Adam and Eve

[Steven]

I read Genesis a whole bunch of times.  It didn't say what they were.  In my opinion, I think race is not important to the moral of the story.

:whistling

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

its not a part of the story in any form.

[Der Nister]

its not a part of the story in any form.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yup there's no mention of race.

[Steven]

I've always had issues with the A&E story and this is my reason. The story is flawed 100%. The bible states that God created Adam and then Eve. They had two sons Cain and Able (sp?) and from there the human race moved on.

Ok question. So how did they reproduce after this? Only logical answer - insest. It's either that or the bible is flawed. I've spoken with dozens of religous people about this topic and the only answer they give me is - "you have to have faith in God".

I have also asked about the integrity of the bible. My reason for this is because simply the bible was writen by man - not God. They are based on 'gospels' (i.e. stories) by men and there "experiances".

So back to this threads question about their race (my answer) is - none. Because they didn't exist (imo).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yes.

incest.

what other way would there have been? Not much of a stretch, and not really a harrowing history either considering a beginning ("genesis") is just that - a beginning. And Brass hit it on the head (kudos) when she talked about women not generally being included in documented "begotten" lines. People often speak of this subject as if its an argumental revelation or evidence of the bible being contradictory.....no offense, but its not. Its not even a big deal.

Adder: if your going to get into the whole sin trip (OH MY GOD - INCEST!!!???) then you have to first recognize why something would have been a sin and at what point it was identified as such. ANd even better still - look into the definition of Sin itself. What is it? What does the term exemplify? for what purpose is the word "Sin" introduced to the reader? Hint: sin does not mean "a bad bad thing you just done Johnny"

And as for he gospels beign written by man and being reflections of their experiences......

again - yes. Absolutely. The bible was not inspired or written by Seraphim. Just like the mediator between God and Man was not an angel or a spirit but was instead a hard to grasp at reduced in power clothed in human flesh incarnate portion of the divine. Do I get it completely? Nope.

I dont get triginometry either. But I beleive it its existence and recognize that it has measurable value and results.

Now, those of us who beleive in a divine foundation to scripture see it as the muse behind the written text. Not much different really, than the muse behind the poet, the painter, the musician..... but as a society in general we tend to only question those thigns that are devisive in their nature...and the bible is certainly that. For example, nobody questions the writings of Plato. Even theough there are only about 5 copies of the original text. Its cool with us - because it does not offend us. And we don't question early day historians writings......unless they are writings by Josephus, because he bought into the whole Jesus rising from the dead and being seen by over 500 people after his death and he had the iron balls to write it down as fact....we tend to try to dismiss his historical writings....when in reality there is no falsehood or measurable error in his "other" historical documentation.

there is bias in all thigns. my things. your things. thats the problem with data. you can mold it, bend it, lean it, make it work for you.

Moving on.....If the only answer your getting from religeous people is trite shallow half assed repetitive stuff....my suggestion to you is to stop going to trite half assed religeous people for insight. Why would you do that? Religion is bondage. The language spoken is rhetoric. Now, this is a practicing Christian who just told you this. But go study the biblical text on Christ and tell me how religeous he was....he wasent. yet that same text is turned religeous by pious people seeking to contain and control what they cannot grasp at completely, therefore it is rooted in pride. If you want insight into spiritual matters then first seek out and find someone who's life bears possible evidence of that which you seek. I wouldent ask a plumber to tell me about rocket fuel. I'm sure he's a nice guy and all.....but his life bears littel evidence that he'll have somethign tangible to offer me. Once you've found your candidate - based on workign evidence - THEN walk the rice paper grasshopper and decide what you will.

Final thought:

If your going to make a decision on the Bible - be fair and objective. Study it as text, search for both sides proclaiming evidence to back up their points of view on its validity, and go from there. In orther words use the same degree of respect that you would use for other relevant texts that have value in our society (not even talking about relgious texts here). Most people that chastize the biblical text really have not spent much time gleaning it - they instead regurgitate their professor's (or somethign similar) disdain for it's value. There are exceptions of course, but they fall in the latter category. And if they dont agree with me, I still respect them, drink beer with them, listen to them and see if I can learn anythign from them. Usually, I can......

[DeadBurgerKing (10)]

so, basically, according to the bible, the world was entirely populated through the practice of incest...  :blink

:erm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Incest is the best...put ur sister to the test...

