Adam and Eve question

[_just me]

TAO,

Are there specific scriptures in the Pearl of Great Price where I can find what it is your speaking of? I am trying to understand your point of view. Can not all genealogy be traced to a single man named Adam and his wife Eve?

Sure, I'll try to find it...

Ok, here is a reference... keep in mind so, Adam in many cases also refers to the individual; I just think that sometimes also it may refer to some other than him. So it depends on the scenario.

Actually it's just one verse... but it shows, I think, that there are many things we do not know about the gospel.

I am rather hesitant to draw any other conclusion other than it was him and his wife. Indeed, I am very light treading towards exploring this all too much further, for mistakes could be made.

Also, this doesn't change the literalness of the Adam and Eve story - I still think they are literal too =D. It's just a thought.

Moses 6:9
In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.

Bolding and Italicizing by me.

I believe that people also go from the original Hebrew version of the story and the implications of the word "adam" used in it. It was referring to a general "man" not a proper name "Man/Adam." I read that somewhere, so some expert would have to confirm if it is correct or not.

People also use the verse above to promote the idea that the first human, Adam, was actually an androgenous being until he had Eve split from out of him. There is some cool symbolism in that, actually.

Another thing that people realize is that if all humans came from a single family then humans probably wouldn't have lasted too long. Imbreeding is bad for the population if you want to perpetuate. Although, some believe that when Adam and Eve had children they bore a boy and a girl (twins) at each birth. Therefore, there was a built in spouse! And since God can change DNA whenever he desires (like turn them black when people are naughty) it really isn't a stretch that he could have given the children of A&E very diverse genetics. Then, of course, he did it all over again with Noah and his sons.

Finally, I would like to point out that there are actually 3 or 4 versions of the Creation Myth in the LDS faith. There are 2 in Genesis, one in the temple and one in the PoGP. If one holds to a literal belief they have to decide WHICH version of the creation literally took place. Some speculate that the reason we have a version in the PoGP is because Joseph Smith was trying to harmonize the 2 in the Old Testament. That is why you sometimes hear in church that there was a "spiritual creation" first followed by the physical creation.

[_TAO]

hat is why you sometimes hear in church that there was a "spiritual creation" first followed by the physical creation.

Actually, if you look at the Genesis form, you will see that there is a spiritual creation... he creates man on the 6th, but forms him on earth on the 7th. =D

I would tend to trust the one in the temple the most (but I haven't been there, so what can I say, but it is the Lord's house, where many sacred things are known).

[_just me]

hat is why you sometimes hear in church that there was a "spiritual creation" first followed by the physical creation.

Actually, if you look at the Genesis form, you will see that there is a spiritual creation... he creates man on the 6th, but forms him on earth on the 7th. =D

I would tend to trust the one in the temple the most (but I haven't been there, so what can I say, but it is the Lord's house, where many sacred things are known).

Actually, I will see that it is a myth. Not intended to be taken literally.

I have never heard anyone suggest that God worked on the 7th day.

[_TAO]

I have never heard anyone suggest that God worked on the 7th day.

This is how I drew the conclusion, if you wish to see.

Genesis 1:26,31

26 ¶And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
...
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Genesis 2:2,7

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
...
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

[_just me]

TOA, I think that sticking to the LDS version only makes it difficult to see how the accounts are laid out. I do see where you are coming from.

If you look into the New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible it is much plainer to see the 2 different versions of the creation myth. Remember that the numbering and such were not in the original writings.

The first creation version goes from Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:4 (partway through the verse).

So, this is how it ends:

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

Then we have the start of the differing account:

"In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up-"

It makes much more sense when read without the imposition of the archaic wording, numbering and punctuation. Joseph tried to revise things like that, but was limited by his time period and knowledge.

In the NRSV Bible you would be interested to note that Genesis 1:27 is rendered as:

"So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them."

[_TAO]

Then we have the start of the differing account:

I do not see how it is a differing account though; I see it to be a continuation. In particular, look at the verse you quoted in KJV terms.

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

Again, the use of the word before. A creation before, and a creation after.

It makes much more sense when read without the imposition of the archaic wording, numbering and punctuation. Joseph tried to revise things like that, but was limited by his time period and knowledge.

Actually, I find the archaic reading quite nice, they put me in the right mood.

"So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them."

Wouldn't that fit right into the Books of Abraham and Moses? ;-)

But those are just my thoughts on it.

[_just me]

TAO, I think you missed my point.

I do enjoy the KJV myself, however when I am trying to learn what the text was really trying to say I like to cut through the crap and get right to it. A lot of the language in the KJV obscures the original intent of the passages. Even Joseph Smith saw this and tried to correct some of it in his version.
But, mainly in this case I am refering to the problem of the numbering system. It takes away from the flow of reading the text. When I read books I don't like the paragraphs chopped up into tiny pieces. In this case it obscured the fact that there were really 2 accounts rather than one flowing one for a LONG time.

The reason I pointed out the whole "mankind" thing is because it does show that you don't have to hold firm to a single "Adam" and "Eve" because the term was really intended to convey "mankind." If adam was intended for mankind certainly eve could be intended for all womankind being the mother of all living. Besides, it makes more sense if you look at the punishments God gave Adam and Eve. Men and women are supposedly still suffering for their transgression.

