In relation to the recent thread...If there was only Adam and Eve where did Black folks come from and all the other races??? Whats really going on??

Hey, maybe Adam and Eve were black. :o

Namaste,
Mairlyn  ;D

Greetings,
I was reading just last week that some scientists have determined that black did have to be first, and that lighter skin was a mutation. Something about how DNA operates. Then the light mutation also allowed those to live in cooler, then colder climates.
In art history when I took it, no one could explain why African cultures did bronze casting way before Europeans  8)
All other early artifacts and bits of material culture got obliterated by the humid heat.
bets

I find it very hard to believe that Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. If they were, who would their children have had children by?
We all know that offspring born out of incestuous relationships can have genetic deformities.

DNA and colour aside, if Adam had blood group A and Eve had blood group B their offspring would have blood groups of either A, B, or AB. So why are there so many different blood groups in the world today?

roger  ???

Hello roger,
we've not met before--greetings.
I meant to refer to the first 'peoples'; I can't get into literal Biblical references.
bets

Adam and eve, are completely bogus.

Each race, took a slightly different evolutionary path, depending on the location which they exist.

For example, Black people, have more menolin in there skin, due to them living in africa, and similar very hot country's.

White people, can swim better then black people - due to them not needing swimming skills due to the land from which they came.

But you cannot make a race from 2 people, and if you did, you would be in bed with your sister/brother or farther/mother, and thats a pretty sick god who does that.

The old testament has openings and areas of uncertainty about others existing beside Adam and Eve.  For example in Genesis, there is a passage about the sons of gods lying down with the daughters of men.  Other references from way back then give anecdotal reference to other tribes of humans.  

I don't see why the bible has to be taken so literally when it is a book of messages and insights.  To see it as we are all descended from Adam and Eve could be an allusion to the prototypical masculine and feminine, yin and yang which God created.  I doubt even Don will make an argument for us all being traced back to Adam as a great great (add a bunch more) grandfather.  

M

Matt....

Come back from the darkside. For i shall vow, not to let them have you!

Anyway, since you cannot prove the things in the bible you either believe 100% or not at all.

I dont read moby dick, and pretend the whale be brown. 8)

Craig,

You are still one of my favorite posters, despite what Don initially said, and I'm not on the dark side (you know very well).  However, I don't think anyone even devout christians on the board has ever said to take the bible literally in all its aspects.

The talmud in judaism is constantly debated to find new or hidden meanings in the ancient Torah; in Judaism, this constant rethinking and debate is welcomed (as long as it is based deeply in study and the texts).  

In christianity, there are more people who take the bible literally, but you must interpret what you are given.  You have a text written probably by many contributors that is thousands of years old.  Nowhere does it say that the entire bible was dictated by God.  There are stories and parables in the bible, its true.  Almost always the meaning of the stories is what is most important.  I mentioned in Genesis that from Adam and Eve, they then mention that God was displeased that the sons of God were bedding the daughters of man.  What the heck did that mean?  Extra-terrestrials?  Fallen angels?  

We can't interpret every sentence with certainty.  However, the text does contain wisdom.  Can we not appreciate the good book more for its wisdom then its' seeming inconsistencies?  I think so.  I know I do.  These are tales to understand by, commandments to allow people to live together.  And yes the golden rule is thrown in to boot.  

So lighten up on the literal Adam and Eve.  The bible really is tracing God's chosen people back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, all are brought up for their own reasons preceding Abraham.  Adam and Eve's fall from grace for eating from the tree of knowledge is one of the greatest images of all time (the Sistine Chapel's rendering of God banishing them with their heads hanging down).  He then blocked the tree of life  with a flaming sword.  Thus came the christian idea of original sin translated down to humanity.  

One can look at the fall from grace in a more positive way, however.  Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge.  They then knew they were naked; they knew good and evil and had intelligence like God.  The tree of life was witheld from them as they were sent out into the world.  However, man then knows.  He knows there is an eden, and a tree of life.  He knows that he has a special relationship with God.  Perhaps that tree of life is not truly banned from us.  Perhaps, in order to be human, and live in our plane of reality, we had to experience that fall from grace and our subsequent mortality.  

