yrs old when they entered the ark. What I have a problem with is that you link this fact to Gen 6:13-21, when the truth is, Noah's sons would have been grown at this time, and that this is unrelated to what God said in Gen 6:3. God wasn't even speaking to Noah in that verse. So we can't say that Gen 6:13-21 is speaking of 100 yrs, then linking it to the birth of Noah's sons. If anything, at verse 18, there would actually be even less than 100 yrs before the floods came. This would be even more in your favor, since this is even far less than 120 yrs, yet I still don't believe that verse 3 is even linked to Noah directly. With that said, it doesn't matter if it were even less than 120 yrs when the floods came, because this 120 yrs had nothing to do with when Noah had first started building the ark, even tho, I admit, I thought it did.

divaD
May 4th 2009, 05:54 PM
I stated in my opening post that there are 2 main views. Well actually, there are 3 main views. The 3rd view links the 120 years to the Jubilees. Depending on how you define Jubilee...some believe it to be periods of 49 yrs, others believe it be periods of 50 yrs.

Those that go with the latter, then multiply 120 times 50(a Jubilee yr), which comes to 6000, which in turn equals the amount of time that man lives on the earth before Christ
physically returns(2nd advent) and reigns forever.

Out of curiosity, is anyone familiar with the 3rd view? Does anyone think there's anything to it?

John146
May 4th 2009, 07:00 PM
The thing is, I've never had a problem with Noah's sons being 100 yrs old when they entered the ark. What I have a problem with is that you link this fact to Gen 6:13-21, when the truth is, Noah's sons would have been grown at this time, and that this is unrelated to what God said in Gen 6:3. God wasn't even speaking to Noah in that verse. So we can't say that Gen 6:13-21 is speaking of 100 yrs, then linking it to the birth of Noah's sons. If anything, at verse 18, there would actually be even less than 100 yrs before the floods came. This would be even more in your favor, since this is even far less than 120 yrs, yet I still don't believe that verse 3 is even linked to Noah directly. With that said, it doesn't matter if it were even less than 120 yrs when the floods came, because this 120 yrs had nothing to do with when Noah had first started building the ark, even tho, I admit, I thought it did.You make a good point here. I think it is being assumed that God told Noah to build the ark immediately or very shortly after He said that man's days would be 120 years. In other words, it is being assumed that God made man's days 120 years at about the same time that he told Noah to build the ark. It's also being assumed that Noah was 500 years old at the time when God said man's days would be 120 years. But are these things necessarily the case? I don't believe so.

In Genesis 5 it gives a genealogy starting with Adam and at the end in verse 32 mentions Noah being 500 years old. But then in the next verse, Genesis 6:1, it jumps back to the time when men and women first started populating the earth. So, it shouldn't be assumed that everything mentioned in Genesis 6 follows what is mentioned in Genesis 5:32 chronologically. Which means it should not be assume that God said what He did in Genesis 6:3 when Noah was 500 years old.

The thing that has to be taken into account by those who believe it's referring to the life span of men is that the context in Genesis 6 has nothing to do with the life span of men. It had to do with God being grieved and angry over the extreme level of wicked behavior and rebellion of mankind at that time and Him wanting to destroy them because of it. It seems to me that God was giving mankind as a whole 120 years to repent or else He would destroy them.

So, that makes me tend to think that God giving mankind 120 years was a direct result of man's wickedness. With that being the case, how exactly would reducing man's normal life span to 120 years be a way of dealing with man's wickedness? I don't see that it would have. But giving mankind as a whole 120 more years to repent before they would be destroyed does sound like something God would have done in response to mankind's wickedness of that time period.

If God making man's days 120 years was referring to the life span of men and was not done in response to man's wickedness then that would mean it was put in there randomly for no apparent reason because it has nothing to do with the context of the chapter.


