Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

First Humans Adam And Eve?

Recommended Posts

I believe we are descendants of Adam and Eve. I believe they were our first parents. I also believe there is some justification for evolution. I don't know how it come about but I feel that all these type of answers will become nothing more than a "V-8" moment when we see how it was all accomplished.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe we are descendants of Adam and Eve. I believe they were our first parents. I also believe there is some justification for evolution. I don't know how it come about but I feel that all these type of answers will become nothing more than a "V-8" moment when we see how it was all accomplished.

I agree, but I think that moment can only come if we keep adding to revelations from God.

If we take away we are decreasing our own intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post

You then said something about my posts suggesting the idea of superior knowledge and wisdom and asked if I wanted to elaborate.

I was basically saying God has it, and scientists who disagree with God don't.

While I think that we are in spiritual mode of Adam and Eve (Adam and Eve being the first symbolically spiritually aware humans) it would be hard-pressed to logically follow that they were literal man and woman. The scriptures do not necessarily attest to this since the scriptures argue from a symbolic analogous point of view.

To say that God has the superior knowledge is a prima facie statement. Of course, he has superior knowledge. Where you get in trouble, I believe, is when you say that scientists who disagree with God do not have superior knowledge. I say this for several reasons:

One, you have assumed that God has presented his views regarding evolution to either you directly or through some other source, indirectly. This subject is neither presented in the scriptures nor in latter-day revelation. In fact, the role of evolution in the church has been rather contentious. Therefore, we can only assume that you have come to this conclusions based on assumptions.

Two, scientists come to their conclusions using the only device God has given us, i.e., the brain and it's deductive abilities. Your statement that the deductive reasoning you have come up with is better than the deductive reasoning that the scientists have. This is untenable. Not only is this inaccurate but arrogant.

I have read Katherine the Great's posts for the last several years and find in her the same consistency that I would expect of any good scientist. I have also noticed that she possesses the same spiritual makeup as any good LDS. I fail to see any inconsistency between the two.

Share this post


Link to post

While I think that we are in spiritual mode of Adam and Eve (Adam and Eve being the first symbolically spiritually aware humans) it would be hard-pressed to logically follow that they were literal man and woman.

Why do you have trouble accepting the idea that we are literal sons and daughters of Adam and Eve?

What is it about that idea that you find so difficult to accept, exactly?

The scriptures do not necessarily attest to this since the scriptures argue from a symbolic analogous point of view.

That is your interpreation and I disagree with it.

We are told point blank in many scriptures that they are literally our parents.

To say that God has the superior knowledge is a prima facie statement. Of course, he has superior knowledge. Where you get in trouble, I believe, is when you say that scientists who disagree with God do not have superior knowledge.

How, in your persectrive, can a person who disagrees with God have superior knowledge and wisdom?

Please explain that one to me.

I say this for several reasons:

Oh, good. You were going to. I respond line by line. I'm still reading. :P

One, you have assumed that God has presented his views regarding evolution to either you directly or through some other source, indirectly.

No I haven't.

I simply said that a scientist (or any person for that matter) who disagrees with God does not have superior knowledge and wisdom.

How can they, in your perspective, if they are in disagreement with God?

This subject is neither presented in the scriptures nor in latter-day revelation.

Which subject are you talking about?

I'm referring to our descendancy from Adam and Eve, and yes that is presented in the scriptures (which include latter-day revelation).

In fact, the role of evolution in the church has been rather contentious. Therefore, we can only assume that you have come to this conclusions based on assumptions.

You may assume that if you want to. I am making no assumptions on this issue.

We are clearly told that we are literal descendants of Adam and Eve.

Two, scientists come to their conclusions using the only device God has given us, i.e., the brain and it's deductive abilities.

A brain is pretty much like an opinion... everybody has one.

I think we should use ours to learn what God has told us, directly.

Your statement that the deductive reasoning you have come up with is better than the deductive reasoning that the scientists have. This is untenable. Not only is this inaccurate but arrogant.

I never said that my belief is based on deductive reasoning.

My belief concerning all of us being descendants of Adam and Eve is pure revelation from God.

It wasn't necessary for me to interpret anything. I simply believe what God has told me.

I have read Katherine the Great's posts for the last several years and find in her the same consistency that I would expect of any good scientist. I have also noticed that she possesses the same spiritual makeup as any good LDS. I fail to see any inconsistency between the two.

No comment.

I am not interested in your opinion of Katherine.

I am interested in knowing why you don't accept revelations from God.

Share this post


Link to post

'Paul Ray' writes

Why do you have trouble accepting the idea that we are literal sons and daughters of Adam and Eve?

