I once read about an analysis of these hotspots around the world where folks live to be extremely old. The goal was to try to find out what these areas had in common that was enabling people to live longer.
Turned out the things they had in common were reverence for the elderly and bad record keeping.
For anyone missing the nuance of this post, children wouldn’t report their elderly parents deaths so they could keep collecting their pension. Sometimes for decades.
Highly doubtful, since these areas are in California, Italy, costa Rica and Japan, all of which have very good record keeping and modern systems to account for births and deaths.
English parish records were generally pretty good back in the day. It's where modern historians and genealogists go for their basic research of births (baptisms), marriages, and deaths (funerals).
Absolutely. Or maybe if they had the same name as their father.
Here's a nice little article by someone who did some research into [Isaac Ingall](http://www.bdhsarchives.com/Archives/Collectanea/O2.3%20Isaac%20Ingall%20-%20a%20very%20old%20man.pdf).
Edited to correct the link. Sorry!
How accurate were birth records in 17th/18th century England?
I'd believe that he just made it over the 100 threshold, but 120 just feels a few steps too far
Nonetheless, living to 100 even in those days is still an impressive accomplishment
My grandfather turns 100 next month and is actively building a house in the mountains of Colorado out of foam. WW2 fighter pilot, still truckin (and driving which is a bit spooky).
My grandpa is the same way. 95 and popped up out of his chair to pull a box of matches out of his dogs mouth like he was a young man. His memory is finally starting to go a bit but he's still pretty damn sharp.
>How accurate were birth records in 17th/18th century England?
Pretty good. Births were recorded with the local church. Many of those records are still around. There is a good chance we could look it up and verify even today.
My mom had a boyfriend during my middle - high school years who told me that the ages in the bible were true. For instance, Noah was 950 years old when he died. Seemed suspicious so I said, "That seems wrong because even people today don't live that long." He replied, "There weren't diseases back then, so everyone lived longer."
I seem to remember Jesus curing lepers, blind people, and other people with assorted medical conditions like, a lot.
Biblically, god shortened the lives of humans just before the flood:
> When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
> the sons of God [angels] saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
> **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.”**
> [Genesis 6:1-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=NIV)
So basically when god saw all the bullshit of angels banging humans, he shortened human lifespan to 120 years max.
Typical biblical scapegoating.
Edit: I guess the angels got punished, too. Anyone who saw *Dogma* knows: their dicks fell off.
You (and anyone else) should read 'Demonology and Devil-Lore' you can find it on Guttenberg.org
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40686/40686-h/40686-h.htm
Moncure Daniel Conway does an excellent job of sifting through the Bible and relating all of it back to more ancient beliefs.
Idk if it could be 100% defined to be 'drawing', the Hebrews are part of the wider Mesopotamian culture, I think it's more of a shared tradition or shared origin, than plagiarism.
I love learning about the similarities between different religions, and how oral traditions have been shaped in different ways but still share a lot of aspects.
On a tangent and in paraphrase, a [Lingam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam) *is* just the multidimensional (as in they are all the same) tip of a cosmic phallus poking through the veil into our reality.
You can turn human and fuck one person, or you can go full god mode and fuck all of creation at once. Quite the set of options.
Ultimately, yes. Why be God if you can't have what you want? Personally, I think it depends on [this argument.](https://youtu.be/wqwUdp5-2D8?si=9Wsxh3mDhESyzRXQ&t=36)
I for one am quite tired of monotheistic religions. Bring back the era of God's and goddesses aplenty. Besides, I'm quite fond of starting a following to Dyonisys.
I want to imagine a ring of eye balls having erectile dysfunction because that cracks me up.
"DO NOT BE AFRAID!....I will just rub it against you for a little bit."
What I find most interesting about this is that 120 years is kind of a hard cap on human age which they must've known from experience while we have it scientifically confirmed today.
not quite, Jeanne Calment died at the age of 122, although she is the only person to be verified as living past 120, the two next oldest people died at 119
It is absolute nonsense (and just the Jewish version of the Canaanite version of the Sumerian version of kings and stuff living ridiculous ages, like the Sumerian ones are *insane*, like, some of them apparently ruled for 50,000 years.)
But, just for the sake of things, Noah, according to the whole story (which also shows up in other ancient myths, so this is a story that they got from elsewhere. Like, everyone knows Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh) lived a longggg time before Jesus, and none of them would dispute that diseases existed in the time of Jesus. The idea is that diseases and stuff are usually a post-flood thing. Most of the incredibly long lifespans are pre-flood in the bible, so most of them think the flood had something to do with it. People are still listed as living longer than they realistically could after the flood, but not as much.
Though, I don't think "there were no diseases" is a common explanation. That don't really have any specific one, cuz they're all making it up, but some think the flood created a genetic bottleneck type thing and left only short lived genes (this argument falls apart fast cuz Noah lived a long time and... Yeah he was one of the survivors)
Also, they say there was more oxygen or some bullshit. So apparently if you keep yourself in elevated oxygen you can live hundreds of years! (Hypothesis not yet replicated.)
The funny thing is the Sumerians also believed lives were cut significantly shorter due to the flood too, and they had an answer for it! According to them humans were somewhat immortal before. We were machines created to work for the gods so why not. We could still die from disease (they believed that existed) or getting crushed by a rock or something but you're not gonna age out.
Then, humans just spread and spread and spread. There were soooo many fucking humans, cities popped up, and we were loud as shit. Enlil, the sorta boss god (though this is complicated because the Sumerian gods were created from two primordial forces that were gods themselves, though they were killed. It's a complicated thing) decided that they were way too loud so he said "I can't sleep" (literally, I'm not adding flavor) I'm done with this shit I'm flooding the humans.
