Full Version: Ancient People Lived to 1000 years
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History
have they found the fountain of youth or what?
key words are "according to the Bible". I don't want to seem mean and question Christianity but just because something is in the Bible doesn't make it true. I know what I'm saying might cause some people to hate me but it's just how I feel. Basically, just because something is written doesn't make it true without the right evidence.
but isnt it possible that people in those ancient days had something in their genes that extended their existence. today we have fast foods, pollution, terminal diseases like cancer and aids. what i find fascinanting is that Adam died with 939 years i think and after that the lifespan started to decrease from generation to generation to only 150 years,which by the way is still a lot.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
QUOTE (Picollo30 @ Nov 8 2007, 01:14 PM) 
but isnt it possible that people in those ancient days had something in their genes that extended their existence. today we have fast foods, pollution, terminal diseases like cancer and aids. what i find fascinanting is that Adam died with 939 years i think and after that the lifespan started to decrease from generation to generation to only 150 years,which by the way is still a lot.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
QUOTE
In human, only a single gene has been shown to have a possible direct effect on longevity: apoE codes for a protein which, in the body, is involved in fats transport. It is reported that centenarians show a prevalence the apoE e2 variant (or allele), compared to the e4 variant [9]. The latter is known to cause susceptibility to elevated blood cholesterol, coronary artery disease and Alzheimer (the function of this protein in the brain is not yet known) [1]. Other factors connected to the endocrine regulation of reproductive life span have been shown to influence life span as well, but no single gene candidate can be put forward. It is interesting to note that the connection of longevity with reproductive activity is very clear in other species, such as the Pacific salmon, which dies just after reproduction; ant queens, on the contrary, live much longer than the other members of the colony, although they are the only individuals sexually active.
Source.
QUOTE (Picollo30 @ Nov 8 2007, 03:14 AM)
but isnt it possible that people in those ancient days had something in their genes that extended their existence.
I am pretty sure the archaeological evidence suggests people lived shorter lives then.
Even other literature from around that time indicates that they had shorter/normal life spans.
QUOTE (Betsy @ Nov 7 2007, 09:40 PM)
I am pretty sure the archaeological evidence suggests people lived shorter lives then.
Even other literature from around that time indicates that they had shorter/normal life spans.
Even other literature from around that time indicates that they had shorter/normal life spans.
Agreed... BUT what was common during the time of the Bible's authorship was to assign an impossibly old age to a respected person. So for example, Noah was supposedly 900 years old. Was he literally that old? No, that would be unlikely, but, the author(s) of the Bible used these outrageous numbers to impress on the reader how important and respected that character in the story is. Not their literal age because thats not consequential to the story.
Fountain of Youth????
Ask Ponce de leon..hehehehe
Ask Ponce de leon..hehehehe
Well if we follow suit to the Sumerian ancients, you will find that they lived even longer than that.
Sumerian King list
Sumerian King list
QUOTE (MissMelsWell @ Nov 8 2007, 08:19 AM)
Agreed... BUT what was common during the time of the Bible's authorship was to assign an impossibly old age to a respected person. So for example, Noah was supposedly 900 years old. Was he literally that old? No, that would be unlikely, but, the author(s) of the Bible used these outrageous numbers to impress on the reader how important and respected that character in the story is. Not their literal age because thats not consequential to the story.
Thanks I didn't know why everyone in the 'begats' part of the bible was soooo old!
QUOTE (Magnatude @ Nov 8 2007, 09:51 AM)
Well if we follow suit to the Sumerian ancients, you will find that they lived even longer than that.
Sumerian King list
Sumerian King list
En-Men-Lu-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 12 sars (43200 years)
Noah seems like a toddler compared to that guy's lifespan
numbers in the bible are more symbolic than anything else not at all to be taken literally
QUOTE (Carcharoth @ Nov 8 2007, 10:28 AM)
En-Men-Lu-Ana of Bad-Tibira: 12 sars (43200 years)
Noah seems like a toddler compared to that guy's lifespan
Noah seems like a toddler compared to that guy's lifespan
The bible accounts are interesting. Basically Adam and Eve were created 'perfect' and designed to live forever. When they sinned and were cast out from the Garden of Eden they gradually became older and started dying. This gradual death was also passed onto their offspring. It could be likened to switching off a fan, it will not just stop but gradually wind down. The bible account is pretty consistent as pre-flood the length of peoples live gradually drops from around 1000 years down to our three score and ten now.
One interesting point is the bible claims that god was forced to bring the flood as mankind was developing so fast that soon 'there would be nothing they could not achieve', the tower of Babel being one of them, the aim of which was so that man could reach the heavens.
just a theroy...
possibly the age was not determined by years, but by wisdom. such as saying a man is 900 is saying he was as wise as nine lifetimes?
or possibly they measured years differenlty and 900 years could have been an average lifespan
or by months 900/12 is around 75 which is still a sinificant age for that time
not syaing i belive thes ethings,just therioes lol
possibly the age was not determined by years, but by wisdom. such as saying a man is 900 is saying he was as wise as nine lifetimes?
or possibly they measured years differenlty and 900 years could have been an average lifespan
or by months 900/12 is around 75 which is still a sinificant age for that time
not syaing i belive thes ethings,just therioes lol
I'm coming to suspect that there is a great deal of literal
truth throughout the bible. For the main part it is misun-
derstood in modern times.
It should be remembered that writing and the pyramids
were ancient when the first books were written around
600BC. These were transalations of earlier written record-
ings of the old oral traditions which pre-dated writing. Be-
fore writing knowledge was passed down in the form of
massive amounts of information that had to be memor-
ized by individuals. Moses, Methuselah, etc., were not in-
dividuals, they were oral traditions. These would last in
a family line for hundreds of years before it was interrup-
ted by early death or lack of a successor. The tradition
wouldn't die out entirely because they would branch off.
These traditions were corrupted somewhat in the retelling
and then further as they were written down.
truth throughout the bible. For the main part it is misun-
derstood in modern times.
It should be remembered that writing and the pyramids
were ancient when the first books were written around
600BC. These were transalations of earlier written record-
ings of the old oral traditions which pre-dated writing. Be-
fore writing knowledge was passed down in the form of
massive amounts of information that had to be memor-
ized by individuals. Moses, Methuselah, etc., were not in-
dividuals, they were oral traditions. These would last in
a family line for hundreds of years before it was interrup-
ted by early death or lack of a successor. The tradition
wouldn't die out entirely because they would branch off.
These traditions were corrupted somewhat in the retelling
and then further as they were written down.
