Is God A Recycler?

[ERayR]

I think that He recycles in the sense of interchangeable parts. Evolution views this as the evolution from lower species to higher ones, and uses the similarity of

DNA as evidence. But I see this as a recycle of a design in multiple organisms, not necessary to optimize for each creature.

And I am one who thinks he doesn't need or use a complete new creation for each new world but uses a transplant and adaption system.

[Stone holm]

And I am one who thinks he doesn't need or use a complete new creation for each new world but uses a transplant and adaption system.

Terraforming?

[ERayR]

Terraforming?

Including biological species. Possibly man included

[Ahab]

In another thread about anomalies in coal deposits, the question came up about the meaning of phrases like "a world shall pass away" and what it means when we are talking about "matter unorganized". It has also been sometimes alluded to in argument that certain fossils might be present due to the Earth being composed or debris from other worlds. So your thoughts? Is God a recycler and if so what exactly does He recycle? Does He ever abort a creation which has gone awry, or does every cake He bakes turn out perfectly?

It's a combination of both. Everything he creates is new but he makes it all out of old stuff that has been around somewhere forever.

[Stone holm]

It's a combination of both. Everything he creates is new but he makes it all out of old stuff that has been around somewhere forever.

Well I think most Mormons would agree that He makes it out of stuff that has been around forever. But for Him to be a recycler, that old stuff would have to have been used before and given the context have been used in a former world. Then the question would be what kind of world.

[Ahab]

Well I think most Mormons would agree that He makes it out of stuff that has been around forever. But for Him to be a recycler, that old stuff would have to have been used before and given the context have been used in a former world. Then the question would be what kind of world.

You can question what kind of world I suppose but it doesn't really make any difference regarding whether or not he is a recycler. And nothing in existence is static in the sense of not going through some kind of change so anytime he uses something it is something that has already been used before. And yet somehow almost as if miraculously everything he creates is still a new creation even if there are other things like it. And yes we can do things like the things that he can do too.

[Stone holm]

You can question what kind of world I suppose but it doesn't really make any difference regarding whether or not he is a recycler. And nothing in existence is static in the sense of not going through some kind of change so anytime he uses something it is something that has already been used before. And yet somehow almost as if miraculously everything he creates is still a new creation even if there are other things like it. And yes we can do things like the things that he can do too.

Well yes he could take stuff and make an unpopulated planet and then destroy it and make another planet. But I don't think IMNSHO that is what we are talking about here the question is does he recycle worlds, meaning places which had life on them.

[Ahab]

Well yes he could take stuff and make an unpopulated planet and then destroy it and make another planet. But I don't think IMNSHO that is what we are talking about here the question is does he recycle worlds, meaning places which had life on them.

It's not that hard to see that he does. This world has had life on it for a very long time and we can see that he recycles what is on it as he expands and adds more to this planet, and even as he takes some things away. We know this planet was in a more pristine condition before everything fell to the state they're in now and we also know this planet will be restored to its pristine condition while going through lower stages until it is pristine. And we also know this isn't the only planet God has ever worked with and with there being no end to all of God's creations. Seems easy enough to see to me.

[MormonMason]

Not really. It means fill. Replenish meant fill in English at the time the KJV was written.

...

Actually, the only reason why the KJV used "replenish" is because the Bishop's Bible of 1568 used the word replenishe. The KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, with the readings of other Bibles thrown into the mix. Significant portions of the KJV actually never were translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but rather from the Latin Vulgate.

The Latin Vulgate, in turn, in Genesis 1:28 has replete, which is from repleo, which has the primary meaning of "To fill again." Or, as Lewis and Short's A Latin Dictionary gives it:

rē˘-plĕo, ēvi, ētum (contr. form replesti, Stat. S. 3, 1, 92:

I replerat, Lucr. 6, 1270), 2, v. a.

I To fill again, refill; to fill up, replenish, complete, etc.

Of course, the Hebrew itself says "fill" rather than "fill again." Of interest is that several other English translations from the same period (John Wycliffe's of 1388; Geneva of 1599; Miles Coverdale's of 1535, for example) use the word "fill." If replenish really did mean just "fill" in those days like I have seen claimed sans evidence, why not just use "replenish" rather than "fill" in the versions before the KJV? I am pretty certain that it had the same range of meaning that the original Latin word from which it was derived had.

That said, and in any case, I agree with you to disagree with those who do what they do with the Hebrew of the "Old Testament" and such (the replenish argument, etc.) to bend the Bible toward a view mentioned above regarding refilling the earth to try to make the Bible fit in with the scientific evidence.

[Salem]

Yes and no. It does sound like a death, but it followed by reference to a new world. Which makes it sound like it could possibly refer to death followed by resurrection in an altered form. In other words conversion from a lone and dreary world to a glorified Kingdom. But, I am not saying your approach is wrong. Do we have any language geeks who want to weigh in on what the original language may have signified?

But don't we know empirically from the fossil record that the worlds that have "passed away" were not followed by a resurrection (at least not yet)?

[Salem]

Actually, the only reason why the KJV used "replenish" is because the Bishop's Bible of 1568 used the word replenishe. The KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, with the readings of other Bibles thrown into the mix. Significant portions of the KJV actually never were translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but rather from the Latin Vulgate.

