Warning: There are actually several questions in here ... please feel free to answer any or all of them if you wish! Big Grin

Okay, this thought started off with Adam and Eve! And the process took me to asking what, exactly, was the purpose of Adam and Eve?? Were they supposedly here (at least partially) to populate the earth or what? And I was going to ask that question, but then I realized that, time-wise, there were "people" here before Adam and Eve, right? So, okay ... if we go back to "creation" and taking into account the discussions on "race" that we've been having recently, isn't it possible that God actually created more than one race of human beings, flung them to the far reaches of the earth, and that is why we have differences, yet similarities and what it is, that .02 percent in all human beings that make us different from others?

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of "races" as being Asians, Africans, Indians, Europeans (and Spaniards? Confused)? Does anyone know of any belief (or within your own belief) why it wouldn't possible that when God decided to populate the earth, he made a man and woman of different races and put them in different geographical areas, with different climates and forms of nature and has allowed each to develop according to those differences?

Also, taking into consideration "Lucy" who is supposed to be the oldest link to all of mankind being found in Africa ... "Lucy" could not have procreated without a "Ricky" so to speak, right?? I mean, it is within God's divine plan that we reproduce through sexual means. Sooooo ... somebody else had to be created at the same time "Lucy" was in order for there to be more of her ... so, what's "Ricky's" story?? Confused And why has nobody ever talked about him ... or his role in all of this?? Eek

I know these are ramblings, and probably should have gone in some other thread (like Random Thoughts, maybe Smile) But if somebody could offer an idea or two to give me something to possibly help me figure this out?? It would be most appreciated! Smile
 
 BLACK by NATURE, PROUD by CHOICE.
Original Post
Wow, you are right that there are a lot of issues here, but I will bite, at least a little.

1. I do not take the biblical story of Adam and Eve literally. It is etiological. Even the 'name' Adam. As any number of Hebrew Bible Scholars will attest, adam is generic. God creates adam from adamah, has a great parallel in the Greek, God creates the human from the humus (earth).

2. There were different races of hominids, homo erectus, homo sapiens, etc. But I do believe that there is currently only one race of humans.

I just got in from a long trip, so I will add more later.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Please do, kresge ... and explain #2 when you get the chance! Smile

Sorry, I just noticed that I mistyped things. I do believe that there is only one race of human beings.
Okay, one race of men, created totally and completely the same, and any differences basically came later? After creation? Confused

And this etiological thingy! Eek Do you not believe they existed or that whoever/whatever they were had some purpose? What do you think their role was? They are a strictly Christian belief, aren't they?
By etiological, I mean that the story is not meant to be scientific and/or historical, but rather to explain something about humanity and the human condition; e.g., why there are two sexes, why much of life is a struggle to survive, why there is pain in childbirth, why we die, why God at times seems so distant, etc.

Most cultures have their own creation myths and myths of first parents that function in a similar manner. An example of a cultural and non-religious story of the first humans can be found in Plato's Symposium. Plato has Socrates telling a story of the first humans being of several types. These creatures had two heads, four arms, four legs, two hearts, four lungs, etc. Some of these beings had both male and female organs, some where two sets of the male, others had two sets of the female. Somehow, these beings get torn apart into male and female. As you might guess, they desire to be reunited with their other half. For those whose other half is of the opposite sex, they are heterosexual. For those whose other half is the same sex, they are homosexual.

This is very similar to what happens in the Genesis story when God takes part of adam (literally - "the earth creature") and we are left with ish and isha, male and female. After these, we are told that this is why a man must leave his mother and father and marry and that the two will become one flesh, and thus complete.

With respect to human development and diversity, I defer to science to understand this process. I believe in evolution. It is my understanding that hominids arose in Africa and spread over the globe. As to the "differences" with respect to phenotype, I am not sure what the current theories are. I know that there has been some serious questions with respect to the old assertions about difference as adaptation to climate, although I think that this may stem from older theories that asserted that the original humans were "white" and became darker as they moved into warmer climates. Whatever the case, we are not talking about different species or races of human beings. The differences are not essential or fundamental.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Isn't it possible that God actually created more than one race of human beings, flung them to the far reaches of the earth, and that is why we have differences?