What I remember is that in Hebrew the term for day, month, year, etc is the same. That would explain mistranslations such as years of age, 40 days and 40 nights in the desert, 6 days to create the earth, etc.
The Bible should never be taken literally because:
1) Men wrote it/compiled it
2) It's mistranslated horribly
3) It was compiled hundreds of years after the events themselves took place, if they even did take place.
To date, not one archaeologist has found anything explicitly described in the Bible. That basically debunks everything in it. Doesn't mean I'm not a Christian myself, who goes to church every Sunday, and speaks the Nicene creed from my heart. There are incredibly worthwhile teachings in the Bible, but that's about all it can yield.
The Bible should never be taken literally because:
1) Men wrote it/compiled it
2) It's mistranslated horribly
3) It was compiled hundreds of years after the events themselves took place, if they even did take place.
To date, not one archaeologist has found anything explicitly described in the Bible. That basically debunks everything in it. Doesn't mean I'm not a Christian myself, who goes to church every Sunday, and speaks the Nicene creed from my heart. There are incredibly worthwhile teachings in the Bible, but that's about all it can yield.
QUOTE (Picollo30 @ Nov 7 2007, 08:14 PM)
but isnt it possible that people in those ancient days had something in their genes that extended their existence. today we have fast foods, pollution, terminal diseases like cancer and aids. what i find fascinanting is that Adam died with 939 years i think and after that the lifespan started to decrease from generation to generation to only 150 years,which by the way is still a lot.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
Okay, since when is the bible an absoloute truth? We are starting to live to an older age then generations before us.
the old testament is in the most part stories adapted from older cultures than the Hebrews with the characters names changed to reflect their own cultural heritage
we still do this thesedays. Look at the two american versions of War of the Worlds where the martians run roughshod over US locations which in the original book was set in surrey, England.
there is more than adequate proof for instance that the five books of the original pentateuch were all adapted from mesopotamian stories
flood story Gilgamesh written down 2500bce
Noah flood story written down 600bce
if you examine the details its very clear where the hebrews got all the details about that story from, and the Akkadian story of Gilgamesh was written at a time when there were no Hebrews in existence so the claim for oral history like the Ark of Noah doesn't hold water.
as someone pointed out earlier there are lists of Sumerian kings who reigned for impossible lengths of time. Some of these kings are attested in the archaeological record but lived perfectly normal life spans so the mistake is clearly one of accounting
the mistake came about when theses king lists were copied from Sumerian into Akkadian
The sumerians used a sexagesimal system of recording numbers and the Akkadians used base ten the same as us. To get the length of reigns in our numerical system you simply divide the stated reign by 60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list#The_list
so basically along with the old stories adapted to their own needs they inherited the belief that the people they had got the stories from had leaders in ancient times who had lived a very long time. They simply adapted this along with the stories not realising the error because at that point in time the prevalent belief was not in science but in religion
if someone influential said something was true then you had to accept it and pass it on or else your own life might suddenly get incredibly shorter
someone asked this same question at another forum and without mentioning which forum I think its within the rules to post his answer to this question because he explained it much better than I just did
The Answer. That's Right. The Answer
we still do this thesedays. Look at the two american versions of War of the Worlds where the martians run roughshod over US locations which in the original book was set in surrey, England.
there is more than adequate proof for instance that the five books of the original pentateuch were all adapted from mesopotamian stories
flood story Gilgamesh written down 2500bce
Noah flood story written down 600bce
if you examine the details its very clear where the hebrews got all the details about that story from, and the Akkadian story of Gilgamesh was written at a time when there were no Hebrews in existence so the claim for oral history like the Ark of Noah doesn't hold water.
as someone pointed out earlier there are lists of Sumerian kings who reigned for impossible lengths of time. Some of these kings are attested in the archaeological record but lived perfectly normal life spans so the mistake is clearly one of accounting
the mistake came about when theses king lists were copied from Sumerian into Akkadian
The sumerians used a sexagesimal system of recording numbers and the Akkadians used base ten the same as us. To get the length of reigns in our numerical system you simply divide the stated reign by 60
QUOTE
Jushur of Kish: 1200 years / 60 = 20 years
Kullassina-bel of Kish: 960 years / 60 = 16 years
Kullassina-bel of Kish: 960 years / 60 = 16 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_king_list#The_list
so basically along with the old stories adapted to their own needs they inherited the belief that the people they had got the stories from had leaders in ancient times who had lived a very long time. They simply adapted this along with the stories not realising the error because at that point in time the prevalent belief was not in science but in religion
if someone influential said something was true then you had to accept it and pass it on or else your own life might suddenly get incredibly shorter
someone asked this same question at another forum and without mentioning which forum I think its within the rules to post his answer to this question because he explained it much better than I just did
The Answer. That's Right. The Answer
QUOTE
This really has been a mind-expanding thread, full of ingenious answers to the OP question. Some of them were fascinating to read. Others were hilarious.
Now here's the correct answer.
1. Between the rivers
Originally posted by Byrd
In the Sumerian king lists, some are shown to be living 900,000 years or so.
Sumeria was in Mesopotamia, the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Mesopotamia was also the place where the ancestors of the Jewish people arose; the Bible tells us Abraham came from 'Ur of the Chaldees', which was in Mesopotamia. Those long-lived Biblical patriarchs you good folk have been discussing were all Mesopotamian. Even Adam was; according to Biblical report, the Garden of Eden, where he was inspired with life, was in Mesopotamia.
2. The numbers game
Now the Sumerians, to whose 'king list' Byrd refers, had been civilized longer than just about anybody -- around nine thousand years, longer even than the ancient Egyptians. This was the place where writing was invented and where Hammurabi, the granddaddy of all bookkeepers, kept his records. Over the millennia, different city-states and empires arose in Mesopotamia. Power and ideas were passed from declining and dying states to emerging ones. Often these ideas mutated or diversified in the process of transfer.
Arithmetic, a fairly early invention, was one of the ideas that got mutated slightly in transfer. The way it mutated holds the answer to the OP question.
3. All our bases are belong to you
The common-or-garden arithmetic we use every day makes use of a 'base' of 10. What this means is that we use a set of ten digits (1 to 9 plus 0), and when we want to write a number that is more than nine, we use the same digits to refer to multiples of ten -- tens, hundreds, thousands, and so on. When we want to write the number of miles in a marathon, we write
26
where the 2 stands for 'two times ten' and the 6 stands for one times six. Whenever we see the figure 26, we know exactly how much it stands for: the number of miles that are in a marathon, or the age at which Keats died of tuberculosis.
