Age of The Bible

[Snow]

But he did write the text of the Torah up to perhaps the last few pages as I have stated earlier.

Evidence please - saying it don't make it so.

[JohnnyRudick]

And that pertains to the topic of epistemology and Torah authorship exactly how?. . .

If your point is that Adam was the very first human being - modern man - in all existence and that prior to him there wasn't any death... that is so absurd it defies description. Of course, if you have any proof, bring it on. My guess is that you won't and will instead make some unfunny quip instead.

Can't think of anything funny other then what I have already written in another post.

"If your point is that Adam was the very first human being - modern man - in all existence and that prior to him there wasn't any death... that is so absurd it defies description."

Hate to be redundant but here goes:confused:

In response to your unbelieving trust in the Scriptures.

Sooooooooooo, the Bible, Books of Moses, Abraham, the D&C and the Book of Mormon are merely fables designed to keep the silly busy while the grownups go about the business of making the world a better place.

OK. Got it.

1. As I also explained, the "proof" you are talking that back up your claims have come about by the unplanned outcome of pre-supposed facts in mind of the investigators who have done your work.

So what is the use of arguing the point?

Faith is faith.

2. Most of us have faith in the Scripture.

Or we have faith in the outcome of investigators who do have faith in the Scriptures which I am sure you are not interested in.

You have faith in the first.

I asked what are you doing this here?

Most of us are Scripture believing people.

Are you trying to convert us or shame us into admitting the superiority of the unbelieving learned?

I was just wondering.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

What on earth are you talking about or who are you talking to?

I went back a page to see what on earth you were asking me.

Your quote is there.

I am talking to you "Snow".

I was referring to your quote.

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

"There is nothing more pathetic than an unbelieving-Mormon" Me.

Bro. Rudick

[Snow]

Can't think of anything funny other then what I have already written in another post.

"If your point is that Adam was the very first human being - modern man - in all existence and that prior to him there wasn't any death... that is so absurd it defies description."

Hate to be redundant but here goes:confused:

In response to your unbelieving trust in the Scriptures.

Sooooooooooo, the Bible, Books of Moses, Abraham, the D&C and the Book of Mormon are merely fables designed to keep the silly busy while the grownups go about the business of making the world a better place.

What on earth are you mumbling about? You aren't even making sense. It's like you are talking to someone else about another topic.

OK. Got it.

You apparently don't have squat.

1. As I also explained, the "proof" you are talking that back up your claims have come about by the unplanned outcome of pre-supposed facts in mind of the investigators who have done your work.

So what is the use of arguing the point?

Faith is faith.

2. Most of us have faith in the Scripture.

Or we have faith in the outcome of investigators who do have faith in the Scriptures which I am sure you are not interested in.

You have faith in the first.

I asked what are you doing this here?

Could it be posting? Discussing? Ya think?

Most of us are Scripture believing people.

Are you trying to convert us or shame us into admitting the superiority of the unbelieving learned?

I was just wondering.

Bro. Rudick

I don't your lack of understanding of science shames you. It ought to, but I doubt it does.

Your superstitions are the direct opposite of the great apostle B.H. Roberts, one of the Church's most influential theologians. He was a man, not just of great faith, but superior reason, and he believed in the antiquity of the earth, understood that the evidence for pre-Adamic humans was overwhelming.... and that matter, interacted fully with intellectual rigor with Biblical criticism. James Talmage, another of the Church's most influential theologians believed similarly to Roberts.

... and get this: He died 75 years ago, and we still have Mormons today living in the darkness of superstition and irrationality. Fortunately, however, it's a decreasing number. Mormons are among the best educated of all religions and produce an unusually high number of scientists, who understand reason and evidence.

I wonder if you think that today's general authorities deny science.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Snow

[Snow]

"There is nothing more pathetic than an unbelieving-Mormon" Me.

Bro. Rudick

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Get this... someone who doesn't understand evolution is calling me pathetic and spreading falsehood about me not being a believing Mormon. Dishonesty is so unattractive.

[JohnnyRudick]

What on earth are you mumbling about? You aren't even making sense. It's like you are talking to someone else about another topic.

