The People before Adam

[Seminarysnoozer]

Good afternoon Seminarysnoozer. I hope your day has been a good one! :)

I suppose I don't seperate the spirit from the physical body in the way that you are. You seem to be speaking of the physical body as a separate entity, apart from the spirit which resides in it. The physical body has no life without the spirit. Therefore the essential part of man's identity does not reside in the physical body, it resides in the spirit. So, I guess I need to ask if you agree with that statement?

If we were to compare strictly the outside attributes of our physical bodies to the outside attributes of God's physical body we would find no distinguishing features that would dictate that the two belonged to a different species. We would identify them as belonging to the same species.

Regards,

Finrock

Thanks for your response. This is an interesting topic for me.

I think many people in our religion have stated that we are duel beings. And in that kind of discussion we separate those two things often. We say that the natural man is an enemy to God. We say that Satan has dominion over all things from this world, if our bodies are from the dust of this world then he has dominion over it. And so our duel being is at odds with itself. This is what creates the test situation we find ourselves in. The test is because naturally our spirit is not in control. We have to work hard at listening to our spirit, through promptings of the Holy Ghost. It is a quiet influence over who we are and how we act. For the majority of people in this world the spirit is not in control of their being, the body is. The natural man is not like God. How is that? Because the body of Man is different than the body of God.

When we get our immortal body we will "rest" from the struggles of this world because we will no longer be at odds with ourselves. We will not have to fight off the tendencies of this natural body.

I know, just like everyone on this forum, that we have the same image as God. But thats not what we are talking about. I am not trying to play around with semantics like, form, image, likeness etc. Anybody who believes in the fall knows that we are not the same. There was a change in anatomy. The thing that you are holding onto though is you think the anatomy didn't change much. Where I think that we are vastly different than God. And I realize that is an opinion but I would be careful about comparing God too much to something that is under the perview of Satan.

We are talking about what makes Adam the first "Man." And I think its important to know that "man" in this sense is a temporary state, its a probationary state, its an artificial state with specific purposes. If its a temporary state then it doesn't have to have anything to do with a progression of growth and development that would happen without any intervention. This isn't like passing through puberty that a person would pass through whether they want to or not. In fact some chose not to pass through this state. Or do you think those that were cast out are not of the same "species" as us? In fact, that is a very good question for you ... Do you think Satan is a different species than us?

To me, the physical body is something created by God to allow us to achieve things that we couldn't if we remained in our "species" specific form, the spirit. This is an added enhancement that if we are worthy will be a permanent enhancement that we can put to good use. But it is not necessary to remain of the same species.

The reason to say it that way is to know then that God could use any number of methods to create this body. It doesn't have to be from some procreation process. Our spirits yes, have to be from some form of procreation process. But our temporary, artificial state we find ourselves in now does not. He could easily mix up the Nucleic acids from this earth in the right order, plop them into an embryo of existing similar life (that He set up for that purpose - not random) after sucking out the original DNA and thus create "Man" for the first time. Using the DNA that has always been used, like it has been done time and time again. And that would be an example of how we are not descended from some pre-adamic man and yet made from the dust of this world through Gods power and at the same time the body is not a procreation from God or God like beings.

[RRR1]

So which is it? Is the Bible or God the source of Truth? You say the Bible is the source of truth but then you attribute the source of the Bible to God. Even if the Bible was a direct dictation of God's words it is not the source of truth, it would be a collection of truths from the source (i. e. God). One cannot claim the Bible is the source of truth without putting it above God. Unless of course you want to maintain that the Bible is God but I'm not familiar with any Christians who would make such a claim (but I suppose you could be the first).

Both are truth. God is truth, the Bible being written by God is also truth. Here is an analogy. A=B and B=C, so that means A=C

[RRR1]

I don't know if you're not studying hard enough or not paying attention, but you would be wrong on both of those conclusions. Here's some questions for you to research: Who wrote the Bible? Who decided which texts to include and which to exclude? Why were they included or excluded and not others? Is it possible that some translations or passages may not be accurate representations of the originals or the original meanings?

Who wrote the Bible? Physically man wrote it down, man used his pencil and paper and wrote it down. But since the Bible is God breathed, God told man what to write. So essentially God wrote it. I would be willing to guess the text no included were not included because they were either false or not inspired by God. No its not possible that any passages arent accurate because if thats the case then God isnt accurate. If God isnt accurate, then God isnt all powerful and God wouldnt be God.