With knowledge of our banishment and Eden, and the tree of Life, God could only have known that man would strive to find those things again one way or another.  It is with this heroic effort and striving that the human race defines itself.  In love, and the desire to be back in Eden with the creator.  In reality, eating from the fruit of the tree of life is the acceptance that our consciousness is primary and endless.  Suddenly, in that realization, the flaming sword disappears, and we are, at last home.

Matthew

Om a lighter note, I like the way Protestant theologian Karl Barth replied to this question from a fundamentalist: "Dr. Barth, Dr. Barth, was there a talking snake in the Garden of 'Eden or not?"  Barth smiled and replied, "It's not important whether there was a snake in the garden.  What's important is what the snake said."  

Except for Christian fundamentalists, I know of few pastors who believe that the story of Adam (Genesis 2:4b-3:24) and Eve is literally true.  Even in Jesus' day, the Jewish philosopher Philo could challenge the literal historicity of some stories in the first 11 chapters of Genesis.   More importantly, Jesus Himself did not take the whole Pentateuch as the literal and infallible word of God.   I will  later illustrate this point in my thread  "Spitfire's Theological Issues" when I address his issues about biblical authority.  

The story of Adam and Eve is a parabolic story about the basic psychodynamics of human evil.  In this respect it underpins M. Scott Peck's brilliant analysis of evil in his book "People of the Lie."  

On the other hand, the poetic priestly story of the 7 days of creation (Genesis 1:1-2:4a) can be read in a way that is quite compatible with modern evolutionary theory, if it is read through the lens of Wisdom creation theology in the Old Testament.  I will probably address this point as well in the appropriate section of my Spitfure thread.

Don      

wrote on Feb 13^th, 2006 at 2:58pm:

Craig, You are still one of my favorite posters, despite what Don initially said, and I'm not on the dark side (you know very well).  However, I don't think anyone even devout christians on the board has ever said to take the bible literally in all its aspects. The talmud in judaism is constantly debated to find new or hidden meanings in the ancient Torah; in Judaism, this constant rethinking and debate is welcomed (as long as it is based deeply in study and the texts).   In christianity, there are more people who take the bible literally, but you must interpret what you are given.  You have a text written probably by many contributors that is thousands of years old.  Nowhere does it say that the entire bible was dictated by God.  There are stories and parables in the bible, its true.  Almost always the meaning of the stories is what is most important.  I mentioned in Genesis that from Adam and Eve, they then mention that God was displeased that the sons of God were bedding the daughters of man.  What the heck did that mean?  Extra-terrestrials?  Fallen angels?   We can't interpret every sentence with certainty.  However, the text does contain wisdom.  Can we not appreciate the good book more for its wisdom then its' seeming inconsistencies?  I think so.  I know I do.  These are tales to understand by, commandments to allow people to live together.  And yes the golden rule is thrown in to boot.   So lighten up on the literal Adam and Eve.  The bible really is tracing God's chosen people back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, all are brought up for their own reasons preceding Abraham.  Adam and Eve's fall from grace for eating from the tree of knowledge is one of the greatest images of all time (the Sistine Chapel's rendering of God banishing them with their heads hanging down).  He then blocked the tree of life  with a flaming sword.  Thus came the christian idea of original sin translated down to humanity.   One can look at the fall from grace in a more positive way, however.  Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge.  They then knew they were naked; they knew good and evil and had intelligence like God.  The tree of life was witheld from them as they were sent out into the world.  However, man then knows.  He knows there is an eden, and a tree of life.  He knows that he has a special relationship with God.  Perhaps that tree of life is not truly banned from us.  Perhaps, in order to be human, and live in our plane of reality, we had to experience that fall from grace and our subsequent mortality.   With knowledge of our banishment and Eden, and the tree of Life, God could only have known that man would strive to find those things again one way or another.  It is with this heroic effort and striving that the human race defines itself.  In love, and the desire to be back in Eden with the creator.  In reality, eating from the fruit of the tree of life is the acceptance that our consciousness is primary and endless.  Suddenly, in that realization, the flaming sword disappears, and we are, at last home. Matthew

You see the problem is, when you write something down that happened ages ago, it becomes distorted.

the earlyiest books in the new testament, was written 40 years after christ died. Can you honestly remember exact details of 40 years ago, with pin point accuracy?

Things become distorted, caught in myth and immortalised, with powers beyond that of what really occured.

