Is The Earth Only 7,000 Years Old?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Where do dinosaurs fit in?

Pre-Adam

[seriously honestly]

seriously honestly:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth

Let me clarily. If things only started dying after the fall, about 6,000 years ago, then (in Rob's view or anyone else's) did the dinosars live with humans?

[seriously honestly]

Pre-Adam

That's what I believe as well.

[thesometimesaint]

seriously honestly:

I'll let Rob speak for himself. However there is absolutely no evidence for, and plenty against, the idea that man and dinosaurs were contemporaries(The Creationist Museum not withstanding).

[Honorentheos]

I would also argue that the idea of a universal fall is incompatible with evolutionary theory. To accept a 6,000 year old temporal earth, post-Eden, is still to dismiss the scientifically gained evidence for how the world came to be in it's current state. Death long pre-dated 4000 BCE based on the archeological record.

I think it's important to underscore this point - choosing to accept a timeline pro-6000 years for any concept of a literal Eden places one in opposition to science. Some people are comfortable with this. Which is fine for them. For those who are not comfortable with this, though, please consider the evidence and recognize you can't have it both ways. It's science or a 6,000 year timeline for human beings and death.

[Rivers]

Let me clarily. If things only started dying after the fall, about 6,000 years ago, then (in Rob's view or anyone else's) did the dinosars live with humans?

I have a theory about this. If it is true that the entire world was in a edenic state (no death) before the fall, I think there must have been death during the creative period before the earth was placed in a edenic state. This theory came to me while i was going through a session at the Salt Lake temple where it is more plainly conveyed that the world goes through different phases of existence.

The phases of the earth are creation, eden, telestial. terrestrial, and celestial. I think that dinosaurs must have existed during the creation phase in which the earth was being prepared.

D&C 77 seems to be saying that the age of the earth is seven thousand years since the Fall, I am uncomfortable with this idea because this leads to us having a ballpark guess of when the second coming will take place. I'm partial to the idea that the seven thousand years mentioned in D&C 77 are more symbolic than literal.

[BCSpace]

Where do dinosaurs fit in?

Exactly where scientists say they do. 2 Nephi 2:22 (and the doctrine I quote in post #20) allows for an undefined creative period where a condition of no death is not specific. Therefore one can have evolution all the way up to the garden state, then the garden state, then the Fall, then evolution continues, and one can still truthfully say there was no death before the Fall because there was the garden state before that.

An unanswered question remains in that was the garden state universally over the whole the earth or not? If the garden was on the earth and Adam and Eve were cast out of it, and they could look back and see it but the way was barred, that speaks to a local garden. I suppose one could also say they couldn't get back on the spaceship if one wants to go that route.

If one begins with a timeline that starts around 4000 BCE, one is opening the book of human civilization with major cities present and populated. One has to ignore evidence for human civilization in many places around the world that predate 4000 BCE, and even more importantly, one has to explain evidence for death (i.e. - a post-Fall condition) throughout the world in the archaeological record including humans or proto-human remains.

I tend to go with the notion that Bible chronology is incorrect and missing some things. There has been no revelation on the subject and I don't think it's unreasonable for the Church to go with traditional Christianity where there is no such revelation. But it does cause some conflicts. I like to go with a Fall date matching the rise of the first civilization (Sumer) and if the garden was local, then yes, we can still have death all over the world. Recall that in 1931, the Heber J Grant FP issued a statement to all GA's that it has no doctrine for or against the idea of pre-Adamite races of people.

Alternatively, a universal garden state does not have to last very long; a few decades and we would never detect it.

Edited December 30, 2011 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I have a theory about this. If it is true that the entire world was in a edenic state (no death) before the fall, I think there must have been death during the creative period before the earth was placed in a edenic state. This theory came to me while i was going through a session at the Salt Lake temple where it is more plainly conveyed that the world goes through different phases of existence.

Welcome to the club. I came to the same conclusion years ago. 2 Nephi 2:22 and the published doctrine on D&C 77 will back you up on this hypothesis:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Notice that they were in the state of no death AFTER they were created. So you have evolution (creation) until God determines that all is ready (creation finished) and then Adam and Eve are placed into the garden state.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That's what I believe as well.

There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Although I know some that believe they existed up until Noah's day...and some who believe them to have been aboard the Ark. This would be the Gospel according to Mark...

Mark Browning that is...

[Rob Osborn]

Let me clarily. If things only started dying after the fall, about 6,000 years ago, then (in Rob's view or anyone else's) did the dinosars live with humans?

Yeah, but in rather ancient times or years gone by they called them "dragons". They are mentioned in scripture and scribed in ancient artworks.

[Honorentheos]

Dinosaurs are dragons?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Dinosaurs are dragons?