[Dravin]

Both are truth. God is truth, the Bible being written by God is also truth. Here is an analogy. A=B and B=C, so that means A=C

So the Bible is God? That is the conclusion of your logic. God = Truth = Bible.

Anyway you side stepped, you went from the source of truth to it being truth. My geology textbook contains truth, that does not make it the source of these truths, that source lies elsewhere than the text itself. Likewise with the Bible. The Bible is a collection of revealed truths, those truths were revealed by God not somehow by the text itself.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Dravin

[rameumptom]

Not even Ram. But that itself is another débuted. Even your last sentence is an ambiguous hanging chad. ‘…Higher law.’ Is there more than one law here?

If HE abides by physical laws, the mode of travel could not exceed what is term the speed of light [using Einstein’s thoughts], defy physical gravity; control all aspects of nature, move planets from one location to another, and so forth. GOD only works within that law based on what is given to that creation through the Son, in belonging to that order.

Theory has it that some particles MIGHT be able to go faster than light (Tachyons). Also, there are discussions on bending space, which makes it so traveling directly by light speed is not required.

[rameumptom]

If what you wrote is true then the entire Bible is not true, God doesnt exist, there is no heaven, no hell, and no eternal life of any kind. I might as well start sinning like crazy, having sex with whoever I want, etc and just have fun.

The Bible clearly states that God created everything.

oh and why must I believe that the world is flat?

You only have to disbelieve everything IF you insist on viewing everything black and white. However, if God deals in gray details, then we can accept the concept that the Bible is inspired, but not perfect, and use it to develop our testimony of Christ.

And if you believe that the Bible is God Breathed and literally word for word true, then you have to believe the world is flat, for that is what the Bible teaches (four corners of the earth, etc).

[RRR1]

G-d is the only source of truth for me - I do not worship anything other than G-d as the source of truth and that includes the Bible. Your arguments about scripture being G-d-breathed are the same arguments of the Pharisees and Scribes and it was under the justification of the scriptures that Jesus was crucified. I would point out that Jesus indicated that he would send his servants to teach his word – Not the Bible! But you are welcome to believe whatever you want

See two posts up. God and the Bible are both truth, so God = truth. If you believe God is truth then the Bible has to be truth. Simple math.

I can find a Bible scripture that says that G-d created man but I cannot find a scripture that says G-d created Adam. Thank you for clarifying that you do not believe G-d created anyone with a belly button. I do not believe it but thank you for being clear.

I seriously hope you are joking. He clearly created man. That man was placed in the Garden of Eden. We see that in Genesis 2:20 that that man is named Adam.

I do not believe G-d lies or is a deceiver – I believe that there are human remains that in every way appear to be over 10,000 years old. I do not believe G-d created these things as a lie to confuse those that would otherwise believe on him. If your Bible explains why such a thing would be (that G-d plays lying tricks) – I would be interested in you pointing out to me what I have missed and where such doctrine exist within the Bible.

Me and you both know that they way scientists date stuff is a bunch of crap. Unless you were there 10,000 years ago, then we dont know how old these remains are. Go read some stuff on Mt St. Helens eruption in 1980. They dated that to be millions of years. Are you kidding me? It only happened 30 years ago. Plus you say appears to be a certain age. There really isnt that big of a difference between 10,000 and 6,500. The remains very well could be 6,000 years old.

Is G-d something that exist? Then G-d was created?

Again Ive posted about this. this is a concept that the human brain cant comprehend. The fact that God has always existed; eternity past is something about is way above our thinking level. God alwasys was, hes the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. God was not created.

I have explained many times that in my travels I have met people (some Islamic) that desire to learn about Jesus and Christian teachings. Often these people look to the internet to sites like this one as their only source. But their societies and laws do not allow them to copy any material that has G-d spelled out. I use this spelling for them. From time to time I receive e-mails thanking me for doing this. Therefore I accept your ridicule of me hoping to be of some benefit to them.

Just curious of the reason, this seems like a good reason to me.

We also learn by what you post - I personally appreciate people devout belief in any religion. But I must admit that I find it most odd that you would worship the Bible as G-d-breathed when it does not state any such thing. What I have read is that the Bible and all other scripture is of value to bring someone unto Christ – and that Christ is the only source of truth worthy to be worshiped as such.

2 Timothy 3:16 clearly states that the Bible is from God.

BTW would you share with us what your religion is?

Im Christian.

The Traveler

...

[RRR1]

You only have to disbelieve everything IF you insist on viewing everything black and white. However, if God deals in gray details, then we can accept the concept that the Bible is inspired, but not perfect, and use it to develop our testimony of Christ.

