Jump to content

Whence cometh Eve?


Ron Beron

Recommended Posts

To start I would like to beg everyones indulgence for a bit and simply ask the question....

Where did Eve come from? Was it a rib or what? I have some thoughts I would like to share but I wanted to hear those of others first.

Link to comment

I believe Eve had biological parents which were homo sapiens, who in turn descended from a long line of preAdamite homo sapiens which species evolved from lower forms of life. Eve's spirit is of course, a literal child of God.

Is there anything scriptural that brings you to this or is it purely scientific?

Link to comment

I think some popular stories that were untrue got attached to the creation account. Rather than God correcting the account he let man believe what they wanted. I see so much support for evolution that i pick and choose which part of Genisis i believe. I doubt the rib story is inspired but rather a story of man interlopated into the Bible.

Now if the account was true i doubt it can be disproven. Their descendants intermarried with so much man that was the product of evolution that it completely obscurred Adam & Eve's unique DNA.

Link to comment

To start I would like to beg everyones indulgence for a bit and simply ask the question....

Where did Eve come from? Was it a rib or what? I have some thoughts I would like to share but I wanted to hear those of others first.

Lillith's younger sister.

Link to comment
I believe Eve had biological parents which were homo sapiens, who in turn descended from a long line of preAdamite homo sapiens which species evolved from lower forms of life. Eve's spirit is of course, a literal child of God.
Is there anything scriptural that brings you to this or is it purely scientific?

Nothing that contradicts scripture or LDS doctrine. I'm basically filling in the blanks where the Church has not. I hypothesize a creative period/state in which there is death. The Church itself says there was such a period except that no properties are applied to it (such as death or no death). Hence, there is no doctrine for or against evolution (there are other proofs for this). One scripture showing this creative state is 2 Nephi 2:22 wherein we see that the state of no death came about after the creation was complete. Thus one could say, evolution was God's modus operandi for creation until God deemed all was ready and two people were born with literal spirit children of God as spirits and placed in the garden into a state of no death to await the Fall; after which evolution continues apace.

Of course the only things I would teach for doctrine here is the creative state, no doctrine for or against evolution, and that Adam and Eve's spirits are literal spirit children of God. The interesting thing to me is that doctrine happens to comprise most of my hypothesis and it takes very little to connect the dots after that.

Since there is no doctrine on the matter, I have to decide if there is evolution or not. I pick evolution. Since no properties are applied to the doctrinal creative state, I select the property of death. And the statements that Adam brought death into the world, that there was no death before the Fall, and that Adam was the first man ("man" being defined as a physical body in combination with a spirit child of God) are all true under my hypothesis.

When Paulus taught Timotheus: He said in 1Tim 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

The word formed mean, plasso shape or fabricate. So, I don't think the Bible taught what you say.

Adam would've been born first and/or the first placed into the garden and/or the first homo sapiens born whoose spirit is a spirit child of God. etc. No conflict. Also in the OT, the notion of the fabrication of man is evident. Why couldn't evolution qualify as fabrication?

Link to comment

Nothing that contradicts scripture or LDS doctrine. I'm basically filling in the blanks where the Church has not. I hypothesize a creative period/state in which there is death. The Church itself says there was such a period except that no properties are applied to it (such as death or no death). Hence, there is no doctrine for or against evolution (there are other proofs for this). One scripture showing this creative state is 2 Nephi 2:22 wherein we see that the state of no death came about after the creation was complete. Thus one could say, evolution was God's modus operandi for creation until God deemed all was ready and two people were born with literal spirit children of God as spirits and placed in the garden into a state of no death to await the Fall; after which evolution continues apace.

Of course the only things I would teach for doctrine here is the creative state, no doctrine for or against evolution, and that Adam and Eve's spirits are literal spirit children of God. The interesting thing to me is that doctrine happens to comprise most of my hypothesis and it takes very little to connect the dots after that.

Since there is no doctrine on the matter, I have to decide if there is evolution or not. I pick evolution. Since no properties are applied to the doctrinal creative state, I select the property of death. And the statements that Adam brought death into the world, that there was no death before the Fall, and that Adam was the first man ("man" being defined as a physical body in combination with a spirit child of God) are all true under my hypothesis.

Adam would've been born first and/or the first placed into the garden and/or the first homo sapiens born whoose spirit is a spirit child of God. etc. No conflict. Also in the OT, the notion of the fabrication of man is evident. Why couldn't evolution qualify as fabrication?

I understand this is your personal view, but there are some things that I don't understand how you can reconcile.

1) 7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

2) Adam was the first flesh upon the earth. It also states he was the first man. In my understanding, this pretty much rules out any pre-adamites on this earth.

3) Aside from contradicting this verse, if Adam was born of of Pre-adamite parents, and was the first man, then that makes the pre-adamites not man. If they were not human, then to jump species lines in one generation is quite a feat for evolution.

4) The above verse states that everything was created spiritually before they were created physically, so again, in my mind, this rules out the need for evolution as part of the world that Adam was the first flesh of.

