When Did Adam First Walk The Earth?

[mfbukowski]

All I know is what I was told when I worked for the church, and the church's recent "approaching doctrine" says the same thing.

No it doesn't- that is your interpretation.

[mfbukowski]

You have gotten hold of its tale.

[mfbukowski]

The Gospel says it is possible for the spiritually dead to be physically alive.

The gospel also says there was no death before the fall.  This argument is circular.  If you are going by what the gospel apparently "says" there is also no evolution.

 

I am not disagreeing with you- I agree that there is a difference between spiritual and physical "death", but that's not the point.  The question is WHY the gospel says that.

 

It's like the problem of quoting the bible for anything- how do we know the bible itself is "right"?  Why not some Shinto scriptures or none at all?  Why should we believe "the gospel" at all?

[danieldemol]

Yes I believe Adam and Eve were the first people to walk the earth. I also believe that the Jaradites were the first people in the Americas followed by Lehi's seed and then the Mulekites. Follow me here people the human race is 4000 BC + 2000 AD + 13 = 6013 yrs old

I'm confused, perhaps answering the following questions may help me to understand what you are saying;

1.Was 4000BC the date of the fall or Adam's birth?

2.What does 13 years represent?

3.Should Adam's mother's or father's age be added to the age of the human race or where they both non-human for the entire duration of their existence?

[danieldemol]

The gospel also says there was no death before the fall. This argument is circular. If you are going by what the gospel apparently "says" there is also no evolution.

I interpret the Gospel as proposing that history is cyclic in nature, thus, you might say that according to my understanding, the rejection of the Adam of every age is what kicks off the spiritual death cycle in every age.

 

I am not disagreeing with you- I agree that there is a difference between spiritual and physical "death", but that's not the point. The question is WHY the gospel says that.

It's like the problem of quoting the bible for anything- how do we know the bible itself is "right"? Why not some Shinto scriptures or none at all? Why should we believe "the gospel" at all?

I'm going to have to ask for clarification on this point, are you saying that the Gospel does say there is a difference between physical and spiritual death *but* you are not convinced the Gospel is correct on this particular point,

Or,

Are you saying that the Gospel does say there is a difference and you agree with it on this particular point, but just throwing in the question in general of why should we trust the Gospel?

Edited October 11, 2013 by danieldemol

[BCSpace]

There are teachings that this earth is made up from pieces of other lesser (not celestial bound) planets which could explain those things that predate 4000BC (6000 years ago) and Adam.  That is why Joseph said organized, not created from nothingness.

 

However, I also think that our supposed "scientific knowledge" will eventually be shown to contain numerous holes and errors, not the least of which might be our ability to accurately place dates on things.  Maybe the fossil is actually a million years old, maybe it isn't.

 

So the science proclaimers on this thread are probably right about there being things on earth that predate Adam and the garden, but where they came from is the real question yet to be answered.  And I think twice before I question the things God has told us directly.

 

The problem with that is the particles our world was made from are to small (atomic to dust grain sized) to have carried most of the fossils we see with them.  They also didn't, for the most part come from remnants of other planets.  Plus the chemical differentiation that occurred in the early earth meant that everything was molten and mixed.  Science confirms we are made from existing materials, but not in the way hypothesized above.

[bcuzbcuz]

Yes I believe Adam and Eve were the first people to walk the earth. I also believe that the Jaradites were the first people in the Americas followed by Lehi's seed and then the Mulekites. Follow me here people the human race is 4000 BC + 2000 AD + 13 = 6013 yrs old

6013 years? Amazingly precise.

Based, I assume on Biblical dating, with seven men, Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Jared, Methuselah, and Noah, living more than 900 years. The bible also mentions an additional 25 me who reached 300, 400, even 700 or more years.

Apparently, at the same time in Egypt, well documented king's lists, and mumified bodies, going back more than 5000 years from present date, 5000 BP, humanss were only living 30-40 years with one Pharaoh making it to 90+ years. How do you, if you do at all, reconcile such variations from the norm with the Biblical calculations of the ages of Adam and Noah et.al.?

Obviously no one, not one single individual from any present day knowledge, makes it past 120 years. Certainly, no where close to 200 years old. Noah was fathering children when he was 600+ years old.

The flood came 4360+ BP, approximately 2350 BCE, when the Egyptians had finished building all the really big pyramids, but still continued on building smaller ones and their surrounding temples, some made of stone, some constructed of brick. None of which got washed away.

