ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Was Adam Really 900

In the OT, people like Adam are reported to be more than 900 years old, according to the Bible. Are we to take these ages literally? Did they really live that long or is it a metaphor for being wise?

Moderator - Yes, they lived that long.

Join Our Christian Penpals and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Ramon on 11/3/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (13)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

Danial; You oppose evolution, but support what? Creationism is a miasma of garbled beliefs.
Creation science
Gap Creationism
Intelligent design
Modern geocentrism
Omphalos creationism
Old Earth creationism
Progressive creationism
Theistic evolution
Young Earth creationism

These are beliefs systems. Natural selection is science, and evolution can no more be seperated from science than teeth from dentistry.
---MikeM on 1/13/07

Danial; paleontology, geology, botany, biology, zoology, paleontology paleozoology, paleobotany micropaleontology, Paleozoology invertebrate paleontology, vertebrate paleontology,paleoecology, ichnology taphonomy, and so many others in the REAL SCIENCES use the same confirmed dating methods. Its objective reality vs. subjectve belief, that is the only dictomony, not the false dictomony fundamentalist propose. Your strawman argument is falacious.
---MikeM on 1/13/07

Danial; Advances in computational hardware, software allow for testing and extrapolation of dNA, mtDNA and exact dating of non-fossilized bones. Discoveries in biotechnology allow for synthesis of proteins and, ENTIRE genomes TO BE MAPPED. It is now understand how evolution works at at the molecular level more THAN an ever. There are no more 'assumptions' in human genome mapping-past or present- than one finding directions on mapquest; so what are you talking about?
---MikeM on 1/13/07

What's silly Mike is you thinking you can call something UNREPEATABLE, that only took place in the distant past, a scientific fact! Also, DNA identification in a court of law is not dependent upon evolutionary dating methods as you're trying to make others here believe.
---danie9374 on 1/13/07

My they are not ASSUMPTIONS as we put people into prisons based on DNA evidence. There is evolutionary THEORY then evolutionary law.

"It's faith/belief in evolution"-thats silly. Sorry all the hard sciences like like Physics, Astronomy, physical anthropology, palentology, etc etc etc etc etc confirm natural selection.
---MikeM on 1/11/07

greetings.I am not numbered in the "us".It is no "accident" that christianity must confront science,the most severe test of one's religious faith.Many christians will not survive the developing reality that man has a very long past history of himself and what 'was' in his past is in 'this day' become a new development.
---earl on 1/11/07

MikeM: The only reason I went to all the trouble of posting what I did, was to show everyone YOU have no right to tell us such and such happened so many HUNDREDS of thousands (or millions, billions) years ago, because of ASSUMPTIONS those THEORIES are based on. It's faith/belief in evolution (just like a religion) that turns it from theory to fact in your mind. Evolution cannot be proved like Physics, Astronomy, etc. do with electricity, planetary orbits, etc.!
---danie9374 on 1/11/07

If you are quoting individual studies; 'comparitive human genome base pairs' study by Dr. Edward Rubin, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
A complete Neanderthal genome still years away, but 'so far' genetic changes discovered set us apart from the Neanderthals, showing they were seperated over 200.000 years ago.
---MikeM on 1/11/07

The 'african eve' is being confirmed more all the time. As mitochondria are inherited matrilineally, The Y are inherited patrilineally. Thus the same principles outlined above to men, so there is an 'african Adam.' There are so many independent studies, coming to the same conclusions. To say they are all 'flawed' it a ploy of die-hard fundamentalist to discredit ALL science.

