Talk:Methuselah

"was the oldest person who ever lived"

I can't find support for this claim. He is the person with the oldest age listed in the Bible but that is not to say he was the oldest who ever lived. The Bible does not provide an account of every lineage around that time, even, nor does it say in the text (quoted below) that this was the oldest person. Primarily the lineage to reach Noah is listed in this area. Can we get other support for this claim? Otherwise I recommend removing the clause.

jewbacca 23:13, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

jewbacca???? that is an odd one

---

What you mean is "the oldest person on record". There might have been someone older, but we have no record of him. Places like the Sumerian king list have people living at least tens of thousands of years, but there is no evidence to these lists legibility.68.50.57.15 (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Babylon's king Amizaduga died in Adam's year 2400, but instead the long chronologies debate Hamurabi or Amizaduga dying in Adam's year 3600, revealing both were counting 1200s to year 6000. Venus fits this not Jupiter. Amizaduga observed Venus. Thus his making siginifcance of a 3600-year SAR does not confirm Berosus who thinks preFlood kings ruled sars of 3600 years instead of 3600 days. The list of Berosus totals 119.8 sars or 1198 years which would total 1200 when Arpaxad is born 2 years after the Flood. This is confirmed by The 2947bc Flood 740 years to Peleg's death in 2207bc (tradition Thoth 1 on Feb 26 returning in 747bc) having an Arpaxad of 2945bc Aug 29 (Thoth) as noted by Augustus Octavian for Coptic calendar in 25bc (same as 2947bc to 27bc Aug 30). The 2256 years from 5200-2945bc being year 1 plus 2255 is 2256am. Thus Berosus may say 3600 years per sar but he lays out 1198 years from 4143bc to 2947bc. The Nippur list is 97 sars of 970 years which means Methuselah versus the kings. The Larsa list is 67 sars of 670 years which means the two kings are ommitted to make 8 kings because they expect Alulim to kill Enoch who died 670 before the Flood when Methuselah was 300. But Alulim if from heaven as the list says, is easily alive 300 years later to defy Enoch's disapproval of Kichunna the king of Larsa becoming next ruler of the world. Lastly the 18 sars of 180-year Xisuthros is questionable to the tradition as Noah because texts actually say he raptured to heaven the same 40 days Noah did in his ark. However, Noah lived 350 years after the rapture of his ark. BUT agreed, listing Methuselah is not with intent of claming no one lived longer, just as listing our world from 3 sons doesnt mean Noah didnt have other sons much older and much younger who never got on the ark. The intent of saying of the other 9 that they had other sons is so you dont conclude that in 1656 years a world of 10 men and 10 women died.

Ibid

What does "ibid" mean? Shouldn't it say Genesis or (Bereishit בראשית)?--Jerryseinfeld 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"ibid" means in the same source (referring to a previously cited work). Philip J. Rayment 13:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mesushelach was not the longest living, Adam Harishon lived longer, and, if I am not mistaken, Mesushelach's son, lemech, lived longer.--Shaul avrom 11:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be a crossing of sources. Lamech's 777 is from sources 1656am and 2256am (2242 and 2262) and the source that says 720 for Methuselah does so to be sothic 180 leap days to 1307am. The reason for 1307 is derived from 1306 to year 1307am plus 350 has Noah die in the famed 1656am. Or according to evidence Noah is accredited the 350 he didnt reach, so it could be 1307 years plus 349 to total 1656. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

live span

I think the part of the article referring to the live span is highly speculative and unfounded. There is no reason to believe that people actually lived longer before the flood of Noah's time. It hasn't even been proved that that flood was worldwide indeed. It most likely wasn't. The long livespans of Methuselah and other people before the Flood are simply of mythic nature just like those of early Mesopotamian kings who were said to have lived for up to 30.000 years. --85.74.156.186 20:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You are missing the point here. If I were to tell you about a fictional TV Show like the Sopranos, I'd still be able to explain the rationale for the ending (like it or not) even though the show is false. Likewise, the explanations for 'life span' may be apologist attempts to make what is increasingly untenable seem possible, but they also give us insight into how the Methuselah longevity myth has been used in popular culture...and in that sense, these insights are important, as long as they are framed in a hypothetical format (i.e. no sanction of veracity that this is indeed true).Ryoung122 04:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the first sentence needs citation.Actuallyerwrongashell (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Creationists