You apparently don't have squat.

Could it be posting? Discussing? Ya think?

I don't your lack of understanding of science shames you. It ought to, but I doubt it does.

Your superstitions are the direct opposite of the great apostle B.H. Roberts, one of the Church's most influential theologians. He was a man, not just of great faith, but superior reason, and he believed in the antiquity of the earth, understood that the evidence for pre-Adamic humans was overwhelming.... and that matter, interacted fully with intellectual rigor with Biblical criticism. James Talmage, another of the Church's most influential theologians believed similarly to Roberts.

... and get this: He died 75 years ago, and we still have Mormons today living in the darkness of superstition and irrationality. Fortunately, however, it's a decreasing number. Mormons are among the best educated of all religions and produce an unusually high number of scientists, who understand reason and evidence.

I wonder if you think that today's general authorities deny science.

I am well aware of all that you allude to.

I am alos well aware that God has seen to it that none of these extra scriptural musings have made it into cannocal writings.

There is good reason for this.

Many of us without realizing it deny the grandeur of God in our quest for scientific excellence when in our limited thinking reason that, well that is pure foolishness.

That is just not possible.

How and why would God take 6 days to create an earth when it could take Him billions of years?

Because God is not stuped like those who take Him at His word, I will show the deeper mysteries and show that He did not really mean what He said in the places I see fit and that He did mean what He said in places where it makes more sence to me.

I did not say that "Snow" is an unbelieving Mormon I only pointed out an observation that I thought unbelieving Mormons are pathetic in my view.

Now you are the one who wrote;

"it's possible that one source of knowledge is the supernatural - although I'd dispute that when most people in Church say "I know that _______ is true" that they in fact have any knowledge that it is true, they are merely convinced of it and are frequently factually wrong about it. But even though it is theoretically true (the Spirit as a source of knowing), there is no value to such knowledge outside of that particular person's mind. "

And

"

Such knowledge, supernaturally obtained, cannot be demonstrated, proven, replicated, pass on, etc. It, in a practical sense, it nothing more than dogma."

It is said.

"Throw rocks into the dark and see where the "yelps" come from. There you hit a dog."

I am well aware of evolution and the difference between adaptation and to "evolve" but I choose to subject all of that fact and fables to "what God said" rather then follow the teachings of men where they cross God.

Oh, by the way.

I home schooled all my children to your dismay I am sure.

Bro. Rudick

[Moksha]

I've always been fascinated why people would pick the religions of Abraham to follow. Neolithic Hinduism predates the Torah and what maybe the birth of Adam.

Predating has nothing to do with it. Distance from India as opposed to Israel is the reason. Judaism itself does not have that many adherents. It took the Christian and Islamic offshoot religions, both with the desire to spread their message to others and the message being one of hope for a glorious afterlife, that enabled these two religions to become massive in size.

Of course as Joseph Campbell would point out, there has been a flow of ideas from older religious ideas to newer religious ideas throughout time.

:)

[Snow]

I am well aware of all that you allude to.

I am alos well aware that God has seen to it that none of these extra scriptural musings have made it into cannocal writings.

God doesn't canonize scripture. Men decide what to canonize.

There is good reason for this.

Many of us without realizing it deny the grandeur of God in our quest for scientific excellence when in our limited thinking reason that, well that is pure foolishness.

That is just not possible.

Who do you think invented science? God invented science. When we discover truths of science, we are discovering truths of God.

How and why would God take 6 days to create an earth when it could take Him billions of years?

The earth is about 5 billion years old. The processes that took the earth from it's incipient form to it's current form took place of million upon millions of years. The scriptures metaphorically describe the earth's creation to illustrate the principle of God as creator. The scriptures are, obviously, demonstrably, a detailed scientific description.

Because God is not stuped like those who take Him at His word, I will show the deeper mysteries and show that He did not really mean what He said in the places I see fit and that He did mean what He said in places where it makes more sence to me.

I have no idea what that means.

I did not say that "Snow" is an unbelieving Mormon I only pointed out an observation that I thought unbelieving Mormons are pathetic in my view.

