Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'adam'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Third Hour Popular Forums
    • Third Hour Admin Alerts
    • LDS Gospel Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
    • Current Events
    • Advice Board
  • Gospel Boards
    • Jewish Beliefs Board
    • Christian Beliefs Board
    • Organizations
    • Study Boards
  • General Discussion Forums
    • Parenting
    • Interests
    • Just for Fun
  • Resources
    • Family
    • Missionary Work
    • Family History
    • Preparedness
    • Share
    • LDS Resources and Information
  • International Forums

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 8 results

  1. Redemption of Zion and the Fall of Adam Apology first: I have been a member of the Church for almost 30 years. I love the Church. I know it is the only true and living church of God in this world. Despite of all the errors and shortcomings of its members and leaders, it is the only church in possession of the keys of the priesthood of God in this world. And God will hold men responsible to the respect and deference they show to the keys He has entrusted in this church. And if we are merciful to our priesthood leaders, God will be merciful to us, and God knows, I need all the mercy I can get! I know that the prophets and apostles called to lead this church are good men who are doing their best at the time. And if they error, these are honest mistakes, and God will be merciful to all those who seek to do His will with all their hearts. Now having said this, let’s come back to the reason I am writing this post, because I love the Church and want Zion “in her beauty rise.” Here we go: The Point: Zion has not been redeemed yet. It’s been almost 200 years since the founding of the Church. Redemption of Zion was spoken of multiple times by the Lord, yet for almost two centuries it eluded the Church. What is redemption of Zion? It is building of the New Jerusalem. In that city Christ will reign personally and the curse of Adam will be lifted. So in a very real way, Millennium starts in that city with Terrestrial state restored in that city, while the rest of the world is still in a Telestial, fallen state. Then the City begins to grow until it fills North and South America, at which time the Second Coming happens, and then the Terrestrial/Millennial state covers the whole earth. So Zion has not been redeemed yet. There is no New Jerusalem yet, even though the Lord offered it to the church almost 200 years ago, but the church failed to receive the blessing. Why? Because the Church is stubborn, closed minded, and is willing to believe incorrect opinions of its prophets more than words of God and Reason. Are you pitting the church against its prophets? Are you insane? No, I am pitting the words of God, correctly delivered through the prophets, against the incorrect opinions of the prophets (which opinions the prophets themselves readily admit could be wrong). Give me an example of such incorrect opinion. Ok. The fall of Adam. What about it? Well, we are taught in the church that a heroic Adam and wise Eve did exactly what they were supposed to do in the garden of Eden, and there was no better way for them but to transgress. This is a doctrine of the devil, because the devil was literally the first one who taught it in the garden, and our church leaders unwittingly repeat this lie to this day! Zion CANNOT be redeemed and restored to a Terrestrial state while believing the very lie that caused the fall in the first place! Why do you say it’s a lie? Do not scriptures teach the same? They do not. Let’s look at 2 Nephi 2 Does this not say that there was no way for Adam to keep the first commandment to multiply without transgressing the second commandment not to partake? No it does not. First of all, I bring your attention to the fact that it says “they WOULD have had no children.” It does not say “they COULD have had no children.” What’s the difference? Because they COULD have, but WOULD not. And why wouldn’t they? Because they were disobedient and foolish. So, far from Adam being heroic in the garden, and Eve being wise, they were both foolish and disobedient (not in general, but in that thing). I am sure they became heroic and wise afterwards, but not in the transgression. There is nothing heroic, ever, in transgressing the commandments of God! But the prophets in the church say they were wise and heroic. Do you go against the prophets? The scriptures and God never said Adam was heroic and Eve was wise in the garden. It is an opinion of the prophets, probably as far back as Joseph Smith. But it is an incorrect opinion, because it directly contradicts the words of God Himself, and makes Him a self-contradictory God that gives self-contradictory commandments that His children supposedly cannot do, even though the word of God says: Transgressing commandments is NOT accomplishing them. Therefore it necessarily means that there WAS a better way for Adam and Eve in the garden to multiply and replenish the earth, that did not require any transgression at all. What way would that be? Did not Eve say: Yes she did. But in the light of the words of God it does not mean what you think it means. Taken in context with the other words of God