I have moved the following comment by anon User:70.20.26.83 out of the article onto the talk page:

Edit: This has nothing to do with Creationism. Try Othrodox or Conservative or Literalists or Biblical Theorists

..in response to the claim "Creationists have speculated on reasons for the dramatic decrease in lifespans following the flood of Noah's time."

I have attempted to clarify exactly who is making one of these speculations. It would be nice if a source could be found for the ultraviolet light one. --Stormie 07:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be removed, or at least pruned to a tiny sliver of its current form. Wikipedia isn't a forum for religious speculation about non-verifiable, unevidenced and fictitious events or phenomenon. Save that for your own message boards.

Well, wikipedia should reflect that statements on the different schools of thought on this without any bias. --197.229.149.164 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Day / 1000 years

In addition, the age of 969 fits within the dictum that man's life would be less than a "day" (i.e 1,000 years) after Adam ate of the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden.

I'm not sure about this statement. Not only does it seem to make little sense (since when does "a day" mean "1000 years" in the Bible or elsewhere, and why?), but it seems like an obvious and specious attempt to substantiate Methuselah's age solely on the basis of the coincidental amount of time between the original sin and the great flood. No research or cited Biblical passages are given to support the notion, and I can't help but thinking that a "day" (i.e 1,000 years) reads more than a little unclear and at least confusing if not wholly ridiculous. Unless all of this is disputed, I'll remove the statement, as it doesn't otherwise add anything factually valuable to the article. --75.3.22.244 13:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably quoting 2 Peter 3:8 --Henrygb 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Bible or no Bible cultures world-wide have honored reaching 1000 years of their city or government. This indicates that man mourns that no one has ever lived this long. If the list of 432,000 days is correct from Nippur, these kings or angels dwelt here more than 1000 years. However, even when they took over as kings, the Nippur list of 97 sars (970 years) aligns with the 1656 years and Methuselah, so that even their kingship did not reach 1000 years if that truly is the promise from God after all men have learned the lesson. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Methuselah Picture (Artists' impression)

It would be a nice addition to this article if there's a photo Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article refers to 'the majority of scientists'. This is tantamount to 'they say that'. Who are they? Can one authentic quote be found to replace this straw reference?

Some cleanup

I cleaned up some wording. Now I need to come back and work on the following five passages.

Other creationists believe that, according to the biblical text, a vapor canopy existed around the earth before the flood, which also would have protected mankind from the sun's aging effects. After the dissipation of the canopy during the flood, lifespans dropped rapidly to what they are today. In the opinion of the majority of scientists, proof of these events and their putative effect on human lifespan is lacking. Therefore they are rejected by mainstream science.

A vapor canopy? Is this truly mentioned in the Bible?

Yes Genesis 1:7 says there was water above. Genesis 7:11 says the gates of this water were opened in the Flood. Genesis 1:8 says the air under the water was called heaven, and Genesis 1:20 says the birds were created to fly in this heaven (under the water above). Genesis 2:5 & says there was no rain but instead mist and dew and condensation and streams. The reference to crops doe snot mean vegetation did not exist, it means there were no humans, and so of course there were no human farm crops from men who till the earth. In fact Cain started this not Adam. The to finalize this green house it is proven by referring to God's judgement during the breazy part of the day. Only a green house planet can give every day a breazy hour before sunset. The longevity charts prove the Flood dropped longevity. Noah lived more than Adam (doesnt sound like sin to me). Many presumptions are made, but i too can find fault with the ones everyone gives. No one has provided contradiction yet to my claim that C-14 took 100 years to reach the worst levels attaching C-14 into DNA. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

and that equated early death with sin (and thus long life with respect)

For "respect", probably substitute a word like purity, or sinlessness.

