An exercise in biblical inspiration: Did Adam live 900 years?


Adam lost these preternatural gifts after he committed original sin. However, he had a pretty good head start.

As time went on genetic entropy had started to affect humans.

TIme was measured the same way as today.

Deleterious mutations can and do cause disease.


Do you have a shred of scientific evidence proving it’s not possible? Show me Adam’s DNA samples from both before and after he sinned and prove me wrong.


All biological evidence points to the fact that humans cannot survive 900 years. The onus of proof is on you making the assertion.


RIght, they cannot today, but in the past it is written.


Source please



Gen 5: 1 This is the roll of Adam’s descendants: On the day that God created Adam he made him in the likeness of God.

2 Male and female he created them. He blessed them and gave them the name Man, when they were created.

3 When Adam was a hundred and thirty years old he fathered a son, in his likeness, after his image, and he called him Seth.

4 Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he fathered sons and daughters.

5 In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died.

6 When Seth was a hundred and five years old he fathered Enosh.

7 After the birth of Enosh, Seth lived for eight hundred and seven years, and he fathered sons and daughters.

8 In all, Seth lived for nine hundred and twelve years; then he died.

9 When Enosh was ninety years old he fathered Kenan.

10 After the birth of Kenan, Enosh lived for eight hundred and fifteen years and he fathered sons and daughters.

11 In all, Enosh lived for nine hundred and five years; then he died.

12 When Kenan was seventy years old he fathered Mahalalel.

13 After the birth of Mahalalel, Kenan lived for eight hundred and forty years and he fathered sons and daughters.

14 In all, Kenan lived for nine hundred and ten years; then he died.

15 When Mahalalel was sixty-five years old he fathered Jared.

16 After the birth of Jared, Mahalalel lived for eight hundred and thirty years and he fathered sons and daughters.

17 In all, Mahalalel lived for eight hundred and ninety-five years; then he died.

18 When Jared was a hundred and sixty-two years old he fathered Enoch.

19 After the birth of Enoch, Jared lived for eight hundred years and he fathered sons and daughters.

20 In all, Jared lived for nine hundred and sixty-two years; then he died.

21 When Enoch was sixty-five years old he fathered Methuselah.

22 Enoch walked with God. After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch lived for three hundred years and he fathered sons and daughters.

23 In all, Enoch lived for three hundred and sixty-five years.

24 Enoch walked with God, then was no more, because God took him.

25 When Methuselah was a hundred and eighty-seven years old he fathered Lamech.

26 After the birth of Lamech, Methuselah lived for seven hundred and eighty-two years and he fathered sons and daughters.

27 In all, Methuselah lived for nine hundred and sixty-nine years; then he died.

28 When Lamech was a hundred and eighty-two years old he fathered a son.

29 He gave him the name Noah because, he said, ‘Here is one who will give us, in the midst of our toil and the labouring of our hands, a consolation out of the very soil that Yahweh cursed.’

30 After the birth of Noah, Lamech lived for five hundred and ninety-five years and fathered sons and daughters.

31 In all, Lamech lived for seven hundred and seventy-seven years; then he died.

32 When Noah was five hundred years old he fathered Shem, Ham and Japheth.


Respectfully did not know :thinking:Enoch lived for 365 years and there is 365 days in a year? Just interesting is all, do theses numbers of years maybe have a metaphorical meaning? Peace :slight_smile:


You’re the one who asked for proof, not me.


Not what I’m asking.
You made a scientific claim about pristine genetics in regard to our first parents. I’m asking for your sources.


And then took those gifts away after the fall.

Again… that’s another statement of science. Does the Church teach this, that “destructive mutations had not yet started”? C’mon, now… :wink:


A lot of texts really. Have their founders living ridiculously long ages.


How long after creation do you think destructive mutations started?


Not the question we’re discussing. I’m asking you where, in Church teaching, Adam’s genetics are discussed. :popcorn:


Call it genetics, call it science, call it religion, call it metaphysics - it doesn’t matter. What the church teaches is that:

418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

Let’s parse that a bit shall we? “As a result of original sin” i.e. original sin is the cause of . . .

Therefore these things did not exist before the fall.

  1. weakened human nature

  2. ignorance (of God’s will)

  3. Bodily suffering (sickness)

  4. Physical Death

  5. Inclination to sin.

This is what the Church teaches.

CCC Section 418


What DeaconJeff said above.


Right. And none of that says, “Adam had perfect genetics.”

Here’s the thing: the claim being made is that Adam literally lived for 900 years, and the supposed ‘proof’ is the claim of his perfect genetics. Yes, there were effects to the fall, but ‘bodily suffering’ does not imply “the beginning of genetic mutations,” nor does the teaching of the Church imply what’s being asserted here.

We are taught that we are permitted to understand the first chapters of Genesis allegorically or literally, as long as we assent to the theological teachings therein. However, to claim that 900 years is literally true because of a supposed lack of genetic ‘mutation’, is to claim that only a literal interpretation is possible. In other words, it’s a sneaky way to attempt to assert that a literalistic ready of Genesis is the only correct reading. That’s why I’m making a big deal about this… :wink:


The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: **“All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”**83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

  1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

  2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

  3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87

119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89


Please just answer the request for a source verifying that Adam had “pristine genetics”.

You should be able to provide this. You spend a lot of time here conflating science and faith, and chafing at the Church’s stance on evolution and the Church’s sense of scripture.
You should provide evidence that Adam and Eve had pristine genetics.

In a more important sense, this type of thinking that imagines “pristine genetics” leads to some terrifying ends.


Is there reason to believe he didn’t?


You’re proving my point for me, man. :wink:

The “literal sense” is not an attempt to assert that “everything in the Bible happened literally as it appears on the page.” That’s where you’re going off track.

From the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit