No Death Before the Fall?

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't think the vast majority of LDS believe in millions of years of death and evolution.  The scriptures don't teach evolution, they teach the opposite.  

You might want read FairMormon on Science/Evolution

SEE https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Evolution

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. SEE Genesis 1:20

It is not millions of years it is Billions of years. As The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles control what is taught on the BYU campuses I would assume that BYU accurately describes evolution's time frames in its well respected Paleontology Museum.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Times change, we are in the last days. 

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question for the people I asked about. What is it about their generations that did not require such a test of faith? We are tested as Abraham (heart-rendering obedience); why was he not tested as we are (accepting the Omphalos hypothesis)?

Now what if there was no death before the Fall, but not all life became mortal at once? What if Adam and Eve were the last to leave the garden some 6,000 years ago? What if, while they remained in the garden for millions or billions of years, they as stewards over the now-mortal dominion, oversaw and witnessed the generation of life and death going on outside the garden, and when things were ready, they stepped out, began to have their posterity and lived out their mortal lives as the scriptures portray? What if this generation of life and death laid down the tangible evidence that is scientifically interpreted but has no bearing on the validity of the plan of salvation? What if other peoples / hominids / sapiens subspecies have an alternative plan of salvation, whether they become sealed to Adam or not (are they included with those without law, or without the same law introduced by Adam?)? Or if the 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existence / continuance refers only to the timeline involving the mortal Adam in relation to the Lord's work leading up to the celestial earth--a 7,000 year plan beginning when the Lord first established His kingdom on this planet?

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Yes, but that doesn't answer the question for the people I asked about. What is it about their generations that did not require such a test of faith? We are tested as Abraham (heart-rendering obedience); why was he not tested as we are (accepting the Omphalos hypothesis)?

Now what if there was no death before the Fall, but not all life became mortal at once? What if Adam and Eve were the last to leave the garden some 6,000 years ago? What if, while they remained in the garden for millions or billions of years, they as stewards over the now-mortal dominion, oversaw and witnessed the generation of life and death going on outside the garden, and when things were ready, they stepped out, began to have their posterity and lived out their mortal lives as the scriptures portray? What if this generation of life and death laid down the tangible evidence that is scientifically interpreted but has no bearing on the validity of the plan of salvation? What if other peoples / hominids / sapiens subspecies have an alternative plan of salvation, whether they become sealed to Adam or not (are they included with those without law, or without the same law introduced by Adam?)? Or if the 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existence / continuance refers only to the timeline involving the mortal Adam in relation to the Lord's work leading up to the celestial earth--a 7,000 year plan beginning when the Lord first established His kingdom on this planet?

I think the main difference is between what scientists call a species, and what some religious claim is a kind. I believe Adam was the first of our kind(Follower of God), but not the first of our species. IE: LDS are a kind of Christian. Not a separate species of animal.

Edited August 23, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Because science wouldn't explain a young Earth. Evolution and natural processes couldn't possibly work in a young earth, we wouldn't need much faith, the existence of god would be obvious. 

Again though you're missing the point. Why a young earth? Honestly this just seems like a dodge to avoid grappling with ones own readings of scripture.

[thesometimesaint]

Young earth Creationists reject ALL of science from Astronomy to Zoology.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think the main difference is between what scientists call a species, and what some religious claim is a kind. I believe Adam was the first of our kind(Follower of God), but not the first of our species. IE: LDS are a kind of Christian. Not a separate species of animal.

We are all a singular kind of life, as is every other life form in the world, as we have same the elements (C,H,O,N) and the same base pairs (A, T, G, C) in common with everything else. just arranged differently. We can extend this to whatever the elements we have in common with any "non-living" things in the Earth as well, and even "stardust." It's probably all a continuum anyway. But Adam is at the head of it all and the buck stops with him, under the direction of God of course.

Adam and Eve could have even donated cells into the fallen world from their post-fall headquarters in Eden to get the process started. Or the dying and dead life forms leaving Eden could have served as the raw materials for subsequent, evolving life. If people believe in evolution, that would explain why it would  take so long to lead up to to our species -- what God can do in 10 months in creating Adam and then Eve --  takes nature billions of years of chance and trial and error, even with Adam's oversight. To me that is the essence of a Fall!