I think what Ebony is asking is if Lucy is the oldest human being to be found on the continent of Africa, how could she have populated the earth alone. This is a very good question. At the outset in order to gain a better understanding we should acknowledge that Africans are a very ancient people and Earth is alot older than what scientists can ever accurately calculate. Therefore, simply because Lucy is the oldest human being that modern-day scientists have discovered, one should not dismiss the possibility that human beings in Africa may have existed before her. Most importantly, we should know that thousands of years had passed before the early Africans decided to finally leave Africa and migrate to other parts of the globe. This was not something that was accomplished instantaneously or overnight. In fact, hundreds of African kingdoms were erected and demolished before anyone has ever heard of a "European." Prior to the much later emergence of who we consider "white people" today, every human being was dark and Africoid. As far as creation stories are concerned, many of the creation stories that I've read, particularly those told in African communities, always involve a conglomerate of male and female beings, either in the form of gods such the "Seven Orishas" of the Yoruba Panetheon of West Africa or androgynous entities making up both male and female attributes. Therefore, although Lucy remains at the forefront of Western evolutionary science, one should realize that Western science and its conclusions are approximations and not absolute.
Last edited {1}
Therefore, simply because Lucy is the oldest human being that modern-day scientists have discovered, one should not dismiss the possiblity that human beings in Africa may have existed before her.---Rowe

Lucy had to have an ancestor, androgynous or otherwise.

I like evolution as the method. The probability mathematics for that to happen however requires who to subscribe to the single point of creation of man.

If it is true for man, it is true for all other life.


PEACE

Jim Chester
Rowe ...

After going through 12 years of school and never being taught the true story of slavery from ANY educator ... "western" theory and versions of anything (especially history and science) are suspect to me! Eek I have to investigate and learn for myself before I put it in the "absolute truth" category! Smile

That being said, it's doubtful that we can ever know the whole story, and getting to the truth will always be a learning process. We can only take what seems right and what feels true to us. I realize the story of "Lucy" is only half told ... but what a facinating story it must be! Big Grin
Just to clarify, "Lucy" was not a human being. Lucy, if I remember correctly, was an australopithecine. I think she was Australopithecus Africanus. That's a whole different species that the genus Homo may have descended from. Just like there were different species of Homo (Sapiens, erectus, habilis, ergaster), there were different Australopithecine species as well. And no scientist believes that she was the very first of those; just an early fossil that captured the amazing because it was so complete by paleoanthropological standards. I'll provide links later. Ciao for now...

I know this has little bearing on the conclusions being discussed, but just to clarify that one academic point.
Well thank you, Vox!! Smile

I had no idea of all of that .. and can't really say I know what you just said, either! Razz But, "Lucy was not a human being" is plain enough English to send me back to the drawing board! Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Vox:
Just to clarify, "Lucy" was not a human being. Lucy, if I remember correctly, was an australopithecine. I think she was Australopithecus Africanus. That's a whole different species that the genus Homo may have descended from. Just like there were different species of Homo (Sapiens, erectus, habilis, ergaster), there were different Australopithecine species as well. And no scientist believes that she was the very first of those; just an early fossil that captured the amazing because it was so complete by paleoanthropological standards. I'll provide links later. Ciao for now...

I know this has little bearing on the conclusions being discussed, but just to clarify that one academic point.


And to add to the clarification that has little baring on the subject...The "people" of the region referred to "Lucy" as "Dignish"...There weren't any Lucys in Africa millions of years ago...That's what the European's decided to call her. But she does have an African name...
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
I had no idea of all of that...and can't really say I know what you just said, either!


