Adam and Eve were black

Page 3 of 5 [ 69 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Nov 2018, 10:02 am

lostonearth35 wrote:

I find this very racist since Adam and Eve are supposed to have been horrible sinners who doomed the entire human race all because Eve wanted a piece of fruit.

Right ... this topic blames the world's problems on black people ... how racist

_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Nov 2018, 10:24 am

The "Adam and Eve" of the Out of Africa theory has zero to do with the Biblical Adam and Eve.

The only similarity between them is that both notions are based upon symbolism.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,953
Location:

14 Nov 2018, 10:30 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

The "Adam and Eve" of the Out of Africa theory has zero to do with the Biblical Adam and Eve. The only similarity between them is that both notions are based upon symbolism.

No, the former is based on genetic science (e.g., evolution), while the latter is based on a creation story (e.g., symbolism).

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Nov 2018, 10:39 am

I know that...what I meant, is that the Adam and Eve in the Out of Africa theory were not aware that they were Adam and Eve. They were given those names by present-day scientists for convenience, so to speak.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 14 Nov 2018, 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

14 Nov 2018, 10:39 am

We're all inbred to some extent. Religious stories aside, we all have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, etc.

If you keep doubling the number every generation going back, you'll eventually have hundreds of millions of great-grandparents...except the Earth's population didn't have that many people all those centuries ago.

Look up pedigree collapse. It's true for all of us.

magz
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

14 Nov 2018, 10:47 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

lostonearth35 wrote:

I find this very racist since Adam and Eve are supposed to have been horrible sinners who doomed the entire human race all because Eve wanted a piece of fruit.

Right ... this topic blames the world's problems on black people ... how racist

Well, some count the existence of humans as a world's problem...

_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

14 Nov 2018, 10:47 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

I know that...what I meant, is that the Adam and Eve in the Out of Africa theory were not aware that they were Adam and Eve. They were given those names for convenience, so to speak.

They weren't even the first humans necessarily, and the pair may have lived thousands of years apart. EVE is the furthest back human from whom we're all descended. She's a great-great grandmother to EVERYONE alive today, and the other women of her time no longer have living descendants.

Same goes for Adam, he's a great-grandfather to us all, though I believe Eve was also his great-grandmother as she lived centuries before him.

see: Most Recent Common Ancestor. Y-chromosomal Adam, Mitochondrial Eve.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Nov 2018, 10:49 am

I don't have such a bad view of humanity, actually.

I only have a bad view of SOME humans.

ezbzbfcg2
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,991
Location: New Jersey, USA

14 Nov 2018, 10:53 am

Fnord wrote:

kraftiekortie wrote:

The "Adam and Eve" of the Out of Africa theory has zero to do with the Biblical Adam and Eve. The only similarity between them is that both notions are based upon symbolism.

No, the former is based on genetic science (e.g., evolution), while the latter is based on a creation story (e.g., symbolism).

You're correct that the "notion" of Adam and Eve is not symbolic in the evolutionary sense. But using the names "Adam" and "Eve" for our most-recent-common-evolutionary ancestors is indeed a literary allusion, in this case to the Bible.

That doesn't mean the Bible story is correct. It means if someone is studying genetics and evolution and wants to know why the names Adam and Eve were chosen, the answer would be that it's a biblical allusion.

Also note, Lucy, the missing link, was named for the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

14 Nov 2018, 2:49 pm

Like Ezbz said. When they talk about "chromosomal eve" is just a literary reference to the Bible, and a cultural touch stone. The individuals dubbed "chromosomal adam/eve" were not even the only people around when they lived (much less the first people). Just the individuals whom everyone alive today can trace their ancestry too- which is not the same thing. Like Ezbz said you should look up "pedigree collapse" because the difference is hard to explain. But its like the phenom of how last names in isolated communities, like on islands, tend to dwindle in number as generations pass because linneages randomly end up without males to carry on the name. So you have the same population size that the founders had but most of the founders surnames get lost in the shuffle after a couple of centuries.

And mitochondrial eve and Y chromosome Adam, though from rougly the same era and location (Africa 200 K years ago) may have lived thousands of years apart, and its unlikely they even knew each other, much less were a couple.

