The Beginning of Life

[Traveler]

For a long time I have struggled with the scripture version of the creation – in particular day or period 3 of creation. The problem I have is that according to scripture there was grass, herbs, fruit trees – all kinds of life before there was even a sun or moon in the sky. There is no way – or so I use to think.

I have studied this problem for a long time – many years and last night I had a most interesting epiphany. For eons it was believed both scientifically and religiously that life begin on planet earth. Science thought that during the early evolution of earth that amino acids came together in some primordial soup to initiate the first microbial living entity. More and more science is turning from the 3rd planet from the sun in our solar system to some other distant origin. The problem is all the conditions that can be justified to start life – just do not work out. Too many problems. So the experts are considering that somewhere else in space the conditions were right for life to begin then frozen in deep space and transported to earth where the seeds of life germinated in an ecological and biological explosion of life evolving on this planet we call earth. A title that possibly confuses our planet with the dry land where G-d created life.

But going back to Genesis chapter one and re-reading the creation of day 3; I suddenly realized that it is very possible from the description to derive an interpretation that G-d did not initially create life on this planet. That it is possible that life was created somewhere else in our universe in a place where there was “dry land” from which the seeds of life were prepared – even before there was a sun or moon in our little solar system - that would not happen until day (or period) #4.

Anyway – maybe what I thought was a big mistake in scripture is actually accurate and correct. What I lacked was the correct understanding.

The Traveler

[ron103]

i never caught that until i just went back and read it...and thinking on it now, i imagined seeds cause i knew He initially had watered the soil with just mist, right? but, i have been sitting here for 1/2 hour analyzing your story, i didnt know that was at the height of their issues, thanks for that. I just have been obedient to the Spirit for a while and it has went well... nice to meet you...His,

[Vort]

Brigham Young believed and taught that life was transplanted here. There are some scientists who now believe that abiogenesis (the formation of life from a non-living stratum) occurred elsewhere, probably Mars, and arrived on earth via Martian asteroid impact that blew chunks (heh, heh) into space, all covered with Martian bacterial protolife.

Personally, I don't see what problem this Martian bacteria idea solves, either scientifically or religiously. From the standpoint of abiogenesis, it begs the question, pushing the problem of how life began on earth to a problem of how it began on Mars. From the standpoint of religion, it seems utterly irrelevant.

[prisonchaplain]

Engage me in a scientific discussion or debate and you will quickly exhaust my knowledge. So, I just checked on what the Young Earth Creationists have to say. In a nutshell, they suggest that the light created in verse 3 was of a quality that could sustain vegetation, and that the lights on the 4th day were "bearers and timekeepers." They also point out that God is light, so he could have simply sustained it by his own nature.

I find it sufficient that the universe shows clear signs of design and order. God did that.

[Anddenex]

All things were created spiritually before they were temporally...we understand during this time of organization the earth wasn't in a physical state as it is now.

The light spoken of within Genesis could have come from a variety of sources. God's light being one of them. Another sun being another source of possibility.

The first initial verse God says, "Let there be light." Where did this light come from? He then divided light from the darkness calling the light day and the darkness night. This was done before there was any plant life upon the earth.

[ron103]

good morning...

"they also point out that God is light, so He could have sustained..."

This arguement nullifies their whole point to the why they are arguing....

You cant use God to disprove God, is that not hipocrytical...?

[ron103]

good morning...

"they also point out that God is light, so He could have sustained..."

This arguement nullifies their whole point to the why they are arguing....

You cant use God to disprove God, is that not hipocrytical...?

[Seminarysnoozer]

For a long time I have struggled with the scripture version of the creation – in particular day or period 3 of creation. The problem I have is that according to scripture there was grass, herbs, fruit trees – all kinds of life before there was even a sun or moon in the sky. There is no way – or so I use to think.

I have studied this problem for a long time – many years and last night I had a most interesting epiphany. For eons it was believed both scientifically and religiously that life begin on planet earth. Science thought that during the early evolution of earth that amino acids came together in some primordial soup to initiate the first microbial living entity. More and more science is turning from the 3rd planet from the sun in our solar system to some other distant origin. The problem is all the conditions that can be justified to start life – just do not work out. Too many problems. So the experts are considering that somewhere else in space the conditions were right for life to begin then frozen in deep space and transported to earth where the seeds of life germinated in an ecological and biological explosion of life evolving on this planet we call earth. A title that possibly confuses our planet with the dry land where G-d created life.