He's referring to Lucy's stage of human development. Lucy was found by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray on the 30th of November, 1974 at the site of Hadar in Ethiopia. She was a hominid and is dated to just less than 3.18 million years old. Therefore, one cannot expect for her to be fully human. But we know that she was a hominid and hominidae encompasses all species originating AFTER the human/African ape ancestral split, leading to and including all species of Australopithecus and Homo. Plainly stated, she walked upright and she was not an ape. Lucy got her name after the two men, who discovered her, celebrated their discovery of what looked like a fairly complete hominid skeleton. Later on that night, while they were drinking, dancing, and singing, the Beatles' song "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" was playing over and over. At some point during that night, ­no one remembers when or by whom ­the skeleton was given the name "Lucy," but the name has stuck. And Vox is right, her stage of development has little bearing on the men's discovery, the fact is the oldest being who has at least some resemblance to a fullly evolved human being was found not in Anartica, not in the Americas, not Europe, not Asia, not Australia, not on any other continent but Africa. That's where she was found.
Last edited {1}
Well, thanks for the history lesson, Rowe!! It was very interesting and informative. One learns something new everyday! Smile

As to you question below:
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
People really need get pass this "thing" that if something interests whites and/or has been discovered by whites that it cannot be trusted. Its a little ridiculous, to say the very least, especially when you express doubts about something that you admit knowing nothing about.


If you think I'm going to get "past" the point where I believe everything a White person says or discovers is automatic fact just because he/she says it, I can tell you it's never going to happen!! Eek Unless my mind blows a fuse and things like Tuskeegee, being called 1/6th of a human being, or that Christopher Columbus discovered America, or that black people can't learn are wiped out of my memory banks, being "suspect" (which was the word I used) is always going to happen! Eek

You can take what they (or anybody) says hook, line and sinker if you want to ... but, I would suggest that if you hadn't unlearned some of the things that "they" taught you early on in your schooling, you wouldn't be able to intelligently tell me many of the things I learn from you today! Eek Smile
One does not determine the credibility of someone's work on the basis of their race. This is not how intelligent people would gather information. We gather information from those persons who specialize in a particular field and more importantly have invested much time and effort gaining experience in that field. For instance, I would not go to a mechanic in order to have my home decorated. I would go to an interior designer, someone who specializes in home structure and design. Therefore, just as you would want people, irregardless of your race, to respect the expertise and exprience that you have amassed in your particular field, so you must respect the expertise of others.
Last edited {1}
Understood, Rowe ...

But, would you go to an interior designer who you have known in the past or by reputation to be a liar or a thief or who in inclined towards dishonesty?

Respecting one's expertise and knowledge is a whole other thing from respecting one's integrity. And every race of man comes with each. Those with a reason to lie are more suspect that those that don't. Regardless or race, creed or color.

An archeologist, White, Black or otherwise, would have no reason to lie to me ... or to the world for that matter. But a White person offering his prolific version of history ... well, that's another matter, isn't it? Confused

Intelligent people alsogather their information by knowing when and where to make that difference.
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
But a White person offering his prolific version of history ... well, that's another matter, isn't it?


What the hell would a white person have to gain by announcing to the world that all of humanity started in Africa? Nothing but a stern request for him to cancel his white race membership. Not only have courageous whites embraced this discovery, but the world's most prominent black historians, including the late Cheikh Anta Diop, whose classic work African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality heavily relies upon, supported this discovery. However, you are right in that each of us has to do our own research and find or own path to truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
What the hell would a white person have to gain by announcing to the world that all of humanity started in Africa?


My answer to that was actually the first sentence of that same paragraph you which you seemed to have missed quoting. I said:
quote:
An archeologist, White, Black or otherwise, would have no reason to lie to me ... or to the world for that matter.

In other words, I have no problem believing the story of "Lucy."

However, tell me, Rowe ... do you believe that Christopher Columbus discovered America?? Confused Surely you were told that by a White teacher/textbook during your childhood like the rest of us? As a matter of fact, the story is still being perpetuated in schoolhouses today! Eek So tell me, it that something I should believe because it was told to me by some White person with credentials? More importantly, is that something YOU believe for that reason?? Confused
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
However, tell me, Rowe ... do you believe that Christopher Columbus discovered America? Surely you were told that by a White teacher/textbook during your childhood like the rest of us? As a matter of fact, the story is still being perpetuated in schoolhouses today!


