Genesis 5:27 Altogether, Methuselah lived a total of 969 years, and then he died. Matthew Henry Commentary 5:25-32 Methuselah signifies, 'he dies, there is a dart,' 'a sending forth,' namely, of the deluge, which came the year that Methuselah died. He lived 969 years, the longest that any man ever lived on earth; but the longest liver must die at last. Noah signifies rest; his parents gave him that name, with a prospect of his being a great blessing to his generation. Observe his father's complaint of the calamitous state of human life, by the entrance of sin, and the curse of sin. Our whole life is spent in labour, and our time filled up with continual toil. God having cursed the ground, it is as much as some can do, with the utmost care and pains, to get a hard livelihood out comfort us. It signifies not only that desire and expectation which parents generally have about their children, that they will be comforts to them and helpers, though they often prove otherwise; but it signifies also a prospect of something more. Is Christ ours? Is heaven ours?

We need better comforters under our toil and sorrow, than the dearest relations and the most promising offspring; may we seek and find comforts in Christ. Why Did Methuselah Live the Longest? | The Cripplegate Why Did Methuselah Live the Longest? November 17, 2011 by Nathan Busenitz A Short Reflection on the Man Who Lived the Longest Anyone who’s ever played Bible trivia knows that Methuselah lived longer than anyone else. He died at the ripe old age of 969. But have you ever wondered why? Putting aside all of the environmental factors of a pre-Flood world (where lifetimes lasted a lot longer than they do today), I’m convinced the answer has more to do with the character of God than the physical constitution or health consciousness of Methuselah. When Methuselah was born, the text of Genesis 5 indicates that his father Enoch began to walk with God in earnest (Gen. 5:21–22).

Many commentators believe that it was during the time of Methuselah’s birth that God revealed to Enoch the reality of the coming Flood—which is why Enoch spent the next three centuries warning the world around him of God’s impending retribution (Jude 14-15). Methuselah’s name can be translated as either “man of the javelin” or “man of the sending forth.” It is likely, especially given the context of Genesis 5–6, that his name referred to the reality of God’s coming judgment—a global Flood that would be sent forth with sudden force and destruction. The further implication is that divine wrath would not fall until after Methuselah died. (Some scholars even render the meaning of his name as “his death shall bring forth.” ) Methuselah lived 969 years. If you add up the length of time between Methuselah’s birth and Noah entering the ark (187+182+600), it is also 969 years. That means, in the very year Methuselah died, the Flood was sent forth like a javelin on the earth.

So why did God allow Methuselah to live for so many years—longer than anyone else in human history? I believe it was as an illustration of His incredible patience. The fact that Methuselah lived almost 1,000 years demonstrates the longsuffering nature of God. From the time God revealed the reality of that judgment to Enoch, it was almost a millennium before raindrops of wrath started to fall in the days of Noah. Methuselah’s long lifetime fits with Peter’s depiction of God’s patience in 2 Peter 3. After discussing the Flood (in vv. 5-6), the apostle writes in verses 8-9: But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. So, next time someone asks you, What’s the name of the oldest man in the Bible? Don’t just answer “Methuselah” as if his age were merely some trivial factoid.

Instead, consider the fact that 969 years is a really long time—not just for any one man to live, but for a holy God to be patient with a rebellious planet. Apologetics Press - The Bible, Science, and the Ages of the Patriarchs The Bible, Science, and the Ages of the Patriarchs by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. INTRODUCTION As one reads through the Bible, on occasion he is confronted with statements, situations, or events that, at first glance, seem to be either impossible or improbable—when viewed from a distinctly modern vantage point. One good example of such an occurrence might be the statements of Scripture regarding the ages of several of the Old Testament patriarchs. Genesis 5 records that prior to the Flood, people typically lived for hundreds of years, with the average age of the antediluvian patriarchs (excluding Enoch, who was taken to his reward without dying) being 912 years. As Leupold observed, “At once we are struck by the longevity of these patriarchs; all except three lived in excess of nine hundred years. It is useless to attempt to evade this fact” (1942, 1:233).

Leupold’s observation that it is “useless to attempt to evade” the clear statements of Scripture regarding the long life spans of the patriarchs is correct, of course, in the sense that no one can deny that the Bible attributes long ages to many of the ancient patriarchs. The Bible specifically states that Adam, for example, lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5), Methuselah lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27), etc. However, as Leupold himself discussed in his two-volume Exposition of Genesis, some have suggested that while the Bible says these old worthies lived to be vast ages, that is not what it means. In other words, while the biblical statements themselves on these matters are clear, their meaning is not. This is the case, we are told, because it is a matter of record that men today (obviously) do not live to be centuries old. Thus, some have suggested that the biblical record is unacceptable and therefore needs to be “fixed” or “explained” to bring it more into line with modern scientific facts on these matters, and to make its message palatable to people of our day and age.

What recourse is available, then, to the person who discovers that there is a disagreement between plain, historical statements of Scripture and modern scientific pronouncements? First, one might simply acknowledge that the Bible is inspired of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and as such is accurate in its renderings. If such a person has studied the matter(s) at hand, and is assured that his understanding of Scripture is accurate, he will revere the Word of God as just that—the Word of God—and will accept its teachings as trustworthy, in spite of modern-day claims to the contrary. Second, of course, a person might merely dismiss the biblical record as little more than ancient folklore—worthy of about as much admiration and reverence as, say, Aesop’s fables. Such an attitude rejects biblical claims of inspiration, and instead does obeisance to current scientific or philosophical pratings. Third, one might—from all outward appearances—claim to accept the Bible as speaking accurately and truthfully on whatever matters it addresses, all the while in reality compromising its teachings on a variety of subjects. Thus, while such a person pretends to respect the Bible as God’s Word, he instead is sowing seeds of compromise.

Generally, this is the person who waits to see what “science” has to say before making any determination on the matter. Then, if science is at odds with the Bible, the Scriptures must be “corrected” to fit the scientific data or interpretations. We never are told that science must correct its view, only the reverse—viz., the biblical record must be altered to fit currently prevailing scientific data. DOES THE BIBLICAL RECORD OF THE PATRIARCHS ’AGES NEED TO BE “FIXED”? It is my intent here to examine and discuss the spirit of compromise exhibited by those in the third group mentioned above. There are a number of notable examples of such compromise, any one of which is illustrative of the attitudes portrayed. Two such examples will suffice. In 1990, Ronald F. Youngblood edited a book titled The Genesis Debate, in which various areas of Scripture were discussed by disputants on both sides of an issue. Chapter eight of that volume discusses the question, “Did people live to be hundreds of years old before the Flood?” In that chapter, Duane L. Christensen first advocated the view that the biblical record simply cannot be accepted as it is written.