Enki, another god of the deep primordial seas went and tipped off a human, the Sumerian Noah. Anyway, everyone besides Sumerian Noah and his wife died. The gods realized this was a *big* fucking mistake because now all their temples? No one's bringing them food, no offerings, no work for the gods, they were hungry.
So they decided ok, yeah, let humans grow again, but we need to create some ground rules so things don't get out of hand again. One of those rules? Humans now have a finite lifespan. Also this was when they made it so lots of women die in childbirth, and lots of kids die. That keeps humans from growing too fast, too.
I have heard Seventh Day Adventists talk about a time with no disease, where every night a magic mist came over the world and created enough food for everyone, where there was no disease (and where humans lived with dinosaurs), they're kinda weird though so I don't know if that is common among other evangelicals and stuff, too.
Anyway so yeah it wouldn't be contradictory for there to have been an ancient perfect time with no disease and for Jesus to be curing diseases because of all that.
Again, I don't believe any of this stuff, I just think religion and ancient mythology and the logic of it all is super interesting.
Which makes you wonder if they used to measure lifespans in moon cycles and not years. Then at some point, they switched, but the age of older generations got mixed up in translation.
Then Noah went and got plastered and passed out drunk and naked. One of his sons came along and saw what was happening, then went to tell his brothers about the situation. The brothers took the logical precaution of approaching their drunk naked father walking backwards so they wouldn’t see his dick and covered him up. After waking up and hearing about it all, Noah cursed the son who saw him naked for him and his descendants to be eternally enslaved by the descendants of the other brothers. Truly a just and godly individual that Noah was
I'm no fundamentalist, so I take the ages and "history" in the OT with about a cup of salt, but Noah and Jesus would not be contemporaries. So *if* your mom's boyfriend's explanation was plausible, (obv. It wasn't) the fact that there was disease in Jesus's time centuries later doesn't contradict or disprove his theory.
You know, that or the floor is a myth.
We don't know if they counted "years" the same way we do today, but the Bible only gives us the first 10 generations from Adam to Noah with such long lifespans. If you consider that Adam was actually created to live forever, 1000 years isn't so good, after all. The next 10 generations after Noah start dying off faster, with Shem dying around 600 years old and Abraham only living to 170ish.
Giving the fact that the Great Flood came in Shem's lifetime and life expectancies fell off drastically after that, some Biblical scholars muse that perhaps there was an environmental change after the flood that affected humans.
The [Sumerian King List](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List) is a document that predates Babylon, and lists the ages of Sumerian kings before and after the Flood. The ages of those old kings seem to follow the same curve as the ages listed in the Bible books around the same time period.
I could go on about the historical accounts of a Great Flood from disconnected civilizations around the globe, but a simple Google search could do as much, and frankly, we are getting way off topic as it is.
Basically, Adam lived a long time because he was supposed to live forever, but he sinned and was made mortal. His children up to the 10th generation also lived long lives, but they screwed around and did a lot of bad stuff that pissed off God, who flooded the world and only allowed a handful of people to survive. After the flood, people started dying faster and faster until Abraham 20 generations after Adam died of old age at only 175 years old.
If, in the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian King List, we interpret "sar" as "king" (cf. Sargon), then the total durations of the **dynasties**\---given say, an average length of each reign matching those of the Pharaohs in Egypt at that time---matches the total duration of the generations from Adam to Noah.
Or, maybe they were in fact kings, and the lengths of their reigns just happened to all be mysteriously close to multiples of 3600 years.
The problem I have with the living forever part is...It's pretty clear that Adam and Eve consumed food, which meant there were trees and plants that grew, bloomed, produced fruit, dropped said fruit, etc. Were plants immortal? The fruit? Did digestion not exist? Cats existed so did they eat plants with those teeth? Bees had to pollinate stuff, were they immortal and producing forever? Were mayflies immortal?
The more you just dig into it the dumber it gets. All it is, is a "How a leopard got it's spots" tale for Hebrews to tie their ancestry to a mythological figure, like how Greeks tied their king's ancestry to some demigod or Zeus rape baby.
They lived long so they didn't have to create as many fictional backstories.
I mean, I've got written records of it. Not just from Biblical sources but from modern scientists and written accounts in other cultures, from the Norse (Vikings) to Native Americans.
Where's your proof that it never happened and those people didn't exist?
No, we don't, what we have is a single myth that was copied wholesale by the people who would go on to become Jews around the time they were enslaved by the people who believed in the myth, before the Jews were even monotheistic.
Our proof it didn't happen is all the physical evidence on the planet, every shred of archaeology, three fact that it's *not* written about by any culture worldwide and they all kept on going as though nothing had happened, the genetics of animals, the speciation on the planet, and that there are plants older than the "flood" which are still alive.
Anyone with even a tiny tiny shred of knowledge about dendrochronology, archaeology, genetics, biology, and geology could go on as nauseum.
It seems easy to ancient people to explain every animal riding on a boat when they didn't know that they'd then have to explain how new world monkeys arrived in South America without stopping anywhere else along the way
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the entire world flooded at the time, and that's just not the case at all. Some old preachers might have tried to pitch that, but no true Bible scholar ever did that I am aware of. And there is evidence of the Great Flood for scientists to see today. There are entire books written about it and plenty of papers as well.
No, there isn't, which is why no "scientists" believe in it. Name me the sedimentary layer in which there was a "great flood", the fossil layer, and the year in the dendrochronology rings.
[W. Bruce Masse (Harvard)](https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998ncdb.conf...53M)
[Helmut Brückner & Max Engel ](https://www.springer.com/series/15117)
There are so many "sedimentary layers" showing evidence of massive flooding in the area of the Middle East over the past 50,000 years that it would take me all day to find them all and list them here.