Richard Morgan's debut novel, Altered Carbon, explored a method of keeping the rich alive, via clones and uploadable memories, for several centuries. The common slang for these people is "Methuselah" or "Meth". This has been argued to be simply a nod to Heinlein's "Howard Family" novels, but this theory is unlikely.

Why is it unlikely? This needs to be explained.

In Johnny Depp's commentary on Pirates of the Caribbean he said that during the island beach scene he felt like Methuselah with his arm around Kiera Knightly (a 17 year old actress).

Not especially noteworthy as a cultural reference for the name. I propose deletion.

Yoda in the Star Wars saga is like Methuselah, aging to 900 years old, until he dies.

Even more tenuous—not even a reference, just a comparison. Lots of things are old enough to be "like Methusalah". I propose deletion. --Chris 21:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit late of a reply. See Genesis 1:6-8, it doesnt literally say "vapor canopy" of course but it does say that in those days there was water above the earth as well as below. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another rewrite needed here

Guinness Record statistics are soon likely to excuse the Methuselah age controversy, and further misunderstands the meaning of the story--some interpret Methuselah's age to be allegorical and, if anything, represented a different time and context). --Chris 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took a stab at it... --Chris 23:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

About that Hebrew translation

Hebrew translation of the name: "Man of the dart" -- is this accurate? --Chris 23:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, its not the appropriate translation.--Shaul avrom 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a better translation would be "man of Selah". Note that Methuselah died in the year of the flood.68.50.57.15 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lifespan section

Inclusion of the information on possible transcription errors makes sense, but is the Creationist material in this section really needed?

RJCraig 06:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"In popular culture"

I've removed the gigantic "in popular culture" section that had grown onto the end of this article. I suggest that if something is worthy of including, we can put it on the disambiguation page linked to from the top of this page. There's no need to clutter this page up with an interminably long list which is likely to contain little or nothing of interest to a reader seeking information on this Methuselah. --Robth^Talk 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Life span section There is a bristlecone pine somewhere out west that bears the name Methuselah. Presumably becasue it is the oldes living thing known on the planet. I would like more information.

That is a backhanded attempt at disrediting the Bible. Another question would be, was Methuselah a Nephalim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.138.225 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The tone of the article

In my opinion, there should be some indication, that the bible is not an actual historical document and information that originates from it should not be taken seriously.

If you do some (more?) research, you will find that it is very accurate historically. ^rossnixon 10:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. This particular section of the Bible is all but useless for historical information. Quote the book for what it is; an oral history which was never intended to be scrutinized as historical fact. -- UC

Can we please adjust this article for the idea that the Bible is not accurate? Seriously guys, there's an entire speculative section talking about how a person can live to nearly 1000 which doesn't even mention the idea that he didn't, possibly because he never existed. Maybe Methuselah is the folk memory of some guy who managed to survive till 100 when the average life expectancy was 40. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.223.213 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone watch that episode of QI featuring Methuselah?

When asked who is the oldest man in the Bible, Methuselah was the forfeit answer. They claimed that the correct answer was Enoch, as Enoch is never listed in the Bible as having died, only that "the Lord took him".--80.47.95.10 14:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

One could argue that Adam is the oldest man. Sure his body died, but he is still alive in the spirit! ^rossnixon 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What?