What some Bible commentators had to say about the verse:

Barnes notes:

His days shall be an hundred and twenty years. - " His days" are the days of man, not the individual, but the race, with whom the Lord still strives. Hence, they refer to the duration, not of the life of an individual, but of the existence of the race. From this we learn that the narrative here reverts to a point of time before the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, recorded in the close of the preceding passage as there were only a hundred years from their birth to the deluge. This is according to the now well-known method of Scripture, when it has two lines of events to carry on. The former narrative refers to the godly portion of mankind; this to the ungodly remnant.
Not forever will the Lord strive with man; but his longsuffering (http://cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PERSONAL/k/266/The-Fruit-of-Spirit-Patience.htm) will still continue for one hundred and twenty years. Meanwhile he does not leave himself or his clemency without a witness. He sent Noah with the message of warning, who preached by his voice, by his walking with God, and also by his long labor and perseverance in the building of the ark. The doomed race, however, filled up the measure of their iniquity, and when the set number of years was accomplished, the overwhelming flood came.


John Wesley's notes

My spirit shall not always strive with man - The spirit then strove by Noah's preaching, 1 Peter 3:19 (http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/30444/eVerseID/30444), and by inward checks, but 'twas in vain with the most of men; therefore saith God, he shall not always strive, for that he also is flesh - Incurably corrupt and sensual, so that 'tis labour lost to strive with him. He also, that is, all, one as well as another; they are all sunk into the mire of flesh. Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years - So long will I defer the judgment they deserve, and give them space to prevent it by their repentance (http://truegospel.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Basics.tour/ID/7/Repentance-Belief-and-Gospel.htm) and reformation. Justice (http://cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/audio.details/ID/186/Examples-Divine-Justice.htm) said, cut them down; but mercy interceded, Lord, let them alone this year also; and so far mercy prevailed, that a reprieve was obtained for six score years.


Adam Clarke

My spirit shall not always strive - It is only by the influence of the Spirit of God (http://cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Audio.details/ID/463/Holy-Spirit-Trinity-Part-1.htm) that the carnal mind can be subdued and destroyed; but those who wilfully resist and grieve that Spirit must be ultimately left to the hardness and blindness of their own hearts, if they do not repent (http://truegospel.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Basics.tour/ID/7/Repentance-Belief-and-Gospel.htm) and turn to God. God delights in mercy, and therefore a gracious warning is given. Even at this time the earth was ripe for destruction; but God promised them one hundred and twenty years' respite: if they repented in that interim, well; if not, they should be destroyed by a flood.


Jamieson, Fausset and Brown

yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years--It is probable that the corruption of the world, which had now reached its height, had been long and gradually increasing, and this idea receives support from the long respite granted.

divaD
May 4th 2009, 07:41 PM
You make a good point here. I think it is being assumed that God told Noah to build the ark immediately or very shortly after
He said that man's days would be 120 years. In other words, it is being assumed that God made man's days 120 years at about the same time that he told Noah to build the ark. It's also being assumed that Noah was 500 years old at the time when God said man's days would be 120 years. But are these things necessarily the case? I don't believe so.

In Genesis 5 it gives a genealogy starting with Adam and at the end in verse 32 mentions Noah being 500 years old. But then in the next verse, Genesis 6:1, it jumps back to the time when men and women first started populating the earth. So, it shouldn't be assumed that everything mentioned in Genesis 6 follows what is mentioned in Genesis 5:32 chronologically. Which means it should not be assume that God said what He did in Genesis 6:3 when Noah was 500 years old.

The thing that has to be taken into account by those who believe it's referring to the life span of men is that the context in Genesis 6 has nothing to do with the life span of men. It had to do with God being grieved and angry over the extreme level of wicked behavior and rebellion of mankind at that time and Him wanting to destroy them because of it. It seems to me that God was giving mankind as a whole 120 years to repent or else He would destroy them.

So, that makes me tend to think that God giving mankind 120 years was a direct result of man's wickedness. With that being the case, how exactly would reducing man's normal life span to 120 years be a way of dealing with man's wickedness? I don't see that it would have. But giving mankind as a whole 120 more years to repent before they would be destroyed does sound like something God would have done in response to mankind's wickedness of that time period.