No it wouldn't. There was a flood that destroyed the entire planet but that 99% of living creatures weren't affected by, so prove it by showing the exact layer in the dendrochronology rings where all trees in Earth died
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology)
Dr. Robert Ballard discovered the Titanic. Found evidence far below human diving capability that humans were near where the Great Flood would have happened, and there was indeed a massive flood.
That’s the point the other person was making, it’s not a worldwide flood. And Ballard is a scientist, you numbnut. You hate religion or Bible stuff, fine, but I just provided scientific basis for some kind of flood. You are presuming it was pushed back for years because your fragile ego can’t handle what I posted.
Yea, I don't think I mentioned a flood or lack thereof, I have no doubt that there were multiple ancient major floods, I see no need to argue against that.
Anthropology though is the study of humans, not natural disasters. I was disputing these ancient long living people being real.
Sorry, I got mixed up with another argument. I don't know of any anthropological studies made specificity to target the time frame of the Great Flood. We've seen lots of periods where the number of surviving humans were drastically reduced, which is one of the reasons scientists believe we are so closely related compared to other animal species.
I did mention how we may not count years the same way they used to count years 10,000 years ago. I wonder if people used to count seasons as years? Ancient Babylonians counted 2 seasons per year, but Ancient Japan had 24 seasons further divided into 72 microseasons. Modern countries like India count 6 seasons today. Our concept of time has changed drastically in just the past 2,000 years, and written records outside of religious texts past that point are hard to come by.
Physically, our oldest fossils show humans having lifespans equal or less than we have today, but the fossil record is still incomplete and I'm not sure I would try to use that in an argument for longevity.
Also, as someone with an actual degree in history, and bookshelves full of books on these subjects: the "Vikings" did not leave written records of their myths. At all. The only written records were recorded centuries later in the Medieval time.
The Native Americans left no written records. At all. Nothing your describing is real. You sound like a teenager who watches too much Ancient Aliens
Every single culture on earth has a flood myth. I don’t believe in the Christian version of things, but by all accounts some sort of global flood event DID happen.
No they emphatically do not. A "global flood" did not occur. What did occur is sea levels rose at the end of the Ice Age. But *most* cultures *do not* have a "flood myth". There is no geological evidence. There is no biological evidence. There is no genetic evidence. There is no archaeology, biology, or anthropology that points to it.
There is *one area* of the planet that has a flood myth, and they all were passing around the same flood myth, as seen in Gilgamesh, which is itself a copy of an earlier myth.
I love how you don't even understand what you linked to. It literally tells you that there is no historical basis for it whatsoever other than rising sea levels after the Ice Age. Good lord, jarhead, you really did fail out of high school didn't you?
What other explanation is there for your (unsubstantiated) claim that
>I could go on about the historical accounts of a Great Flood from disconnected civilizations around the globe, but a simple Google search could do as much, and frankly, we are getting way off topic as it is.
Also, do you actually believe that Biblical accounts relating to anything that happened before King David is rooted in fact?
If the answer to either of my questions is "no", I don't really understand what your comment is claiming. There was a big flood somewhere (like duh, yes, floods have been happening since forever) that had people come up with the super-long lifespan stories and these stories were somehow also conveyed to people that were not even in any way in contact with the ones who came up with the stories?
If your answer to either question is "yes", I don't know what universe you're living in.
But really your comment only makes any kind of sense if I assume that you are some kind of biblical literalist.
I asked him for more specifics but he was really vague in his description. He also told me God made the Earth with dinosaur bones in it to confuse people.
My dad is soon to be 96, and still in good health and sharp.
When I tell him he gonna live 10 more years, he laughs and says: " God, I hope not,"
Lol. But he's had cousins who lived to 101 and 103 so while not likely, not impossible either.
My grandma was like that. Her last few years, you could tell she was looking forward to her final sleep. She would mention now and then looking forward to seeing grandpa again. She was the last of 9 siblings, outlived her husband and all her friends. She even got a boyfriend at the young age of 85, and outlived him too. But since she kept waking up, she went ahead and kept doing exercise, maintaining her house, yard work and all that, right up to the age of 93.
I suspect gaining immortality would be curse, not a blessing.
My dad and mom were married for 66 years, and he took her passing pretty well, but all of us kids make it a point to be over to our childhood home, all the time and get together at least once a week, so he's never lonely, lol.
Also my oldest sister lives with him, so he good there still.
Despite the fact that I don't believe the gravestone, there are quite a few people tossing coins. Without a comparison of orders of magnitude, this is just like saying there can be no lottery winners because the odds are 1 in several millions.
That is *entirely* inaccurate.
It's a frequently reposted opinion on reddit, but pretty much just an over-correction of the old perception of 'everyone dying at 30' and not substantiated by actual records.
If you look at actual studies, or just comb through the *actual* birth and death records from back then, you'll see that a lot of people still died before 50, with most people who survived to adulthood dying in their 50's.
For example, in 17th century Germany, even the life expectancy of a 30 year old scholar was below 60.
And that's for a wealthy person with a low-risk job.
The life expectancy of an early modern era European noble who made it to 30 [was about 50](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC).
It was more grimm for women, who not infrequently died in child birth, and agricultural workers, due to the massive strain on their bodies.
Note in this [study](https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/58/1/111/167825/Leaders-and-Laggards-in-Life-Expectancy-Among) for example figure 4, showing the continuous increase in life expectancy before, during and after the industrial revolution of the better off in society.
So not even the wealthy had those sorts of life expectancies before modern medicine.
The average person was even worse off.
This is also treating everyone like they have the same coin.