But now, suppose we change our 'base' from 10 to, say, 6. We then have only six digits (1 to 5 plus 0) with which to write down any quantity we can think of. To write down the number of miles in a marathon, we would write, not '26' but
42
where '4' means 'four times six' (twenty-four) and '2' just means two (twenty-four plus two equals twenty-six). The actual number stays the same (the number of miles in a marathon) but the figure is different. Confused? No need to be. It's simple arithmetic, no big trick to it.
It becomes a little harder to deal with (for us decimal habituees) when you start using bases higher than ten. You have to have invent new digits. Perhaps you decide to use A for 11, B for 12 and so on, but whatever you decide, it's messy. I wouldn't even bring it up, except that this is exactly what some ancient Mesopotamians did, some of the time: they used base 60 arithmetic. They had a basic set of sixty digits. At other periods of history, ancient Mesopotamian cultures used ordinary base ten arithmetic, the same as we do.
4. Swapping bases
Knowing that ancient Mesopotamian societies alternated between base 10 and base 60 arithmetic, we can see quite clearly how those amazing age tallies in the early Old Testament and the Sumerian King Lists were generated.
It goes like this.
Somewhere in Sumeria, a king dies. A scribe records the length of his reign on a clay tablet: 'King Ashur reigned for 13 years'. He's using base 10 arithmetic.
A few generations later, in another part of Mesopotamia where they use base 60 arithmetic, another scribe copies out what was written by the first on another tablet: 'King Ashur reigned for 13 years.' But in this society, '13' doesn't mean thirteen; it means sixty-three, and that's what he writes down in the script of his era, not knowing he's made a mistake by not converting the base from 10 to 60 at the same time. So now King Ashur appears to have ruled not for thirteen but for sixty-three years.
A couple more generations, a couple more base swaps and he's lived for 3,603 years. Methuselah eat your heart out.
And there you have it. It's nowhere near as exciting as variable planetary spin, the Finger of God and some of the other theories posted here, but this, I fear, is the real explanation for the apparently extraordinary longevity of Methuselah and his fellow-patriarchs. They were bookkeeping errors, the lot of them.
Now here's the correct answer.
1. Between the rivers
Originally posted by Byrd
In the Sumerian king lists, some are shown to be living 900,000 years or so.
Sumeria was in Mesopotamia, the land between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. Mesopotamia was also the place where the ancestors of the Jewish people arose; the Bible tells us Abraham came from 'Ur of the Chaldees', which was in Mesopotamia. Those long-lived Biblical patriarchs you good folk have been discussing were all Mesopotamian. Even Adam was; according to Biblical report, the Garden of Eden, where he was inspired with life, was in Mesopotamia.
2. The numbers game
Now the Sumerians, to whose 'king list' Byrd refers, had been civilized longer than just about anybody -- around nine thousand years, longer even than the ancient Egyptians. This was the place where writing was invented and where Hammurabi, the granddaddy of all bookkeepers, kept his records. Over the millennia, different city-states and empires arose in Mesopotamia. Power and ideas were passed from declining and dying states to emerging ones. Often these ideas mutated or diversified in the process of transfer.
Arithmetic, a fairly early invention, was one of the ideas that got mutated slightly in transfer. The way it mutated holds the answer to the OP question.
3. All our bases are belong to you
The common-or-garden arithmetic we use every day makes use of a 'base' of 10. What this means is that we use a set of ten digits (1 to 9 plus 0), and when we want to write a number that is more than nine, we use the same digits to refer to multiples of ten -- tens, hundreds, thousands, and so on. When we want to write the number of miles in a marathon, we write
26
where the 2 stands for 'two times ten' and the 6 stands for one times six. Whenever we see the figure 26, we know exactly how much it stands for: the number of miles that are in a marathon, or the age at which Keats died of tuberculosis.
But now, suppose we change our 'base' from 10 to, say, 6. We then have only six digits (1 to 5 plus 0) with which to write down any quantity we can think of. To write down the number of miles in a marathon, we would write, not '26' but
42
where '4' means 'four times six' (twenty-four) and '2' just means two (twenty-four plus two equals twenty-six). The actual number stays the same (the number of miles in a marathon) but the figure is different. Confused? No need to be. It's simple arithmetic, no big trick to it.
It becomes a little harder to deal with (for us decimal habituees) when you start using bases higher than ten. You have to have invent new digits. Perhaps you decide to use A for 11, B for 12 and so on, but whatever you decide, it's messy. I wouldn't even bring it up, except that this is exactly what some ancient Mesopotamians did, some of the time: they used base 60 arithmetic. They had a basic set of sixty digits. At other periods of history, ancient Mesopotamian cultures used ordinary base ten arithmetic, the same as we do.
4. Swapping bases
Knowing that ancient Mesopotamian societies alternated between base 10 and base 60 arithmetic, we can see quite clearly how those amazing age tallies in the early Old Testament and the Sumerian King Lists were generated.
It goes like this.
Somewhere in Sumeria, a king dies. A scribe records the length of his reign on a clay tablet: 'King Ashur reigned for 13 years'. He's using base 10 arithmetic.
A few generations later, in another part of Mesopotamia where they use base 60 arithmetic, another scribe copies out what was written by the first on another tablet: 'King Ashur reigned for 13 years.' But in this society, '13' doesn't mean thirteen; it means sixty-three, and that's what he writes down in the script of his era, not knowing he's made a mistake by not converting the base from 10 to 60 at the same time. So now King Ashur appears to have ruled not for thirteen but for sixty-three years.
A couple more generations, a couple more base swaps and he's lived for 3,603 years. Methuselah eat your heart out.
And there you have it. It's nowhere near as exciting as variable planetary spin, the Finger of God and some of the other theories posted here, but this, I fear, is the real explanation for the apparently extraordinary longevity of Methuselah and his fellow-patriarchs. They were bookkeeping errors, the lot of them.
QUOTE
To date, not one archaeologist has found anything explicitly described in the Bible.
That is simply not true, and statements made like that can sound convincing to those who do not know any better.
I won't go into details here, but you can go oon archaelogical tours which take in sites from both the old and new testaments.
Certainly there is some dispute about jewish settlements, given that they were displaced from their original homelands for a long time, and only about 400-500 years BC, did they begin returning to "the Holy Land" This is referenced biblically through the disputes with the samaritans who had taken over the jewish lands in the mean time, and the biblical references to people who were so busy putting their money into rebuilding residences and businesses that the work on restoring the temple was going too slowly.
Outside of this dispute, however, this area of the earth is one of the most searched areas (alongside the nile valley) and there are many discoveries which are conclusively linked to old and new testament sites. If you can't go on a tour, just check out the National Geographic channel for a non religious perspective.
