Do pre-adamites help?

[Guest]

Why do you think it is unlikely that there are any descendants of pre-Adamites alive today?

Because I believe that we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve is almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine. Perhaps you might have some intermarriage in there (a nod to some strange ideas about Genesis 6). But I prefer a cleaner explaination than that in the absence of details.

And roughly when do you think Adam and Eve lived?

I can handle something quite earlier than the standard 4004 BC date postulated. Perhaps something just before civilization began to really take an upward swing, though that could be very subjective. How about as early as 6 - 10,000 BC? 20,000 BC? What do you like?

I have no problem with preAdamites speaking languages, living in settlements, or making some of the more complex tools.

[_Sethbag]

In other words, you don't require that have a God-child spirit in a homo sapiens shell actually makes any difference in the behavior or ability of the particular homo sapiens over, say, having some other kind of non-God-child spirit, that would actually be predictable, or testable, or observable.

It doesn't actually do anything, and is, outwardly at least, indistinguishable from the pre-Adamites except in its "spiritual" ramifications, ie: it can become a God someday, whereas the pre-Adamites, presumably, could not.

You've fulfilled the parable that someone quoted from Antony Flew to a T. You've qualified your assertion to the point where it's hardly an assertion at all anymore.

And still, you're the only Mormon I know who believes this. You've got your own self-defined Mormonism, and so long as nobody can show you where LDS leaders have specifically contradicted your beliefs, you harbor this fantasy in your own mind that you might actually be right. You, BCSpace, might actually be the only living Mormon who really "gets it". What a rush, eh?

[_bcspace]

So, if I understand your theory. When Adam and Even were placed in Missouri

Well, at least Adam-ondi-Ahman was in Missouri according to the scriptures. But that was where Adam gathered his posterity 900 years after the fall. LDS doctrine does intepret this as the location of the garden, but since it's based on circumstantial evidence, this seems like a doctrine that could change imho.

, there were already millions of people on the Earth. Up in heaven, we all waited in line for our turn on Earth. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, the velvet rope was removed and we began filling bodies on Earth. So all the babies born to th pre-Adamites after Adam ate the fruit got spirits. I guess that makes sense, and it would help explain who Adam's children married.

That's a possibility. I don't think there were so many homo sapiens on the earth at the time, perhaps a few 10's or 100's of thousands. Perhaps the Lord killed most of them off through disaster, sickness (Adam and Eve being protected in the Garden). Perhaps they couldn't compete with the new homo sapiens (with spirit children of God within as spirits). Perhaps a combination. Of course any combination allows for the possibility of intermarriage between the two.

[_bcspace]

In other words, you don't require that have a God-child spirit in a homo sapiens shell actually makes any difference in the behavior or ability of the particular homo sapiens over, say, having some other kind of non-God-child spirit, that would actually be predictable, or testable, or observable. It doesn't actually do anything, and is, outwardly at least, indistinguishable from the pre-Adamites except in its "spiritual" ramifications, ie: it can become a God someday, whereas the pre-Adamites, presumably, could not.

Yep.

You've fulfilled the parable that someone quoted from Antony Flew to a T. You've qualified your assertion to the point where it's hardly an assertion at all anymore.

Invective.

And still, you're the only Mormon I know who believes this.

I might be the only Mormon who explains it this way, but I am certainly not the only Mormon who can accepts evolution.

You've got your own self-defined Mormonism, and so long as nobody can show you where LDS leaders have specifically contradicted your beliefs, you harbor this fantasy in your own mind that you might actually be right.

As long as my theory doesn't conflict with LDS doctrine, what is the problem? Find such a doctrine and I happily modify or drop my theory altogether.

You, BCSpace, might actually be the only living Mormon who really "gets it". What a rush, eh?

It's the feeling that comes with confidence in one's arguments. I've discussed and debated this for years and modified my theory over time to make it fit both doctrinally and scientifically.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Of course any combination allows for the possibility of intermarriage between the two.

What about inter-sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage between the two groups? Could there be a third group of half-pre-Adamite/half-Adamite bastards? What happens to people who are descended from them?

[_bcspace]

So what about Sumer (6th millenium BC), regarded as the first complex civilization? Besides being a thousand years off the traditional date for the fall, what other problems might that present?

Of course any combination allows for the possibility of intermarriage between the two.

What about inter-sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage between the two groups? Could there be a third group of half-pre-Adamite/half-Adamite bastards? What happens to people who are descended from them?

I can only say that it would seem that such unions must result in homo sapiens children with a spirit child of God within. And that would qualify them for salvation and eternal life.

[_Chap]

Why do you think it is unlikely that there are any descendants of pre-Adamites alive today?

Because I believe that we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve is almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine. Perhaps you might have some intermarriage in there (a nod to some strange ideas about Genesis 6). But I prefer a cleaner explaination than that in the absence of details.

And roughly when do you think Adam and Eve lived?

I can handle something quite earlier than the standard 4004 BC date postulated. Perhaps something just before civilazation began to really take an upward swing, though that could be very subjective. How about as early as 6 - 10,000 BC? 20,000 BC? What do you like?

