Impossibly Old…The Patriarchs?

Impossibly Old…The Patriarchs?

Bodie Hodge, M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries, October 3, 2025 (Donate) 

Letter, unedited:

Regarding the ancient patriarchs living for several centuries I don’t believe that would be possible. Apart from the fact that the nose and ears continue to grow, so a 900 man would look like an elephant, there is senility. It happens to 1 in 5 over 80’s, and I should imagine if people could live for even 200 years, it would be close to 100%. The main problem however is potential. 200 years ago, most were dead by age 40. They had the same potential as us, but living conditions meant they died early. For the patriarchs, they would not have had medical care or medicines. They would not have had sanitary conditions. They would have had a very poor diet (hard things like seeds would quickly have ruined their teeth so after the first century, they would have lived on soups). They would have worked very hard. Like people in Jesus’s time, even with a possibility of living over 900 years, most would have been dead in their thirties. Living so long was just not possible.

M.H., France

Response:

Thank you for contacting the ministry regarding the article on the age of the patriarchs. Please see my comments below and note that they are said with sincerity.

Regarding the ancient patriarchs living for several centuries I don’t believe that would be possible.

God disagrees in the Bible as witnessed by the genealogies. So, the issue is trust—you or God? God was there, He eye witnessed it and knows everything and cannot lie!

Although it is difficult for us to imagine, given current experience and conditions, someone living as long as the patriarchs lived, this really isn’t an issue of whether or not someone believes it.

Hypothetical rendering of Methuselah being middle-aged (500-600 years old); Image requested by Bodie Hodge (ChatGPT)

Imagine if someone came up and said “I don’t believe that it would be possible for liquid water to exist at over 100 degrees Celsius.” Would such an argument be valid? No, this is dependent upon other variables, such as pressure (e.g., superheated water).

Apart from the fact that the nose and ears continue to grow, so a 900 man would look like an elephant, there is senility. It happens to 1 in 5 over 80’s, and I should imagine if people could live for even 200 years, it would be close to 100%.

But how do we know at what rate did the ears and nose grow for those who lived around 900 years, 5000 years ago? The point is that it would not be wise to assume that their rates of growth and renewal were the same as today. Obviously, something was different; otherwise, they would have been dying in only about 1/9 of their life.

Consider if everyone today had the sad and tragic children’s disease progeria. This is when the body ages and dies by the time the person reaches age 12 or 13. The bones have osteoporosis; the skin appears severely aged; the hair grays; etc. If someone would say, “There is no way a person could have lived to 80 years old,” based on the rates they were experiencing with progeria, does that mean it couldn’t happen? Of course not.

The main problem however is potential. 200 years ago, most were dead by age 40-60. They had the same potential as us, but living conditions meant they died early.

I agree. However, the potential for the patriarchs was much different, and this is the key.

For the patriarchs, they would not have had medical care or medicines.

How could one know they couldn’t have known good medical practices? Genesis doesn’t record this. They could have been much wiser to medicines and care than we may imagine. However, I don’t believe this was the primary reason they could sustain such long lives.

They would not have had sanitary conditions.

How could one know they didn’t have sanitary conditions? Genesis doesn’t record this. I’m sure someone living for nine hundred years could surely figure out how to properly dispose of unsanitary items and to clean things decently.

Additionally unsanitary conditions are a problem because of disease, which was not much of a problem back then and are often in overpopulated areas, and that also would not have been such a problem in the world’s early days.

They would have had a very poor diet (hard things like seeds would quickly have ruined their teeth so after the first century, they would have lived on soups). They would have worked very hard. Like people in Jesus’s time, even with a possibility of living over 900 years, most would have been dead in their thirties. Living so long was just not possible.

How could one know they had a poor diet? Genesis doesn’t record this. In fact, their diets/food may well have been superior—especially before the Flood.

Do you realize that these last three assumptions are actually founded in a religious evolutionary perspective? The assumption is that people were not smart enough to have invented good medical care and not advanced enough to wash their hands, brush their teeth, or grow nutritious, sustaining food. In fact, the opposite was likely true.

Mankind was smart right from the start—with Adam being programmed with language to know what was good, how to clean, how to tend plants, and so on. To accept these assumptions is to place our understanding above what is clearly presented in the Bible.

But even so, these things are still probably not the major factor that allowed them to live so long. Most creationists believe that it was genetic.

In the same way that a single point mutation in the DNA can cause the massive age drop to those suffering from progeria, another mutation or series of mutations over time could easily account for the reduced ages. The loss of information as mutations continued to accumulate in the human genome after the Fall and Flood seems to be the best explanation for what the Bible teaches. Hence, we would have the loss of the great ages as given in Scripture.^[1]

With kindness in Christ,

Bodie

□

Bodie Hodge, Ken Ham's son in law, has been an apologist since 1998 helping out in various churches and running an apologetics website. He spent 21 years working at Answers in Genesis as a speaker, writer, and researcher as well as a founding news anchor for Answers News. He was also head of the Oversight Council. 

Bodie launched Biblical Authority Ministries in 2015 as a personal website and it was organized officially in 2025 as a 501(c)(3). He has spoken on multiple continents and hosts of US states in churches, colleges, and universities. He is married with four children.