spoken elsewhere it means: Notice again, she says “never SHOULD have had seed,” not “never COULD have had seed.” What’s the difference? One is a lie, and there other is not, because they indeed COULD have had, had they listened to the Father. One means physical impossibility, the other means choice. Adam and Eve made the WRONG choice in the garden, or God is a liar and a self-contradictory God, which is no God at all! Either there was a better way for Adam and Eve to keep all the commandments of God in the garden, or there was no fall. Otherwise, what is it that they fell from, if there was no better way? But the devil said “There is no other way.” Yes he did. Does it not give you a pause? When the father of all lies speaks, you should not take it to be a gospel truth! It is a lie. Well, says you, the devil sprinkles a little bit of truth here and there to sell you the lie. “Is there no other way?” was not a little question. It was THE main question of the whole Eden experience. If the devil answered truthfully to this, the most important question, he would not be the devil. Therefore he lied. There was another way. Ok, so you say there was a better way. What was it? Why, to keep the commandments of the Father of course, and to resist the temptation of the devil! But their eyes were not opened then. They didn’t even know they were naked, for crying out-loud, how can you expect them to multiply and replenish the earth in such a state? They were like little children and forever would remain such unless they were exposed to opposition/temptation. That is true. And opposition/temptation was presented to them, as God said. But what most in the church miss, is that: Even though it was necessary for Adam to be tempted to open his eyes to know good and evil, it was NOT necessary for him to yield to the temptation. Resisting temptations opens eyes better than yielding to them. This is why it was called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil," because whether they yielded to the temptation to partake of it, or resisted it, their eyes would have been opened; because it is the exposure to temptation/opposition that opens eyes, and not fruits and trees. Their duty was to resist the temptation sufficiently, which would have opened their eyes without transgression. This is how Jesus got His eyes opened to know good and evil, by resisting temptations, instead of yielding to them. But the devil said: “This is how the Father gained his knowledge.” That is a lie. Here is proof: Here is how God gained His knowledge: Jesus was born with the same veil over His mind that Adam and Eve had. He did not know good from evil when he was born: Jesus got His eyes opened to know good from evil by resisting all temptations: Therefore He knew good and evil better than anyone who ever lived on this earth, without committing any transgression! The better way: Plan A. If Adam and Eve resisted the temptation of the devil to partake of the forbidden fruit, their eyes would have began to be opened sufficiently to have children, which obedience to the first commandment, would have opened their eyes completely. Thus if Adam and Eve resisted the temptation in the garden, they COULD have had their eyes opened without any transgression, and could have had children without any fall, precisely as the Father commanded them, in which case the world would have continued in a Terrestrial/paradisaical glory, the same state that will prevail on the earth, but now only in the Millennium. Thus the plan of God was much more magnificent and generous than what we are taught in the church. There was a MUCH better way! And if there was no Plan A, no better way, then there was no fall, or what is it that they fell from? Wait a minute! But the scriptures say if there were no fall there would be no Savior, and without a Savior all of the creation would have been lost. Therefore Adam had to fall, or all of creation would have been lost! Not really. Yes you have to have the Savior. Anyone in ANY world, celestial, terrestrial, or telestial, who makes even one mistake cannot be saved on his own merit, and therefore needs a Savior. That is true. But it is never man’s duty to transgress God’s commandments. In fact it is his solemn duty not to. Jesus said it best: Did you get this? It is impossible, but some world somewhere will fall, but WOE to that world that falls. It is not honorable or heroic or wise. It is WOE. It was not heroic, honorable nor wise that Adam and Eve fell. It was wrong, because there was a much better way to open their eyes. Just to drive this point home a little bit further, let’s take Lehi’s words and apply them to Lucifer. According to Lehi’s logic, this statement is obviously true: If Lucifer did not rebel, he would not have fallen, and would not have become the devil, and without the opposition, Adam’s eyes would never have been opened, and therefore he would never have children. It is all true. But it does NOT mean that there was no better way for Lucifer but to rebel. No one in their right mind will argue that Lucifer did the right thing. If he did, why was he cursed for it? If he did the right thing, he should have been blessed instead of cursed! This is how proponents of “there was no better way” lie go off the rails. The fundamental