Bull - be honest. You took my signature line and reworked and posted in a reply to me. Of course you meant it about me.

Now you are the one who wrote;

"it's possible that one source of knowledge is the supernatural - although I'd dispute that when most people in Church say "I know that _______ is true" that they in fact have any knowledge that it is true, they are merely convinced of it and are frequently factually wrong about it. But even though it is theoretically true (the Spirit as a source of knowing), there is no value to such knowledge outside of that particular person's mind. "

And

"

Such knowledge, supernaturally obtained, cannot be demonstrated, proven, replicated, pass on, etc. It, in a practical sense, it nothing more than dogma."

It is said.

"Throw rocks into the dark and see where the "yelps" come from. There you hit a dog."

More nonsensical mutterings. What are you trying to say?

I am well aware of evolution and the difference between adaptation and to "evolve" but I choose to subject all of that fact and fables to "what God said" rather then follow the teachings of men where they cross God.

That is, of course, untrue. Your ideas on how the earth was formed and that Adam was the first man and that before Adam there was no death (which is not an official doctrine) comes from who? Man. Man writes scripture - you simply choose to believe some men - in this case the particular interpretation of originally, the anonymous author of Genesis who lived 3000 years ago, instead of modern scientists - many of them Mormon.

Oh, by the way.

I home schooled all my children to your dismay I am sure.

Bro. Rudick

If you teach them science, I think that is great. If you raise them to be fundamentalist. superstitious denier of science, I think that is abusive.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Snow

[beefche]

Ok, time to cool down. Let's take a breath and return to respectful posts. Don't want this thread to close....

[JohnnyRudick]

Ok, time to cool down. Let's take a breath and return to respectful posts. Don't want this thread to close....

OK, Thanks. :)

I needed that:p

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

God doesn't canonize scripture. Men decide what to canonize.

Who do you think invented science? God invented science. When we discover truths of science, we are discovering truths of God.

The earth is about 5 billion years old. The processes that took the earth from it's incipient form to it's current form took place of million upon millions of years. The scriptures metaphorically describe the earth's creation to illustrate the principle of God as creator. The scriptures are, obviously, demonstrably, a detailed scientific description.

I have no idea what that means.

Bull - be honest. You took my signature line and reworked and posted in a reply to me. Of course you meant it about me.

More nonsensical mutterings. What are you trying to say?

That is, of course, untrue. Your ideas on how the earth was formed and that Adam was the first man and that before Adam there was no death (which is not an official doctrine) comes from who? Man. Man writes scripture - you simply choose to believe some men - in this case the particular interpretation of originally, the anonymous author of Genesis who lived 3000 years ago, instead of modern scientists - many of them Mormon.

If you teach them science, I think that is great. If you raise them to be fundamentalist. superstitious denier of science, I think that is abusive.

"God doesn't canonize scripture. Men decide what to canonize."

That is what you say.

I am a simple man with a simple mind and say things in a simple way.

I just throw enough verbs out there and hope others get the idea.

Praise God for the English Language.

History (fate?) works out what gets into the canonized books or not.

You and others like you say man is the final arbitrator.

Well, yes, it is true that man has had a hand in some "scripture" but do they flourish or not.

Man's perversion of what God said, and man's own made up books of scripture.

It seems that in hindsight I and others like me say ti must have been God who put His hand of blessings on these writings and preserved them as Scripture.

The writings of the Book of Mormon.

which writings survives into the hands of the Prophet Joseph and enabled him to put them into a book.

Bringing the Chandler experience into his life inspiring the restoration of some of the writings of Abraham.

Restoring some of the writings of Moses (which so far I say Moses wrote you say he did not. You now might wish to add to that line of disbelief the writing here of Abraham, I don't know.)

But anyway, as time unravels things just seem to work out and I do not believe it is just the whim of man what we call Scripture.

God is in control and He says what He puts His hand of endorsement on and that is Gods way of letting us know what is "Thus Saith the Lord" and what is "I am pretty sure this is the way it is."

It may be true that their are people living on the Sun, but if Gods want's us to know that we will find it in the PofGP most likely.

Just another thought:)

"Who do you think invented science? God invented science. When we discover truths of science, we are discovering truths of God."