Methuselah age, a correction

I have a theory that corrects Methuselah's age of 969 years to a reasonable 108 years. It also brings the Gilgamesh story of the Flood within a time of the Noah Flood. The last great flood in the Persian Gulf area, as determined by scientists, is also in agreement with the corrected time of the Noah Flood. I have a four page article that I have researched and written detailing this theory. It has charts and a map besides text which I couldn't fit into this kind of communications. For anybody who may be interested, email your desire to rjoace@quay.com and I will send you a copy.24.22.18.55 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Ralph J. Oace24.22.18.55 01:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What about [Wikipedia:NOR]? I think your ideas are simply apologist attempts and not credible, but even then you don't cite sources, either.Ryoung122 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed some minor translation error: "when he dies it shall be sent" >> "when he dies/died - he (someone) will/had send/sent it" I'm an Israeli so I think I know my hebrew well... ;)

Not years but months

Methuselah was in reality 969 months old when he died, that is less then 80 years. Some ancient misunderstanding have changed the months into years. I got that from nowhere really. But i belive it's true. Barry Kent 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong. The ages of death gradually came down to the current 70-80 years. There is no sudden change that could be interpreted as a change from months to years. Also, if it was months being reported, then you have men fathering children at impossibly young ages (like 5 years old). ^rossnixon 03:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a stupid argument, isn't it? It's not like they had Babelfish back in the day. There's nothing stopping the translator in question from mis-translating two words (months and years) as having the same meaning (years) or mis-translating one word (months) in one context as having a different meaning (years). Historically, translations (and same-language copies or re-tellings) were VERY error-prone (this was before the invention of modern Copyright, y'know?) and if you consider that the text has been translated and copied a lot, you'd expect simple errors to spread over the years.

Unless you have a carbon copy of the very first original text, you can't know what meaning was intended (and even then language tends to be ambiguous and change meaning over time). Unless, of course, you argue that the modern interpretation HAS to be right, because your deity of choice guided the translators and scribes, which would make me seriously question your common sense. -- 88.153.29.247 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What was meant was 'years.' In either case, the claim is not true scientifically.Ryoung122 04:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

120 Years

There is an alternate interpretation of Genesis 6's limitation of 120 years on the life of man. It states that 120 years (or months or whatever - ancient Hebrew tends to get a bit muddy on things like days, etc.) is the length of time from God's warning until the flood. In other words, God was saying "That's it: in 120 years, man's time will be up." 5minutes 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe James Ussher agrees with you.68.50.57.15 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Names of families, tongues, countries, and nations

Gen 10:20 mentions of the descendents of Ham as being names of families, tribes, cities, etc. depending on which version of the Holy Bible you are referencing. I think there is even an earlier note of such a thing. I feel it possible that the numbers of years are entirely accurate but that although these are names of individuals, the names and years also reference the lineage, much like a surname. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.146.22.19 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC) That would work except the Bible is very explicit. it not only says "Adam begot Seth" but it also says after Adam begot Seth, reinforcing it (Gen. 5:4). It even gives Adams comments on Seth's birth (verse 3). Not only on Seth, but for Methuselah and Noah as well (verses 22 and 29).

Good article

This is one of the most neutral, well-written articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Good job, editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamanderson (talk • contribs) 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

ICR and Vapour Canopy

"The Institute for Creation Research has posited that a vapor canopy surrounded the earth before the Flood, and that it was the source of the floodwaters."

I doubt the ICR claims that a vapour canopy is the exclusive source of flood water. Considering Genesis 7:11; "... the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened".

The original claim quoted above should have a citation, or it must be re-worked including the possible removal of citation 5 (and the text to which it refers) which links to a paper which assumes only a water canopy supplied flood water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsultima (talk • contribs) 09:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please edit the "lifespan" section

The Babylonians were the first recorded civilization to figure out the 365 day calendar. In the Hebrew religious tradition, the books of Moses (which include Genesis) were handed down orally by the priestly class, the first, ah, "Torah" scroll was not actually written down until the time of the Babylonian captivity under Nebucahdnezzar. It is inacurate to try to place the blame for the extreme ages on lunar cycles or what not in large part because the Babylonians had a calendar that was actually, if anything, even more accurate astronomically than ours is. If the Babylonians knew of the 365 day year, chances are, so did the Hebrew scribe who first wrote down Genesis.