He then suggested a number of methods that could be employed to “fix” the text so as to resolve what he considered a serious discrepancy between biblical statements and current scientific knowledge (Christensen, 1990, pp. 166-183). Christensen’s assessment was that these numbers are, to use his words, “excessively large,” scientifically unverifiable, and therefore, quite simply, unacceptable. In the June 1978 Does God Exist? journal that he edits, John Clayton addressed the patriarchs’ ages in an article on “The Question of Methuselah.” He suggested: One of the most frequently asked questions that we receive in our lecture series is “How did men live so long during early Biblical times?” The Bible indicates ages of 969, 950, etc., years for early men. From a scientific standpoint we cannot verify this figure. By studying the bones of the oldest men we get ages of ten to thirty-five years usually, and only rarely an age as high as fifty (1978a, 5[6]:11, emp. added).

The point made by both Christensen and Clayton is that from a scientific standpoint, the patriarchs’ ages as given in the Bible cannot be verified. In the September 1978 issue of his journal, Clayton commented: One final difficulty that this relates to is the attempts made by some to nail down specific historic dates to Biblical events of great antiquity. The ages of men in the past cannot be answered with great accuracy (1978b, 5[9]:9, emp. added). Why can the ages of men in the past not “be answered with accuracy”? Is it because the Bible is unclear on its statements regarding these men’s ages? No, the biblical statements are both clear and unambiguous. The simple fact of the matter is that neither of these two writers is willing to accept the biblical testimony because allegedly there is no scientific evidence. In an April 20, 1987 letter to a gentleman in Wyoming who had written to ask him about this very point, Mr. Clayton wrote: It is a fact that there is no scientific evidence that people lived to be hundreds of years old.

It may just be that we haven’t found the right bones, but most bones of ancient men turn out to be twenty or thirty years of age and none have [sic] been found, to my knowledge, older than eighty years old. For this reason, I have tried to point out that there are many possible ways in which the extreme age of Methuselah might be explained... (p. 2, emp. added). The absence of scientific evidence substantiating the Bible’s claims for the ages of the patriarchs is why Clayton cannot bring himself to accept those ages. Think for just a moment how radical this position really is. What “scientific evidence” do we possess that “proves” the virgin birth of Jesus? Since science cannot prove that such an event ever occurred, should an alternate explanation be sought? This line of reasoning could be expanded almost endlessly. Since science cannot “prove” Christ’s bodily resurrection, the parting of the Red Sea, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and hundreds of other such occurrences, then must these events—which remain both scientifically unverified and unverifiable—simply be dismissed in the same way these two authors suggest that the patriarchs’ ages be dismissed?

Furthermore, there is another aspect to this question that needs to be explored. Aging is a metabolic process. Various species appear to be “programmed” for death within a given age range. Fleas, for example, live for about five years. Dogs live for an average of around fifteen years. Humans, on the other hand, can live upwards of seventy, eighty, ninety, or even a hundred years. Fleas never reach such an age; their genetic package will not allow it. In an article titled “Decreased Lifespans: Have We Been Looking in the Right Place?” that he authored for the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, Carl Wieland commented on this matter as follows: Barring accidental death, one-celled organisms are potentially “immortal.” A bacterial cell reproduces by dividing into two where there was one, those two then become four, and so on. Why then do multicelled organisms die? Individual human cells in tissue culture divide some fifty times and then stop—some sort of pre-programmed genetic limit is reached. Human tumor cells, on the other hand, can be propagated indefinitely by division—the DNA mechanisms for pre-programmed cessation of division appears to be lacking or damaged in such cancer cells.

In multicellular organisms, once damaged and worn cells can no longer replace themselves, death is only a matter of time as the function of whole organ systems deteriorates. So even without accidents or disease there is a programmed “upper limit” on our age, which appears to be 120 years or so.... I suggest that our ancestors simply possessed genes for greater longevity which caused this “genetic limit” to human ages to be set at a higher level in the past. Suggestive evidence in support of this is the fact that in some other organisms (for example, fruit flies), it has been shown that changes in average life spans can be bred into or out of populations.… If this suggestion has merit as the major (if not the sole) cause of great pre-Flood ages, then the obvious question is how some of these longevity genes were lost. The human population went through a severe genetic bottleneck at the time of the Flood—only eight individuals. The phenomenon of “genetic drift” is well known to be able to account for “random,” selectively neutral changes in gene frequencies which may be quite rapid. Also, loss of genes is far more likely in a small population....

It is also likely (if not more so) that genes coding for lesser longevity arose by mutational degeneration, with their frequency of possession rising as time passed. At the moment, too little is known of the exact mechanics of the way in which cells are programmed to die in order to offer more specific suggestions (1994, 8[2]:139-140, emp. added, parenthetical comments in orig.). What if, in the past, human metabolism was much slower? What would be the end result? Gerald Schroeder, in his book, The Science of God, addressed such questions. There are terrible mutations that upset the delicate aging process. Progeria speeds up the aging process almost tenfold, causing a teenager to die with the body of an old person. Within the realm of possibilities is the reverse process, slowing aging tenfold. It would be surprising but not inconceivable that manipulation of a flea’s genome might allow it to live ten times longer than normal, thus reaching the age of fifty years. After all, several animals species live even longer than fifty years.

The fact that no animals currently reach the long ages associated with pre-Noah biblical persons does not preclude the possibility that this potential exists within our genome. If human metabolism was slower and life spans were longer during the pre-Noah period, fossils would not indicate this. The slower metabolisms would result in fossils that appear to have formed from younger individuals (1997, pp. 202-203, emp. added). In a fascinating article published in Science Digest some years back (“How Your Bones Tell Your Age”), Frederic W. Nordsiek observed: Bone is hard and cannot grow from the inside out as can soft tissues like skin or muscle. Therefore, for example, each of the long bones of the arms and legs at first consists of two bones, with a growing section in between them. After growth is finished, these pairs of bones fuse together.... Human bones continue to fuse together right up to advanced old age (1960, 47[5]:17-18, emp. added).

Consider all of these scientific facts collectively, and you will see how they demolish arguments like those from Christensen and Clayton which suggest that “there is no scientific evidence that people lived to be hundreds of years old.” Observe what happens when the scientific facts of the matter are interpreted properly. We know—scientifically—that: (1) aging “is a metabolic process”? (2) the process is indeed controlled by a “pre-programmed genetic limit”? and (3) “human bones continue to fuse together right up to advanced old age.” If people at that distant point in human history possessed slower metabolism rates (an extremely reasonable suggestion, considering the condition of the world in which they were living at the time—see Dillow, 1981), and if the human genome contained genes for greater longevity, then the patriarchs could have lived to vast old ages, and the slower metabolisms would result in fossils that appeared to have formed from much younger individuals. In short, scientists actually could be in possession of—could be staring at in their laboratories—bones from people who had lived to ripe old ages, and they never would know it!

