Is Over 900 an Unreasonable Age for Adam and Certain of His Posterity?

(This is from a reply to a FaceBook acquaintance's post.)

I once had this possibility suggested to my mind, that it would be reasonable to assume that the lifespans mentioned in the Bible for Adam and certain of his descendants made sense in month counts instead of years.

I considered it – for all of about the hour or two of reading that it took to ascertain that it does not fit with certain important details of the lives of the patriarchs.

I felt a certain kind of disappointment, because it would make the Book of Genesis more "reasonable", and provide a defense from friends who disparaged the scriptures for being "unreasonable". But friends who insist that the Bible is unreasonable will not be placated by merely making the lifespans fit better with our experience in the modern world.

The scriptures do not need to be that kind of reasonable. God is capable of doing things we don't understand. Nature herself does lots of things we only pretend to understand.

If we think about reasonability, we must think about what the world was like back then. The world would not have had all the pollutions society has imposed on it since men started building cities. Adam and Eve, if we can trust the scriptures at all, would have had nearly perfect genetic material, undamaged by pollutions or mutations. Long lifespans would, on the contrary, be reasonable.

We know that modern humans can live to over a hundred. Without disease, accident, or war and other such violence, we can easily well exceed a hundred. Japan, for example, has several tens of thousands of people over the age of 100, many of them still out working their farms.

Adam and his righteous descendants were taught many things from on high, it is only reasonable to expect that they were taught how to take care of their health. It is very reasonable to expect lifespans well over a hundred. Given the healthy conditions, it is not particularly reasonable to expect lifespans over 200. When we see things in such light, hundreds of years is not at all unreasonable, and nearly a thousand certainly isn't too much of a stretch.

Which God among the N-thousand?

It's a common question when discussing the reality of God --

Joe: Which God, of which religion? There are thousands of religions.

Bob: Uhh,

Joe: There are so many. Why is the Mormon God the only true God?

Jean: Well, for one thing, there is no Mormon God. The Book of Mormon teaches about Jesus Christ, His Father, and the Holy Ghost. We are Christian.

Joe: Then why the Christian God? What's wrong with, for instance, the Japanese or Greek Gods? 

Carrie: Every religion feels just as strongly about their God.

Bob: Can I quote one of our Articles of Faith?

Joe: Why?

Bob: It just might help.

Carrie: I guess I don't mind.

Joe: Will it explain why the Mormon God is the one true God?

Jean: Number Eleven?

Bob: That's the one I have in mind.

Jean: It's definitely relevant. 

Joe: Okay, if you insist, let's hear it.

Bob: It goes like this:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Joe: I don't get it. All that says is that you want to worship the God of your own invention.

Jean: I think you missed the last clause.

... let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Carrie: You don't mean that. 

Bob: No?

Carrie: You don't. Millie was telling me all about how all the other religions are wrong and just leading everyone to hell.

Jean: Unfortunately, some members of our Church don't seem to mean it, or don't seem to understand it.

Carrie: Millie said she wasn't sure you, in particular, understood God.

Bob: Unfortunately, some of our members are particularly unwilling to apply this to fellow members of the same Church. 

Jean: But this is an Article of Faith. It's official, published by the Church.

Let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Bob: Not limited to people who aren't members of the Church. All men. All human beings. Even in the Church. It says

We ... allow all men the same privilege, ...

Carrie: Privilege?

Jean: 

... the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience ...

Bob: And it's for everyone, so -- according to their conscience, according to your conscience.

Joe: But your Almighty God.

Jean: 

... how, where, or what they may.

Carrie: "Almighty God". That's your God.

Bob: You'd rather worship a weak God?

Jean: It's a description.

Carrie: Maybe I would prefer a weak God, that wouldn't be always sending me to hell. 

Jean: That's not what God does.

Joe: And you say there is only one God.

Carrie: Why do you send all those missionaries out?

Bob: There is only one God, but there are thousands of ways to view that God.

Jean: More like billions. One for every person on the planet.

Bob: And considering that our understandings evolve, I guess, more than billions.

Jean: Every one of us. It's what we do most of our lives.

Bob: It's probably the most human thing we do.

Carrie: What's the most human thing we do?

Bob: Try to understand God.