In other words, when it says "969 years old," they MEAN 969 years, literally. Also, the Hebrew language is a combination of Canaanite and Babylonian, which in turn was derived from early Sumerian, at least, the semitic tribes who took over Sumeria. Hebrew writting in fact, is actually Canaanite in origin. The Canaanites, like the Babylonians, knew of the 365 day year, they had to, as their kingdom, like their Phoenician neighbors to the north, were also sea farers and had to know about the stars.

You may want to revise it, or, at least place alternate view points from other sources. Please be aware that the Babylonians did indeed have a 365 day calendar, and that an actual "Bible" of sorts was first written down in Babylon. In fact, most Hebrew writting can be traced directly back to Babylon. And Canaan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.91 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Its Obvious?

This passage seems a little speculative, "It is obvious that longer lived people would produce more offspring and therefore longevity would only be lost if the individuals who survived the flood did not have the longevity gene". A 70 year old person won't necessarily produce less offspring than a 120 year old would during their lives. Also, I would think a source would be needed for this so called "scientific scrutiny" the section claims to use. If there are no objections, I'll change it up a bit.24.22.147.163 (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that Genesis 6:3 doesn't say WHEN it would take effect, and if we interpret it to mean a life-span limit, then it wouldn't mean "120 years from now" or "after the flood" but instead would mean "eventually." Extremely sexy (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Are Humans Today Really Some Sort of Paragon???

It's so much fun that people today assume that they are living in some kind of Golden Age, while it may very well be so that we are a degenerated joke of a human being, actually living in the Dark Ages when it comes to many things (consciousness-wise for example). But that's narcissism for you- how could EVER someone have been greater than you??!!! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.250.126 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, humans today live significantly (very close to twice the avg lifespan) longer than those of a few hundred years ago. In that aspect, we're good. And the difference between pre-flood and post-flood was the environment (very very oxygen-laden, which is extremely healthy for humans) and not really the way we lived. 209.173.122.191 (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Methuselah only link between Adam and Noah?

This statement is not entirely true. Yes, according to the Bible Methuselah was alive when both Adam and Noah were alive but there were at least four others that fall into that category according to the Bible. Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, and Jared. Glytch'd (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Some nice bit of BS here

"However, both evolution and creation indicate that the nature of human biology was significantly different in the ancient past"

No, just no, 6,000 years ago isn't the ancient past to biological changes. Genetically, the most difference you'd find between people from 6,000 years ago and now would be their lactose tolerance. It wasn't significantly different, it wasn't different at all. --89.124.240.181 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that is a nice bit of BS, thanks for sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.122.191 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Very poor article

I've read a great deal of religiously-oriented articles on Wikipedia, and I have to say that this is one of the poorest I've come across. Please, sit back a second and think about this. We're actually seriously speculating that a human being could live to be 900? This is patently absurd, this is the 21st century, I cannot believe we have a Wikipedia article attempting to defend the ridiculous creationist viewpoint that a human lived to be 900.

I'd completely remove that section, or at least heavily edit it to emphasize that this is just your basic ancient mythological tale. But then, this section has been on this article for a couple years, judging from previous talk page comments, so I doubt I'll be able to remove it. But seriously, this needs to go away, it's insane.Aelius28 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind sourcing, from a scientific article, your POV that a human living to the 900s is absurd and ridiculous, so that it can be compared against other widely held POVs currently extant in the article. JJB 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The "Interpretations" section is mostly full of incomplete sentences. Those that do express complete thoughts do so in an inappropriate tone. This section needs to be entirely reworked. Just sayin'.24.185.121.36 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Lifespan

I deleted the section again because the writing still isn't up to the standard we should look for. But the Carol Hill article is actually quite good. Hill is a geologist, not a biblical scholar, but she's read (cited) many genuinely scholarly works. I suggest going to those works, not Hill. PiCo (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete sources because not "up to the standard". If they are known somewhere to be unreliable, that's one thing, but otherwise, use the "refimprove" template and/or find the sources yourself. JJB 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Tradition" section