QUOTE (kerkinana walsky @ Nov 8 2007, 11:40 PM)
Nice post kerkianananananananana. Some very interesting bits about the summerians. Do you have any more links to their sexagesimal base counting system?
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 8 2007, 03:45 PM)
That is simply not true, and statements made like that can sound convincing to those who do not know any better.
I won't go into details here, but you can go oon archaelogical tours which take in sites from both the old and new testaments.
Certainly there is some dispute about jewish settlements, given that they were displaced from their original homelands for a long time, and only about 400-500 years BC, did they begin returning to "the Holy Land" This is referenced biblically through the disputes with the samaritans who had taken over the jewish lands in the mean time, and the biblical references to people who were so busy putting their money into rebuilding residences and businesses that the work on restoring the temple was going too slowly.
Outside of this dispute, however, this area of the earth is one of the most searched areas (alongside the nile valley) and there are many discoveries which are conclusively linked to old and new testament sites. If you can't go on a tour, just check out the National Geographic channel for a non religious perspective.
I won't go into details here, but you can go oon archaelogical tours which take in sites from both the old and new testaments.
Certainly there is some dispute about jewish settlements, given that they were displaced from their original homelands for a long time, and only about 400-500 years BC, did they begin returning to "the Holy Land" This is referenced biblically through the disputes with the samaritans who had taken over the jewish lands in the mean time, and the biblical references to people who were so busy putting their money into rebuilding residences and businesses that the work on restoring the temple was going too slowly.
Outside of this dispute, however, this area of the earth is one of the most searched areas (alongside the nile valley) and there are many discoveries which are conclusively linked to old and new testament sites. If you can't go on a tour, just check out the National Geographic channel for a non religious perspective.
No, no. You did not read what I said carefully. I said that nothing described in the bible EXCLUSIVELY. Meaning, anything that is ONLY found in the Bible and nowhere else, even mentioned. Those things have never been found. Certain cities in the Bible have been found, but they have also been written about by other societies. I am talking about things like Moses, the exodus from egypt, etc. Those are stories, ONLY in the bible, and never mentioned by anyone else. None of those things have ever been found or proven.
And just to prove how right I am:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology</a>
If you read this, you can see how the majority of places or people mentioned in the Bible which are actually real, or found to be true, are things like structures. The problem is, none of the things actually proven to be true from the Bible aren't mentioned by someone else or a different culture or group of people. There is nothing exclusively in the bible which has been proven to be real. I guarantee it.
And the reason why that is so true is non religious people would have to believe that there is validity in the Bible if biblical archaeologists actually found something from it to be true. And you cannot say that just because there are historical figures in the bible which have been mentioned by other societies somehow means that Moses really existed when NO ONE else but the Bible talks about him.
"No other surviving written records from Egypt, Assyria, etc., indisputably referring to the stories of the Bible or its main characters before ca. 850 BC have been found,[54][55] and there is no known physical evidence (such as pottery shards or stone tablets) to corroborate Moses' existence.[56][57]Destruction of unfavorable records by unsympathetic Pharaohs, and even mass obliteration of cartouches from monuments, is known to have occurred at several epochs in Ancient Egyptian history.[58]"
In other words, no good proof at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Criticisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology</a>
If you read this, you can see how the majority of places or people mentioned in the Bible which are actually real, or found to be true, are things like structures. The problem is, none of the things actually proven to be true from the Bible aren't mentioned by someone else or a different culture or group of people. There is nothing exclusively in the bible which has been proven to be real. I guarantee it.
And the reason why that is so true is non religious people would have to believe that there is validity in the Bible if biblical archaeologists actually found something from it to be true. And you cannot say that just because there are historical figures in the bible which have been mentioned by other societies somehow means that Moses really existed when NO ONE else but the Bible talks about him.
"No other surviving written records from Egypt, Assyria, etc., indisputably referring to the stories of the Bible or its main characters before ca. 850 BC have been found,[54][55] and there is no known physical evidence (such as pottery shards or stone tablets) to corroborate Moses' existence.[56][57]Destruction of unfavorable records by unsympathetic Pharaohs, and even mass obliteration of cartouches from monuments, is known to have occurred at several epochs in Ancient Egyptian history.[58]"
In other words, no good proof at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Criticisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology
QUOTE (1.618 @ Nov 8 2007, 11:53 PM)
Nice post kerkianananananananana. Some very interesting bits about the summerians. Do you have any more links to their sexagesimal base counting system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexagesimal
http://www.spirasolaris.ca/sbb1sup1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_numerals
http://www.ancientscripts.com/sumerian.html
http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/sumerian.html
http://www.geocities.com/mathfair2002/scho...rit/arithm1.htm
http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/scie...s/lecture4.html
http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/index.html
http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/obsummary.html
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/HistTo...athematics.html
you getting the impression I wasn't talking about an untested hypothesis yet ?
How could people back then supposedly live for so long? I thought it was the opposite, it's nowadays that the age the average healthy person is dying is much higher.. not the other way around.
Thanks for clarifying your point Rezna, (Your original quote said explicitly which means clearly and deliberately written down and that is how i took it to mean, but if you meant exclusively that makes more sense) although it is still a little murky to me. You sound as if you are saying that there are some places mentioned in the bible which are not mentioned elsewhere, and that this somehow means those places are not real.
This is self evident. If something appears only in the bible, it is difficult to find proof/verification of it. However, it does not mean that it/they were not real.(see comment below)
You make it a little clearer by taking your time line back to 850 BC. However, there are very few, if any written records from local civilizations at that time, so it will always be hard to find any written confirmation.
If you were really only talking about the earliest books of the bible, then you have a much stronger case, as these certainly fit your description of oral traditions, which were only written down after many generations as oral tales.
As with all oral tales however, there are other measures to test their validity. These include coherency and internal integrity.
While there are some variances in the early stories, they generally pass this test. The best example is that "god" and his laws remain remarkably constant through the centuries of contac,t from which the oral stories originated.
Secondly there is the test of application. Many ancient oral stories have little or no application to modern people or societies. However, from the earliest stories, the laws and principles laid down in the bible stories illustrate both a persnal way of life with many physical and mental benefits, as well as a developing series of rules and laws to run a society which are still capable of application today.
For example the laws covered safe dietary habits, laws for caring for the weak and vulnerable in society such as women and children, financial succession, family structures, and crimes and punishments.
The 10 commandments, from quite early in the bible, establish rules for both a relationship with god and for developing a safer and more secure society, in which gods' peoples had a better chance than most to prosper and develop. For a period of time ranging up to 3000 years, these laws gave an historical advantage to jewish, islamic and christian cultures. One result of this is that they are perhaps the longest extant religious based cultures in the world today, and there is a strong argument that they are the most significant in the development of civil culture as well.
