How empirically accurate is Genesis?

[Traveler]

I have my personal point of view about the evolution and creation of man. I do not know if I am correct but I have formed my view and opinion having done considerable research and careful consideration (including prayer - seeking divine direction). The bottom line – though I have form my view point and opinion I realize that since I do not have “all the facts” I am unable to resolve some seeming conflicts. I thought I would share one of my conflicts with the forum and see what others think.

According to our LDS doctrine and most Christian doctrine; Adam began his mortal existence about 6,000 years ago. Prior to Adam becoming mortal – the doctrine is that he and Eve were the first man and woman and prior to Adam and Eve man did not exist on earth. In addition there was no death.

Now to the conflict I see. There are excavations that date human like creatures with DNA as similar to us as we are to each other throughout the world; to well over 10,000 years ago – specifically around 14,000 years ago. Well beyond possible error in the multiple dating methods used. But even more interesting is that these very similar human creatures not only created tools but they built places of worship. They worship a g-d or g-ds. They lived and died and left traces and evidence. Is the evidence “truthful”?

Were they creations of the same G-d that created us? Since they died we can assume that they were subject to the wages of sin – Is Jesus also their Savior? Or have they died without redemption? I am especially curious about any non-LDS points of view.

The Traveler

[bytor2112]

For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away

Yep...I think this may explain dinosaurs and other mysteries

[RMGuy]

Personally? I think there is a lot of parables, and life lessons in the old testament. Do I think that it is factually accurate? No.

-RM

[JudoMinja]

According to our LDS doctrine and most Christian doctrine; Adam began his mortal existence about 6,000 years ago.

I personally find this inaccurate. I cannot think of anywhere that it conclusively states Adam's mortal existence started or that the Fall occurred around 6,000 years ago. The closest we get to a direct statement that the earth itself will exist for about 7,000 years is D&C 77:6-7, but even this seems like it could be talking about a different measurement of time or that it may be using the terms "continuance" and "temporal existence" more in an attempt to describe to works and purposes of the earth than its actual calendar life-span. The uncertainty of the actual meaning of these numbers and time measurements in the accounts of the creation in Genesis, Moses, and Abraham grows when you start comparing all the cross references- some of them talking about the time of the creation, some of the plan for our entire time-span of mortality, and some of the events of the second coming and the end of the measurement of time.

Some other factors to consider in your question:

Science can only accurately measure what is right in front of us. Whenever we take the very accurate conclusions we reach in doing measurements in a lab and/or with something we can easily directly observe and then try to extrapolate our conclusions outward, we are doing so with many assumptions that data will rely on certain consistancies. However, we've seen with the attempts to make scientific predictions that the further forward we extrapolate something the more innaccurate our results become. We can tweak our formulae to account for these differences, but such takes time, patience, and mistakes. The same thing happens when we try to extrapolate backwards in time, so it is quite possible that our DNA "evidence" is not as accurate as we think it is.

How we define "man" is also important. We believe Adam was the first "man", but what exactly does this mean? If God used evolutionary processes for creation, whether Adam was the result of that evolution or created separately, then there would have most certainly been other "like-man" creatures on the earth at the time of the Fall. The lack of death may have applied only to that which was in the Garden or may be referencing the first spiritual creation- that all things were created in spirit before created physically/temporally.

Like you, I've developed my own personal view concerning our creation through careful study of our scriptural accounts and of science, looking for where they correlate and connect. I too still have some holes in my thoughts and theories, but I believe we will get the closest and most accurate understanding we can possibly reach through careful comparisons and cross-referencing between all the scriptural accounts and our current scientific discoveries.

[Traveler]

My own speculations, not doctrine, but I don't think we are the first world to be on the earth.

(Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33 - 35)

33 And worlds without number have I created; ...

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

I see life that predates the Bible as being from another era - or another world.

A new world will be built on the ruins of our world in the future:

(Book of Mormon | Ether 13:9)

9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

it seems new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds - at least that is how I see it. We're of coarse not told much about the other worlds, nor are we told the specifics of the creation process - no official doctrines on it, so everyone is free to think their own thoughts on it... I like that the church does not answer all questions and allows us the freedom of personal opinion/thought on some matters.

The idea that our world is evolving on the ruins of previous worlds is more "Eastern" thought than it is traditional Western Christian. There is one interesting sidebar to an ancient variation of reincarnation which is reminiscent of modern evolution - that is that one life supplants itself on that life which preceded it - kind of like a food chain but in thinking that advances to civilizations supplanting on previous civilizations - world supplanting on previous worlds - galaxies supplanting on previous galaxies, universes supplanting on previous universes and so on as the very definition and meaning of eternal.

Currently science is entertaining the idea that our universe was created from the collapse of more complex (more dimensional) universe or universes. At the same time that many atheists involved in science project that G-d is illogical because G-d, being complex creating things less complex, leaves a great gap in the initial premises of where or how did G-d come from if only possibility is the more complex creates the less complex - often do not realize the same problem exist in trying to explain where a more complex universe came from.

But there is another idea - that is the path of intelligence - the basis of which is referenced in the first paragraph of this post. That is that intelligence is able to learn from what precedes, make modification and intelligently advance the complexity of existence. This concept is very LDS and explains both how “we got here” and how G-d got to be G-d.

