Bible Questions?

I have and know what they are. The problem is you have no idea what life expectancy means.

You asked if I knew anyone who falls into certain categories and I do. I can help it if I know more people than you do, perhaps you should get out more.

Thanks but it just doesn't say what you want it to.

Once more life expectancy has nothing to do with how long it is possible for an individual to live, it only talks about about the average length of life of a group of people. If a group has a life expectancy of 50 years, that does not mean that everybody dies at 50 years, it doesn't even mean that most in the group dies at 50, it doesn't even mean that any of them will die at 50. What it means is they took the length that every one in the group lived, add them together and divide that by the number of people in that group. So for any large group, life expectancy can not be used to show how long any one person in the group lived or even to show that any one could not have lived a certain length of time, something you are trying to do with it.

 

Seems you're having problems with it, because you can't see that you are the one talking nonsense.

 

ahh, but I happen to know (and freely admit) when I'm talking nonsense

 

Okay, then why have hijacked this thread with your nonsense?

 

Because I'm a fool, duh. This would make the second time I've pointed this out to you... First you screw up some basic math and now this? You're not making a very good case for the mental stability of the elderly. Why do you allow yourself to get drawn into senseless debate with foolish 'hijackers'?

 

That link/chart shows how long people lived in different ages.
It shows that we live longer now than we did then.
It shows people did not, with the possible extremely rare exception, live into their nineties and hundreds two thousand years ago.

That is what I am saying. That is what the chart is saying. We are saying the same thing.

 

Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years


http://www.livescience.com/health/090821-human-lifespans.html

But the inclusion of infant mortality rates in calculating life expectancy creates the mistaken impression that earlier generations died at a young age; Americans were not dying en masse at the age of 46 in 1907. The fact is that the maximum human lifespan — a concept often confused with "life expectancy" — has remained more or less the same for thousands of years. The idea that our ancestors routinely died young (say, at age 40) has no basis in scientific fact.

So people could have lived that long years ago and still have remained healthy

Thanks.

 

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews...ific-mortality-lifespan-bad-science-2009.html

http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/life-expectancy/life-expectancy-over-human-history.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

Took me two minutes to google these to counter this point. We can play catch with 'experts' or use common sense.

In other words I'm still right. Sorry.

 

No, it only shows how long people lived on average.

No, it may only show that more people survive childhood today than then but still it says nothing about the longest age people could live to, in fact, with the lower death rate in children today, it could point to the fact that fewer people today live to extreme old age.

No, it doesn't and in fact as I pointed out since the high mortality rates at birth and in childhood at the time it would be more likely point to the fact that people who survived into adulthood lived quite bit longer than the average life expectancy.

Yes, that is what you are saying. No, that is not what the chart is saying. In fact, given the mortality rates of infants and children, the chart is saying more about the death of children than about how many people lived to 90 or 100. Obviously, you have no clue what life expectancy is.

 

Mainly because I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I try to assume that people are in good faith trying to discuss the subject at hand but as you just confessed to, you are a hijacker and do not belong in this thread or this forum.

PS it seemed that the only way to get you to stop dodging the question asked, was to "screw up some basic math" and since it seems to have worked and this thread is not about "basic math", it seems to say a whole lot more about your intentions than my mental stability.

 

Well my intentions were to ask some questions about the bible, but then someone got cute with me when I wanted to know the biblical source behind a statement they made. I was trying to come to my own conclusion about the matter, but you seem much more interested in sharing your interpretation of the bible over what it actually says. If you're not going to stay on topic I see no reason for anyone else to. I entered this thread as a fool in search of some biblical wisdom, but I found it lacking in enlightenment. I'm sorry you can't handle anyone having fun in your thread besides you

I think it says that your intentions and mine are pretty similar actually. Also, I didn't dodge you little simplistic scenario question, but once again it seems like you just didn't like my answer.

 

I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end.
God said let there be light, consciousness, and he saw that it was good.
Man has a different idea, believing his mind full of evil thoughts. The battle of good and evil then, an authority problem. Who do you believe? God's version of your being, or what the guy down the street said.

 

good call

 

so basically, none of the eyewitnesses witness what they witnessed being penned or approved thereof ..and if the unknown authors were indeed inspired (by God) to write, they'd have been inspired with 'live footage' from the event as opposed to what an 'eyewitness' witnessed, and multiple contradicting versions at that which gets translated from language to another to another with the originals missing and the translated lost in translation and no originals to refer back to, but what the 'wise' authors/translators/scholars make of it

Jeremiah 8:
8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise,
for we have the law of the LORD,"
when actually the lying pen of the scribes
has handled it falsely?

 

Amen. Or ahh men.

 

The entire point being made was that whether or not ancient centenarians existed or could have existed. Within one of your articles you mention, it states that some did live this long and the writer of that article even agrees with that statement.

"No disagreement here -- some people did live that long. The point is that the population had higher mortality than today (although classical Greece might well place favorably compared to some present high-mortality populations)."

"We do have some fairly secure dates for at least some ancient individuals. Strabo died at 88. Sophocles died at 90. Democritus' life span was said to be anything from 90-109. Alexis, the comic poet reached the age of 100, Isocrates, 98. So, there were probably centenarians in ancient times, although what the maximum was is anyone's guess."

Link

Like you say, we can play catch with experts or use common sense. Common sense says if some did live to a ripe old age back then, then it isn't an impossibility. That was the main point of the argument, that it is plausible.

 

I don't think there is enough evidence to assume living into the 90-100's would be extremely rare 2000 years ago. Here's a quote from one of the sources you cited.

"More important, we don't have a clue what the maximum lifespan may have been 200, 500, or 2000 years ago".

 

I don't get it. This is to be two and only two ways of concerning oneself with the Bible for questions and answers, which we, already can answer ourselves. There is the moral way and there is the directly situation way at two thousand years ago.

is that..

 

I never said it was impossible, just that it would be extremely unlikely - and certainly no more common than it is today. It is considered fairly rare to last till 100 in the modern day; let alone without the help of medicine/science, and to retain enough faculties to write part of the Bible...so sure, there's a chance it happened. About the same chance that I'll be struck by lightning while winning the lottery as I ride my elephant to work.

But if you believe dinosaurs and humans co-existed, we all descend from a single man and woman, etc...then I guess the sky is the limit.

Fortunately most of the bible isn't the real bible, so it's moot.

 

My grandma just died at 96 and she was telling us stories of her childhood one week before her death. She most likely died from the side effects of modern medicine. Your assertions are lacking evidence imo.