QUOTE
There is nothing exclusively in the bible which has been proven to be real. I guarantee it.
This is self evident. If something appears only in the bible, it is difficult to find proof/verification of it. However, it does not mean that it/they were not real.(see comment below)
You make it a little clearer by taking your time line back to 850 BC. However, there are very few, if any written records from local civilizations at that time, so it will always be hard to find any written confirmation.
If you were really only talking about the earliest books of the bible, then you have a much stronger case, as these certainly fit your description of oral traditions, which were only written down after many generations as oral tales.
As with all oral tales however, there are other measures to test their validity. These include coherency and internal integrity.
While there are some variances in the early stories, they generally pass this test. The best example is that "god" and his laws remain remarkably constant through the centuries of contac,t from which the oral stories originated.
Secondly there is the test of application. Many ancient oral stories have little or no application to modern people or societies. However, from the earliest stories, the laws and principles laid down in the bible stories illustrate both a persnal way of life with many physical and mental benefits, as well as a developing series of rules and laws to run a society which are still capable of application today.
For example the laws covered safe dietary habits, laws for caring for the weak and vulnerable in society such as women and children, financial succession, family structures, and crimes and punishments.
The 10 commandments, from quite early in the bible, establish rules for both a relationship with god and for developing a safer and more secure society, in which gods' peoples had a better chance than most to prosper and develop. For a period of time ranging up to 3000 years, these laws gave an historical advantage to jewish, islamic and christian cultures. One result of this is that they are perhaps the longest extant religious based cultures in the world today, and there is a strong argument that they are the most significant in the development of civil culture as well.
Just to add to the debate about longevity. It would appear that the life span of humanity is determined by the point at which cell replication ceases and we begin to die. 125 years sems to be commonly accepted as the longest age to which humans might live without the intervention of modern medicine or genetic modification. This age is only achievable under optimum conditions.
Historically many individuals have lived to quite an old age. I was watching a documentary on saxon burials where archaelogists were able to work out that some of the people had been about 80 years old when they died. These were the wealthiest and best fed individuals in their group.
Whenever times are hard, lifespans reduce, and at other times the average may be reduced by plagues, such as the black death. However, even in those times some individuals managed to live to an age comparable to our own life expectancy.
While 10 out of 12 children might have commonly died before they were old enough to produce the next generation, natural immunities and less vulnerability to environmental factors such as cold and malnutrition mean that once you reached adulthood, you had some chance of a longer life.
If you believe the bible, then humans were genetically once very different. Created in god's image they were immortal, or very close to it. Even when sin, death, and disease entered the world, many generations retained this natural genetic advantage. The bible supprts this theory, in that the lifespan slowly decreased from about 1000 years to something much closer to what is scientifically accepted as a normal life span today.
Other biblical indications refer to the size and power of some early men. They were giants. The last remnant of this group appears to be the extended family from which goliath descended. It is interesting to note that, after goliath was killed, an edict went out that all the remaining giants were to be killed. It was obviously felt that their size and strength posed political and military threats which were unacceptable, given the example goliath had set.
Historically many individuals have lived to quite an old age. I was watching a documentary on saxon burials where archaelogists were able to work out that some of the people had been about 80 years old when they died. These were the wealthiest and best fed individuals in their group.
Whenever times are hard, lifespans reduce, and at other times the average may be reduced by plagues, such as the black death. However, even in those times some individuals managed to live to an age comparable to our own life expectancy.
While 10 out of 12 children might have commonly died before they were old enough to produce the next generation, natural immunities and less vulnerability to environmental factors such as cold and malnutrition mean that once you reached adulthood, you had some chance of a longer life.
If you believe the bible, then humans were genetically once very different. Created in god's image they were immortal, or very close to it. Even when sin, death, and disease entered the world, many generations retained this natural genetic advantage. The bible supprts this theory, in that the lifespan slowly decreased from about 1000 years to something much closer to what is scientifically accepted as a normal life span today.
Other biblical indications refer to the size and power of some early men. They were giants. The last remnant of this group appears to be the extended family from which goliath descended. It is interesting to note that, after goliath was killed, an edict went out that all the remaining giants were to be killed. It was obviously felt that their size and strength posed political and military threats which were unacceptable, given the example goliath had set.
QUOTE
http://www.truthnet.org/biblicalarcheology...rchalperiod.htm
Extensive Travel: The Bible indicates the patriarchs traveled extensively. Abraham traveled more than 1000 miles moving from Ur of the Chaldees to
-
The parallels are so numerous and convincing that many of the recorded customs found in archaeology are demonstrated to be consistent with the biblical customs of the patriarchs.
4. Extensive Travel: The Bible indicates the patriarchs traveled extensively. Abraham traveled more than 1000 miles moving from Ur of the Chaldees to southern Canaan (Gen. 11:31 - 12:9). Later he sent his servant Eliezer more than 400 miles north to Haran in Upper Mesopotamia to acquire a bride for his son, Isaac (Gen. 24:1-10). Jacob also traveled extensively.
- Numerous texts from archaeological research show that travel of this kind was not uncommon during the patriarchal period. Letters from Mari indicate that envoys visited all the way from Hazor in Palestine to southern Mesopotamia and even Elam.
- Cappadocian texts from Kanish in Asia Minor tell of extensive trade relations between the Hittites and Assur.
Date of Abraham
Both biblical and extra-biblical materials provide evidence in the dating of Abraham. Scholars have a variety of theories on the dating of Abraham from a date in the latter half of the 15th century to the 23rd century. Fortunately for us we have the Bible to guide our interpretation of the evidence. The Bible is the infallible Word of God and has always been, and always will be, supported by the evidence. Based on a conservative, literal interpretation, of the Bible, Abraham’s birth is placed in the middle of the 22nd century.
- It is important to first establish the date when Solomon began to build the temple, a date, which 99.9% of scholars can agree upon, which is 966 BC.
- According to 1 Kings 6:1, the Exodus preceded the time when Solomon began to build the temple by 480 years. This puts the Exodus at 1446 BC.
1KI 6:1 Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
1 Kings 6:1 (NASB)
- According to a literal reading of the relevant passages, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Gen.21:5), Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26), and Jacob was 130 when he went down into Egypt (Gen. 47:9), giving a total of 290 years.
- Israel in Egypt (the Egyptian sojourn) lasted 430 years. This is supported by Exodus 12:40.
EX 12:40 Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.