I knew I had that mixed up. I hate when that happens!

[altersteve]

I have a theory about this. If it is true that the entire world was in a edenic state (no death) before the fall, I think there must have been death during the creative period before the earth was placed in a edenic state. This theory came to me while i was going through a session at the Salt Lake temple where it is more plainly conveyed that the world goes through different phases of existence.

The phases of the earth are creation, eden, telestial. terrestrial, and celestial. I think that dinosaurs must have existed during the creation phase in which the earth was being prepared.

D&C 77 seems to be saying that the age of the earth is seven thousand years since the Fall, I am uncomfortable with this idea because this leads to us having a ballpark guess of when the second coming will take place. I'm partial to the idea that the seven thousand years mentioned in D&C 77 are more symbolic than literal.

I agree with this completely. This is why the theory of evolution is something I can accept so easily.

[Rivers]

Dinosaurs are dragons?

Yes. And so is the loch ness monster.

[Cobalt-70]

Two questions.

1.) Would your analysis mean that the tribulations (or the possibility of being sealed after "coming out" of great tribulation) ended in the twentieth century?

2.) Is it a matter of what "Joseph Smith believed in 1832 when he wrote D&C 77," or does the fact that this passage has been canonized make it the word of God?

I'm not really saying this is my analysis. I'm just riffing on Smith's revelations, and on what I imagine could have been his analysis. Smith obviously thought that Revelation 7 was occurring in his own time. D&C 77 came out soon after the "High Priesthood" was introduced along with the idea of "sealing." It was also while Smith was thinking about "Elias"/"Elijah", and his eventual appearance in 1836 in the Kirtland temple. So if Smith was paying attention to the Book of Revelation, which I think he was, it seems like he would have understood that the events of Revelation 6 took place before the events of Revelation 7--that is, before the 1830s. What I don't really have an opinion on is whether Smith believed in the strict 1000-year eras that D&C 77 describes, or whether these eras could have been more or less than 1000 years each--or whether Smith's views changed between 1832 and 1843 when he essentially wrote that the Second Coming "might be" in 1890 or 91.

[rpn]

I read it to mean the earth as it was established as the earth and adam placed thereon. And I also understand that this may have been understood and discussed in the context of JS's scientific knowledge --- one of those areas in which we learn more when we are open to more revelation.

[cinepro]

If one begins with a timeline that starts around 4000 BCE, one is opening the book of human civilization with major cities present and populated. One has to ignore evidence for human civilization in many places around the world that predate 4000 BCE, and even more importantly, one has to explain evidence for death (i.e. - a post-Fall condition) throughout the world in the archaeological record including humans or proto-human remains.

I don't think the 6,000 year timeline is compatible with the evidence. Even if it means post-Garden of Eden and not actual age of the earth itself. Estimates of human populations at this time (4000 BCE) are over 5 million people. One really has to re-imagine the world post-Eden to formulate something that works.

That's the weird thing. Somehow, some LDS are able to believe in civilizations that are older than 4,000BC, but at the same time our timeline for humanity begins at 4,000BC. These are the two most popular timelines that are published by the Church:

[altersteve]

That's the weird thing. Somehow, some LDS are able to believe in civilizations that are older than 4,000BC, but at the same time our timeline for humanity begins at 4,000BC. These are the two most popular timelines that are published by the Church:

We're able to believe in civilizations before 4000 B.C. because those timelines don't represent official Church doctrine. The Church has not claimed a revelation from God about this subject.

[Freedom]

Since the atonement was retroactive, affecting people both before and after the event, I do not see why the fall could not have been the same. There was fruit in the garden which indicates that the trees at least were reproducing. I believe very strongly that the bible (and all other forms of scripture) are not historical documents. They are theological documents. They teach gospel principles, but not scientific principles. The bible is also a very ancient document written in a style and language that has long been lost to us. Although it is doctrine that Adam and Eve were real people, it is not doctrine that the first few chapters of Genesis are historically or chronologically accurate. They were written to teach gospel principles. It is filled with imagery and analogy. To draw a conclusion of the age of the earth based on the bible is not possible.

There is a strong case for interpreting the story of Adam and Eve as the pattern of a marriage covenant. There is also a case to be made that it is to demonstrate how to teach the facts of life to children. There are several other patterns in the passages that, I think, precludes it from being intended as history. The numbers, such as 7 days, are symbolic - if you go to the temple, you will find that the creative periods are different. This is because the temple version is teaching a different doctrine than the Moses version.

There is also a powerful interpretation about the two trees and their relationship to Adam and Eve. Eve had power over one, Adam had power over the other. This goes back to the marriage covenant interpretation.

