Was there Death Before Adam

[Average Joe]

The idea (doctrine?) that there was no death before the Fall of Adam has caused a real issue on reconciling science with religion, when we look at the fossil record.

 

Several years ago, I suggested the idea that death was operative during the five days of creation on another LDS forum, and was renounced as a heretic, an apostate.

 

Few have noticed a recent comment by Elder Holland in the last General Conference.  He was speaking of the Creation and Adam and Eve.  He said something very interesting

 

This is the first time in my memory that the door was opened to the idea that there was death prior Adam, and that the Fall only affected HUMAN death.

 

Have you read, "Earth in the Beginning - Revised and Enlarged Edition" by Eric N. Skousen?  

[cdowis]

No, I haven't.  What are his ideas on what we are talking about.

[Traveler]

-the atheist

 

or...agnostic, at least.

Albert Einstein was rejected by religions claiming to believe the Bible.  Einstein never rejected G-d or that the universe was created by G-d.

 

Also for the record - the scientist of ancient Egyptians (time of Abraham) had a more accurate view of the universe (interestingly reflected in the Book of Abraham) according to modern science than what the decedents of Abraham have touted in the 4000 years since.  I would remind you that many traditional Christians in pre enlightenment era thought and believes that African Blacks were not human - so slavery to many Christians was justifiable.

 

One other note - the year was 1649 before any Christian society passed a law that someone that did not believe the trinity could not be killed or property confiscated just for their beliefs.  Basically because prior it was believed that non-believers in the trinity were not really human. 

 

You should be careful saying that believers in the bible have had a much more stable view of things (ie. the truth) than the scientific community.  Remember it was the religious institutions that burned Tyndale at the stake for translating Bible into English - he was not put to death by scientists that did not like it that the bible disagreed with their ideas.  I have never heard of Scientist going to war over a principal they think they discovered - can't say the same about the religious community - not even Christians.

Edited August 27, 2015 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

You should be careful saying that believers in the bible have had a much more stable view of things (ie. the truth) than the scientific community. 

 

I don't believe I said anything of the sort.

[Traveler]

I don't believe I said anything of the sort.

What then did you mean in post #21 - that science "changes it's mind a lot" as if mind changing justifies skepticism - compared to what?  Can we take evolution as an example.  I agree that the concept has been tweaked but "changed"?

 

What more stable ideas of things have you found - say over the last 200 years than the input of science to the understanding of just about everything?

 

Actually I have experienced more minds changed about evolution even in my LDS ward over the last 30 years than I have seen minds changed in the scientific community about that same subject.

 

I also have more confidence in someone that in the light of evidence will change their mind than I do someone despite the evidence will not change their mind even in the slightest.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

What then did you mean in post #21 - that science "changes it's mind a lot" as if mind changing justifies skepticism - compared to what?  Can we take evolution as an example.  I agree that the concept has been tweaked but "changed"?

 

I didn't say anything about skepticism. And what I mean by "changes it's mind a lot" is that science changes it's mind a lot.

 

What more stable ideas of things have you found - say over the last 200 years than the input of science to the understanding of just about everything?

 

You mean, I presume, other than the coming forth of the restoration of the gospel?

 

What do you care what I think Traveler? Haven't you made it perfectly clear that you have no respect for my logic in these matters?

[SpiritDragon]

 

 

 

 

I don't understand.  

 

We know that the Fall of Adam happened less than 7k years ago, but the fossil record is supposedly millions of years old.  There "should" be no indication of death older that the 7k years.  The date of the creation of Adam is irrelevant to the age of the fossil record, IF there was no death prior to the Fall.

 

IOW, as scientists, we don't need to know when Adam was created (no death prior), only the date of the Fall (when death began).  The fossil record is our link to the existence of life in the distant past, which means the beginning of death.

 

(I corrected my error from "before Adam" to "before the Fall of Adam)"

 

 

We know the earth was created from already existent matter. Why is it hard to believe that death from pre-existing places that pre-date this earth could be found?

 

Suppose the lumber that makes up your house had been exposed to termites in the lumber yard but treated for it and all of the termites were exterminated. Some evidence of them still exists if you dig deep into your house and find it, but the house itself was never over-run with termites. Same kind of situation.

[Guest]

 

 

 It does not take a real keen mind

 

I notice that you really like to call into question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't agree with you.

[bytebear]

Perhaps Eden was a bubble of paradise on the Earth, and while Adam and Eve were in Eden, the rest of the world was evolving and preparing for their eventual expulsion. 

[cdowis]

We know the earth was created from already existent matter. Why is it hard to believe that death from pre-existing places that pre-date this earth could be found?

 

Yeah, I call this the "apartment theory" -- the earth is like an apartment building.