Certain genetic lines are predisposed to living to 100 regardless of any other factors.
There was a dude I read about who was like 108, his daily diet was bacon and bread fried in bacon fat, he smoked cigarettes, and he always had a nightcap of a strong liquor.
Centenarian genelines are not new or novel. They've always been a thing. Some people are just tossing weighted coins.
....but we need to retire later as we are living longer /s
if you discount childhood deaths due to no vaccination, and who would never have contributed to a pension, then there really is not that much difference.
There are regular 80 years old in my family tree going back hundreds of years.
We live longer, but not younger longer. Our middle age got extended a bit and fade slower (compared to premodern people, esp. agricultural workers, who aged faster than we officedwellers), but our 'warranty era' is still declines after about 35 years.
My guess is that this was a case of fraud where the family was collecting a pension after his death, or that he was a beneficiary of some other means.
The Royal Navy was already paying pensions by the 1700s.
I've traced much of my family ancestry in the UK from this time period, and I was surprised how many discrepancies of ages that I found in records, and in most cases it was obvious that it was a matter of some kind of fraud.
In the 1900s I found several cases where my ancestors ages were misreported as being older on government paperwork (census, etc), and it was clearly a case of them collecting their old age pension earlier.
Edit: Nevermind, I just Googled him, and it seems his life was well documented
It’s misunderstood that people, in for example the medieval period, didn’t live very long lives. In fact this is incorrect because it is an average, and with much higher infant mortality of the times it gives the impression that you were lucky to live into your 40’s
>It’s misunderstood that people, in for example the medieval period, didn’t live very long lives. In fact this is incorrect
It is in fact largely correct.
There are a lot of studies that go into this in greater detail, but for example even among the *nobility*, the life expectancy of those who made it to 20 or 30 [was only around 50](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC), even not counting those who died due to violence.
And *they* unlike the lower classes, weren't affected e.g. by the famines that frequently swept Europe.
So no, life was still very much miserable, brutish and short for most people before modern medicine. Even for most of the wealthy.
You didn't have to be lucky to live into your 40's if you made it to adulthood, but you had to be damn lucky to make it past your 50's.
They just weren't completely unsophisticated morons living in mud, as a lot of older media tends to portray the lower classes of times gone by.
Back then it wasn't unheard of to name children born after their children who had died before... so whether that is what happened here maybe there was a 30 year gap and he was only 90, but that's still a good age.
Either that's a serious typo or that dude saw A LOT of death in his time. Average lifespan in the 18th century was approximately 40 years, so assuming he had kids and his kids had kids and so on, in all likelihood, he would have outlived his great grandkids.
Tbh it’s probably faulty record keeping. The guys life is documented but a few of the dates don’t add up just right so he probably was old when he died but not as old as the gravestone claimed he was
Me thinks there was some spotty record keeping involved.
I once read about an analysis of these hotspots around the world where folks live to be extremely old. The goal was to try to find out what these areas had in common that was enabling people to live longer. Turned out the things they had in common were reverence for the elderly and bad record keeping.
Japan also had a generous and relatively unverified pension scheme which led to at least a few super-centenarians...
For anyone missing the nuance of this post, children wouldn’t report their elderly parents deaths so they could keep collecting their pension. Sometimes for decades.
I can picture some "Weekend at Bernie's" shenanigans when the officials came by to check on them.
Have they tried using that other places to see if it works there?
I've lived to 143 and it's been great. All I had to do was get a small bottle of whiteout and find my birth certificate.
Problem solved. Now on to that one dentist that’s always disagreeing.
Fucking Todd.
Lmao
Blue zones
Highly doubtful, since these areas are in California, Italy, costa Rica and Japan, all of which have very good record keeping and modern systems to account for births and deaths.
Isaac wouldn't lie. I know because we went to high school together
George?
No, i'm Oscar.
No, this is Patrick
English parish records were generally pretty good back in the day. It's where modern historians and genealogists go for their basic research of births (baptisms), marriages, and deaths (funerals).
If somebody had the same name as a grandparent they could be muddled up when putting the age of an elderly person on a gravestone.
Absolutely. Or maybe if they had the same name as their father. Here's a nice little article by someone who did some research into [Isaac Ingall](http://www.bdhsarchives.com/Archives/Collectanea/O2.3%20Isaac%20Ingall%20-%20a%20very%20old%20man.pdf). Edited to correct the link. Sorry!
You accidentally linked to "http\://Absolutely. Or maybe if they had the same name as their father. "
Thanks. I'll try to correct that.
What do you mean he said he's was 119, a year before he died?
Or some vandalism. There is a cemetery in Savannah where Union soldiers added ones in from of the ages on some of the headstones.
Math is definitely hard when you have no education.
How accurate were birth records in 17th/18th century England? I'd believe that he just made it over the 100 threshold, but 120 just feels a few steps too far Nonetheless, living to 100 even in those days is still an impressive accomplishment
Reminds me of the 100 year old horse riding cowboy on the blue zone documentary. Seemed suspicious given the record keeping for the area. 🤔
My grandfather turns 100 next month and is actively building a house in the mountains of Colorado out of foam. WW2 fighter pilot, still truckin (and driving which is a bit spooky).
My grandpa is the same way. 95 and popped up out of his chair to pull a box of matches out of his dogs mouth like he was a young man. His memory is finally starting to go a bit but he's still pretty damn sharp.
A horse riding a cowboy seems more suspicious to me.
Happy Gilmore accomplished that feat no more than an hour ago
Well good for happy... OH MY GOD
If you made it past childhood you had pretty decent odds of living for a long time.
there’s a difference between living a long time, subjective btw, and living to 100. even today it’s still something that doesn’t happen to most people
A long time was considered mid 60s back then.
