Were Adam and Eve born?


thedorman
 Share

Recommended Posts

The problem with that analogy is that the "young child" had a 'higher performing' car before he gets the lesser 'high performance racing car.' The young child in that metaphor has been using the racing car for some time already.

You're assuming they had knowledge of procreation before they ate the fruit. If they did not, then your analogy does not apply.

Again, we know they could not have children before they ate the fruit. So, either way, they could not drive "that" car until they were either, in your case, given the car, or in my case, learn how to operate it.

Don't you think it's interesting that murder (taking of life) and sexual sins are the 2 worse sins? There's something sacred about this knowledge we gained. God has taken great care to teach it to His children at the right time and in the right way, and given very specific instructions and very clear consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're assuming they had knowledge of procreation before they ate the fruit. If they did not, then your analogy does not apply.

Again, we know they could not have children before they ate the fruit. So, either way, they could not drive "that" car until they were either, in your case, given the car, or in my case, learn how to operate it.

Don't you think it's interesting that murder (taking of life) and sexual sins are the 2 worse sins? There's something sacred about this knowledge we gained. God has taken great care to teach it to His children at the right time and in the right way, and given very specific instructions and very clear consequences.

I think I am mostly going with the fact that procreation is instinctual, it doesn't require much knowledge at all. Even worms and trees and spiders know how to procreate. They were more ignorant than worms before the fall?

Yes, I am assuming they had knowledge of procreation before the fall. In the war in heaven, I'm sure there was much discussion about many aspects of this existence. And I believe that we knew much much more in the preexistence than we do know. We find ourselves in a fallen state, in an ignorant state. Its as if we are under the effects of anesthesia in this state compared to how much we knew before. The natural man is an enemy to God, it pulls us away from God and His ways unless we overcome it and ignore it. Adam and Eve gaining the 'natural man' state did not make them immediately more knowledgeable about sacred processes.

Learning the consequences of an action doesn't always occur at the moment one learns about the action. My 5 year old son knows what killing is even though he doesn't know the consequences of such a thing. Adam and Eve could know all about procreation without understanding the negative ramifications of it (if there really is any). Procreation is a good thing. What good thing was held from them before they found themselves in this state?

I believe Adam and Eve partook of the fruit because they knew what procreation was and that was the only way to fulfill that commandment and that they couldn't do it without taking on the fallen state. Knowing what they were getting themselves into makes their act even more glorious. I can't comprehend them doing it because they were 'curious' or too ignorant to really know the consequences as if it was an accident. I don't think they were rebelling against God's commandment either.

Knowledge of evil is not required for procreation. (In my opinion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you think it's interesting that murder (taking of life) and sexual sins are the 2 worse sins? There's something sacred about this knowledge we gained. God has taken great care to teach it to His children at the right time and in the right way, and given very specific instructions and very clear consequences.

By the way, procreation is not a sexual sin. What sexual sin could they have possibly done after eating the fruit? (Don't answer that .... just rhetorical question) In my opinion, there was no sexual sin revealed to them by eating the fruit. Were they going to cheat? with who? Were they going to have premarital sex? they were married. It doesn't require knowledge of sin to procreate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were more ignorant than worms before the fall?

The word isn't ignorant.. it's innocent. :)

I'm enjoying this discussion. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I read your posts with earnestness because I value other's opinions. That you read and respond to mine is appreciated. I am presenting what I believe, and answering to concerns and questions... that's all. :)

And, also, remember the scripture says "all things must have remained in the state in which they were created..." even the worms and spiders. We know through modern revelation that the fall was passed on to all living things.

It's safe to say that we really have no idea exactly what it was like before the fall.

Just as Adam and Eve had no idea what the "fallen" world was like before the fall.

All we can do is view "innocence" and "carnal" as we see them now.

I can easily see where they had no carnal intentions in their innocent state. Even proper physical relations are initiated by being physically attracted to the other. I'm saying they were in a state of innocence, like a boy and girl toddler taking a bath together... all they wanna do is play with the toys in the water. The thoughts of attraction and procreation never even enter their mind. As they get older, they change...

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, procreation is not a sexual sin. What sexual sin could they have possibly done after eating the fruit? (Don't answer that .... just rhetorical question) In my opinion, there was no sexual sin revealed to them by eating the fruit. Were they going to cheat? with who? Were they going to have premarital sex? they were married. It doesn't require knowledge of sin to procreate.