truth in any analysis is this: That which is according to the commandments of God is good, and That which is contrary to the commandments of God is evil. Adam and Eve went contrary to the commandments of God, therefore it was not good, nor honorable, nor brave, nor wise. It was disobedient and foolish. If Lucifer did not fall, someone else would have, and would have been cursed for it. If Adam did not fall, someone else would have fallen on some other world, and would have been cursed for it, and the Savior would have been born there. It is ALWAYS wrong to transgress the commandments of God. There are no exceptions to this rule. None. But the scripture says: Does it not then mean, that Adam’s case was special, and that God wanted him to fall? No it does not. What God said to Adam in the garden was no different than what He says to us today: How much more free can you possibly get? This is exactly the same choice that was given to Adam in the garden, and he chose wrong. Why? Because there was a better way, that God commanded. But the fall was necessary, some will say! No it wasn’t. If the fall was necessary, then the atonement was unnecessary. Think about it: If the fall was necessary, then Adam had done what he was supposed to do, and therefore he fulfilled his duty, and therefore he had done nothing wrong, and therefore there is no need for an atonement! Those who say that the fall was necessary, unwittingly make the atonement of Christ unnecessary. This is the true definition of necessary: Necessary means: a) God commanded it, and b) It is your duty to do it, and c) You will be cursed if you do not do it, and d) You will be blessed if you do it. That’s what “necessary” means to God, and only a devil would disagree with that. By this definition, the fall of Adam was UNNECESSARY. Just like every sin and transgression is unnecessary by definition, or they are not sins and transgressions. But was it not a part of God’s plan that Adam should fall? And does it not then make it necessary? Ah! This is the subtlety that Satan exploits. The definition of “necessary.” We spoke of it before. Necessary, to God, means duty. It was necessary that Adam should be cast out of the garden, BECAUSE he transgressed. But it was unnecessary FOR Adam to transgress. So the key here: who you apply the word “necessary” to? The correct application is that of “duty.” If you cannot say it was someone's duty to do something, then you cannot justly say it was necessary FOR THEM. The outcome of the punishment was necessary, but the transgression that caused the punishment was unnecessary. Furthermore, if something is a part of the plan, it does not mean it is your duty to transgress. Hell is also a part of God’s plan, but it is not recommended. In fact, it is forbidden. People get there AGAINST God’s advice and instructions. So also the fall was accounted for in God’s plan, but just like hell, it was forbidden. Adam and Eve got there against the Father’s advice and instructions, and were cursed for it. So the punishment was NECESSARY, but the transgression that brought the punishment was UNNECESSARY by definition, or it was not a transgression. But don’t all sin? Not all. Well, all make mistakes? Not all. And even though most make mistakes, it does not mean there is no better way. Otherwise they are not mistakes, and God is a liar because He expressly forbade people to transgress and to sin. And why did He forbid them transgressions and sins? Because there is a better way, or God is not God. So what would conditions on the earth be like if Adam did not fall? First of all, if he did not fall but Eve did, Adam would not have been left alone in the garden, as Satan lied through Eve, but Adam would have been given another wife, who would have listened to the Father more than the devil in the garden. (Thus it was not Adam’s duty to follow his fallen wife and the devil. It was Adam’s duty to resist the temptation, even though it was greater because he had to choose between his wife and God. Unfortunately he chose wrong. Another example of what not to do.) Secondly, if Adam resisted the temptation sufficiently, his eyes would have been opened without transgression, and he would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded him. Therefore, the world would have began in a Terrestrial/paradisaical state, which is the same state that will exist on the earth, but now only in the Millennium, when billions of children will be born and live out their lives without ever knowing a fallen, telestial, lone and dreary world. But how then will they get the opposition and the experience necessary to be exalted? Do you doubt that they in the Millennium will be exalted? To be sure, Satan will still try to tempt them, but he will not be successful. Opposition exists in any kingdom, celestial, terrestrial, or telestial. The only difference is how people deal with it. No one suffered more than Heavenly Father and His Son. No one suffered more intensely than they. Yet they did not fall to get that suffering. The righteous suffer because of the transgressions of others, and the wicked suffer because of their own transgressions. But all must suffer, or they cannot know the fullness of joy, which is the purpose of life. Ok, but by saying all these things