Why Did Old Testament People Live So Long?

[Anijen]

If you want we can debate evolution also but this thread is about the long age of man of which the church official position is that they really did live to the long ages given in scripture/

Wrong (emphasis mine). The church does not have official doctrine on the precise ages of our antediluvian ancestors.

 

Edited to add;

Now before everyone who believes in a 6000 year creation period and a 6000 year old earth or those who believe the ancient patriarchs believe that these men lived that long, note; I am not saying the church does not believe this, I am saying it is not written in stone, all I am saying it is not official church policy.

 

Here for instance is a good article from the "I have a question" series touching on both creation and the age of the Old testament prophets. I like how at the beginning of the article it states; "Answers are intended for help and perspective, not as pronouncements of Church doctrine."

Edited March 24, 2014 by Anijen

[Bernard Gui]

Adam lived to be 900 years old, Noah was very old and Methusela lived very very long. How come they lived so long back then, but not anymore?

Clean living.

[Rob Osborn]

Whom do think are the directors of BYU?

I have had personal emails with evolution professors at BYU. I had a lot of dialogue with Duane Jeffery who is a board member at the NCSE. I asked him straight on how the Brethren felt about this and he told me at that time thatsome were in disagreement with his being part of the board who are atheistic. They allow them to carry on though even though they do not agree with their views being out of alignment with official church doctrine.

[Rob Osborn]

Wrong (emphasis mine). The church does not have official doctrine on the precise ages of our antediluvian ancestors.

 

Edited to add;

Now before everyone who believes in a 6000 year creation period and a 6000 year old earth or those who believe the ancient patriarchs believe that these men lived that long, note; I am not saying the church does not believe this, I am saying it is not written in stone, all I am saying it is not official church policy.

 

Here for instance is a good article from the "I have a question" series touching on both creation and the age of the Old testament prophets. I like how at the beginning of the article it states; "Answers are intended for help and perspective, not as pronouncements of Church doctrine."

The church teaches as official doctrine that the old patriarchs lived hundreds of years- that is official doctrine.

[ksfisher]

I have had personal emails with evolution professors at BYU. I had a lot of dialogue with Duane Jeffery who is a board member at the NCSE. I asked him straight on how the Brethren felt about this and he told me at that time thatsome were in disagreement with his being part of the board who are atheistic. They allow them to carry on though even though they do not agree with their views being out of alignment with official church doctrine.

So the First Presidency doesn't mind that BYU teaches views that you say are in opposition to church doctrine? You're saying that an institutuion funded by tithing is out of alighment with church doctrine?

[Rob Osborn]

Ever hear of circular reasoning? "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."

Yeah, I hear of circular reasoning all the time- this fossil was found in this rock so its this old and because the rock had that fossil the rock is this old...

The same applies here to long ages- you guys assume this logic-

No one today lives more than a 120 years so therefore no one ever was capable of living older than that in the past.

Yeah, I hear circular reasoning all the time.

[Rob Osborn]

So the First Presidency doesn't mind that BYU teaches views that you say are in opposition to church doctrine? You're saying that an institutuion funded by tithing is out of alighment with church doctrine?

DING DING DING. There has been considerable disagreement with how to teach evolution at BYU over the years. It is still an issue of debate and disagreement.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, I hear of circular reasoning all the time- this fossil was found in this rock so its this old and because the rock had that fossil the rock is this old...

The same applies here to long ages- you guys assume this logic-

No one today lives more than a 120 years so therefore no one ever was capable of living older than that in the past.

Yeah, I hear circular reasoning all the time.

 

I seriously doubt that you have a clue as to what circular reasoning is. While 120 years for man is pretty impressive it isn't unknown. When claiming significantly more years it strains credulity.

[bcuzbcuz]

Talking in circles is not circular reasoning?

[Rob Osborn]

I seriously doubt that you have a clue as to what circular reasoning is. While 120 years for man is pretty impressive it isn't unknown. When claiming significantly more years it strains credulity.

Jesus Christ and theresurrection strain credulity by science standards and yet you believe it. Why?

[ksfisher]

DING DING DING. There has been considerable disagreement with how to teach evolution at BYU over the years. It is still an issue of debate and disagreement.

 

But, under the scenario that you are putting forth the Brethren, which are part of the leadership of BYU, seem to have no control over what is being taught there.  And if, as you say, what is being taught is contrary to the doctrines of the church, that would seem to indicate that BYU is in a state of institutional apostasy.  And the Brethren have no control over this?  If the Brethren aren't in charge, and the people who have been appointed by the Brethren to run the school aren't in charge, then who is?

[Rob Osborn]

But, under the scenario that you are putting forth the Brethren, which are part of the leadership of BYU, seem to have no control over what is being taught there.  And if, as you say, what is being taught is contrary to the doctrines of the church, that would seem to indicate that BYU is in a state of institutional apostasy.  And the Brethren have no control over this?  If the Brethren aren't in charge, and the people who have been appointed by the Brethren to run the school aren't in charge, then who is?

The classes at BYU that teach evolution present the students with an evolution packet by the Brthren stating the official doctrine of the church which disagrees with what is taught otherwise as fact. It has to do with accredation.

[ksfisher]

The classes at BYU that teach evolution present the students with an evolution packet by the Brthren stating the official doctrine of the church which disagrees with what is taught otherwise as fact. It has to do with accredation.

So who is in charge of what is being taught?  Why are the Brethren pouring tithing money into a school that teaches what you say is false doctrine?

[thesometimesaint]

Jesus Christ and theresurrection strain credulity by science standards and yet you believe it. Why?