I'm simply saying that God has made it clear that the punishements and consequences for breaking sexual sins are among the most severe. I didn't mean to imply Adam and Eve broke sexual laws, just that the law has been made known.

I believe that the trees were real. I don't subscribe the theory that some do that the trees were allegories of something like sexual sin. The trees definately were symbols of something else, but that deosn't mean they weren't real.

I'm also not saying the knowledge of how to procreate was somehow DNA coded in the fruit. It was the choice they made to eat the fruit that caused them to fall. That choice put them in the position to learn about right and wrong, and the proper use and the misuse of the powers of procreation. There is, no doubt, a lot missing from the pages of scripture concerning the finer details of these things.

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this applies to this thread, too. So, I'll move some of this post I made in a different thread to here:

Genesis 5:

1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

Very interesting word play here. It's almost as if it's saying Adam was born the same way Seth was.

Luke 3: 38

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

This one is a little more direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Adam and Eve partook of the fruit because they knew what procreation was and that was the only way to fulfill that commandment and that they couldn't do it without taking on the fallen state.

That is very possible. However, the same could be said if they knew that the knowledge needed in order to learn how to procreate was in eating the fruit, which is what I believe. So, both lead to the same place.

Knowing what they were getting themselves into makes their act even more glorious.

I think they knew they were going to "die" spiritually, or be separated from God. I think that is partly why they hid from Him. I don't see our views as being different in this area. However, there are some things they just couldn't know or understand until they ate the fruit. I believe the evidence, some of which I have shared here, suggests they viewed their "natures" differently before and after the fruit. It's as if their eyes were opened to their "nakedness" or their anatomical differences. Until those differences are noticed, one wouldn't even ask the question, or apply anything they are taught to procreation... like God teaching them to till the ground.

I can't comprehend them doing it because they were 'curious' or too ignorant to really know the consequences as if it was an accident. I don't think they were rebelling against God's commandment either.

I believe they knew the consequences were that they would "die." Also, Adam clearly shows he understood the purpose for us being here when he said "and for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother" (or something like that). Clearly they were taught many things. But, in an innocent state, like small children, procreation wasn't even in their nature, even if they were taught, even commanded, to have children.

The scriptures show us that God told them that the consequences would be death. I just don't know how much they could understand "death" or "procreation" in an immortal, innocent state.

How can someone immortal understand what it means to die? They had never experienced it before, nor had they witnessed it before.

How can someone who is innocent understand physical attraction? They didn't even have the understanding that they were "naked" until after they ate the fruit.

Anyway, good discussion. Looking forward to your replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knowledge of evil is not required for procreation. (In my opinion)

I'm with you. But...

I do think that in some way the *act* of eating the fruit caused something to occur making procreation possible. Prior to that it was not. Adding upon the analogies previously offered, I would say they received the “keys to the car.” Because if the car = the tools needed to procreate, they had them, if the knowledge to “drive” = knowing how to procreate, they probably had some idea of that too, BUT they still needed the keys or *something* to put the whole thing into motion. Eating the fruit, and entering a fallen state was this catalyst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it really makes a difference whether or not you think Adam was "born" or somehow created differently. If Adam was born the same way as you and I, only to an immortal mother, then he obviously would be born with the "ability."

I think this is why this discussion is appropraite in this thread.

I believe Adam was born of an immortal mother. That solidifies my belief about what they needed in order to procreate.

So, the old question that baffles the masses, "Did Adam have a belly button?" is easily answered YES!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Adam was born of an immortal mother. That solidifies my belief about what they needed in order to procreate.

I think this really puts that theory out on a limb because then you have to ask yourself where was that mother? ... as nothing died before the fall. And there was no need for resurrection before the fall, so what is the fate of that mother? And, why did that mother have only one child?

In our modern, but extremely limited science, we can create new species of virus that had not existed here on earth before. Why is it so impossible for God to create a shell of a creature, the body, just out of the dust of the earth, by putting together the DNA pattern of which He has done many times over, forming the lipids and proteins of the zygote cell and putting the DNA inside it, placing it here on the earth and calling it Adam. Why is that, even in our limited understanding, such an impossibility? We know we are literal sons and daughters of God, but spiritually so. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to be immortally (if that is a word) sons and daughters too. Afterall, I think it was Ballard who said, my spirit is 'me' and my body is 'it'.