But going back to Genesis chapter one and re-reading the creation of day 3; I suddenly realized that it is very possible from the description to derive an interpretation that G-d did not initially create life on this planet. That it is possible that life was created somewhere else in our universe in a place where there was “dry land” from which the seeds of life were prepared – even before there was a sun or moon in our little solar system - that would not happen until day (or period) #4.

Anyway – maybe what I thought was a big mistake in scripture is actually accurate and correct. What I lacked was the correct understanding.

The Traveler

If it was done how it was done many times over, I am sure the process is quite refined. Just like the problem of fitting all the species of the world on Noah's ark, I think all that God would have to do is know the DNA sequence (or RNA) of all things living and just start manufacturing the strands of DNA into primordial cells (also manufactured). Variability from the original starts with the Fall, as God only created one man and one woman before any variety occurred. All God has to do is implant "the mother of all living" DNA into those original cells. Each type could have it's own beginning original, "mother of all living" set of DNA that can give rise to the variety after the Fall (i.e. - "whose seed was in itself"). All of those primordial cells could have been prepared and the "brought forth" when the right conditions were established. (... this is all my speculation, not doctrine)

[prisonchaplain]

good morning...

"they also point out that God is light, so He could have sustained..."

This arguement nullifies their whole point to the why they are arguing....

You cant use God to disprove God, is that not hipocrytical...?

The existence of God is a different matter altogether. The OP raises a question about the order of creation detailed in Genesis. He highlights the suggestion of some skeptics that vegetation cannot come before the sun.

So, we who believe Genesis to be an accurate account of what God did certainly can use God to explain what is written.

[Traveler]

If it was done how it was done many times over, I am sure the process is quite refined. Just like the problem of fitting all the species of the world on Noah's ark, I think all that God would have to do is know the DNA sequence (or RNA) of all things living and just start manufacturing the strands of DNA into primordial cells (also manufactured). Variability from the original starts with the Fall, as God only created one man and one woman before any variety occurred. All God has to do is implant "the mother of all living" DNA into those original cells. Each type could have it's own beginning original, "mother of all living" set of DNA that can give rise to the variety after the Fall (i.e. - "whose seed was in itself"). All of those primordial cells could have been prepared and the "brought forth" when the right conditions were established. (... this is all my speculation, not doctrine)

I was hopping for thoughts like this. But to be honest at this point we are speculating. One of the speculating thoughts I have had - since Eve is the mother of all living - if the DNA of man is directly from G-d; that the DNA of all life is actually a modification of G-d's DNA. This would be an explanation why early man (pre-Eden on earth) has some of our DNA and that the foot print of our DNA is in all living things. So instead of man evolving over some extended time - that all life is in essence the offspring of humanity which is the offspring of G-d.

The great problem with this kind of speculation is the most common of all problems in speculation that leads to false conclusions. That is that there is no empirical evidence that this is the case nor is there conclusive revelation - only backward logic trying to fit a preconception into what limited information is available. Rather there are obvious holes or gaps in what we do understand and have been given.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

The existence of God is a different matter altogether. The OP raises a question about the order of creation detailed in Genesis. He highlights the suggestion of some skeptics that vegetation cannot come before the sun.

So, we who believe Genesis to be an accurate account of what God did certainly can use God to explain what is written.

As I see the problem - We all interpret Genesis according to our individual prejudice of understanding. One of the great problems in religious circles is the assumption that someone that interprets Genesis differently than us does not believe Genesis.

I do not mean this as criticism but it is a criticism. That is that the scientific community thinks that understanding obtained through empirical discipline is part if not all of the formula of proving "truth". (note that Paul in scripture admonishes that all things be proven and that which is good or true be retained) However, the religious community holds to a very static view of things that what is learned or obtained from empirical experience should never color or change our understanding of G-d or his works.