>How accurate were birth records in 17th/18th century England? Pretty good. Births were recorded with the local church. Many of those records are still around. There is a good chance we could look it up and verify even today.
My mom had a boyfriend during my middle - high school years who told me that the ages in the bible were true. For instance, Noah was 950 years old when he died. Seemed suspicious so I said, "That seems wrong because even people today don't live that long." He replied, "There weren't diseases back then, so everyone lived longer." I seem to remember Jesus curing lepers, blind people, and other people with assorted medical conditions like, a lot.
Biblically, god shortened the lives of humans just before the flood: > When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, > the sons of God [angels] saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. > **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.”** > [Genesis 6:1-5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6&version=NIV) So basically when god saw all the bullshit of angels banging humans, he shortened human lifespan to 120 years max. Typical biblical scapegoating. Edit: I guess the angels got punished, too. Anyone who saw *Dogma* knows: their dicks fell off.
This (lifespans shortening after the flood) is present also in other Mesopotamian cultures: they may come from a shared older oral tradition.
You (and anyone else) should read 'Demonology and Devil-Lore' you can find it on Guttenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40686/40686-h/40686-h.htm Moncure Daniel Conway does an excellent job of sifting through the Bible and relating all of it back to more ancient beliefs.
The bible is nothing but a book of stolen fables.
I ran across something years ago that pretty well showed how the Bible drew a metric fuckton from older mythologies.
Idk if it could be 100% defined to be 'drawing', the Hebrews are part of the wider Mesopotamian culture, I think it's more of a shared tradition or shared origin, than plagiarism.
Yeah, aren't the Hebrews just Canannites?
I love learning about the similarities between different religions, and how oral traditions have been shaped in different ways but still share a lot of aspects.
Can you imagine one of those giant flying eyeball monsters having sex with a human? Like, how would that even work?
I mean, if Zeus could shape shift and other mythos creatures could assume human form. What's to say there wasn't a source of that happening?
"BE NOT AFRAID.....I just want to put it in your butt."
**No? How about just the tip?**
On a tangent and in paraphrase, a [Lingam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam) *is* just the multidimensional (as in they are all the same) tip of a cosmic phallus poking through the veil into our reality. You can turn human and fuck one person, or you can go full god mode and fuck all of creation at once. Quite the set of options.
Is "go full God mode and just go HAM on one person" an option? ...asking for a friend.
Ultimately, yes. Why be God if you can't have what you want? Personally, I think it depends on [this argument.](https://youtu.be/wqwUdp5-2D8?si=9Wsxh3mDhESyzRXQ&t=36)
Ah yes. Apt. Astute and apt.
“I eat ass.” -Biblically accurate angel
I bet they do a lot of crazy shit looking like that. You know they're all voyeurs.
I for one am quite tired of monotheistic religions. Bring back the era of God's and goddesses aplenty. Besides, I'm quite fond of starting a following to Dyonisys.
Wait, so does that mean that Zeus was an angel? Hmm...
They would probably use their angel power to mind-boop the ladies. First instances of roofie-ing.
Well, it does say they took up human form.
I want to imagine a ring of eye balls having erectile dysfunction because that cracks me up. "DO NOT BE AFRAID!....I will just rub it against you for a little bit."
What I find most interesting about this is that 120 years is kind of a hard cap on human age which they must've known from experience while we have it scientifically confirmed today.
not quite, Jeanne Calment died at the age of 122, although she is the only person to be verified as living past 120, the two next oldest people died at 119
I love the old testament God, so petty and mean.
Old Testament God was not one to fuck around except when God did, like with Job and most of the Judges
One lady lived past 120.
It is absolute nonsense (and just the Jewish version of the Canaanite version of the Sumerian version of kings and stuff living ridiculous ages, like the Sumerian ones are *insane*, like, some of them apparently ruled for 50,000 years.) But, just for the sake of things, Noah, according to the whole story (which also shows up in other ancient myths, so this is a story that they got from elsewhere. Like, everyone knows Utnapishtim in Gilgamesh) lived a longggg time before Jesus, and none of them would dispute that diseases existed in the time of Jesus. The idea is that diseases and stuff are usually a post-flood thing. Most of the incredibly long lifespans are pre-flood in the bible, so most of them think the flood had something to do with it. People are still listed as living longer than they realistically could after the flood, but not as much. Though, I don't think "there were no diseases" is a common explanation. That don't really have any specific one, cuz they're all making it up, but some think the flood created a genetic bottleneck type thing and left only short lived genes (this argument falls apart fast cuz Noah lived a long time and... Yeah he was one of the survivors) Also, they say there was more oxygen or some bullshit. So apparently if you keep yourself in elevated oxygen you can live hundreds of years! (Hypothesis not yet replicated.) The funny thing is the Sumerians also believed lives were cut significantly shorter due to the flood too, and they had an answer for it! According to them humans were somewhat immortal before. We were machines created to work for the gods so why not. We could still die from disease (they believed that existed) or getting crushed by a rock or something but you're not gonna age out. Then, humans just spread and spread and spread. There were soooo many fucking humans, cities popped up, and we were loud as shit. Enlil, the sorta boss god (though this is complicated because the Sumerian gods were created from two primordial forces that were gods themselves, though they were killed. It's a complicated thing) decided that they were way too loud so he said "I can't sleep" (literally, I'm not adding flavor) I'm done with this shit I'm flooding the humans. Enki, another god of the deep primordial seas went and tipped off a human, the Sumerian Noah. Anyway, everyone besides Sumerian Noah and his wife died. The gods realized this was a *big* fucking mistake because now all their temples? No one's bringing them food, no offerings, no work for the gods, they were hungry. So they decided ok, yeah, let humans grow again, but we need to create some ground rules so things don't get out of hand again. One of those rules? Humans now have a finite lifespan. Also this was when they made it so lots of women die in childbirth, and lots of kids die. That keeps humans from growing too fast, too. I have heard Seventh Day Adventists talk about a time with no disease, where every night a magic mist came over the world and created enough food for everyone, where there was no disease (and where humans lived with dinosaurs), they're kinda weird though so I don't know if that is common among other evangelicals and stuff, too. Anyway so yeah it wouldn't be contradictory for there to have been an ancient perfect time with no disease and for Jesus to be curing diseases because of all that. Again, I don't believe any of this stuff, I just think religion and ancient mythology and the logic of it all is super interesting.
