Steps to the Endowment.
7 years ago
-
-
Apron Styles7 years ago
-
Bun Length Hotdogs14 years ago
2006-07-23
Pre-Biblical History
There seems to be some evidence mounting up for Pre-Biblical history that needs to be taken into account by Christianity and Mormonism. Our fellow blogger here at Mormon Gnostics, Nicholas, may post sometime in the future with a detailed account of his thoughts (hint, nudge), but I wanted to gather general opinion from anyone who wants to comment.
The Babylonian Epic of Galgamesh is one example of a story that either predates the Noah account, or shares a common source from it.
On a related thread, although Latter-day Saints believe the original Garden of Eden was in the present-day United States, the rest of Christianity believes it was somewhere in the middle-east, or possibly africa depending on who you ask. They are hard at work trying to find evidence. What happens if they DO find compelling enough evidence of human civilization in that locale at such a time period to make it the commonly accepted belief? Or, have they already?
As Latter-day Saints, how do we deal with this, or any other historical or archeological research that streches beyond what the Bible or Brother Joseph's own revelations would indicate is possible?
The Babylonian Epic of Galgamesh is one example of a story that either predates the Noah account, or shares a common source from it.
On a related thread, although Latter-day Saints believe the original Garden of Eden was in the present-day United States, the rest of Christianity believes it was somewhere in the middle-east, or possibly africa depending on who you ask. They are hard at work trying to find evidence. What happens if they DO find compelling enough evidence of human civilization in that locale at such a time period to make it the commonly accepted belief? Or, have they already?
As Latter-day Saints, how do we deal with this, or any other historical or archeological research that streches beyond what the Bible or Brother Joseph's own revelations would indicate is possible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I believe that there is no real problem with trying to reconcile archaeological evidence with biblical evidence. The place of the garden of Eden is irrelevent because the land has totally changed since that time. The continents were in one piece, the mountains were different mountains, the rivers and oceans were different, etc...
Adam was the first of all men and the first to keep a record some 6000 yrs. ago. To place human history beyond Adam goes against LDS teachings at it's very core. To dismiss the holy scriptures and holy revelation concerning this matter in light of scientific theories is a complete lack of faith.
Science will almost always dismiss certain biblical facts, namely-
1. The earth was created by God who is a man
2. There was a global destructive flood that covered the entire earth some 4500 yrs. ago
3. The land masses split up forming mountain chains and valleys in it's wake shortly after the biblical flood.
4. The land masses will rejoin and mountains will be brought low within the next 200 years.
5. There will be a complete burning of the earth within the next 200 yrs.
6. There will be a massive resurrection of bodies that lie in the dust.
Why are you so sure that the Flood covered the entire planet?
The best reason for the flood to have covered the entire earth is symbolic. Just as we must be entirely submerged when baptized, so should the earth have been. Besides that, there are evidences of a great flood at about the same time in places around the globe (I'll look up a couple sources for that) as well as stories in various disconnected sources of a great flood.
Presuming the Bible and the Book of Mormon to be largely allegorical rather than literal may be more productive than vice versa.
I don't think either approach is entirely right, but while I am a literalist on most scriptural issues, two things must be kept in mind:
1. Certain events described in the Scriptures almost certainly did not happen literally as written, which sets a precedent for caution, and
2. Even strict literalism is a matter of interpretation, as with the Flood.
Post a Comment