"replenish" What Does It Mean In Genesis?

[Stone holm]

Because of snow was late to Church and they canceled the 2nd two hours, but did catch an interesting talk in Sacrament, which set me to wondering about the use of the word, "replenish" in Genesis. Is that word a correct translation? I always thought it meant to refill something which had been previously used up. But so far as I am aware Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth, so they were to fill things up that had never been there before. Am I missing something?

[CV75]

Because of snow was late to Church and they canceled the 2nd two hours, but did catch an interesting talk in Sacrament, which set me to wondering about the use of the word, "replenish" in Genesis. Is that word a correct translation? I always thought it meant to refill something which had been previously used up. But so far as I am aware Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth, so they were to fill things up that had never been there before. Am I missing something?

The footnote for Genesis 28c indicates the Hebrew word meant "fill" -- and a cursory Google supports that.

[thesometimesaint]

 It means to fill. I don't believe it means to exclude all but one species.

[Stargazer]

CV75 and TSS seem to have this well in hand, but I always looked at it in the sense of replacing those who would or had already died.  If there are only two of you, and you know you're mortal, having kids to take your place after you're gone would seem to be RE-plenishing, even if no actual plenishing had yet occurred.  Then again, is "plenish" a word?

 

It is not always a good idea to argue the etymology of words chosen for a translation, instead of that used by the original language, however.  "Replenish" is the word the KJV translators used in the place of a Hebrew or Aramaic word.  They made a choice between different candidates, and did they make a correct one?  The original text is, like, 4,000 years old, after all.

[thesometimesaint]

Statistically speaking 2 is too few and 3 is too many. But have yet see 2 and 1/2 people.

 

Don't know how the derivations came about. I'm just not that much of a wordsmith.

[Stargazer]

Statistically speaking 2 is too few and 3 is too many. But have yet see 2 and 1/2 people.

 

Don't know how the derivations came about. I'm just not that much of a wordsmith.

You've lost me.

But that's not hard to do, today. I got a horrendous cold.

[thesometimesaint]

With just 2 kids we don't have replacement because of death. With 3 we soon get over-replacement because they live. But it is kinda hard to have between 2 and 3 children except statistically.

 

Take care of good yourself. Rest, get plenty of liquids, and meds to help relieve the symptoms. Remember that colds last 7-10 days if you take good care of yours, and about a week a one half if you don't.   Do get better though.

[ERayR]

To play devil's advocate for a moment suppose those who say that earth is made of recycled planets are correct, replenish would be exactly correct.

Edited February 8, 2015 by ERayR

[Uncle Dale]

...Then again, is "plenish" a word?...

 

It was, back in the days of King James. But even then it was

archaic Middle English -- related to the word "plenty."

 

To our modern way of thinking re+plenish must mean

"make again plenty;" but in Middle English the prefix

"re-" was not quite so cut and dried as we try make it.

 

Take for example the word "reduce" (re+duce) which

it related to "draw" as in ductile, etc. But reduce, in

old time language can actually mean "save from sin."

 

So, even to the King James scriptorians replenish did

not necessarily mean to bring back a past "plenty"

which had been lost or diminished.

 

No matter what King James' scholars might have said,

it's best to look up the oldest surviving Hebrew text, to

see what is said there. And, since that text will be

post-exilic, and influenced by Mesopotamian traditions

and lore -- it should not be counted upon as relating

origin accounts that the ancient Israelites themselves

would have told one another.

 

Did Adam and Eve procreate offspring, in order to

replace some ancient, pre-Adam population of

Neanderthals, or the diminished tribe from which

Cain selected a wife?

 

I don't buy it -- but some folks may think it reasonable.

 

UD

 

(then again I don't buy Adam & Eve -- but that's a different argument)

[ksfisher]

Robert Alter, in his work The Five Books of Moses uses the work fill.

     

     "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth'..."

 

Everett Fox in The Schlocken Bible, Volume 1, The Five Books of Moses likewise uses the word fill.

 

     "God blessed them,

      God said to them,

      Bear fruit and be many and fill the earth..."

[mfbukowski]

I recently saw a church leader comment that A&E were the first members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  (I have forgotten where)

 

I thought that a very interesting way of staying true to the story while just kind of ignoring the whole evolution thing. 

 

Expanding on that, one could see them as the first people on earth who were "born again" and re-created by God in his image, spiritually speaking, and the first in the covenant, the first to repent of their sins after they fell, the first to know Good as well as evil, the first who could reproduce and add their progeny to the covenant and therefore replace (replenish) the earth with covenant making people as opposed to others who had no knowledge of God.