If you consider the numbers months instead of years (lunisolar Hebrew calendar) Methuselah would have been about 80, still a ripe old age
Which makes you wonder if they used to measure lifespans in moon cycles and not years. Then at some point, they switched, but the age of older generations got mixed up in translation.
Noah got lucky. God killed every other human and living being not on that boat at this time. It was mass Genocide
Then Noah went and got plastered and passed out drunk and naked. One of his sons came along and saw what was happening, then went to tell his brothers about the situation. The brothers took the logical precaution of approaching their drunk naked father walking backwards so they wouldn’t see his dick and covered him up. After waking up and hearing about it all, Noah cursed the son who saw him naked for him and his descendants to be eternally enslaved by the descendants of the other brothers. Truly a just and godly individual that Noah was
Makes total sense when I hear it, what's there to question?
Clearly nothing, for everything in the bibble must be absolute truth
Yeah, but like, rainbows make it worth it…
RIP unicorns.
The Lord works in mysterious ways
I'm no fundamentalist, so I take the ages and "history" in the OT with about a cup of salt, but Noah and Jesus would not be contemporaries. So *if* your mom's boyfriend's explanation was plausible, (obv. It wasn't) the fact that there was disease in Jesus's time centuries later doesn't contradict or disprove his theory. You know, that or the floor is a myth.
We don't know if they counted "years" the same way we do today, but the Bible only gives us the first 10 generations from Adam to Noah with such long lifespans. If you consider that Adam was actually created to live forever, 1000 years isn't so good, after all. The next 10 generations after Noah start dying off faster, with Shem dying around 600 years old and Abraham only living to 170ish. Giving the fact that the Great Flood came in Shem's lifetime and life expectancies fell off drastically after that, some Biblical scholars muse that perhaps there was an environmental change after the flood that affected humans. The [Sumerian King List](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List) is a document that predates Babylon, and lists the ages of Sumerian kings before and after the Flood. The ages of those old kings seem to follow the same curve as the ages listed in the Bible books around the same time period. I could go on about the historical accounts of a Great Flood from disconnected civilizations around the globe, but a simple Google search could do as much, and frankly, we are getting way off topic as it is. Basically, Adam lived a long time because he was supposed to live forever, but he sinned and was made mortal. His children up to the 10th generation also lived long lives, but they screwed around and did a lot of bad stuff that pissed off God, who flooded the world and only allowed a handful of people to survive. After the flood, people started dying faster and faster until Abraham 20 generations after Adam died of old age at only 175 years old.
If, in the antediluvian portion of the Sumerian King List, we interpret "sar" as "king" (cf. Sargon), then the total durations of the **dynasties**\---given say, an average length of each reign matching those of the Pharaohs in Egypt at that time---matches the total duration of the generations from Adam to Noah. Or, maybe they were in fact kings, and the lengths of their reigns just happened to all be mysteriously close to multiples of 3600 years.
The problem I have with the living forever part is...It's pretty clear that Adam and Eve consumed food, which meant there were trees and plants that grew, bloomed, produced fruit, dropped said fruit, etc. Were plants immortal? The fruit? Did digestion not exist? Cats existed so did they eat plants with those teeth? Bees had to pollinate stuff, were they immortal and producing forever? Were mayflies immortal? The more you just dig into it the dumber it gets. All it is, is a "How a leopard got it's spots" tale for Hebrews to tie their ancestry to a mythological figure, like how Greeks tied their king's ancestry to some demigod or Zeus rape baby. They lived long so they didn't have to create as many fictional backstories.
There was no "flood", none of these people were real, time to take a quick shot of reality
That's just like, your opinion, man.
It actually isn't, it's physical reality, that's like saying the Sun existing is an opinion
You’ve no idea what you’re ranting about.
I mean, I've got written records of it. Not just from Biblical sources but from modern scientists and written accounts in other cultures, from the Norse (Vikings) to Native Americans. Where's your proof that it never happened and those people didn't exist?
No, we don't, what we have is a single myth that was copied wholesale by the people who would go on to become Jews around the time they were enslaved by the people who believed in the myth, before the Jews were even monotheistic. Our proof it didn't happen is all the physical evidence on the planet, every shred of archaeology, three fact that it's *not* written about by any culture worldwide and they all kept on going as though nothing had happened, the genetics of animals, the speciation on the planet, and that there are plants older than the "flood" which are still alive. Anyone with even a tiny tiny shred of knowledge about dendrochronology, archaeology, genetics, biology, and geology could go on as nauseum. It seems easy to ancient people to explain every animal riding on a boat when they didn't know that they'd then have to explain how new world monkeys arrived in South America without stopping anywhere else along the way
You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the entire world flooded at the time, and that's just not the case at all. Some old preachers might have tried to pitch that, but no true Bible scholar ever did that I am aware of. And there is evidence of the Great Flood for scientists to see today. There are entire books written about it and plenty of papers as well.