I try to hold to a balance in understanding empirical evidence with spiritual revelation concerning such thinking but I have learned that even using scripture - once a static notion is imbedded religiously (as established tradition) in an individual - the bright sun could be shinning at noon day and they would declare it night.

But in this particular thread - one could argue that if there is an intelligent being behind the fabrication of this universe that such intelligence would not be reinventing the wheel, sort of speaking, each time a planet was divinely gifted with life. Especially since scripture implies that G-d is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (unchanging). The economy that we experience concerning the methods of G-d should be very open to the possibility that life did not begin or have its initiation on this very obscure solar system in the outer reaches of our galaxy among the countless galaxies of the universe. All of which is much older than our little earth.

The Traveler

[mnn727]

I don't look at Genesis as being a historical or a scientific text.

There are many lessons to learn there, however I believe it is not meant to be taken literally

YMMV

[prisonchaplain]

As I see the problem - We all interpret Genesis according to our individual prejudice of understanding. One of the great problems in religious circles is the assumption that someone that interprets Genesis differently than us does not believe Genesis.

I do not mean this as criticism but it is a criticism. That is that the scientific community thinks that understanding obtained through empirical discipline is part if not all of the formula of proving "truth". (note that Paul in scripture admonishes that all things be proven and that which is good or true be retained) However, the religious community holds to a very static view of things that what is learned or obtained from empirical experience should never color or change our understanding of G-d or his works.

I try to hold to a balance in understanding empirical evidence with spiritual revelation concerning such thinking but I have learned that even using scripture - once a static notion is imbedded religiously (as established tradition) in an individual - the bright sun could be shinning at noon day and they would declare it night.

But in this particular thread - one could argue that if there is an intelligent being behind the fabrication of this universe that such intelligence would not be reinventing the wheel, sort of speaking, each time a planet was divinely gifted with life. Especially since scripture implies that G-d is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (unchanging). The economy that we experience concerning the methods of G-d should be very open to the possibility that life did not begin or have its initiation on this very obscure solar system in the outer reaches of our galaxy among the countless galaxies of the universe. All of which is much older than our little earth.

The Traveler

It may be true that we come to Genesis with "prejudice." That term is generally treated as a pejorative--a contrast to "objective." However, what if our pre-conceived ideas are treated as schema rather than some kind of corrupting bias?

I come to Genesis believing in an eternal God who is good. He is Creator. If I want to examine the intersect of science and Genesis, I do so with the understanding that this science is the investigation/exploration of God's creation.

Perhaps such a background will blind me to some important learning about science. On the other hand, if I need that knowledge, and I diligently seek God, when he reveals the learning to me, my understanding will be that much more enhanced. "I was blind but now I see." The seeing is that much sweeter.

If a non-religious scientist comes to Genesis 1-2 with an open mind and heart, the revelation of God that s/he might receive will be, in some ways, quite different and extraordinary, compared with the typical Cradle Roll Christian, who grew up learning the six days of creation on flannel board.

You do well to remind us that we do see through our own lenses. Our eye-glass perscriptions may be very individual. God works through that and brings blessing, if we will be open to him and the wisdom he brings.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I was hopping for thoughts like this. But to be honest at this point we are speculating. One of the speculating thoughts I have had - since Eve is the mother of all living - if the DNA of man is directly from G-d; that the DNA of all life is actually a modification of G-d's DNA. This would be an explanation why early man (pre-Eden on earth) has some of our DNA and that the foot print of our DNA is in all living things. So instead of man evolving over some extended time - that all life is in essence the offspring of humanity which is the offspring of G-d.

The great problem with this kind of speculation is the most common of all problems in speculation that leads to false conclusions. That is that there is no empirical evidence that this is the case nor is there conclusive revelation - only backward logic trying to fit a preconception into what limited information is available. Rather there are obvious holes or gaps in what we do understand and have been given.

The Traveler

I think you have to include in that thought that all life is the offspring of the Fall. The Fall changed all things. How similar or how distant we are from God's "DNA" is a matter of how far one thinks we have fallen from the Fall of Adam. The degree to which we have fallen is reflected in the degree in which our Savior saves. If one thinks we did not fall far from the original creation then one would also have to believe that our Savior does not save but in the same amount.