And if you believe that the Bible is God Breathed and literally word for word true, then you have to believe the world is flat, for that is what the Bible teaches (four corners of the earth, etc).

God does not deal in gray areas. See Revelation 3 in the letter to the church at Laodicea. God only deals in hot or cold. He hates Lukewarm.

What is the verse about the the 4 corners. Im sure you arent looking at the context to which that verse was written. I'll have to get back to you, but I can guarantee that is not what is meant. Even you saying the world is flat, what if 4 corners meant 3D? Then the Earth would be a box. Even your logic there is flawed.

[RRR1]

So the Bible is God? That is the conclusion of your logic. God = Truth = Bible.

Anyway you side stepped, you went from the source of truth to it being truth. My geology textbook contains truth, that does not make it the source of these truths, that source lies elsewhere than the text itself. Likewise with the Bible. The Bible is a collection of revealed truths, those truths were revealed by God not somehow by the text itself.

God is the source of truth. God wrote the Bible therefore teh Bible is true. Is that better?

[Dravin]

God is the source of truth. God wrote the Bible therefore teh Bible is true. Is that better?

Yes, in this kinda discussion it is rather important to state what one means. Beliefs vary greatly and while I assumed that is probably what you meant one can never be completely sure.

[john doe]

Who wrote the Bible? Physically man wrote it down, man used his pencil and paper and wrote it down. But since the Bible is God breathed, God told man what to write. So essentially God wrote it. I would be willing to guess the text no included were not included because they were either false or not inspired by God. No its not possible that any passages arent accurate because if thats the case then God isnt accurate. If God isnt accurate, then God isnt all powerful and God wouldnt be God.

So, which version is true? If the Bible is completely, 100% accurate, then why are there so many versions and translations of it? Did God tell the different Translators to write different things?

[RRR1]

Back to the original topic about age of the earth and if humans existed before Adam and Eve.

The Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 is the word yom. This word is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament. In the vast majority this word means a literal 24 hour day. In times where it doesnt mean this, the context makes it clear. The context in Genesis 1 clearly means 24 hour day. Its first defined in Genese 1:4-5. It describes the light and darkness of the light/dark cycle of a typical 24 hour day. Second this word is used with evening and morning. Everywhere else in the Old Testament that these words are used together it means a literal evening or a literal morning of a literal 24 hour day. Third, the word yom is used modified by a number. First day, second day, third day, etc. Everywhere else in the Old Testament this means a literal 24 hour day. Fourth, yom is defined literally in Genesis 1:14.

Exodus 20:9-11. Yom is used both times the word day is mentioned. In Hebrew there are 3 other words for indefinite amount of time but the only word meaning literal day (yom) is used here. The Jews understand it as literal. The idea of millions of years didnt even exist until the early 19th century.

The Flood in Genesis 6-9 doesnt back millions of years. This was a global (not local) flood that covered the entire earth. The flood was meant to kill every living thing (plant, animal,human, etc) except for those that were on the boat. A local flood wouldnt have made sense because humans can escape an area or animals can migrate quickly once they sense a lot of rain is coming. The Hebrew words translated in Genesis 7:11 indicate a tectonic rupturing of the earth's plates, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. This type of shake up would easily produce the complex geographical record we see today which would be thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If a year long flood can do all of this, then the rocks and fossils cant be millions of years old.

Mark 10:6 clearly states that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation. This is also quoted by Jesus himself!! If a day means millions of years then by the time man was created on the 6th day millions of years would have passed and that would mean they werent created at the beginning.

Genesis 1 says 6 times that the creation was good. When God finished he called it VERY GOOD. Genesis 1:29-30 indicates humans and animals were first vegetarian. That is how man could live with dinosaurs and lions, bears, etc. When Adam and Eve sinned they died spiritually and started to die physically. God cursed all of creation. Now all of creation waits until the final judgement, when Jesus comes back. Only then will there be no carniverous behavior (Isaiah 11:6-9) and all disease, pain, death, and suffering will cease (Revelation 21:3-5). To believe in the idea of millions of years would be animal death before the creation and fall of man. To would contradict and destroy the Bible's teachings on death and would destroy the reason why Christ died in the first place. This would make God a cruel creator who uses death for his creative work, and to still call his work good is insane.

To believe in millions of years and death before sin would destroy all teaching of the Bible, especially the character of God and the foundation of the gospel. If Genesis 1 is not literal, then faith in the Bible does not exist, as well as teachings on salvation.