I understand there is a lot of room for different points of view on this, but for me, Adam and Eve being born of non-human parents is just too evolution heavy.

Link to comment

Seminary taught me it was literal, never had any reason to question that particular aspect of the story. . . because "God" can do anything. I also distinctly remember being told in Middle School seminary that we were just dirt. Maybe there wouldn't be any confusion, if someone would just tell the seminary teachers that all of it is just metaphorical. This thread is the first I'm aware that some Mormons think it isn't literal.

Link to comment
I understand this is your personal view, but there are some things that I don't understand how you can reconcile.

1) 7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

First man I think I have already taken care of. For first flesh, I see a context of "that was created". In other words, the creation wasn't complete until the garden and Adam was the first finished living creation. All homo sapiens before were not finished, not having spirit children of God as spirits.

2) Adam was the first flesh upon the earth. It also states he was the first man. In my understanding, this pretty much rules out any pre-adamites on this earth.

Answered above and in my previous post. I see "man" as defined by the gospel, not merely a homo sapiens, but a homo sapiens combined with a spirit child of God.

3) Aside from contradicting this verse, if Adam was born of of Pre-adamite parents, and was the first man, then that makes the pre-adamites not man.

In the gospel sense no, they weren't. They were, however, homo sapiens.

If they were not human, then to jump species lines in one generation is quite a feat for evolution.

Never said they weren't human. Never said there was a change in species. All that has to happen is homo sapiens being born with a different kind of spirit. Think about it. Big-brained homo sapiens, after having existed for hundreds of thousands of years, never developed civilization until relatively recently. Obviously not near the date creationists (creationism not being a doctrine of the Church either) like, but within an order of magnitude.

4) The above verse states that everything was created spiritually before they were created physically, so again, in my mind, this rules out the need for evolution as part of the world that Adam was the first flesh of.

How does this conflict? What are the details of the physical creation? There are virtually none at all and the LDS Church admits this in it's own manuals.

I understand there is a lot of room for different points of view on this, but for me, Adam and Eve being born of non-human parents is just too evolution heavy.

Again, I do not postulate Adam and Eve being born of nonhuman parents. In my hypothesis, today's scientists would not be able to detect a difference in species between the bodies Adam and Eve and their parents. Homo sapiens one and all. The difference is only in the scriptural sense of what a "man" is.

While I personally reject creationism, since there is no doctrine either way, you are certainly free to accept it without conflicting with LDS doctrine just as I can accept evolution in the same way.

Link to comment

Adam would've been born first and/or the first placed into the garden and/or the first homo sapiens born whoose spirit is a spirit child of God. etc. No conflict. Also in the OT, the notion of the fabrication of man is evident. Why couldn't evolution qualify as fabrication?

Hello, well the disadvantage for me is: I don't know the LDS-point of view. I only know it what the Bible teach.

There is in my opinion a different between born, and create. Create, is from nothing to something. And born, is out of some. The Bible teach, that Adam, is create from dust. If the parents of Eve were homo sapiens. Well I think it wasn't written that she create for the man. (1Cor 11:8 )

It isn't written that Adam is created out of the dust. (Gen 2:7)

and that everything is coming from dust and end as dust (Ecc 3:20)

Adam was created like the likeness of God.(Gen 5:1) But Set was like an image of his father.(Gen 5:3)

Adam was the first man, a living soul. (1cor 15:45) And why was he the first living soul, because: Gen 2:7 is written: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Before Adam there was no dead. So, when I read the Bible (OT-NT) it isn't possible, that the homo-sapiens, were the parents of Adam and Eve.

Link to comment
Seminary taught me it was literal, never had any reason to question that particular aspect of the story. . . because "God" can do anything. I also distinctly remember being told in Middle School seminary that we were just dirt. Maybe there wouldn't be any confusion, if someone would just tell the seminary teachers that all of it is just metaphorical. This thread is the first I'm aware that some Mormons think it isn't literal.

LOL! Well yes, CES is a different sort of animal altogether that needs to be broken up imho. They are almost like a law unto themselves and are full of what I call Fielding-McConkites (those who accept the nonChurch published works of those two apostles as official doctrine contrary to the Churchs position on them). It is true the seminary manual is probably the most creationist of all, but even they can't quite touch the notion that a literal reading may not be correct and admit that the physical details of the creation are not known.

Link to comment
I believe Eve had biological parents which were homo sapiens, who in turn descended from a long line of preAdamite homo sapiens which species evolved from lower forms of life. Eve's spirit is of course, a literal child of God.

Why spend all the effort to guide the evolution of humanoid species until they are phenotypicaly and physiologly correct so that they could be possessed? Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier just to take some already evolved human beings from a different planet and use them to give birth to the bodies of Adam and Eve?

Link to comment

To start I would like to beg everyones indulgence for a bit and simply ask the question....

Where did Eve come from? Was it a rib or what? I have some thoughts I would like to share but I wanted to hear those of others first.

