The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Do you believe Methuselah is the oldest man in The Bible? I don't.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 768 times Debate No: 72527
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)





People often judge The Bible by the words of men; but Jesus warned, In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Mt. 15:9

How well do you know what The Bible actually says?

In Genesis 5:27, Methuselah lived 969 years. According to Bible scholars, Methuselah is the oldest man mentioned in The Bible; and if you look up his name online, you will see many sites that claim he is.

The only source I'll use or accept is a King James (commonly known as The Authorized Version) Bible; and I'll prove Methuselah isn't the oldest man in The Bible.

Mahalo nui loa for your time.

Marauder said in the comments, he wouldn't take the debate; because, he didn't know who I would argue was older than Methuselah.

He also implied that my character is not good; and I'm hiding something.

Now that Kyle has made my case, I'm challenging Marauder to refute it.

He said he would.


I will accept this debate I have been challenged, with the mutual understanding that the Pro side (my side) is Pro "Methuselah was older than Enoch" even if the Title at the top of the page does not technically assign the Pro and Con sides in that way because of the "I don't" part added to it.

And Con was deliberately trying to keep the full topic of the debate from a Challengers awareness until they have already accepted and it's too late. Though this deception was rectified Pre-debate it was not of Con's lack of effort to keep it a secret. Consider this when casting a vote on Conduct.

The following is the relevant verses in question in the 3 kinds of Bible translations (thought for thought, word for word, and combination of the two)

969 is older than 365. Yes the passage does say Enoch technically did not die but that does not mean he can be considered to continue growing after God 'took him'.
Debate Round No. 1


I meant this as a Bible trivia thread.

Now I'm forced to point out a personal attack.

Personal attack: Your beliefs get questioned, you don't know how to respond, so you attack.

That's the way the pro began this debate. He challenged my integrity. Look at the first comment on this thread.

His first sentence explains he didn't know who I would name... then he attacked my character.

Nothing in his comment makes me believe he could think of one of the names Kyle mentioned.
But, he obviously understood my position. Check out his 2nd to the last sentence in comments.

My 2nd paragraph is a question asking, how well do you know The Bible? and the title is a question.

Kyle named 3 men in response. The pro couldn't even name one, so he attacked.

Now he's even trying to change the rules, and use 3 Bibles; and also redefine time. Enoch was born thousands of years ago by our calendar; and he never died.

Methuselah's been dead for thousands of years.

Enoch is older than Methuselah.


I understand Con stated he only accapts the King James Version in round 1, but don't pretend a definition for time or age or anything else was set then. There are no debate definitions given in that round. And there shouldn't be. Arguing what rhetoric and semantics is most accurate in this issue is the whole point of the debate.
As for using 3 Bible's I always do this for any interested 3rd party viewers who may prefer seeing that the translations all agree, which they do. But don't ignore that I take careful effort to only base my arguments on the KJV.

Now consider this; does Methuselah have birthdays in heaven? Sure he's dead but his sole lives on. Can you say he kept ageing? Of course not. Enoch does not either even if he went to heaven without dying. The passage says he now "is not". So he 'is not' older.
And if we count our existence outside of earth as our age should it stop after we die? Technically you and I are as old as Enoch (eph 1:4)
Debate Round No. 2


Going by chronological order from, The evening and the morning were the first day, in Ge. 1:5, until Methuselah was born in Ge. 521; and Enoch was born 65 years earlier than Methuselah.

By that same calendar in The King James Bible, Enoch is older than Methuselah.

Elijah didn't die either in 2 Ki. 2:11; so, he'd be thousands of years older than Methuselah too.

There's also the people in Mark 9:1, which Jesus said, wouldn't taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. They were alive about 2,000 years ago, never tasted death, and nothing says they are in heaven.

He did choose us before the foundation of the world. Eph. 1:4; but we weren't born before Methuselah: and we didn't live for thousands of after he was dead, the way the people who I mentioned did.

And... there's the Gentile high priest Melchisedec... who is without beginning of days, or end life. The Letter to the Hebrews 7:1-3.

Thank you con. I appreciate the tone in your last post.

Aloha nui loa


But the people you mentioned did not live for 1,000 of years after Methuselah died, the Word of God specifically says "and then he was not" in reference to Enoch. He was 'translated in heaven'.

And my point is, if your going to count years after being translated into heaven, if heaven can even be considered to time in years pass in it, as part of Enoch, or Elijah's long lives, then you might as well count Methuselah's years in heaven as part of his age. sure he died to get there but he no less lives there now because of the method of his arrival.

And likewise if you get to count years in heaven as part of age the way you are counting them for Enoch's, then all of our years with God in heaven must count as part of our age, and as you yourself admitted this means our lives began before the creation of the universe itself. Making all of us the same age.

As for Mark, What Mark actually says is "till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power" (KJV). They saw this on Easter Sunday
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 1 year ago
I don't think I'm going to do 1,000 character limit debates again. there is no room to put anything.

I stand by what I said about conduct. Don't consider that some kind of personal attack because I try to emphasize a standard of honorable debate conduct for you to learn to go by in the future. I spoke my peace on it in the first round so I could not afford to continue on about it with you in later rounds.
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
Shoots! The first sentence on my last post looks as bad as the con's last sentence in the first comment. Too bad mine counts. :)
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
I disagree, that's why I only offered to prove Methuselah isn't the oldest living man in The Bible... some people doubt Melchisedec was a man, because, he lived forever too.

I don't want to argue either position. I know this is a debate site; but I really don't like to debate. So, I kept it as simple as possible.

I just wanted to prove Methuselah isn't the oldest man named in the Bible, which you have done.

Thanks Kyle, I really appreciate meeting a man who actually reads The Bible, questions the traditions of men, and looks for the answers in The Bible. The LORD bless thee, and keep the.

Acts 24:14
Posted by Kyle_the_Heretic 1 year ago
With Melchizedek, I believe it is talking him being a priest forever, not living forever, as others can be priests forever after that order.

It is the priesthood of Melchizedek that is without father or mother; beginning of days or end of life. Otherwise Melchizedek would have been here before Adam.

Gen. 14:18
Psalms 110:4
Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:15-21
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
There's some more people who are older than Methuselah, mentioned in The Bible.

They're not nearly as old as Elijah, the third oldest man before Methuselah.

You can find them in Matthew 16:28 & Mark 9:1... John the Beloved (mentioned by Kyle) could've been one of them.
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
Nevermind, Kyle already proved Methuselah isn't the oldest man in the Bible.

Melchisedec is the oldest living man in The Bible.

Melchisedec is a man without beginning of days or end of life. He. 7:1-4
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
I repent again.

I was trying to correct my first mistake in a hurry, and not taking time to get it right.

Enoch was 65 when Methuselah was born; and Methuselah was 969 years old when he died. Ge. 5:21-27
Enoch never died. He. 11:5

That's why we're supposed to study... because anybody can be wrong; and we're not supposed to trust any man to tell us, what we are required to know.
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
I made another mistake.

Methuselah lived for 965 years, and he died. Ge. 5:27
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
I repent.

I meant... Enoch never died.

All the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Posted by aloysious 1 year ago
Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:
Genesis 5:21

Enoch was born 65 years before Methuselah, and Methuselah never died.
Letter to the Hebrews 11:5

Thanks to Kyle for studying to shew himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed; for showing everyone that the only secret I had, was that I read The Bible like he does, and most people don't.
No votes have been placed for this debate.