When Did Adam First Walk The Earth?

[thesometimesaint]

Whoever it was didn't make it into the storyline. Josiah and the Deuteronomist(s) did wonders for story revisionism and Jewish monotheism.

 

Maybe. I think the story is such importance that even with the revisionists history the core of that story survived.

 

Adam means mankind, and Eve means the mother of all living. So while I see A&E as literal people the symbolism is much more importance. 

[jkwilliams]

Hope you get feeling better soon. While I can't speak for ERayR. Whatever the changes A&E experienced upon leaving Eden. That could be seen as a type of evolution.

 

ERayR was talking about ascent and descent, and I'm wondering what the evidence for that is.

[Anijen]

I, for one, believe that Adam and Eve were real, but most likely the first individuals to exist in a covenantal relationship with God rather than the first humans on earth.  I am open to as to timing, don't feel that is particularly precise and much more likely to be symbolic in nature.  Calculations based on genealogy don't take into account the possibility that one was a descendant rather than a son and thus could involve multiple generations between individuals in the genealogical line rather than just one generation.

Well put, my thoughts exactly.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR was talking about ascent and descent, and I'm wondering what the evidence for that is.

 

Evolution works in both directions. Whales are the descendents of land mammals, and birds are just dinosaurs with a new name." Fried Chicken".

[jkwilliams]

Evolution works in both directions. Whales are the descendents of land mammals, and birds are just dinosaurs with a new name." Fried Chicken".

 

I haven't seen evidence for the devolution of post-Adamic humans into something else (I don't know what, really). ERayR says his studies have led him to conclude that there has been such a devolution, and I'm wondering what evidence he sees of this.

[thesometimesaint]

Immortal to mortal could be seen as a devolution. But you have to ask ERayR exactly what he has in mind.

[Stone holm]

ERayR was talking about ascent and descent, and I'm wondering what the evidence for that is.

 

I have heard it argued from time to time that the "cave men" were degenerated humans.  Personally do not buy into that.  If we give credence to the longevity stated to have occurred in Genesis, one could conclude several things: 1) that we physically degenerated in the lone and dreary world; 2) that the contamination of the Earth and living close to each other and in proximity with animals caused us to be more prone to aging and disease; or 3) that the effects of eating the fruit were not totally immediate but had an increasingly debilitating effect over time.  Obviously, there have been periods in time especially when religious orthodoxy suppressed the obtaining of secular knowledge, where life spans have either shortened or stagnated -- but the average life-span when you set aside the massive violent wars has been increasing with increased knowledge of the environment, germs, and various medical and technology intervention possibilities.

[mfbukowski]

I assume you mean in such discussions as this or other ones that start comparing one belief/faith system to another?

 

I also assume that the "reality" of the Atonement and my own and others' interaction with God is what gives us peace beyond the powers of the placebo effect, that it is not just the belief that gives us peace, but God himself and I think it is important to teach the Atonement as having actually occurred in discussions about the Atonement and other faith principles (even if in discussions about that faith itself we may posit that "the truth" is unknowable)...

 

But I wouldn't know how to go about proving that in the least save to ask each person to try God in this way for him/herself.  

I meant truth in a scientific sense only- of course I know that the atonement is "real"- I know it in my heart and mind, body and soul, with greater certainty than any possible scientific principle.  I know the atonement is real with every fiber of my being in a spiritual sense of course.

 

But that does not mean I am contradicting myself either.  Reality exists in our human perceptions of it- there is nothing more we can know about anything than what humans can know, and that goes for science, spirituality and everything.  We can never stop seeing things through human eyes to get to anything beyond that.

 

THAT is the great illusion- that what we see and feel somehow "mirrors" some reality we cannot see and feel.  If that were the case, we could not speak about it anyway, since to do so would put that "reality" right back into human symbolism again, and therefore into the realm of what is humanly created.

 

So in a sense, there is nothing "beyond" the placebo effect- the placebo effect is just a label for something that works which we cannot name.  The "placebo effect" heals people every day.  How do we know that God is NOT the "placebo effect"?

Edited October 14, 2013 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

I have heard it argued from time to time that the "cave men" were degenerated humans.  Personally do not buy into that.

 

IIRC, that comes from Joseph Fielding Smith.

 

 

 

If we give credence to the longevity stated to have occurred in Genesis, one could conclude several things: 1) that we physically degenerated in the lone and dreary world; 2) that the contamination of the Earth and living close to each other and in proximity with animals caused us to be more prone to aging and disease; or 3) that the effects of eating the fruit were not totally immediate but had an increasingly debilitating effect over time.  Obviously, there have been periods in time especially when religious orthodoxy suppressed the obtaining of secular knowledge, where life spans have either shortened or stagnated -- but the average life-span when you set aside the massive violent wars has been increasing with increased knowledge of the environment, germs, and various medical and technology intervention possibilities.