Yes, I agree.

It is also true that

"Figures don't lie but lairs sure can figure."

(don't go saying I called you a liar now. OK?)

It is just that the truths of science do not have to exclude what God Himself says about His creation.

Unless you are now going to submit that it is not God who is addressing us in His Scripture and that they are also the concoction of men.

"I have no idea what that means."

Well, If you don;t know I guess it is way beyond my ability to explain it any better.

I do try but am severely limited and of little brain.

"Bull - be honest. You took my signature line and reworked and posted in a reply to me. Of course you meant it about me."

Not really but you do inspire me.

"More nonsensical mutterings. What are you trying to say?"

See above.

I have gone over this before but I am sorry I fail to convey my meaning.

"That is, of course, untrue. Your ideas on how the earth was formed and that Adam was the first man and that before Adam there was no death (which is not an official doctrine) comes from who? Man. Man writes scripture. . ."

We went over this.

You obviously do not believe God sets His doctrine in Scripture and He is in control of that.

If that was true I guess it would be advantageous for people like you to see to it that sections get added to the standard works that say that the Book of Abraham and Books of Moses are purely allegorical and man was here long before Adam etc.

Or are we just suppose to concoct our own ideas and just outright take the scriptures with a knowing wink and move on.

Just wondering.

"Man writes Scripture"

Yeah, I know.

That is what you keep saying.

And I'll agree to that.

I know that God did not just come down here and sit down and write the stuff but. . .

It is in my mind, call me crazy but isn't the whole idea of Scripture that God revealed "truth" to man in some way and it got written down?

". . .anonymous author of Genesis who lived 3000 years ago. . ."

2 Corinthians 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read,

the vail is upon their heart.

All the Scriptures indicate that a lot of what we have is from Moses.

No, I have never found where it says that "Moses wrote Genesis"

But. . .

I believe he did.

1 Nephi 5:11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books

of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and

also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

The Scriptures indicate that he did, but they do not say so.

I grudgingly give you that.

But I base that conclusion on the Scripture.

"If you teach them science, I think that is great. If you raise them to be fundamentalist. superstitious denier of science, I think that is abusive."

I would not teach them as truth that which I did not believe to be true.

Did I make known to them the teachings of evolution and that many influential scientists have faith in it?

Yes.

I also made available the writings of many scientists who believe what God said and that it was God who said it.

Oh, They are good citizens who vote what they believe.

Bro. Rudick

[marshac]

Who do you think invented science? God invented science. When we discover truths of science, we are discovering truths of God.

I love the renaissance scientists. I too hold this belief.

[JohnnyRudick]

I love the renaissance scientists. I too hold this belief.

u\Um, are you suggesting that any renaissance scientist (and I am no fan of the french renaissance) believed in evolution?

I Know they hated God, confusing Him with the Church but. . .

Bro. Rudick

[pam]

Okay let me just solve the whole issue about the age of the Bible.

It's very old. I hope that answers everyone's question.

Edited March 30, 2009 by pam

[marshac]

u\Um, are you suggesting that any renaissance scientist (and I am no fan of the french renaissance) believed in evolution?

No, I was commenting on the fact that they often considered the exploration of science to be the exploration of the mechanics of God's creation.

Besides- On the Origin of Species wasn't even published until 1859.

Not that I really want in on this argument, but I see that nobody has brought up the flood, and the fact that nearly every culture around the world has some sort of flood story (with dates ranging from between 10000BCE to 2200BCE), and that there is some geological evidence for sudden catastrophic flooding in some parts of the world (the dry falls are one such example).

If (and i'm not saying that they are) any of these flood events are "the" flood as depicted in Genesis, then that would seem to also place a maximum date on how old that story in Genesis could be. As for the events in Genesis 1.... who knows. I've always viewed Genesis 1 as a story that would be told to small children who are still yet unable to grasp the actual mechanics of creation. Which would be harder to believe 10000 years ago? "God did it" or to discuss the nature of matter, planetary formation, nuclear fusion, genetics and protein synthesis, etc? Either way- God did it.