Thus, the allegation that “most bones of ancient men turn out to be twenty or thirty years of age and none has been found older than eighty years old” (to use Clayton’s exact words) means absolutely nothing in light of the actual scientific facts concerning human aging. And surely the question must be asked: Why do the great ages of the patriarchs need to be “explained” in the first place? Why not simply accept the biblical record as it is written? In his June 1978 article on Methuselah, John Clayton provided the answer to that question as he discussed several possible ways to “explain” the patriarchs’ ages. He wrote: The first possibility is that God miraculously changed man’s life expectancy. There is no discussion of such a miracle in the Bible, but many miracles occurred during the creation which are not recorded in Genesis I. This may well be the answer, but since no skeptic would accept it we’ll consider some other possibilities (1978a, 5[9]:11, emp. added). This is incredible.

First we are told that because there is “no scientific evidence,” the great ages of the patriarchs therefore must be “explained.” Second, we are told that since “no skeptic would accept” a particular view on these matters, “other possibilities” need to be explored. What a sad commentary on how Mr. Clayton, and others like him, view God’s inspired Word. It brings to mind the comment of biblical scholar Edward J. Young in his book, Studies in Genesis One: What strikes one immediately upon reading such a statement is the low estimate of the Bible which it entails. Whenever “science” and the Bible are in conflict, it is always the Bible that, in one manner or another, must give way. We are not told that “science” should correct its answers in the light of Scripture. Always it is the other way around (1964, p. 54).

The question, then, no longer becomes, “Does the Word of God affirm it?” but instead “Can science confirm it?” As Wayne Jackson observed: Whenever such people read the Scriptures, they do so with an eye cast back over their shoulder to see if science agrees; and whenever science asserts that which is different from what the Bible says, in desperation they are ready to append, delete, stretch, or constrict the sacred narrative to make it conform to the latest notions of the scientific community (1978, 14:14). SUGGESTED METHODS FOR “FIXING” THE AGES OF THE PATRIARCHS Exactly how do Bible critics suggest that the patriarchs’ great ages be “explained”? Several methods have been offered, among which are the following. Ages Determined by Counting Years as Months Some have suggested that men’s ages were not determined in ancient times as they are today. For example, John Clayton wrote: The guess that appeals to this writer is that the methods of measuring age are not the same today as they were when men lived so long.... We also know that many cultures use the moon as a measure of age (such as many American Indian tribes).

If Methuselah were measured on such a system his age would be 80 years, plus the time till he became a father. This doesn’t change anything as he would still be phenomenally old—especially for the day in which he lived, but it would give a modern comprehension of how such an age was calculated (1978a, 5[6]:12, parenthetical item in orig.). Old Testament scholar John J. Davis addressed this suggestion in two of his books. In the first, Biblical Numerology, he observed: The most common method of escaping the problem connected with these large numbers is to make “year” mean a shorter period such as a month. This view, however, finds no support at all in the Biblical text for the term “year” is never used in this manner in the Old Testament. In addition to this textual weakness, there is a serious chronological problem that is raised by such a view. In Genesis 5:6 we are told that Seth begat Enos when he was 105 years old. If “years” in this text really means “months” then this verse would propose that Seth had a son when he was only about nine years old!

(1968, p. 58; see also Borland, 1990, p. 171). In his second work, Paradise to Prison, Dr. Davis suggested: “There seems to be no reason to regard the names and ages of the individuals in this chapter as other than fully historical.” Why so? The reason is simple. It would be difficult for someone to believe a person (e.g., Seth) could beget a child when he was only nine years old, but, as Davis pointed out, “Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch would have been fathers at even younger ages” (1975, p. 106, emp. added). Frederick Filby discussed this solution in his book, The Flood Reconsidered: This we reject completely, as not only can it be shown to be absolutely wrong, but it makes more difficulties than it solves. Enoch, we are told, had a son, Methuselah, when he was sixty-five. If we divide by twelve he had a son when he was 5.4 years old! (1970, p. 21).

John Clayton has complained that skeptics never would believe that men lived to the vast ages ascribed to them in the Bible. One cannot help but wonder if these same skeptics would find it any easier to believe that Enoch—to use Dr. Filby’s example—produced a child when he himself was barely over five years old! The Bible itself makes a clear distinction between the length of years and months, thereby eliminating the critics’ suggestion that perhaps men’s ages were counted via “moons” (i.e., months), not years. In Genesis 8:13 it is recorded: “And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year, in the first month....” Moses apparently understood the difference between a month and year. Why do the Bible’s critics have so much difficulty in distinguishing between the two? The Bible similarly presents compelling evidence to eliminate the idea that men’s ages should be divided by 12 in order to arrive at an accurate figure for the number of years they actually lived. Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16).

Divided by 12, this means that the patriarch was just over 7 years of age at the birth of his first child, and Sarah was just under 6 when she first gave birth! Further, Abraham must have died at the “good old age” of a shade over 14 (Genesis 25:7-8)! As it turns out, the critics’ attempts to “fix” the Bible create a worse problem than they sought to solve. Ages Counted from Birth of First Offspring Another suggestion offered in response to the patriarchs’ vast ages is that these ages appear larger than normal because “some primitive people measure their age not from the time of their birth, but from the time they produce offspring, or are accepted as an adult in the community in which they live” (Clayton, 1978a, 5[6]:12). In other words, the figures presented in the Bible are too large because they have not yet been “adjusted” (i.e., shortened) to allow for the true age—calculated from the time of the birth of the first offspring, or from the time a person was recognized as an adult. Two things may be said regarding this idea.

First, there is not a scrap of evidence that the ages of the patriarchs were counted only from the time of the birth of their firstborn. It is one thing to speculate on such, but another thing entirely to prove it. Where is the critics’ evidence that the patriarchs’ ages were treated in such a manner? Second, the Bible deals a deathblow to this suggestion when it specifically mentions men’s ages before they produced offspring, eliminating the idea that their ages were not calculated prior to that event. Genesis 12:4 says: “And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out of Haran.” Once again, the critics’ attempts to “fix” the inspired text have made their last condition worse than their first. Ages Represent not Individuals, but Dynasties In the late 1800s, as opposition to the Bible grew and skepticism in general increased, theologians sought ways to make the Bible conform to the claims of Darwinian evolution and uniformitarian geology. While liberal theologians were working diligently to insert vast ages of geological time into the biblical text, somewhat ironically, they simultaneously were working to remove the vast ages of the patriarchs from that same text.