If God making man's days 120 years was referring to the life span of men and was not done in response to man's wickedness then that would mean it was put in there randomly for no apparent reason because it has nothing to do with the context of the
chapter.




I like how you reason here. As a matter of fact, what you have stated is making my point rather well. The point I'm trying to make is, no matter which way we choose to interpret the 120 yrs, one can't use Genesis 6:13-21 to prove nor disprove their theory regarding this 120 yrs. Clearly IMO, at least as of verse 18, it is well under 120 yrs that the floods came. It's actually even less than a hundred yrs, since we know Noah's sons already had wives. This all leads me back to what you have stated overall in this post...that God is giving man 120 yrs, then He's going to destroy him. This of course has been my position all along, even tho I did come to a few wrong conclusions here and there. But even still..the 120 yrs seems to be linked to the amount of time before God is going to destroy man, and not to when He told Noah of His plans, which I had at first assumed.


With that said, it doesn't matter if it were even 50 yrs after God made His declaration in verse 3, that He told Noah of His plans. It doesn't matter if Noah was 500 yrs old when his sons were born. This has nothing directly to do with this 120 yrs, IOW, it can't be used to disprove it.

THOM
May 4th 2009, 08:43 PM
You make a good point here. I think it is being assumed that God told Noah to build the ark immediately or very shortly after He said that man's days would be 120 years. In other words, it is being assumed that God made man's days 120 years at about the same time that he told Noah to build the ark. It's also being assumed that Noah was 500 years old at the time when God said man's days would be 120 years. But are these things necessarily the case? I don't believe so.

In Genesis 5 it gives a genealogy starting with Adam and at the end in verse 32 mentions Noah being 500 years old. But then in the next verse, Genesis 6:1, it jumps back to the time when men and women first started populating the earth. So, it shouldn't be assumed that everything mentioned in Genesis 6 follows what is mentioned in Genesis 5:32 chronologically. Which means it should not be assume that God said what He did in Genesis 6:3 when Noah was 500 years old.

"Let us attempt to reason together..."

The author of Scripture wants us to know that in Chapter 5, verse 32 (the last verse in Chapter 5), "And Noah was five hundred years (500) old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

Now then, in Chapter 6, verse 10, "And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth."; it is somewhat of a repetition of 5:32. . .and No it doesn't give Noah's age here. But we've already been told that he was/is 500 years old in Chapter 5, verse 32. . .which comes before Chapter 6, verse 10. . .and must be a continuation of what has already been stated.

So then, since Chapter 7, verse 1, tells us that, "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.". . .and verses 6&7 of Chapter 7 tells us that,

"[ And Noah was six hundred (600) years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.]

And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.", The question may be how long did it take Noah to build the Ark, with the obvious answer being:


100 years or less!

(500 years of age, when he was commanded to build the Ark

and

600 years of age when he and his son, etc. entered into the ark.)



The thing that has to be taken into account by those who believe it's referring to the life span of men is that the context in Genesis 6 has nothing to do with the life span of men. It had to do with God being grieved and angry over the extreme level of wicked behavior and rebellion of mankind at that time and Him wanting to destroy them because of it. It seems to me that God was giving mankind as a whole 120 years to repent or else He would destroy them.How can you say that, especially when its the only place in All of Scripture that GOD make the declaration, "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 (120 years). (Gen. 6:3)"


So, that makes me tend to think that God giving mankind 120 years was a direct result of man's wickedness. With that being the case, how exactly would reducing man's normal life span to 120 years be a way of dealing with man's wickedness? I don't see that it would have. But giving mankind as a whole 120 more years to repent before they would be destroyed does sound like something God would have done in response to mankind's wickedness of that time period.It tells you right there in that 6th Chapter, " (And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.Genesis 6:1-2)"

These old men (old as Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, etc.), called "the sons of GOD" were, because of their Patriarchal status, taking any of these "daughters of men (much, much, much, etc. younger than themselves)" and marrying them. . .Far, Far outside their generations. . .and ". . .after their kind...". . .and this was not good in GOD sight.