I think before Adam's body received the breath of life, the spirit - michael, that body was the son of nothing, it was God's creation. We read in many places that we did not descend from any other form of life. We also call Adam the father of our bodies. If Adam came from some other family, then we would also call our bodies the son of that father, not the children of Adam. But, I believe Adam was the first for our mortal body. There was no need to have anyone before him because God could form the body from the materials of the Earth, lining up all the DNA in the right order and making the lipid layers of the cell in which to put it in .... as an example. I don't know how He did it of course. Just saying, Adam's body didn't have to come from some other being as a procreated living being. His spirit did, yes, just like the rest of us, but the body didn't have to, in my opinion. I'm curious what doctrine you think changes based on that belief that Adam had an earthly immortal mother?

The other support of my thoughts is that Moses even says that man is nothing. Meaning our bodies go back to the nothing state from which we came but the spirit that is linked to a father and a mother go on. If Adam had a mother, then you are starting to evoke some eternal significance to that process, like who was that persons mother etc. In the way I presented it, Adam can be the first, of this world and yet still do it the way it has always been done, over and over again in an eternal circle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word isn't ignorant.. it's innocent. :)

I'm enjoying this discussion. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I read your posts with earnestness because I value other's opinions. That you read and respond to mine is appreciated. I am presenting what I believe, and answering to concerns and questions... that's all. :)

I can easily see where they had no carnal intentions in their innocent state. Even proper physical relations are initiated by being physically attracted to the other. I'm saying they were in a state of innocence, like a boy and girl toddler taking a bath together... all they wanna do is play with the toys in the water. The thoughts of attraction and procreation never even enter their mind. As they get older, they change...

I enjoy this conversation too, thanks.

If you use the metaphor of children playing in the bathtub, than we are saying the same thing, because I am saying they physically couldn't procreate before the fall. That would be just like two children before they are matured. In essence it is like having a different body. But then you are admitting it isn't just knowledge, its a physical change. The physical change could also bring on hormonal influences etc. that weren't there before, which are also required for procreation. It seems to me there are more physical changes necessary than there are knowledge based.

You also can't say they were too innocent because then you would say they were married innocently. To me, that's pushing it.

I believe most of our 'evil' experienced in this life is in the form of our body. This is why we believe the natural man is an enemy to God. And we believe Satan only has influence over our body, not our spirit. Satan tempted Jesus through physical passions. And Jesus ultimately overcame this world which is represented by the body, death and resurrection. One can remain innocent and have knowledge of good and evil, as Jesus did. From that, I think if Adam and Eve had the same body we do now, just immortal, they would have known influences of evil before the fall. I think the body had to change, physically to allow Satan to have influence over it and to be cut off from Gods presence. It certainly was possible that the body had no ounce of influence over the spirit before the fall ... but then again they had to eat, so there was some influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little new to LDS.net, but thought I would put this question out there. My question is: Were Adam and Eve born?

According to Genesis 2:7, no Adam was not born be was formed by God. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

That does it for me. Seems pretty straight-forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this really puts that theory out on a limb

This is frequently thought by people who don't understand or agree with a theory. But, I assure you, there is no need to go out on a limb with this one.

because then you have to ask yourself where was that mother?

Do you mean why is she not mentioned specifically? Well, isn't that the purpose of this discussion?

... as nothing died before the fall. And there was no need for resurrection before the fall, so what is the fate of that mother? And, why did that mother have only one child?

So many questions. Perhaps it's best to concentrate on one thing at a time?

The fate of the Mother was the same as that of the Father. Neither of them dwell here. It does not mean they died... it just means they aren't here any more.

That mother had only 1 immortal child on this earth, 2 if you count Eve, but there are worlds without number to us. I believe each needed starting seed. Therefore, to us, she had so many children that we couldn't number them.

Why is it so impossible for God to create a shell of a creature, the body, just out of the dust of the earth, by putting together the DNA pattern of which He has done many times over, forming the lipids and proteins of the zygote cell and putting the DNA inside it, placing it here on the earth and calling it Adam. Why is that, even in our limited understanding, such an impossibility?

When did I say it was impossible?

All I said is that that would make us a "creation" like every other living thing, and not a "creation" like offspring.

We have very gifted artisans on earth. They make art from their heart's desire. Why do they not call them their offspring?

Our spirits are literally children of God. Our physical bodies are made in His image and likeness, both male and female.

We know we are literal sons and daughters of God, but spiritually so. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to be immortally (if that is a word) sons and daughters too. Afterall, I think it was Ballard who said, my spirit is 'me' and my body is 'it'.

