What do you think about pre Adamites?


BJ64
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

How so? The prefix "re-" means "again", and the root "plenish" clearly comes from the Latin "to fill".

@Anddenex,

What Vort has said is apparently correct.  But I'm not quite going to admit defeat just yet.  Here's why.

I had made the same argument Hyde did many years ago because I read a definition that said "fill again".  Someone pointed out that I was incorrect in my etymology.  So, we looked it up together and found that it simply meant to "fill" (not again).  I looked at the etymology, and it came though Old English rather than Latin.  Thus the "re" didn't mean what we thought it did.

Years later, I looked it up yet again and it came through Old French rather than Old English.  And it was related to the word "replete", which doesn't have the connotation of "again" in any usage.

So, the real question is what does the Bible really mean?

The 1828 dictionary helps us out.

Quote

REPLEN'ISH, verb transitive [Latin re and plenus, full.]

1. To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water.

Multiply and replenish the earth. Genesis 1:28.

2. To finish; to complete. [Not in use.]

REPLEN'ISH, verb intransitive To recover former fullness.

Notice the difference between transitive and intransitive definitions.  Thus the translation of the Bible really means "fill" rather than "re-fill".

And finally, the Hebrew word (mil'u) that is translated as "replenish" is more accurately translated as "fill" rather than "refill".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

Our scientists surmise that there have been at least 5 Mass Extinction Events.  The Earth has been replenished many times...

It was after the most recent humanoid extinction event that Adam and Eve were Born.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@Anddenex,

What Vort has said is apparently correct.  But I'm not quite going to admit defeat just yet.  Here's why.

I had made the same argument Hyde did many years ago because I read a definition that said "fill again".  Someone pointed out that I was incorrect in my etymology.  So, we looked it up together and found that it simply meant to "fill" (not again).  I looked at the etymology, and it came though Old English rather than Latin.  Thus the "re" didn't mean what we thought it did.

Years later, I looked it up yet again and it came through Old French rather than Old English.  And it was related to the word "replete", which doesn't have the connotation of "again" in any usage.

So, the real question is what does the Bible really mean?

The 1828 dictionary helps us out.

Notice the difference between transitive and intransitive definitions.  Thus the translation of the Bible really means "fill" rather than "re-fill".

And finally, the Hebrew word (mil'u) that is translated as "replenish" is more accurately translated as "fill" rather than "refill".

Joseph Fielding Smith, from my first response in this thread, would agree with your interpretation (Doctrines of Salvation he addresses "re-fill"). My response originally to point out at least two different theories pertaining to "pre-adamites."

Since I can't find Brigham's quote, Orson Hyde provides a theory and interpretation that would easily fit pre-adamites. Joseph Fielding Smith on the other hand would highly disagree. @Scott provided an alternative theory provided by Joseph F. Smith.

As for me, I am of a similar mind as @person0 with regards to pre-adamites (that is in large part due to my skepticism with carbon dating, and God's ability to lengthen a day). I am more interested in the scripture that specifies Adam and Eve as "first flesh," flesh being mortality and the ability to die. Here is a question I ponder, "If God is able to lengthen a day would science (carbon dating) show this as one day or multiple days"?  If God lengthened a day to 1000 days, would science carbon date a fossil during that time as one day or 1000 days?

Orson Hyde's thoughts provide a theory that fits scientific findings and results. Either way though, truth is what we need to accept, and I am seeking still to discover it. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, person0 said:

As of yet, I do not believe in pre-adamic mortality on this planet.  I do not know the origin of remains, but . . .

 

 

if adam lived 6000 years ago.

that's what the scriptures say.

do you believe the scripture?

then the remains lived before.

and died.

 

Edited by goor_de
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Either way though, truth is what we need to accept, and I am seeking still to discover it. :)

I agree with the overall sentiment here.  But I'm just not certain how important it is to know.  I believe the spiritual meanings behind the Adam and Eve story are much more important than the historical ramifications of the same story.  It is important, however, to look at the story as factual rather than literary (fictional) because it gives the message that much more power.