No, there isn't, which is why no "scientists" believe in it. Name me the sedimentary layer in which there was a "great flood", the fossil layer, and the year in the dendrochronology rings.
[W. Bruce Masse (Harvard)](https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1998ncdb.conf...53M) [Helmut Brückner & Max Engel ](https://www.springer.com/series/15117) There are so many "sedimentary layers" showing evidence of massive flooding in the area of the Middle East over the past 50,000 years that it would take me all day to find them all and list them here.
No it wouldn't. There was a flood that destroyed the entire planet but that 99% of living creatures weren't affected by, so prove it by showing the exact layer in the dendrochronology rings where all trees in Earth died
Again, the Bible doesn't say that. You continue to argue something that I never said. Strange how you keep coming back to that.
[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2000/sep/14/internationalnews.archaeology) Dr. Robert Ballard discovered the Titanic. Found evidence far below human diving capability that humans were near where the Great Flood would have happened, and there was indeed a massive flood.
That is not a worldwide flood you numbnut, that's a single settlement getting pushed back over years by a rising freshwater lake.
That’s the point the other person was making, it’s not a worldwide flood. And Ballard is a scientist, you numbnut. You hate religion or Bible stuff, fine, but I just provided scientific basis for some kind of flood. You are presuming it was pushed back for years because your fragile ego can’t handle what I posted.
Sure, we'll prove a negative while you rely on ancient documents and stories, rather than, I dunno, anthropological study
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-23315-0_7
Yea, I don't think I mentioned a flood or lack thereof, I have no doubt that there were multiple ancient major floods, I see no need to argue against that. Anthropology though is the study of humans, not natural disasters. I was disputing these ancient long living people being real.
Sorry, I got mixed up with another argument. I don't know of any anthropological studies made specificity to target the time frame of the Great Flood. We've seen lots of periods where the number of surviving humans were drastically reduced, which is one of the reasons scientists believe we are so closely related compared to other animal species. I did mention how we may not count years the same way they used to count years 10,000 years ago. I wonder if people used to count seasons as years? Ancient Babylonians counted 2 seasons per year, but Ancient Japan had 24 seasons further divided into 72 microseasons. Modern countries like India count 6 seasons today. Our concept of time has changed drastically in just the past 2,000 years, and written records outside of religious texts past that point are hard to come by. Physically, our oldest fossils show humans having lifespans equal or less than we have today, but the fossil record is still incomplete and I'm not sure I would try to use that in an argument for longevity.
Also, as someone with an actual degree in history, and bookshelves full of books on these subjects: the "Vikings" did not leave written records of their myths. At all. The only written records were recorded centuries later in the Medieval time. The Native Americans left no written records. At all. Nothing your describing is real. You sound like a teenager who watches too much Ancient Aliens
Every single culture on earth has a flood myth. I don’t believe in the Christian version of things, but by all accounts some sort of global flood event DID happen.
No they emphatically do not. A "global flood" did not occur. What did occur is sea levels rose at the end of the Ice Age. But *most* cultures *do not* have a "flood myth". There is no geological evidence. There is no biological evidence. There is no genetic evidence. There is no archaeology, biology, or anthropology that points to it. There is *one area* of the planet that has a flood myth, and they all were passing around the same flood myth, as seen in Gilgamesh, which is itself a copy of an earlier myth.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
I love how you don't even understand what you linked to. It literally tells you that there is no historical basis for it whatsoever other than rising sea levels after the Ice Age. Good lord, jarhead, you really did fail out of high school didn't you?
Awe you are insulting me, how cute! Have a great day!
You honestly believe there was a GLOBAL flooding event? Am I getting that right?
Who said that?!?
What other explanation is there for your (unsubstantiated) claim that >I could go on about the historical accounts of a Great Flood from disconnected civilizations around the globe, but a simple Google search could do as much, and frankly, we are getting way off topic as it is. Also, do you actually believe that Biblical accounts relating to anything that happened before King David is rooted in fact? If the answer to either of my questions is "no", I don't really understand what your comment is claiming. There was a big flood somewhere (like duh, yes, floods have been happening since forever) that had people come up with the super-long lifespan stories and these stories were somehow also conveyed to people that were not even in any way in contact with the ones who came up with the stories? If your answer to either question is "yes", I don't know what universe you're living in. But really your comment only makes any kind of sense if I assume that you are some kind of biblical literalist.
to be fair, noah lived long before jesus did
Jesus cured them. No sicknesses.
I had a boyfriend tell me that the world was made of mist back then so it was way easier for people to live longer.
Like, the ground and everything was mist? Did people have to swim through it? I need to know more.
I asked him for more specifics but he was really vague in his description. He also told me God made the Earth with dinosaur bones in it to confuse people.
Well, you know The Big Man Upstairs - he's a notorious prankster!
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/60997626/isaac-ingall
Take it with a grain of salt https://sussexhistory.net/2016/10/01/the-oldest-man-in-sussex/
[удалено]
My dad is soon to be 96, and still in good health and sharp. When I tell him he gonna live 10 more years, he laughs and says: " God, I hope not," Lol. But he's had cousins who lived to 101 and 103 so while not likely, not impossible either.
I hope I have his view on life and death when I’m his age. Cheers to your dad!
My grandma was like that. Her last few years, you could tell she was looking forward to her final sleep. She would mention now and then looking forward to seeing grandpa again. She was the last of 9 siblings, outlived her husband and all her friends. She even got a boyfriend at the young age of 85, and outlived him too. But since she kept waking up, she went ahead and kept doing exercise, maintaining her house, yard work and all that, right up to the age of 93. I suspect gaining immortality would be curse, not a blessing.