Adam was walking around the garden of Eden, moping. God asked him,
Link to comment
Adam would've been born first and/or the first placed into the garden and/or the first homo sapiens born whoose spirit is a spirit child of God. etc. No conflict. Also in the OT, the notion of the fabrication of man is evident. Why couldn't evolution qualify as fabrication?

Hello, well the disadvantage for me is: I don't know the LDS-point of view.

No prob. The LDS position is no doctrine on evolution or creationism. Therefore, you will find LDS on both sides arguing the merits of their position, whether or not it (especially evolution) conflicts with existing doctrine.

I only know it what the Bible teach.

LDS accept all of what the Bible teaches though of course you will see differeing povs on the meanings of verses especially were the Church has not taken a position.

There is in my opinion a different between born, and create.

Agreed.

Create, is from nothing to something.

LDS as a whole do not believe that anything was created out of nothing and that the Hebrew in Genesis 1 supports that everything was created out of pre-existing materials. This sets up evolution/big bang as a good fit within LDS doctrine.

And born, is out of some. The Bible teach, that Adam, is create from dust. If the parents of Eve were homo sapiens. Well I think it wasn't written that she create for the man. (1Cor 11:8 )

It isn't written that Adam is created out of the dust. (Gen 2:7)

and that everything is coming from dust and end as dust (Ecc 3:20)

"Out of the dust" to me is simply a good representation of the whole process, both evolution and being born and growing up. We are what we eat and are literally made from the dust (or elements) of the earth because of it.

Adam was created like the likeness of God.(Gen 5:1) But Set was like an image of his father.(Gen 5:3)

Yes, here it is distinguished bettween how humans came about, were created (by evolution of course), and how Seth is a son of his father.

Adam was the first man, a living soul. (1cor 15:45) And why was he the first living soul, because: Gen 2:7 is written: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Yep, the first homo sapiens whose spirit is a literal child of God.

Before Adam there was no dead.

Yes, before the fall, there was no death. Before the garden it is not stated, and our scriptures describe a creative state which no properties such as death or no death are applied. Therefore, we can pick and choose what the state was before the garden (until God chooses to reveal the details) and I happen to choose that death existed in this prior state.

So, when I read the Bible (OT-NT) it isn't possible, that the homo-sapiens, were the parents of Adam and Eve.

Obviously I see it differently. But within the LDS Church, there is room for creationism if that is what you believe. Of course what many don't realize is that there is room for evolution too. My personal experience leads me to speculate that of those who have taken a stance, probably about 70% of LDS Church members adhere to creationism and 30% are for evolution.

Link to comment
No not really. That speculation just puts evolution to a different planet. It still doesn't answer the question of how man came to be.
While that question would remain open, it isn't particularly relevant to this earth. Many worlds have come before us where human being like creatures with 10 toes and 10 fingers walked and lived a course of mortality. Why reinvent the wheel?
What is time to an immortal being?
Immortality isn't an excuse for inefficiency and from what I can gather from God's interaction with man, he's pretty darn good and multitasking and being efficient and effective.
Link to comment

While that question would remain open, it isn't particularly relevant to this earth. Many worlds have come before us where human being like creatures with 10 toes and 10 fingers walked and lived a course of mortality. Why reinvent the wheel?

It's also interesting to consider the doctrine of spiritual creation, where everything is spiritually created first.

So it's not a matter of "reinventing" the wheel, it's a matter of sitting down and "creating" (or drawing) hundreds of different prototype wheels on paper until you finally design the final wheel you want, and then building each and everyone one of those drawings into workable models until you finally build the very last wheel that you actually wanted.

And then, of course, you had a fully designed "final" wheel sitting in your work-area all along. Sure, you could have just copied the final wheel that was sitting next to you, but the other way is more mysterious.

Link to comment

Why spend all the effort to guide the evolution of humanoid species until they are phenotypicaly and physiologly correct so that they could be possessed? Wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier just to take some already evolved human beings from a different planet and use them to give birth to the bodies of Adam and Eve?

This is assuming that evolution is truth (which I don't believe it is), but otherwise you stated my personal position perfectly. Thanks, Nofear :P

I do not believe evolution to be a fact of any kind with regards to evolving from one creature to another (ape to human kind of thing). But that is not my post nor the real focus of this thread, although it does have it's applicable posts.

I believe Adam and Eve were born of parents, just as we are now. They were born and placed in the Garden, innocent, and well, after that you know the story.

I believe Adam and Eve were literal real beings, the first mortals on this planet and the first children of Heavenly Father to take upon themselves flesh on this earth. There is a quote by Joseph Smith, which I don't have on hand at this moment nor do I fully remember it, but it was to the effect of all things come in this manner (this as in birth or to be born with physical form). I'll have to find that and post it for your viewing pleasure. (this stems from my previous readings of Earth In The Beginning, where Eric Skousen goes over this whole Whence Cometh Eve thing and Adam and evolution etc)

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...