Exodus 12:40 (NASB)
This is also supported by God’s prediction to Abraham in Genesis 15:13, Stephen’s statement in Acts 7:6, and finally by the high improbability of Jacob’s family multiplying in size to nation of over two million people occurring in less time.
Abraham’s birth date can then easily be calculated through these literal interpretations of Scripture. Starting with 966 BC, the date when Solomon began to build the temple, add the following three periods of time:
1. 480 years
2. 290 years
3. 430 years
The resultant date for Abraham’s birth is (966 + 480 + 430 + 290) = 2166 BC.
[/i]
Extensive Travel: The Bible indicates the patriarchs traveled extensively. Abraham traveled more than 1000 miles moving from Ur of the Chaldees to
-
The parallels are so numerous and convincing that many of the recorded customs found in archaeology are demonstrated to be consistent with the biblical customs of the patriarchs.
4. Extensive Travel: The Bible indicates the patriarchs traveled extensively. Abraham traveled more than 1000 miles moving from Ur of the Chaldees to southern Canaan (Gen. 11:31 - 12:9). Later he sent his servant Eliezer more than 400 miles north to Haran in Upper Mesopotamia to acquire a bride for his son, Isaac (Gen. 24:1-10). Jacob also traveled extensively.
- Numerous texts from archaeological research show that travel of this kind was not uncommon during the patriarchal period. Letters from Mari indicate that envoys visited all the way from Hazor in Palestine to southern Mesopotamia and even Elam.
- Cappadocian texts from Kanish in Asia Minor tell of extensive trade relations between the Hittites and Assur.
Date of Abraham
Both biblical and extra-biblical materials provide evidence in the dating of Abraham. Scholars have a variety of theories on the dating of Abraham from a date in the latter half of the 15th century to the 23rd century. Fortunately for us we have the Bible to guide our interpretation of the evidence. The Bible is the infallible Word of God and has always been, and always will be, supported by the evidence. Based on a conservative, literal interpretation, of the Bible, Abraham’s birth is placed in the middle of the 22nd century.
- It is important to first establish the date when Solomon began to build the temple, a date, which 99.9% of scholars can agree upon, which is 966 BC.
- According to 1 Kings 6:1, the Exodus preceded the time when Solomon began to build the temple by 480 years. This puts the Exodus at 1446 BC.
1KI 6:1 Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
1 Kings 6:1 (NASB)
- According to a literal reading of the relevant passages, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Gen.21:5), Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26), and Jacob was 130 when he went down into Egypt (Gen. 47:9), giving a total of 290 years.
- Israel in Egypt (the Egyptian sojourn) lasted 430 years. This is supported by Exodus 12:40.
EX 12:40 Now the time that the sons of Israel lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.
Exodus 12:40 (NASB)
This is also supported by God’s prediction to Abraham in Genesis 15:13, Stephen’s statement in Acts 7:6, and finally by the high improbability of Jacob’s family multiplying in size to nation of over two million people occurring in less time.
Abraham’s birth date can then easily be calculated through these literal interpretations of Scripture. Starting with 966 BC, the date when Solomon began to build the temple, add the following three periods of time:
1. 480 years
2. 290 years
3. 430 years
The resultant date for Abraham’s birth is (966 + 480 + 430 + 290) = 2166 BC.
[/i]
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/bible.htm
Yes, yes... all this interperrating things in the bible, but notice that the bible says God dwindled our years to 120, funny it would "state" this apparent change to man.
Either that was added in later by the writers of the Torah, or perhaps it was stating the fact.
Perhaps some stem of truth may come forth if we could collect DNA from a body in that time of the Sumner Kings.
(not that I'm a believer in this lifespan concept, just pointing out some interesting quirks in the logic)
Either that was added in later by the writers of the Torah, or perhaps it was stating the fact.
Perhaps some stem of truth may come forth if we could collect DNA from a body in that time of the Sumner Kings.
(not that I'm a believer in this lifespan concept, just pointing out some interesting quirks in the logic)
I used to go to a church that took the bible literally. On more than one occasion the Pastor taught that the long lives described in the Old Testament were actual years, and the reason we have much shorter lifespans now is that we are not as close to God as what the ancient Hebrews were. He told us that as each generation has a more distant relationship with God, so too did our lifespans decrease in length. I found this strange, since statistics tell us that the average lifespan of a generation has been longer than the one that precedes it for at least a century. (http://www.aihw.gov.au/mortality/data/life_expectancy.cfm) This is one of the reasons why I became disillusioned with Christianity.
Avs
Avs
QUOTE (sincerely yours @ Nov 9 2007, 02:34 AM)
just a theroy...
possibly the age was not determined by years, but by wisdom. such as saying a man is 900 is saying he was as wise as nine lifetimes?
or possibly they measured years differenlty and 900 years could have been an average lifespan
or by months 900/12 is around 75 which is still a sinificant age for that time
not syaing i belive thes ethings,just therioes lol
possibly the age was not determined by years, but by wisdom. such as saying a man is 900 is saying he was as wise as nine lifetimes?
or possibly they measured years differenlty and 900 years could have been an average lifespan
or by months 900/12 is around 75 which is still a sinificant age for that time
not syaing i belive thes ethings,just therioes lol
My sentiments exactly.One has no clue to what the biblical ancients considered as a year consisted of.Elsewhere in this thread a figure of 43,200 years is attributed to a Sumerian monarch-the figure is apparently equal to one tenth of a kali yuga according to Hindu four yuga cycle of time.
The civilizations which had some knowledge of astronomy and probably time as i remeber are egyptian,greek,sumerian,mayan,vedic and maybe the chinese though not necessarily in that order.Among these too, in the VEDIC TIME CYCLES ONE COMES ACROSS VERY LARGE FIGURES WHICH ARE DIFFICULT O EVEN IMAGINE LET ALONE LIVE THROUGH-EITHER OUR ANCIENTS KNEW A LOT MORE THAN WE KNOW TODAY OR THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WHICH WE ARE ENTIRELY MISINTERPRETING.ALL SAID AND DONE WE HAVE ALOT MORE TO LEARN ABOUT OUR ANCIENTS.
It is well known that most early biblical figures are composite characters - ie their stories are made up from many other characters and all attributed to one name.
We have never lived to be 1000. Its genetically impossible.
We have never lived to be 1000. Its genetically impossible.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 9 2007, 12:24 AM)
You sound as if you are saying that there are some places mentioned in the bible which are not mentioned elsewhere, and that this somehow means those places are not real.