 

I think that is as good a way of looking at it as any if that story works for someone.  To me, it answers all the questions some have rather neatly.

Edited February 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Uncle Dale]

...

To me, it answers all the questions some have rather neatly.

 

Perhaps so.

 

Then, on the other hand, if Adam was indeed immersed in the

name of the Holy Trinity (as the JST says), I can only wonder

what the term "Jesus Christ" could have meant to him -- the

name and title pointing to an anointed professor of "YHWA saves;"

or, "in YHWH is my salvation." Graft on "Messiah" to that strange

name, and what it could have meant to a fellow in Davies Co.,

Missouri some 6,000 years before Jesus the son of Mary was

even conceived... well, it puzzles me.

 

I'm told that when Enoch's City departed planet earth, that the

following dispensation (that of Noah) quickly forgot immersion,

trinitarian baptism, and so on, down to Abraham and Moses,

who could only "restore" it for brief periods of enlightenment,

amidst the general trend of dwindling in unbelief -- that John

restored it, and that the more well-known brother of James

was himself immersed in the name of the Father, the Son and

the Holy Ghost, taking upon himself the name of Christ.

 

None of which fits in well with anything else I've learned about

ancient history.

 

So, if Adam's replenishing of the planet allowed for "mingling"

with people descended from apes, I'd like to hear a straightforward

message from "authority," explaining how the DNA matched so

well, as to produce viable offspring.

 

Questions... questions...

 

I always seem to leave viewing this board, having more of them

swirling about in my mind, than when I began.

 

UD

[Stone holm]

My wife suggested it meant that if you cut down a tree you replace it, kill an animal you nurture one to replace it, mine an area you remediate it...but she is a progressive adopted State Mormon, and not sure how many would agree with her environmentalism. I can accept the translation error or changed meaning, and could accept also the replacement of preAdamite hominids, except not Neanderthals since they appeared to have coexisted with us and DNA studies suggest we interbred with them gaining some of our immune system as a result.

[Glenn101]

Because of snow was late to Church and they canceled the 2nd two hours, but did catch an interesting talk in Sacrament, which set me to wondering about the use of the word, "replenish" in Genesis. Is that word a correct translation? I always thought it meant to refill something which had been previously used up. But so far as I am aware Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth, so they were to fill things up that had never been there before. Am I missing something?

 

Replenish is a product of the Norman conquest of England in 1066 A.D. During the French occupation, French became the language of the ruling class and over the years the languages mixed as the French became less French and began mixing with the locals.

 

Replenir is an Old French word meaning to fill or to fill up. That is the root of replenish. I do not know when it started having the added idea of refilling, which meaning has pretty much supplanted the original idea of filling, but using the older definition of the word, one would expect that the translators of the KJV meant it to mean "tp fill up".

 

Glenn 

[Robert F. Smith]

Replenish is a product of the Norman conquest of England in 1066 A.D. During the French occupation, French became the language of the ruling class and over the years the languages mixed as the French became less French and began mixing with the locals.

 

Replenir is an Old French word meaning to fill or to fill up. That is the root of replenish. I do not know when it started having the added idea of refilling, which meaning has pretty much supplanted the original idea of filling, but using the older definition of the word, one would expect that the translators of the KJV meant it to mean "tp fill up".

 

Glenn 

Well, Glenn, since French is just bad Latin (recall that Caesar conquered Gaul in the years B.C.), you might seek the meaning there.  However, since Genesis 1 is written in Hebrew, we might want to look at that first:

 

Gen 1:22, 28 both have the same three plural imperative verbs in Hebrew:  peru urebu umile'u which the Geneva Bible of 1599 translated each time as "Bring foorth fruit, and multiplie, and fill," although they did spell it "mutiply" the second time.  The KJV translators, hardly ever original, followed "fill" in vs 22, but substituted "replenish" for it in vs. 28.

[Stone holm]

Replenish is a product of the Norman conquest of England in 1066 A.D. During the French occupation, French became the language of the ruling class and over the years the languages mixed as the French became less French and began mixing with the locals.

 

Replenir is an Old French word meaning to fill or to fill up. That is the root of replenish. I do not know when it started having the added idea of refilling, which meaning has pretty much supplanted the original idea of filling, but using the older definition of the word, one would expect that the translators of the KJV meant it to mean "tp fill up".

 

Glenn

Darn French knew they had to be involved when the defeated my ancestor.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps so.

 

Then, on the other hand, if Adam was indeed immersed in the

name of the Holy Trinity (as the JST says), I can only wonder

what the term "Jesus Christ" could have meant to him -- the

name and title pointing to an anointed professor of "YHWA saves;"

or, "in YHWH is my salvation." Graft on "Messiah" to that strange

name, and what it could have meant to a fellow in Davies Co.,

Missouri some 6,000 years before Jesus the son of Mary was

even conceived... well, it puzzles me.