Anyway, the text states that God rested on the 7th day. You want to combine the two accounts and have God working on the 7th day. That is fine. Whatever floats your boat. However, it seems really strange for God to kill people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath when he was working his tail off creating the world on the Sabbath.

[_TAO]

I do enjoy the KJV myself, however when I am trying to learn what the text was really trying to say I like to cut through the crap and get right to it.

The problem with modern versions is that they leave out possible interpretations. Some words in other languages cannot be properly translated to our langauage and leave all the implications. This verse is an example of one of them, and it's why I like using the KJV and texts with that style (although it can get rather complex, I'm currently trying to struggle through the interpretation of a single verse in the Book of Abraham).

A lot of the language in the KJV obscures the original intent of the passages. Even Joseph Smith saw this and tried to correct some of it in his version.

Indeed, it does, but the modern versions also simply it far too much. That is what I am worried of. I do not necessarily know that the way it was intended, so I stay with the KJV, just so I'm safe. For example, you will notice that the version you use rids of the word before. Could that have possibly taken away an interpretation?

But, mainly in this case I am refering to the problem of the numbering system. It takes away from the flow of reading the text. When I read books I don't like the paragraphs chopped up into tiny pieces. In this case it obscured the fact that there were really 2 accounts rather than one flowing one for a LONG time.

I need to know how you know it is two accounts; the modern interpretation isn't necessarily any more accurate than the KJV.

The reason I pointed out the whole "mankind" thing is because it does show that you don't have to hold firm to a single "Adam" and "Eve" because the term was really intended to convey "mankind." If adam was intended for mankind certainly eve could be intended for all womankind being the mother of all living. Besides, it makes more sense if you look at the punishments God gave Adam and Eve. Men and women are supposedly still suffering for their transgression.

I understand, but at the same time, I think that eliminates many of the other possibilities of the text. The modern version limits what it could mean.

Anyway, the text states that God rested on the 7th day. You want to combine the two accounts and have God working on the 7th day. That is fine. Whatever floats your boat. However, it seems really strange for God to kill people for picking up sticks on the Sabbath when he was working his tail off creating the world on the Sabbath.

Don't you remember Jesus worked on the Sabbath to? Service is good on the sabbath, that it is.

[_just me]

TAO, then why did God kill a person for collecting firewood on the Sabbath? Is that not an important service? And now God doesn't even care about the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday in the Old Testament/New Testament). Go figure.

Here is why God did not do any creating on the 7th day according to the text:

1Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Now, that sure seems to be refering to a physical creation being completed. In chapter 1 God creates male and female at the same time on the 6th day (is that spiritual or physical?) then in chapter 2 they are seperate creations. Ch.2 Man is created right after the earth, but before any plants or animals. No days are designanted. I wonder what it was like to be on the earth when it had no plants...must have been difficult to breath.

In Moses, Joseph Smith's version of Genesis, he inserts that the first account was speaking to a spiritual creation. In Abraham he uses the 6 days of creation and it very much seems that the text refers to a physical creation.

Others have done far better treatments of this topic than I have. However, in revisiting the subject I discovered that the D&C does refer to God making man on the 7th day! LOL So, there you go. God made the world in 6 literal days and the earth has entered into the 7th seal, the 7th thousand year period of its temporal existance. Please ignore all data that suggests that humans have been around much longer than that.

D&C 77: 12

Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

Here is a pretty good summary of the creation account development: http://www.lds-mormon.com/dpwonboa.shtml

by the way, I am sorry you are so scared to go outside the KJV for study. I understand, though. I used to be scared, too. The church uses fear to control its members.

The KJV is actually not *the best* interpretation of the Bible. The newer versions are modern interpretations that try to be true to the original intent. King James had a bias (as all interpreters do). They were not perfect, they made mistakes. That is why the best versions seek out many interpreters of differing belief systems to come up with the best possible rendition of the text.

Modern versions do not leave out possible interpretations any more than the KJV does. Who told you that? Mine often will have a footnote with an alternative word or the Hebrew down at the bottom. I do agree that with the KJV you can pretty much believe it says whatever you want it to say because it is so difficult for most people to understand.

I believe there are two seperate creation accounts in Genesis because that is what the text suggests along with scholars smarter than I am. Even Joseph Smith seemed to sense it. As LDS we have many versions of creation. It is impossible to hold that they are all literal, historical factual accounts because they conflict with one another. Most LDS that I am aware of hold to the idea that the first account is the spiritual creation while the second is the physical, but that still doesn't solve all the problems. I've also seen the idea that they "build" on eachother, but the problem is that the Abraham text should be what is built off of not the Genesis text.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

I asked my Bishop a few years ago whether I could use the NIV or other Bibles in developing the lessons I was teaching. He said that if I found something in there that helped me understand something, I could share what I learned but not necessarily quote from those books. I have used the biblegateway website on numerous occasions. Often those troubling KJV verses can be better understood when looking at some other translation.

At the beginning of each version of the Bible on the biblegateway is a description of what methods may have been used to preserve either a literal translation or better define the context in which things happened.