This should probably be rearranged to put the various traditions in chronological order - Genesis first, then Enoch and Jubilees, then the midrashic Book of Jasher. Thoughts? PiCo (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that. I doubt your implication that this Jasher is no older than 1625, but I have no sources on it either way. JJB 18:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say I strongly suspect that the Book of Jasher being referred to in the article is from 1625. All I know about I can share with you: There's an page on Wiki called Sefer haYashar (literally "scroll of the upright ones"); it's a disambig page, leading to several articles. One of them is to Sefer haYashar (biblical references, which deals briefly with the places in the bible which mention the Book of Jashar (or Jasher); the rest lead to several other works called the Book of Jasher/Jashar. There's quite a few. One of them is Sefer haYashar (midrash), which, according to the Wikipedia article, can't be traced back any further than 1625, although it claims for itself a much more ancient origin. J.H. Parry brought out an English translation in 1887, and this is the one quoted in our article. PiCo (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Hebrew bible" section

Created this section to put everything about the Genesis text in one place. Something's wrong - something with the table - figures don't check out. I'll try to fix this up. But what do you think of the section in principle? PiCo (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The canopy is mentioned in Gen. 1:6-8 & 2:5-6. It is also implied in 8:22. This canopy would screen out ultraviolet rays and thus increase man's lifespan. 68.50.57.15 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Need good sources

Articles need WP:RS and need to avoid WP:fringe. Ways to recognize a good source is that it's from a juried journal, a university press, or is cited by authors in those two venues. If a source makes big claims, has been around for a while, and fails those tests -- and hasn't even managed to attract the attention of reputable debunkers -- it's probably fringe. Other giveaways: the source is self-published, or put out by a fringe-theory press, or limited to a one-off website. People come to the encyclopedia to find things out, and unratified theories should not appear. I'm for deleting a couple here, but they should be put back if it turns out that Best & the other one are actually reputable, respected and cited. DavidOaks (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Fringe in the section "Evaluatimg claims" has this rule regarding Genesis: "For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature... "Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced qualitative research - denialist histories, for example - should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic." Best focuses on where the Genesis authors may have got the numbers and how the numbers may have been distorted by translation errors, which is a legitimate analysis of ancient literature, not as an attempt to prove they were real people. Three sentences summarizing Best's theory within a general discussion of Genesis numbers is not undue weight. But to delete these sentences when competing theories of Carol Hill and Henry Morris remain in the article, would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Greensburger (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Best is essentially a self-published authority. Morris at least works with a press (though not an academic one; do note that the only thing claimed for him is a calculation which is self-evident, and could be deleted without harm to the article. Let's do so). Hill's published in a magazine that's been around for 61 years and is taken by lots of college libraries. Her claim is modest. Best's is much more elaborate and controversial, therefore with a higher burden of proof. It's very WP:Undue indeed, as it gives the impression of equal status. Go back and have a look at WP:Fringe: "Fringe theory in a nutshell: In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is" "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories." (I just finished genealogizing a third-party source that used an old version of a Wikipedia article to become the source for a new version!). By all standards, this has got to go. Biblical history tends to attract speculations and hypotheses...DavidOaks (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a solution: Kevin Kileen, Biblical Scholarship, Science and Politics in Early Modern England (Ashgate 2009) attributes (p. 94) recognition of both the "years=lunar months" theory and its problem in crediting Enoch with fatherhood at the age of "some six yeares an an halfe" to Thomas Brown (Pseudodoxia Epidemica: OR,. ENQUIRIES. INTO. Very many received. TENENTS. And commonly presumed. TRUTHS 1672). Inserting this renders the whole athing a matter of reporting historically-held opinions, without any turfing about the credibility of modern theories and their proponents. DavidOaks (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything written about the Genesis is speculation and hypotheses - other than "this is what it says and this is what other people have written about it". You quote WP:Fringe: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced ... by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." How about two references on the back cover of Best's book, one by Prof. Lloyd R. Bailey, Duke University who wrote that the book "is well written and plausibly flows from its basic presupposition that Noah's flood was a local river flood." and by Prof. Davis A. Young, Calvin College, who wrote that the book "is exceptionally well organized, written, and documented. The scientific matters you touch on appear to be accurate." Greensburger (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, jacket blurbs certainly do not constitute engagement with theoretical propositions. What I've put forward allows us to acknowledge a longstanding theory and its counterargument. There really isn't any basis for bringing forward Best's theory about the use and misuse of decimal points in ancient Mesopotamia. DavidOaks (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The great age and the possibility that age was counted once in months not years