 

I see Adam and Eve as an allegory, not a description of a literal event. IMO, we humans needed a way to explain how we arrived on this planet, in a way that is compatible with our belief in God. Various civilizations, though not all, have come up with the story of our first parents. For me, what is important is what we learn from the story: we have divinity within our nature, we often rebel against God, and we are provided forgiveness from that rebellion such that we can dwell with God. That humans evolved over millions of years is irrelevant to the story in that it doesn't change the basic facts of our existence, so I don't see a pressing need to reconcile the creation narrative in the Bible with the fossil record.

Edited October 14, 2013 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

I have heard it argued from time to time that the "cave men" were degenerated humans.  Personally do not buy into that.  If we give credence to the longevity stated to have occurred in Genesis, one could conclude several things: 1) that we physically degenerated in the lone and dreary world; 2) that the contamination of the Earth and living close to each other and in proximity with animals caused us to be more prone to aging and disease; or 3) that the effects of eating the fruit were not totally immediate but had an increasingly debilitating effect over time.  Obviously, there have been periods in time especially when religious orthodoxy suppressed the obtaining of secular knowledge, where life spans have either shortened or stagnated -- but the average life-span when you set aside the massive violent wars has been increasing with increased knowledge of the environment, germs, and various medical and technology intervention possibilities.

 

Life was much harder, dangerous, sick, and blessedly shorter for much of world history up until the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. The Plague, not war, wiped out almost half of Europe about 7 Centuries ago.

[mfbukowski]

 

IIRC, that comes from Joseph Fielding Smith.

 

 

I think perhaps that you don't understand that most here know that and don't care, and think he was mistaken.  He was a great prophet, and a great great man, but not such a good scientist.

[jkwilliams]

I think perhaps that you don't understand that most here know that and don't care, and think he was mistaken.

Why would you say that? I wasn't quoting that as something authoritative, but just as an aside about where that belief comes from, since Stone Holm said he had heard it often. Do you honestly think I would try to hold anyone here to that belief? I read "Man, His Origin and Destiny" many years ago as a believing Mormon and thought much of it was nonsense. I know enough people here to know that many agree with me.

He was a great prophet, and a great great man, but not such a good scientist.

I didn't say he was a good scientist, and I made no judgment of his character. But don't tell my dad you think he was a great man.

[JLHPROF]

 I see Adam and Eve as an allegory, not a description of a literal event

 

I completely believe the Adam & Eve story, but I think that it was riddled with allegoric symbolism.  For example, I believe Satan came to them and attempted to mislead them, but I don't believe he turned into a serpent - it's symbolic of something.

I believe that Adam and Eve were immortal beings who partook of mortal elements (fruit, maybe figs) to replace the immortal elements in their bodies and allow themselves to become subject to death.

I believe that Eve was made to be a help meet for Adam, but not actually out of his rib.

 

 

(Brigham Young, JD 7:285-286.)

      When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell.

     Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.

 

Now, as far as science is concerned, I find it surprising that we put more faith in their conclusions, admittedly based on some observable facts, than we do on the word of God.  Are there fossils and skeletons that, if our science is correct, predate 4000BC?  Sure.  Does that mean Adam and Eve weren't the first people on Earth 6000 years ago?  Not necessarily.  I believe there was a flood that covered the earth, irrespective of what is or is not present in records or geology.  If God can flood the earth, he can certainly change a few historical evidences too.  And I believe it because it fits, not even as a stand alone story, but with the overall patterns of human existence as God has revealed them.

Edited October 14, 2013 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

I completely believe the Adam & Eve story, but I think that it was riddled with allegoric symbolism.  For example, I believe Satan came to them and attempted to mislead them, but I don't believe he turned into a serpent - it's symbolic of something.

I believe that Adam and Eve were immortal beings who partook of mortal elements (fruit, maybe figs) to replace the immortal elements in their bodies and allow themselves to become subject to death.

I believe that Eve was made to be a help meet for Adam, but not actually out of his rib.

 

 

Now, as far as science is concerned, I find it surprising that we put more faith in their conclusions, admittedly based on some observable facts, than we do on the word of God.  Are there fossils and skeletons that, if our science is correct, predate 4000BC?  Sure.  Does that mean Adam and Eve weren't the first people on Earth 6000 years ago?  Not necessarily.  I believe there was a flood that covered the earth, irrespective of what is or is not present in records or geology.  If God can flood the earth, he can certainly change a few historical evidences too.  And I believe it because it fits, not even as a stand alone story, but with the overall patterns of human existence as God has revealed them.

