6,000 Years? Could Missing Generations Be The Missing Link?

[changed]

Let me preface this by saying that I have not personally sat down, gone through the entire OT, and tried to calculate purely based on scripture what the timeline for the events therein are.  Am I right in assuming that the OT timeline is based in large part on the genealogies given (George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil )etc. etc. and assumptions about the length of time between generations?  If so, I would like to ask some questions. 

1.) are the genealogies in the OT complete?

in other words, if
George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil
was truncated to:
George was the son of Phil

would we have any way of knowing about the missing generations that actually existed between George and Phill?

Perhaps there are some experts on here who could elucidate the OT dating techniques, where those techniques are certain, and where they make assumptions that could drastically change the assumed "6,000" years that so many attribute to it (making it a history of a much longer time period instead).

Edited August 20, 2013 by changed

[cinepro]

Let me preface this by saying that I have not personally sat down, gone through the entire OT, and tried to calculate purely based on scripture what the timeline for the events therein are.  Am I right in assuming that the OT timeline is based in large part on the genealogies given (George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil )etc. etc. and assumptions about the length of time between generations?  If so, I would like to ask some questions. 

1.) are the genealogies in the OT complete?

in other words, if

George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil

was truncated to:

George was the son of Phil

would we have any way of knowing about the missing generations that actually existed between George and Phill?

Perhaps there are some experts on here who could elucidate the OT dating techniques, where those techniques are certain, and where they make assumptions that could drastically change the assumed "6,000" years that so many attribute to it (making it a history of a much longer time period instead).

 

 

Here's the problem:

 

 

 

6. Question: What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

 

Answer: We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

 

D&C 77

 

We've discussed this verse in the past, so we don't need to retread the fact that some people think it means something else.  But as far as I can tell, the Chuch's only interpretation is the obvious one.

 

As long as the Church teaches that the Earth's "temporal existence" began at the Fall of Adam, the 6,000 year age of the Temporal Earth is pretty solid as far as doctrine is concerned.

 

At least until we make it to 3000.

Edited August 20, 2013 by cinepro

[Maidservant]

You might like the Sumerian king lists.

[Rob Osborn]

It wouldnt matter much even if there were missing people not in the records because of the simple fact that one wouldnt be able to put an age on their days of birth and death. What has always bothered me is the fact that the bible version of the creation is exactky opposite fron what science has to say- they are at extreme odds. So then why try to make the two fit in the same shoe? That drives me crazy. Dont try to reconcile mans understanding with Gods. The odds are overwhelmingly in favor of God.

[Freedom]

The Book of Genesis was written for a people who lived long ago, and was written in their vernacular and according to their customs and understandings. The Book of Mormon was written in like manner. the only scripture we have that is truly written for our day is general conference. If God wanted us to have a clear understanding of the Book of Genesis, he would have provided the original writings with an expansive dictionary to help us understand the words in our terms.

[cinepro]

The Book of Genesis was written for a people who lived long ago, and was written in their vernacular and according to their customs and understandings. The Book of Mormon was written in like manner. the only scripture we have that is truly written for our day is general conference. If God wanted us to have a clear understanding of the Book of Genesis, he would have provided the original writings with an expansive dictionary to help us understand the words in our terms.

 

Whose day was D&C 77 written for?

[Rob Osborn]

The Book of Genesis was written for a people who lived long ago, and was written in their vernacular and according to their customs and understandings. The Book of Mormon was written in like manner. the only scripture we have that is truly written for our day is general conference. If God wanted us to have a clear understanding of the Book of Genesis, he would have provided the original writings with an expansive dictionary to help us understand the words in our terms.

All scripture was written for our day. Joseph Smith even went to great lengths to reveal important truths regarding the first few chapters of Genesis that needed clarification. To m it proves the absolute importance for properly understanding the creation in a day where science has brought oit their big guns to destroy the very idea of Christ and his creation.

[Freedom]

Whose day was D&C 77 written for?

It was written for Joseph Smith who lived in the 1800s.

[Freedom]

All scripture was written for our day. Joseph Smith even went to great lengths to reveal important truths regarding the first few chapters of Genesis that needed clarification. To m it proves the absolute importance for properly understanding the creation in a day where science has brought oit their big guns to destroy the very idea of Christ and his creation.

And what exactly is 'our day'? Was it 1940? or perhaps 2002? What about 2078? They will have to get their own scripture because what we have now was written for 2013? no, the scripture was written for the generation that produced it, this is why we have modern revelation.

[mnn727]

Ever wonder where the ancients who wrote the Bible got the genealogy of a rather obscure carpenter from Judea?

[strappinglad]

Ever wonder where the ancients who wrote the Bible got the genealogy of a rather obscure carpenter from Judea?

Ever watch the TV series Roots ? When the author went to Africa he found his geneology was recorded in the memory of a tribal elder who was selected and trained to remember it.

[Rob Osborn]

And what exactly is 'our day'? Was it 1940? or perhaps 2002? What about 2078? They will have to get their own scripture because what we have now was written for 2013? no, the scripture was written for the generation that produced it, this is why we have modern revelation.

So what should be done? Should we just discard all of scripture as irelevance? The Book of Mormon was written specifically for latter days- our days.

[Rivers]

It was written for Joseph Smith who lived in the 1800s.

We need a 21st century version of section 77.

[Anijen]

Because it was written for our day does not mean it was written in our days vernacular or has to be written in such a contemporary form.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Whose day was D&C 77 written for?

You mom's.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me preface this by saying that I have not personally sat down, gone through the entire OT, and tried to calculate purely based on scripture what the timeline for the events therein are.  Am I right in assuming that the OT timeline is based in large part on the genealogies given (George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil )etc. etc. and assumptions about the length of time between generations?  If so, I would like to ask some questions. 

