Which came first the chicken or the egg?

[circusboy01]

The real question is which came first, the catepillar or the butterfly???

The Butterfly. I think??

[circusboy01]

Chicken or egg? Doesn't matter, I'll eat both, and in various ways.

I still believe (know) the chicken came first. But, I guess it really doesn't matter as long as they both ended up on our dinner plates. Brother Ray.

[Blackmarch]

Only if Heavenly Father placed other egg laying adult animals on earth quite a while before he placed the chicken. Sometimes i don't remember things. But I believe that Heavenly Father put the animals in the Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve. But i don't know if it says anywhere about how long it was between each animal. Brother Ray

well if the physical creation followed the spirtual creation in order, then yes he did- fish came before the fowl.

[circusboy01]

Speaking of eggs, did anyone see the latest Jimmy Kimmel travesty, where he asked parents to give awful Christmas gifts to their kids and record the reactions? One parent gave her daughter a carton of eggs and her son...a hot dog.

Years of therapy for those kids.

I know I know. It's time to change the subject. This thread should end soon. Unless every single person at LDS.Net disagrees with me:rofl: Brother Ray

[circusboy01]

Everybody: That was fun. I hope I didn't make an enemy of anybody. If I offended anyone I sincerely

apologize. Brother Ray. P.S. The chicken came first. ;-) :-)

[Jamie123]

Where in Geneses does it say that Heavenly Father placed Adam and Eve in the Garden sf Eden as infants? In fact. Where in the entire Bible does it say this?

Isn't "Through a Glass Darkly" a work of fiction? Brother Ray.

As far as I know, nowhere. But I don't believe it says specifically that they were created as adults either. Either way, I seriously doubt the Garden of Eden story is factual anyway - its more likely part of a God-inspired mythology, presenting moral truths in symbolic form.

Like I said before, I don't think Through a Glass Darkly is intended to be taken seriosly as a work of fact. It's just a set of musings on the human condition - as seen from both a human and an angelic perspective. It's well worth reading though - as is his better-known book Sophie's World.

[circusboy01]

As far as I know, nowhere. But I don't believe it says specifically that they were created as adults either. Either way, I seriously doubt the Garden of Eden story is factual anyway - its more likely part of a God-inspired mythology, presenting moral truths in symbolic form.

Like I said before, I don't think Through a Glass Darkly is intended to be taken seriosly as a work of fact. It's just a set of musings on the human condition - as seen from both a human and an angelic perspective. It's well worth reading though - as is his better-known book Sophie's World.

Sense our outlook on things are so different. I doubt if either one of us could prove our point to the other. ( Does that sound right? I know what I'm trying to say. But when I read it back, somehow it doesn't look right.

Through the Glass darkly looks like it might be a good read I just don't think it was much of an argument against the chicken coming first. Brother Ray

[circusboy01]

One last thing. unless you all post more tomorrow.For those of you who say, "maybe Adam and Eve where put here as little Children. Scriptures say the Eve was created from Adams rib. Can you really picture Little baby Eve being created from Little Baby Adams Rib I sure can't Brother Ray

I've got to back peddle a little. i just read a lot of things concerning whether Eve being created from Adams rib was real or symbolic, and I just ended up being confused. But this does not change my stance the the Chicken came first. Brother Ray

Edited December 17, 2011 by circusboy01

[JudoMinja]

circusboy- The only problem I see with your assertions is that you are trying to convince a number of people who believe in creation through evolution that God created every living creature as an adult of its species and placed it in the Garden. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this is how he did it, though the Christian community at large has long interpreted it this way and many people still believe in this form of creation. But as our knowledge expands and we come to understand more about the science of things, and the many subtle nuances and symbolic and poetic forms of writing within the scriptures, many of us tend to reject this idea for something that makes "more sense".

None of us know for certain exactly HOW God created living creatures. The scriptures don't tell us HOW, and if we believe the story of the Garden of Eden to be symbolic, we may not even believe that Eve was literally taken from Adam's rib. There are too many other possibilities out there that line up better with both the symbolic nature of the scriptures and scientific findings.

[beefche]

One last thing. unless you all post more tomorrow.For those of you who say, "maybe Adam and Eve where put here as little Children. Scriptures say the Eve was created from Adams rib. Can you really picture Little baby Eve being created from Little Baby Adams Rib I sure can't Brother Ray

I can't imagine Big Adult Eve being created from Big Adult Adam's rib.

[circusboy01]

There were eggs being laid before there were chickens.

I didn't know that. Where they chicken eggs? If they were something God created, than I believe the adult versions were around somewhere. Brother Ray

[circusboy01]

I can't imagine Big Adult Eve being created from Big Adult Adam's rib.