about Adam, do you not sow discontent, and humiliate a great man? No. Either make God true, or Adam in the garden, but not both. They are mutually exclusive. In the words of Paul: Besides, Adam’s is the great redemption story. Though he caused the fall, he will be the man to announce earth return to paradisaical glory: Adam is Michael, the seventh angel. He will appear in Adam-ondi-Ahman long before the events described in verse 110, and declare to stubborn Zion, that he, Adam, made a mistake in the garden of Eden, and that there indeed was a better way for him and his posterity, had he listened to the Father more than to the devil. Then the New Jerusalem will shortly begin to be built, for then the church will be disabused from the very lie that caused the fall of the world in the first place! He who has ears to hear, let him hear. But didn’t the devil say that this has been done in other worlds? Does it not mean that all worlds follow the same fallen course? No! Think about it: The devil while speaking to God says: “If thou cursest me for doing the same thing that has been done in other worlds...” Wait a minute! If the devil was cursed in millions of other worlds (and we are taught that there were millions of worlds before this one), for doing the same thing, then why is he surprised that he is cursed now? Was he not cursed millions of times before under the same circumstances? No, he wasn’t! The other world’s did not fall. He tempted them, their Adams and Eves, but those other worlds rejected his temptation. That’s why though he tempted them just as he has done here, he was not cursed before, because his temptation did not produce a fall, until this earth. Otherwise he should have fully expected to be cursed if he was cursed for doing the same thing millions of times before! This means that this earth was the first one that fell. Millions of other worlds created by God before did not fall! This is why the Savior was born here, because this was the most wicked world of all. But is it fair, that we should be born in such a world? Fear not, God compensates everything. The trial in this world is intense but short. In other less wicked worlds it takes much longer to be exalted, because there is less intense opposition. Besides, even in this fallen world, many overcame it and gained a terrestrial state: Enoch and his city, Melchizedek and his city, John the Beloved, the three Nephites, and many, many others. By the way, if Enoch or Melchizedek were in the garden of Eden instead of Adam, they would not have fallen. Does it mean they are greater than Adam? No. It means they were less volatile, or more steadfast in that point. So everyone gets all the blessings they are willing to enjoy, as soon as they are ready to receive them. Therefore, we are never waiting for God. He is always waiting for us. Because He is ready, and we are not. Besides, because of Christ, the curse of Adam is removed from little children. Therefore, everyone will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. Thus, all is fair in the end. So the summary is: 1) There was a better way for Adam and Eve in the garden, had they listened to the Father, or there was no fall, and God is not God. 2) That better way was to listen to the Father and to resist the temptation. 3) Which if they had done, their eyes would have been opened without transgression, and they would have had posterity without a fall, precisely as the Father commanded them. 4) Which would have produced conditions on the earth similar to those which will prevail, but now only in the Millennium. 5) All is just in the end. Christ compensates for the mistakes and transgressions of parents, if the children embrace the truth, instead of justifying and glorifying the transgressions of their parents. 6) Zion cannot be redeemed, ie restored to a Terrestrial glory, while believing the very lies that caused the fall from that glory in the first place. 7) Adam/Michael himself will tell the stubborn church (those who are left alive), that he did wrong in the garden of Eden, and that there indeed was a better way for him and his posterity, had he listened to the Father more than the devil. 8 ) Then, shortly after, Zion will be redeemed, and the New Jerusalem built. 9) The church is true, and God will not suffer Satan’s lies regarding the fall to continue in His church much longer. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
  2. Hi! I have in my notes from a BYU Religion class years over a dozen years ago, that the Prophets of the Dispensations are as follows: Adam- The father of all dispensations Abel - The prophet of the first dispensation Enoch - 2nd Noah - 3rd Abraham - 4th Moses - 5th Christ - 6th J.S. - 7th Other than this one note from my class I can't seem to find any sources. I'm wondering if this is correct and where I might find a source.
  3. As I was talking about the gospel to some friends of mine in a different christian denomination, we somehow got onto the topic of "Eve's curse" and they told me that God punished Eve for partaking of the fruit by making her endure monthly menstruation. Keeping in mind Article of Faith 2, is this compatible with LDS beliefs? What is the LDS stance on the subject? Is it open-theology? Edit: I am LDS, just don't know the answer.