The Latin Vulgate, in turn, in Genesis 1:28 has replete, which is from repleo, which has the primary meaning of "To fill again." Or, as Lewis and Short's A Latin Dictionary gives it:

Of course, the Hebrew itself says "fill" rather than "fill again." Of interest is that several other English translations from the same period (John Wycliffe's of 1388; Geneva of 1599; Miles Coverdale's of 1535, for example) use the word "fill." If replenish really did mean just "fill" in those days like I have seen claimed sans evidence, why not just use "replenish" rather than "fill" in the versions before the KJV? I am pretty certain that it had the same range of meaning that the original Latin word from which it was derived had.

That said, and in any case, I agree with you to disagree with those who do what they do with the Hebrew of the "Old Testament" and such (the replenish argument, etc.) to bend the Bible toward a view mentioned above regarding refilling the earth to try to make the Bible fit in with the scientific evidence.

I am curious. What is your understanding of Moses 1:28 and Abraham 4:28? Both use the word "replenish."

[Stone holm]

But don't we know empirically from the fossil record that the worlds that have "passed away" were not followed by a resurrection (at least not yet)?

Not sure I understand exactly what you said, too many negatives. Could you clarify and restate.

[Stone holm]

Actually, the only reason why the KJV used "replenish" is because the Bishop's Bible of 1568 used the word replenishe. The KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, with the readings of other Bibles thrown into the mix. Significant portions of the KJV actually never were translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but rather from the Latin Vulgate.

The Latin Vulgate, in turn, in Genesis 1:28 has replete, which is from repleo, which has the primary meaning of "To fill again." Or, as Lewis and Short's A Latin Dictionary gives it:

Of course, the Hebrew itself says "fill" rather than "fill again." Of interest is that several other English translations from the same period (John Wycliffe's of 1388; Geneva of 1599; Miles Coverdale's of 1535, for example) use the word "fill." If replenish really did mean just "fill" in those days like I have seen claimed sans evidence, why not just use "replenish" rather than "fill" in the versions before the KJV? I am pretty certain that it had the same range of meaning that the original Latin word from which it was derived had.

That said, and in any case, I agree with you to disagree with those who do what they do with the Hebrew of the "Old Testament" and such (the replenish argument, etc.) to bend the Bible toward a view mentioned above regarding refilling the earth to try to make the Bible fit in with the scientific evidence.

Not sure what the scientific evidence was, could you clarify that last paragraph a little, please?

[Salem]

Yes and no. It does sound like a death, but it followed by reference to a new world. Which makes it sound like it could possibly refer to death followed by resurrection in an altered form. In other words conversion from a lone and dreary world to a glorified Kingdom. But, I am not saying your approach is wrong. Do we have any language geeks who want to weigh in on what the original language may have signified?

But in view of the fossil record, we know empirically that the worlds that have "passed away" were not followed by a resurrection (at least not yet).

[The Nehor]

Actually, the only reason why the KJV used "replenish" is because the Bishop's Bible of 1568 used the word replenishe. The KJV was a revision of the Bishop's Bible, with the readings of other Bibles thrown into the mix. Significant portions of the KJV actually never were translated directly from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, but rather from the Latin Vulgate.

The Latin Vulgate, in turn, in Genesis 1:28 has replete, which is from repleo, which has the primary meaning of "To fill again." Or, as Lewis and Short's A Latin Dictionary gives it:

Of course, the Hebrew itself says "fill" rather than "fill again." Of interest is that several other English translations from the same period (John Wycliffe's of 1388; Geneva of 1599; Miles Coverdale's of 1535, for example) use the word "fill." If replenish really did mean just "fill" in those days like I have seen claimed sans evidence, why not just use "replenish" rather than "fill" in the versions before the KJV? I am pretty certain that it had the same range of meaning that the original Latin word from which it was derived had.

To fix the "sans evidence" problem just look at any comprehensive dictionary that includes archaic meanings look up replenish and you can fix that problem. Your certainty is misplaced. This is a case where a word swung back to its root meaning while being away from it for some time. Not an isolated incident at all.

That said, and in any case, I agree with you to disagree with those who do what they do with the Hebrew of the "Old Testament" and such (the replenish argument, etc.) to bend the Bible toward a view mentioned above regarding refilling the earth to try to make the Bible fit in with the scientific evidence.

I think that was supposed to be a backhanded insult but the grammatical and referential ambiguities in this sentence leave me too confused to be sure.

[changed]

And I am one who thinks he doesn't need or use a complete new creation for each new world but uses a transplant and adaption system.

although the flood, and the final war seem to be a rather complete wipe/reset, perhaps Eden was a different variety of a "new start"?

(Old Testament | Genesis 6:2)

2 That the sons of God (children of Adam and Eve - Adam was a son of God) saw the daughters of men (the indiginious population?) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

[Stone holm]

although the flood, and the final war seem to be a rather complete wipe/reset, perhaps Eden was a different variety of a "new start"?

(Old Testament | Genesis 6:2)

2 That the sons of God (children of Adam and Eve - Adam was a son of God) saw the daughters of men (the indiginious population?) that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

I thought Mormon teaching on that was it merely referred to the Sethites marrying non-Sethites somewhat to God's displeasure.

[The Nehor]

So far it appears he does not. We know about black holes (trash cans) so unless we find green holes where the recycling goes we have to assume he just throws everything in the garbage to go the singularity dump.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe we have to worry about black holes or green ones for that matter. With our sun burning itself out consuming our planet in some 4.5-5 billions of years from now. I'm not going to loose much sleep over that either.

[The Nehor]

I don't believe we have to worry about black holes or green ones for that matter. With our sun burning itself out consuming our planet in some 4.5-5 billions of years from now. I'm not going to loose much sleep over that either.

[thesometimesaint]

Eat, Drink, and be Merry for tomorrow we dieT.