The People before Adam

[Traveler]

The response to such points is invariability an appeal to miracle.

By miracle do you mean the evolution of new species?

The Traveler

[Dravin]

By miracle do you mean the evolution of new species?

The Traveler

True, I forgot about that position. I have heard the position that Noah took a smaller number of species which then diversified later on, it just slipped my mind. I was thinking about those who respond about dimension issues or problems with feeding such a large number of animals with claiming God made it possible via miracle.

[Guest Godless]

We went from walking and covered wagons to cars and airplanes in just a few hundred years.

Yes, there have been some amazing advances is science and technology over the past few centuries. Prior to the Enlightenment though, progress was pretty sluggish.

I think 4,000 years for humans to spread across the Earth very reasonable.

Spread around the Earth? Yes. Spread around the Earth and form hundreds of different languages, cultures, and sets of physical features? Not so likely. I put extra emphasis on the physical attributes because those types of differences can take tens of thousands of years to develop. I just don't see how we could go from Noah and his family to 7 billion whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, arabs, pygmies, native americans, and so forth in just 4,000 years. It's simply not biologically possible. Edited May 1, 2010 by Godless

[john doe]

I will admit I do not know anything about versions of the Bible. I just know the "main" and "most widely accepted" version is the one I use. And to my knowledge it is the only true version. If these other versions were true, why aren't they widely available? I know some Spanish but that is the only other language I have partially read. But the Bible we know of today is translated in other languages so that is the same as the English Bible.

"Main" and "most widely accepted" versions according to whom? Catholics? Baptists? Evangelicals? LDS? What version is it? It should say what it is either on the spine or in the first few pages before Genesis. How do you know it is the most correct?

[JohnnyRudick]

Link?

Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the

book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven

seals? A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed

will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his

economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of

its continuance, or its temporal existence.

[Moksha]

. Further, the Church has interpreted scripture that sets forth the official stance on the origin of man. This official stance is: 1. Adam did not evolve from a lower species. 2. Adam was the first man on this earth. 3. Only man was created in God's image on this earth. If you disagree with the claims concerning Adam, then you would need to provide the counter evidence in scripture and doctrine indicating that Adam is not the first man, that Adam evolved from a lower species, and that other creatures were created in God's image, other than man. I've categorically denied that such evidence exist.

I imagine that the BYU Biology Department and the Church Doctrine Department have had many disagreements over this and probably both walk away each time having decided that sticking their fingers in their ears best settles the disagreement.

Personally, I am thankful that religion eventually let go of the idea of the Earth being the center of the Universe. Eventually when they were furnished with a broader spectrum of understanding by science, the Church was able to incorporate this into their world view and were better off for it.

Finrock, I am curious as to how you would explain the similarity in DNA between the chimp and Man?

If you think otherwise, show me the money!

Regards,

Finrock

No money, but could we interest you in an investment opportunity from Goldman-Sachs?

[RRR1]

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the

earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that

stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out

as a tent to dwell in:

Thank you. This verse proves the earth is spherical and not flat.

[RRR1]

There are simple problems with the Biblical rendering of the flood epoch that are contradictory – especially to you interpretation. One problem: If all that Noah took with him on the Ark were just the known species of worms – the ark is not big enough.

The Traveler

:facepalm

I dont like using the word race because there is only one race, the human race. So I'll use ethnicity. How many ethnicities are there currently? You got black, Caucasian, Indian, Chinese, Japenese, Mexican, etc, etc. Noah (obviously as well as Adam) had to have had a lot of different genes in order to spread different blood types, eye color, pigmentation of the skin, etc. Animals were the same way. He probably brought one type of dog that carried all genes. After year and years of mating with each other, you now have poodles, German Shepherds, etc. You only need one type of dog, one type of worm, one type of human. You dont need one black person, one white person, one Asian etc. So yes there was enough room for every type of animal known to man.

[RRR1]

"Main" and "most widely accepted" versions according to whom? Catholics? Baptists? Evangelicals? LDS? What version is it? It should say what it is either on the spine or in the first few pages before Genesis. How do you know it is the most correct?

I live in the United States and I have only seen one "verson" of the Bible. With more and more atheists these days and people not believing in God, you would think with a country as advanced as the United States, people would find more version of the Bible especially if they are different from the Bible. They could use that to say the Bible is false. But Ive never seen it in all my life.