  4. I understand that the church has no official position on the theory of evolution, and that members are free to believe what they will on the subject. The church does however, assert that Adam and Eve were real historical persons, the first children of God on the earth, and the primal parents of the entire human race. The church's position regarding pre-adamites (humans who lived before the biblical time of Adam) is also neutral. The church neither confirms nor denies their existence. The same is true regarding the idea that there was no death on the earth prior to the fall; the church takes no official stance. Though the church is neutral on the subject, fossil and archaeological evidence overwhelmingly point to the existence of pre-adamites and death prior to the fall, and I'm inclined to accept the validity of that evidence. Keep in mind that the church neither supports nor condemns me in doing so. If you similarly choose to accept this evidence, I'm interested in how you reconcile the existence of pre-adamites with a literal, historical Adam and Eve. Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first humans only in the sense that they were the first children of God. Perhaps they were products of evolution, the apex of the pre-adamic race, and were merely the first of whom God breathed the breath of life into their nostrils. Perhaps they weren't created through the process of evolution, and the pre-adamites have no relation to them. Thoughts? Whatever the case may be, it cannot be denied that the best evidence available to us does seem to confirm the existence of pre-adamites. Please let me know what you believe on this subject and why. I would also be very interested if you are aware of any theories advanced by church leaders, or really anyone else for that matter. Thanks! EDIT: Apparently there is some disagreement on what the official doctrine of the church is on this subject. Some church leaders have expressed strong views that evolution is inconsistent with church teachings, and others have likewise expressed strong views that evolution is consistent with church teachings. I maintain that the church's official stance is neutral, which is what allows these church leaders to have their differences of opinion on the matter. Here's a source from that affirms the church's neutral position: "The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution. Organic evolution, or changes to species’ inherited traits over time, is a matter for scientific study. Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution." ( Irregardless of the official church doctrine, I intended for this thread to be centered around what you think about evolution. Let's keep the discussion civil as we express our opinions on the subject. Thanks.
  5. I’m new to these forums so I’m not sure if this topic has been covered before. Let me just start by saying that I was happy to find a venue where faithful LDS can ask sincere questions regarding our faith. In my search for answers I have come across other sites and it soon became clear that I was reading anti-Mormon material. I could feel the spirit leave me, and that’s how you know. I’m a life-long member who had a faith crisis when I was a teenager that carried over into my mid-twenties. At 15 years old, I became obsessed with “disproving” events in the scriptures based on my own limited knowledge and understanding of how the world works. I began to challenge some of the more significant events in the old testament. I was convinced there was no way that we all were descendents of two people (because gross, incest). I was convinced there was no way that Moses literally split the Red Sea and marched across it because after 5 minutes of research, I saw there was a land bridge connecting Egypt with the middle east during that time. I was convinced there was no way to fill a ship with 1 pair of every animal, bird, insect, reptile etc and that became the basis for all life as we know it. I figured if these events were made up, or embellished, that it stood to reason other things in the Bible could be made up also. Why, even God could be made up. I continued down this path of destroying what little faith I had and then I set my sights on the Book of Mormon. What’s the easiest way to disprove the Book of Mormon? Attack the “source”, Joseph Smith. However, I had read enough of the Book of Mormon that I could not deny the spirit that I felt when I read it. I had visited the sacred grove, knelt in prayer, and received a witness that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. How could a young man with hardly any education, completely fabricate such a Book? I was stumped. As Jeffrey R Holland recently put it, (I’m paraphrasing b/c I can’t find the quote) “The Book of Mormon will stand as a roadblock for those who try to disprove the church”. And in my case, that was true. I could “disprove” everything except The Book of Mormon. I chalked it up to Joseph Smith being “divinely inspired” and told myself that IF there was a God, that the Church was true. I held on to that little seed of a testimony as I continued to make poor decisions. After 8 years, I was the prodigal son who returned to the church after wasting my blessings on riotous living. I saw what the world had to offer and I found it to be lacking of any real substance. I had been sufficiently humbled to the point of repentance. That was when this stiff-necked person turned to Christ and His church in a very real way. Soon after I returned, I met my future wife who is more amazing and beautiful than any of your wives (sorry fellas, I got the best one). As I was preparing to enter the temple to become sealed and receive my endowments, my wife and I attended a temple prep class. This class was preparing us for the covenants we were about to receive and the teacher told us that we would learn more about Adam and Eve. I confessed that I had always kind of viewed them symbolically to which he corrected me and said that they are literal, and that I’ll