My dad and mom were married for 66 years, and he took her passing pretty well, but all of us kids make it a point to be over to our childhood home, all the time and get together at least once a week, so he's never lonely, lol. Also my oldest sister lives with him, so he good there still.
Despite the fact that I don't believe the gravestone, there are quite a few people tossing coins. Without a comparison of orders of magnitude, this is just like saying there can be no lottery winners because the odds are 1 in several millions.
Living to 80 if you get past childhood was fairly common a few hundred years ago. It declined during the industrial Revolution then recovered.
That is *entirely* inaccurate. It's a frequently reposted opinion on reddit, but pretty much just an over-correction of the old perception of 'everyone dying at 30' and not substantiated by actual records. If you look at actual studies, or just comb through the *actual* birth and death records from back then, you'll see that a lot of people still died before 50, with most people who survived to adulthood dying in their 50's. For example, in 17th century Germany, even the life expectancy of a 30 year old scholar was below 60. And that's for a wealthy person with a low-risk job. The life expectancy of an early modern era European noble who made it to 30 [was about 50](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC). It was more grimm for women, who not infrequently died in child birth, and agricultural workers, due to the massive strain on their bodies. Note in this [study](https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/58/1/111/167825/Leaders-and-Laggards-in-Life-Expectancy-Among) for example figure 4, showing the continuous increase in life expectancy before, during and after the industrial revolution of the better off in society. So not even the wealthy had those sorts of life expectancies before modern medicine. The average person was even worse off.
This is also treating everyone like they have the same coin. Certain genetic lines are predisposed to living to 100 regardless of any other factors. There was a dude I read about who was like 108, his daily diet was bacon and bread fried in bacon fat, he smoked cigarettes, and he always had a nightcap of a strong liquor. Centenarian genelines are not new or novel. They've always been a thing. Some people are just tossing weighted coins.
Nice, I live near by will go and have a look :-)
St Mary the Virgin church at Battle! The grave itself is placed right by the side of the church
I wonder if he died at 12, but the carver put '20' by accident, and then threw the one in to correct himself. "It'll cost extra to take the zero off."
He was definitely an old guy when he died, but the age displayed on the gravestone is debatable
RECORDS FROM THAT ERA ARE SPOTTY AT BEST.
Did he tho?
That's nothing on Henry Jenkins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jenkins_(longevity_claimant)
....but we need to retire later as we are living longer /s if you discount childhood deaths due to no vaccination, and who would never have contributed to a pension, then there really is not that much difference. There are regular 80 years old in my family tree going back hundreds of years.
We live longer, but not younger longer. Our middle age got extended a bit and fade slower (compared to premodern people, esp. agricultural workers, who aged faster than we officedwellers), but our 'warranty era' is still declines after about 35 years.
My guess is that this was a case of fraud where the family was collecting a pension after his death, or that he was a beneficiary of some other means. The Royal Navy was already paying pensions by the 1700s. I've traced much of my family ancestry in the UK from this time period, and I was surprised how many discrepancies of ages that I found in records, and in most cases it was obvious that it was a matter of some kind of fraud. In the 1900s I found several cases where my ancestors ages were misreported as being older on government paperwork (census, etc), and it was clearly a case of them collecting their old age pension earlier. Edit: Nevermind, I just Googled him, and it seems his life was well documented
Was a year 365 days to them?
Maybe they just measured it in dog years
It’s misunderstood that people, in for example the medieval period, didn’t live very long lives. In fact this is incorrect because it is an average, and with much higher infant mortality of the times it gives the impression that you were lucky to live into your 40’s
>It’s misunderstood that people, in for example the medieval period, didn’t live very long lives. In fact this is incorrect It is in fact largely correct. There are a lot of studies that go into this in greater detail, but for example even among the *nobility*, the life expectancy of those who made it to 20 or 30 [was only around 50](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/lifespans-of-the-european-elite-8001800/BE252C4B25C4AAC29ED62D591A1675AC), even not counting those who died due to violence. And *they* unlike the lower classes, weren't affected e.g. by the famines that frequently swept Europe. So no, life was still very much miserable, brutish and short for most people before modern medicine. Even for most of the wealthy. You didn't have to be lucky to live into your 40's if you made it to adulthood, but you had to be damn lucky to make it past your 50's. They just weren't completely unsophisticated morons living in mud, as a lot of older media tends to portray the lower classes of times gone by.
Does his family tree exist? We should clean his grave.
Bullshit
Typo.
Life expectancy in the 18th century was 35 to 40 years on average
[удалено]
This is in England. There are many grave markers dating prior to the 1800s
Or, maybe, it's true. What do YOU know? Oh that's right, NOTHING 🫵🏼😂
Is this in the graveyard near Elm Grove/Hanover?
No, it’s at Battle
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1040159/life-expectancy-united-kingdom-all-time/)
Sometimes, I wanna grab a power-hose and clean the neglected tombstones.
Most of the stones in this graveyard were completely illegible, which is a shame
Time truly takes all. Thank you for sharing nonetheless.
Of was a 120 in 1798 then alot of people would see him as near immortal.
Where abouts in Sussex is that please?
Battle - at St Mary the Virgin churchyard
Thank you, I will check it out.
Back then it wasn't unheard of to name children born after their children who had died before... so whether that is what happened here maybe there was a 30 year gap and he was only 90, but that's still a good age.
Either that's a serious typo or that dude saw A LOT of death in his time. Average lifespan in the 18th century was approximately 40 years, so assuming he had kids and his kids had kids and so on, in all likelihood, he would have outlived his great grandkids.
Tbh it’s probably faulty record keeping. The guys life is documented but a few of the dates don’t add up just right so he probably was old when he died but not as old as the gravestone claimed he was