[john doe]

Well, your profile says you are only 25. You've got a lot of years to study and learn things. Assuming that you know it all now is only going to set you up for disaster down the road.

So, your Bible doesn't say what version it is? Interesting. And I hate to tell you this but your insistence on literalistic belief in everything written in the Bible in illogical.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .

Finrock, I am curious as to how you would explain the similarity in DNA between the chimp and Man?

. . .

I was not even aware that Chimp DNA had even been fully sequenced for a fair comparison.

[RRR1]

Yes, there have been some amazing advances is science and technology over the past few centuries. Prior to the Enlightenment though, progress was pretty sluggish.

Spread around the Earth? Yes. Spread around the Earth and form hundreds of different languages, cultures, and sets of physical features? Not so likely. I put extra emphasis on the physical attributes because those types of differences can take tens of thousands of years to develop. I just don't see how we could go from Noah and his family to 7 billion whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, arabs, pygmies, native americans, and so forth in just 4,000 years. It's simply not biologically possible.

well on the languages issue God mixed up the languages in Genesis 11. People started spreading right after the flood. Families used to be massive back then. Having 10-20 kids was common. Not sure why you think its biologically not possible when it happened. If you refuse to accept it then that is your problem.

[RRR1]

Well, your profile says you are only 25. You've got a lot of years to study and learn things. Assuming that you know it all now is only going to set you up for disaster down the road.

So, your Bible doesn't say what version it is? Interesting. And I hate to tell you this but your insistence on literalistic belief in everything written in the Bible in illogical.

Uh, not sure where you got that I know it all. I am far from knowing it all. But one thing I know. Im 100% sure I will go to heaven. Why? Because I believe the Bible to be true. I believe in Romans 10:9

My Bible is New King James. But I like the word translation over version. Again like I said before, Ive seen no discrepancies between King James, New King James, New International, New Amercian Standard, etc. The message is still the same, just worded different for different people. What Traveler is talking about is totally new texts that is "absent" from the Bible.

Illogical? Because I can read? I really hope you firmly believe and agree with what Romans 10:9 said because if not, your refusal of the Bible will send you to hell.

[Snow]

Hello Snow. I hope you are well this evening! :)

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post and also for describing in more detail what your concerns are in regards to what I've posted.

So, here is how I'm going to respond. First, I'll respond to specific points that I think need clarifying. Second, I'll provide a more general response to your post because I don't want to get weeded down in trying to respond point-for-point.

Well Finrock,

You are a commendably jovial and good-natured fellow.

Before I respond to your post, I think it requires additional clarification:

You accept or at least do not reject evolution. By that do you mean that man may have evolved from some hominid prior to man but that the particular man, Adam, did not evolve?

May there have been other homo sapiens, sapiens alive prior to the time of Adam?

If so, may they have existed during the time of Adam.

Did they continue to exist and reproduce subsequent to the time of the Fall?

When do you think the Fall took place - would you agree that it happened within the 7000 to 13,000 years ago time frame traditionally held by literal type interpretations of the Bible.

Could Eve have descended from evolved man - are you confining your non-evolved status only to Adam.

Are all mankind, subsequent to the time of Adam or the Fall descended from Adam or are some of them/us possibly descended from other humans, not Adam, who may have descended from humans evolved from earlier hominids?

If homo sapiens existed prior to or concurrent with the non-evolved Adam, what distinguishes your "same species as God" from other men not of the same species?

I'll respond to your post but at this point I don't understand your position well enough.

[bytor2112]

I really hope you firmly believe and agree with what Romans 10:9 said because if not, your refusal of the Bible will send you to hell.

Acceptance of the Bible is a condition of salvation? A scripture to back up that assertion, perhaps?

[RRR1]

Acceptance of the Bible is a condition of salvation? A scripture to back up that assertion, perhaps?

Technically no. But like Ive said before, if ONE part of the Bible is not true, then the whole Bible is not true. But if someone believes in Romans 10:9 but also believes in millions of years, technically he will go to heaven. But its like what I believe and what you guys believe, if you truely believe that Jesus came down and died a subsitutionary death for you and me, then God says follow him and do His commandments. So if you truely believe you should do your best to follow Him and do good works. But if you truely believe and are saved yet reject Genesis 1, that is mind boggling to me. How can you reject one part and accept another. That is the problem I have. But millions of people do this.