The Bible says God created the animals and trees and such, but He did not create them from nothing. He caused them to reproduce after their kind, and He "planted" them on this earth, the first of their kind on this earth.

I think before Adam's body received the breath of life, the spirit - michael, that body was the son of nothing, it was God's creation.

Many people believe like you do.

We read in many places that we did not descend from any other form of life. We also call Adam the father of our bodies. If Adam came from some other family, then we would also call our bodies the son of that father, not the children of Adam. But, I believe Adam was the first for our mortal body. There was no need to have anyone before him because God could form the body from the materials of the Earth, lining up all the DNA in the right order and making the lipid layers of the cell in which to put it in .... as an example. I don't know how He did it of course. Just saying, Adam's body didn't have to come from some other being as a procreated living being. His spirit did, yes, just like the rest of us, but the body didn't have to, in my opinion.

Yep, it certainly could have.

I'm curious what doctrine you think changes based on that belief that Adam had an earthly immortal mother?

Nothing changes.

The other support of my thoughts is that Moses even says that man is nothing. Meaning our bodies go back to the nothing state from which we came but the spirit that is linked to a father and a mother go on. If Adam had a mother, then you are starting to evoke some eternal significance to that process, like who was that persons mother etc. In the way I presented it, Adam can be the first, of this world and yet still do it the way it has always been done, over and over again in an eternal circle.

I think what is adding confusion is the fall. We became mortal because of the fall. We died as to things that are spirtual and must be reborn. We were separated from our Heavenly Parents by the fall.

I don't believe there was ever a man born that didn't have a mother. It just makes too much sense to me that way. I see the evidence in the scriptures, and I just believe it to be true. I certainly can't quote you a series of scriptures and prove it. If it were that easy everyone would believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you are admitting it isn't just knowledge, its a physical change.

I agree with much of what you say. The body did change. It went from being quickened by (whatever it was quickened by) to being quickened by blood. I'm sure this is more of a significant change than we can understand at present, because we have absolutely no understanding of what bodies were quickened by before the fall. To say they were kept alive by spirit is very vague indeed.

I don't think Adam and Eve were still toddlers when they were married. So, you read that part into my analogy. I was only speaking about "innocence" since that's the only reference we have to it in the fallen world.

If you feel their bodies had to undergo a physical change, then so be it. I have no way of proving you wrong, nor is that my desire. I'm just pointing out the evidence that they learned something about gender and body parts also.

Perhaps both were required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what you say. The body did change. It went from being quickened by (whatever it was quickened by) to being quickened by blood. I'm sure this is more of a significant change than we can understand at present, because we have absolutely no understanding of what bodies were quickened by before the fall. To say they were kept alive by spirit is very vague indeed.

I don't think Adam and Eve were still toddlers when they were married. So, you read that part into my analogy. I was only speaking about "innocence" since that's the only reference we have to it in the fallen world.

If you feel their bodies had to undergo a physical change, then so be it. I have no way of proving you wrong, nor is that my desire. I'm just pointing out the evidence that they learned something about gender and body parts also.

Perhaps both were required.

As I have stated before in other topics,

I believe Adam and Eve had a cirulation of "Water" before it was "changed" into "Blood".

Just my belief based on other things I read in my Bible:).

Bro. Rudick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I said is that that would make us a "creation" like every other living thing, and not a "creation" like offspring.

We have very gifted artisans on earth. They make art from their heart's desire. Why do they not call them their offspring?

Our spirits are literally children of God. Our physical bodies are made in His image and likeness, both male and female.

I really appreciate your discussion because I think you are the only one to really focus and take this on and not just repeat scriptures that could go one way or another but discuss it. Thanks. I also, am not trying to be argumentative, just trying to lay out the questions I have in my own mind about it.

I think this is part of the fork in the road for me. I think that you would agree with me that we are currently duel beings. I believe our spirits are literal children of God but I believe the body we have right now does not have to be. I could see how if a person wants to believe that this corrupt body is the descendant of God then that person would have to theorize about how one person begat another until we arrived at Adam's body (not Michael). To me, my body is an "it" ... it is not me. My spirit is me. My body will return to where it came, the dust of this earth. There is no reason for me to want to explain how the body is procreated from God. For me, 'created' is all it needs to be. I have a hard time understanding how God would make something that would have an end. This mortal body has an end. This is why Adam is our father and God is our father. Adam the father of our body and God the father of our spirit. In this life we have to be a duel being to create opposition. There is no need for the body to be of a continued lineage any more than my pair of socks to have parents especially when contrasting it with the heritage of our spirit.