This puts our life as we are now experiencing it not just an experience - but much more interestingly a means to obtain a higher intelligence - not just for ourselves but all around us - which is for LDS the essence of being divine.

So now back to the question that began this thread - How involved are we and how much are we tied to live and exist on earth not just now but to that which lived and existed previously. That we are connected genetically may only be the tip of the iceberg. Is it possible that the earth is evolving intelligently and we are not just connected because we now live but because we are learning and thus existing - line upon line upon line - and that salvation and eternal possibility is not individual at all but necessary to sustain that which is eternal (G-d) as divine and eternal.

The Traveler

[slamjet]

According to our LDS doctrine and most Christian doctrine; Adam began his mortal existence about 6,000 years ago.

I believe it would be more accurately to say that according to LDS tradition or legend. I've yet to see a conference talk about the timing other than (if I remember correctly) calling the 1000 year dispensations as periods and not years.

[mikbone]

My current view (I reserve the right to change my mind due to further revelation or scientific knowledge).

The Earth is freaking old. Days 1-5 likely took near 4.6 billion years. I believe that when Joseph Smith said, "This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live." I think that he was basing his comments on a vision that The Lord gave him wherein he saw a first generation star go supernova and then that debris was organized into an new protoplanetary disk, which later produced our Earth.

I have no problem with Man being on Earth only 6K years. MEE (Mass Extinction Events) have occurred many times during the history of our planet. I bet that Heavenly Father was teaching Jehovah how to create life, and that He did the trial and error learning on dianosaurs, neanderthals, etc. All God would have to do, is set up the Garden of Eden by preceding it with a MEE and then travel to Earth and create Adam and Eve.

Quick and Dirty.

Edited March 10, 2012 by mikbone

[Traveler]

I personally find this inaccurate. I cannot think of anywhere that it conclusively states Adam's mortal existence started or that the Fall occurred around 6,000 years ago. The closest we get to a direct statement that the earth itself will exist for about 7,000 years is D&C 77:6-7, but even this seems like it could be talking about a different measurement of time or that it may be using the terms "continuance" and "temporal existence" more in an attempt to describe to works and purposes of the earth than its actual calendar life-span.

...

The time since Adam can be traced in scripture with a simple calculator. Starting with Genesis chapter 5 we can add up the years between births and deaths and create a time line between Adam and Noah. This of course has nothing to do with how long creation was or of other events prior to the fall of Adam.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I believe it would be more accurately to say that according to LDS tradition or legend. I've yet to see a conference talk about the timing other than (if I remember correctly) calling the 1000 year dispensations as periods and not years.

Do you agree that the millennium is of the order of 1,000 years?

The Traveler

[bytebear]

Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 says:

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

A. 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.

I think the key is the term "temporal existence" which can be interpreted to mean excluding the Garden of Eden and before. Also, although we know that the last seal is 1000 years, but there is no specifics that say the other 6 are equally spaced. The church manuals say they are "time periods". And when you consider we are in the 6th dispensation, and the New Testament was the 5th dispensation, there was a good 1800 years between the two. So when did one end and the other begin? And why is the 5th dispensation staggered in time with the Jews in the old world and the Nephites in the new world? How do parallel dispensations work?

[HEthePrimate]

Was Genesis meant to be taken as empirically accurate?

[QuoththeRaven]

I believe the Book of Genesis is an inspired account of spiritual truths -- as opposed to historical fact -- taught in allegory to an ancient nomadic people (which is why a garden sounds like paradise, for example).

It's my understanding that the Jews looked at it that way as well, and that the idea that the bible is a history book is maybe a couple hundred years old at most.

[marshac]

Was Genesis meant to be taken as empirically accurate?

I personally don't think so- considering how old Genesis is and how scientifically advanced we were at the time, it seems as though it's a story told to children incapable of actually understanding (or believing) the truth. From the perspective of someone that long ago, simply saying "God did it, and this is the crude progression" is much more digestible (and believable) than going into the details of how creation was actually performed.

Take Genesis 1:1 for example- God creates the heavens and the earth.... with light appearing in Genesis 1:2.

So what's going on here? I view this as-

Genesis 1:1-2- stellar gasses are condensing, aggregates of mass are forming, and our primordial solar system is taking shape. The earth in a crude sense is born.

Genesis 1:3- Nuclear fusion begins and the sun is born.

I also find it interesting that the "Heavens" in their completed form don't officially arrive on the scene until Genesis 1:8... considering the vast distances of space, it quite literally take some time for the first photons of light from adjacent systems to arrive- the heavens (stars?) would not instantaneously twinkle into existence at the moment of their creation as viewed from earth.

So again- telling this to someone thousands of years ago... it would have been a lot easier to simply say "God created the earth, then he made day/night" and omit the details.

A few other things- the Hebrew "Bereshith bara elohim" found in 1:1 talks about God 'creating' as in an act-in-progress rather than 'created' which carries with it the idea that the task has been completed. Using Young's Literal Translation of the Bible makes this a bit more clear as it reads

"In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth"

Personally I wouldn't want to use YLT as a daily reader, but it is nice to reference sometimes in order to get some idea of potential alternate translations of the underlying scripture.