From what I have been told, an 'evolutionist' is any one not a fundamentalist.
---MikeM on 1/11/07

-1- MikeM: Don't you have a library that can access the New England Journal of Medicine? Of course Science is readily available; did I quote Gibbons out of context? I apologize for missing the ref. on the '18 times faster' study! It was from: Parsons, Thomas J., 'A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region,' Nature Genetics, 15:363. But Gibbons' article ('6,000 years') obviously ref.s such studies. Can no one find those NAS refs. for you?
---danie9374 on 1/11/07

Danial; Where do you get your infromation? It sounds like cut and paste. You are saying mtDNA is all flawed, that would not work in any court room in todays America! The fact that over the decades with new infromation, discovery, dates change is NOT a sign of being 'flawed.' Science always is reevaluating itself when new data emerges, as it always does, its a dynamic, thats basic science 101! With whatever articule you pasted, someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.
---MikeM on 1/10/07

[1] MikeM: What closest did you pull your last Mitochondria comment from?! First, it's based on 'mutation rate extrapolations'; NOT 'mathematical certainty' as you said, but let's say it does give us good data. It was 'hot news' back in 1987, when they said mtDNA proved an 'mtEve' lived ABOUT 150,000 years ago. However, evolutionists don't say much about it anymore. Why? From about 1997 on, BOTH of the major ASSUMPTIONS it was based on have either been proved wrong (see 1), or [cont.]
---danie9374 on 1/7/07

[2] those 'rates' were shown grossly incorrect (see 2): 1) We now know Mitochondrial DNA does NOT come ONLY from our mothers. There have been cases where some mtDNA was inherited from fathers! [Schwartz, Marianne and John Vissing (2002), 'Paternal Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA,' New England Journal of Medicine, 347:576-580, August 22, AND Williams, R. Sanders (2002), 'Another Surprise from the Mitochondrial Genome,' 347:609-611.]
---danie9374 on 1/7/07

[3] But, and this is more to the point: Later on, reports were produced about problems with their 'mutation rates'; guess why? They didn't have accurate measurements when they jumped to conclusions for 'big news' coverage. Even before that, they'd already 'trimmed down' the date to about 135,000 years +/- tens of thousands (some accuracy). 2) In 1997, one study found mutation rates in mtDNA were eighteen times higher than previous estimates.
---danie9374 on 1/7/07

[4] What do you get after dividing 135,000 by 18? only 7,500 years! (Even a max. of 200,000 would then be only c. 11,000.) In the Jan. 2, 1998 issue of Science [279:28-29], Ann Gibbons announced troubling news if the new data was correct, saying, "Using the new clock, she [mtEve] would be a mere 6,000 years old." Of course, she didn't believe so. But by 2001, the National Academy of Sciences had papers questioning if the data meant anything useful.
---danie9374 on 1/7/07

[5] One comment was: "We have identified a fundamental flaw of molecular dating methods, which leads to dates that are systematically biased towards substantial overestimation of evolutionary times" [Rodriguez-Trelles, et. al. (2002), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99:8114.]
So Mike, can YOU live with 6,000 or even 10,000 years for mtEve? I think many here can! But I don't want to use questionable data.
---danie9374 on 1/7/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money

'general' infromation. DNA sequencing from bone fragments show Neanderthalis and Homo sapiens share about 99.5% of their DNA. Most physical anthrpologist believe the species shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. According to Scientific American Jan 2004 the species diverged 500,000 years ago, where fossil records show a time of about 400,000 years ago. Current DNA records, scientists hope to falsify or confirm the theory that there interbreeding.
---MikeM on 1/7/07

"Mitochondrial DNA and ALL science disagrees. I could go into detail. I'd be accused of pedantics, and you would bail."

Mike, how does mitochondrial DNA show that the Neanderthal wasn't human?
---Kay on 1/5/07

"Take your theory to a university, your artulation would profound the physical anthropology department."

Its a fact that the Neanderthal wasn't an apeman. They were HUMAN. Apemen = evolution fairytale.

"Your issue is also with morphology, geology and all the physicial sciences."

No. I have no problem with REAL science.
---Kay on 1/5/07

As Expcted, Bailing.

Earl-I dont know.
---MikeM on 1/5/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments

greetings.for mikeM.Is homo erectus also found to have worshiped?
---earl on 1/2/07

earl; In reality, yes. I have only seen neanderthals in musiums. In Europe they were often found buried in flowers, with clay statues of ice age animals and hunting tools. This is an implication of worship. In several cave are painting of ice age animals (20,000BC) Also an implication, an invocation?