[Newcomer4831]

I disagree, those that is promised in Hinduism, to make this life slightly more glorious, the people in power need to remain in power. So the spread of Hinduism was both fear and order. Fear of the Gods and fear of social chaos.

Same ideals with "Divine right to rule"

[Snow]

"God doesn't canonize scripture. Men decide what to canonize."

That is what you say.

I am a simple man with a simple mind and say things in a simple way.

I just throw enough verbs out there and hope others get the idea.

Praise God for the English Language.

It's not "what I say." It is a simple, demonstrable, provable fact. Men canonized their scripture - that's not opinion. That's simply the truth.

It is a theory and a matter of unproven faith that in canonizing scripture, man is inspired by God - sometimes, not always. I doubt you accept all scripture as inspired of God. I doubt you even accept all of the Bible as canon inspired of God.

History (fate?) works out what gets into the canonized books or not.

No, neither history nor fate works out what gets into scripture.

1. Mormons don't believe in fate. 2 Nephi makes that abundantly clear.

2. Mormons don't rely upon history to determine their canon. They often decide almost in real time. Much of the D & C was considered canonical from the most JS received the revelation. As for the NT, orthodoxy was probably a more important criteria than history.

You and others like you say man is the final arbitrator.

Well, yes, it is true that man has had a hand in some "scripture" but do they flourish or not.

Man's perversion of what God said, and man's own made up books of scripture.

What does that mean?

It may be true that their are people living on the Sun, but if Gods want's us to know that we will find it in the PofGP most likely.

Just another thought:)

May be true? Newsflash: People don't live on the sun.

"Who do you think invented science? God invented science. When we discover truths of science, we are discovering truths of God."

Yes, I agree.

It is also true that

"Figures don't lie but lairs sure can figure."

(don't go saying I called you a liar now. OK?)

It is just that the truths of science do not have to exclude what God Himself says about His creation.

I have no idea what your last sentence has to do with liars and figures. Can you just speak in normal sentences please?

God doesn't say anything about his creation - at least not publicly. I have never heard God say anything nor met anyone who explicitly claims that God personally talks to them. Publicly, God is silent. It is men that say what God thinks, not God himself.

"That is, of course, untrue. Your ideas on how the earth was formed and that Adam was the first man and that before Adam there was no death (which is not an official doctrine) comes from who? Man. Man writes scripture. . ."

We went over this.

You obviously do not believe God sets His doctrine in Scripture and He is in control of that.

I would appreciate it if you would be honest in your postings with me. You know that I have never said that I do not believe God sets his doctrine in scripture or that he does not control the process. Do not fabricate things and then attribute them to me.

If that was true I guess it would be advantageous for people like you to see to it that sections get added to the standard works that say that the Book of Abraham and Books of Moses are purely allegorical and man was here long before Adam etc.

I don't know what point you are trying to make but that sort of thing is "commentary" not scripture.

Or are we just suppose to concoct our own ideas and just outright take the scriptures with a knowing wink and move on.

Just wondering.

It is disingenuous for you to claim that I, as opposed to you, concoct my own ideas. You concoct your own interpretation, just as everybody does. I, however, admit it.

". . .anonymous author of Genesis who lived 3000 years ago. . ."

2 Corinthians 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read,

the vail is upon their heart.

All the Scriptures indicate that a lot of what we have is from Moses.

That Paul believe Moses wrote some of the OT doesn't change the FACT that the Torah is anonymous. If you think I am wrong - prove it. If it isn't simply post the revelant evidence - it would take less that 20 seconds.

No, I have never found where it says that "Moses wrote Genesis"

But. . .

I believe he did.

1 Nephi 5:11 And he beheld that they did contain the five books

of Moses, which gave an account of the creation of the world, and

also of Adam and Eve, who were our first parents;

The Scriptures indicate that he did, but they do not say so.

I grudgingly give you that.

Okay - a moment ago you seemed to be rebutting it but now I guess you acknowledge it.

Let me ask you a question and I hope you will answer it.

You seem opposed to the theory of evolution and that man existed prior to the time of Adam. In your opinion, specifically how did Adam get to be the first man - specifically? I assume you believe in one of the two different Bible accounts, yes? How was Adam created? Where?