[Ron Beron]

Yeah, but in rather ancient times or years gone by they called them "dragons". They are mentioned in scripture and scribed in ancient artworks.

Somehow, I perceive you have your tongue firmly against your cheek. While the ancients did discuss dragons, etc., it was not upon personal observation of any such living thing, but most likely surmised such creatures from the fossil evidence left behind. For example, from looking at the skull of an mastodon it is easy to entertain the thought of it being an cyclops or a Protoceratops in fossil looks like a giant lizard with wings.

Edited December 31, 2011 by Ron Beron

[Ron Beron]

I was reading D&C 77 last night.

It's presented as a question and answer session between Joseph and Deity.

Does this mean the young earth creationists are right?

Is the earth only 7,000 years old?

Verse 6

What's meant by "it's continuance, or it's temporal existence"? (The earth's temporal existence, or the economy's temporal existence?)

If it doesn't refer to the earth itself (but only the economy, or plan), does that mean that the human race has only been here for seven thousand years?

Also, what does this mean.

Verse 10

Does that mean that the 144, 000 were sealed, and the great multitude came out of the great tribulation, before the turn of the last century?

I've been scratching my head here.

Any thoughts?

If Joseph was referring to the calculations brought about by the Bishop of Ussher it should be well remembered that he made numerous mistakes in his math such as trusting as literal the OT chronology and secondly in his faith in Julian calendar which was additionally flawed.

[cinepro]

We're able to believe in civilizations before 4000 B.C. because those timelines don't represent official Church doctrine. The Church has not claimed a revelation from God about this subject.

Depending on how you understand the words "continuance" and "temporal" (and the word "revelation" in the section heading), then some LDS might understand D&C 77:6 to be exactly that doctrine being claimed by revelation.

Edited December 31, 2011 by cinepro

[Kevin Christensen]

Food for thought, that has substance and nutritional value on the topic of science and Mormonism, by a Mormon scientist:

http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/index.html

Plus, Nibley, Before Adam from 1980

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73

The questions most commonly asked are: When did it happen? How long did it take? Our texts make it very clear that we are not to measure the time and periods involved by our chronometers and calendars. Until Adam underwent that fatal change of habitat, body chemistry, diet, and psyche that went with the Fall, nothing is to be measured in our years, "for the Gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning." (Abraham 5:13.) Until then, time is measured from their point of view, not ours. As far as we are concerned it can be any time, and there would be no point to insisting on this again and again if all we had to do to convert their time to our time was multiply our years by 365,000. Theirs was a different time. The only numbers we are given designated the phases of periods of creation: "and this was the second time" (Abraham 4:, "and it was the third time" (4:13), and so on. The periods are numbered but never measured. The Gods called them "days," but the text is at great pains to make clear that it was day and night from their point of view, when our time had not yet been appointed. "And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And . . . from the evening until morning they called night; . . . and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night. (Abraham 4:5.) Doctrine and Covenants 130:4—5 explains that "the reckoning of God's time, angel's time, prophet's time, and man's time [is] according to the planet on which they reside." That implies different time schemes at least. In moving from one system to another one also changes one's timing. "There are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it. (D&C 130:5.)

"It was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time." (Abraham 4:23.) How long is such a time? In the "fourth time," we read, "the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." (Abraham 4:19, 18.) That important word "until" tells us two things: (1) that they took all the time that was necessary, no matter how long it might have been, measuring the period in terms not of a terminal date but in terms of the requirements of the task; (2) "until" means up till a certain time, but not thereafter. When things were running smoothly, they were left on their own, which implies a shift from one time-scale to another. When, for example, "the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth" (Abraham 4:24), after they had prepared the waters to do the same long before, how long do you think that took? Again, the record is deliberately vague.

And his last work on the topic, Abraham's Temple Drama:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=72

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[BCSpace]

We're able to believe in civilizations before 4000 B.C. because those timelines don't represent official Church doctrine.

They are official doctrine, being published by the Church.

The Church has not claimed a revelation from God about this subject.

True. What this means is that the Church can change it's doctrine pending new revelation without any conflict. In the meantime, I don't find it unreasonable or contradictory for the Church to stick with traditional Christian doctrine. In addition, that Adam fell in 4000 BC doesn't necessarily conflict with science. You have to ask yourself what is meant by "first man", "man", and "created" and note the doctrinal possibility of preAdamite homo sapiens.

[BCSpace]

Depending on how you understand the words "continuance" and "temporal" (and the word "revelation" in the section heading), then some LDS might understand D&C 77:6 to be exactly that doctrine being claimed by revelation.

If you want to be intellectually honest about this, you should also refer to actual official LDS doctrine on this section such as the D&C Institute Manual which broadens out these definitions quite a bit.