The mummies in Egypt, both the desicated bodies of the kings and queens and priests and governing officials, plus all the thousands of other bodies that had been mummified simply by drying out in the desert, none of them show any signs of water damage.

We don't have any dried out bodies of Any of the biblical men, despite their having lived, mostly as herdsmen in near desert climates, to verify the Bible's account.. But we do have thousands of bodies from a neighboring country, who all lived much shorter life spans. Do you have idea how such a thing can be explained?

[Calm]

I'm confused, perhaps answering the following questions may help me to understand what you are saying;

1.Was 4000BC the date of the fall or Adam's birth?

2.What does 13 years represent?

3.Should Adam's mother's or father's age be added to the age of the human race or where they both non-human for the entire duration of their existence?

 

#2...I suspect the 13 in 2013.

[cdowis]

The flood came 4360+ BP, approximately 2350 BCE, when the Egyptians had finished building all the really big pyramids, but still continued on building smaller ones and their surrounding temples, some made of stone, some constructed of brick. None of which got washed away.

 

 

There is an interesting  ongoing discussion whether the weathering on the sphinx was caused by rainfall, rather than wind erosion. The implication is that there was a major civilization in Egypt prior to 5th century BCE.  The was the subject of a PBS special.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis.  

 

FWIW we find a reference to the receding flood in Egypt in the Book of Abraham.

Edited October 11, 2013 by cdowis

[bcuzbcuz]

There is an interesting ongoing discussion whether the weathering on the sphinx was caused by rainfall, rather than wind erosion. The implication is that there was a major civilization in Egypt prior to 5th century BCE. The was the subject of a PBS special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion_hypothesis.

FWIW we find a reference to the receding flood in Egypt in the Book of Abraham.

PBS specials are hardly what one would call "good science". Do a simple study of the number of years the Sphinx was buried under the sand and the proximity of the Nile to the statue and of good erosion technology and your answer will be clear. Look at the annual rainfall of Egyt for the last 6-10000 years for the Nile valley. The Sphinx dates to the years as assigned by Hawass and not by loosely formulated IFs and MAYBEs and PROBABLYs of guesstinomics. A simple trip to Egypt, which I have done, by the way, and a study of the sphinx and the three pyramids of Khafre, Khufu and Menkaure will show that the theories of the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, are more interested in speculation, than actual science.

In regards to the "receeding flood", you need more than speculation. I repeat, there are more than a thousand naturally dried bodies, mummified bodies, in graves in southern Egypt,, that speak their clear and undeniable evidence that water did not cover their skeletons, either before or after their burials.. Clutching after straws is not what good science is built upon.

Edited October 11, 2013 by bcuzbcuz

[danielwoods]

PBS specials are hardly what one would call "good science". Do a simple study of the number of years the Sphinx was buried under the sand and the proximity of the Nile to the statue and of good erosion technology and your answer will be clear. Look at the annual rainfall of Egyt for the last 6-10000 years for the Nile valley. The Sphinx dates to the years as assigned by Hawass and not by loosely formulated IFs and MAYBEs and PROBABLYs of guesstinomics. A simple trip to Egypt, which I have done, by the way, and a study of the sphinx and the three pyramids of Khafre, Khufu and Menkaure will show that the theories of the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, are more interested in speculation, than actual science.

In regards to the "receeding flood", you need more than speculation. I repeat, there are more than a thousand naturally dried bodies, mummified bodies, in graves in southern Egypt,, that speak their clear and undeniable evidence that water did not cover their skeletons, either before or after their burials.. Clutching after straws is not what good science is built upon.

 

The biblical model puts the building of these great structures after the flood, and before the tower of Babel, Gen. 11. 

 

Also, a year wasn't 365.25 days back then. A year was less exact, in the range of 360 days. 

[cdowis]

PBS specials are hardly what one would call "good science".

 

In case you are uninformed, PBS is not the History Channel.  I mentioned it because it indicates that there is legitimate discussion on the subject.

 

I noticed that your comment did not bother to mention the wiki link but did mention unreliable sources that I did NOT use.  Your tactics are very interesting, and I won't waste any more time with a response to your post.  

 

 

[mfbukowski]

In regards to the "receeding flood", you need more than speculation. I repeat, there are more than a thousand naturally dried bodies, mummified bodies, in graves in southern Egypt,, that speak their clear and undeniable evidence that water did not cover their skeletons, either before or after their burials.. Clutching after straws is not what good science is built upon.