Whe they were or their role in Gods creation we do not know, but it is a worthy question.
---MikeM on 1/2/07

greetings.for mikeM.Do you find evidence in your work or works of others that neanderthals worshiped ?
---earl on 1/2/07

Kay; mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from our mothers. It is highly stable over time, which permits geneticists to determine with mathematical certainty the matrilineal genealogy of any human being on earth. It proves beyond doubt that neanderthals were NOT related to modern man.

If one dismisses or denies DNA evidence as 'foolshness of man'-then never serve on a jury where DNA evidence is presented.
---MikeM on 1/1/07

Send a Free Mother's Day Ecard

"neanderthals were human"-faith statement Mitochondrial DNA and ALL science disagrees. I could go into detail. I'd be accused of pedantics, and you would bail.

"freaky evolving apeman" Take your theory to a university, your artulation would profound the physical anthropology department.

"These dates that you are using are what I referred to as based on evolutionary theories" Your issue is also with morphology, geology and all the physicial sciences.
---MikeM on 1/1/07

"Kay; I do not know where you have have recieved your infromation. mitrochondrial DNA extracted from non-fossilized neanderthals show them not to be closely related to modern man."

Mike, neanderthals were human, not some freaky evolving apeman.

"They thrived during the pliesticine but died out by around 35,000 BC."

These dates that you are using are what I referred to as based on evolutionary theories.

---Kay on 1/1/07

Kay; I do not know where you have have recieved your infromation. mitrochondrial DNA extracted from non-fossilized neanderthals show them not to be closely related to modern man. They thrived during the pliesticine but died out by around 35,000 BC.

Geological strata, bio-chemistry, palentology, and other hard sciences INDEPENDENTLY come to the same conclusions.
---MikeM on 12/31/06

long life was intended by God.
the people lived so long because atmospheric circumstances were different - due to the canopy in place before the great flood.

and. we only have record of "the righteous line" living long. so that could factor big.
but even the righteous slowly learned demonic ways that shortened their life span.

in the millenium long life will be restored.
---JaeR on 12/31/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks

MikeM, your info is based on evolution theories, not observable facts!

So what exactly is your definition of "cavemen"?
---Kay on 12/31/06

Kay; Neanderthals,-died out 35,000 years ago. homo erectus-150,000 years ago. Modern Man was in the new world 25,000 years ago.
---MikeM on 12/31/06

"Kay-Can you back up your statement about what you call 'caveman' being a 'hoax'?? Using physical anthropology, archeology, biology, chemestry, etc etc etc? You are making a faith statement, one I am afraid is divorced from reality."

MikeM, first I need you to define what you consider "cavemen".

Faith statement? I don't think so.
---Kay on 12/27/06

Kay-Can you back up your statement about what you call 'caveman' being a 'hoax'?? Using physical anthropology, archeology, biology, chemestry, etc etc etc? You are making a faith statement, one I am afraid is divorced from reality.
---MikeM on 12/26/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes

"Its is a scientific fact that no fossil beds are being created today" Thats the silliest thing I have ever heard.

"The fossil layers which are assigned great ages were all layed down at the time of Noah's flood" You deny the science of geology and biology goes against objective reality. Such a statement, fits in with flat earth or hollow earth. Rational people seeking Christ would run from those uttering such bizarre atatements 'faith' statemnts divorced from reality.
---MikeM on 12/26/06

yes he was, because remember all the factors that there were then that aren't here now: less pollution, pure vegetation, no war, all peace, etc. The only hard thing he had was working the ground which just made him more physically fit along with hunting his own food
---brian on 12/21/06

"The fossil layers which are assigned great ages were all layed down at the time of Noah's flood."

Jerry, I agree with you.