Jean: Try to figure out what our own highest priorities should be. 

Joe: What does figuring out priorities have to do with God?

Carrie: Isn't it bad enough you're trying to tell us we have to worship the God you made up? And now you're talking about priorities?

Bob: A person's set of priorities is what that person thinks is most important, right?

Carrie: Well, yeah. You don't get to tell me what I should think is most important.

Bob: Right. That's not my business.

Jean: ... let them worship how, where, or what they may. It's your job to set your own priorities.

Bob: You have to choose what's important to you, what is, in effect, the God that rules your life.

Joe: I ain't letting no God run my life.

Jean: But you choose what you think is important.

Joe: Damn sure.

Bob: Of course. What we're saying is that asserting all people's privilege of following their own conscience, as individuals, is the same thing as asserting all people's privilege of worshiping the God of their own choice. And that's the same thing as asserting the privilege that we all have of setting our own priorities, of choosing what's most important to us.

Joe: Then why do you have to call it God?

Bob: Because what you believe about how you and the world around were created, and about who is running things, is probably the biggest factor in how you set your priorities.

Jean: Although what you think is important also depends a lot on how you think you and the world came to be, and who is in charge.

Joe: Pretty soon, you're going to be saying the same thing Millie says, that evolution is my religion.

Jean: Isn't it a big part of what you have instead of religion?

Carrie: I don't have anything instead of religion.

Bob: Don't you have a philosophy about life?

Joe: Sure, but that's not a religion. I don't believe in any God.

Bob: There are religions that do not claim a God, you know.

Carrie: Such as?

Jean: Most branches of Buddhism claim not to have a God.

Joe: That's different.

Jean: Yes it is. But it's also the same. There was somebody in Japan that told me the short piece of really thick rope over his door was his Shintō Kami -- his God. It showed him how to be persistent.  

Carrie: And you told him that would lead him to hell, right?

Jean: No, I thought it seemed like a good metaphor and a good ideal, and I told him so.

Joe: But calling it God?

Jean: I felt an impression that it was his high priority, and Shintō allows changing Kami, changing priorities.

Bob: And when we claim the privilege of worshiping according to our own consciences, we also claim that everyone who doesn't call it worshiping or God or religion has the right to claim their own philosophies and priorities and stuff, according to what they believe is right.

Jean: I don't trust you. You send out missionaries.

Bob: I think the biggest failures of our missionary program is when a missionary hasn't figured out that each person has to follow his or her own conscience, I mean, ...

Carrie: His or her, I heard that. Pronouns are important!

Bob: So is grammar. It's hard for me to mix plural and singular forms without getting confused, and the only true neutrals for people in English are plurals. You're changing the subject.

Carrie: My privilege. I don't want to talk about this any more.

Jean: Okay, let's talk about something else. 

Joe: But why do you send missionaries out?

Jean: Well, our missionaries are supposed to be inviting people. 

Bob: And why do certain people publish books and lecture about how their version of God doesn't exist? People like to share what they think.

Joe: But it's irrational!

Jean: Humans are all a little crazy. It's okay. Sharing what we think about helps us all keep sane.

I Am the [True] Vine, Ye Are the Branches

John 15: 5 　 ヨハネ１５章５節 :

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

わたしはぶどうの木き、あなたがたはその枝えだである。もし人ひとがわたしにつながっており、またわたしがその人ひととつながっておれば、その人ひとは実みを豊ゆたかに結むすぶようになる。わたしから離はなれては、あなたがたは何一なにひとつできないからである。

This is a verse we have been focusing on at church for a couple of weeks.

これはこの先の二週間ほど、教会の集会で注目している聖句です。

Note that the Japanese 「葡萄の木」(grapevine) is a bit more specific than the English "vine" (つる＝蔓、つる植物). 