Uh, and how do they know there was not a flood BEFORE their mummification?

[mfbukowski]

The biblical model puts the building of these great structures after the flood, and before the tower of Babel, Gen. 11. 

 

Also, a year wasn't 365.25 days back then. A year was less exact, in the range of 360 days. 

I don't remember it that way at all.

[danielwoods]

I don't remember it that way at all.

And that's ok.

[bcuzbcuz]

The biblical model puts the building of these great structures after the flood, and before the tower of Babel, Gen. 11. 

 

Also, a year wasn't 365.25 days back then. A year was less exact, in the range of 360 days.

The Egyptian year had 365 days. 12 months x 30 days gives 360, then they added 5 days of partying, that makes 365.. They were off by the 0.25 days per year, that threw their yearly planning by 1 day every 4 years. That put their planting season off more and more. They planted according to the actual seasons, so dependant upon the Nile inundation and they let their calendar slip out off coordination with the seasons. Every 1400 years or so their calendar came back into sync but they counted their years by the inundation.

The dates I gave regarding the building of the pyramids are not according to their calendar calculations. The biblical calculations are the calculations that are amiss,, dependant upon people living for 900 years or more.

[ERayR]

I don't remember it that way at all.

 

When you get back that far my memory is a bit hazy but no that you mention it I don't remember it that way either.

[mfbukowski]

 

When you get back that far my memory is a bit hazy but no that you mention it I don't remember it that way either.

[thesometimesaint]

How long ago do L.D.S members believe Adam first walked the Earth?

 

A long time ago when the earth was gree. There were more types of animals than you've ever seen.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

In case you are uninformed, PBS is not the History Channel.  I mentioned it because it indicates that there is legitimate discussion on the subject.

 

I noticed that your comment did not bother to mention the wiki link but did mention unreliable sources that I did NOT use.  Your tactics are very interesting, and I won't waste any more time with a response to your post.  

I'll see your "wiki link" and raise you one

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010886

You throw your accusations around rather easily when someone says something you disagree with. Throwing a tantrum and spilling all the chess pieces on the floor doesn't really become an exchange of ideas.

 

Clean up the attitude.

[cdowis]

I'll see your "wiki link" and raise you one

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010886

You throw your accusations around rather easily when someone says something you disagree with. Throwing a tantrum and spilling all the chess pieces on the floor doesn't really become an exchange of ideas.

 

You have me confused me with someone else.  Your link has nothing to do with my original post.

 

I think you owe me an apology, but forget about it.

Edited October 13, 2013 by cdowis

[EllenMaksoud]

I was doing some research tonight and it seems the popular estimation of when man as we know him is around 45-50,000 years ago.  Blonde hair and blue eyes appeared around 12,000 years ago in Scandinavia. I wonder what other known mutations in humans have happened relatively recently. It seems as though European humans were much shorter in say 1600 where a woman was barely 5' and a man was around 5'6". Here in the West, I am roughly average height for a woman at 5'7", but when I was in Ohio and New York, I towered over most other women. I think this height difference was owing to nutrition and improved medical care.

 

Oddly, the available sources indicate that humans were never shorter than 5' for women and 5'6" for men, other than some in Africa that were barely 3'.

 

Apparently, the oldest known human civilization was in Northern Pakistan and was around 12,000 years ago.  I doubt that we will know when Adam and Eve lived, though there is much literature that indicates it was between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq.

Edited October 13, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[danieldemol]

Apparently, the oldest known human civilization was in Northern Pakistan and was around 12,000 years ago. I doubt that we will know when Adam and Eve lived, though there is much literature that indicates it was between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Iraq.

Our resident LDS anthropologist has now entered the building

Was it an online source speaking about the civilization in North Pakistan? I would be happy if you share the link

[EllenMaksoud]

Our resident LDS anthropologist has now entered the building

Was it an online source speaking about the civilization in North Pakistan? I would be happy if you share the link

Here is one. I am looking for the other.  http://www.livescience.com/20614-collapse-mythical-river-civilization.html

 

Here is another. I know I read somewhere that the Harappan settlements were around 12,000 years ago, as evidenced by labels on pottery jars. I suppose I should have saved that link, and hopefully I can find it again.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappa

Edited October 13, 2013 by EllenMaksoud

[danieldemol]

Thanks for sharing Ellen