"He wanted to know how long the cavemen were around before Adam and Eve? I would like to hear your take on it." -Cindy

Cavemen= the evolution hoax of desperate atheists.
---Kay on 12/21/06

It is a scientific fact that no fossil beds are being created today. Not on the land and certainly not on the floor of the oceans. The fossil layers which are assigned great ages were all layed down at the time of Noah's flood. Were there giant creatures before the flood? You bet! Man was much larger as well as much older. Note how the lifespan shrank from 900 years before the flood to about 200 years soon after. We are smaller and weaker than our ancient ancestors; devolving rather than evolving.
---jerry6593 on 12/13/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Depression

The 'early man', was not a giant, but I'm waiting for MikeM to explain where they fit in the timeline.
---Cindy on 12/12/06

Giants? "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, ......., Gen.6:4".
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 12/11/06

Does all these fossils of ancient creatures make you wonder why did God not mention it? Maybe he used it as a way to test man's faith. Besides if he mentioned ancient animals, a previous caveman race, an ice age and dinosaurs years before they were discovered through science just about everyone would choose to believe God's message. It would be too much "proof". I am assuming that is why he left it unmentioned in His word. He wants us to believe in him because of faith. God bless.
---Matthew on 12/11/06

MikeM., you're the expert on the ages, correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm not a Neanderthal, after all). The Stone Age, Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Chalcolithic, and Bronze Age; early man from those ages, were they mutations from Nephilim types?
---Cindy on 12/11/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study

Cindy: Neanderthal died out 35,000 years ago during the last Ice Age. Their DNA has and is being charted, and they are not closely related to modern man. Going into depth in the REAL sciences of palentology, micro-biology etc. which are indeed real sciences, you find that early man fossils do exist, and more are being found all the time.Ignorance of them will not make them disappear as some wouild hope. Those who oppose science do so based on emotion and rhetoric, and always bail.
---MikeM on 12/11/06

Was Goliath a 'leftover' from the Nephilim? People of the pre-Flood generation, the offspring of daughters of men and divine beings (Gen. 6:1-4). The generation that provoked the Flood as punishment (Gen. 6:5-8:22). The Nephilim bloodline.
---Cindy on 12/11/06

Cindy; 'Caveman' is a simplistic question. I do not know your age or education. As for me, there is so very much I dont know. I know the Bible is about salvation. Independently all the physical sciences, biology, microbiology, palentology, anthropology, confirm man's been on earth a very long time. To some fundamentalist this is direct contradiction to scripture. I see only a conflict on the surface. My argument for God is ontological, and natural selection is no threat to belief in scripture.
---MikeM on 12/11/06

Cindy: Tell your Dad that no one existed before Adam. Neanderthal, homo-erectus, and australopithecus are science fiction - not science. Typically, a single bone fragment or two is expanded into an entire civilization - complete with artist's drawings and museum displays of monkey-like people. But there isn't a shred of scientific evidence for any of it. The people who purvey such hoaxes are not scientists. They are good artists with an overactive imagination and an axe to grind against God.
---jerry6593 on 12/11/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses

Bob; I thought the 'fallen angels' were without bodies? Bermuda Triangle/atlantis/Loc Ness/Goverment conspiricies/tri-lateral commission, yes, they are the source of those early man fossils-how else can I respond to your post?
---MikeM on 12/11/06

MikeM., would you please answer your own question. My dad asked me that question, today. He wanted to know how long the cavemen were around before Adam and Eve? I would like to hear your take on it.
---Cindy on 12/10/06

They don't, Lucifer had a throne, was given 1/3 of G_d's angel's [if Lucifer persuaded angels not under his 'command' to revolt, he would have been stronger than G_d], with subjects, & throne.