I tend to believe that the Fall caused severe, catastrophic changes in the "DNA" from the original copy. It was to the point that God almost destroyed the whole thing with a flood, that is how far off it changed. We are all modified and corrupted, starting with Adam and Eve.

[Traveler]

I think you have to include in that thought that all life is the offspring of the Fall. The Fall changed all things. How similar or how distant we are from God's "DNA" is a matter of how far one thinks we have fallen from the Fall of Adam. The degree to which we have fallen is reflected in the degree in which our Savior saves. If one thinks we did not fall far from the original creation then one would also have to believe that our Savior does not save but in the same amount.

I tend to believe that the Fall caused severe, catastrophic changes in the "DNA" from the original copy. It was to the point that God almost destroyed the whole thing with a flood, that is how far off it changed. We are all modified and corrupted, starting with Adam and Eve.

With all this in mind would you point out the obvious differences that were apparent in Jesus and his DNA? Would say he was a different species and should not be scientifically classified as the same species as you and I?

I also think that referring to dinosaurs as offspring of the fall is quite a stretch. How long ago do you think the Fall happened? How long ago do you think it was that dinosaurs existed?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

With all this in mind would you point out the obvious differences that were apparent in Jesus and his DNA? Would say he was a different species and should not be scientifically classified as the same species as you and I?

I also think that referring to dinosaurs as offspring of the fall is quite a stretch. How long ago do you think the Fall happened? How long ago do you think it was that dinosaurs existed?

The Traveler

There is a reason for Him being the only Begotten and I believe it pertains to this issue. Of course, I cannot be any more specific than that. The words "express image" come to mind when I think about any differences in DNA. I think that is a clue to how far off one might be from the original. It will be more similar when we are, if given in resurrection, in the express image of our Heavenly Parents. Is a Celestial being the same species as a Telestial one?

All answer your question with another question - How much time took place between Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Death and them being removed from the Garden of Eden? 5 seconds? 1 day? or millions of years?

[Traveler]

There is a reason for Him being the only Begotten and I believe it pertains to this issue. Of course, I cannot be any more specific than that. The words "express image" come to mind when I think about any differences in DNA. I think that is a clue to how far off one might be from the original. It will be more similar when we are, if given in resurrection, in the express image of our Heavenly Parents. Is a Celestial being the same species as a Telestial one?

So you think Matt 5:48 is not possible for fallen man and therefore a false commandment?

All answer your question with another question - How much time took place between Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of Death and them being removed from the Garden of Eden? 5 seconds? 1 day? or millions of years?

I think you are trying to map symbolism to reality in a manner that was never intended. I do not think the choice to partake of "knowledge of Good and Evil" was Adam's and Eve's alone. I believe you participated in that choice and expression of agency as much as they did. I also do not believe the effects of the fall happened sooner to any creature than it happened to Adam and Eve. If you think the effects of the fall came upon the dionsaurs before Adam - I disagree and wonder from what evidence (empirical or scripture) that you base such thinking on or if you are making this up as you go????

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

So you think Matt 5:48 is not possible for fallen man and therefore a false commandment?

I think you are trying to map symbolism to reality in a manner that was never intended. I do not think the choice to partake of "knowledge of Good and Evil" was Adam's and Eve's alone. I believe you participated in that choice and expression of agency as much as they did. I also do not believe the effects of the fall happened sooner to any creature than it happened to Adam and Eve. If you think the effects of the fall came upon the dionsaurs before Adam - I disagree and wonder from what evidence (empirical or scripture) that you base such thinking on or if you are making this up as you go????

The Traveler

Your question is vague. Is it possible for fallen man to be perfect while in this life? No! Is it possible for fallen man to be perfect eventually? Yes!