On a more serious note Im so glad I posted this thread I love the freindly debate goin on here...I wish I was a little more intelletual to input my opinion...

So keep posting I love reading this stuff :grin

[Der Nister]

Moving on.....If the only answer your getting from religeous people is trite shallow half assed repetitive stuff....my suggestion to you is to stop going to trite half assed religeous people for insight.  Why would you do that? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to respond to this remark.

Steven, not to dis your beliefs or anything but it's not as if you can tell the difference between a scholer and a half ass religeous person. I was mearly making a statement to inform people that I have tried to find the answers to my questions and that I didn't just come to any conclusions minus investigating. And I have read the bible many, many times as well.

I've also been to church (lots) and I never got an answer. I respect that you have beliefs but like I would tell anyoone else please do not get on my case for not sharing your beliefs.

We can agree to diagree.

[honeymustard02]

Part of the reason of the first humans being black is such an interest to me is this. I would laugh my ass off if they proved we were black in the beginning and then turned white. I would love to see how the runners of the KKK would then explain why white is still better. Just my sense of humor.

And that's why I don't like the whole Adam and Eve of the Bible. Basically it's telling us that we're imbred through and through.

[Steven]

Part of the reason of the first humans being black is such an interest to me is this. I would laugh my ass off if they proved we were black in the beginning and then turned white. I would love to see how the runners of the KKK would then explain why white is still better. Just my sense of humor.

  And that's why I don't like the whole Adam and Eve of the Bible. Basically it's telling us that we're imbred through and through.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

not thru and thru - just for the first handful series of generations.

gotta start somewhere.

question for the evolutionists (becasue I've never ponderd this before):

in your theories.....

groups of mankind evolved at the same time and reproduced accordingly?

by clan?

family?

how?

how did the evolutionary process sidestep in-breeding in it's beginning stages?

[Steven]

I would like to respond to this remark.

Steven, not to dis your beliefs or anything but it's not as if you can tell the difference between a scholer and a half ass religeous person. I was mearly making a statement to inform people that I have tried to find the answers to my questions and that I didn't just come to any conclusions minus investigating. And I have read the bible many, many times as well.

I've also been to church (lots) and I never got an answer. I respect that you have beliefs but like I would tell anyoone else please do not get on my case for not sharing your beliefs.

We can agree to diagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not on your case dude - at least that's not my intention.

just trying to make a point that to me is rather obvious: that people who have half a clue in regard to how to lead a fullfilling life are not difficult to recognize, because you see some consistency there. So in terms of asking for biblical referance points - why not ask of those who seem to be actually able to apply it to themselves? I know lots of christians that are completely lost - they too - are easy to recognize. For example would you ask for marital advice from someone who's always cheating on his wife and hates to go home?

by the way I've been studying the bible for years.

and I'm not a scholar by any means. Actually I'm an electrician.

And I've never read it all the way thru. Not Once. Collectively yes - but you dont read the bible as a novel, that's not its design.

Here's the thign: reading it - and considering/studying it are two completely different modes.

that's like saying you've read some calssic literature so you know all about it and the authors. In school they make yo go back over what you allready read and break it down, consider the times it was written in, the underlying motivation of the authors, to whom the author was addressing, his unique literary style, etc.

and the church thing - that too is tough. Hard to find a good one, a healthy one. But the best way to determine that is to get involved, and find a mentor to walk alongside of you. Otherwise you jsut sit thru sermons and that doesent do anyone anygood.

[Steven]

Incest is the best...put ur sister to the test...

On a more serious note Im so glad I posted this thread I love the freindly debate goin on here...I wish I was a little more intelletual to input my opinion...

So keep posting I love reading this stuff :grin

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dude don't ever let that feeling (not being intillectual) keep you from expressing yrouself or searching for answers.

besides, most people are smarter than they think.....and some of us (myself included) are not as smart as we'd like to think.

I barely made it thru high school dude......don't worry about it.

[n0Mad]

It's really fun to read all the material that didn't make the final cut of the Bible. For example, what ever happened to Lilith? Perhaps Cain, Abel, and Seth found her and she bore their children. And then Adam shacked up with Lilith's daughters. So then he'd only be sleeping with half granddaughters and not full granddaughters thus thinning out the whole incest thing.

And as to whether incest is a sin or not, another thing that didn't make the final cut was mention of Adam sleeping with all the animals. So I guess beastiality isn't a sin either.