But yes, I think he was the first to be a follower of God, at least the first to establish a formal priesthood kingdom (the covenant kingdom of God on earth). Not that others didn't follow the light of Christ while the divinely-instituted organization simply wasn't available, or that they aren't somehow brought into the fold eventually.

But in the end, the way I keep my covenants is as if the earth was created in 7 days and only 6,000 years old. And it might as well be, since no mortal human being is going to live for 7,000 years!

Edited August 23, 2017 by CV75

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Young earth Creationists reject ALL of science from Astronomy to Zoology.

Thank goodness they still believe in Anatomy, Anthropology, Archaeology and Astrobiology.  

[thesometimesaint]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

We are all a singular kind of life, as is every other life form in the world, as we have same the elements (C,H,O,N) and the same base pairs (A, T, G, C) in common with everything else. just arranged differently. We can extend this to whatever the elements we have in common with any "non-living" things in the Earth as well, and even "stardust." It's probably all a continuum anyway. But Adam is at the head of it all and the buck stops with him, under the direction of God of course.

Adam and Eve could have even donated cells into the fallen world from their post-fall headquarters in Eden to get the process started. Or the dying and dead life forms leaving Eden could have served as the raw materials for subsequent, evolving life. If people believe in evolution, that would explain why it would  take so long to lead up to to our species -- what God can do in 10 months in creating Adam and then Eve --  takes nature billions of years of chance and trial and error, even with Adam's oversight. To me that is the essence of a Fall!

But yes, I think he was the first to be a follower of God, at least the first to establish a formal priesthood kingdom (the covenant kingdom of God on earth). Not that others didn't follow the light of Christ while the divinely-instituted organization simply wasn't available, or that they aren't somehow brought into the fold eventually.

But in the end, the way I keep my covenants is as if the earth was created in 7 days and only 6,000 years old. And it might as well be, since no mortal human being is going to live for 7,000 years!

All life is related, but not all life is of the same species. Our closest living ancestors are somewhere between the Chimps, and the Bonobo's.

All the biological living things we have on this planet are Carbon based. It is a very useful element.

You can donate all the cells you wants to a banana plant, but that does mean it will have viable offspring. 

There is nothing that could falsify that God created this universe last Tuesday and just arranged every last bit of evidence the evidence to show that. But what would be the point?

I'm fine with Adam being the first Priesthood holder. But I think that would entail being a follower of God too.

I'm fine with my covenants. I expect that I will live up to them until die. Hopefully more than 30 years into the future. My mom lived to 93 I want to beat her.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

All life is related, but not all life is of the same species. Our closest living ancestors are somewhere between the Chimps, and the Bonobo's.

All the biological living things we have on this planet are Carbon based. It is a very useful element.

You can donate all the cells you wants to a banana plant, but that does mean it will have viable offspring. 

There is nothing that could falsify that God created this universe last Tuesday and just arranged every last bit of evidence the evidence to show that. But what would be the point?

I'm fine with Adam being the first Priesthood holder. But I think that would entail being a follower of God too.

I'm fine with my covenants. I expect that I will live up to them until die. Hopefully more than 30 years into the future. My mom lived to 93 I want to beat her.

“Species” is nothing more than a scientifically defined taxonomic term. The scriptures use a much broader reference to what constitutes “the living,” so that gene (or elemental) exchange can occur well beyond the innate capacities of any given organism in one sphere when it can just as easily be placed into another.

I think it quite fine that you are fine! I hope you don't stop beating your mom! That didn't come out quite right...

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Thank goodness they still believe in Anatomy, Anthropology, Archaeology and Astrobiology.  

Nope.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

“Species” is nothing more than a scientifically defined taxonomic term. The scriptures use a much broader reference to what constitutes “the living,” so that gene (or elemental) exchange can occur well beyond the innate capacities of any given organism in one sphere when it can just as easily be placed into another.

 

I think it quite fine that you are fine! I hope you don't stop beating your mom! That didn't come out quite right...