"We do not work out our salvation in a moment; it doesn’t come to us in an instant, suddenly. Gaining salvation is a process. We have to become perfect to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. But nobody becomes perfect in this life…As members of the Church, if we chart a course leading to eternal life; if we begin the process of spiritual rebirth, and are going in the right direction; if we chart a course of sanctifying our souls, and degree by degree are going in that direction; and if we chart a course of becoming perfect, and, step by step and phase by phase, are perfecting our souls by overcoming the world, then it is absolutely guaranteed – there is no question whatever about it – we shall gain eternal life. Even though we have a spiritual rebirth ahead of us, perfection ahead of us, the full degree of sanctification ahead of us, if we chart a course and follow it to the best of our ability in this life, then when we go out of this life, we’ll continue in exactly that same course. We will no longer be subject to the passions and the appetites of the flesh. We will have passed successfully the tests of this mortal probation and in due course we’ll get the fullness of our Father’s kingdom – and that means life in his everlasting presence.” Writings of Bruce R. McConckie, p. 51-54

To respond to your second paragraph - I don't disagree with your statement about when we chose to partake of the Tree of Death. I agree. I believe that was part of passing the first estate test. Those that didn't want to partake of that fruit were cast out of the program. I will not respond to the second part of your paragraph because this is not the place to discuss such sacred things. The temple ceremony provides such insight. Consider the pause.

Let me just point out that God clothed Adam and Eve with skins in verse 27 of Moses 4. Then in verse 31 of Moses 4 it states that they were driven out into this world that they were told about where they would have to sweat for sustenance etc. We don't know how long it took God or, in other words - how long it takes to prepare such a world. Before they were driven into the fallen world they were clothed (received a fallen body) but yet they were still in the presence of God, in the Garden of Eden. I think they received the effects of the fall, but the scripture suggests a time between the new body and the driving out into this world that was prepared for them. There is no measurement of the passage of time between those events. Living with a fallen body in a paradisical situation (the garden of Eden) is similar to what the millennium will be, may be not exactly but similar. How long could a body "clothed" with skins from God live in a paradisical environment? Thousands of years? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? The burden of proof is on you to tell me that it is not possible. I don't have to suggest it is true, just that it is possible. Then, believe it is possible.

[ron103]

you have to get through the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and have a sustaining relationship with the Creator, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and everyone else who is worthy to enter the throne room to receive the tree of life... This is called perfection...and yes, in this lifetime...but, yes, there is a plan b for people who fail to grow their mustard seed in this life...but i dont gamble...lol

[Traveler]

It may be true that we come to Genesis with "prejudice." That term is generally treated as a pejorative--a contrast to "objective." However, what if our pre-conceived ideas are treated as schema rather than some kind of corrupting bias?

I come to Genesis believing in an eternal God who is good. He is Creator. If I want to examine the intersect of science and Genesis, I do so with the understanding that this science is the investigation/exploration of God's creation.

Perhaps such a background will blind me to some important learning about science. On the other hand, if I need that knowledge, and I diligently seek God, when he reveals the learning to me, my understanding will be that much more enhanced. "I was blind but now I see." The seeing is that much sweeter.

If a non-religious scientist comes to Genesis 1-2 with an open mind and heart, the revelation of God that s/he might receive will be, in some ways, quite different and extraordinary, compared with the typical Cradle Roll Christian, who grew up learning the six days of creation on flannel board.

You do well to remind us that we do see through our own lenses. Our eye-glass perscriptions may be very individual. God works through that and brings blessing, if we will be open to him and the wisdom he brings.

I appreciate your response for many reasons but foremost because it is not the response I typically get from devout Christians even among my fellow LDS - specifically those uneducated and untrained in the sciences. Sometimes I have difficulty understanding why there is such lack of learned principles allowed to flow between science and religion. I am inclined to look historically and think that religious thinkers have fought desperately against scientific principles and have only come to the table of adjusting thinking to better understand truth - kicking and screaming resistance. I have thought that someone devoted to G-d and learning truth would have, throughout their entire life been constantly updated by a much higher and advanced intelligence about principles of truth - especially principles of truth removed from those truths most sought for in the sciences.

I am interested in your view concerning the beginning of life. In particular your view of Genesis - is it possible that life that we see around us in such abundance had its beginning in some distant place? Or do you interpret Genesis that life on earth had it beginning here on this earth before the sun gave it light on this earth? In essence was the 3rd day specific to this earth and solar system or are your and your particular "brand" of Christianity (no disrespect intended but not knowing of a better expression) resistant to think of such a possibility?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

....

