How literally do you take the creation story?

[J Green]

For those still interested in the metaphor discussion . . .

Lehi's vision gives us the imagery of the Tree of Life and its fruit in the context of metaphor. Iron rod means this, tree means this, etc. So if we project Lehi's vision back into the creation story of Genesis, which I believe is a temple ritual drama, then what do we make of the other symbols there? If Nephi were to have a vision of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would his spiritual guide explain the meaning of that tree to him? What would he see?

Cheers

[urroner]

Nope. I don't buy into that "he wanted to test our faith" idea. It says he created everything full grown and able to bear seed. How is that testing our faith?

The question is very simple. IF God is all powerful, why would he *not* create it all in an instant (and certainly 6 days is an instant compared to billions of years) and use his 6 days of work as an example for those people who are created in his image?

What theological reason would he have to create things for a billions of years? Which displays more power and authority?

If it's about power and authority, why didn't He create us all perfect and all in total subjection to Him, fulfilling His every whim and desire? If it was about power and authority, why didn't He just blast to smithereens all the fallen angels?

I don't buy into the power and authority argument. It makes as much sense as the changing of the laws of physics argument.

[Hughes]

Insufficient data ---> POOF!!!!! ---> Stupid, silly, sucky, inconsistent logic.

IMO, first you said that God can and did change the laws of physics and then you said that they didn't have to change.

I have to agree with TSS, your logic is directly from the Twilight Zone.

Thanks. Maybe you could quote me where I said that the laws of physics had to change.

What I do find interesting is that dogmatic atheists will argue that theists claim the laws must have changed, then they will turn around and say that the big bang was caused by a singularity where the laws of physics... uh changed or don't apply, they aren't really sure.

[Zakuska]

For those still interested in the metaphor discussion . . .

Lehi's vision gives us the imagery of the Tree of Life and its fruit in the context of metaphor. Iron rod means this, tree means this, etc. So if we project Lehi's vision back into the creation story of Genesis, which I believe is a temple ritual drama, then what do we make of the other symbols there? If Nephi were to have a vision of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, how would his spiritual guide explain the meaning of that tree to him? What would he see?

Cheers

I guess the spacious building without a foundation would have to be an image of the tree of Knowledge. Intesting that those in the building that are mocking, can be likened to Darwin and his band of modern Scientists with their ever changing theories on a shifting sand foundation. They are also in a a man made structure. Where as the tree of life... Just IS and always has been.

[urroner]

Thanks. Maybe you could quote me where I said that the laws of physics had to change.

What I do find interesting is that dogmatic atheists will argue that theists claim the laws must have changed, then they will turn around and say that the big bang was caused by a singularity where the laws of physics... uh changed or don't apply, they aren't really sure.

You said:

To create a Star millions of light years away, with the light already reaching the Earth?

Nuf said.

[Zakuska]

Thanks. Maybe you could quote me where I said that the laws of physics had to change.

What I do find interesting is that dogmatic atheists will argue that theists claim the laws must have changed, then they will turn around and say that the big bang was caused by a singularity where the laws of physics... uh changed or don't apply, they aren't really sure.

Amen to that!

[thesometimesaint]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the creation occurred 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Shamelessly slightly changed from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[Hughes]

How can this be true?

The horizon definately doesn't like like a circle to me. Does it to you?

You are arguing an esoteric point over what you and I see.

I can see that the horizon is curved. I personally wouldn't describe it as a circle. But, I'm not the writer, and I didn't live when Job lived.

I think there's other evidences that would prove to an ancient think that the world isn't flat. The ship that disappears over the horizon is but one example. However, clearly the writers point isn't to prove or disprove anything about that, but that God is enthroned above it all.

[Hughes]

Hughes:

"The question is very simple. IF God is all powerful, why would he *not* create it all in an instant (and certainly 6 days is an instant compared to billions of years) and use his 6 days of work as an example for those people who are created in his image?"

So your god deliberately sets out to deceive his children? Doesn't sound like the God I know.

Nope. No deception is involved.. God plainly states what happened.