Do you think African Americans, particularly African American adults, are not intelligent enough to differentiate between information that serves the racist interest of white people and information that speaks the truth about the origin of humanity, especially one that would points toward Africa? What's more, its silly to dismiss the work of all white scholars based on the racist works of some. I'm sure you've read the classic work The Iceman Inheritance: Prehistoric Sources of Western Man's Racism, Sexism and Aggression by Michael Bradley (1991). Did you know the author of this book, on which many Afrocentrists rely, is white? And there are many other works similar to this one that have been written by white authors who were courageous enough to tell the truth about their own history and patterns of behavior. The following is a brief excerpt taken from the Introduction of Bradley's classic book, The Iceman Inheritance.

This book is racist. For, among other things, I will attempt to show that racism itself is a predisposition of but one race of Mankind-the white race. I believe that I can show that our converging contemporary crises, like racism itself, have their origins in the prehistory of the white race alone. We attribute various threats to our survival to 'Man's folly'...but this is a conscious and self-protecting euphemism. Nuclear war, environmental pollution, resource rape...all are primary threats to our survival and all are the result of peculiarly Caucsoid behaviour, Caucasoid values, Caucasoid psychology. There is no way to avoid the truth. The problem with the world is white men.

All of this was written by a white man. Would you not read what he has to say about his own race's behavior simply because he is white? Apart of being an ardent reader and scholar is learning how to differentiate between biased research and objective research. We do not conduct research by only reading the work of those who belong to our race and discriminating against all others. That would be ridiculous. More importantly, you wouldn't learn much of anything and you would not benefit from absorbing a wide range of different perspectives.
Last edited {1}
The idea that microbes evolved into Men (eventually) is extremely flawed. New information would be required at each stage of "evolution" from unicellular to multicellular organisms and making great leaps and bounds through genus, class, order, and phylum. There is no practical explanation for how this new information came about. Mutations are a corruption of existing information, not creation of new information.

Adam and Eve are not a myth. They were real people and were neither "black" nor "white." They were heterozygous for all possible traits (dominant and recessive)--not including some mutational developments later on, such as the dominant gene for polydactyly (which again is a corruption of an existing gene, not a new gene in and of itself). "Black" and "White" are merely two extremes of melanin production and nothing more. Any other traits attributable are the result of genetic drift and isolation. Different ethnic groups of humans are not significantly different; they can all interbreed.

Do I need to draw you a Punnett square to show how all the different traits could sort themselves out in Adam and Eve's multitude of offspring?
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
Adam and Eve are not a myth.


And they must have had indestructable pen and ink and paper or stone back then to write down that they were the first here...amazing.

quote:
They were real people and were neither "black" nor "white."


Thanks for finally letting us know you to be the deceiver you are...Africa is the origin of all of humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
quote:
Originally posted by shebakoby:
Adam and Eve are not a myth.


And they must have had indestructable pen and ink and paper or stone back then to write down that they were the first here...amazing.


They DID write down that they were first here. It's called Genesis. Moses compiled a lot of it but Adam was the original writer of events up until his death (and Noah took over until he died). Moses had the original tablet; this is evidenced by the wording of Genesis itself. A phenomenon called "Colophones" bears this out. For instance, Babylonian tablets often contained subject matter which was too long to fit on just one tablet. In order for a reader to find the next page, the last few words of the last tablet were written at the beginning of the next one. "These are the generations of..." occured 11 times in Genesis, and at precisely where they would have been expected to appear if the material they contained had been transcribed from a typical clay tablet--much like the ones excavated in Babylon.

It is of particular relevance that the Sun and the Moon are not given names. In the Babylonian tradition, the sun was sammas, the Sun god, and the moon was sin, the Moon goddess. Yet in Genesis no names are used for either sun or moon. The reason for this must be that this account of creation was written BEFORE any names had been given to the sun and the moon.