John146
May 4th 2009, 09:04 PM
"Let us attempt to reason together..." Sounds good.


The author of Scripture wants us to know that in Chapter 5, verse 32 (the last verse in Chapter 5), "And Noah was five hundred years (500) old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth."

Now then, in Chapter 6, verse 10, "And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth."; it is somewhat of a repetition of 5:32. . .and No it doesn't give Noah's age here. But we've already been told that he was/is 500 years old in Chapter 5, verse 32. . .which comes before Chapter 6, verse 10. . .and must be a continuation of what has already been stated.That is only your assumption, friend. You seem to read it as if it says he had 3 sons at the age of 500. Triplets, in other words. Is that right? But kenramse posted verses a little earlier that indicated that they were not born at the same time. It refers to the elder son (Gen 10:21) and the younger son (Gen 9:24). So I take it to mean that he begat 3 sons without telling us exactly when they were born or how old Noah was when each of them was born. I think all we can say for sure is that he begat all 3 of them by the time he was 500 years old. I don't see that we should tie Genesis 6:10 directly to Genesis 5:32 and conclude that he was 500 years old at the time God told him to start building the ark.


So then, since Chapter 7, verse 1, tells us that, "And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.". . .and verses 6&7 of Chapter 7 tells us that,

"[ And Noah was six hundred (600) years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.]

And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.", The question may be how long did it take Noah to build the Ark, with the obvious answer being:


100 years or less!

(500 years of age, when he was commanded to build the Ark

and

600 years of age when he and his son, etc. entered into the ark.)


How can you say that, especially when its the only place in All of Scripture that GOD make the declaration, "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 (120 years). (Gen. 6:3)"

It tells you right there in that 6th Chapter, " (And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.Genesis 6:1-2)"

These old men (old as Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, etc.), called "the sons of GOD" were, because of their Patriarchal status, taking any of these "daughters of men (much, much, much, etc. younger than themselves)" and marrying them. . .Far, Far outside their generations. . .and ". . .after their kind...". . .and this was not good in GOD sight.If you think you somehow proved something with what you said here, I'm just not seeing it. It seems to me your whole theory is based on the assumption that Noah was 500 years old when God told him to build the ark, but I don't see anything that specifically says that. I understand how you draw your conclusion, I just don't agree with it.

divaD
May 4th 2009, 09:53 PM
Here's some food for thought that I just came up with.



6:3 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.

6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was
only evil continually.


If one looks up these English words in the Hebrew, the same Hebrew word was used 3 times in a row in 3 verses.

The English words I'm referring to are 'days' in verse 3 and 4, and 'continually' in verse 5.

IMO then, verse 4 tells us the when, and verse 5 tells us the why, both verses being linked to the 120 yrs in verse 3.

So I might sum it up such as the following: yet his days shall be an hundred
and twenty years. When? During those days when there were giants in the earth; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Why? Because GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Now let's consider this word 'continually'. It seems to me that the point was, in order to cause evil continually to cease, God was going to make it cease in 120 yrs, since it wasn't ceasing on it's own, and only getting worse.

I'm sure one can argue, well if that was God's plan, it sure didn't work, because evil continues after the flood.

Perhaps not in the long run, but it did cause all of the evil to cease in those days, the 120 yrs before man was destroyed in the deluge. Well all except for Noah and his family of course. But we already knew that.

THOM
May 4th 2009, 09:59 PM
Sounds good.

Well if it sounds that good. . .you sure left it alone real quick.


That is only your assumption, friend. You seem to read it as if it says he had 3 sons at the age of 500. Triplets, in other words. Is that right? But kenramse posted verses a little earlier that indicated that they were not born at the same time. It refers to the elder son (Gen 10:21) and the younger son (Gen 9:24). So I take it to mean that he begat 3 sons without telling us exactly when they were born or how old Noah was when each of them was born. I think all we can say for sure is that he begat all 3 of them by the time he was 500 years old. I don't see that we should tie Genesis 6:10 directly to Genesis 5:32 and conclude that he was 500 years old at the time God told him to start building the ark.Esau and Jacob were twins. . .who was considered to be the eldest son? Where is it documented that triplet all come from the womb at the same time. Just like twins, don't they come from the womb first (the eldest), second (the next oldest), and third (the youngest)???