What is it about that idea that you find so difficult to accept, exactly?

First of all, it would have to discount the countless pieces of evidence we have for peoples who lived prior to the advent of Adam and Eve. It would immediately demolish our understanding of hominids from the paleolithic to the neolithic. It would also diminish the rise of cities and civilization including those that began shortly after the last Ice Age negating the Egypt, Akkad, Indo-Europeans, etc. If Adam and Eve lived then these civilizations didn't. Afterall, if you are to accept the scripture account then you would have to agree with the Bishop of Ussher who stated that Adam was born in the year 4004 BCE.

Secondly, the entymology of the names attest to their symbolic values. Adam does not mean man but earthling, as made from earth. This is direct parallel with the mythological nature of Sumerian where man was created from the dirt mixed with the blood of a god.

Third, it would also Jewish thinking on the subject which treats the creation of Adam and Eve in a symbolic manner.

That is your interpreation and I disagree with it. We are told point blank in many scriptures that they are literally our parents.

Why? Are scriptures only literal? Can they be symbolic as well? Can you post these scriptures?

I simply said that a scientist (or any person for that matter) who disagrees with God does not have superior knowledge and wisdom.

How can they, in your perspective, if they are in disagreement with God?

This can only be said if they disagree with the scriptures which is not necessarily the same as disagreeing with God. Scriptures are written by men under the inspiration of God. Scientists work under a different inspiration. In earlier times the inspirations were considered the same.

Which subject are you talking about?

Evolution in general, Adam and Eve in specificity. One leasds from the other.

We are clearly told that we are literal descendants of Adam and Eve.

Let me direct your reading to the discussions between James Talmadge and Joseph Fielding Smith, "Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding "

I never said that my belief is based on deductive reasoning.

You didn't have to...your reasoning did. Your belief is that what God says in scripture is literal. I don't accept that. Your belief that "all of us being descendants of Adam and Eve is pure revelation from God." is based on scripture. I can respect that, but I disagree with the literalness of it. I simply feel that it is hard to believe in a couple were placed on the earth to begin all mankind. It simply contradicts all scientific evidence.

It wasn't necessary for me to interpret anything. I simply believe what God has told me.

I assume that you mean what God has told you through the scriptures. As we know the scriptures are to believed as long as they are translated correctly. I think this is a area I would like to see more revelation. As it is, however, the belief in Adam and Eve means absolutely nothing in comparison to an acceptance of Jesus as a savior which means in the grand scheme of things Adam and Eve means little in comparison.

Share this post


Link to post

I was basically saying God has it, and scientists who disagree with God don't.

I still don't understand why you interpret evidence the way you do.

I'm getting the strong impression that you just don't know enough about basic Biology to understand my thoughts on this topic. If that is the case, it's really no use debating with you over it. Not that I really care that much, but it is mildly insulting that you would accuse me of not believing God when I simply don't interpret scripture in the same fashion you do. I have a very deep belief in and respect for God as our Father and Creator. I believe Him to be a God of reason and order, and not at all prone to playing cosmic "mind games" with His children.

I have read Katherine the Great's posts for the last several years and find in her the same consistency that I would expect of any good scientist. I have also noticed that she possesses the same spiritual makeup as any good LDS. I fail to see any inconsistency between the two.

Thanks Ace. That means a lot to me. :P

Share this post


Link to post

If one must insist on an Adam and Eve, why not think of them as the symbolic first family of modern man which emerged ,as a distinct species, on the Serengeti some 200,000 years ago? That way, you can merge this creation story into what we know about the evolution of Modern Man.

Share this post


Link to post

If one must insist on an Adam and Eve, why not think of them as the symbolic first family of modern man which emerged ,as a distinct species, on the Serengeti some 200,000 years ago? That way, you can merge this creation story into what we know about the evolution of Modern Man.

The problem I have with that is that they walked out of the garden straight into an agricultural world. Adam was a farmer--not a hunter/gatherer.

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, it would have to discount the countless pieces of evidence we have for peoples who lived prior to the advent of Adam and Eve.

I'm not suggesting that we discount the evidence, just the way the evidence is interpreted by many scientists whose reasoning is inconsistent with what God has told us through his prophets.

We are told by God, through his prophets, that we are literal descendants of Adam and Eve, and that Adam and Eve were created by God as his literal children.

Secondly, the entymology of the names attest to their symbolic values. Adam does not mean man but earthling, as made from earth. This is direct parallel with the mythological nature of Sumerian where man was created from the dirt mixed with the blood of a god.