900/12 is 75 a man is fertile at 12 years... 187/12 is ≈ 15.5 years. this is so simple? so clear and so true. I can not believe the opposition to the acceptance of this??? I am shocked that inelegant people would condemn this as impossible? What century is this?: Sativarg (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no way that the ages were months. See http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-did-man-live-longer-before-flood-of-noah-than-after-it.html - you will see that the decline in lifespans follows a 'decay curve'. If they switched from months to years, you would get an obvious discontinuity in the line. ^rossnixon 02:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Need to add a section for "Generational Telescoping" under interpretations.

• http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/the-genesis-genealogies
• http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis_genealogies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imhavoc (talk • contribs) 13:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think 2 articles by a theoretical chemist are enough to show it's a significant interpretation. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Methuselah Foundation

Is it worth mentioning this foundation dedicated to extending human life? Or is use of his namesake not relevant enough? --Pat Morita 01:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.26.84.225 (talk)

Mistranslation

Footnote 14 in this section references an article by Donald V. Etz in Vetus Testamentum (1993). However, that article does not argue for a conversion of years to months, nor for a 10-month year. It presents a more complex derivation of the numbers in Genesis 5. I believe that the reference should be deleted or replaced with one that is relevant to the subject of the section, or Etz's argument on p 181 of his article should be presented here. Tree1805 (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I made the corrections you suggested and cited Etz's abstract because that is the only part relevant to this section. All three references suggest that the Genesis 5 numbers were multiplied by 10. Greensburger (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The Biblical references to Methusaleh in Genesis

5:21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah: 5:22 and Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 5:23 and all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years: 5:24 and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

5:25 And Methuselah lived a hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: 5:26 and Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. 5:27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Nine not 8 on the Ark

The source for 9 on the ark seems to be year 2242am and Methuselah living 14 years past it to year 2256am. However. despite Hebrews 11:7 defending the number 8 not 9, the difficulty in speaking against the most ancient of lost records is not due to Methuselah surviving as being truth. It is because Arpaxad is born in the 2nd year, and so conceived during the Flood. Shem's wife walks off pregnant which makes 9 people. Thus reference to 9 must have existed to create this controversy long before chronology was altered to make it Methuselah. In this way as many truths, correct in both ways pending on pwerspective. 98.144.71.174 (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Source of 2256am

The debating whether Noah was born in 1656am, or reborn baptized thru Flood in 1656am. Born in 1656 makes Flood 2256am when he is 600. The reverse also exists of death in 1656am because 1306 to year 1307am plus 350 his is death in 1656am. Or with evidence that he died before the new year of 350, it could simply be 1307 +349. Christmas December 25 in 1770bc is irrefutably by any scholar the Egyptian date Paopi 17 (2-17-2256am if 600 years after the Flood then becomes confused as the Flood date 600 years after Noah's birth). 98.144.71.174 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