 

Sorry, but it just doesn't "feel" right, and I have learned to trust my gut.

[Sunday21]

Yeah, I call this the "apartment theory" -- the earth is like an apartment building.

 

The earth is like an apartment building? How so?

[cdowis]

Well, this theory of Skouson's is that we are the second tenants of this earth.  Perhaps we could call it a rental home -- renters moving in and out.  Having multiple creation events, with the previous occupants leaving their junk behind and that is the explanation for the fossil record.

 

Anyway, I am not interested in that theory.  

[cdowis]

Perhaps Eden was a bubble of paradise on the Earth, and while Adam and Eve were in Eden, the rest of the world was evolving and preparing for their eventual expulsion. 

 

As soon as I pointed out that Eden had a boundary, it then begs the question of what that boundary represents.  Did that boundary exist before the Fall, as you suggest.

 

After some thought, I think not.  The "bubble" happened after the Fall, and finally collapsed into what we can see today.  Just an ordinary place here on our earth.  (But I may be very wrong on that point).

 

Anyway, the paradox of the Fall of Adam is  -->> there was NO death before the Fall (scriptures), and there WAS death before the Fall (fossil record).  I am satisfied that I have found a working hypothesis on resolving the paradox.

Edited August 28, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

I didn't say anything about skepticism. And what I mean by "changes it's mind a lot" is that science changes it's mind a lot.

 

 

You mean, I presume, other than the coming forth of the restoration of the gospel?

 

What do you care what I think Traveler? Haven't you made it perfectly clear that you have no respect for my logic in these matters?

 

Can you give examples of "changes it's mind a lot" - I would be interested to know what you think is a change of mind - are we talking about a excess bevy of 180 degree reversal type changes or a lot of .0001 degree kind of changes.

 

BTW Folk Prophet - I very much regret that you do not understand my personal interest in your opinion and logic.  I hunger very much to drill down and carefully consider in precise detail a great deal of what you post as thoughts.  You are intelligent, have a strong will and are deeply involved in doctrine - I keep asking questions to make sure I understand not just your points but the very logic that has you so convinced.  There is not much to be learned from that which we agree - I am sure if we could get past the idea that we are some competing rather than learning - we would find we are great friends and kindred spirits - helping each to be better.  When I say I disagree - it does not mean that I think you are wrong - it means that I cannot get it through my thick scull how you came to that particular conclusion and what you considered to get there or why you will not consider something else -- what is it that makes you tick?

[Traveler]

As soon as I pointed out that Eden had a boundary, it then begs the question of what that boundary represents.  Did that boundary exist before the Fall, as you suggest.

 

After some thought, I think not.  The "bubble" happened after the Fall, and finally collapsed into what we can see today.  Just an ordinary place here on our earth.  (But I may be very wrong on that point).

 

Anyway, the paradox of the Fall of Adam is  -->> there was NO death before the Fall (scriptures), and there WAS death before the Fall (fossil record).  I am satisfied that I have found a working hypothesis on resolving the paradox.

 

I believe the problem is in understanding symbolism and not in thinking it is all literal.  And the problem in symbolism is that extensions of the symbolism can be very misleading.  In particular I marvel that the fall of Adam indeed affects all G-d's spirit children and also has significant impact on The Father's only begotten.  It is my personal impression that we live by faith - not so much in understanding that which is empirical or literal but that which is symbolic and spiritual.  Thus that for which there is no empirical evidence - it is because it is not literal - it is symbolic.  And the faith to understand that which is not literal or empirical but that is true - is the greatest faith and the reason we are sent here by our faith.

 

So that which is empirical (and also literal) requires no faith - it is our faith that give light through that which is given us symbolic that drives us to know of divine things that cannot be known in this sphere by any other means.  I do not believe that which is empirical is ever at odds with that which must be had only by faith.  And when it seems so it is because we error in our understand - either one or the other or both.

[Guest]

The trouble we run into, though, is that scripture does give us some general timelines--sometimes a fixed number of years; other times numbers of generations--that give us a pretty decent idea of when Adam was supposed to have lived; and that number is supposed to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4000 BC.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand.  

 

We know that the Fall of Adam happened less than 7k years ago, but the fossil record is supposedly millions of years old.  There "should" be no indication of death older that the 7k years.  The date of the creation of Adam is irrelevant to the age of the fossil record, IF there was no death prior to the Fall.

 

 

Remember, this is just one of many theories that I can put into the Genesis timeline... as it stands, it is only theory and not something the Church teaches.

 

So, here's the theory....

 

You know how a lot of people think that "On the First Day... " is 24 hours?  But that many people also believe that it's not necessarily 24 literal hours but a Creation Period which could span billions of years?