You might want to consider what is figurative ritual and what is history in certain endowment procedures.  Otherwise, you might find yourself straining out gnats and swallowing camels (a pretty silly image). Also, most of what you call "names" are titles or epithets, and not names at all.  Moreover, "Jesus Christ" is an English phrase never used by the ancients.  The Hebrew would have sounded something like Yeshua hamashiach "Salvation-the-Anointed-one."  Adam, is likewise not a name, but a generic noun meaning "man; mankind; many,"   The endowment ceremony is an archetypal recapitulation for each separate person performing it.

 

I just don't see the problem with immersion baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now or in Adam's time.  Perhaps I am not understanding you.

 

I'm told that when Enoch's City departed planet earth, that the

following dispensation (that of Noah) quickly forgot immersion,

trinitarian baptism, and so on, down to Abraham and Moses,

who could only "restore" it for brief periods of enlightenment,

amidst the general trend of dwindling in unbelief -- that John

restored it, and that the more well-known brother of James

was himself immersed in the name of the Father, the Son and

the Holy Ghost, taking upon himself the name of Christ.

 

None of which fits in well with anything else I've learned about

ancient history.

Baptism is always basically the same as the Jewish mikvah, which is also by immersion.

 

 

So, if Adam's replenishing of the planet allowed for "mingling"

with people descended from apes, I'd like to hear a straightforward

message from "authority," explaining how the DNA matched so

well, as to produce viable offspring.

.................................................................................

Neanderthals are humans not apes.  I am unaware of genetic mixing with any others.  Perhaps you could clarify what you mean here.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

Neanderthals are humans not apes.  I am unaware of genetic mixing with any others.  Perhaps you could clarify what you mean here.

 

Until somebody comes up with a more convincing scenario,

I'm ready to accept that our DNA, that of Neanderthals, bonobos,

chimps and any other primates one might care to list, evolved

from that of our common ancestor (who was not Adam).

 

Whether or not there was an Adam, I'll leave for others to

debate. But if somebody cares to profess a fellow of that

sort, living some 8000 years ago, he would have successfully

mated (that is succeeded in causing a viable pregnancy) with

the last surviving Neanderthal (supposing there was one)

due to sufficiently overlapping genetics, derived over eons

of natural selection, right here on planet earth, and not

because Adam's race and the Neanderthals were special,

unique creations, unrelated in origin to the great apes.

 

I know that some "Creation Scientists" have arguments against

what I just spelled out -- but I trust that there are at least a few

intelligent, educated LDS posters to this forum who will agree

with my summation more readily than that of the Creationists.

 

Which side are you on?

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

Until somebody comes up with a more convincing scenario,

I'm ready to accept that our DNA, that of Neanderthals, bonobos,

chimps and any other primates one might care to list, evolved

from that of our common ancestor (who was not Adam).

Biological evolutionary theory does argue that all life on Earth came originally from a one-celled organism which could replicate itself, although no one has been able to demonstrate that, nor where the one-celled organism came from.

 

However, it is a fact that the Neanderthal is human and that the primates you list are not (different species).  Cro-Magnons can interbreed with Neanderthals, and we now have the irrefutable DNA evidence that they did.

 

Whether or not there was an Adam, I'll leave for others to

debate. But if somebody cares to profess a fellow of that

sort, living some 8000 years ago, he would have successfully

mated (that is succeeded in causing a viable pregnancy) with

the last surviving Neanderthal (supposing there was one)

due to sufficiently overlapping genetics, derived over eons

of natural selection, right here on planet earth, and not

because Adam's race and the Neanderthals were special,

unique creations, unrelated in origin to the great apes.

You are clearly confused here, apparently not aware of the long overlap of Neanderthals and modern humans many thousands of years earlier than you suppose.  Cro-Magnons had the same size brain-case as the Neanderthals, even though the Neanderthal physique was far more like that of a caricature of a Russian weight-lifter.  See Charles Q. Choi, “ Humans Did Not Wipe Out the Neanderthals, New Research Suggests,” LiveScience.com, Aug 20, 2014, online at http://news.yahoo.com/humans-did-not-wipe-neanderthals-research-suggests-170427549.html ; Choi, “ Neanderthals and Humans First Mated 50,000 Years Ago, DNA Reveals,” LiveScience.com, Oct 22, 2014, online at  http://news.yahoo.com/neanderthals-humans-first-mated-50-000-years-ago-173327096.html .