The fact that the names of Adam and Eve have symbolic value does not negate the idea that we are their descendants.

Third, it would also Jewish thinking on the subject which treats the creation of Adam and Eve in a symbolic manner.

And we know for a fact that Jewish thinking was always spot on the truth too, don't we.

Give me a break.

Why?

The word of God on this issue is as plain as word can be.

Are scriptures only literal? Can they be symbolic as well?

In this case it should be perfectly clear to everybody that the scriptures teach that we are the literal descendants of Adam and Eve.

If you want to interpret words symbollically, fine.

Just realize that you are taking words that have a clear meaning and symbollizing them.

... for some reason.

I am asking you: Why

Why does what scientists tell you affect how you interpret the scriptures?

Can you post these scriptures?

I could find the scriptures for you but I think you are capable of finding them for yourself.

I'd just like to know why you reject clear teachings in words of God's prophets just because a scientist says something.

Why don't you try talking to scientists and tell them that they should interpet the evidence differently?

This can only be said if they disagree with the scriptures which is not necessarily the same as disagreeing with God.

By "scriptures" I'm referring to words that are written by God's prophets, by inspiration from God.

If words aren't inspired by God then they are not scriptures.

So, yes, they are the necessarily the same thing, at least to me. And you are now talking to me.

Scriptures are written by men under the inspiration of God. Scientists work under a different inspiration.

I think you just buried yourself with that one.

Why do you accept the work of scientists when they do not work under inspiration from God?

In earlier times the inspirations were considered the same.

I do know some scientists who are inspired by God and they are always in agreement with scripture.

Evolution in general, Adam and Eve in specificity. One leasds from the other.

Yes. Thank you for admitting that we are still on the topic of this thread.

I'm just trying to get you to tell me why you reject the words of God that are written plainly in the scriptures.

If you don't realize you are doing that then just cite the scriptures on this issue and explain how you are in agreement with them... all of them... and how the interpretations of scientists are also in agreement with the words of God... and I will then admit that I am mistaken.

... and if you really need some help just let me know and I will find some scriptures for you that tell you we are their literal children.

Your belief is that what God says in scripture is literal.

Not in every instance, but concerning this specific issue, yes.

I don't accept that.

That is obvious to me. I'd like you to explain why.

Are you capable of doing that for me?

Your belief that "all of us being descendants of Adam and Eve is pure revelation from God." is based on scripture. I can respect that, but I disagree with the literalness of it.

So help me get this straight.

If several prophets of God said very clearly and plainly, in one way or another, that we are literal descendants of Adam and Eve, you would not accept the idea that we are their literal descendants?

Is that what you are telling me?

If so, why?

Why do you interpret the scriptures in light of interpretions of evidence from scientists?

I simply feel that it is hard to believe in a couple were placed on the earth to begin all mankind.

Why?

What is so hard to accept about that idea?

It simply contradicts all scientific evidence.

I don't believe it contradicts the evidence. I think it contradicts the way the evidence is interpreted.

I assume that you mean what God has told you through the scriptures.

That would be a safe assumption, since God has also done that, but I was actually thinking that God has told me, personally, through inspiration.

Do you believe in receiving personal revelation from God, for yourself?

Do you think scientists can be inspired by God?

I hope you're not basing your beliefs on what you think with your own brain, alone.

I hope you are asking God for guidance, and getting it.

As we know the scriptures are to believed as long as they are translated correctly.

Yes, and I would say the same thing about the need to translate scientific evidence correctly

The evidence, itself, is true. I have no problems with admitting that much.

How we interpret the evidence may not be the, or a, right way to interpret the evidence, though.

I think we should ask God to help us interpret all the evidence.

I think this is an area I would like to see more revelation.

I think we have enough to make it perfectly clear.

As it is, however, the belief in Adam and Eve means absolutely nothing in comparison to an acceptance of Jesus as a savior which means in the grand scheme of things Adam and Eve means little in comparison.

Well, yeah, if you're going to get technical about it.

I still think a correct understanding of Adam and Eve as our parents is essential to understanding all truth, though.

Share this post


Link to post

I still think a correct understanding of Adam and Eve as our parents is essential to understanding all truth, though.

Do you feel close to "understanding all truth?"

Share this post


Link to post

Do you feel close to "understanding all truth?"

On this issue I think I am closer than you are.

You seem to defer to interpretations of scientists to help you understand what God tells us.

... while I trust what God tells me, personally, and in other words from prophets.

Do you really value the interpretations of scientists concerning evidence more than you value the word of God?

