Does the bible and science agree on man's maximum age?

esmith · Sep 2, 2012

In Genesis 6:3 the LORD said let mans age not exceed 120 years. In 1961 Dr Leonard Hayflick came up with the same number. This age limit is called the Hayflick Limit.
Hayflick Limit

Is this just a coincidence?

Riverwolf · Sep 2, 2012

The oldest person who ever lived was 122 when she died, so the limit has already been breached.

Kerr · Sep 2, 2012

What about Jeanne Calment? She became 122 years.
Jeanne Calment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skwim · Sep 2, 2012

I don't believe Hayflick ever made such a claim, although he did say there was a limit to the number of times a normal cell population will divide before it stops.

Then there's this from Gavrilov and Gavrilov:

"No fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent today."

SOURCE: Gavrilov, L. A.; Gavrilova, N. S. (1991). The Biology of Life Span: A Quantitative Approach. New York City: Starwood Academic Publishers.

So any claim of agreement or coincidence between the Bible and the Hatflick limit is purely imaginary or wishful thinking.

The Neo Nerd · Sep 3, 2012

Actually the verse says

Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

What this verse is claiming is that people will live till 120. Which the vast majority of people don't.

Another biblical failure

esmith · Sep 3, 2012

Quaxotic said:
Actually the verse says
Then the Lord says "My spirit will not contend with others, for they are mortal; their days will be one hundred twenty"

What this verse is claiming is that people will live till 120. Which the vast majority of people don't.

Another biblical failure

Do not know which bible you were using, I referenced the JPS Tanakh which says:
"The LORD said, "My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty"
I think the key word here is "allowed" as in you are allowed to travel 55MPH but you do not necessarily have to.

esmith · Sep 3, 2012

Skwim said:
I don't believe Hayflick ever made such a claim, although he did say there was a limit to the number of times a normal cell population will divide before it stops.

Then there's this from Gavrilov and Gavrilov:
"No fixed theoretical limit to human longevity is apparent today."

SOURCE: Gavrilov, L. A.; Gavrilova, N. S. (1991). The Biology of Life Span: A Quantitative Approach. New York City: Starwood Academic Publishers.

So any claim of agreement or coincidence between the Bible and the Hatflick limit is purely imaginary or wishful thinking.

From the article I referenced:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Hayflick found that normal human cells can only divide a certain number of times and accordingly have a finite life span that under ideal conditions could allow a person to live for approximately 120 years. The number of times a cell can divide became known as the Hayflick limit. [/FONT]

ArtieE · Sep 3, 2012

esmith said:
In Genesis 6:3 the LORD said let mans age not exceed 120 years. In 1961 Dr Leonard Hayflick came up with the same number. This age limit is called the Hayflick Limit.
Hayflick Limit

Is this just a coincidence?

"New International Version (©1984)
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.""

This verse says nothing about the lifetime of an individual man. "His days shall be an hundred and twenty years. - "His days" are the days of man, not the individual, but the race, with whom the Lord still strives. Hence, they refer to the duration, not of the life of an individual, but of the existence of the race. From this we learn that the narrative here reverts to a point of time before the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, recorded in the close of the preceding passage as there were only a hundred years from their birth to the deluge. " Barnes' Notes on the Bible.

He simply means that there will be 120 years from Noahs kids were born to the flood.

Skwim · Sep 3, 2012

esmith said:
From the article I referenced:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Hayflick found that normal human cells can only divide a certain number of times and accordingly have a finite life span that under ideal conditions could allow a person to live for approximately 120 years. The number of times a cell can divide became known as the Hayflick limit. [/FONT]

I believe I found the article you took this from (HERE),and "approximately" is not same as "the same number" you allege in your OP. In fact, considering that "approximately" could well indicate a 10 to 15 percent margin of error, the Hayflick number could range anywhere from 102 to 138 years, a spread of 36 years, which again is hardly "the same number."

esmith · Sep 3, 2012

So, whoever wrote Genesis said 120 years, vice 120 years give or take 10-20%. or approximately 120 years. If this is the only sticking point in my question.......???

outhouse · Sep 3, 2012

esmith said:
In Genesis 6:3 the LORD said let mans age not exceed 120 years. In 1961 Dr Leonard Hayflick came up with the same number. This age limit is called the Hayflick Limit.
Hayflick Limit

Is this just a coincidence?

yes it is coincidence

the 120 in genesis is probably to cover up the rest of the extreme dates men were said to have lived, like those over 800 years of age

ChristineES · Sep 3, 2012

I am surprised so many intelligent people can't understand the term "symbolism" or that there are a lot of people who believe in it who also take it symbolically. Or are you just talking to those who take the Bible literally.

Skwim · Sep 3, 2012

esmith said:
So, whoever wrote Genesis said 120 years, vice 120 years give or take 10-20%. or approximately 120 years. If this is the only sticking point in my question.......???

Don't follow you here, but I will say if we can't depend on you saying what you mean then why bother reading you at all?