Don't ask me to quote my sources as I'm only a half-assed scholar, but I did read all that stuff somewhere.

[BrassFusion]

not thru and thru - just for the first handful series of generations.

gotta start somewhere.

question for the evolutionists (becasue I've never ponderd this before):

in your theories.....

groups of mankind evolved at the same time and reproduced accordingly?

by clan?

family?

how?

how did the evolutionary process sidestep in-breeding in it's beginning stages?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Evolution doesn't happen in an individual- it happens through stages, in a population.

Let's say there's a community of 100 monkey people in Botswana. Most of them are covered in thick body hair, most of them have light brownish skin. Every once in a while, if one of the darker skinned ones mates with another darker skinned one, they'll get a monkey that's just a little darker than both of them put together. Same goes for the paler ones. That's a genetic mutation.

As long as the monkey people stay in Botswana, the climate will affect which members of the population grow to maturity and breed. Since it's hot, chance will probably favor the ones that have little body hair, but darker skin to protect themselves.

If some of the monkeys migrated north into Mesopotamia, their characteristics would gradually adjust to the climate.

Species variation happens very gradually- a mama monkey didn't just squat down in the long grass one day and squeeze out a human. The entire populations became more human at a slow rate.

And I should mention this now, before it comes up: We're not actually descended from monkeys (in the evolutionist viewpoint), but common ancestors of today's apes. These ancestors weren't specialized to have either monkey-like or human-like traits. They couldn't walk very well and they couldn't swing in trees at all. The ones that developed longer arms learned to swing in trees, and the ones that developed straighter spines improved at walking.

[Gauge]

I would like to respond to this remark.

Steven, not to dis your beliefs or anything but it's not as if you can tell the difference between a scholer and a half ass religeous person. I was mearly making a statement to inform people that I have tried to find the answers to my questions and that I didn't just come to any conclusions minus investigating. And I have read the bible many, many times as well.

I've also been to church (lots) and I never got an answer. I respect that you have beliefs but like I would tell anyoone else please do not get on my case for not sharing your beliefs.

We can agree to diagree.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

imo if youve read the bible many many times and youve searched and asked and delve into everything and your still not getting the answers you want maybe you shouldnt be looking at christianity. just a thought. . . =)

[The_Dark]

To address a few points brought up...

the 100 monkey people in Botswana...

Nope. They would die off within 3-4 generations. That not a large enough gene pool. Genetic mutation and such...

You need at least 200 pairs to keep a gene pool even remotely "clean"

a mama monkey didn't just squat down in the long grass one day and squeeze out a human

Oh? Explain Cro-Magnon man then. They just suddenly appear out of thin air when the most populace hominid was the Neanderthal.

Also, about 3million years ago there was a major change in the hominids that populated earth. As yet, noone has even the faintest idea why. There are a few theroys.. most are pretty whacked out.

and to answer a question everyone seemed to ignore... if you shave an ape.. it's skin is blueish tan. Just like most mamals. Mamals get dark skin when sun light hits it and it creates melanin to combat the Ultra violet light. Cover the animal with fur... it stops creating melanin.. and "white" it is.

[Gauge]

It's really fun to read all the material that didn't make the final cut of the Bible.  For example, what ever happened to Lilith?  Perhaps Cain, Abel, and Seth found her and she bore their children.  And then Adam shacked up with Lilith's daughters.  So then he'd only be sleeping with half granddaughters and not full granddaughters thus thinning out the whole incest thing.

And as to whether incest is a sin or not, another thing that didn't make the final cut was mention of Adam sleeping with all the animals.  So I guess beastiality isn't a sin either.

Don't ask me to quote my sources as I'm only a half-assed scholar, but I did read all that stuff somewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh gods i love the story of lilith

lilith was adams first wife, and now days a symbol for empowerment for many women. when adam and lilith were together he asked her to lay with him like the animals (be submisive) and she didnt want to. she thought there should be equality between them both since they had both been made from the same ground. adam beat her and forced her to submit, lilith called out the name of god and was taken to the red sea. there she got together with asmodai, and crated many little lilin. after a while adam decided he needed her back so he talked to god and god sent out three angels senoy, sansenoy and semangelof. they threatened to kill 100 of her children for each and every day she refused to come back to adam. she didnt go back but instead told them that she would intern roam the earth killing the decendents of adam (who could only be saved by sayin the names of the 3 angels) from there it really depends on what mythology you want to follow but basically lilith becomes a demon, sucubus, vampire. . .it varies. she haunts the darkness hunting down and killing babies (sometimes pregnant women). the only way these baby boys could be saved was if an amulet inscribed with the names of the 3 angels were hung around their necks. some parents would even refuse to cut the hair of their baby boys in an atempt to make lilith think they were girls. her sign is an owl coming from the bird beeing seen as a blood-sucking night spirit.

thats mostly the christian/hebrew side of the story, but theres also a long vampire history behind her to (which i wont bore you with quite yet) thats actually very intersting.