One novel way to do that was to offer the idea that the names in the genealogical lists (specifically those mentioned in Genesis 5 and 11) were used to refer to entire dynasties, clans, or tribes, and only rarely to actual individuals. Borland has explained what this would accomplish: This would mean that when the Adam clan had exercised dominion for 130 years, a person was born in the Adam clan who eventually either ruled or was the progenitor of the Seth clan. The Adam clan continued to be powerful for an additional 800 years, and then perhaps the Seth clan took over or perhaps there was a gap before the Seth clan exerted its authority for 912 years (1990, p. 174, emp. added). There are a number of serious problems with this view. First, advocates of the “dynasty” idea cannot remain consistent, because even they are forced to admit that certain names in the lists cannot represent only a clan, but instead must represent individuals. Noah and his sons must have been real individuals, because they were on board the ark.

Abraham must have been an individual, not just a dynasty, because he was the father of the Hebrew nation. If these are recognized as individuals, why should not the others be considered as such? Second, as Leupold commented: “The attempt to let the personal names represent tribes shatters on the clear statement of how old each father was when he begot a son. A complete generation is not thus brought forth within a tribe” (1942, 1:233). Borland commented: “The notation of the age at which a father begat a particular individual (a son) eliminates the tribe concept...” (pp. 174-175). One does not speak of a “dynasty” producing a son, and then give an age for such an occurrence. Third, in order for this strained interpretation to be acceptable, one has to read the biblical record with a large dose of imagination and a small dose of common sense. For example, when the text says that Eve bore Cain and Abel, everyone recognizes that it is speaking of individuals because one of them (Cain) slew the other (Abel). Yet, when Eve bore Seth, suddenly a distant dynasty is under discussion.

Furthermore, how would an advocate of this strange theory deal with the fact that in many instances in the Old Testament, specific brothers and sisters are mentioned? Dynasties do not have brothers and sisters. Borland addressed this aspect in great detail, and gave numerous biblical examples establishing that individuals, not dynasties, are under discussion (pp. 175-176). The idea that the patriarchs’ ages are so large because their names represent tribes or dynasties is completely without merit, and should be rejected. It is not uncommon for those who refuse to accept the patriarchs’ ages at face value to suggest that the numbers must have some great “theological meaning” attached to them. Time and again I have heard or seen just such a statement. But, when pressed on exactly what that theological meaning might be, supporters of such an idea are at a total loss to offer any explanation. Christensen was forced to admit: It is probably not possible to recover the key to the theological meaning of the numbers and ages in Genesis 5 and 11, at least in detail. Nonetheless it seems likely that the numbers are not to be taken as simply historical report (1990, p. 180).

In other words, while he cannot explain what the numbers do mean, he does know what they do not mean. They are not to be taken as literal or historical. But why not? That is exactly how the Bible writers accepted them. Examine this remarkable statement from Moses’ pen. In Genesis 47:9, Jacob, speaking to Pharaoh, said: “The days of the years of my pilgrimage are a hundred and thirty years: few and evil have been the days of my life, and they have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.” Notice the point that Jacob was making. He was 130 years old, yet he stated that even at that great age, his days had not reached “the days of the years of the life of my fathers.” If he was 130 years old, and yet he had not reached the age of some of the patriarchs who preceded him, just how old would “his fathers” have been? Isn’t it remarkable how well the biblical record fits together?

And isn’t it wonderful that it can be trusted and accepted, without the kind of “sleight of hand” tricks on which its critics have to rely in order to make their false theories attain some degree of respectability? REFERENCES Borland, James A. (1990), “Did People Live to be Hundreds of Years Old Before the Flood?” The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). [Borland answers in the affirmative.] Christensen, Duane L. (1990), “Did People Live to be Hundreds of Years Old Before the Flood?” The Genesis Debate, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). [Christensen answers in the negative.] Clayton, John N. (1978a), “The Question of Methuselah,” Does God Exist?, 5[6]:11-13, June. Clayton, John N. (1978b), “The History of Man’s Time Problem,” Does God Exist?, 5[9]:6-10, September. Clayton, John N.

(1987), Personal letter to Mike Christensen of Laramie, Wyoming, pp. 1-2. Davis, John J. (1968), Biblical Numerology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Davis, John J. (1975), Paradise to Prison—Studies in Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Dillow Joseph (1981), The Waters Above (Chicago, IL: Moody). Filby, Frederick A. (1970), The Flood Reconsidered (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan). Jackson, Wayne (1978), “The Age of Methuselah,” Christian Courier, 14:14-16, August. Leupold, H.C. (1942 reprint), Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker). Nordsiek, Frederic W. (1960), “How Your Bones Tell Your Age,” Science Digest, 47[5]:17-18, May. Schroeder, Gerald L. (1997), The Science of God (New York: Free Press).

Wieland, Carl (1994), “Decreased Lifespans: Have We Been Looking in the Right Place?,” Creation Ex Nihilo, Technical Journal, 8[2]:139-140. Young, Edward J. (1964), Studies in Genesis One (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed). LIFE SPANS: Genesis says Methuselah lived 969 years. Were the long life spans in Genesis real years? – Ask John Mackay Bible / People / Sceptics / Theology The original question was: The long life spans in Genesis such as Methuselah living 969 years – were they real years or were they using a different calendar? Answer by John Mackay There certainly are many long life spans listed in Genesis 1-11. Methuselah at 969 being the longest and most people lived around 900 years, with Noah being the last person recorded to live over 900 years when he died at 950 (Genesis 9:29). But there are also life spans after Noah that are long and show an interesting trend after the flood as man’s recorded life spans rapidly diminished.

Noah’s son Shem lived only 600 hundred years and his son Arphaxad lived only 438 years, etc. By the days of Abraham, man’s life span was much reduced, with Abraham living only 175 years. Still a long time compared to us. By the days of Moses (roughly 3,000 years ago) who lived a mere 120 years (Deuteronomy 34:7). We should note Moses was the man who wrote our life span would be around 70 – 80 years unless God blessed us with an extra strong body (Psalm 90:10) and that is still the average today 3 millennia later. So are the Genesis 1-11 ages real years or were they using a different calendar? We can answer the question about the calendar fairly easily by discovering how many days they had in a year. Many have suggested they were using Lunar calendars and therefore 969 actually represents 969 Lunar months not 969 years. This would make Methuselah only 74.5 of our years at his death.