"We do not work out our salvation in a moment; it doesn’t come to us in an instant, suddenly. Gaining salvation is a process. We have to become perfect to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom. But nobody becomes perfect in this life….

I am not sure why you make this statement when scripture directly contradicts what you are saying - (See Genesis 6:9) Also do you believe G-d the fool to give impossible commandments to us fallen creatures? (see Matt 5:48)

or

Is it possible that your view of "perfect" (as G-d would have us understand the term perfectly) is very un-perfect? (even "natural") or should I say typical of the fallen creature?

The Traveler

[Dravin]

Personally, I don't see what problem this Martian bacteria idea solves, either scientifically or religiously. From the standpoint of abiogenesis, it begs the question, pushing the problem of how life began on earth to a problem of how it began on Mars. From the standpoint of religion, it seems utterly irrelevant.

There may be differences between early Earth and early Mars to take into account while coming up with a hypothesis or experiment. It doesn't answer the fundamental questions, as you say, but it is still worthwhile to consider the starting conditions you are proposing life began in. In full disclosure I'm not overly familiar with the proposal, I'd have to read up on the literature to know what their thought process is and why they think Mars is a better candidate than Earth.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I am not sure why you make this statement when scripture directly contradicts what you are saying - (See Genesis 6:9) Also do you believe G-d the fool to give impossible commandments to us fallen creatures? (see Matt 5:48)

or

Is it possible that your view of "perfect" (as G-d would have us understand the term perfectly) is very un-perfect? (even "natural") or should I say typical of the fallen creature?

The Traveler

That is not my statement, it is Bruce R. McConkie's, .... see the quotation marks?

[Traveler]

That is not my statement, it is Bruce R. McConkie's, .... see the quotation marks?

Brother McConkie is not here to clarify his opinion or tell us what he has learned since his statement was made - You are the only one I can ask concerning your posts. So I am asking why you think man, (ie - Noah) cannot be made perfect in this life (generation)? or why you think G-d gave us a commandment (Matt 5:48) to be perfect - if you believe we cannot. I as asking you to verify your opinion - not Bruce's.

But I am also wondering at this point how this all relates to if life on earth was initiated here or had elsewhere an origin? Do you personally think Genesis can be understood to point to somewhere else for life on earth origin or not?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Brother McConkie is not here to clarify his opinion or tell us what he has learned since his statement was made - You are the only one I can ask concerning your posts. So I am asking why you think man, (ie - Noah) cannot be made perfect in this life (generation)? or why you think G-d gave us a commandment (Matt 5:48) to be perfect - if you believe we cannot. I as asking you to verify your opinion - not Bruce's.

But I am also wondering at this point how this all relates to if life on earth was initiated here or had elsewhere an origin? Do you personally think Genesis can be understood to point to somewhere else for life on earth origin or not?

The Traveler

The book of Genesis is written many years after Noah. In other words, Noah was in Paradise at the time those words were written. The words do not say "in this life". Just keep that in mind, but even then, you know this, the word "perfect" has several meanings explained by the guide to the scriptures as "Complete, whole, and fully developed; totally righteous. Perfect can also mean without sin or evil. Only Christ was totally perfect. True followers of Christ may become perfect through his grace and atonement." The footnote in the scriptures says "complete, whole, having integrity" as the Hebrew translation. Whereas the footnote in Matthew says "complete, finished, fully developed." If you think a man can become "finished" and "fully developed" in this life then I am not sure what the resurrection is for.

My opinion correlates with Bruce R. McConkie's. I am not sure why it needs more than a whole paragraph of clarification for you, that was given. In summary it states that the trajectory of life is set when we depart this life. If we live righteously we will continue onto the pathway towards perfection. "Being perfect" entails setting our trajectory in that direction so it can continue the same when we depart this life. The "trajectory" judged to be perfect is dependent on a lot of factors that only God can judge, thus it is based in a certain set of circumstances or laws given for that time, i.e- generation. If one leaves this life pointed towards the Celestial Kingdom based in the laws given for that generation then they would be called "perfect" in their generation. Why is that so hard to comprehend?