This is self evident. If something appears only in the bible, it is difficult to find proof/verification of it. However, it does not mean that it/they were not real.(see comment below)
This is self evident. If something appears only in the bible, it is difficult to find proof/verification of it. However, it does not mean that it/they were not real.(see comment below)
Unfortunately, it would not be very practical to go on the assumption that things in the bible are true until they are proven false. There is simply too much that is not based on fact to do so. This isn't to say there are true things in it, but to regard it more as a than a religous tract is not a way to find empirical, historical truth.
To put it another way, there are true things in the Harry Potter books, too, but that doesn't mean you should go up to Scotland and expect to find a real Hogwarts.
QUOTE
While there are some variances in the early stories, they generally pass this test. The best example is that "god" and his laws remain remarkably constant through the centuries of contac,t from which the oral stories originated.
I don't think you are, but are you suggesting that the Old Testament god of self-professed jeaolusy and mass murder is contiguous with the loving all-Father of the New? It seems to me to be a radical shift of personality between the two, and not "remarkably constant".
--Jaylemurph
QUOTE (Emma_Acid_88 @ Nov 9 2007, 08:42 PM)
It is well known that most early biblical figures are composite characters - ie their stories are made up from many other characters and all attributed to one name.
We have never lived to be 1000. Its genetically impossible.
We have never lived to be 1000. Its genetically impossible.
It may well be well known but, that alone, does not make it correct; necessarily. It was once well known that the earth was flat.
As I posted earlier, it is true that our present genetics limits us to a life span of no more than about 125 years. However, believers would argue that we ar eno longer the same, genetically, as when we were in Eden.
Certainly, genetic mutation is a fact of life, and it is not improbable that such mutation would be recessive, ie reducing the lifespan of humans (if they were created as a much "superior" form of human.)
In the near future humans will be genetically modified by our own science. This, along, with advances in nano medicines will push our potential lifespans out beyond 125 years, once again.
QUOTE
I don't think you are, but are you suggesting that the Old Testament god of self-professed jeaolusy and mass murder is contiguous with the loving all-Father of the New? It seems to me to be a radical shift of personality between the two, and not "remarkably constant".
Yes i probably am. I only have a couple of minutes, but there is by no means the discrepancy suggested by some people between the god of the OT and the god of the NT. Jesus and his sacrifice is a major differentiating factor, but as he said , he came to fulfil gods laws. Thus the laws/commandments for a good life, and for obedience to god, remain much the same(Certain specific jewish laws were done away with when the new covenant with christians was established. )
God has always been a loving god, with our best interests at heart. He has always done his best to save us from the consequence of our sins, even when this means destroying some who would bring the world, as he planned it, to an end.
Take the story of soddom and gomorrah as just one instance. God kept negotiating down the minimum requirements to save that city. Yet in the end its inhabitants doomed themselves. God sent angels to save those few who would listen, And he wept at the destruction of the cities. All through the OT when god is forced to take action, you see the reluctance with which he acts and the sadness/compassion that goes with those actions.
He is like a father, trying to protect his family. If one son, addicted to heroin, threates to addict or physically harm the other members, it may be necesary to eliminate that son, if there are no other options. At the same time, this is done out of love and compassion. In the modern world many cannot see this analogy, which is one reason our societies are in the state they are.
It's all a bunch of stories to fill up the Bible.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 11 2007, 07:05 PM)
It may well be well known but, that alone, does not make it correct; necessarily. It was once well known that the earth was flat.
Awesome statement!
Avs
mm...I still think they live longer due to their diet and their environment. maybe it's all the junkfood, and all the meds, and the environment, and especially the diet we have are the reaosn why we live shorter and have more diseases and such.
Somebody posted about cholestrol is the one reason that contributes the old gene to age us faster. Plus, face it, we only start taking care of what we eat when we are sick or old O.o nobody these days take care of what they eat ever since they are a child O.o there's alwats junkfood this and junk food that.
Then there is the lifestyle we go through.
I don't know. just my two cents. I called it possible.
Somebody posted about cholestrol is the one reason that contributes the old gene to age us faster. Plus, face it, we only start taking care of what we eat when we are sick or old O.o nobody these days take care of what they eat ever since they are a child O.o there's alwats junkfood this and junk food that.
Then there is the lifestyle we go through.
I don't know. just my two cents. I called it possible.
QUOTE (Picollo30 @ Nov 7 2007, 10:14 PM)
but isnt it possible that people in those ancient days had something in their genes that extended their existence. today we have fast foods, pollution, terminal diseases like cancer and aids. what i find fascinanting is that Adam died with 939 years i think and after that the lifespan started to decrease from generation to generation to only 150 years,which by the way is still a lot.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
yeah, i think it's important to note that in the bible the age of death decreases as it goes on. like adam living 900 something years and it keeps getting less and less people start dieing at 500, then 300, then 100, and then to the new testiment were people start dieing at about the same time as we do or even earlier.
QUOTE (rezna @ Nov 8 2007, 09:27 PM)
What I remember is that in Hebrew the term for day, month, year, etc is the same. That would explain mistranslations such as years of age, 40 days and 40 nights in the desert, 6 days to create the earth, etc.
I don't know about ancient hebrew but the hebrew spoken today, which was pretty much based on ancient hebrew definately has different words for day (yom), week (shevoah), month (hodesh) and year (shanah).
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 9 2007, 05:47 AM)
Just to add to the debate about longevity. It would appear that the life span of humanity is determined by the point at which cell replication ceases and we begin to die. 125 years sems to be commonly accepted as the longest age to which humans might live without the intervention of modern medicine or genetic modification. This age is only achievable under optimum conditions.
I heard off a biologist that the body was designed for around 200 years and we are poisoning ourselves from birth. I was thinking that maybe they used the seasons as years, we know that the ancients really used to focus on the suns position, that would give the possibility of 8-900 'years'.
QUOTE (Emma_Acid_88 @ Nov 9 2007, 01:12 PM)
It is well known that most early biblical figures are composite characters - ie their stories are made up from many other characters and all attributed to one name.
We have never lived to be 1000. Its genetically impossible.
We have never lived to be 1000. Its genetically impossible.
Right Emma, in fact, genetically it is quite a challenge to get to be older than 120, it has happened though.
QUOTE (Moon Monkey @ Nov 12 2007, 09:57 PM)
I heard off a biologist that the body was designed for around 200 years and we are poisoning ourselves from birth. I was thinking that maybe they used the seasons as years, we know that the ancients really used to focus on the suns position, that would give the possibility of 8-900 'years'.
The figure I have from geneticists is about 120 years, but I'll take 200.
Well what about the calendars being different. For instance, a year might have added up to 10 of our months, so after 6 "old years" it would really be 5 years.
QUOTE (questionmark @ Nov 12 2007, 02:28 PM)
Right Emma, in fact, genetically it is quite a challenge to get to be older than 120, it has happened though.