If defined broadly enough every living thing is related. But you have to go back pretty far in time for that. IE; Trees and humans are both a kind of living thing.  Are you suggesting they are the same species?

SEE SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

The Blue Whale is definitely a kind of breathing living thing. How many did Noah take on his ark?

SEE https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

I hope to stop beating her when I'm 99 years old.

Edited August 24, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

If defined broadly enough every living thing is related. But you have to go back pretty far in time for that. IE; Trees and humans are both a kind of living thing.  Are you suggesting they are the same species?

SEE SEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

The Blue Whale is definitely a kind of breathing living thing. How many did Noah take on his ark?

SEE https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

I hope to stop beating her when I'm 99 years old.

I’m not using “species” at all to describe how every living thing can be said to be related, especially when considering how everything we see in nature can be construed to be living. I’m not waxing scientific on this point.

But now that you mention it, Psalms 104: 26 allows that blue whales boarded the ark: “There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.”

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Nope.

According to your list they do.

[thesometimesaint]

From the stars above to the little fishies below not so much.

[thesometimesaint]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not using “species” at all to describe how every living thing can be said to be related, especially when considering how everything we see in nature can be construed to be living. I’m not waxing scientific on this point.

 

But now that you mention it, Psalms 104: 26 allows that blue whales boarded the ark: “There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.”

 

Every living thing is related. But I'm unsure about a living relationship to a chunk of Uranium.  

I have no problem with science or God. But right now it is an uneasy relationship. I hope someday that will be resolved.

That would have been an interesting idea. But alas getting all that food for just 2 unclean Blue Whales let alone 7 clean Blue Whales was beyond Noah's pay grade.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Every living thing is related. But I'm unsure about a living relationship to a chunk of Uranium.  

I have no problem with science or God. But right now it is an uneasy relationship. I hope someday that will be resolved.

That would have been an interesting idea. But alas getting all that food for just 2 unclean Blue Whales let alone 7 clean Blue Whales was beyond Noah's pay grade.

Genesis 7 speaks of “living substance,” and elsewhere in scripture the term “living waters” is found, and geological formations are given to sing, shout, weep, emote, etc. And then there’s Moses 7:48. Perhaps all these references are figurative, but in spiritual matters this doesn’t make a difference—the effect is the same. And in a practical sense, the elements have life in order to allow life for us organisms.

As for Uranium, see Deuteronomy 5: 26, “For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?”

[deli_llama]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

Genesis 7 speaks of “living substance,” and elsewhere in scripture the term “living waters” is found, and geological formations are given to sing, shout, weep, emote, etc. And then there’s Moses 7:48.

Yep.

[The Nehor]

On 8/23/2017 at 10:35 AM, thesometimesaint said:

Young earth Creationists reject ALL of science from Astronomy to Zoology.

I have met a few who accept Astrology which is basically Astronomy for the less gifted.

[mfbukowski]

It's an allegory for Pete's sake

Or it's not.  No biggie.  There could not be a concept of "death" before humans could speak.

Pretty silly thing to argue about.  God could do it any way he likes-  what it means is irrelevant to the significance of the idea that sin leads to death.

You commit adultery, you could get shot by an angry spouse.  You could teach your kids that non-ethical behavior is ok and they end up in prison.

Whatever.  Again- it is the ridiculous conclusions people reach by not understanding that religion is not science.

Amazing that this is even discussed here still.

Edited August 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 5/24/2017 at 10:59 PM, Ouagadougou said:

The LDS church states that:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/death.html?lang=eng&letter=D

Unfortunately that is not at all clear from those scriptures.  The Nephi passage does not even mention death, and the Moses quote is ambiguous and could refer to spiritual death.  Clearly misery and woe do not always include physical death and death does not always include misery and woe.  Sometimes death is a blessing.

And we also know the scriptures are not inerrant anyway

Quote

48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.

We must prove each principle by our own testimony.

I do not have a testimony of taking the scriptures literally.

Poof.  There is nothing here to discuss.