 

I know that some "Creation Scientists" have arguments against

what I just spelled out -- but I trust that there are at least a few

intelligent, educated LDS posters to this forum who will agree

with my summation more readily than that of the Creationists.

 

Which side are you on?

 

UD

Creationists believe in creation, evolutionists believe in archebiosis (spontaneous generation of life), and Mormons believe in transmission.  Those are the only three theories available, and the evidence doesn't support creation or archebiosis.

[thesometimesaint]

Evolutionist don't believe in spontaneous generation.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

[Uncle Dale]

Evolutionist don't believe in spontaneous generation.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/spontaneous-generation.html

As I recall there are various shades and colors of evolutionists,

but at least some of them would accept the explanation that

self-replicating complex chemical substances can evolve from

ancestral substances replicated mechanically.

That step -- from the inert to the lively -- seems to be the real

missing link in life origins controversy. A crystal can replicate

and extend its structure, but it is not life. Complex chemical

chains can be replicated naturally, but are not life. When the

first postulated self-replication occurred, then the precursor

to RNA "came to life."

Sounds like spontaneous generation to me -- though not of

the naive type, that would have flies magically appearing out

of dung heaps, etc.

The Muslims get around this problem by having human

life originate in a clot of blood -- where the blood comes from

in the first place does not matter to the true believer.

UD

[thesometimesaint]

There are probably as many different shades and colors of evolutionist as there are "regular" people.   Personally I support the idea the God used Evolution in his Creation of us and our universe. There is nothing in science that precludes it, but there is nothing in science that includes it either.

 

We're been able to replicate RNA and DNA in the lab. So abiogenesis meets that limited standard. However I have severe reservations about the necessity or desirability of making an alien(to us) life form.

[Uncle Dale]

There are probably as many different shades and colors of evolutionist as there are "regular" people. Personally I support the idea the God used Evolution in his Creation of us and our universe. There is nothing in science that precludes it, but there is nothing in science that includes it either.

We're been able to replicate RNA and DNA in the lab. So abiogenesis meets that limited standard. However I have severe reservations about the necessity or desirability of making an alien(to us) life form.

It's a long long way from Tipperary, to here, and it's

a long, long way from "organic chemicals" to RNA.

But I suppose that eventually scientists will be able

to not only fool around with RNA, but also to create

(for wont of a better term) many of those microscopic

"missing links" between inert and lively.

Which may trouble a few of our creation scientists.

I remain a theist, while setting upon my mental

shelf 99.9% of the claims of most religions. Yet

I must admit feeling more at home amongst those

sectarians who manage to keep both the Divine

and biological natural selection in mind.

On another board I asked (what is there termed a

TBM) whether or not human DNA could evolve in

the far distant future -- possibly into a type that

could no longer be mated with current ova/sperm.

He (she?) went into a long explanation of how we,

the angels, the gods, etc. were all of one species;

so, no we will not evolve into something else. No

matter what monsters might be brought out of

biolab Petri dishes, our progeny will be the same

divinely-related one that it has been since Adam.

It didn't make much sense to me, so perhaps that

is not orthodox LDS doctrine.

UD

Edited February 11, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

RNA in the lab.

SEE http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm

 

DNA in the lab.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-life-with-alien-dna-created-in-lab/

 

Abiogenesis in the lab.

SEE http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43971/20544373/Abiogenesis_scientist_wins_Nobel_Prize_for_Medicine.

 

What we still have to determine is exactly how life came about but we are getting a lot closer than most realize.

Edited February 11, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

What we still have to determine is exactly how life came about but we are getting a lot closer than most realize.

 

 

I suppose that some answers will eventually arise out

of current research around volcanic vents, like we have

here in the Pacific, on the seabed. Some of the most

primitive, oxygen-adverse micro-organisms are to be

found around these "black smokers." -- Extremely primitive

life forms which would have had no natural home in a

garden of eden, or aboard any ancient ark.

 

But, as I said, many steps lie between organic chemical

combinations and cell-wall encased life.

 

I think two areas deserve special attention in future studies;

one is the structure and nature of the clays resulting from

the breakdown of igneous rock, both in sedimentation at

or near the surface, and deeper on the ocean floor. The

other promising field of study will be that of microscopic

membranes (both inert and biological). Some interesting

things happen to non-living complex "organic" substances

when passes back and forth between two different environments

through thin passages (like tiny crevices in rock layers in an

aquatic environment).

 

I'll be dead before somebody actually produces life in a

test tube -- but I suppose that is coming, and fundamentalists

had better get themselves prepared for yet another

advancement in knowledge which undermines their dogma.

 

UD