know that for myself after receiving my endowments. Well… I received my endowments, and I’ve probably done endowments for 25+ people at this point, and I still think that Adam & Eve are mostly symbolic and I’m ok with that. It really doesn’t bother me if they are just symbolic. When I die, and I find out that they were literally the mother and father of all living who instantly sprouted out of the ground, I’ll say “okay, cool”. When I die, and I find out they were symbolic of the first two spirits to enter the physical bodies that were formed over millions of years of evolution, and that the Old Testament might have gotten a few dates wrong because of ya know, no written history and what not I’ll say “Okay, cool”. How does one account for Science while also having faith in Heavenly Father and Christ? I draw great comfort from this quote by Joseph Smith “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” I’m okay with viewing some things symbolically (especially in the Old Testament). Just look at how Christ and his Prophets & Apostles taught, through symbolism and parables. Look at how our Prophets and Apostles teach today, through symbolism and parables. When Dieter F. Uchtdorf talks about flying, he’s teaching using parables! Some might criticize my views, and tell me that I am wandering from the straight and narrow. That may be true. However, I believe viewing some of the appendages of the Gospel symbolically actually strengthens my Faith in the Savior. I love that Heavenly Father knows us so well, that he has provided us ways to understand difficult concepts in a simple way. After all, we are but bumbling toddlers compared to Him. Symbolism also helps me because I do not have to hold the appendages of our Religion to the scrutinizing flame of science. Q: Did Noah really build an Ark? A: Who cares, let’s focus on what is important. Q: Why are there structures built by humans 5,000 years before Adam and Eve? A: Who cares, let’s focus on what is important. Q: Was the Earth literally created in 7 days, or even 7,000 years? A: Who cares, let’s focus on what is important. I can see how viewing things symbolically can be dangerous, but I believe It can be more dangerous to have a very literal and dogmatic view of the Gospel. I was listening to a podcast recently (don’t worry, I stopped listening once I realized what it was) when a young man said one of the reasons he left the Church was because the Book of Mormon mentions horses and there is no current archeological evidence that supports horses in the Americas at that time. Really? Seriously? You’re going to bank your entire Testimony of the Savior and Heavenly Father’s plan on... _horses_? That sounds like a young man I once knew (me). What about the recent supposed discovery of Bountiful? What if you get so wrapped up in that, and it turns out it wasn’t the place, so you leave the church because “if it didn’t happen exactly like it states in the Book of Mormon, then I’m done!” I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. I also believe that Thomas S Monson is a Prophet of God. I have felt the redemptive power of Christ’s atoning grace in a very real and literal sense. I know we have a Heavenly Father and Mother who love us dearly. I believe that our church is lead by Christ and I know that The Book of Mormon is another testament of Christ and that it was not fabricated by Joseph Smith. I leave this Testimony as a witness, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. So, how do you account for Science and Faith? Do you ignore Science whole-cloth whenever it contradicts the Gospel? Or do you find a compromise that let’s you go on, moving forward in faith? Also, am I going to the Telestial Kingdom because I think Heavenly Father and Christ probably have some pretty stellar spaceships? (that’s another post for another day)
  6. After Adam and Eve transgressed they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, which is located in Jackson County, Missouri. They later settled in the Adam-ondi-Ahman Valley, which is also in how did man reach all the way from America to Africa and the Middle East? At first I thought that maybe it was because after the Flood Noah settled in the Middle East and civilizations began to develop again, but then I remembered that Noah was already in Israel (I think, but could be wrong). Which brings me back to my question: How did man get from America to the Middle East?:confused:
  7. Lilith, the first wife of Adam. She was made at the same time as Adam but was cast out of the garden because she wouldn't be Subservent to Adam. Lillith is well documented in trusted jewish commentaries such as the Kabblah, the talmud, zohar and also is found in the dead sea scrolls. Lilith is portrayed as something of a succubus, a immortal demon-ish seducer. There are are aspects of the story which are very apocryphal and mythical today but what kind of stance do you all take on an account such as this. Wiki Article Various Article Index on Lilith - - - - - - - - - - - - Lynden Jensen Check out my Blog at Know♣Justice
  8. I have heard Jesus referred to as the 'Second Adam' or as the 'Last Adam'. These terms seem to come from Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:45-49. What do you think is meant by the idea that Christ is the 'Second Adam'? I know there are lots of commentaries out there, but I am mainly interested in hearing your ideas and points of view. You may want to discuss Comparable ideas, for example: both Adam and Jesus were foreordained, volunteered to take significant roles in the plan of salvation, and were not born to mortal parents in the normal manner. You may want to discuss Contrasting ideas, for example: through Adam we have our physical birth and physical and spiritual death were introduced, while through Jesus we have our spiritual rebirth and physical and spiritual death were overcome. Or you may want to address ways in which Adam is a Type (or is symbolic) of Christ. Please share your ideas, whether profound or simple.