Talk:Methuselah

message: 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)
thread_title: "was the oldest person who ever lived"

message: The Vaticanus (167+802) shows evidence of evolving from the original 187+782 via a lost 167+782 (=949) and lost 167+788 (=955) by equating Methuselah to Egyptian Menes. The facts exist that many ancient writers equated Adam as Menes, so to equate Methuselah as Menes is not presumption. In Hebrew Noah's death at 950 is in year 355 of 360-day making it year 955. (Notation: 355 of 360-day spans only 350 years.) In Egyptian Septuagint Genesis (280bc based on Ramses 1290bc) this 955 is the 11th dynasty year 2134bc (dyn 1-5 =768 plus dyn 6-8 =187 to year 955 as dyn 11 overpowering the contemporary 9 & 10). It is this 187 years of Egypt (dyn 6 thru 8) from year 768 to year 955 that got confused with the 187 years of Methuselah. In this way the Menes of year 350 (tradition that gods ruled 350 years until Pharaoh was created) is separated from the 955 by 605 years. So now with Methuselah his age 969 then presumed him to be on the ark to survive 14 years past the Flood, beyond the 955 to 969. This created the dispute of 1 Peter 3:20 where Peter deliberately attacks and verifies there was no 9th. (We can dispute this because every indication in chronology of Arpaxad born as 2nd year indicates pregnancy on the ark before leaving it, and the 2 years refers to the calendar new year 602 as the first of that newborn Arpaxad.) So if ancient word anywhere indicates a 9th, (we can presume Methuselah,) but it was prenatal Arpaxad. Methuselah dying upon the Floodyear means his life and death whether Flood 1656am or 2256am remains the same for both, as 969 =187+182+600 = his 187+782. All five of these figures are recorded. But if Methuselah died in the Flood year 2242am he died at 955 =167+188+600 = his 167+788) equating him with Menes as if dying in year 955. Though we see two figures change (187+182 changed to 167+188) the 788 had to exist to die in the Flood at 955. Instead the 969 is retained, so that another third figure is changed, that of 782 becoming 802. Though figures listed are 167+188+600 creating the new 788 to Flood for Methuselah, they then list an altered 802 for Methuselah to retain the original 969, (788+14). To keep 969, removing 20 from 187 to get 167, requires then adding 20 to 782 to get 802. Many historic alterations have reconstructed this way everywhere in history. The globally-known use of 2262am merely restores Methuselah's 167 back to 187 without restoring the 188 back to 182. (Typical of correcting one factor yet not another to get a desired merge result.) This 955 of 2242am as 167+788 = 187+768 which is merely the reversal of Menes (re-)unification 955=768+187 of 2134bc. (Reversals typically found in so much Bible chronology). This indicates that a lost extinct version of 167+788 existed before restoring the 969 by means of 167+802. From the original 187+182, changed to 167+188 to get 2242am, the 2262am restores only the 187 as 187+188. If this was done, it is logical that because the previous manner supported year 955 as Methuselah either dying in Flood, or passing thru the death of the Flood, that the figures would also support the attempt to equate with a year 950 Menes. And it does. Another numeric factor thus also brings in Menes as year 950 being 167+182+600 where only the 188 is restored to the original 182 so that 167+182= the 349 of Noah's year 350 after the Flood. This makes Methuselah as 949 years to year 950 which is taken from a Marduk formula= 936 egyptian of 365-day are 949 of 360-day having a 13-year difference, meaning they equated Menes and Marduk with Nimrod by means of year 950, instead of year 955. What does this mean? It means that as Methuselah was longest before the Flood, that if we eliminate the 8 survivors (Noah 950 and Shem 600), that Nimrod was the longest after the Flood (the Moslem tradition he measured or ruled 500 years. Bad wording; Josephus is tranlsated this way to saying Adam ruled 930 years, Methuselah ruled 969 years. It doesn't mean king other than being king over longevity conquering the centuries.) 98.144.71.174 (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost pre-Vaticanus 

message: What does "ibid" mean? Shouldn't it say Genesis or (Bereishit בראשית)?--Jerryseinfeld 03:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "ibid" means in the same source (referring to a previously cited work).  Philip J. Rayment 13:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ibid 

message: 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)
thread_title:  live span 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Comment on Creationists

message: Many things shorten life from 90 down to 50. But nothing people come up with shortens life 800 years. They fail to study children who age to 90 in just 16 years. They just say it is a genetic anomaly. Those who speak of water canopy protection be it gamma or ultraviolet whatever. If that were the cause then a grandson born in this new world to a granpa that lives 950 would have been old and died by 90 to 120. Record says he lived 438. This is something that creeps into the world. Doesn't slam into the longevity instantly. In fact, such a factor would then also age Noah to die in 90 years (600+90 =690) rather than live normally 950. The answer is in atomic structure that remains in the body. And i want you to find any error you can in this theory. Food you eat has carbon. Carbon-14 is toxic to longevity. BUT not solely by eating it, it had no effect on Noah. That is because most of what we eat as carbon is not used to build cells, not proteins. Once fully grown in body mass, what you eat is burned off and breathed back out. It is only in building body mass that you will retain it. That means a child will grow up building more carbon-14 than an adult already grown who has come from a nonCarbon-14 world. Weigh the data:  Noah lives 600 before Flood, 350 after Flood. His sons live 100 before Flood and so eating for 500 years after Flood they all die losing 350 years their direct father didn't lose. When a cell dies, the new cells use the break-down of the old cell so that new C-14 is not drawn into the body mass. Where is this C-14? it is in the DNA molecule on the thymin rung. It can be purged by deliberate diet. It would effect all organic life. And as a retarded student at UW university told me in 1985, the theory could be proven with the larva of a 24-hour fly. It should live 12 days if it is fed food that has no C-14. I believe in divine punishment. If 600,000 men in Sinai tell Moses that they obeyed the command of God listening to Moses to pick 10 men so that now they obey these ten and say nope we could never conquer Canaan, this is then also true of C-14 announced exactly as i do here, back 30 years ago in 1985 (very soon to be 40 years past 1975), and by the way HIV killing people takes 10 years and so was released in 1975, while i released this C-14 theory then in 1985 during the AIDS panic. People who survive Armageddon if over 20, deserve to get old and die, because they didnt prepare a diet that would give them the longevity their surviving children will gain.98.144.71.174 (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Creationism Longevity Theories

