Was there anyone before Adam & Eve ?

[Beta]

Many people do, in fact, treat their animal companion as a child.

Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 195,000 years ago, and studies of molecular biology give evidence that the approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations was 200,000 years ago...

To be honest one can not compare a pet (even a loved one) to that of a child or other human being. If you do you are being 'abnormal'.

Secondly I am not disputing 'early' life-forms.
What we have to consider are persons like ourselves with whom one can consciously communicate in order to make sense . According to the Bible Adam and Eve were the first such people. Though other life-forms and creatures existed before them sensible mental communication would have been unlikely. A & E can give us 'feed-back' and speak in our own language .
I am not talking about scientists or deep research which is beyond the understanding of most common people (of which I am one). God clearly says he is starting with 'unlearned' people who lack certain mental abilities - so THEY are not left out of his plan and purpose for mankind. He just requires our faith in him and not inellect.

 

[AxisMundi]

The story of Adam and Eve can just be used to reference an inherent nature about humanity to be drawn to things they really shouldn't be and how that can get one in trouble. That, in many cases, it is for one's own good to actually do what is expected and resist temptation. And that not to do so brings consequences that there is no talking oneself out of. Mankind's natural propensity to do things beyond the scope of "acceptable" or "allowed" because we like to push the envelope can be our downfall. So, while the words "original sin" might not exactly be correct, the message is the same. That is what allegory does. It relays a message, a meaning, within a fictional story. One thing stands for and communicates another. One can do the same with the myth of Jesus as well. This doesn't mean that "Christianity falls apart", but that the literalness of it is not necessary and if they look at the deeper meaning behind something they can find something just as profound, if not moreso than taking it literally.

Sorry, but your comments don't change mine in the least.

 

[AxisMundi]

To be honest one can not compare a pet (even a loved one) to that of a child or other human being. If you do you are being 'abnormal'.

Secondly I am not disputing 'early' life-forms.
What we have to consider are persons like ourselves with whom one can consciously communicate in order to make sense . According to the Bible Adam and Eve were the first such people. Though other life-forms and creatures existed before them sensible mental communication would have been unlikely. A & E can give us 'feed-back' and speak in our own language .
I am not talking about scientists or deep research which is beyond the understanding of most common people (of which I am one). God clearly says he is starting with 'unlearned' people who lack certain mental abilities - so THEY are not left out of his plan and purpose for mankind. He just requires our faith in him and not inellect.

1. Tell that to any onwer walking a dog wearing a sweater.

2. Nedrethal's had language as well. You make the common mistake of selling our early ancestors short.

 

[Beta]

1. Tell that to any onwer walking a dog wearing a sweater.

2. Nedrethal's had language as well. You make the common mistake of selling our early ancestors short.

1) You seem to be blinkered to the difference of man and animal.
2) Could I have talked to them in my own language ??? After all that is what ' sensible communication ' comes down to. What good are 'grunts and signs' or a foreign language when one wants to discuss an important issue ,for inst ?

 

[Madhuri]

2. Nedrethal's had language as well. You make the common mistake of selling our early ancestors short.

So do most animals but we know what beta means and arguing like this is a waste of time.

 

[AxisMundi]

1) You seem to be blinkered to the difference of man and animal.
2) Could I have talked to them in my own language ??? After all that is what ' sensible communication ' comes down to. What good are 'grunts and signs' or a foreign language when one wants to discuss an important issue ,for inst ?

1. Man is part of the animal kingdom.

2. They would've been quite capable of learning other languages. Like modern Human Beings, the Neandrethal had the proper equipment in the throat for language, and a cranium with 30% more capacity than ours. They also buried their dead and cared for the disabled and elderly.

Again, you sell early humans short to support your views.

 

[AxisMundi]

So do most animals but we know what beta means and arguing like this is a waste of time.

They were capable of SPOKEN language, thank you.

 

[Madhuri]

They were capable of SPOKEN language, thank you.

Then perhaps a person who believes in both evolution and the Christian religion could argue that Adam and Eve were of this earlier origin. However, is this really important to the discussion? Is it relevant to the OP?

 

[joea]

I'm sorry but Beta clearly is.

Why not drop the EGO....lets concentrate on my thread question...

 

[arimoff]

Right back at you...what you think it means is totally up to you. Doesn't mean you are right though. Because...it certainly CAN mean something other than that. Just because you don't want to see it that way doesn't make it any less true. It CANNOT be a historical fact as it DOES NOT agree with REALITY. If you don't live within reality then I guess it means anything you want it to mean to you.

