I have unilaterally decided (meaning I didn’t ask Matthew and there is nothing he can do to stop me) to add a new feature to the blog. The feature is “Today’s Über-Catholic Open Question?” This feature may or may not be repeated. It entirely depends on you and whether your answers are interesting, funny, or foul. Don’t let reason or proportion get in your way. Feel free to be more Catholic than the Pope. So, all you Über-Catholics who find fault with 87% percent of everything we write, what is your take on this question.
What is the best Über-Catholic explanation for the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs? I am talking about all the guys from Adam to Noah who routinely lived 800-900 years talked about in that book that the Protestants are always going on about.
A) The Literal and Historical Interpretation. Yup that is how long they lived. Possible explanations:
- Adam had a much better gene pool than us and so they lived longer,
- The world was different before the flood so people lived longer,
- Evolution misinterprets the fossil record (my personal favorite) and thus neanderthals are really very old patriarchs whose foreheads and facial features continued to grow during their very long life spans,
- Dannon Yogurt.
B) The Metaphorical Interpretation. The life spans described in the Bible are misinterpreted by modern man.
- Ancient people were very stupid and thus could not tell the difference between months and years (even though this would mean that some of the patriarchs were getting busy in kindergarten),
- Modern people are stupid and this obviously refers to to patriarchal dynasties,
- Some other interpretation that explains away the obvious.
C) The Mythical Interpretation – There were no patriarchs since there was no Adam and this was all ripped off from some ancient Chinese bathroom wall and regurgitated by the Hebrews in order to keep their women folk in line or some such thing.
D) Brand New Interpretation of Your Creation (preferably involving aliens)
Have at it!
July 9, 2009 at 3:36 am
What?
Further inquiry will reveal that it is all Bush's fault.
July 9, 2009 at 4:29 am
I once heard a theory that a comet came mighty close to the Earth and stripped away a protective layer of the atmosphere, thus causing more free radicals and UV radiation to penetrate through and shortening our telomeres thereafter.
That's my theory to throw in the mix. Not quite aliens…
July 9, 2009 at 4:47 am
Keep in mind that the zero wasn't invented when the Hebrew scriptures were written, and that numbers had multiple significances, since they were also letters.
The meaning of the numbers wasn't primarily mathematical.
Take them with a grain of NaCl.
July 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Ditto on the undiminished atmospheric canopy making for longer lifespans.
Those same cell-friendly conditions also allowed for the uber-growth of giants as mentioned in the OT (Goliath and friends probably hailing from similar environments as today's mega-sized, tropical plant/insect life).
Oh, and that also explains overgrown lizards (dinosaurs).
And that's how this Catholic makes sense his Faith!
July 9, 2009 at 2:07 pm
The patriarchs all had Al Gore as Press Agents.
July 9, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Okay, since you wanted one involving aliens, I propose that they brought some sort of contaminant their space ship.
Or maybe all that fruitful multiplication kept the old guys spry.
July 9, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Firstly, I disdain your use of German in setting forth "uber-Catholic" as it were. The Church from time to time may stray far afield in search of a worthy successor to Peter, but a True Catholic like me does not have to like it, or participate in grovelling, gratuitous shout-outs to His Germanic Holiness for that matter.
Secondly, allow me to scorn the seriousness with which the bulk of my fellow "Catholic" respondants appear to take themselves on the matter of your needless question. True Catholics like me know that your question concerns itself with an issue best left to "Our Older Brothers in the Faith" as the late JPII called them (He wasn't so hot either – alas, another Pontiff from colder climes)
Thirdly, If this blog intends to embrace our lesser Protestant brothers in the Faith in an Ecumenical charade by adressing questions about the Old Testament, please do True Catholic readers the minimum service of saying so. This way I and my fellow Superiors could be on our merry way seeking other places to strut our stuff.
Thank you.
July 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Maybe it was something in the water, or maybe the writers of the Bible, not being skilled at Math, simply got the number wrong… or … oh, heck, who knows?? Just God, and He ain't talkin'!
Or maybe it was all Bill Clinton's fault …
Chloesmom
July 9, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Well, I always look at the Scripture having at least three layers, a historical, metaphorical, and a theological. If we believe that the Hebrews are just an offshoot of Mesopotamians, then indeed that is where the concept of long lives before the flood comes from. If you look at King's List of Mesopotamian cities, before Gilgamesh's flood, you had kings who reign was as long as 45,000 years. Then after the flood (and the development of writing) you see it drop to 50 years or less. The long life of Adam and Methuselah could be twofold, one it can be a symbol of what is to come to us (that is eternal life) and also could denote the closeness of God during those days (think of the anthropomorphisms in much of Genesis). Yet, it can also represent our untimely end and fulfillment of God's decree that we should experience death for our disobedience. Theologically speaking, it shows that God can take, what he gives (Paradise, the Flood).
That said, isn't obvious that the ancient gods were parasitic snakes that took human hosts and were able to live extraordinary long lives by the use of a sacrophagus-like tomb, until the ancient peoples of Egypt revolted and they left the earth but without populating thousands of planets with human slaves. Also, it was Bush's fault.
July 10, 2009 at 12:47 am
This is actually a science question, so you should be calling this section Uber-Scientist.
Look up "telomeres" for an overview. In days of yore, telomere degeneration was less severe.
July 10, 2009 at 6:21 am
The correct answer is obviously C. S. Lewis' in Perelandra: after Adam's fall, "the men of your race did not learn to die quickly".
July 10, 2009 at 8:53 pm
The effects of original sin bringing death being multiplied over the generations since Adam? Proximity to Adam implying greater longitivity.
July 11, 2009 at 9:12 am
Uhh… This question is above my paygrade.
July 11, 2009 at 4:40 pm
The Bible clearly says we were visited by aliens who were also giants. This race of Giants is referenced in the book of Genesis. Now these giants had very large spaceships circling the planet. The combined gravometric effect of these giant spaceships actually slowed time down here on earth and thus we have 900 year life spans.
July 11, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Another explanation is this: A guy goes to the dcotor and says, "Doc, I've gven up smoking, drinking, fattening foods and all sodium in my diet. Will I live longer?" And the Doctor says, "No, it will only seem that way." Thus what he have in the Bible is the cummulative experience of a very long life, but it only seemed long to them because they did not have liquor, fattening foods, cigarettes, and high sodium diets. Hence the 900 year life span only seemed like 900 years, it was actually nine months.
July 11, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Occam's razor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Occam's Razor)
Jump to: navigation, search
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It is apocryphally attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."[2]
When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. To quote Isaac Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."[3]
So simple. The correct answer is," they didn't die."
July 19, 2009 at 5:47 am
I actually got this question answered on Catholic Answers LIVE about a week ago by Jimmy Akin.
Here's the link to the audio: http://www.philflipsnor.com/2009/07/my-radio-debut-2.html