つまり、日本訳の「ぶどうの木」とは、英語の "vine" よりも詳しい意味です。葡萄の木なら, "grapevine" でしょう。Vine とは、一般的につる植物の類を示す。

Related scripture:

関連の聖句

Luke 13: 6 - 9 　 ルカ１３章６〜９節 :

He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 

それから、この譬たとえを語かたられた、「ある人ひとが自分じぶんのぶどう園えんにいちじくの木きを植うえて置おいたので、実みを捜さがしにきたが見みつからなかった。

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 

そこで園丁えんていに言いった、『わたしは三年間ねんかんも実みを求もとめて、このいちじくの木きのところにきたのだが、いまだに見みあたらない。その木きを切きり倒たおしてしまえ。なんのために、土地とちをむだにふさがせて置おくのか』。

And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it:

すると園丁えんていは答こたえて言いった、『ご主人様しゅじんさま、ことしも、そのままにして置おいてください。そのまわりを掘ほって肥料ひりょうをやって見みますから。 

And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. 

それで来年らいねん実みがなりましたら結構けっこうです。もしそれでもだめでしたら、切きり倒たおしてください』」。

Posted that last night before I went to bed so I could refer to it this morning (Sunday 25 June). But the scripture in Luke was not what I talked about at Church today. (Five minute sermon meant I had to keep close to the Spirit's instruction.)

昨晩寝る前に、今日（日曜日の６月２５日の）の集会にすぐ見つけて話ができるように投稿したものです。ただし、私が今朝、教会で発表したことはこのルカの聖句と違う。（５分限定は神聖な霊感から外れる暇がなかったのです。）

I referred to, but did not quote from, concepts in (among other places) the following scriptures:

以下の聖句を引用せず、そのような箇所に見つけ出せる観念に触れた。

Mosiah 2: 21 　 モサヤ２章２１節 :

...  him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another ...

…初めからあなたがたを造り，あなたがたが自分の意のままに生きて動き，行動できるようにあなたがたに息を与えて日々守り，いかなる瞬間にもあなたがたを支えてくださっている御方…

Doctrine and Covenants 88: 5-13 　 教義と聖約８８章５〜１３節 :

... through Jesus Christ his Son — 

He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; 

... which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

…神の子イエス・キリストを通じて来る。

イエス・キリストは高い所に昇り，また万物の下に身を落とし，それによってすべてのことを悟って，万物の中にあり，万物を貫いてあり，真理の光となった。

…万物に命を与える光であり，万物が治められる律法，すなわち御座に着き，永遠の懐にあり，万物のただ中におられる神の力である。

From these verses we gain some perspective on how we are connected to the Father and the Son.

この聖句から、御父と御子と私達とはどんな繋がりができているかが少し見えてきます。

From there, I referred back to John 15: 5, to the idea of the fruit we, as branches of the vine, might bring forth, and quoted Galations 5: 22 - 23:

こういうところから、ヨハネ１５章５節の、葡萄の木でも蔓でも、その木の枝である私達が実る実の概念にもどって、ガラテヤ人への手紙５章２２〜２３節を引用しました。

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

しかし、御霊の実は、愛、喜び、平和、寛容、慈愛、善意、忠実、柔和、自制であって、これらを否定する律法はない。

And I used the time limit as an excuse to stop there and avoid quenching the Spirit.

そして、５分の制限を理由に、御霊の邪魔にならないようにここに話しを留めた。

McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, and White Supremacism

There are some who rather vocally ask this question: 

Did Bruce Redd McConkie ever recant the white supremacist ideas in his book, Mormon Doctrine?

I don't like to put sacred things up in public for people to take pot shots at, but this is already out there, and lots of people have already misinterpreted it (and still are doing so, enthusiastically). But the following link is what Elder Bruce R. McConkie, then an Apostle, had to say shortly after the Church announced the policy that is often interpreted too simply as allowing Blacks to participate in the priesthood.

It's a long discussion of what happened, from his point of view, but it gives a lot of helpful background. So I suggest, if this is important to you, that you read from the beginning, and refrain from judging him harshly, at least until you have read the whole thing carefully: 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/alike-unto-god/

Did he recant? Did he say that the Church recanted? There's a long paragraph that partially answers that question:

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.”

It seems to me he is acknowledging the fundamental false assumption that some of the members of the Church were working under. He continues,

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet.

I don't think he is saying, "limit yourself to what the current prophet says!" It is part of our official doctrine that the living prophet is always able to give new revelation from God, according to our needs, now -- according to the wisdom of the Lord as to what will help us follow His example better. This is the end of the paragraph:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

Those who expounded the ideologies that the Black races were inferior were speaking without the full light. 