We often wondered how huge dinosaurs were able to move around with their impossible sizes, but however, they did.
Since we know there was a difference in the quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere at the time of the dinos, I wonder if we could speculate on what substance would we need to have 1000+ year old humans? Just thinking outside the box as I always do...
EDIT: oh, a thought... lets say we did live those long years in the ancient times, what was it that caused us to live shorter lifespans? possibly something introduced or taken away on the planet?
QUOTE (Magnatude @ Nov 13 2007, 07:48 AM)
We often wondered how huge dinosaurs were able to move around with their impossible sizes, but however, they did.
Since we know there was a difference in the quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere at the time of the dinos, I wonder if we could speculate on what substance would we need to have 1000+ year old humans? Just thinking outside the box as I always do...
EDIT: oh, a thought... lets say we did live those long years in the ancient times, what was it that caused us to live shorter lifespans? possibly something introduced or taken away on the planet?
Since we know there was a difference in the quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere at the time of the dinos, I wonder if we could speculate on what substance would we need to have 1000+ year old humans? Just thinking outside the box as I always do...
EDIT: oh, a thought... lets say we did live those long years in the ancient times, what was it that caused us to live shorter lifespans? possibly something introduced or taken away on the planet?
The only viable way I could foresee is to reduce the metabolism rate. That would in turn return the wear and tear on the organism.... but would it make by the same factor slower. So you might live 1000 years but it will feel to you as 100. By the time you would have been able to say good morning the reply would be good afternoon. I fail to see anything gained by that.
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 11 2007, 02:05 AM)
As I posted earlier, it is true that our present genetics limits us to a life span of no more than about 125 years. However, believers would argue that we ar eno longer the same, genetically, as when we were in Eden.
Certainly, genetic mutation is a fact of life, and it is not improbable that such mutation would be recessive, ie reducing the lifespan of humans (if they were created as a much "superior" form of human.)
In the near future humans will be genetically modified by our own science. This, along, with advances in nano medicines will push our potential lifespans out beyond 125 years, once again.
Certainly, genetic mutation is a fact of life, and it is not improbable that such mutation would be recessive, ie reducing the lifespan of humans (if they were created as a much "superior" form of human.)
In the near future humans will be genetically modified by our own science. This, along, with advances in nano medicines will push our potential lifespans out beyond 125 years, once again.
Mr. Walker,
I think it's possible that humans once, somewhere, might have lived longer. But it is also extremely, out-of-the-box, over-the-top unlikely.
On the other hand, your genetic interpretation is 100% testable.
While it is true (for now) that we don't know the history and operation of every base pair in the H. Sapiens genotype, we will one day - that much is certain.
When that day comes, we'll know if you were right. This is because genes don't simply disappear, they are modified or they are turned off. This means that the entire genetic history of the genus Homo is present in our DNA right now.
Once we untangle every genetic question, the history of the genetic component of aging in humans (and any other species of Homo) wil be answered.
Harte
I am convinced the real meaning was lost in translation.
If they counted their age in months and it was mistakenly translated into years then it seems like a pretty average lifespan.
1000 years would then be 1000 months which equals 83 Years.
Noah's 900 years would equate to 75 years.
All pretty average lifespans.
If they counted their age in months and it was mistakenly translated into years then it seems like a pretty average lifespan.
1000 years would then be 1000 months which equals 83 Years.
Noah's 900 years would equate to 75 years.
All pretty average lifespans.
Hi harte, I have no argument with any of your points. This is my understanding also. Do you have enough knowledge of the science involved to answer me this?
If, in the "near future," we make genetic alterations to humanity, would scientists in the" far future" (with access only to their current DNA) be able to identify this manipulation? Would they be able to determine what human DNA had been like, before our scientists started altering it?
I guess the answer to this depends on how much material is available to extract DNA from. The assumption might be that there would be adequate human remains, over a sequential period, to measure and compare genetic markers and changes.
If, in the "near future," we make genetic alterations to humanity, would scientists in the" far future" (with access only to their current DNA) be able to identify this manipulation? Would they be able to determine what human DNA had been like, before our scientists started altering it?
I guess the answer to this depends on how much material is available to extract DNA from. The assumption might be that there would be adequate human remains, over a sequential period, to measure and compare genetic markers and changes.
QUOTE (Picollo30 @ Nov 8 2007, 03:14 AM)
but isnt it possible that people in those ancient days had something in their genes that extended their existence. today we have fast foods, pollution, terminal diseases like cancer and aids. what i find fascinanting is that Adam died with 939 years i think and after that the lifespan started to decrease from generation to generation to only 150 years,which by the way is still a lot.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
scientists today still can't explain why we get old, and which is the gene that contributes for us getting old.
Maybe a year then is a month now which would have made him 78.25 years old. Cannot believe everything in the Old Testament
QUOTE (sumthingnice60 @ Nov 8 2007, 03:08 AM)
key words are "according to the Bible". I don't want to seem mean and question Christianity but just because something is in the Bible doesn't make it true. I know what I'm saying might cause some people to hate me but it's just how I feel. Basically, just because something is written doesn't make it true without the right evidence.
Its called the Old Testament not the Bible. The Bible was after Christ not before.
yep
QUOTE (Mr Walker @ Nov 14 2007, 06:04 PM)
If, in the "near future," we make genetic alterations to humanity, would scientists in the" far future" (with access only to their current DNA) be able to identify this manipulation? Would they be able to determine what human DNA had been like, before our scientists started altering it?
I guess the answer to this depends on how much material is available to extract DNA from. The assumption might be that there would be adequate human remains, over a sequential period, to measure and compare genetic markers and changes.
I guess the answer to this depends on how much material is available to extract DNA from. The assumption might be that there would be adequate human remains, over a sequential period, to measure and compare genetic markers and changes.
They have already today identified genetic manipulation that occured in our genus Homo.
There are viruses that can change the genetic makeup of the host. This has occured several times in the history of Homo (and every other species vulnarable to viruses.)
In many cases, the virus that caused the genetic change has also been identified.
In fact, it is through lab-created "viruses" that gene therapy is accomplished, and it is through artificial "virus" packages (among othe methods) that genes are manipulated in the laboratory presently.
So, I have no doubt at all that the former genetic makeup can be deduced from close examination of the present genetic makeup.
The question today is, what does it mean? This is what will be eventually answered in the future.
Just because we can see the change, and see what the genotype was before it was changed, that does not mean that we can interpret how the difference is exhibited in the species we've noted the change in. One day, we will be able to do this.
Harte
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.