Lots of info in a good Bermuda Triangle book, showing/describing many places they could have come from, including Atlantis? For every lie/myth, there's a truth!

mikeM, I've read your blogs & found you/re usually on course, and respectful when addressing others, hopefully it's contagious to others.
---Bob6749_[Elishama] on 12/10/06

So how long did the neanderthals, homo-erectus, austripithicus live? How did they fit into the plan?
---MikeM on 12/10/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis

No way to 'carbon date' their bodies [Peking Man turned out to be a crippled old man, not nearly as old as tested], I guess we gotta believe G_d gave that fellow Moses accurate information. I counted 3 in Genesis who begat sons before they were a hundred years of age, all lived on for several hundred years more having sons & daughters. Lots of earth had to be (re)populated! Noah begat his 3 sons at age 500, going into the Ark at age 600.
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 12/9/06

Two men meantioned in Genesis 5 were 65 when they became daddies. These have to be normal 12 month years just like today. There is noway to prove this but I believe before the flood the air pressure was double what it is today and there was 50% more oxygen in the air which explains why they found giant insects in the fossil record which would be impossible today. Increased air pressure and more oxygen would make just breathing exciting. You'll live longer as your heart beats slower.
---David on 12/7/06

No 'pure' race of any sort on planet earth since the serpent 'allowed' satan to use him to entice or seduce Eve into eating of the forbidden fruit. Eve, then influenced/seduced Adam to do the same. The rest is history, including gullibillities, seductions, sin & it's byproducts, etc. The only pure 'race' G_d acknowledged were the direct descendants of Abra(ham) & Sarah, & that for His own very specific spiritual purpose. Time to let our 'little' lights shine as was intended!
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 11/28/06

People in the Old Testament really did live that long. God's Word is truth.
---Helen_5378 on 11/28/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma

Adam lived to be 930 years of age. He saw all of the 'patriach's' on "the other side of the flood" except Noah or "Grace", & understanderbly so. According to Moses, he was 874 years old when Methusaleh was born, living 56 years more before he died. A lot to talk about at those family reunions!
---bob6749_[Elishama] on 11/27/06

If the bible say they did, then they did. If we go about saying that it is not true, then we are calling God a lier. Since God can not lie, then it has to be true.
---Jerry on 11/27/06

According to the bible, yes Adam lived over 900 years. It was a pure race, but has become sullied through all the generations since.
Some seem not to have had a lifeguard at their gene pool.

(Who's your daddy....gotta love it Mike! I have a 'T' shirt that has that printed on it!)
---NV_Barbara on 11/5/06

It was before the flood that man's days were numbered (see Gen.6:1-4). Verses 5-7 reveals why the flood was necessary. Note in verse 3 the root cause of mankind's decline, "...for that he also is flesh:..." As the genetics broke down man became more animal in nature and less godlike. But there were "throwbacks" to that pure gene. Read Gen.6:9. It IS about genetics where we come from and where we go and why we make the choices we make. "Who's your Daddy?"
---mikefl on 11/4/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol

why not? sin is what kills us and adam didn't have as much degrading effects of sin in his body. Many people believe also that the earth is slowing down, so it is quite possible 900 years could go by quickly. who knows scripture says he did and since I don't know him personally and don't know anyone else that does (apart from God) then I trust it.
---Jared on 11/4/06

Imagine the genetic purity of the first human (Adam) and those two or three genrations removed. It was this genetic superiority that allowed brothers, sisters & immediate family to get married & have children together, like Cain and his wife & Seth and his wife. It is this same reason why there are so many genetic mutations today. As mankind has continued to make copies of the genetic code, through reproduction, the coding has fallen prey to the destructive nature of sin living within it.
---Ryan on 11/4/06

Yes, They really lived that long. It seems the closer people were to Adam in terms of generations, the longer they lived. On my Mother's side of the family people can reach pass 100. My great grandmother reached 107, ironically her mother died at 107 too! Just think even if a person lives to 900 they are still considered a "child" in God's Eyes. God Bless!
---Mrs._Morgan on 11/3/06

I don't think I'd want to live 900 years.
---grace3869 on 11/3/06

Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery

Man as he came from the hand of the Creator was perfect. It was not until after the flood that the life span of man was drastically shorter. The bible gives no indication that we should understand the years in any other way than actual, literal years.
---Wayne87 on 11/3/06

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.