I'm of the same mindset as the official statement by the Church.  If science can find the answers, great.  Until then, we have to accept the fact that the Lord has not told us how he made man.  But he will when he comes again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I agree with the overall sentiment here.  But I'm just not certain how important it is to know.  I believe the spiritual meanings behind the Adam and Eve story are much more important than the historical ramifications of the same story.  It is important, however, to look at the story as factual rather than literary (fictional) because it gives the message that much more power.

I'm of the same mindset as the official statement by the Church.  If science can find the answers, great.  Until then, we have to accept the fact that the Lord has not told us how he made man.  But he will when he comes again.

We are in agreement, if I am understanding your response correctly. Pre-adamites, dinosaurs, etc... are all intriguing but the knowledge of them is not necessary to my salvation so their matter of importance in "knowing" is less on the spectrum of truth we need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If science can find the answers, great.

My response -- when do we accept the answers that science offers? As an example, Anddenex says that he can't accept radiometric dating (I am assuming that, when he says he does not except radiocarbon dating, that this extends to all radiometric dating methods, since they all more or less agree with each other where they overlap). It's not my field, so I cannot speak to all of the details and debates and uncertainties, but it seems to be very widely accepted across many disciplines. They speak openly of the uncertainties they find and the mistakes that can be made, but is mostly accepted as a valid way to date the age of rocks and fossils and archeological relics. Anddenex does not detail all of the reasons he has for rejecting radiometric dating, and I don't know to what extent we want to get into the details of this one example. Science is offering answers to these kinds of questions, when do we start to accept them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

My response -- when do we accept the answers that science offers? As an example, Anddenex says that he can't accept radiometric dating (I am assuming that, when he says he does not except radiocarbon dating, that this extends to all radiometric dating methods, since they all more or less agree with each other where they overlap). It's not my field, so I cannot speak to all of the details and debates and uncertainties, but it seems to be very widely accepted across many disciplines. They speak openly of the uncertainties they find and the mistakes that can be made, but is mostly accepted as a valid way to date the age of rocks and fossils and archeological relics. Anddenex does not detail all of the reasons he has for rejecting radiometric dating, and I don't know to what extent we want to get into the details of this one example. Science is offering answers to these kinds of questions, when do we start to accept them?

I have accepted all that science has to offer.  I don't see anything that says that they have definitively found Adam's bones and found them to be... whatever.  And nowhere does science ever address the interaction of God in the creation of man -- nor the lack thereof either.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2018 at 12:50 AM, SpiritDragon said:

One problem with the idea that the fall took place farther back though is that we believe we are in the last days and that the saviour came in the meridian of time only 2000 years ago. So unless we believe the last days will be prolonged for thousands of years this particular point doesn't work for me

Meridian does not necessarily mean middle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2018 at 7:31 AM, Carborendum said:

"Plenish" is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the English language.  The "re" is not a prefix in "replenish" any more than it is for "rest" or "regulate" or "relative". 

I'd like to see Brigham's statement on that because it goes counter to what he said elsewhere about the earth being in the celestial sphere and was hurtled out at the fall.  The details matter.

Adam and Eve being commanded to multiply and replenish the Earth gives strong evidence that it had previously been populated.

re·plen·ish
rəˈpleniSH/
verb
  1. fill (something) up again.
    "he replenished Justin's glass with mineral water"
    synonyms: refill, top up, fill up, rechargefreshen
    "she replenished their glasses"
    • restore (a stock or supply of something) to the former level or condition.
      "all creatures need sleep to replenish their energies"
      synonyms: restock, stock up, restorereplace
      "their supplies were replenished"
 
 
 
   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm of the same mindset as the official statement by the Church.  If science can find the answers, great.  Until then, we have to accept the fact that the Lord has not told us how he made man.  But he will when he comes again.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young told us how He made man and they were his mouthpieces. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

My response -- when do we accept the answers that science offers? As an example, Anddenex says that he can't accept radiometric dating (I am assuming that, when he says he does not except radiocarbon dating, that this extends to all radiometric dating methods, since they all more or less agree with each other where they overlap). It's not my field, so I cannot speak to all of the details and debates and uncertainties, but it seems to be very widely accepted across many disciplines. They speak openly of the uncertainties they find and the mistakes that can be made, but is mostly accepted as a valid way to date the age of rocks and fossils and archeological relics. Anddenex does not detail all of the reasons he has for rejecting radiometric dating, and I don't know to what extent we want to get into the details of this one example. Science is offering answers to these kinds of questions, when do we start to accept them?