Of course this argument does begin to look a little silly when you start applying it to Abraham since it would mean that Abraham lived only around 14yrs years if his 175 represents Lunar months. So how long were the Genesis years? We have a very precise account of one year of Noah’s life between Genesis 6 and Genesis 10. The year of the flood is the most detailed chronological year in the whole of the Old Testament as it represents a diary of events from Noah’s completion and boarding the Ark to his getting off the Ark. In Genesis 7 verse 11, it records that Noah was 600 years and 2 months and 17 days of age when the flood started. Then in Genesis 8:3-4, it records that when Noah was 600 years and 7 months and 17 days old, the Ark rested on the tops of the mountains and that this was 150 days after the flood had started. Given that we now have 2 comments on how long they had been on the boat, we now know that five of Noah’s months equals150 days. Therefore Noah’s months averaged 30 days each.

It’s a simple matter therefore to realise that if 5 months equals 150 days, then 12 months roughly equals 360 days perhaps plus a few additions as we do for leap years, etc. So their year is provably, roughly the same as ours. Therefore, our friend Methuselah was 969 of our years – a really old man. There is a second way of checking what these age numbers mean, as not only are their life spans mentioned, but the age at which many of these patriarchs actually had their first child. So if we compare before and after the flood you find Enoch who having fathered Methuselah when he was 65 years old. If you divide that by 13 (the number of lunar months in a year) or even by 12 the number of calendar months – it would make Enoch roughly 5 years old when he had a son. It becomes even more ridiculous when you realise that Abraham’s grandfather Nahor had Terah at 29 years old. If these were only months Nahor would have only been 2.5 years old when he had his first child. An obvious impossibility. One last comment is perhaps worth making.

Many so called evangelicals want to dismiss Genesis as real history until the days of Abraham, so they can avoid issues such as the long life spans. But with Abraham listed as living 175 years (Genesis 25:7), his son Isaac 180, and in the next generation Jacob 147 years (Genesis 35:28, 47:28), you can’t escape the issue at all. In the present world no one on record is living that long, so we have to face the issue head on! Long ages are faithfully recorded in Genesis as is a diminishing trend to the present. Man has devolved not evolved. It is interesting to note the rapid decline in ages after Noah’s flood. But when you plot these you notice a second rapid decline that occurs after the tower of Babel (Gen 11 ff). It is most likely that the post flood decline is due to the total change in climatic conditions that occured as a result of Noah’s flood i.e.

the effect of the coming of winter and summer (Genesis 8:22) along with the loss of so much carbon due to flood burial, and the as yet un-regrown plant life on planet earth which always has a major impact on climatic conditions. Add to this the collapse of the waters above which allowed massive amounts of high energy radiation that hadn’t previously entered earth’s habitat, along with radiation from newly escaped heavy metals such as Uranium that were now near the surface from the escaped fountains of the deep, so our mutation rate really increased. All these factors would have compounded to reduce man’s life span. But there is a second factor occurring that would show up in a few generations probably related to human breeding patterns. Present day breeding programs shows that whenever a gene pool is reduced, and a new population breed from a very restricted part of a previously much larger gene pool, then one effect of inbreeding is to produce a drop in life span. So starting from one family after the flood (Noah’s three sons) which produced offspring which later all intermarried, mankind has definitely been inbreeding since Noah’s day. This then was further compounded when each group separated at Babel and suddenly there was a new squeeze on the gene pool.

Each family group leaving Babel now represented an even smaller fraction of Noah’s gene pool. In addition to producing very distinct family characteristics which would eventually give rise to the separate human racial groups, a second effect would have been to further reduce life spans. Now we are some 4,000 years in later 2012 and it pays to remember Moses’ warning concerning our much shorter life spans; “Lord teach us to number our days.” (Psalm 90:12) The reason is simple: It won’t be long before even the youngest reader of this answer has to stand before God and give an account. Make sure you are ready. For the real history of the human race see the Creation Research DVDs The Devolution of Man, The Origin of the Races and Real Roots These all available at the Creation Research webshop Were you helped by this answer? If so, consider making a donation so we can keep adding more answers. For USA tax deductible donations click here . For UK tax deductible donations click here . For Australia and rest of world click here . Why Did Methuselah Live So Long? | The Cripplegate Why Did Methuselah Live So Long?

April 15, 2014 by Nathan Busenitz A Short Reflection on the Man Who Lived the Longest Anyone who’s ever played Bible trivia knows that Methuselah lived longer than anyone else. He died at the ripe old age of 969. But have you ever wondered why? Putting aside all of the environmental factors of a pre-Flood world (where lifetimes lasted a lot longer than they do today), I’m convinced the answer has more to do with the character of God than the physical constitution or health consciousness of Methuselah. When Methuselah was born, the text of Genesis 5 indicates that his father Enoch began to walk with God in earnest (Gen. 5:21–22). Many commentators believe that it was during the time of Methuselah’s birth that God revealed to Enoch the reality of the coming Flood—which is why Enoch spent the next three centuries warning the world around him of God’s impending retribution (Jude 14-15).

Methuselah’s name can be translated as either “man of the javelin” or “man of the sending forth.” It is likely, especially given the context of Genesis 5–6, that his name referred to the reality of God’s coming judgment—a global Flood that would be sent forth with sudden force and destruction. The further implication is that divine wrath would not fall until after Methuselah died. (Some scholars even render the meaning of his name as “his death shall bring forth.” ) Methuselah lived 969 years. If you add up the length of time between Methuselah’s birth and Noah entering the ark (187+182+600), it is also 969 years. That means, in the very year Methuselah died, the Flood was sent forth like a javelin on the earth. So why did God allow Methuselah to live for so many years—longer than anyone else in human history? I believe it was as an illustration of His incredible patience. The fact that Methuselah lived almost 1,000 years demonstrates the longsuffering nature of God.

From the time God revealed the reality of that judgment to Enoch, it was almost a millennium before raindrops of wrath started to fall in the days of Noah. Methuselah’s long lifetime fits with Peter’s depiction of God’s patience in 2 Peter 3. After discussing the Flood (in vv. 5-6), the apostle writes in verses 8-9: But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. So, next time someone asks you, What’s the name of the oldest man in the Bible? Don’t just answer “Methuselah” as if his age were merely some trivial factoid. Instead, consider the fact that 969 years is a really long time—not just for any one man to live, but for a holy God to be patient with a rebellious planet. Who was the oldest man in the Bible? Who was the oldest man in the Bible?

Subscribe to our Question of the Week : Question: "Who was the oldest man in the Bible?" Answer: Genesis chapter 5 lists nine men who had very long lives. How and why they lived such long lives is not specifically said. Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5). Seth lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8). Enosh lived 905 years (Genesis 5:11). Kenan lived 910 years (Genesis 5:14). Mahalalel lived 895 years (Genesis 5:17). Jared lived 962 years (Genesis 5:20). Enoch lived 365 years before God took him (Genesis 5:22–24). Lamech lived 777 years (Genesis 5:21). Genesis 9:29 records that Noah lived 950 years. But the oldest man in the Bible, outliving all the rest, is a man named Methuselah , who lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27).