[RRR1]

So, which version is true? If the Bible is completely, 100% accurate, then why are there so many versions and translations of it? Did God tell the different Translators to write different things?

What are you talking about versions? As far as translations I see no differences between King James, New Internation, New American Standard, New King James, etc.

[Traveler]

Both are truth. God is truth, the Bible being written by God is also truth. Here is an analogy. A=B and B=C, so that means A=C

I do not believe that the Bible needs to be worshiped. The Bible is not my G-d or as you say above A=C.

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

The Flood in Genesis 6-9 doesnt back millions of years. This was a global (not local) flood that covered the entire earth. The flood was meant to kill every living thing (plant, animal,human, etc) except for those that were on the boat. A local flood wouldnt have made sense because humans can escape an area or animals can migrate quickly once they sense a lot of rain is coming. The Hebrew words translated in Genesis 7:11 indicate a tectonic rupturing of the earth's plates, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. This type of shake up would easily produce the complex geographical record we see today which would be thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If a year long flood can do all of this, then the rocks and fossils cant be millions of years old.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with biblical literalism and young earth theory. As if it isn't outlandish enough to claim that humanity is only 6,000 years old, there's also the claim that virtually all humans on earth were killed by a flood approximately 2,000 years after the Fall (according to the biblical timeline). That leaves 4,000 years for the diverse cultures and races that exist today to develop and spread across the globe. To say that this isn't likely would be a huge understatement.

[Finrock]

EDIT: I changed the yes and no continuation of question 3 to make sense. If you've already answered, ignore the previous version and use only the edited version.

Hello Seminarysnoozer. :)

Thanks for your response. This is an interesting topic for me.

You're welcome.

Before I go any further, I just want to know what your answers are to a few questions so that we can establish a baseline or troubleshoot where the disagreement lies. I hope you don't mind doing this exercise:

1. Do you believe that stating "I am a child of God" correctly describes one's identity? If yes, then continue to the next questions. If no, then answer no more questions because we'll need to start from another baseline.

2. Do you believe that a spirit child of God constitutes a person that is either a man or a woman? If yes, continue. If no, then you may stop here.

3. Do you believe that when a spirit person obtains a physical, mortal body that the spirit's identity as a child of God, as a person, and their identity as a man or a woman ceases to be the case? If yes, you may stop. If no, please continue.

4. Can the physical body live without the spirit? If yes, please continue. If no, you may stop.

5. Do you agree with the following statement?

A spirit child of God obtained their identity as a person and as a man or as a woman long before they received their physical body, therefore the spirit of a person, and not their body, is the essential component of a person's identity.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

Finrock

EDIT: I changed the yes and no continuation option of question 3 to make sense. If you've already answered, ignore the previous version and use only the edited version.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Finrock

[Traveler]

What are you talking about versions? As far as translations I see no differences between King James, New Internation, New American Standard, New King James, etc.

Which ancient scriptures are the true scriptures? Let us start with the Old Testament since this is the topic (Adam and the Creation) over which there is question. Are they all the exact same truth in the same way that G-d does not change; but is the same?

Aquila's recension of the Septuagint

Codex Alexandrinus

Ethiopic Version

Ambrose's citation of the Latin

Arabic Version

Armenian Version

Babylonian Talmud

Codex Vaticanus

Bohairic Version

Cronicles

Masoretic and Greek Texts of Chronicles

Coptic Version

The seond, exitic edition of the Deteronomistic History

Septuagint

Septuagint, John Wevers's edition

Latan

Masoretic Text

Old Greek

Syriac Version of Philoxenus

Qumran versions

Syriac Version

Samaritan Pentateuch

Syro-Hexaplar version

Targum

Targum Onkelos

Palestinian Targum

There are others - the question is; are they all G-d breathed? For over 1,000 years it was claimed that the Masoretic Text were the more accurate but with the discovery of the Qumran Versions even the Samaritan Pentateuch has been proven to be better perserved in history than the Masoretic.

Also anyone that has studied ancient scripture texts knows that there are variations in the family of texts such as the Masoretic Text. Not only is there variations in that actual texts of ancient scripture there are thousands of variant reading of the same text that have very different meaning. Would you like to discuss the difference between "Ehad" and "Yhead" as these ancient Hebrew words are used in various ways in the ancient texts. All this before one word is translated into any modern language.

I am assuming that you do not read any language but English and have never read the "Bible" in any other language.

The Traveler

[RRR1]

That leaves 4,000 years for the diverse cultures and races that exist today to develop and spread across the globe. To say that this isn't likely would be a huge understatement.