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably quoting 2 Peter 3:8 --Henrygb 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Day / 1000 years

message: 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)
thread_title: Methuselah Picture (Artists' impression)

message: 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 does not 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. Then to finalize this green house it is proven by referring to God's judgement upon Adam 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, not genetic sin. Noah lived more than Adam (doesnt sound like sin to me). In fact, Moses says any genetic curse lasts up to only 4 generations; the good DNA of four generations (unless you inbreed) purges and rids the bad mutated DNA in those four generations. Many presumptions are made, but i too can find fault with presumptions 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)
replies: text: 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.  <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 03:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Water Canopy

message: 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)
replies: text: OK, I took a stab at it... --Chris 23:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another rewrite needed here

message: Hebrew translation of the name: "Man of the dart" -- is this accurate? --Chris 23:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, its not the appropriate translation.--Shaul avrom 13:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: About that Hebrew translation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lifespan section 

message: 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. --RobthTalk 01:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In popular culture" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The tone of the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Did anyone watch that episode of [[QI]] featuring Methuselah? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Methuselah age, a correction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The great age and the possibility that age was counted once in months not years 

message: Ages of 900 existed only for 1656 years beginning with Adam as 930. They did not come down, they went up; up to Noah 950 (and this was after the effects of a Flood), up to Jared 962, up to Methuselah 969. The Flood then dropped ages, plunged them downward in 857 years to Exodus (427+430). Way too many religions are saying and have said gradual drop from accumulated sin of humans. And although Septuagint would increase this postFlood plunge by a more gradual 600 to be 1457 (as 1027+430) or by 720 to be 1577 (as 1147+430) or more gradual 1677 (as 1247+430), it has now been 3500 years at the flat line current levels. This speaks out and says crash collapse impact disaster, not gradual sin, nor accumulating error.98.144.71.174 (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Longevity Not Gradual

message: 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)
thread_title: 120 Years, is it a Longevity, or a DeadLine Date

message: 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)
thread_title:  Names of families, tongues, countries, and nations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good article 

message: "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)
thread_title:  ICR and Vapour Canopy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please edit the "lifespan" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Its Obvious?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Are Humans Today Really Some Sort of Paragon??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Methuselah only link between Adam and Noah? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Some nice bit of BS here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Very poor article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lifespan 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Tradition" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Hebrew bible" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need good sources 

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Need to add a section for "Generational Telescoping" under interpretations.

message: 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)
thread_title: [[The Methuselah Foundation]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Mistranslation

message: 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)
thread_title: The Biblical references to Methusaleh in Genesis

message: 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)
thread_title: Nine not 8 on the Ark

message: 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)
thread_title: Source of 2256am

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes - as I said it was an early Christian spelling of Methusaleh. When these early Christian writings were translated into english, you then have Methusalem. I'm not sure where you are getting that english is the only language that doesn't use this version. The "STANDARD" spelling of his name is "METHUSELAH". "METHUSALEM" is an "ALTERNATE" spelling.Ckruschke (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the only GERMANIC language. There are ten of those apart from English, five of them have article of the character. All of those have Methusalem (German and Swedish) or Metusalem (Danish, Dutch and Norwegian). And there are not so many with the "h" -ending: Old English, Bulgarian, Esperanto, Croatian, Indonesian, Finnish and Ukrainian. 82.141.126.28 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methusalem? 

message: The section on interpetation opens
"The meaning of Methuselah's age has engendered considerable speculation, but no widely accepted conclusions. These speculations can be discussed under four categories and their combinations: literal, mistranslation, symbolic, and fictional interpretations."
However the section on symbolism discusses the symbolism of 8, the number of his generation, rather than 969, his lifespan. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic Interpretation of Lifespan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Methuselah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120813084204/http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_13_3_mckague.pdf to http://scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_13_3_mckague.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why has nobody pointed out the problems with suggesting that the word "year" actually means "1/10 of a year)? If that's what year meant, then that interpretation means Mahalalel begot Jared at age 6.5, and also means Enoch begot Methuselah at 6.5. Primal Groudon (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.1 years? 

message: This article says that an interpretation of Methuselah's longevity suggests that "months" was mistranslated as "years". The article says that this would mean he was seventy-eight when he died, but I have just done a quick calculation on the calculator on my mobile telephone which implies that this means he would have been eighty when he died. Vorbee (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Months interpretation

message: No historian in the sane mind believes Methuselah's longevity were an objective historical fact. That's why we default to myth. See WP:CHOPSY and WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth 

message: In the vampire based RPG, methuselah is used to refer to one of the oldest vampires of a vampire clan. Namely 5th generation to 7th generation (generations being from Caine as progenitor.) 2600:100C:B249:F359:1916:3795:DACD:C200 (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vampire: The Masquerade