:grin

[Steven]

It's really fun to read all the material that didn't make the final cut of the Bible.  For example, what ever happened to Lilith?  Perhaps Cain, Abel, and Seth found her and she bore their children.  And then Adam shacked up with Lilith's daughters.  So then he'd only be sleeping with half granddaughters and not full granddaughters thus thinning out the whole incest thing.

And as to whether incest is a sin or not, another thing that didn't make the final cut was mention of Adam sleeping with all the animals.  So I guess beastiality isn't a sin either.

Don't ask me to quote my sources as I'm only a half-assed scholar, but I did read all that stuff somewhere.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you look into it you'll see that there were many offshoots of Judaism and offshoots of "the way" (early christianity) and offshoots of all type s of spirituality from the very begining. There were allready many clicks and there were also yoru agnostics who beleived in "enlightenment" above all else and who's supposed "gospels" contradicted those of the biblical cannon. There were also many forgeries being written during those same days.

so wacha got there is a whole bunch of ancient writings shooting off in every which way direction and supposedly leading the reader toward truth.....this confusion has always existed.

there is also a great deal of evidence from that time of the early church (written within 200 years of its inception - an accpetable timeline regarding an ancient manuscript's validity) that the 4 original gospels were the understood cornerstone of the new testament. This does not get talked about much, and movvies like the Davinci code mislead you into thinking that there were more gospels under consideration and that there was a great debate and internal divide during this cannonization process but that's not really true. For example only 2 oout of 300 Bishops denied beleiving in the deity of Christ. But you'll find many opinions that attempt to suggest there was much more division, as this is delicious and titillating conspiracy conversation.

by the way I have some of those other writings you talked about in my library. I dont beleive they are actually "gospels" per se - but I like to keep them for research and conversation.

when you consider it - there really is an amazing degree of cannonized continuity between the old and new trestament, pre to post messianic times, to include hundreds of messianic prophesies that were fullfilled by Jesus in ways that he would have no control over, such as his crucifixtion NOT including the breaking of his legs which was common, his peircing of his side, his being sold for 30 peices of silver and that the money would be used to purchase a potters field, etc.

the bible is no different than any history book you look at.

you'll have to decide if you see and feel a certain degree of validity to the information being introduced. And if your leaning in the direction of beleiveing in God, then you'd ahve to assume that the maker of the cosmos has the werewithal to ensure that his intended muse (his word) is collected as he wills.

[torn asunder]

just trying to make a point that to me is rather obvious:  that people who have half a clue in regard to how to lead a fullfilling life are not difficult to recognize, because you see some consistency there.  So in terms of asking for biblical referance points - why not ask of those who seem to be actually able to apply it to themselves?  I know lots of christians that are completely lost - they too - are easy to recognize.  For example would you ask for marital advice from someone who's always cheating on his wife and hates to go home?

personally, i haven't found any x-tians that really lead fulfilling lives - i find too much conflict, contradiction, and hipocrasy. the people i find who are most at peace and happy within themselves have accepted that they are responsible for their lives, not some all-seeing, all-knowing, fatherly entity who is in control of them. of course, that's most likely because my definition of a "fulfilling" life is different than theirs, so i guess that point is really moot. i have great difficulty understanding how one can give away their responsibility to something/someone they can neither explain nor understand. something good happens, they thank god for blessing them? something bad happens, "well, that's god's will"... what? it just seems to make you a puppet in "god's puppet show" waiting to see what kind of "life" he's going to "design" for you. i'm not trying to be disrespectful - i just honestly don't understand it...

(i hope i haven't gone off on a tangent too much - if so, i apologize...) :fear

[The_Dark]

I don't count?