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .You seem opposed to the theory of evolution and that man existed prior to the time of Adam. In your opinion, specifically how did Adam get to be the first man - specifically? I assume you believe in one of the two different Bible accounts, yes? How was Adam created? Where?

You assume right believe the Book of Moses and Abraham and the Biblical accounts.

Adam was spiritually created first, Physically created next as the Screapture indicate.

I will not deny the scripture no matter what.

According to the Scriptures it says this earth, God fashioned the body of Adam from the materials of this earth and then God breathed into Adam the Spirit of Adam and Adam became a living soul.

I believe the land mass was mostly all joined at that point but most likely somewhere here in North America.

(my opinion) I believe Adam ate of the Grape tree which changed his body fluid (water) physically so that it became blood causing a degrading of the Human condition.

(partly my opinion) In the Resurrection or Translation, I believe God will change that blood to water and we will be restored to our paradisaical condition along with the earth.

The Scriptures teach us in one way or another throughout that in Adam all died and in Christ Jesus all may live.

All mankind came through Adam.

All resurrected man, comes through Christ.

Not much more or less.

That is the gist of it.

Yeah, I know.

Bro. Rudick

[Justice]

If your point is that Adam was the very first human being - modern man - in all existence and that prior to him there wasn't any death... that is so absurd it defies description. Of course, if you have any proof, bring it on. My guess is that you won't and will instead make some unfunny quip instead.

I want to know why it's always up to those who believe in revelation and in God to prove that it and He exist. "Because it's absurd" does not make it not true. It's absurd, to those who don't believe it, that the Son of God was born into the world, lived a perfect life, and atoned for the sins of the world. Absurd as it may be to some, it is truth and actually happened.

I'd like to see you prove that Jesus Christ is/was not the Son of God.

And, after you've done that, I'd like to see you prove that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Old Testament.

I have modern revelation no more than a week old that tells me Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that Moses was a type of Christ to point the people to their Messiah. Whenever I'm faced with a decision to believe experts (experts they may be, but they are still people with beliefs and opinions, and those beliefs and opinions shape their studied conclusions) or to believe revelation, I go with revelation 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

Just wait until those experts discover something new next week. They will revamp their truths, append their journals, rewrite their books, and alter the foundation of study for the next generation of experts so they don't make the same mistakes they did.

Remember when the world was flat?

Edited March 31, 2009 by Justice

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .1. Mormons don't believe in fate. 2 Nephi makes that abundantly clear.

2. Mormons don't rely upon history to determine their canon. They often decide almost in real time. Much of the D & C was considered canonical from the most JS received the revelation. As for the NT, orthodoxy was probably a more important criteria than history.

"1. Mormons don't believe in fate. 2 Nephi makes that abundantly clear. "

I know.

You have me so frustrated I am trying to find words to make what I am trying to say a little clearer.

"Fate" was a poor substitute.

"2. Mormons don't rely upon history to determine their canon. They often decide almost in real time."

We have a living prophet today to help things out a bit.

The New Testament saints did not have it as well as we do today.

But

Give it a thousand years or and it will not seem so instantaneous.

If it is still in the bound volume as Scripture, God may have had more to do with it then man.

My opinion of course.

Bro. Rudick

[Snow]

I want to know why it's always up to those who believe in revelation and in God to prove that it and He exist. "Because it's absurd" does not make it not true. It's absurd, to those who don't believe it, that the Son of God was born into the world, lived a perfect life, and atoned for the sins of the world. Absurd as it may be to some, it is truth and actually happened.

You're asking the wrong person. I believe that God and revelation exist. However, the general rule is that he who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.

As to the point I made - that modern man has been on earth for the last two hundred thousand years - and not the point you mistakenly attributed to me (see above), it is not a debated or controversial issue - outside of the dogmatic and superstitious. Read a textbook. Learn something.

I'd like to see you prove that Jesus Christ is/was not the Son of God.

Why on earth would I want to do that? Seriously - why?

And, after you've done that, I'd like to see you prove that Moses did not write the first 5 books of the Old Testament.