He talks at fair length about some of the reasons the Lord would have allowed them to speak without the full light. 

I have my own ideas which go a bit beyond what he says, but I'll refrain from talking about most of them here. In fact, I will refrain from most of the things I had thought to say here.

One thing I will note, I grew up in the 1960s and '70s. I can say from personal experience that McConkie's book was nowhere near universally accepted where I grew up. Our bishops and other leaders recommended studying the scriptures instead of commentary, and often specified Mormon Doctrine as an example of commentary that should definitely be given lower priority than the scriptures.

Also. as for the teachings of the Book of Mormon itself, I have found the verse McConkie quoted from first in the speech above, 2nd Nephi 26: 33, to be more representative of what the Book of Mormon teaches about race than interpretations of discussions of skin color as a curse:

... [The Lord] ... inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, ... .

The reason I stop here is that it is a valid concept, necessarily derived from core principles of the Gospel, that individuals must shoulder the ultimate responsibility for their own faith, their own beliefs, their own understanding, and for their own standing before God.

If it is important to you, read the Book of Mormon yourself. I can't do your homework for you. Even if I had the time -- which I don't -- If I spoke too freely here, many people who otherwise might make time to explore questions related to this that are important to themselves might be offended and waste time arguing with what I said instead of investigating for themselves. 

Of more concern, others might be all too ready to accept what I said as the end of the matter, likewise failing to think or investigate, likewise losing an opportunity for spiritual growth.

Life after

Just a thought

If there is no life after death, if existence ends when the brain ceases to function, I shall never have the disappointment of knowing it.

That means that life after death can only be proven in the positive.

If believing in life after death makes this life more meaningful to me, what do I lose by believing?

I will grant that some people may find life less meaningful, for some reason, if it continues. I don't want to take their hope away, but I still think there might be a better thing to hope for.

Notes from Kobe Stake Conference on the 4th

This post is primarily for my friends who are members of the Kobe Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who didn't get to go to Sanda to attend today.
これは特に私の友達で、末日聖徒イエス・キリスト教会神戸ステーク部の会員であり、三田市での今日の集会に参加できなかった方のための投稿です。

(A stake in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is similar to a diocese. The expression comes from Isaiah 54, "strengthening your stakes".)
（末日聖徒イエス・キリスト教会においてのステーク部とは、教区のようなものです。表現はイサヤ書５４章の「あなたの杭を強固せよ」に由来です。）

(I didn't think to take notes until Sister McCune's talk, but Elder McCune recapped them all, so I got some of the important parts of most of it after all.)
（マキューン姉妹が話するまではメモをとることを考えていなかったけど、マキューン長老が繰り返してくれたので、結局その主要点をのいくらかを書いておくことできました。）

Sister McCune bore her testimony of John 15 1-11 -- 

If we abide with our savior, Jesus Christ, obey His commandments, and love one another, we can have true joy.

Elder McCune talked about the testimony born through music by those who provided the musical number at the beginning. Then he recapped each talk, with comments --

President Ōshima:

• Unity and being one
• Stake theme 2023
• People who influenced him for good
• Focusing on others was focus on unity
• Looking outside ourselves
  
• Appreciation and love for others
• D&C 29: 6 -- ask in my name and receive
• Set the standard -- through priesthood keys and revelation

Sis. Sueda:

• Moroni 7 on charity
• Sunblock as analogy of charity
• Commonly used things for parables/analogies
  

Br. Yamazaki:

• His journey
• Praying at work
• Inspired by BoM
• Feeling and thoughts change a little at a time

Br. Miyajima:

• Just baptized, speaking at stake conference, example of courage and faith
• Week after losing his father
• Perspective
• Looking forward to temple blessings
• Living with blessings of gospel
• His mother's faith,  she was also here today.
• They can look forward to going to the temple doing the proxy work for him and be sealed.
• We can do much for our families on this side of veil.
• We should not limit others.
• Lots of work being done on the other side of veil.
• Many who feel alone on this side of veil have support from the other side.
• Family members are accepting gospel on other side and waiting for temple work to be done
• Great missionary work on other side of veil, many joining the work.
• Does not mean we can wait until other side, there is important work on this side.