Lets not talk about reality or how truthful someones believes are, you can open another thread for that, but what concerns Genesis there is no right or wrong here, the book is claiming to be stating a historical fact, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to but there is no way you can tell me that this book means something else, just like I have told you before.

The book clearly states that in the beginning of creation G-D created such and such, how can you tell me it can mean anything else?

 

[Draka]

Lets not talk about reality or how truthful someones believes are, you can open another thread for that, but what concerns Genesis there is no right or wrong here, the book is claiming to be stating a historical fact, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to but there is no way you can tell me that this book means something else, just like I have told you before.

The book clearly states that in the beginning of creation G-D created such and such, how can you tell me it can mean anything else?

Because we KNOW that the beginning of the Earth didn't happen that way...so it HAS to mean something else. Does no one else here really know what "allegory" means at all? :sarcastic

note: Oh, and I can write a book which claims it is historical fact...doesn't mean it is.

 

[A-ManESL]

Greetings!



IOV, many!

We see Adam not as the first man ever, but as the first Divine Messenger of what we call the Prophetic Era (which ended about a century and a half ago).

And Eve is a metaphor, as explained in our scriptures.

Best regards,

Bruce

I am curious Bruce. What is Eve a metaphor for accroding to the Baha'i faith? Regards.

 

[AxisMundi]

Then perhaps a person who believes in both evolution and the Christian religion could argue that Adam and Eve were of this earlier origin. However, is this really important to the discussion? Is it relevant to the OP?

There is still the Minimal Population Viability concern to think of, something that also helps negate any truth to the WWF myth BTW.

Two people would equal one extinct race within generations.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Originally Posted by arimoff
Lets not talk about reality or how truthful someones believes are, you can open another thread for that, but what concerns Genesis there is no right or wrong here, the book is claiming to be stating a historical fact, you don't have to believe it if you don't want to but there is no way you can tell me that this book means something else, just like I have told you before.

The book clearly states that in the beginning of creation G-D created such and such, how can you tell me it can mean anything else?

....................

Well I never..a literalist Jew

Adam and eve as historical fact....

talking serpents
women produced from rib cages aside

What a "great" history it is....

...................

As has been rehashed many times at this forum..the story of Eden can be seen in many ways,

quick examples:

as symbolic of non duality and dualities' struggle, of a perfect state of being (that some forms of mystical endevor seeks to enter)

oh and some history....

 

[Mr Cheese]

Because we KNOW that the beginning of the Earth didn't happen that way...so it HAS to mean something else. Does no one else here really know what "allegory" means at all? :sarcastic

note: Oh, and I can write a book which claims it is historical fact...doesn't mean it is.

does an allegory invovle sock puppets?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Honestly..I do not know, thus the question. I heard there is a particular tribe in Africa where there blood line does not go back to Adam & Eve.....

they go back to roy and steve?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Firstly, your scripture claims no.

Secondly, there is the matter of Minimal Population Viability. ANY animal, including Human Beings, will die out within generations if there are less than a certain number of mating couples. This number is usually around 50.

Yet homosapiens can pretty much all be traced back to less than 10 females....

accordign to science

 

[arimoff]

Because we KNOW that the beginning of the Earth didn't happen that way...so it HAS to mean something else. Does no one else here really know what "allegory" means at all? :sarcastic

note: Oh, and I can write a book which claims it is historical fact...doesn't mean it is.

You should really read my posts again, you don't seem to understand them, it doesn't matter what we know, we are talking about a book witch claims such and such, if it is different from what we think we know it doesn't mean we have to change the meaning of that book.

Go ahead write a book and claim historical facts the way you see them but it doesn't mean if I view history different then your book then your book means something else. I have the right to challenge your book but I don't have the right to say you meant something else.

It is really not hard to understand what I'm trying to say.

 

[Mr Cheese]

According to Genesis they were the first people on Earth.
Everybody is Entitled to their own opinion but what concerns Genesis, it is speaking about the first few humans on earth. So it is not possible to say that Genesis means something else.

um yes it is...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Then Adam and Eve are allegory, which means original sin is merely allagory, which means that there was no need for "god to sacrifice his son" and the entire Jesus fable is allegory, at which time the entirety of Christianity falls apart as there is absolutely no need to be "saved" as there was no original sin.

Or perhaps your understanding is horribly limited, at best....