There may have been someone in the antediluvian days who outlived Methuselah, but the Bible has no record of anyone older. Very little is said about Methuselah other than he was the grandfather of Noah. There are two possible meanings of Methuselah’s name: “man of the spear” and “his death shall bring.” There is a tradition outside of the Bible that Enoch, Methuselah’s father, was given a revelation from God that the Flood would not come until his son died. If this is true, Methuselah’s name would essentially mean “his death shall bring the Flood.” The biblical math backs this up, as Methuselah died the same year the Flood occurred. Methuselah fathered Lamech when he was 187 years old (Genesis 5:25). Lamech fathered Noah when he was 182 years old (Genesis 5:28). The Flood occurred when Noah was 600 years old (Genesis 7:6). 187 + 182 + 600 = 969, which is the age Methuselah was when he died.

So it appears there may be an interesting story behind the oldest man in the Bible, Methuselah, and why he lived exactly 969 years. In the 2014 movie Noah, Methuselah is portrayed as sort of an eccentric witch doctor. While the Bible says nothing about Methuselah to confirm or deny this portrayal, it seems highly unlikely, considering the family line from Adam to Noah recorded in Genesis 5 is the “righteous” line who obeyed the Lord God. There is very little we can know for sure about Methuselah, the oldest man in the Bible. He lived 969 years and apparently died the same year the Flood occurred. He was the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Adam and the grandfather of Noah. He was likely a godly man to have been blessed by God with such a long lifespan. Methuselah . (-3073 - -2104) - Genealogy Methuselah . Share your family tree and photos with the people you know and love Build your family tree online Share photos and videos Hebrew: מתושלח ., Arabic: متوشلخ ., Estonian: Metuusala .

Also Known As: "Methuselah", "Matusalih", "Matwasyalah", "מתושלח", "متوشلخ", "ben Enoch", "Hebrew: מְתוּשֶׁלַח / מְתוּשָׁלַח", "Modern Metušélaħ / Metušálaħ Tiberian Məṯûšélaḥ / Məṯûšālaḥ" Birthdate: (Mathusala Methusael Methuselah Mathusalem); `Man of the dart', BLESSED, lived 969 years, Prophet, Died at 969 Managed by: Wikipedia: Methuselah and מתושלח Longest lived person in history. The oldest person whose age is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, given as 969 years. The name Methuselah has become a general synonym for any living creature of great age. Methuselah is calculated to have died in the year of the Great Flood, using the numbers from the Masoretic Text.

Rashi's comment on Genesis 7:4 said the seven days preceding the Flood constituted the mourning period for Methuselah, for the sake of whose righteousness the Flood was delayed. God promised Enoch that judgment would not come as long as Methuselah lived. Genesis assigns Adam the age of 930 years, which in the standard Ussher chronology makes Methuselah contemporary with Adam (for 243 years) and the last human link between Adam and Noah. In a midrash version of Sefer haYashar or Book of Jasher,[4] Methuselah accompanied his grandson Noah in attempting to persuade the people of the earth to return to godliness. (Jasher 5:7) All other very long-lived people died, and Methuselah was the only one of this class left. (Jasher 5:21) God planned to bring the flood after all the men who walked in the ways of the LORD had died (besides Noah's nuclear family). (Jasher 4:20) Methuselah lived until the ark was built, but died before the flood, since God had promised he would not be killed with the unrighteous.

(Jasher 5:21) Abbrev: CBASD 1:183 Title: La Cronologia de la primera epoca de la historia Biblica. InComentario Biblico Adventista del Septimo Dia, Vol 1, pp. 183-207. Author: Nichol, F. D. & others (Red.). Ampuero Mata, V. (Translator). Publication: Mountain View, California: Publicaciones Interamericanas, 1978 . Methusalem, Metusela eller Metushelach (det första är hur namnet transponerats via grekiskan, det andra är 1917 års översättning och det sista är Bibel 2000 som ligger närmast det hebreiska originalet) var i judisk mytologi så som den förmedlas av Gamla Testamentet en patriark som sägs ha levat i 969 år. Han var far till Noas far Lemek.

Hans namn har översatts på två olika sätt: dels "Hans död skall sända den" och dels "Man av spjutet" eller "Man av pilen". Intressant nog så var hans far, Hanok/Henok/Enok, en profet samtidigt som han tycks ha dött samma år som syndafloden kom. aka Motoshaleh ibn EDRES, aka Methushaleh (Mathusala Methusael Metusalem Mathusalem) ADANYA, Man of the dart ' Poss. Jullus i Roms 9-oldefar. HM George I s 83-oldefar. HRE Ferdinand I s 79-oldefar. Agnes Harris '83-oldefar. Hans (evt.) Børnebørn: Adataneses , Sedeqetelebab , Ne-elatama , NIR (Nur) , Noah (Nuh Noe) ibn LAMEK , Emzara (Coba) -- Age 969 yrs lived to be 969.

Methuselah (Hebrew: מְתֿוּשֶלַח / מְתֿוּשָלַח, Modern Mətušélaḥ / Mətušálaḥ Tiberian Məṯûšélaḥ / Məṯûšālaḥ ; "Man of the dart/spear", or alternatively "his death shall bring judgment"[1]) is the man in the Hebrew Bible reported to have lived the longest.[2] Extra-biblical tradition maintains that he died on the 11th of Cheshvan of the year 1656 (Anno Mundi, after Creation), at the age of 969, seven days before the beginning of the Great Flood.[3] Methuselah was the son of Enoch and the grandfather of Noah. The name Methuselah, or the phrase "old as Methuselah", is commonly used to refer to anything of great age.[citation needed] In the Bible Methuselah means 'Man of the dart/light spear'.

Genesis 5:21: 'And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:' Genesis 5:25-26: 'And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters. Genesis 5:27: 'All the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.' The verses are available in three manuscript traditions, the Masoretic, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Torah. The three traditions do not agree with each other. The differences can be summarized as follows: Masoretic : Age at son;s birth (187), Remainder of life of Methuselah (782), Age at death (969), Comment : Methuselah died in 1656 AM, the year of the Flood at the age of 969.