If you think you somehow proved something with what you said here, I'm just not seeing it. It seems to me your whole theory is based on the assumption that Noah was 500 years old when God told him to build the ark, but I don't see anything that specifically says that. I understand how you draw your conclusion, I just don't agree with it.I answer posts for the benefit of others, as well as the person who posted it. If I haven't "somehow proved something with" you, then I assure, that is not my Problem. When GOD'S time is right you and anyone else will see, what I state here is the Truth. . .but then we all hate to be wrong, about things we have for so long thought to be True, that we really didn't examine for ourselves, huh?:B Remember when you first found out that JESUS CHRIST couldn't have possibly been Crucified on "Good Friday"?:idea:

John146
May 5th 2009, 09:16 PM
Well if it sounds that good. . .you sure left it alone real quick.Did I? I have given plenty of commentary regarding this topic in this thread. What more do you want? This isn't even a big issue, yet for whatever reason you turn it into one.


Esau and Jacob were twins. . .who was considered to be the eldest son? Where is it documented that triplet all come from the womb at the same time. Just like twins, don't they come from the womb first (the eldest), second (the next oldest), and third (the youngest)???That's a valid example, but there is evidence to show that they were not triplets.

First, it says Ham is the youngest and Japheth is the eldest which obviously makes Shem the middle child.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

How do you reconcile this verse with your belief that Noah was 500 years old when he had all 3 of them? We know Noah was 600 years old when the flood was over. The verse above indicates that Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood, which would have made him 98 years old when the flood ended. This means that he could not have been born when Noah was 500 but instead was born when Noah was 502. This would also mean that Japheth was the only one to be born when Noah was 500 while Ham was born at some point after Noah was 502.


I answer posts for the benefit of others, as well as the person who posted it. If I haven't "somehow proved something with" you, then I assure, that is not my Problem. When GOD'S time is right you and anyone else will see, what I state here is the Truth. . .but then we all hate to be wrong, about things we have for so long thought to be True, that we really didn't examine for ourselves, huh?:B Remember when you first found out that JESUS CHRIST couldn't have possibly been Crucified on "Good Friday"?:idea::rolleyes:

THOM
May 5th 2009, 10:19 PM
Did I? I have given plenty of commentary regarding this topic in this thread. What more do you want? This isn't even a big issue, yet for whatever reason you turn it into one.

Sure you "Did"! And you go right on to prove it in your very next sentence; I'd say, as others would also, that if, "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of GOD (Deuteronomy 8:3;Matthew 4:4;Luke 4:4)", then that would make it "a big issue".

When you attempting to witness to an unbeliever, and they knows more about the Scriture(s) that you're trying to witness to him/her about, I'd say that's a very "big issue".


That's a valid example, but there is evidence to show that they were not triplets.

First, it says Ham is the youngest and Japheth is the eldest which obviously makes Shem the middle child.

Genesis 11:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: How do you reconcile this verse with your belief that Noah was 500 years old when he had all 3 of them? We know Noah was 600 years old when the flood was over. The verse above indicates that Shem was 100 years old two years after the flood, which would have made him 98 years old when the flood ended. This means that he could not have been born when Noah was 500 but instead was born when Noah was 502. This would also mean that Japheth was the only one to be born when Noah was 500 while Ham was born at some point after Noah was 502.Did you miss the part that states, "And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year (601 years old), Noah would have been by now), in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. (Genesis 8:13)"?
Now then, if Noah was now 601 years old, how old would that have made Shem? More like 101 years old, right? Why don't you try reading the Test in its chronological oder? See the 8th chapter of Genesis, comes before the 11th Chapter of Genesis.
:rolleyes::idea:

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77