Edited August 25, 2017 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

Genesis 7 speaks of “living substance,” and elsewhere in scripture the term “living waters” is found, and geological formations are given to sing, shout, weep, emote, etc. And then there’s Moses 7:48. Perhaps all these references are figurative, but in spiritual matters this doesn’t make a difference—the effect is the same. And in a practical sense, the elements have life in order to allow life for us organisms.

 

As for Uranium, see Deuteronomy 5: 26, “For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?”

Blue Whales are living animals. Did he take 2 or 7 of them onto his ark?   To anthropomorphize an inanimate object doesn't help your argument really. I'm fine with making them figurative. IE; With Noah's flood a massive albeit regional flood makes more sense than a world wide flood to a depth over Mt. Everest. The elements don't have life in and of themselves. We are mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and calcium, with some trace elements mixed in. OTOH Without the elements no physical thing can exist.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Blue Whales are living animals. Did he take 2 or 7 of them onto his ark?   To anthropomorphize an inanimate object doesn't help your argument really. I'm fine with making them figurative. IE; With Noah's flood a massive albeit regional flood makes more sense than a world wide flood to a depth over Mt. Everest. The elements don't have life in and of themselves. We are mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and calcium, with some trace elements mixed in. OTOH Without the elements no physical thing can exist.

From Genesis 7, Noah didn’t take “every living thing of all flesh,” just those that needed to be kept alive in the flood. The Lord offered a way to save any who would not be destroyed of “man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air” that were on “the face of the earth.” This would exclude the ocean, since man was not committing violence under the sea (verses11-13). Regarding sea creatures, it says, “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee…” Whales simply didn’t need the ark because they were not upon the face of the earth.

And undoubtedly the Lord took many animals up with Enoch into Zion, at least for safe-keeping. Even if in cryogenic test tube form (are these still living?)! Inanimate objects needn’t be anthropomorphized to be considered living; they just show no signs of life to us, or they are not alive in the same manner we are.

I’m interested in the roles of microbes in all this. In a protected environment, they live for a time, aging but never “dying” – they just divide into two new cells. Nothing has died; these could have lived on the Earth, doing their thing before the Fall. They vastly outnumber us.

Or did the elements first leave Eden and give rise to these microbes?

Or did Adam donate them from his own body, as our bodies are defined as much by our microbes as by our genes. The only difference between a Homo rudolfensis and a Homo sapiens may be the microbes introduced into the offspring of Adam. If Adam was the last to leave Eden, or periodically returned to Eden after establishing a family line, he could have spent millions/billions of years in his own transition into mortality, watching over the various manifestations of his microbe-infested offspring.  And then came out for his swan song 6,000 years ago.

[thesometimesaint]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

From Genesis 7, Noah didn’t take “every living thing of all flesh,” just those that needed to be kept alive in the flood. The Lord offered a way to save any who would not be destroyed of “man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air” that were on “the face of the earth.” This would exclude the ocean, since man was not committing violence under the sea (verses11-13). Regarding sea creatures, it says, “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee…” Whales simply didn’t need the ark because they were not upon the face of the earth.

 

And undoubtedly the Lord took many animals up with Enoch into Zion, at least for safe-keeping. Even if in cryogenic test tube form (are these still living?)! Inanimate objects needn’t be anthropomorphized to be considered living; they just show no signs of life to us, or they are not alive in the same manner we are.

 

I’m interested in the roles of microbes in all this. In a protected environment, they live for a time, aging but never “dying” – they just divide into two new cells. Nothing has died; these could have lived on the Earth, doing their thing before the Fall. They vastly outnumber us.

 

Or did the elements first leave Eden and give rise to these microbes?

 

Or did Adam donate them from his own body, as our bodies are defined as much by our microbes as by our genes. The only difference between a Homo rudolfensis and a Homo sapiens may be the microbes introduced into the offspring of Adam. If Adam was the last to leave Eden, or periodically returned to Eden after establishing a family line, he could have spent millions/billions of years in his own transition into mortality, watching over the various manifestations of his microbe-infested offspring.  And then came out for his swan song 6,000 years ago.

 

Genesis 7 SEE: 7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate.