Another phenomenon of Genesis, and indeed of the entire Bible, is the phenomenon of the number 37 occurring (along with other theomatic numbers, such as 7) in great regularity. This means that the mathematical value of a word or phrase is divisible by 37. These particularly occur in phrases that speak of God, the Image of God, and Jesus. Hebrew has no secondary number system; each alphabet letter is also a numerical value. This is also the case with Greek. Incidentally, this theomatic number phenomenon also occurs in the Greek NT texts. This was discovered by an agnostic named Ivan Panin.

18 sample verses where this is the case were shown in a book called "A Scientific Approach To Biblical Mysteries" by Robert W. Faid. The probability of just those 18 instances of multiples of the number 37 has been calculated to 1 in 30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chances of it happening by chance.

This is not a natural function of these alphabets, in that non-scriptural writings in these languages do not bring forth these patterns.

quote:
They were real people and were neither "black" nor "white."


Thanks for finally letting us know you to be the deceiver you are...Africa is the origin of all of humanity.[/QUOTE]

I find it hilarious that you are seeming to rely on the theory of Evolution to back up your claim. Africa is not the absolute origin of all humanity. The face of the earth was rearranged by the Great Flood, therefore identification with any modern land mass in any meaningful way is impossible. That which we call "Africa" wasn't "Africa" back then. Nor were its peoples necessarily all "African"--this designation is a modern construct based on people that survived the Flood. Most people that died in the Flood are what scientists would refer to as "genetic bottlenecks", that is, they did not leave any descendants. Therefore, finding a fossil or two in Africa and claiming this means anything as to the origin of mankind is extremely misleading.

What do the traditional African religions say about the origin of Mankind? (I know what they say, I want to hear it from YOU.) Do you believe that they coincide with the theory of Evolution? And if they don't, why are you relying on the idea that Evolution is true?

It is also genetically improbable that a particular modern construct ("African") is the origin of all humanity. If this indeed were the case, then Africa would not have been populated by exclusively "black" or otherwise "African"-featured people. Heterozygousity is the key here. Learn genetics.
The Hue-man race originated in Africa.

The Adam/Eve/Serpent story is a myth.

quote:
EbonyRose--there were "people" here before Adam and Eve, right?


--Yes, if you use logic and dissect the conflicting statement made by Cain--Genesis 4:15/Darby Version/Revised Standard Version/King James Version....whew bang

Fine
Last edited {1}
I think Adam and Eve were an allegory. I don't think Adam and Eve were meant to be taken as literal flesh and blood human beings.

I like the Christian mystic/Kabbalah theory on the Adam/Eve story. In their theory, Adam and Eve were the figurative terms for Mankind's original nature undivided with "God". Adam and Eve were a tranpersonal God called "Adam/Eve Kadmon" and were involved in the creation of the universe. Eventually, their nature changed and they took on physical form (the "Fall of Man").

Adam and Eve are an allegory of the metaphysical descent of pure consciosuness into physical form in Human Evolution.
Hadn't hear the term Lucy or Ricky before. Sounds like a comedy back in the day. Big Grin

1. Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden. God created mankind to teach the angels that rebellion is wrong. The Holy Bible teaches us 1/3 of the angels rebeled to follow Lucifer (renamed Satan). God didn't destroyed the fallen angels (demons) because no one would have learned anything. This way, the angels learn about him, and we do too. God is multi-tasking!

Adam and Eve did not know they were naked until they disobeyed God. She was cursed with pain at childbirth.

2. After the earth became populated, mankind decided to built a tower to heaven (Babel). God confused their language. People then went and lived in different parts of the earth. The climate and food bought about skin/hair changes. I can imagine people walking around trying to find someone who spoke the same language.

Its awesome to see how God manages things.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Destiny:
One Question,
How could God create the universe when he ain't got no mystic power!


johnny Im gonna get me a switch if you don't stop this mess! Mad
divinejoy,

"Lucy and Ricky" in fact were a comedy. They were Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez playing Lucy and Ricky Ricardo on "I Love Lucy" in the 1950s. It had some hilarious moments. There are DVDs of it out, if you're interested. One of the young ladies in our church is a committed fan of recordings of the show.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×