Originally at Answers in Genesis; Edited; Republished by permission.

 

---

[1] For more please see: New Answers Book 2, Ken Ham, Gen. Ed., Chapter by Drs. Georgia Purdom and David Menton entitled: Did People Like Adam and Noah Really Live Over 900 Years of Age?, Master Books, Green Forest, AK, 2008; see also the next chapter.

Bacon—A Clean Meat According to the Bible

 Bacon—A Clean Meat According To The Bible

Bodie Hodge M.Sc., B.Sc., PEI

Biblical Authority Ministries April 7, 2025 (Donate)

Bacon cheeseburger, bacon pizza, and bacon with eggs! Throughout the Western world and many part of the globe, bacon—or its cousins—ham and Canadian bacon, are enjoyed in hosts of dishes. It almost seems like second nature when one smells that delicate and wonderful aroma and tastes the sweet smokey flavor of bacon.

Bacon Bits Cooking; Picture by Bodie Hodge

And yet, some don’t eat bacon and they appeal to religious reasons. For examples, practicing Jews and Muslims don’t eat bacon. They have a Kosher and Halal diets respectively. Whereas those who eat bacon, are eating an expanded Kosher diet.

Kosher and Halal

Let me briefly explain what I mean by these terms. A Kosher diet was based on Old Testament law where one only ate clean meats listed in Old Testament Law of Moses. Halal is similar to Kosher for Muslims but has slight deviations based on Islamic rules. Muslims can eat a Kosher diet but Jews would not eat a Halel diet when being consistent.

The idea of cleanliness is a biblical concept by the way. In Genesis 7:2, long before the Law of Moses, God told Noah to take seven clean animals and two of the unclean. This shows that the concept of clean vs. unclean animals existed before the Mosaic Law, though no detailed list is given.

The Law of Moses (especially Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14) later defines and codifies which animals are clean (e.g., those that chew the cud and have split hooves) and unclean (e.g., pigs, shellfish). These laws governed diet, worship, and ritual purity.

So, the relationship is this: the idea of clean animals originated before the Law (Genesis), but the Law of Moses formalized those distinctions with specific regulations for Israel. The Law built upon an existing concept to establish cleanliness under the Old Covenant.

Christian Diet or Expanded Kosher

An expanded Kosher diet brings us to the New Testament. According to the 66 books of the Bible, the shift from Old Testament dietary laws to New Testament additions is built on by the power of God. Bacon, ham, rabbit, shrimp, and lobster are no longer considered unclean—and this centers on the teachings and power of Jesus Christ.

In Mark 7:18-19 (ESV), Jesus says,

And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" (Thus he declared all foods clean.)

The context of this relates to the Pharisees and Scribes attacking Christ for not following the traditions (later written as the Talmud). The traditions are the man-made interpretations of the Old Testament. The problem was that they were neglecting what the Word of God was actually saying due to their traditions. So, they were, whether they realized it or not, elevating man’s ideas to supersede what God said!   

So, Christ showing His power of who He was (God incarnate), did an amazing thing here. So powerful in fact that it is often “glossed over”. Christ, who is God in the flesh, declared all foods clean. This is called an expanded Kosher diet or a Christian diet.

Thus, Christ made pork clean—which is where bacon comes from. But He also made clean lobster, shrimp, rabbit, catfish (non-scaly fish), and so much more. This is an incredible and powerful thing Christ did that affected the entire world.

This statement marks an expansion from Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, where pork, shellfish, and other animals were initially unclean. Since then, they are now clean.

Further Confirmations

Further confirmation comes from Acts 10, where Peter sees a vision of formerly unclean animals and hears God say, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (Acts 10:15). Though the vision metaphorically refers to unclean Gentiles now being accepted by God, it also reaffirms the dietary change.

Peter’s reaction in Acts 10:14—“Surely not, Lord! I have never eaten anything impure or unclean”—reveals a moment of resistance to Christ’s authority. Though Peter had walked with Jesus, witnessed His resurrection, and heard His teaching that all foods are clean (Mark 7:19), he still clung to Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

By refusing what God had declared clean, Peter unintentionally placed tradition above Christ’s revealed will and power. His “No” to the risen Lord showed a hesitation to fully embrace the what Christ had done. It wasn't outright rebellion, but it reflected a struggle to let go of the old in light of the new—a momentary dishonor to Christ’s power to cleanse what was once unclean.

Paul writing by the power of Holy Spirit in the context of eating says in Romans 14:14a (ESV):

“I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself,”

In Colossians 2:16 (ESV), Paul also writes,

Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath.

This reinforces that food is no longer unclean under the New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant (e.g., Leviticus 11), certain animals were declared unclean. But in the New Covenant, Jesus’ teachings (Mark 7), Peter’s vision (Acts 10), and Paul’s writings (Romans 14, Colossians 2) all affirm that Christ made these meats clean. Therefore, bacon, ham, rabbit, shrimp, and lobster are no longer unclean—because Christ has made all foods clean.

The next time you go to a restaurant or have a meal where ham or bacon are served, don’t forget to thank Christ for what He did and ask for His blessing.