Creating something in the likeness of something else doesn't mean that it had to be birthed. After it was produced it could be expected to reproduce its own kind. Like the example I gave before, man has created new viruses that did not exist here on earth before and those viruses produce more of their kind. But the very first virus did not have a progenitor directly, it was created.

Thing about it this way too. If you had Heavenly Parents that begat your spirit and you have parents that begat your body than you would be a duel being forever. The way I understood it, which could be wrong, is that we are only a duel being here, once we receive our perfected state of a resurrected immortal body we will be considered a single being, never to be divided again.

Here is an interesting side question. Do you believe Adam's body was 'alive' during the time before God made him a man with his breath? Or, do you think the creation and the breath are the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have stated before in other topics,

I believe Adam and Eve had a cirulation of "Water" before it was "changed" into "Blood".

Just my belief based on other things I read in my Bible:).

Bro. Rudick

I've always wondered about that too. Because what is blood by any other name except blood. Just like flesh and bones by any other name is flesh and bones. Obviously, the flesh and bones we will have with our perfected body will not be the same flesh and bones as we have here, it can't be because we don't have blood. Without blood will we have myoglobin in the muscles? Will the bones have marrow to make blood? I don't think so. So if the flesh and bones spoken of is not the same exact flesh and bones we have here, why make a distinction that we don't have blood? Why not say we will have flesh and bones and blood (but a different kind of blood like water)?

If there is another substance there (just like there will be other substances in all the flesh) but it serves the same purpose as blood did, then it is blood by another name. It would be just a different kind of blood, like having a different kind of flesh and a different kind of bones.

I don't think there is blood. And since flesh is made up of blood products a constant equilibrium between what is in blood and in the interstitial fluid of the tissues, the flesh is not exactly the same either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Adam and Eve were still toddlers when they were married. So, you read that part into my analogy. I was only speaking about "innocence" since that's the only reference we have to it in the fallen world.

If you feel their bodies had to undergo a physical change, then so be it. I have no way of proving you wrong, nor is that my desire. I'm just pointing out the evidence that they learned something about gender and body parts also.

Perhaps both were required.

I wasn't trying to imply that that's what you were saying either. Sorry. I was just trying to point out the differences between innocence and ignorance. It is possible to remain innocent with the knowledge of good and evil, those two things aren't mutually exclusive as Jesus did it. And as all of us do until the age of accountability. I think accountability is the opposite of innocence not knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Genesis 2:7, no Adam was not born be was formed by God. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

That does it for me. Seems pretty straight-forward.

Amen.. you quote that Bible sister, lol.

I'm feeling silly right now I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see how if a person wants to believe that this corrupt body is the descendant of God then that person would have to theorize about how one person begat another until we arrived at Adam's body (not Michael).

Luke 3:

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,

...

37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,

38 Which was the ason of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Certainly, this can be taken 2 ways. However, taken in context of this being the geneaology of Jesus, and "son of" literally means "son of" throughout these verses, and they noted the difference of Jesus' father, it seems as if Adam was the son of God literally, not just a molded piece of clay He breathed life into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have stated before in other topics,

I believe Adam and Eve had a cirulation of "Water" before it was "changed" into "Blood".

Just my belief based on other things I read in my Bible:).

Bro. Rudick

Water is definately a possibility. The only thing is if the body requires a physical substance, like water, when immortal, couldn't it die if it lost that water?

I don't know, so all I can do is speculate and ask questions. I haven't formed an opinion yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water is definately a possibility. The only thing is if the body requires a physical substance, like water, when immortal, couldn't it die if it lost that water?

I don't know, so all I can do is speculate and ask questions. I haven't formed an opinion yet.

Then if it is a physical body, as we know it is, - If we knew how the body (Light Molecules) (msp?) were formed, - if it lost a fraction of Light, would it die?:D

Kind of question you may be asking:)

If what we "ate" in the resurrection (or in the Garden for that matter) we could not get , Would we die?

Surely we ate in the Garden. Right?

So to even out the suppleness of our body of Purrer Matter, we have "Water".

The most basic, and it fits the path of Scripture (I feel):D

Just a thought, you understand:)

Bro. Rudick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share