 

I can hold the same thought to The Fall.  Combining both your comments, for example, you noted that Adam was around 4,000BC with a lifespan of 930 years therefore, there couldn't have been death 7K years ago.  This shows that you believe the Fall was an instantaneous event.... with species being immortal one day and mortal the next without any physical change.  I propose that The Fall, like "On the First Day..." is not a 24 hour day but rather another era of millions or billions of years where the transformation from immortal to mortal occurred in stages with Adam being the last species to have completed its transformation to mortality around 7K years ago.

 

So, if we take the evolution timeline that Science came up with into this theory, the earth is theorized to have been created around 4.5 billion years ago.  But the time that the first death was noted was only about 600 millions years.  And this shows that around that time, we see a lot of death occur but nothing before that - which can mean that mortality entered the picture at that time.  So this could mean that the latest time that The Fall could have happened was 600 million years ago, but it took from 600 million years to 7,000 years to finally have Adam's mortal body complete its transformation and his mortal life to begin.

Edited August 28, 2015 by anatess

[cdowis]

I don't understand.

How does what you posted differ from the idea that death was in effect during the five days of creation?  It sounds as if you are speaking in support of that theory.

[Guest]

I don't understand.

How does what you posted differ from the idea that death was in effect during the five days of creation?  It sounds as if you are speaking in support of that theory.

 

I'm going by the teaching that there was no death before The Fall.  The Creation is before The Fall.  So the Fall happens before death starts.

 

P.S.  I don't support any particular theory.  It's simply a possibility in my mind.  I don't really much care how it went.

Edited August 28, 2015 by anatess

[cdowis]

Can you suggest an opinion why Elder Holland specified "human death" in his talk?  He could have simply said "death".

[Saint Peter]

I agree with the theory that the Earth was created, or better yet organized, from bits and pieces of other worlds. I will agree with it till I hear or feel like a better answer is revealed. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Can you suggest an opinion why Elder Holland specified "human death" in his talk?  He could have simply said "death".

 

I think there can be a tendency to read to much into a single sentence mentioned by a single apostle in a single general conference.

[jerome1232]

By it's nature, scientific discoveries drastically alter pervious scientific knowledge. See Newtonian physcs into general relativity into quantam mechanics into unification theory. I remember learning that an atom and it's parts were the smallest particles in existance. Quantum theory changed that. See the theories prevailing during Darwin's time to account for the diversity of life and the ever evolving theories related to that field.

[The Folk Prophet]

worlds that have passed away before ours mean there was death before us...

 

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

 

What does "world" mean?

 

9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

 

It looks like new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds.

 

I think it's fine to say Adam brought in a new era, or a new world.  We are not given a scriptural account of the old world that ours was built on.

 

This is a fascinating perspective.

[cdowis]

9 And there shall be a new heaven and a new earth; and they shall be like unto the old save the old have passed away, and all things have become new.

 

It looks like new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds.

 

 

Is this really what it is saying?  I always thought that the "old" is the world we are living on today -- it is a living creature.  It was baptized, it will be cleansed, die and be renewed with a celestial body ("new").  It will be a crystal, or Urim and Thummin for all those exalted beings who reside here.

 

Anyway, just don't see how an "older world" fits into this, but I could be wrong.  

But I don't think so.

Edited August 28, 2015 by cdowis

[MrShorty]

I agree with the theory that the Earth was created, or better yet organized, from bits and pieces of other worlds. I will agree with it till I hear or feel like a better answer is revealed. 

 

I kind of like the idea, but I'm not sure it succeeds at explaining fossils predating Adam's fall (assuming the fossils that we see predate Adam's fall). Again, trying to blend this kind of religious hypothesis with the theories put forth for how our planet and solar system came together from pre-existing "dust" and gas, this process seems rather violent and random, with a lot of molten rock as rocky planets coalesce.  In terms of the our fossil record being leftovers from previous worlds, I don't know. Unless, as someone else suggested, we are merely temporary "tenants" on this planet, with multiple other tenants preceding us. Though the fossil record still does not agree with this, unless the previous tenants were dramatically different from us. Think some of those sci fi suggestions that dinosaurs were intelligent, thought this might call into question what it means to be created in God's image.

 

The part of this that seems intriguing to me is that some variations of cosmology suggest that the universe starts in the big bang, expands to a point, then contracts in a big crunch. This seems to leave open the possibility of a cycle where the universe explodes, expands and evolves to fulfill God's purposes, then contracts back into a singularity to be used by God again, if He desires. Of course, at this point, we are way beyond the question of fossils and death before Adam's fall, and all the way back to the ultimate creation of the universe, how that works, and God's role in creation.