I am pretty sure the example I provided in this paragraph below:

Quote

As for me, I am of a similar mind as ... with regards to pre-adamites (that is in large part due to my skepticism with carbon dating, and God's ability to lengthen a day). I am more interested in the scripture that specifies Adam and Eve as "first flesh," flesh being mortality and the ability to die. Here is a question I ponder, "If God is able to lengthen a day would science (carbon dating) show this as one day or multiple days"?  If God lengthened a day to 1000 days, would science carbon date a fossil during that time as one day or 1000 days?

sums up what I was referring to, and no, a person doesn't need to disregard "all" radiometric dating methods in order to accept other aspects of radiometric dating. I have specified many times in other threads my thoughts toward this method of measurement.

The portion that is highlighted, as we already know God is able to lengthen a day (speculation as to how long God is able to lengthen a day), would carbon dating recognize the day as one or record it as two, or three, or four?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anddenex said:

We are in agreement, if I am understanding your response correctly. Pre-adamites, dinosaurs, etc... are all intriguing but the knowledge of them is not necessary to my salvation so their matter of importance in "knowing" is less on the spectrum of truth we need to know.

You are correct. However a knowledge of how they fit in would be helpful in showing to those with scientific minds how the Bible and science fit together rather than contradict each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BJ64 said:

You are correct. However a knowledge of how they fit in would be helpful in showing to those with scientific minds how the Bible and science fit together rather than contradict each other. 

I think the scripture, "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;" provides the necessity for this at times -- particularly the highlight portion. As all have not faith, another scientific mind might be able to entice or invite someone who also has a scientific mind to exercise faith in what they may not have done previously. They may provide "knowledge" although not perfect that they can then begin to exercise faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When they align with revealed truth. ;)

and what is the truth
there is no revelation
do you see one?
According to Moroni, the prophet can always ask God
and get the answer.
she is important to darwin
for many who are insecure in the faith
90% of the scriptures are not important for the increase
what do you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, goor_de said:

and what is the truth

The Gospel of Jesus Christ

5 hours ago, goor_de said:

there is no revelation

There is.

5 hours ago, goor_de said:

do you see one?

Yes.

5 hours ago, goor_de said:

According to Moroni, the prophet anyone can always ask God
and get the answer.

Fixed it.

5 hours ago, goor_de said:

she is important to darwin

Modern pork chops taste like dry chicken.

5 hours ago, goor_de said:

for many who are insecure in the faith

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus vntosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

6 hours ago, goor_de said:

90% of the scriptures are not important for the increase

70% of all statistics are made up on the spot by 64% of people that produce false statistics 54% of the time they produce them.

6 hours ago, goor_de said:

what do you mean.

tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS, chay', "je ne sais pas," vIjatlh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The Gospel of Jesus Christ

There is.

Yes.

Fixed it.

Modern pork chops taste like dry chicken.

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus vntosissimis exponebantur ad necem.

70% of all statistics are made up on the spot by 64% of people that produce false statistics 54% of the time they produce them.

tlhIngan Hol vIjatlhtaHvIS, chay', "je ne sais pas," vIjatlh?

are you always so funny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When they align with revealed truth. ;)

Half of that battle is deciding/discerning what is revealed truth. As MarginofError noted in the "stirring the pot" thread, half of this question around pre-adamites (and evolution and geologic history and cosmology in general) is to what extent we take the scriptural creation accounts as literal history/science. There are many differences of opinion among ourselves (and broader Christianity) regarding exactly what is "revealed truth" and what those revelations mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2018 at 1:43 PM, BJ64 said:

Given the fact that there exists upon this earth the remains of pre-humans where do you think they fit in the scheme of things?

Are they really "Pre-humans?" Or are they just animals that look like humans?

Also, Is it possible that this earth has been used multiple times and cleansed for re-use after each mortal iteration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share