Share this post


Link to post

In light of some of our conversation on another thread I find that delightfully amusing!

I think that's because you think I am also wrong on that issue.

Just try to realize that other issue was about dishonesty, not having job security or being charitable.

:P

Share this post


Link to post

I think that's because you think I am also wrong on that issue.

Just try to realize that other issue was about dishonesty, not having job security or being charitable.

:P

Is a literal belief in Adam and Eve as the first humans necessary in Mormonism? I would think not, but I'm an apostate, so I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post

Is a literal belief in Adam and Eve as the first humans necessary in Mormonism? I would think not, but I'm an apostate, so I don't know.

If Mormonism includes the acceptance of all the words of God and the rejection of none, Yes.

You can receive salvation while rejecting truth, but you can't be exalted by denying the Holy Ghost.

Share this post


Link to post

If Mormonism includes the acceptance of all the words of God and the rejection of none, Yes.

You can receive salvation while rejecting truth, but you can't be exalted by denying the Holy Ghost.

But what if the word of God regarding Adam and Eve is figurative and not literal?

Share this post


Link to post

Is a literal belief in Adam and Eve as the first humans necessary in Mormonism? I would think not, but I'm an apostate, so I don't know.

Yes it is if you believe in the scriptures and words of the modern Prophets. I am currently reading an interesting book called: "Earth in the Begining" by Eric Skousen. I have not finished yet so can't yet give my evaluation of it, but it does seem to try to harmonize both sides of the Evolution arguement.

Share this post


Link to post

But what if the word of God regarding Adam and Eve is figurative and not literal?

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.

What I am particularly focused on now is the idea that we are children, literally, of Adam and Eve.

... and I know for a fact that we are.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes it is if you believe in the scriptures and words of the modern Prophets. I am currently reading an interesting book called: "Earth in the Begining" by Eric Skousen. I have not finished yet so can't yet give my evaluation of it, but it does seem to try to harmonize both sides of the Evolution arguement.

My boss at the church office building believed, as katherine seems to, that Adam and Eve were not literally the first humans. I never got the impression he was an unbeliever in the scriptures or the words of the prophets.

Share this post


Link to post

My boss at the church office building believed, as katherine seems to, that Adam and Eve were not literally the first humans. I never got the impression he was an unbeliever in the scriptures or the words of the prophets.

Some people accept some scriptures and not others.

... just like some people accept the Holy Bible but not the Book of Mormon.

I don't think it's wrong to not know something but to reject truth gets people in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people accept some scriptures and not others.

... just like some people accept the Holy Bible but not the Book of Mormon.

I don't think it's wrong to not know something but to reject truth gets people in trouble.

Which scriptures would a nonliteralist be rejecting?

Share this post


Link to post

Which scriptures would a nonliteralist be rejecting?

Think about it and let me know what you think. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Think about it and let me know what you think. :P

I'm just trying to think of a scripture that absolutely must be taken as literal. I can't think of any off the top of my head. You're the one insisting on a literal interpretation, so I thought you might have an idea as to why it's necessary. What I'm getting so far is that you have prayed about it and gotten a spiritual answer that it is so.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just trying to think of a scripture that absolutely must be taken as literal. I can't think of any off the top of my head. You're the one insisting on a literal interpretation, so I thought you might have an idea as to why it's necessary.

We can choose how to interpret any scriptures but I think we should choose to interpret them God's way.

What I'm getting so far is that you have prayed about it and gotten a spiritual answer that it is so.

Yes.

I was asking why someone would accept an interpretation from scientists and not just take the words literally.

Why lean toward interpretations from scientists?

Why not just accept what prophets of God tell us when they say something clearly in words?

...

And btw, just in case you missed it, I also brought out the fact that scientific evidence exists which can substantiate the idea that the universe is eternal, but for some reason many people favor the "big bang" theory... instead.

The evidence can be interpreted either way.

Why do you think people choose their own way?

Share this post


Link to post

Ignoring all the tedious and moot hullabaloo about how to interpret the scriptures there are a few things/claims that were mentioned in the thread the merit some greater clarification/justification.

One claim is that we are not all literal descendants of a single human pair from some 6,000 years ago.

Because there have been human populations isolated from other humans for tens of thousands of years. We can see this through their culture, language, technology and dna.
Another claim is:
What I am particularly focused on now is the idea that we are children, literally, of Adam and Eve. ... and I know for a fact that we are.
But I have seen very little in the thread to adequately justify either position. There has been allusion and appeal to claims of understanding "higher authority" but little in the way that can be taken as a walk-away material for discussion elsewhere. And if we can't do that then /yawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...