Please see my edit in Post#33 Brother Ray

[circusboy01]

circusboy- The only problem I see with your assertions is that you are trying to convince a number of people who believe in creation through evolution that God created every living creature as an adult of its species and placed it in the Garden. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this is how he did it, though the Christian community at large has long interpreted it this way and many people still believe in this form of creation. But as our knowledge expands and we come to understand more about the science of things, and the many subtle nuances and symbolic and poetic forms of writing within the scriptures, many of us tend to reject this idea for something that makes "more sense".

None of us know for certain exactly HOW God created living creatures. The scriptures don't tell us HOW, and if we believe the story of the Garden of Eden to be symbolic, we may not even believe that Eve was literally taken from Adam's rib. There are too many other possibilities out there that line up better with both the symbolic nature of the scriptures and scientific findings.

I just looked at my post #24, and I misspoke. I should have said placed them on Earth. Not necessarily in the Garden of Eden. Brother Ray

[circusboy01]

circusboy- The only problem I see with your assertions is that you are trying to convince a number of people who believe in creation through evolution that God created every living creature as an adult of its species and placed it in the Garden. Nowhere in the Bible does it say this is how he did it, though the Christian community at large has long interpreted it this way and many people still believe in this form of creation. But as our knowledge expands and we come to understand more about the science of things, and the many subtle nuances and symbolic and poetic forms of writing within the scriptures, many of us tend to reject this idea for something that makes "more sense".

None of us know for certain exactly HOW God created living creatures. The scriptures don't tell us HOW, and if we believe the story of the Garden of Eden to be symbolic, we may not even believe that Eve was literally taken from Adam's rib. There are too many other possibilities out there that line up better with both the symbolic nature of the scriptures and scientific findings.

Reply to your second paragraph.: If you have been to the Temple. Then you should know that the Garden of Eden was not symbolic Our Church even mentions where it was located Where? I don't remember. I'll try and find out if you want me to. once I find out. Mormons with strong Testimonies will believe it Christians who are not LDS probably wont, and non Christians really wont. Brother Ray

[Vort]

Reply to your second paragraph.: If you have been to the Temple. Then you should know that the Garden of Eden was not symbolic Our Church even mentions where it was located Where? I don't remember. I'll try and find out if you want me to. once I find out. Mormons with strong Testimonies will believe it Christians who are not LDS probably wont, and non Christians really wont. Brother Ray

Brother Ray, we believe Adam and Eve to have been real people and Eden to have been a real place. But the presentation the scriptures give of what happened there, with a serpent slithering around talking our first parents into eating fruit from off a tree, sounds symbolic. Whether the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" were actual literal trees bearing edible fruit, or whether they are symbols of the reality given us in language we can easily understand and so that we can see the important events for what they really meant, we do not know. I for one suspect the latter interpretation.

As for the other matter, we have no primary source from Joseph himself giving revelation about the location of Eden or its garden. Brigham Young said:

"Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson [County] Missouri." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, vol. 5, 15 Mar. 1857, Archives Division, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City)

Heber C. Kimball said:

"From the Lord, Joseph learned that Adam had dwelt on the land of America, and that the Garden of Eden was located where Jackson County now is." (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, 1888, 7:439; and Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 1967, p. 219)

[circusboy01]

Brother Ray, we believe Adam and Eve to have been real people and Eden to have been a real place. But the presentation the scriptures give of what happened there, with a serpent slithering around talking our first parents into eating fruit from off a tree, sounds symbolic. Whether the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil" were actual literal trees bearing edible fruit, or whether they are symbols of the reality given us in language we can easily understand and so that we can see the important events for what they really meant, we do not know. I for one suspect the latter interpretation.

As for the other matter, we have no primary source from Joseph himself giving revelation about the location of Eden or its garden. Brigham Young said:

"Joseph the Prophet told me that the garden of Eden was in Jackson [County] Missouri." (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, vol. 5, 15 Mar. 1857, Archives Division, Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City)

Heber C. Kimball said:

"From the Lord, Joseph learned that Adam had dwelt on the land of America, and that the Garden of Eden was located where Jackson County now is." (Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, 1888, 7:439; and Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 1967, p. 219)

Thank you very much for your post, and all it's information.

As for the Tree of life, and The Tree of good and evil, being real or symbolic A long while back I heard, in a Sunday School class, Priesthood meeting, or a Talk. Can't remember which, I heard A discussion about the fruit from the Tree of Good and Evil Being an Apple or another type of fruit.. This makes me lean towards the possibility that the Tree was real.