I have no problem with preAdamites speaking languages, living in settlements, or making some of the more complex tools.

I think you will find that your ideas involve you in a faith-based contradiction of a great deal of well-based science on the arrival of human beings in different parts of the world.

Given that the earliest cultures classifiable as 'civilisations' are found well after 10,000 BC (see for instance the entry on Sumer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer), it seems that your Fall (with Adam and Eve) does not need to be put back earlier than 20,000 BC even if you demand 10,000 clear civilisation-free years after it. (I don't know how you intend to deal with the Biblical genealogies that link Adam to Abraham and others in not very many generations - that will be your problem for another time, no doubt). That dating will put you in the last Ice Age, but what the heck.

However, modern human (homo sapiens) migration all over the world started long, long before that, with a spread out of Africa around 100,000 years ago. There were human settlements in Australia by around 70,000 BC. Estimates vary - but all the dates are well before you seem to want to place Adam and Eve. See for instance the well-documented visual presentation at http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/.

There is simply no way, consistent with the evidence, for all these pre-existing human populations to have died out well after having arrived in their long-term locations and been replaced by descendants of Adam and Eve, wherever or whenever in the world this pair are imagined to have lived. Dates are always subject to change, of course - but not by as much as you need.

So you need a rethink of some kind. If you could believe in an Eden in Africa 100,000 years ago you might get away with it. But doesn't your Eden have to be in Missouri?

[_Moniker]

Oookay. What is the point of the pre-Adamites. Did I miss something?!

Where are the pre-Adamites mentioned in the Bible? Are pre-Adamites only mentioned in LDS theology? I'm fairly certain there's no mention of any human beings (or human like beings) before Adam & Eve in the KJV of the Bible!

Is this purely a LDS theory? Is this just a BCSpace theory??? I've never heard of spiritless humans walking about before Adam & Eve in the garden of (Missouri) Eden.

If LDS are comfortable believing the KJV must be translated correctly and don't view it in all ways as literal why is there such a need to get this to mesh with evolution?

BCSPace do you tell people your "theories" outside of boards? Why not just ditch the myths and go *oommmmm*??

[_bcspace]

I think you will find that your ideas involve you in a faith-based contradiction of a great deal of well-based science on the arrival of human beings in different parts of the world.

I think not.

Given that the earliest cultures classifiable as 'civilisations' are found well after 10,000 BC (see for instance the entry on Sumer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer), it seems that your Fall (with Adam and Eve) does not need to be put back earlier than 20,000 BC even if you demand 10,000 clear civilisation-free years after it. (I don't know how you intend to deal with the Biblical genealogies that link Adam to Abraham and others in not very many generations - that will be your problem for another time, no doubt). That dating will put you in the last Ice Age, but what the heck.

Indeed. I really don't see the problem even if the geneologies in the Bible are missing some things or are wrong. I did mention Sumer by the way.

However, modern human (homo sapiens) migration all over the world started long, long before that, with a spread out of Africa around 100,000 years ago. There were human settlements in Australia by around 70,000 BC. Estimates vary - but all the dates are well before you seem to want to place Adam and Eve. See for instance the well-documented visual presentation at http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/.

I've always understood that. The creative process was finished when God determined the time was right and that may have included the existence, for several hundred thousand years even, of homo sapiens.

There is simply no way, consistent with the evidence, for all these pre-existing human populations to have died out well after having arrived in their long-term locations and been replaced by descendants of Adam and Eve, wherever or whenever in the world this pair are imagined to have lived.

How so? What have I said that was contradictory?

Dates are always subject to change, of course - but not by as much as you need.

I only need a broad enough theory to take it all into account and I believe I have done so. I have not pinned down the emergence of a civilization. What civilization postFall homo sapiens began with can be quite subjective without being contradictory.

So you need a rethink of some kind. If you could believe in an Eden in Africa 100,000 years ago you might get away with it. But doesn't your Eden have to be in Missouri?

I don't so far and no.

[_bcspace]

Oookay. What is the point of the pre-Adamites. Did I miss something?!

Where are the pre-Adamites mentioned in the Bible? Are pre-Adamites only mentioned in LDS theology? I'm fairly certain there's no mention of any human beings (or human like beings) before Adam & Eve in the KJV of the Bible!

Pre Adamites is a term for people existing on the earth prior to Adam and Eve. The question is can that square with LDS doctrine.

Is this purely a LDS theory? Is this just a BCSpace theory??? I've never heard of spiritless humans walking about before Adam & Eve in the garden of (Missouri) Eden.

The notion of preAdamites extends far beyond the LDS venue...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite

They are part of my personal theory that evolution is not precluded by LDS doctrine

If LDS are comfortable believing the KJV must be translated correctly and don't view it in all ways as literal why is there such a need to get this to mesh with evolution?

Some antiMormons are aghast that some Mormons can possibly accept evolution. Some even take it for a hopeful sign that such will leave the Church over it.

BCSPace do you tell people your "theories" outside of boards?

Yes. I've debated it in Church on Sundays from time to time and with some members of my family.

Why not just ditch the myths and go *oommmmm*??

I don't know. Why?