Simply because I do believe it. About 40% of all US scientists are Theists.

[thesometimesaint]

The classes at BYU that teach evolution present the students with an evolution packet by the Brthren stating the official doctrine of the church which disagrees with what is taught otherwise as fact. It has to do with accredation.

No it does not. Here is what it says.

 

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.... Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, April 7, 1931].

 

There are plenty of accredited universities that don't have fancy museums dedicated to paleontology. BYU has one of the best.

Edited March 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

So who is in charge of what is being taught?  Why are the Brethren pouring tithing money into a school that teaches what you say is false doctrine?

I know, its kind of a double standard but in order to be an accredited school and provide schooling and thence jobs the byu board has gone this route. There is still debate over the issue.

[thesometimesaint]

I know, its kind of a double standard but in order to be an accredited school and provide schooling and thence jobs the byu board has gone this route. There is still debate over the issue.

 

There is no double standard. There is no debate. Evolution is a fact. What was/is/will continue to be debated by scientists is exactly the forms that evolution took.

[ksfisher]

I know, its kind of a double standard but in order to be an accredited school and provide schooling and thence jobs the byu board has gone this route. There is still debate over the issue.

So the First Presidency and the Quomum of the Twelve are using tithing money to lead young people astray?  I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, but it all sounds very fantastic.  A church institution of higher learning, whose board of trustees consists of men whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators is teaching ideas which you say are contrary to the official doctrines of the church, all in the name of accredidation?  And the students in these classes are given information at the beginning of the class which tells them that what they are being taught is false, but they are expected to learn it anyway?

[MDalby]

Here is a response to this question form the March 1998 Ensign

 

 

The Length of the Lives of the Ancient Patriarchs

Response by Thomas R. Valletta

Methuselah was 969 years old when he died (see Gen. 5:27), Noah was 950 (see Gen. 9:29), and Adam was 930 (see Gen. 5:5). Why did these and other ancient patriarchs who lived before the Flood live so long?

 

It is important to consider three points before attempting to answer why. First, modern revelation supports the scriptural indication that many Old Testament patriarchs lived incredibly long lives (see Moses 8:1–13; D&C 107:41–53). Second, early prophets of this dispensation understood these scriptural references to be literal (see Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 12:37; Wilford Woodruff, in Messages of the First Presidency, edited by James R. Clark, 6 volumes [1965–75], 3:253). And third, early historians took these statements literally. The first-century historian Josephus tells us, for example, “Let no one, upon comparing the lives of the ancients with our lives, and with the few years which we now live, think that what we have said of them is false; or make the shortness of our lives at present an argument that neither did they attain to so long a duration of life” (Antiquities of the Jews, book 1, chapter 3, paragraph 9).

 

The question is not completely resolved in scripture, but several possible answers are implied. Some have interpreted 2 Nephi 2:21 [2 Ne. 2:21] as referring to those living before the Flood: “The days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh.” Others have suggested that it was righteousness that increased the length of their lives. Josephus asserted that “God afforded [the ancients] a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries, which would not have afforded the time of foretelling [the periods of the stars] unless they had lived six hundred years” (Antiquities of the Jews, book 1, chapter 3, paragraph 9).

 

President Brigham Young likewise attributed the patriarchs’ longevity to their obedience to the “laws of life.” He urged the early Saints to cease “wasting their lives and the lives of their fellow-beings, and the precious time God has given us to improve our minds and bodies … , so that the longevity of the human family may begin to return” (in Journal of Discourses, 14:89). A passage in the Book of Mormon supports the idea that the Lord will “lengthen out” the days of the righteous (Hel. 7:24).

 

Others have suggested that the earth’s environment may have changed radically at the time of the Flood and that this accounts for the decrease in longevity immediately thereafter (see Moses 8:17).

 

Among other possible purposes for the prolonged life span of the ancient patriarchs was the Lord’s need to establish truth through his law of witnesses. In Lectures on Faith, we read: “It is easily to be seen, not only how the knowledge of God came into the world, but upon what principle it was preserved; that from the time it was first communicated, it was retained in the minds of righteous men, who taught not only their own posterity but the world; so that there was no need of a new revelation to man, after Adam’s creation to Noah, to give them the first idea or notion of the existence of … the true and living God” (Joseph Smith, compiler [1985], 20).

 

All these factors are feasible explanations. They are not mutually exclusive, nor do they exhaust the possibilities.

[Rob Osborn]

There is no double standard. There is no debate. Evolution is a fact. What was/is/will continue to be debated by scientists is exactly the forms that evolution took.

The darwinian model of evolution is not a fact.

[thesometimesaint]

The darwinian model of evolution is not a fact.

 

Incorrect.

[Rob Osborn]

So the First Presidency and the Quomum of the Twelve are using tithing money to lead young people astray?  I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, but it all sounds very fantastic.  A church institution of higher learning, whose board of trustees consists of men whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators is teaching ideas which you say are contrary to the official doctrines of the church, all in the name of accredidation?  And the students in these classes are given information at the beginning of the class which tells them that what they are being taught is false, but they are expected to learn it anyway?

Pretty much- yep!

[Rob Osborn]

Incorrect.

Ok then, show me every step of evolution from one species. CFR

[thesometimesaint]

Ok then, show me every step of evolution from one species. CFR

 

I don't need to show every step.

Just a causal link between the two. IE; Evolution of the whale.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

[Rob Osborn]

I don't need to show every step.

Just a causal link between the two. IE; Evolution of the whale.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

If you cannot make your CFR then it isnt a fact.

Next item please.