Sis. Yamashita:

• Joy of repentance
• Daily scripture study
• More to repentance than giving up sin
• Confessing is not repentance.
• Repentance is joyful act of turning to Father.
• Not just to chase out the bad, must fill life with good.
• If we don't fill our lives with good, the bad returns
• Luke 11, casting evil spirit out, but failed to fill the house with good.
• Consistently doing little things, including scriptures, prayer, and small acts of service is essential.

Pres. & Sis Halverson:

• Love the gospel of Jesus Christ
• Example of consecration and love of the Lord and His Gospel

Back to President Ōshima:

• John 16: 33 -- These things I have spoken unto you that, in me, you might have peace.
• In the world, ye shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer.
• I have overcome the world.

Elder McCune then proceeded with his own message --

• Pres. Nelson and others talk about overcoming the world
• Pattern in Pres. Nelson's talk:
• Words of power.
• Overcome 9 times.
• Rest 11 times.
• Power 13 times.
• Because of Jesus Christ we have power.
• Because He overcome the world, we have power.
• What are we overcoming?
• Vision of Nephi of tree of life
• Great and spacious building
• Imaginations and rationalizations of the world
• Seem true but are not
• Very angry
• Anger is indication where the voices come from
• Satan is an angry being
• Those who follow him consume their time saying good things are bad and bad things are good
• Another thing that takes us away from the tree of life
• Mists of darkness not as easy to see as great and spacious building
• Not there at start of vision
• Mists blind the eyes and hearts, lead into broad roads away from tree of life
  
• Mists are noise, distractions, negativity, ideologies of the world, sins, acts of others
• Focus on Savior can help us overcome mists of darkness.
• Question -- why do bad things happen to good people?
• Simple, trite answers do not work.
• It's not understood unless we come at it from a position of faith.
• If someone understands the Gospel, salvation, the need for opposition, agency, and the reason God does not remove our agency, the answer to the question of evil becomes clear.
• If you have been hurt through the unrighteous actions of someone, Christ can heal you.
  
• The effects of the hurt might last throughout our lifetime, but the savior makes everything fair.
• Even the unrighteous actions of others can be erased.
• God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just.
• We can be healed.
• Please don't look beyond the mark.
• Jesus Christ really is the answer.
• He really overcame the world, and because of Him we can, too.
• It's really all true.

 

Bible Uncommentary: Genesis 2 -- ... And Not a Man to Till the Ground

Title/Preface/TOC

Genesis 1: in the Beginning ...

Bible Uncommentary: Genesis 2

... And Not a Man to Till the Ground

 

Sometimes I think the entire known history of our race on this world is encompassed in the seventh day or phase of the creation, and I think maybe the Gods are now resting and mostly letting their plans play out.

Sometimes. Maybe.

No, there are problems with that idea, especially if taken too literally. But,

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

There are certain senses in which things were not finished, particularly if we insist on wrapping all the stuff in chapter 1 up in six distinct intervals that are all past and gone when we start chapter 2.

Anyway, we can say that the plans and preparation were mostly finished over the course of the six days or phases, and God rested. And God says rest after work is a good thing. 

How long that seventh phase lasted is another question, and whether Adam and Eve were created within the seventh phase or after, is also not really clear.

Oh, and verse 4 contains a case where a day is most definitely not a 24 hour period, or even a single rotation of any planet:

... in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, ...

If that were "in the days" it would fit more easily into an interpretation of six literal days, but day here is singular. 

I have heard that the word for day here in the original language -- or, rather in the language closest to original that we have -- is different from the word for the six days of chapter 1. But we're getting distracted.

(4) 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, (5) 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.

Look at verse 5:

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: ...

Here it is.

What can that be that was done in the six days, but talking about laying out blueprints and such? 

Plans. The first six days were planning sessions.

Maybe. It sort-of works for me, although I do have the impression that primitive plants and animals were physically created during the planning sessions. 

Why?

... and there was not a man to till the ground.

I can interpret this to mean that what grew in chapter 1 was wild, and that the plants in chapter 2 are more of the class of plants that might benefit from human attention. 

Maybe.

I'm not sure what the

... for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, ...

is supposed to indicate. Whether the first six days were all 24 hours or not, it doesn't make sense that there had been no rains of any form during the process. Particularly, when the waters below the firmament were separated from the waters above, precipitation of some sort had to have occurred.