I want you, and everyone else to tell me what they think this is:

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/9978/fuzzyimage1lm.jpg

Your own interpretation, can mingle the facts, and ultimatley act as a form of chinese whispers.

You saw a lightning strike, you saw a huge storm with hundreds of bolts of lightning coming down, you saw a hand through lightning bolts at you, and the full earth shook.

Ultimately, you were a victim of weather. You can test this by reproducing it.

When you reproduce it, it becomes less - then what was once a miracle.

Catch you later matt,

craig

[Craig:] "The earliest books in the new testament, was written 40 years after christ died. Can you honestly remember exact details of 40 years ago, with pin point accuracy?"

Not correct!  Jesus was crucified in 30 AD.  Paul wrote all his epistles between 48 and 55 AD.  Paul's contacts with the eyewitnesses provides priceless confirmation of the resurrection sequence.  The Epistle of James, the earliest version of the Gospel of John, and the Epistle of James all may have been composed around 50 AD.  We can identify Gospel sources (e.g  Q and L) and date them to this earlier period.

Consider too the evidence outside the New Testament.  Scholars tend to date its original version to around 50 AD and its edited version around 95 AD, though some dispute these dates.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis knew the apostles and those trained by them and reports what they told him about Gospel origins.

In my Spitifire thread, I will explain how all this is relevant to biblical authority when I come to that question in my agenda.  Admittedly, memories can be distorted over the decades.  But most of us have vivid memories of traumatic and meaningful events that we witnessed 40 years ago.

Don    

I believe that adam and eve existed but i often wondered were did all the different laungues come from.I mean who spoke the first  english russian german and so on Its a real mystery when you think about it. God bless juditha

wrote on Feb 13^th, 2006 at 6:45pm:

[Craig:] "The earliest books in the new testament, was written 40 years after christ died. Can you honestly remember exact details of 40 years ago, with pin point accuracy?" Not correct!  Jesus was crucified in 30 AD.  Paul wrote all his epistles between 48 and 55 AD.  Paul's contacts with the eyewitnesses provides priceless confirmation of the resurrection sequence.  The Epistle of James, the earliest version of the Gospel of John, and the Epistle of James all may have been composed around 50 AD.  We can identify Gospel sources (e.g  Q and L) and date them to this earlier period. Consider too the evidence outside the New Testament.  Scholars tend to date its original version to around 50 AD and its edited version around 95 AD, though some dispute these dates. Papias, bishop of Hierapolis knew the apostles and those trained by them and reports what they told him about Gospel origins. In my Spitifire thread, I will explain how all this is relevant to biblical authority when I come to that question in my agenda.  Admittedly, memories can be distorted over the decades.  But most of us have vivid memories of traumatic and meaningful events that we witnessed 40 years ago. Don

Why is Ad called after death, if christ was alive at the time?

the source i read, has quoted the earilest book was written in 49 by paul, and called Galatians. Most were 55 onwards. alot were 60-65+

Memory's even of traumatic events, become distorted, even if the earliest book was written 18 years later, 18 years. Long time, alot of the books get on for 30 years +. Think back that long ago, memories become influenced by other people telling you what they saw, you add it to what you saw, and it is completely distorted from the truth.

wrote on Feb 13^th, 2006 at 7:11pm:

I believe that adam and eve existed but i often wondered were did all the different laungues come from.I mean who spoke the first  english russian german and so on Its a real mystery when you think about it. God bless juditha

Languages come from, community life. Someone assigns a name to an object. Point at at - and there you go.

Different community's = different languages.

Bobs your uncle!

Most christian theologists point to a "Q" document that was likely the equivalent back then of "Jesus' greatest hits" of quotations.  Many find evidence to suggest that the Q document dates to the time that Jesus was preaching with key quotes his disciples could spread and remember.  Some gospels were clearly written decades later.  However, many dozens of gospels were summarily banned by the early catholic church.  Some point to critical gospels, even one by Mary Magdalene.  So one can ask why, in the new testament at the council of Nicaea, these many gospels were excluded and distilled down to the current new testament.

This, in fact is the basis for the DaVinci code.  The idea that the "sacred feminine" may have been deleted from the gospels and history.  I won't/can't argue that book, as it is not on topic.

In a much more general sense, the point is not whether the bible was written by man (it was), but whether there are lasting lessons, guidance and truth that can enhance our spirituality.  

Matthew