[bytor2112]

Technically no. But like Ive said before, if ONE part of the Bible is not true, then the whole Bible is not true. But if someone believes in Romans 10:9 but also believes in millions of years, technically he will go to heaven. But its like what I believe and what you guys believe, if you truely believe that Jesus came down and died a subsitutionary death for you and me, then God says follow him and do His commandments. So if you truely believe you should do your best to follow Him and do good works. But if you truely believe and are saved yet reject Genesis 1, that is mind boggling to me. How can you reject one part and accept another. That is the problem I have. But millions of people do this.

So, of it were proven that errors exist in the various versions of the Bible....you would no longer have faith in Christ? Did you have faith in Christ and believe that your salvation was assured before you read the Bible or after? Have you read the Bible cover to cover? If so, which one? You know the Catholics have a few more books than say the Evangelicals do, right?

[Snow]

Technically no. But like Ive said before, if ONE part of the Bible is not true, then the whole Bible is not true.

You are just making that up, aren't you?

What on earth does the truthfulness of 1st Maccabees have to do with the truthfulness of 2nd Timothy?

[RRR1]

So, of it were proven that errors exist in the various versions of the Bible....you would no longer have faith in Christ? Did you have faith in Christ and believe that your salvation was assured before you read the Bible or after? Have you read the Bible cover to cover? If so, which one? You know the Catholics have a few more books than say the Evangelicals do, right?

I have not read it cover to cover but I was saved after reading. An error has yet to be discovered and considering parts of the Bible are about 3,500 years old, that is impressive. An error would have been found. The only thing that technically is not true because its the future is Revelation. So if Jesus never comes back then the Bible would not be true. But by then I'll be dead.

[RRR1]

You are just making that up, aren't you?

What on earth does the truthfulness of 1st Maccabees have to do with the truthfulness of 2nd Timothy?

No Im not making it up. I think we have already established that God is the source of truth. The Bible is essentially written by God because Scripture is God breathed. If one part isnt true, then why does God back something that isnt true? That would totally defeat the purpose of being God. So if one part isnt true, then God is not all powerful, which would mean there could be someone higher than God, and would render the gospel false. Jesus would have died in vain and your salvation is at jeopardy.

The truthfulness of 1st Maccabees has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd Timothy. Last time I checked 1st Maccabees isnt in the Bible. Hope that helps.

[bytor2112]

I have not read it cover to cover but I was saved after reading. An error has yet to be discovered and considering parts of the Bible are about 3,500 years old, that is impressive. An error would have been found. The only thing that technically is not true because its the future is Revelation. So if Jesus never comes back then the Bible would not be true. But by then I'll be dead.

Um...how do you know that there aren't any errors? If you haven't read it? Someone tell you that? And, how did you become saved after reading.....what?

Why was Jesus baptized and why did he go to John to be baptized?

[john doe]

I really hope you firmly believe and agree with what Romans 10:9 said because if not, your refusal of the Bible will send you to hell.

Sorry, I don't see how this verse says I have to believe the Bible is without flaw or I'll go to hell.

Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Maybe you can point it out?

[RRR1]

Sorry, I don't see how this verse says I have to believe the Bible is without flaw or I'll go to hell.

Maybe you can point it out?

see my post at top of this page

[bytor2112]

Here are a couple of contradictions found in the Bible. Question. If the Bible is free from error why the contradiction and one of these verses has to be wrong....right?

From James:

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

From Genesis:

1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.

[Snow]

No Im not making it up. I think we have already established that God is the source of truth. The Bible is essentially written by God because Scripture is God breathed. If one part isnt true, then why does God back something that isnt true? That would totally defeat the purpose of being God. So if one part isnt true, then God is not all powerful, which would mean there could be someone higher than God, and would render the gospel false. Jesus would have died in vain and your salvation is at jeopardy.

I just don't know where to start with the magnitude of illogic in that line of thinking - it's startling in it's irrationality.

Are you really not acquainted with the many, many errors in the Bible?

Did you know that Joseph Smith did not think that Canticles was scripture?

The errors in the Bible may jeopardize YOUR salvation, but they don't have anything to do with mine.

The truthfulness of 1st Maccabees has absolutely nothing to do with 2nd Timothy. Last time I checked 1st Maccabees isnt in the Bible. Hope that helps.

Sorry - you're wrong about that. It is in fact in the Bible. It was even in Joseph Smith's personal, hand marked, Bible.