 

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 a global flood occurred 4000 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?

[jkwilliams]

It might help for me to say that I don't think we need Satan, at least not as a being who tempts us to break the commandments. It's pretty much in our human nature to act selfishly, so why would we need someone to tempt us to do what comes naturally?

[thesometimesaint]

Satan always votes against you. God always votes for you. You break the tie.

[Rivers]

It is best not not to view the Bible as a science book.

[ERayR]

ERayR was talking about ascent and descent, and I'm wondering what the evidence for that is.

 

At least three times in the last three months I have posted on this. Without advocating in any way(in fact I absolutely reject the ancient alien theory) for the ancient alien theory I must say they have a large array of information on ancient evidences.  Just for kicks seriously look at their evidences and see if you can formulate a different theory other than ancient  alien theory and different than standard evolution theory.

[ERayR]

I haven't seen evidence for the devolution of post-Adamic humans into something else (I don't know what, really). ERayR says his studies have led him to conclude that there has been such a devolution, and I'm wondering what evidence he sees of this.

 

Note: ERayR did not use the words or concept of devolution.  I said there is evidences of civilizations reaching great heights and collapsing long before recorded history.  I used ascent and descent.

 

I hope you take the opportunity to do a little exploring along these lines.  It is an interesting and enlightening journey.  If you are serious PM me and I will pursue this a little further.  What I expect, however, is a few snide remarks, some snickering and a link to some elementary evolution material. 

Edited October 14, 2013 by ERayR

[Stone holm]

IIRC, that comes from Joseph Fielding Smith.    I see Adam and Eve as an allegory, not a description of a literal event. IMO, we humans needed a way to explain how we arrived on this planet, in a way that is compatible with our belief in God. Various civilizations, though not all, have come up with the story of our first parents. For me, what is important is what we learn from the story: we have divinity within our nature, we often rebel against God, and we are provided forgiveness from that rebellion such that we can dwell with God. That humans evolved over millions of years is irrelevant to the story in that it doesn't change the basic facts of our existence, so I don't see a pressing need to reconcile the creation narrative in the Bible with the fossil record.

I did say that the degenerative argument came from Joseph Fielding Smith. My reference to him was to his anti evolution stances. I have heard various members make the degenerative argument. Know of no published statements, but you hear it enough that suspect they exist somewhere.

[Stone holm]

It might help for me to say that I don't think we need Satan, at least not as a being who tempts us to break the commandments. It's pretty much in our human nature to act selfishly, so why would we need someone to tempt us to do what comes naturally?

I would have to disagree and I realize this puts me at odds with all the Natural Man arguments. I believe humans are naturally good and that it does take a proponent like Satan to twist ideologies and religions and economic systems in such a way as to produce evil.

[mfbukowski]

I think there are some facts we can know, such as death occurring prior to 5,000 years ago, some facts we can't know (in a scientifically verifiable sense), such as whether Adam was a real person or whether He really had no physical parents, and there are also some facts which we can know, but which may not be important.

I think I'm too liberal to be worried about whether Joseph Smith was true or not, but don't see any harm in examining claims made with respect to the natural world, or in examining these claims comparatively to the assertions in the Gospel or other texts.

I agree with Nietzsche:  "There are no facts, only interpretations".

[MDalby]

I don't understand why people keep asking this type of question.  When I saw 10 pages of responses to this thread, I didn't read any of them because I don't care to hear people opine without scripture support for their stance.

 

These are the facts:

 

1- We DON'T know when Adam "first walked on the Earth."

2- We DO know (give or take) when Adam fell and the earth became temporal.

 

Adam's fall and death are the only dates that we have documented in scripture.

[danieldemol]

I don't understand why people keep asking this type of question. When I saw 10 pages of responses to this thread, I didn't read any of them because I don't care to hear people opine without scripture support for their stance.

How do you know scriptures weren't referenced in those 10 pages if you didn't read them?

These are the facts:...

...2- We DO know (give or take) when Adam fell and the earth became temporal.

Adam's fall and death are the only dates that we have documented in scripture.

1. How long ago do you think the earth "became temporal"

2. How does something become temporal, surely if the earth is now of limited duration there was never a time when it was of infinite duration?

[BCSpace]

(Brigham Young, JD 7:285-286.)

 

 

Now, as far as science is concerned, I find it surprising that we put more faith in their conclusions, admittedly based on some observable facts, than we do on the word of God.

 

The JoD isn't the word of God.  It's not doctrine either except those lines quoted in actual LDS publications.