So this is a question I put on the shelf. If the time comes that I need to know, I'm going to trust God to reveal it to me. 

But God causes a mist to cover the ground, ...

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.

This verse is one of the places were we can see the usage of the word soul to indicate the spirit and body of man as a single entity.

Dust of the ground?

Carbon, calcium, phosphorus, sulfur, potassium, sodium, chlorine, magnesium, iron, .... These are elements from which our bodies are made. They are also prominent among the elements found in the dust of the earth.

Water, air, and the dust of the earth. What else would we be made of, if we were going to live on the earth and have bodies? Plants grow out of the ground, animals eat the plants and grow bodies out of the elements of the dust of the earth. We eat some of the plants, too, and sometimes we eat some of the animals. Our bodies also are made of the dust of the earth -- indirectly, but of the dust of the ground.

It has been suggested by certain people that the Gods ate of the plants that were growing and then made Adam the same way we make children. I'm not sure I should believe that, but I'm not sure I should not.

We are not Golem, of course.

Consequent to making Adam, they planted a garden of less primitive plants, including plants that produce edible, nutritious, and delicious parts, put Adam in the garden, and let him tend it. Two of the trees mentioned in particular are the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.

Adam was told not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, because doing so would make him subject to death.

Certain of our religious philosophers tend to talk about our coming from the presence of God to be born into this world, and they speak as if we were in some state of perfection before we were born. We also talk about the Garden of Eden as if it were a state of perfection.

Some people insist there is only one perfection. Is the absolute perfection of God the only perfection? Or are there lesser perfections?

A number of ancient philosophers and astronomers (astrologers, at the time) perfected a geocentric model that was perfectly self-consistent. It proved not to match the real solar system very well, but it was perfectly self-consistent. 

There are many things that are perfect in a limited sense, even though they do not match reality.

In a similar way, it is my understanding that we each attain a limited, self-consistent sort of perfection as spirits before we are born into this world. It's a limited sort of perfection precisely because we don't have a physical body that can experience the things that would push us past our limits.

As I understand it, the tree of knowledge of good and evil was both a real tree with real fruit, and a physical symbol of what experience does to our limited perfections.

After Adam is placed in the Garden, the less primitive animals are created and brought to Adam, and Adam gives them names. But animals don't provide the company that Adam needs, and the Gods borrow some genetic material from Adam, remove one of the genes (a "rib" in the genetic structure, as I see, but that may be just me) in Adams genetic makeup, and make Eve with the full set of genes. 

This was part of the plan in the first place, but it was also part of what Adam had to experience, perhaps so we could understand how united the spousal union should be -- not just "one flesh", but entirely one in purpose. 

Okay, I really can't justify the genetic theory about the rib business, but I'm pretty sure no one can prove me wrong. Heh.

Again, the record doesn't say how long this takes. For all we know, Adam and Eve might have been in the Garden of Eden for hundreds of millions of years, and plants from the Garden itself might have spread over much of the surface of the earth.

Wait. Can plants spread without dying? Does it matter, outside philosophies derived from the interpretations of mortal humans of limited perfection?

On the other hand, if death truly was not part of the world until after Adam and Eve were sent away from the garden, time in such a world would simply not have the same meaning it has in ours, and attempts to measure geological ages would result in meaningless measurements. 

More to the point, time measured without a mortal observer is still different from time measured by mortals such as we are.

Chapter 2 has something that looks like a discussion of geography, but it does not match any geography I know of, unless, perhaps, the rivers mentioned became oceans after the flood, when the continents split apart. If that were the case, Adam would have been in the Garden of Eden in geologically very ancient times. 

And why not? He was helping with the work of getting the earth ready for us to live on, too.

What Eden was eastward of is something I have not particularly figured out. Perhaps Moses was simply telling the Camp of Israel that Eden was not in Egypt, the wilderness, or Canaan. Someday, I will be able to ask God what the geography of the world before the flood was, and why it mattered to Moses and the people of Israel, and I suppose then I'll get better understanding.

There's something we might miss in the last verse, if we are not too distracted -- Adam and Eve were clearly in a state of innocence. That's important to remember.

Genesis 3:

---