Jayhawker Soule · Sep 3, 2012

esmith said:
Is this just a coincidence?

No ... it's ignorance.

Quintessence · Sep 3, 2012

It is a remarkable incident of synchronicity given that the average lifespan of people back then was nowhere near 120 years. But read into it what you will. :shrug:

esmith · Sep 3, 2012

Skwim said:
Don't follow you here, but I will say if we can't depend on you saying what you mean then why bother reading you at all?

Basically I said that the passage said 120 years. Yet there seems to be someone who lived longer than 120 years. What I was implying is that whoever wrote this passage said 120 years instead of saying 120 years plus or minus a year or two. I brought this idea forward as the general scientific belief is that 120 years +or- 1 or 2 years is considered the maximum life of humans. The passage in the bible says 120 years, I just found it strange that the two sources are so close together.

esmith · Sep 3, 2012

ArtieE said:
"New International Version (©1984)
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.""

This verse says nothing about the lifetime of an individual man. "His days shall be an hundred and twenty years. - "His days" are the days of man, not the individual, but the race, with whom the Lord still strives. Hence, they refer to the duration, not of the life of an individual, but of the existence of the race. From this we learn that the narrative here reverts to a point of time before the birth of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, recorded in the close of the preceding passage as there were only a hundred years from their birth to the deluge. " Barnes' Notes on the Bible.

He simply means that there will be 120 years from Noahs kids were born to the flood.

The NIV has not been a "reliable" source of translations.
The Five Books Of Moses The Schocken Bible Vol 1.
"YWHH said:
My rushing-spririt shall not remain in humankind for ages, for
they too are flesh;
let their days be then a hundred and twenty years"
Note: "for they too are flesh" Hebrew difficult. The text uses the singular: "a hundred and twenty years" Some early interpreters take this to specify a "grace period" for humanity before the Flood. The text seems to be setting the limits of the human life span.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible New Revised Standard Version
"Then the LORD said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty"
Note: narrative often attributed to the Yahwistic primeval history, the LORD GOD limits their lifespan to one hundred twenty years, the lifespan of Moses (Deut 31:2); another interpretation is that the one hundred twenty years refer to a reprieve from punishment for several generations.

The JPS Jewish Study Bible:
The LORD said, "My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him to one hundred and twenty years.
Note: the meaning of Hebrew is uncertain for "abide"

Paul wright · Dec 27, 2018

The Neo Nerd said:
Actually the verse says
What the verse is saying if you take it in context with the rest of the book is that “man” has about 120 years until God destroys the Earth via the flood. The same bible goes on to say that man will turn their back on the Holy Spirit and eventually will be blinded to the truth. Not that God will blind them but they will be so wrapped in their own sin that God eventually turns them over to the lists and desire of their own hearts.

What this verse is claiming is that people will live till 120. Which the vast majority of people don't.

Another biblical failure

9-10ths_Penguin · Dec 27, 2018

esmith said:
So, whoever wrote Genesis said 120 years, vice 120 years give or take 10-20%. or approximately 120 years. If this is the only sticking point in my question.......???

Do you think that Genesis 6:3 was meant to describe a maximum age for humans? Elsewhere in Genesis, it describes people living for more than 120 years after God says this.

Assuming it didn't apply to people living at the time (since the same chapter describes Noah living more than 120 years after this) and assuming that this might have included Noah's sons, we still have:

- Arphaxad (born after the flood, son of Shem and grandson of Noah), who lived to 403. (Gen 11:13)
- Shelah (son of Arphaxad), who also lived to 403 (Gen 11:15)
- Ebar (son of Shelah), who lived to 430 (Gen 11:17)
- Peleg (son of Ebar), who lived to 209 (Gen 11:29)
- Abraham, who lived to 175 (Gen 25:7)

I could find some other examples if you like.

Edit: sorry - I didn't notice the age of the thread. It just came up in new posts when @Paul wright necro'd it.

The Anointed · Dec 29, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Do you think that Genesis 6:3 was meant to describe a maximum age for humans? Elsewhere in Genesis, it describes people living for more than 120 years after God says this.

Assuming it didn't apply to people living at the time (since the same chapter describes Noah living more than 120 years after this) and assuming that this might have included Noah's sons, we still have:

- Arphaxad (born after the flood, son of Shem and grandson of Noah), who lived to 403. (Gen 11:13)
- Shelah (son of Arphaxad), who also lived to 403 (Gen 11:15)
- Ebar (son of Shelah), who lived to 430 (Gen 11:17)
- Peleg (son of Ebar), who lived to 209 (Gen 11:29)
- Abraham, who lived to 175 (Gen 25:7)

I could find some other examples if you like.

Edit: sorry - I didn't notice the age of the thread. It just came up in new posts when @Paul wright necro'd it.

Shelah was not the son of Arpachshad, but his grandson.

Does the bible and science agree on man's maximum age?

Veteran Member

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Atheistically

Tiggerism

Veteran Member

-- untitled --

Consults with Trees

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Well-Known Member