Septuagint (Alexandrinus) : Age at son;s birth (187), Remainder of life of Methuselah (782), Age at death (969), Comment : Methuselah dies in 2256 AM, six years before the Flood (2262 AM) Septuagint (Vaticanus) : Age at son;s birth (167), Remainder of life of Methuselah (802), Age at death (969), Comment : Methuselah dies in 2256 AM, fourteen years after the Flood (2242 AM) Samaritan : Age at son;s birth (67), Remainder of life of Methuselah (653), Age at death (720), Comment : Methuselah dies in the year of the Flood (1307 AM) There have been numerous attempts to account for these differences – the most obvious being accidental corruption by copyists and translators. Some errors may be the result of mistaken attempts to correct previous errors.

Gerhard Larsson has suggested that the rabbis who translated the Septuagint from Hebrew to Greek in Alexandria around the 3rd century BC, aware that the Egyptian historian Manetho makes no mention of a Deluge, lengthened the patriarchs' ages to push back the time of the flood to before the first Egyptian dynasty. Extra-Biblical mentions Methuselah appears in two important Jewish works from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. In the Book of Enoch, Enoch (as the narrator) tells Methuselah of the coming worldwide flood and of the future Messianic kingdom. He is known having a great sword (Sword of Methuselah) that conquers evils and ghosts. The Book of Jubilees names Methuselah's mother and his wife – both are named Edna – and his daughter-in-law, Betenos, Lamech's wife. The 17th century midrashic Sefer haYashar ("Book of Jasher") describes Methuselah with his grandson Noah attempting to persuade the people of the earth to return to godliness. All other very long-lived people died, and Methuselah was the only one of this class left.

God planned to bring the flood after all the men who walked in the ways of the Lord had died (besides Noah and his family). Methuselah lived until the ark was built, but died before the flood, since God had promised he would not be killed with the unrighteous.[9] The Sefer haYashar gives Methuselah's age at death as 960 and does not synchronize his death with the flood. The Sumerian king list mentions a character named Ubara-Tutu who seems almost identical to Methuselah. He was the son of En-men-dur-ana the Sumerian Enoch, and king of Sumer until the flood swept over the land. Although their ages are different their father and year of death remain the same. Interpretations 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. Literal Interpretations of the Bible following Biblical literalism take Methuselah's 969 years to be 969 solar years.

Some literalists suggest certain arguments for how this could be: early humans had a better diet, or a water vapor canopy protected the earth from radiation before the Flood. Others introduce theological causes: humans were originally to have everlasting life, but sin was introduced into the world by Adam and Eve, its influence became greater with each generation, and God progressively shortened human life, particularly after the Flood. Mistranslation Some believe that Methuselah's extreme age is the result of an ancient mistranslation that converted "months" to "years", producing a more credible 969 lunar months, or 78½ years, but the same calculation applied to Enoch would have him fathering Methuselah at the age of 5 using numbers from the Masoretic Text. Donald V. Etz suggested that the Genesis 5 numbers "might for convenience have all been multiples of 5 or 10". If the Septuagint numbers are divided by 10, Enoch's 165 when he fathered his son would be 16½ years, and Methuselah's 969 when he died would be 96.9 years.

Ellen Bennet argued that the Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers are in tenths of years, which "will explain how it was that they read 930 years for the age of Adam instead of 93 years, and 969 years for Methuselah instead of 96 years, and 950 years for that of Noah instead of 95 years"... "Surely it is much more rational to conclude that Noah lived 50 years instead of 500 years before he took a wife and begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth." and lists the Septuagint total ages with decimal points: 93.0 for Adam, 91.0 for Cainan, 96.9 for Methuselah, 95.0 for Noah, etc. Robert M. Best provided a similar table of the same Septuagint Genesis 5 numbers with decimal points inserted in the same tenth position.

Symbolic Methuselah's father Enoch, who does not die but is taken by God, is the seventh patriarch, and Methuselah, the eighth, dies in the year of the Flood, which ends the ten-generational sequence from Adam to Noah, in whose time the world is destroyed. Fictional Among those who believe that all the numbers of Genesis 5, including Methuselah's age, have no meaning at all, Kenneth Kitchen calls them "pure myth", Yigal Levin believes they are intended simply to speed the reader from Adam to Noah, and Claus Westermann believes they are intended to create the impression of a distant past. Derivative words The word "Methuselarity" was coined by Aubrey de Grey to mean a future point in time when all of the medical conditions that cause human death would be eliminated and death would occur only by accident or homicide. Popular culture The term "Methuselah" is used extensively in modern times and in popular culture. See Methuselah (disambiguation) Source Wikipedia: Methuselah and מתושלח Kui Eenok oli elanud kuuskümmend viis aastat, siis sündis temale Metuusala.

(1Ms 5:21) Longest lived person in history. The oldest person whose age is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, given as 969 years. The name Methuselah has become a general synonym for any living creature of great age. Methuselah is calculated to have died in the year of the Great Flood, using the numbers from the Masoretic Text. Rashi's comment on Genesis 7:4 said the seven days preceding the Flood constituted the mourning period for Methuselah, for the sake of whose righteousness the Flood was delayed. God promised Enoch that judgment would not come as long as Methuselah lived. Genesis assigns Adam the age of 930 years, which in the standard Ussher chronology makes Methuselah contemporary with Adam (for 243 years) and the last human link between Adam and Noah. In a midrash version of Sefer haYashar or Book of Jasher,[4] Methuselah accompanied his grandson Noah in attempting to persuade the people of the earth to return to godliness. (Jasher 5:7) All other very long-lived people died, and Methuselah was the only one of this class left.

(Jasher 5:21) God planned to bring the flood after all the men who walked in the ways of the LORD had died (besides Noah's nuclear family). (Jasher 4:20) Methuselah lived until the ark was built, but died before the flood, since God had promised he would not be killed with the unrighteous. (Jasher 5:21) Abbrev: CBASD 1:183 Title: La Cronologia de la primera epoca de la historia Biblica. InComentario Biblico Adventista del Septimo Dia, Vol 1, pp. 183-207. Author: Nichol, F. D. & others (Red.). Ampuero Mata, V. (Translator). Publication: Mountain View, California: Publicaciones Interamericanas, 1978 .

Methusalem, Metusela eller Metushelach (det första är hur namnet transponerats via grekiskan, det andra är 1917 års översättning och det sista är Bibel 2000 som ligger närmast det hebreiska originalet) var i judisk mytologi så som den förmedlas av Gamla Testamentet en patriark som sägs ha levat i 969 år. Han var far till Noas far Lemek. Hans namn har översatts på två olika sätt: dels "Hans död skall sända den" och dels "Man av spjutet" eller "Man av pilen". Intressant nog så var hans far, Hanok/Henok/Enok, en profet samtidigt som han tycks ha dött samma år som syndafloden kom. aka Motoshaleh ibn EDRES, aka Methushaleh (Mathusala Methusael Metusalem Mathusalem) ADANYA, Man of the dart ' Poss. Jullus i Roms 9-oldefar.