[torn asunder]

heh, well, you and steven seem to be exceptions, but i'm not counting you two, since i have yet to personally meet you. you both come across very well in online communications, but for me, i need to be around someone physically, on a semi-regular basis, before deciding (in my mind) the cotegory in which to place you...

[BrassFusion]

To address a few points brought up...

the 100 monkey people in Botswana...

  Nope. They would die off within 3-4 generations. That not a large enough gene pool. Genetic mutation and such...

You need at least 200 pairs to keep a gene pool even remotely "clean"

Oh? Explain Cro-Magnon man then. They just suddenly appear out of thin air when the most populace hominid was the Neanderthal.

Also, about 3million years ago there was a major change in the hominids that populated earth. As yet, noone has even the faintest idea why. There are a few theroys.. most are pretty whacked out.

and to answer a question everyone seemed to ignore... if you shave an ape.. it's skin is blueish tan. Just like most mamals. Mamals get dark skin when sun light hits it and it creates melanin to combat the Ultra violet light. Cover the animal with fur... it stops creating melanin.. and "white" it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. The "100" figure was arbitrary, as is your figure of 200.

2. Incest, practiced properly, can stabilize a gene pool. When you overdo it, you get blue people.

3. Cro-Magnons didn't just "appear out of nowhere." They branched off from a common ancestor of the Neandertals.

4. 3 million years, "major change..." I'd love to hear the evidence for this. What sort of time period are you talking about? Ten thousand years? Smaller window? Larger? Do you know? There are always going to be points of faster and slower evolution. We're in a pretty slow one right now because we're allowing and even encouraging breeding among people who wouldn't survive in a harsher environment. That has obviously not always been the case. Maybe really dangerous predators met with our ancestors some 3 million years ago...? Maybe we had a parallel on the food chain and food was in short supply? Gimme more data, I'm too lazy to look it up on my own.

[torn asunder]

Gimme more data, I'm too lazy to look it up on my own.

i love this kind of honesty, but i wouldn't expect people to do your legwork for you!

[JaneDead]

2. Incest, practiced properly, can stabilize a gene pool. When you overdo it, you get blue people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

how is incest practiced properly?? :laughing

[BrassFusion]

Between cousins. I'm serious!! I used to have a subscription to Discover and there was a great article in one of the issues. It involves uncommon recessive genes- the same things that cause things like two heads and flippers- but some of them can cause offspring to be immune to some conditions.

There are these naked mole rat things that almost exclusively inbreed, actually. Every couple generations some of them leave the nest to find another one, and that's how they get their new DNA.

Edit: Since members of the same species share so much DNA anyway, cousin-fucking isn't that much genetically "worse" than breeding with any other random person, as long as it doesn't succeed several generations in a row. What I've heard.

[The_Dark]

Actually... 200 mated pairs is infact the minimum number for genetic stability. That means 200 male and 200 female. Read a Book. There are real scientific studies that agree on that number.

Really? Because every book on Evolution I have ever read says that Cro-magnon man just appears in the fossil record a good deal of time after Neanderthal had evolved. At the least it is an offshoot of Neanderthal, but they dont have enough in common so is generally thought to not be the case.

Ok, you have a problem with 3million years ago. So does every person that studies evolution for a living. Why? Because there was a major change that noone can find an explination for. have you never heard of the missing link? it's when the first true Hominids evolved.

[torn asunder]

i just found this article that i thought was interesting... just thought i'd share!

[BrassFusion]

Actually... 200 mated pairs is infact the minimum number for genetic stability. That means 200 male and 200 female. Read a Book. There are real scientific studies that agree on that number.

Really? Because every book on Evolution I have ever read says that Cro-magnon man just appears in the fossil record a good deal of time after Neanderthal had evolved. At the least it is an offshoot of Neanderthal, but they dont have enough in common so is generally thought to not be the case.

Ok, you have a problem with 3million years ago. So does every person that studies evolution for a living. Why? Because there was a major change that noone can find an explination for. have you never heard of the missing link? it's when the first true Hominids evolved.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. 200 mated pairs is arbitrary. Look up the word "arbitrary." You'll agree with me.

2. Cro-Magnon wasn't descended from Neandertals, who were a genetic dead-end. And it's possible that they just "appeared" in the fossil record, but they didn't just "appear" out of thin air. It's really hard to make assumptions based on things you HAVEN'T found in a world as big as this.

3. I don't "have a problem" with "3 million years ago." You said something big happened, and I don't doubt it. So what?