[Zakuska]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the creation occurred 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Shamelessly slightly changed from http://www.talkorigi...-noahs-ark.html

So, could they all fit? It is important to take the size of animals into account when considering how much space they would occupy because the greatest number of species occurs in the smallest animals. Woodmorappe performed such an analysis and came to the conclusion that the animals would take up 47% of the ark. In addition, he determines that about 10% of the ark was needed for food (compacted to take as little space as possible) and 9.4% for water (assuming no evaporation or wastage). At least 25% of the space would have been needed for corridors and bracing. Thus, increasing the quantity of animals by more than about 5% would overload the ark.

This isn't a very good argument. He ASSUMES all the animals were adults. Many animals could be carried in embrionic form as eggs. Also a lot of animals can swim.

[Zakuska]

You are arguing an esoteric point over what you and I see.

I can see that the horizon is curved. I personally wouldn't describe it as a circle. But, I'm not the writer, and I didn't live when Job lived.

I think there's other evidences that would prove to an ancient think that the world isn't flat. The ship that disappears over the horizon is but one example. However, clearly the writers point isn't to prove or disprove anything about that, but that God is enthroned above it all.

I completely agree with this... but the question is why you brought it up in the first place to prove they thought the earth was a globe?

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

Only the eggs laying kind, and 40 days and nights in the water would kill them too. Plus salt water varieties of plants and animals would quickly be killed. I can't even imagine the health problems that that would produce.

No considering all problems associated with a global flood I'll stick with Hugh Nibley that Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska:

Only the eggs laying kind, and 40 days and nights in the water would kill them too. Plus salt water varieties of plants and animals would quickly be killed. I can't even imagine the health problems that that would produce.

No considering all problems associated with a global flood I'll stick with Hugh Nibley that Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the "world" that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew.

I personally subscribe to this theory as well.

We do know that the number of days (ie 40) the flood lasted is different depending on which version of ther OT you subscribe to. IIRC One version says the flood only lasted 14 days, plenty of time for many species to have survived in salt water.

The other thing people bring up is that theres not enough water stored in the ice caps to cover all the land. I call this the bath tub fload model. (I linked a great site on that a little earlier with earth map models and everything.)

But thats assuming all the ice melted. According to the Scientists much of the land at this time was under water (ie under 1 mile thick ice sheets) and there wasn't much land left. So there doesn't need to be a lot of water to wash off and submerge the land where noah lived. And since this ice was there many animals could have floated on the ice and survived.

[Brenda]

I don't talk about evolution in church or to many members is because some of them will have a hissy fit, go spaz in the middle of church or wherever, and start declaring that I can't be a "true believer" if I ever accepted such junk science, and then they go crying to the bishop or the stake president of the darkness and rank in my soul and how I'm trying to force them to the dark side of the force and it just isn't worth it.

I think you exaggerate a bit. One devout LDS scientist in my area, who has given lectures @ BYU, occasionally gives local firesides on this subject, on how the scriptures are true and should be used as the true standard, and how they can reconcile with science. I've been to many of his firesides, and I recall one or two not agreeing with him. But no one went "crying to the bishop", at least as far as I knew. We are close friends with this scientist and would have heard.

It would probably help if people didn't get so upset. I remember reading about an exchange between Henry Eyring Sr. (the scientist) and Joseph Fielding Smith. Pres. Smith mentioned afterwards that he hoped they could talk again w/o Bro. Eyring getting so ... I believe 'excited' was his word. Anyway, many of us aren't so hysterical that you have to only speak out under anonymity.

Of course there are always the ones in every group, who do jump off the handle. So you'd have to pick your audience. I'll agree with you there.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

I'm not a marine biologist, but I doubt many species of fresh or salt water varieties of life could tolerate that level of dilution or concentration of salt water depending on that species needs for more than a few minutes. Osmoregulation or something like that.

[SilverKnight]

So what do you believe? (I'm not asking to pick a fight, trust me. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to these things.)

I believe Adam & Eve to be purely mythical, and the story to 100% allegorical metaphor.

I fully realize this is outside the comfort zone of typical LDS belief.

Was there ever an Adam and Eve? If not, who was the first "real" prophet?

I cannot say if there was/is a spirit personage named Micheal/Adam, but if this being really existed, I definitely do not believe he is the biological progenitor of humankind.

The first 'real' prophet? Perhaps Abraham.

Absolute utter nonsense!

Absolute utter fact.

Let's take a look of any of the methods of measuring "time". What are you actually measuring? What is time?