Are you so uninformed on the matter that you don't understand that that cannot be proven one way or the other given the current state of evidence?

First - there is not even any evidence that Moses even existed, let alone that he authored anything.

Second, The Torah addresses Moses's death, so obviously he couldn't have written the whole thing.

Third, that Moses wrote the Torah is only a theory (not very convincing since there is little evidence for it). There are other theories that do have a great deal of evidence for them that appear, based on the evidence, to be more convincing and more accepted by the experts.

I have modern revelation no more than a week old that tells me Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that Moses was a type of Christ to point the people to their Messiah. Whenever I'm faced with a decision to believe experts (experts they may be, but they are still people with beliefs and opinions, and those beliefs and opinions shape their studied conclusions) or to believe revelation, I go with revelation 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

Just wait until those experts discover something new next week. They will revamp their truths, append their journals, rewrite their books, and alter the foundation of study for the next generation of experts so they don't make the same mistakes they did.

Oh please - what's the point of that kind of thing? It's great that you have a testimony but so what? Anyone can dogmatically say that they have a testimony of this or of the opposite - it's not at all useful in a discussion about factual matters and conflicting opinion.

Here's something re what I think is your opinion that there were no pre-Adamic men (if that is your belief). I have a testimony that there were. So, we both have positions of faith - mine is completely compatible with the science and yours is completely incompatible - and mine is also completely compatible with official Church guidance. I don't know exactly how you think Adam arrived on the scene, but I'd guess your belief conflicts with Church guidance on the matter.

Remember when the world was flat?

You mean when the Bible describes a flat earth? Turns out the author the scriptures didn't understand the science very well, huh.

[Snow]

You assume right believe the Book of Moses and Abraham and the Biblical accounts.

Adam was spiritually created first, Physically created next as the Screapture indicate.

I will not deny the scripture no matter what.

According to the Scriptures it says this earth, God fashioned the body of Adam from the materials of this earth and then God breathed into Adam the Spirit of Adam and Adam became a living soul.

This was kind of a set-up. I knew you would say that and I also know what the Church has said on the matter of evolution. Mostly the Church avoids the topic and says of evolution, the age of the earth, the advent of the human species, etc, that it is non-essential for salvation and should be left to the sciences - that is, the Church instructs that such topics are not doctrinal and are to be left to the fields of "geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology."

However, the Church has made a handful of official statements on the matter, some (one) has had a negative tone towards evolution but none have ruled it out. The Church did officially sponsor a pro-evolution or pre-adamic man tabernacle address involving the apostles BH Roberts and James Talmage.

The Church sponsored the pro-science address to balance out a talk that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith gave at a genealogical conference - note: in his talk, Elder JF Smith admitted that the belief that there were NOT pre-adamic men was NOT a doctrine of the Church and that God had not revealed the method of man's creation.

In a 1910 official Church publication the Church offered three possibilities for the origin of Adam: "1) evolution via a natural process as directed by the

power of God; 2) transplantation from another sphere; 3) birth in mortal-

ity by other mortals." [improvement Era, April 1910, 570. Although there was no author’s name attached to this statement, a number of scholars have suggested that Joseph F. Smith was responsible for the material since he and Edward H. Anderson were the editors]

You will note that your opinion of how Adam was created does not match any of the options enumerated by the Church.

I believe the land mass was mostly all joined at that point but most likely somewhere here in North America.

(my opinion) I believe Adam ate of the Grape tree which changed his body fluid (water) physically so that it became blood causing a degrading of the Human condition.

(partly my opinion) In the Resurrection or Translation, I believe God will change that blood to water and we will be restored to our paradisaical condition along with the earth.

The Scriptures teach us in one way or another throughout that in Adam all died and in Christ Jesus all may live.

All mankind came through Adam.

All resurrected man, comes through Christ.

Not much more or less.

That is the gist of it.

1. I have never heard that Adam ate of a grape tree.

2. Grapes don't grow on trees.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think is your opinion that there were no pre-Adamic men (if that is your belief). I have a testimony that there were.

So are you saying that what we are taught in the Temple is untrue?

[john doe]

Let's be careful about discussing things taught in the temple.