That's a stretch to say that fishes and sea mammals are not on the face of the earth,  the least. Face it, the Scriptures were never meant to be a a science book.

Another miracle take virtually every species of plant and animal into Heaven, then return them to a devastated planet.

Microbes don't live in a protected environment. They like every other living thing deals with the environment they are in living for a while then dying to provide food for other living creatures.

No elements no Eden to be in let alone leave.

Take away our bodies and the microbes there don't have a place to live. Some of course can live in other environments, but fewer than most think. Noah and his family were very sick puppies with all the diseases that need a human host to live.

Another miracle take Adam and Eve in and out of the GoE for Billions of years. Then remove all evidence for it 7000 years ago. Tricksy God.

 

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Genesis 7 SEE: 7 The Lord then said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate.

That's a stretch to say that fishes and sea mammals are not on the face of the earth,  the least. Face it, the Scriptures were never meant to be a a science book.

Another miracle take virtually every species of plant and animal into Heaven, then return them to a devastated planet.

Microbes don't live in a protected environment. They like every other living thing deals with the environment they are in living for a while then dying to provide food for other living creatures.

No elements no Eden to be in let alone leave.

Take away our bodies and the microbes there don't have a place to live. Some of course can live in other environments, but fewer than most think. Noah and his family were very sick puppies with all the diseases that need a human host to live.

Another miracle take Adam and Eve in and out of the GoE for Billions of years. Then remove all evidence for it 7000 years ago. Tricksy God.

Yes it is all miraculous. Far more microbes keep us (and Noah and family) healthy than make us sick. More gene expression is affected by microbes than that which is not. A sponge is only 10% "sponge" -- the rest of what we call a sponge is microbes! What you see in the mirror is not 100% "you," but an amalgam of you and trillions of microbes... about a 50-50 split; you are actually part of a symbiotic colony! Maybe the evidence of the Garden of Eden is still intact, we just haven't found it (and are you even looking?)!

I think the seven pairs, etc. refers to those animals on the earth, not in the waters, which would be the case whether one takes Genesis to be a science book or not.

Regarding a protected environment, the first microbes, having no natural enemies and surviving their environments, were in one as nothing could kill them and they never really died. They all aged to a point and then divided. Competition for space and resources came much much later, and that is when death entered the world. We can kill them now with antimicrobial agents, but we weren't around at their inception nor until 2.5 billion years or so later.

Anyway, I hope you know I'm just having fun with these ideas to see where they take us.

Edited August 25, 2017 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

9 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes it is all miraculous. Far more microbes keep us (and Noah and family) healthy than make us sick. More gene expression is affected by microbes than that which is not. A sponge is only 10% "sponge" -- the rest of what we call a sponge is microbes! What you see in the mirror is not 100% "you," but an amalgam of you and trillions of microbes... about a 50-50 split; you are actually part of a symbiotic colony! Maybe the evidence of the Garden of Eden is still intact, we just haven't found it (and are you even looking?)!

I think the seven pairs, etc. refers to those animals on the earth, not in the waters, which would be the case whether one takes Genesis to be a science book or not.

Regarding a protected environment, the first microbes, having no natural enemies and surviving their environments, were in one as nothing could kill them and they never really died. They all aged to a point and then divided. Competition for space and resources came much much later, and that is when death entered the world. We can kill them now with antimicrobial agents, but we weren't around at their inception nor until 2.5 billion years or so later.

Anyway, I hope you know I'm just having fun with these ideas to see where they take us.

Miracles are just something we don't understand yet. Sir Issac Newton didn't understand the motion of two or more planets. So he put it as a miracle by God. We now know how they maintain a stable orbit.

Most microbes are indifferent to humans. A few are deadly and a few are necessary. IE; The microbes in your gut are necessary. The microbes that carry Small Pox are deadly. Microbes killed more American Indians than bullets did. If we could take away every deadly microbe away today new ones would just take their place.

The first microbes had excessive heat, light, exposure to radiation, and other microbes to contend with. The ones that out reproduced won that battle. When they divide the parent doesn't live forever. 

Life appeared pretty early in earth's history about 3.7 Billion years ago.

Always fun talking to you.