I can't see anyone discussing the type of fruit on a symbolic tree.

Heavenly Father sending Angel's to guard the entrance to the Garden of Eden.To keep Adam and Eve from getting to the Tree of Life Tells me it is possible that the Tree of life might have been real Why would HE send Angels to keep Adam and Eve from a symbolic tree?

Now I'm not 100% positive about the tree's being real. I'm just leaning in that direction.

As for the serpent tempting Eve. I know that was symbolic. If you've been to the Temple, you know that there was no talking serpent in the Garden of Eden. Brother Ray

Edited December 18, 2011 by circusboy01

[JudoMinja]

The point is not to determine how much was symbolic and how much was not. I was merely trying to point out that considering the symbolism in much of the scriptures combined with scietific findings about evolution, it makes much more sense to believe life was created through the process of evolution than it does to believe God created every living species first as an adult of its kind to start off in the Garden of Eden. To use this as an answer to the chicken-egg paradox is rather rediculous, because there is nothing solid enough to support your conclusions.

[Jamie123]

Through the Glass darkly looks like it might be a good read I just don't think it was much of an argument against the chicken coming first.

LOL - I think you realise I wasn't presenting the book as "evidence". The point I was making was that not everyone assumes from the onset that Adam and Eve were created as adults.

There's an interesting spectrum of belief expressed on this thread. I personally suspect that the entire story is symbolic, that Adam and Eve represent the whole of humanity and "the fall" is mankind's continual rebellion against God. In that sense Adam and Eve were (and are) real people - they are you and me.

We went to an evangelical church for their carol service yesterday, where the minister was saying in his sermon that people had been waiting for Christ's coming for 3000 years. This confused me so I asked him about it afterwards - he said it was a "conservative estimate" for the age of the earth. I mentioned that Usher's Chronology puts the creration at 4004BC and he seemed surprised (though probably that someone outside his congregation knew anything about the topic). I didn't tell him that I lean towards Darwin's theory as a mechanism of Creation, and that the universe is probably more like 12 billion years old. There's no point in rocking the boat!

Edited December 19, 2011 by Jamie123

[UrbanFool]

Not one month ago Michio Kaku said that they both came at the same time. I tend to trust the dude.

[annewandering]

The chicken came first. Everything was before it was created and I really dont think there are spiritual eggs rolling around out there somewhere.

[Vort]

At some point, there was a first individual or group of individuals that, by definition, qualified as "chickens". Each of those individuals hatched from an egg. Ergo, the egg came first.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes. We all started out as babies. Beginning with Cain or Abel. Whoever was the oldest. The first chick was hatched from the first egg laid by the adult chicken that Heavenly Father created and put on this earth.

In that sense, though, Cain and Abel were begotten from two parental bodies that were not "created" by God. The perfect versions of those bodies were created by God and placed in the Garden and then they changed as a result of the Fall. Exactly how they changed and to what degree is not really described but at least we can say it is not the same body that was created.

[Traveler]

If we are to observe what actually happens - we will discover that in all cases eggs precede chickens. If we believe G-d created chickens prior to eggs then we are left with a very big problem. Either G-d would have to completely change his method of creation (of which there is no indication what-so-ever in scripture) or everything currently living are not created creatures - therefore G-d is not the creator of all.

This is also a problem for advocates of creation from nothing. If G-d creates from nothing then any chicken hatched from an egg is not really a "creation" of G-d - thus he is not their creator.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

If we are to observe what actually happens - we will discover that in all cases eggs precede chickens. If we believe G-d created chickens prior to eggs then we are left with a very big problem. Either G-d would have to completely change his method of creation (of which there is no indication what-so-ever in scripture) or everything currently living are not created creatures - therefore G-d is not the creator of all.

This is also a problem for advocates of creation from nothing. If G-d creates from nothing then any chicken hatched from an egg is not really a "creation" of G-d - thus he is not their creator.

The Traveler

If one takes that hard of a stance in relation to the creation of the body then I would imagine that there would be the same perception about how the perfected body with resurrection is formed for the individual who has died thousands of years ago and their mortal body as dissipated to its basic elements and maybe even absorbed and incorporated (literally) into someone else' body.

I think, most believe that God is capable of forming (creating) a perfected body with which the spirit will be put with upon resurrection. That doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.

I am curious what you would call the production of a mycoplasma out of computer generated "off the shelf" DNA fragments forming a new organism that had never been on the planet before that is now capable of reproduction. The cell had no actual parent, just the knowledge of the fragments of the DNA from other organisms DNA and then manufacturing the DNA strand, from scratch, to form that new cell.