But though everyone is "inbred" if you go back far enough that's not the same thing as what the Bible seems to be saying in Genisis..that we are all descended from a bunch of sibling mating trailer trash. Lol!

Chummy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,343
Location: Location

14 Nov 2018, 5:13 pm

magz wrote:

The myth of Adam and Eve is quite a lot about common ancestry of all humans.
Modern science confirms it with the Recent Out of Africa model.
But if we take it that way - our common ancestors came from Africa and people from Africa have a phenotype of dark skin and curly hair. Some then adapted to cloudy climates by losing their skin pigmentation but it happened millenia later.

So, to bring together the Bibilical metaphor with current knowledge, we should portrait Adam and Eve as Africans, shouldn't we?

it's somewhere in Mesopotamia if it ever existed. The area of today's Iran/Iraq, not Africa.

Chummy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,343
Location: Location

14 Nov 2018, 5:23 pm

Fnord wrote:

AspE wrote:

Adam and Eve were not even biblically the first people. They were the first Jews.

Wrong on both counts.

Unless you count God as a "people".

The Jews are descended from Judah, a son of Jacob, and a brother of Joseph. Judah was born sometime around 1570 B.C. The Biblical Adam and Eve were created many generations before Judah was born. If you believe the writings of James Ussher, the Earth was created in one week sometime around 4004 B.C., with the creation of Adam and Eve soon thereafter. Thus, Adam and Eve existed over 2400 years before the first Jew.

HOWEVER, Judaism as we know it can be also argued to have started when God gave the Commandments to Moses, sometime around 1300 B.C., thus making the Advent of Judaism over 2600 years after the creation of the Biblical Adam and Eve. This also makes Judaism only about 3300 years old.

Of course, if you throw in the fact that the first known signs of agricultural communities appeared some 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, and that Homo Sapiens first appeared some 350,000 years ago ... well, your assertion that Adam and Eve were the first Jews is just plain wrong.

QED

That is correct. Arguably Moses was the first jew but he was not referred to as "Jewish", only Hebrew.
King David is probably the first "Jew" as that was around the time when the religion and identity of the Hebrews as "Jews" become more coherent and evolved. David also bulit the first Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

On a different note I am not surprised he said what he said lol... I am cracking up right now ROFL

SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,824
Location: Michigan

14 Nov 2018, 9:16 pm

naturalplastic wrote:

Can you please translate this sentence into the type of English spoken here on planet Earth?

You screwed up your grammar so badly that I cannot decipher what you are trying to say here.

Did I?

I don't know, I had just woken up when I wrote it.

_________________
I'll brave the storm to come, for it surely looks like rain...

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

15 Nov 2018, 10:02 am

SabbraCadabra wrote:

naturalplastic wrote:

Can you please translate this sentence into the type of English spoken here on planet Earth?

You screwed up your grammar so badly that I cannot decipher what you are trying to say here.

Did I?

I don't know, I had just woken up when I wrote it.

So...

Even you yourself don't know what you were trying to say????

Okay.

:lol:

SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,824
Location: Michigan

15 Nov 2018, 6:39 pm

I mean I know what I was trying to say, but I don't know how to fix it for you; I know it was worded kind of awkwardly.

Too many parenthesis?

_________________
I'll brave the storm to come, for it surely looks like rain...

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

15 Nov 2018, 6:52 pm

SabbraCadabra wrote:

I mean I know what I was trying to say, but I don't know how to fix it for you; I know it was worded kind of awkwardly.

Too many parenthesis?

Okay. I hafta do the work.

You seem to be saying (a) we are not all inbred, and (b) contrary to popular belief (or contrary to what folks are saying on this thread) Genesis does NOT require that the first generations of humans bred with each other, and (c) also contrary to popular belief evolution DOES demand that humans be inbred, and (D) back to point b: the reason that the Bible doesn't require that the first few generations of humans breed with their siblings and cousins etc is that once they all got booted out of the Garden of Eden there were other humans around in the wider world for them to breed with.

Is THAT what you are trying to say?

Page 3 of 5 [ 69 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Adam and Eve were black Post Reply New Topic

Adam and Eve were black