HM George I s 83-oldefar. HRE Ferdinand I s 79-oldefar. Agnes Harris '83-oldefar. Methuselah in the Bible - Oldest Man Who Ever Lived By Jack Zavada Methuselah has fascinated Bible readers for centuries as the oldest man who ever lived. According to Genesis 5:27, Methuselah was 969 years old when he died. Three possible meanings have been suggested for his name: "man of the spear (or dart)," "his death shall bring...," and "worshiper of Selah." The second meaning may imply that when Methuselah died, judgment would come, in the form of the Flood . Methuselah was a descendant of Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve . Methuselah's father was Enoch , his son was Lamech, and his grandson was Noah , who built the ark and rescued his family from the great Flood.

Before the Flood, people lived extremely long lives: Adam, 930; Seth, 912; Enosh, 905; Lamech, 777; and Noah, 950. Enoch, Methuselah's father, was "translated" to heaven at age 365. Bible scholars offer a number of theories as to why Methuselah lived so long. One is that the pre-Flood patriarchs were only a few generations removed from Adam and Eve, a genetically perfect couple. They would have had unusually strong immunity from disease and life-threatening conditions. Another theory suggests that early in humanity's history, people lived longer to populate the earth. As sin increased in the world, however, God planned to bring judgment through the Flood: Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” (Genesis 6:3, NIV ) Although several people lived to be over 400 years old after the Flood ( Genesis 11:10-24 ), gradually the maximum human lifespan went down to about 120 years.

The Fall of Man and the subsequent sin it introduced into the world corrupted every aspect of the planet. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23, NIV ) Paul was speaking about both physical and spiritual death. The Bible does not indicate that Methuselah's character had anything to do with his long life. Certainly he would have been influenced by the example of his righteous father Enoch, who pleased God so much he escaped death by being "taken up" to heaven. Methuselah died in the year of the Flood . Whether he perished before the Flood or was killed by it, we are not told. Accomplishments of Methuselah: He lived to be 969 years old. Methuselah was grandfather of Noah, a "righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God." (Genesis 6:9, NIV ) Hometown: Ancient Mesopotamia, exact location not given. References to Methuselah in the Bible: Genesis 5:21-27; 1 Chronicles 1:3; Luke 3:37.

Occupation: Children: Lamech and unnamed siblings. Grandson: Noah Descendant: Joseph , earthly father of Jesus Christ Key Verse: Genesis 5:25-27 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died. ( NIV ) (Sources: Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Trent C. Butler, general editor; International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, general editor; gotquestions.org ) New Testament People of the Bible (Index) Jack Zavada, a career writer and contributor for About.com, is host to a Christian website for singles. Never married, Jack feels that the hard-won lessons he has learned may help other Christian singles make sense of their lives. His articles and ebooks offer great hope and encouragement. To contact him or for more information, visit Jack's Bio Page . Were people in the Old Testament really that Old?

Neanderthal man buried alive jack Cuozzo old age patriarchs Were people in the Old Testament really that Old? I would like to jump ahead to chapter 5 of Genesis for a moment, and then go back to chapter 4. The fifth chapter of Genesis is the genealogy of Adam and Eve. It gives us the ages of some of Adam's children (and their children�s children). Many times in the Old Testament we see the life span of humans reaching great ages. Many as old as 900 years. The Bible tells us that: Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5) Seth lived 912 years.(Genesis 5:8) Methuselah lived 969 years.(Genesis 5:27) And Noah lived 950 years. (Genesis 9:29) Many people wonder how, or if this is possible. "These great ages are not presented in the Bible as if they are in any way extraordinary for their times, let alone miraculous." Carl Wieland Creation Ex Nihilo 20(4):10�13, September�November 1998 What is the answer?

Did humans once have a much longer lifespan? If so, why is it that many people today do not live to be 100? The answer I believe in part lies in the state of the earth when God first Created it, compared to the sin wrecked world we live in today. When you look at the age of the Patriarchs (Adam's descendants) in Genesis you will see two things. One, is that from Adam to Noah the average life span was somewhere in the neighborhood of 900 years. These people lived in a very different world than we do today (this was at a time before the flood described in Genesis). God Created the earth perfect. But when Adam sinned this world began to decay. Then when the flood came, things really got wrecked. Some Creationists believe that the pre-flood vapor canopy (the firmament in GEN 1:6 ) would filter out radiation, and hold in incoming solar heat making the earth a warmer place to live. This "expanse" separated the "waters above" from the "waters below" in the Creation week. I believe that the firmament may have collapsed at the time of the flood.

As a result harmful radiation can enter the earth more easily than before, bringing with it all kinds of damaging effects. The life span of man has been declining since the flood. The average age of man quickly dropped to less than 100 in the 200 years after the flood. (chart from AIG) Some critics claim that the 900 years of life mentioned in the Bible were not literal years. They claim that back then people counted each month as a year. They claim that you have to take the age given in the Bible and divide by 12 months. This is wrong for many reasons. The Bible tells us how old the patriarchs were when their children were born. Cainan was 70 when his son was born. If you divided the age by 12, then that means he would have had a child at 5 years old. - This is impossible. Also Moses compiled Genesis. He could clearly differentiate between a month and a year. He did so many times in his writing. Also, when Jesus came to earth he taught us many things. If the Patriarchs did not live as long as the Bible claims then Jesus would have told us. The ages given in Genesis are literal years.

Rather than evolving, we are degenerating. And will continue to do so until Christ returns. Neanderthal man - Why did they look the way they do? This page will show you that these people were human, but had odd facial features resulting from living to great ages. ---------------------- Why do Neanderthals look the way they do? The Neanderthal morphology is one of the most misunderstood in all of anthropology. Many people claim that Neanderthals were primitive, dimwitted cave men. The truth is Neanderthals were fully human. Neanderthals did look a little different than we do today. The question is "How different?" and "Why did they look this way?" How did the Neanderthals look different? Compared to people living today, the Neanderthal adults had a more prominent brow ridge and some also had a chinless appearance. These features do not make them less human, nor do they make them primitive. Why did they look this way? The bible describe people in the early parts of Genesis that lived for hundreds of years.

One of the things that we have learned from modern science is that the bones of the head and face continue to grow through our entire adult life (though at a slower rate than when we are children). What would the faces of people who lived for hundreds of years look like? Dr. Jack Cuozzo has studied both the Bible and the Neanderthal remains in depth, he believes these people would look like (and consequently are) the Neanderthals.

Question: In the bible, who lived to the age of 969?
Answer: Methuselah