We went from walking and covered wagons to cars and airplanes in just a few hundred years. I think 4,000 years for humans to spread across the Earth very reasonable.

[RRR1]

Which ancient scriptures are the true scriptures? Let us start with the Old Testament since this is the topic (Adam and the Creation) over which there is question. Are they all the exact same truth in the same way that G-d does not change; but is the same?

Aquila's recension of the Septuagint

Codex Alexandrinus

Ethiopic Version

Ambrose's citation of the Latin

Arabic Version

Armenian Version

Babylonian Talmud

Codex Vaticanus

Bohairic Version

Cronicles

Masoretic and Greek Texts of Chronicles

Coptic Version

The seond, exitic edition of the Deteronomistic History

Septuagint

Septuagint, John Wevers's edition

Latan

Masoretic Text

Old Greek

Syriac Version of Philoxenus

Qumran versions

Syriac Version

Samaritan Pentateuch

Syro-Hexaplar version

Targum

Targum Onkelos

Palestinian Targum

There are others - the question is; are they all G-d breathed? For over 1,000 years it was claimed that the Masoretic Text were the more accurate but with the discovery of the Qumran Versions even the Samaritan Pentateuch has been proven to be better perserved in history than the Masoretic.

Also anyone that has studied ancient scripture texts knows that there are variations in the family of texts such as the Masoretic Text. Not only is there variations in that actual texts of ancient scripture there are thousands of variant reading of the same text that have very different meaning. Would you like to discuss the difference between "Ehad" and "Yhead" as these ancient Hebrew words are used in various ways in the ancient texts. All this before one word is translated into any modern language.

I am assuming that you do not read any language but English and have never read the "Bible" in any other language.

The Traveler

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.

[JohnnyRudick]

God does not deal in gray areas. See Revelation 3 in the letter to the church at Laodicea. God only deals in hot or cold. He hates Lukewarm.

What is the verse about the the 4 corners. Im sure you arent looking at the context to which that verse was written. I'll have to get back to you, but I can guarantee that is not what is meant. Even you saying the world is flat, what if 4 corners meant 3D? Then the Earth would be a box. Even your logic there is flawed.

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:

[Adomini22]

Ok, quick idea of mine (this thread is way too long to read everything....)

D&C has a section that has some Q&A regarding some doctrinal questions. One of them is the age of the earth. Does that answer not say 6000 years old?

[Dravin]

D&C has a section that has some Q&A regarding some doctrinal questions. One of them is the age of the earth. Does that answer not say 6000 years old?

Link?

[Traveler]

Back to the original topic about age of the earth and if humans existed before Adam and Eve.

.....

The Flood in Genesis 6-9 doesnt back millions of years. This was a global (not local) flood that covered the entire earth. The flood was meant to kill every living thing (plant, animal,human, etc) except for those that were on the boat. A local flood wouldnt have made sense because humans can escape an area or animals can migrate quickly once they sense a lot of rain is coming. The Hebrew words translated in Genesis 7:11 indicate a tectonic rupturing of the earth's plates, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. This type of shake up would easily produce the complex geographical record we see today which would be thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If a year long flood can do all of this, then the rocks and fossils cant be millions of years old.

....

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

[Dravin]

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

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

[Traveler]

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.

There are problems with the ancient text - vast problems - that is why they call modern Bibles "versions" and not translations. There are few attempts at translations of ancient text. The closest is the JW - New World Translation but that was based on the Masoretic Text - which has been shown to be altered much more than thought over time. I possess a translation of the Qumran Isaiah scroll. Such things are very difficult to find and purchase.

One thing I have personally learned from my study of almost any subject is that almost always, with rare exception, the popular notion at any one given time seldom survives scrutiny and over time will fail. One notion that Jesus taught about truths concerning important religious things – Never base you opinion of spiritual things on its popularity. Along with this idea it is wise to be prudent and careful with the world’s impressions of what ought to be considered G-d breathed – even concerning the Bible. Scripture tells us that the things of G-d (including scripture) cannot be understood by man unless they are inspired by the spirit of G-d. I interpret this to mean that if most of the world read about the creation of Adam or the flood of Noah and think that it is very clear that there were no humans before Adam or that the flood was global – there is a significant probably that such popular understanding did not come by the spirit of G-d.

To argue that a notion is popular and widely accepted is a red flag to me that one is seeking the popular notion and not the whisperings that come from the spirit of G-d.

The Traveler