Bible Questions?

No, true common sense and logic say that "Today life expectancy is mid to high 70s; and this is with all the modern day advances in science and medicine. Two thousand years ago when none of these things existed; the life expectancy was considerably shorter."

Yes, some people today live past their mid 70s. Plenty, in fact. 100 years old isn't impossible by any stretch.
So let's say John lived 20 years past his life expectancy of...being generous; age 50. He'd still be 70. Now let's tack on 20 more years like you seem to think he lasted. Possible? Maybe. Would he be anything beyond a feeble, senile husk? Nope.

I'm the first person to say we shouldn't let science dictate everything to us, but we should probably listen to science when it comes to...you know...science.

My common sense is based on simple logic, yours is based on a book that you can quote very well; but hardly understand.

 

OK, leme splain:

This sentence makes it sound like you're using life expectancy to look forwards and use it to predict how long one individual will live based on how long another individual lived.

In your example of a population of two (looking back at it) you are describing the 'average life span', but that is a different from 'life expectancy.' Looking forward, just because there is an expectancy of 80 and one lives to 60 does not mean that the other will die at 100, or even that you can expect the other one to live past 60.

 

He didn't need to and authors speak of themselves in the third person all the time, it's called a literary device.

 

Yes and why is that? Mainly because infant mortality rates were high, which means that those who lived past infancy had to live longer to make up the difference.

Why would that be the case? What is it about living a long time makes someone a feeble senile husk? Such a thing does not have to be the result of old age.

Well in your "common" sense you don't seem to under stand what life expectancy means and you seem to equate senility with old age, which is neither logical or scientific.

 

Nice try but no cookie.

Life expectancy is merely stating the average life span of people in the past but it says nothing about how long individuals could live.

To arrive at the numbers for life expectancy you merely take all the life spans of a group of people and divide by the number of people.

Like in the example that you tried to dodge, if two people had a life expectancy of 80 years and and one died at 60 the other had to die at 120 or they wouldn't have a life expectancy of 80 years.

Basically what it comes down to is that Grim was saying that John probably died at 50 because the life expectancy of the time was 50 and that is a logical fallacy because at the time infant mortality was high and thus to have a life expectancy of 50 meant, not that John would be likely to die at 50 but that he would be more likely to live well beyond 50.

 

Nice math skills gramps. When you only have two variables and you know what one of them is it's not that hard to find the other (except in your head apparently) however in most bible stories there are many more than just two people on the planet.

good point about infant mortality

 

Actually no, it was kind of a joke, because you said eyewitness testimony wouldn't stand up in court and it does it the US, so because you say you are from Dubai, I thought well maybe eyewitness testimony won't stand up in court there.

 

Kings

13:24 And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew him: and his carcase was cast in the way, and the ass stood by it, the lion also stood by the carcase.

So there were these two prophets. The first prophet lied to the second. To the punish the second for believing the first's lie, God sent a lion to kill him. Get it?

 

... of an evangelist's writing here. However, the intellectual issue of political leaning is not after-all where I was at; therefore the vote may go left over the Platonic content for a salesman.

Nevertheless, you may still vote of< I bet, greedy reasons for another winner. LOL.

 

So by your logic, since the life expectancy is around 75-80 today...lots of people live until they are about 150 years old.

Let me know when you meet one.


And let me know when you meet a senile teenager.

 

Not possible. By definition 'senile' applies to the aged exclusively.

But many, many teens are as, if not more, clueless.

 

j.k.

 

Then why did you have trouble with it?

Thanks

 

With the math, I had no problem.

[60+120]/2=90 not 80

 

Still don't understand what life expectancy is I see. Oh well, let me try one more time.

actually people don't live any longer today than they did 2000 years ago, the difference in life expectancy between then and now is mostly infant mortality. 2000 years ago infant mortality was high and so life expectancy was lower, now infant mortality is very low and so life expectancy is correspondingly higher.

My niece has early onset senility, thanks for asking. Also I have met people in their 80s and 90s, one was 96 and none of them were senile.

 

Yes, they do.

And the fact that there was essentially no medicine, so infections, wounds, and illnesses we'd consider minor today would be lethal.

Infant death was higher; as was all death in general. People did not last as long, nor were they as healthy for as long.

Early onset senility, dementia, and the like are extremely uncommon. As is an 100 year old man today who has never needed modern medicine in any way; and is in complete control of his faculties.

So to suggest that two thousand years ago, someone lasted until age 100 when the life expectancy was nowhere near that high...and that they maintained full control of their minds and bodies...it's ridiculous. Laughable. Rubbish.



...even today, for example, some people only just past middle age have their mind so far gone that they think men existed right around when dinosaurs did, Jesus was white, and the Bible is meant to be taken literally. It's scary to think of what sorts of loonies were around a couple thousand years ago.

 

See, I knew you could do it.

 

No. No , they don't.

yes that is why life expectancy was lower.

People lasted just as long just not as many. Again that is why they had lower life expectancy.

Like I said my niece has it.

Also my grandmother went west in a covered wagon and lived to see men walk on the moon, she was 93 when she died and was not senile. Oh, and she was a Christian Scientist and so did not avail her self of "modern medicine".

Also you might want to look up what populations alive these days, that live to their hundreds. Most of them do not have ready access to that "modern medicine" you talk so much about. It fact most of them live almost "primitive" lives.

And the 96 year old lady I was talking about, as I was driving her to her bridge club, she was telling me that she didn't go to doctors and I shouldn't either because they don't know what they are doing.

Still, you have know idea what life expectancy means. So it seems that you are the one who believes, how did you put it? "Ridiculous. Laughable. Rubbish."

 

Jesus won't be mad if you use google to look up life expectancies throughout the ages.
Also, you only seem capable of proving things with the tried and true:
"My family member says/does/did..."
or
"The bible says"

I'll just post a link to a website that explains things. The chart you should probably look at is just a couple clicks down; the first picture-ish thing on the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Lifespan_variation_over_time

 

Ya it's not that hard to see when you are talking nonsense, you do it a lot.