2242am and 2262am

Two methods or sources or witnesses create these. One is Babylon's Marduk Temple as 3192am. This is based on 2256am +3744 to 6000 as four times 936. Seder Olam says exodus to Solomon's temple is 1313-834bc. With the temple in 1033bc (Eusebius) the Masoretic 2992am for it would place 3192am in 834bc as Marduk Temple not Solomon Temple. Josephus does the same with Solomon's temple in 1073bc as 40 years earlier with Solomon as 80 years 1077-997bc not 40 years 1037-997bc. This is because the 3744 (4x 936) or 3192am +2808 (3x 936) is used in long chronologies as Flood 2256am +936 to Marduk Temple as 3192am. Using NeoBabylonian 2256-3192am (Arpaxad 2945-2009bc) we find Josephus' Solomon's Temple is 1073bc because it is 936 after Marduk Temple. Both Josephus & Seder Olam are equating Solomon's temple with a Jupiter Marduk in Babylon whether 2009-1073bc or 1770-834bc. With this is unveiled thru the different intepreations of who Menes is. Menes has been Nimrod, he has been Adam. The abbreviation Men is equivalent to the abbreviation in Hindu for Noah who is Man Nu, and as Manu, he is an avatar of Vish-Nu, who everyone in antidiluvian Hindu record are called Menus, or ten avatars of VishNu, Noah being the 7th because Adam and Enoch and Lamech are skipped over. Thus the answer is short longevity is mourned as unattainble longevity of Man or Men whether Nimrod or Noah or Adam. As Noah 3192am = 2242am +950 as the marker to mourn. As Adam 3192am =2262am +930 as the marker. Then the (2nd witness) ancient sources these ancient historians sought to prove this come from years that Masoretic would place during Hamurabi. 2256am in 360-day is 1778bc Feb 26 (13-year Marduk pf Mars), 2256am in Egyptian is 1770bc May 13 (simaltaneous with 360-day 2264am as if 2 years after Flood), Egyptian 2264am is 1762bc destruction of Mari Syria by Hamurabi.

Oldest person who has ever lived

This is technically incorrect. In the Bible, Enoch never dies, he is called by the Lord for being such a good man, therefore, he would still be alive today, making him over 5,000 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.5.199 (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement "According to the Hebrew Bible, Methuselah is purported to be the oldest person to ever live" is false. He is the oldest person listed in the Hebrew Bible, but the claim that he was the oldest person of all is never made. Statalyzer (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

IP Editor - Enoch went to heaven according to the Bible in Hebrews 11:5 and Genesis 5:24. Saying that he is still "alive" is somewhat of a stretch, even for people who believe this happened.

Statalyzer - Methuselah is the person with the longest lifespan as listed in the Bible. So I think we may have some wording change. Ckruschke (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke - it sounds like we're saying the same thing. "The oldest of all the people listed by the Bible" is not quite the same as "The person the Bible claims as the oldest of anyone". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statalyzer (talk • contribs) 06:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I think that "it is generally agreed" that Methusaleh had the longest lifespan of anyone, but the Bible doesn't say that. Ckruschke (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Methuselah is nothing like the oldest person to have lived. En-men-lu-ana, king of Bad-tibira, ruled 43,200 years over his city (his lifespan was presumably even longer), and many other kings of that time also ruled tens of thousands of years. This needs to be noted. PiCo (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No offense PiCo, but why would we do that? This page has no mention of any other extra-Biblical "long life" folks so why on Earth would "this need to be noted"? Considering "no reputable historian/archeologist" puts any stock in either these lifespans or the length of their reigns considering the archeological history of the cities they ruled amount to less than 10% of the total 64,800 yrs that these kings supposedly reigned. I've read a few interesting research papers on what the unknown variable "divisor" that would be used to "normalize" these years - with the most recent one being that X=3600 yrs so a 36,000 yr reign is normalized to 10 yrs and then with a short discussion on who these kings really were based upon other historical sources.Ckruschke (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Methusalem?

I searched for Methusalem and got here with Redirected from Methusalem. However, "Methusalem" is the name I've learned and the article has no mention about it. There are some possibilities: the character was never known as "Methusalem" in English, or the name has been changed. 82.141.126.28 (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Methusalem is an alternate spelling (which I just learned after an extensive Google search) from the beginning of the Christian era so the redirect is correct. Ckruschke (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

But has the character ever been known as Methusalem in English? Apparently, English is the only germanic language not to use that version of the name (at least in Wikipedia). 82.141.126.28 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)