If you really look at it you're not measuring time, but movement of some sort.

WHY? Because no one has observed these time spans, nor could they. And I'm not disputing thousands of years, I'm disputing the billions of years.

Radiometric dating is accurate to the degree of fractions of percentage points, to claim that it could be off by billion years, and the Earth really might be 6000 years old, is simply delusional, and represents total ignorance to the physics involved.

To claim that the Earth 'could' be 6000 years old is like claiming an 80 year old human 'could' be one hour old - that is how breathtakingly wrong Young Earth Creationists are.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska:

I'm not a marine biologist, but I doubt many species of fresh or salt water varieties of life could tolerate that level of dilution or concentration of salt water depending on that species needs for more than a few minutes. Osmoregulation or something like that.

And yet in caves salt and fresh water species exist one above each other in differing layers of fresh and salt water.

[urroner]

I think you exaggerate a bit.

Brenda, trust me on this, when I even mentioned that evolution just might be possible, and I wasn't even the teacher, someone jumped up and ran to the bishop and told him that I was teaching apostate doctrine.

[urroner]

And yet in caves salt and fresh water species exist one above each other in differing layers of fresh and salt water.

There are specific instances when that can happen, but there are fish that can not even abide in brackish water without dying and there are fish that can only abide a very small amount of salt in the water.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

True, but I think in a global flood there would probably be a great deal of mixing. I don't know as we would find the stratification of layers that is normally found in very quiet caves waters.

Of course all those problems go away if we assume a regional, albeit massive flood.

[SilverKnight]

Zakuska:

True, but I think in a global flood there would probably be a great deal of mixing. I don't know as we would find the stratification of layers that is normally found in very quiet caves waters.

Of course all those problems go away if we assume a regional, albeit massive flood.

Here's a thought=

If the Flood can be regional, can the Garden Story be as well?

Could Adam & Eve have been two people living in the Fertile Crescent of Ancient Mesopotamia, the most lush and 'paradisiacal' region of the known world?

[Hughes]

If it's about power and authority, why didn't He create us all perfect and all in total subjection to Him, fulfilling His every whim and desire? If it was about power and authority, why didn't He just blast to smithereens all the fallen angels?

I don't buy into the power and authority argument. It makes as much sense as the changing of the laws of physics argument.

I'm not sure I understand, because either way God is all powerful and has all authority. Either way God did it.

The lesson of the fall is that he did create us perfect in Adam, and when Adam fell, we all fell.

[Hughes]

You said:

To create a Star millions of light years away, with the light already reaching the Earth?

Nuf said.

Right. And I asked which is harder, making that or a fully grown Earth, with the appearance of age.

You see, I'm not saying that God changed the laws of physics. I'm saying no different than any Atheist when he references a singularity. I'm saying that God created the laws of physics, and in the beginning he created everything so it would function as he wished. And in order to do that, he had to create things that appeared to be older than they really were. As exemplified by Adam and Eve, at the end of the week, if you would have been an observer you would have thought that they were 24 or so years old. They talked, walked and did things. You wouldn't have looked at them and said, "hmm.. they look only 2 days old..." .

That is my point. Not that the laws of physics changed, but that God in his creative act made the universe to appear to have age, even though it was only days old.

[Hughes]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that the creation occurred 7000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Shamelessly slightly changed from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

If there is a God who is all powerful, then anything is possible.

If you honestly believe in an all powerful God who would create all the Universe, and Time, and then wait billions of years to create people. The question is why do that when he could have done it quickly? What's the point of waiting? And where do you see that supported in scripture?

[Zakuska]

Zakuska:

True, but I think in a global flood there would probably be a great deal of mixing. I don't know as we would find the stratification of layers that is normally found in very quiet caves waters.

Of course all those problems go away if we assume a regional, albeit massive flood.

Some other things that comes to mind.

- Great white sharks being found in fresh water rivers. (Scuba diver ran into one... in virginia IIRC, then there is this one http://conservationr...lake-australia/)

- Salmon swimming up stream

Yes I agree there are some species that cant survive the salt water or vice versa . But I don't think thats as big as people are making it out to be.

A lot of the land animals could have survivied not only on the ark but on floating ice, or trees and logs.

We only have to account for land animals and possibly some fresh water species.