1.) are the genealogies in the OT complete?

in other words, if

George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil

was truncated to:

George was the son of Phil

would we have any way of knowing about the missing generations that actually existed between George and Phill?

Perhaps there are some experts on here who could elucidate the OT dating techniques, where those techniques are certain, and where they make assumptions that could drastically change the assumed "6,000" years that so many attribute to it (making it a history of a much longer time period instead).

 

See Archbiship Ussher's Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti

 

Joseph Smith apparantly believed the earth to be billions of years old.

http://www.tungate.com/GA_statements.htm

Edited August 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

Let me preface this by saying that I have not personally sat down, gone through the entire OT, and tried to calculate purely based on scripture what the timeline for the events therein are.  Am I right in assuming that the OT timeline is based in large part on the genealogies given (George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil )etc. etc. and assumptions about the length of time between generations?  If so, I would like to ask some questions. 

1.) are the genealogies in the OT complete?

in other words, if

George was the son of Larry who was the son of Fred, who was the son of Phil

was truncated to:

George was the son of Phil

would we have any way of knowing about the missing generations that actually existed between George and Phill?

Perhaps there are some experts on here who could elucidate the OT dating techniques, where those techniques are certain, and where they make assumptions that could drastically change the assumed "6,000" years that so many attribute to it (making it a history of a much longer time period instead).

 

Is there a gap? article here:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/do-the-genesis-genealogies-contain-gaps

 

Pull quote from the end of the article:

 

"Thus, the main arguments for fluidity in this case lack a firm basis. This lack of evidence for fluidity does not mean necessarily that fluidity has not occurred, because evidence might yet come to light. At present, however, one might easily conclude, at least as far as the biblical evidence is concerned, that no omissions, additions, or alterations (other than name conflations) have been made to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies."

Edited August 21, 2013 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

Is there a gap? article here:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/do-the-genesis-genealogies-contain-gaps

 

Pull quote from the end of the article:

 

"Thus, the main arguments for fluidity in this case lack a firm basis. This lack of evidence for fluidity does not mean necessarily that fluidity has not occurred, because evidence might yet come to light. At present, however, one might easily conclude, at least as far as the biblical evidence is concerned, that no omissions, additions, or alterations (other than name conflations) have been made to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies."

 

Answers in Genesis isn't recognized scientific journal.

 

That is a post hoc ergo prompter hoc argument.

[David T]

Is there a gap? article here:  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/do-the-genesis-genealogies-contain-gaps

 

Pull quote from the end of the article:

 

"Thus, the main arguments for fluidity in this case lack a firm basis. This lack of evidence for fluidity does not mean necessarily that fluidity has not occurred, because evidence might yet come to light. At present, however, one might easily conclude, at least as far as the biblical evidence is concerned, that no omissions, additions, or alterations (other than name conflations) have been made to the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies."

 

FWIW, the geneologies in both Genesis 5 and 11 are understood by scholars to be from the (very late) post-exilic Priestly source, around 500. BCE. They are not part of the original J and E traditions, or even the Deuteronimic history taking form around 600 BCE. If that means anything to anyone in terms of historical reliability of those genealogies.

 

Not that the Answers in Genesis people think much of the idea of anyone other than Moses writing a single, coherent and inerrant Genesis.

Edited August 21, 2013 by David T

[Rob Osborn]

Answers in Genesis isn't recognized scientific journal.

 

That is a post hoc ergo prompter hoc argument.

This response exactly shows why we have such a paramount problem. The Bible isnt a recognized scientific journal either yet we believe in Christ.

[thesometimesaint]

This response exactly shows why we have such a paramount problem. The Bible isnt a recognized scientific journal either yet we believe in Christ.

 

I have no problem with believers in Christ. I just can't put Christ in a science experiment. IE; In answering how ice floats in water. As a believer in Christ I can say that that is because God made it that way. But that doesn't answer the question, and actually inhibits further searching for the knowledge. As a scientist I can tell you that it is because the atoms in a water molecule are slightly at an angle. So that ice is less dense than the water that it is composed of.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/icefloats.htm

[cinepro]

It was written for Joseph Smith who lived in the 1800s.

 

Then why do we still teach it?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/01/old-testament-times-at-a-glance?lang=eng

[Rob Osborn]

I have no problem with believers in Christ. I just can't put Christ in a science experiment. IE; In answering how ice floats in water. As a believer in Christ I can say that that is because God made it that way. But that doesn't answer the question, and actually inhibits further searching for the knowledge. As a scientist I can tell you that it is because the atoms in a water molecule are slightly at an angle. So that ice is less dense than the water that it is composed of.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryfaqs/f/icefloats.htm

Thats a weak response. You are discrediting something entirely because of its source. Yet, you say you have no problem with believers in Christ. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

[rameumptom]

We can argue what the 7000 years of temporal existence means, however. I think it means the time since the Fall of Adam..  However, there's nothing in that section that states nothing occurred previously.  The scriptural and scientific records are full of creation/destruction cycles. Nephites began their calendar over several times, as major events happened, ending the old way of doing things (and so did the Maya).

When we read one or two verses alone, without the context of modern knowledge and revelation, we often mistake our beliefs with actual knowledge.

[Rob Osborn]

We can argue what the 7000 years of temporal existence means, however. I think it means the time since the Fall of Adam..  However, there's nothing in that section that states nothing occurred previously.  The scriptural and scientific records are full of creation/destruction cycles. Nephites began their calendar over several times, as major events happened, ending the old way of doing things (and so did the Maya).

When we read one or two verses alone, without the context of modern knowledge and revelation, we often mistake our beliefs with actual knowledge.

There is no debate on the word temporal. Its only when people try to redefine it that we have issues.