Adam Was A Primate.

[dduckwessel]

I was intentionally making a mountain out of a molehill. My last post explains.

 

 

This is my very problem - you're not taking it seriously!

 

 

You are translating according to typical scholarly methods which have the appearance of intelligence but only create confusion of interpretation.

 

 

I may decide 'not' to enlighten you as I'm not certain you are worthy. You have much knowledge but knowledge 'by itself' puffs up, whereas knowledge (with love) edifies.

[pamela]

This is my very problem - you're not taking it seriously!

 

 

You are translating according to typical scholarly methods which have the appearance of intelligence but only create confusion of interpretation.

 

 

I may decide 'not' to enlighten you as I'm not certain you are worthy. You have much knowledge but knowledge 'by itself' puffs up, whereas knowledge (with love) edifies.

and you love,have suggested more than a few scriptural inuendos with this post.I think it wise to convey your own interpretations, but to claim enlightenment would suggest that you sir, are indeed displaying pride. Please elaborate whether you deem us worthy or not, for love is patient and kind. :love:

[pamela]

Isn't it more likely it's speaking of 'Neanderthal' as being hunter/gatherer?

 

Adam had three states: first primate, Neanderthal, Homo-Sapien - at different times of course.

are you saying that you find this in the Bible? please lend the scriptures you base that upon. I had a discussion once with a gentleman who believed that first there were Neanderthals and then once God breathed life into one, he became Adam. The breath was believed to be the spirit or soul have you, which separated him from being only an animal. Are you of this same thought?

[dduckwessel]

and you love,have suggested more than a few scriptural inuendos with this post.I think it wise to convey your own interpretations, but to claim enlightenment would suggest that you sir, are indeed displaying pride. Please elaborate whether you deem us worthy or not, for love is patient and kind. :love:

 

 

My remarks were directed to 'modest' in response to something 'he' said.

[dduckwessel]

are you saying that you find this in the Bible? please lend the scriptures you base that upon. I had a discussion once with a gentleman who believed that first there were Neanderthals and then once God breathed life into one, he became Adam. The breath was believed to be the spirit or soul have you, which separated him from being only an animal. Are you of this same thought?

 

Yes this is in the Bible, but it's not readily noticeable.

 

The translation of 'soul' in Gen. 2:7 is 'the animal sentiment principle only' = in its initial state, man was only an animal - devoid of a higher consciouness.

 

Logically then, the only animal Adam could have been was a primate (we have remnants of a tail bone and 97% Chimpanzee DNA)

[modest]

Not quite exactly, they are thought to share a common root which means red(dish), or ruddy as Duck says.

 

Ahhh! Quite right you are. Excellent reply.

 

I did a google book search and most all the hits agree with the reddish root, but I also liked this quote for its honesty in uncertainty,

 

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=zD6xVr1CizIC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%22the+etymology+of+the+word+is+not+certain.%22+%22A+Dictionary+of+biblical+tradition%22&source=bl&ots=03IQmJPz1k&sig=ldJX4MiHnyd5F6IFbY3_KBVBbys&hl=en&ei=3ZlNTaCnHcnUgQeOrOQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

:)

 

I would be a bit cautious of leaping to hasty conclusions. It wasn't easy to find the full etymus of these Latin words and, sure enough, one needs to trace homo back as far as Sanskrit to find the nexus and it doesn't involve colour: bhu for be, generate, grow, bhuman for creature and bhūmi for earth, with the 'b' getting dropped by Latin. These roots do not seem to have much in common with the two Hebrew words (and the same for the Lithuanian zèmè and zmu) but, yes:No doubt, ancient peoples were aware that we are what we eat and it all comes, in the end, through plants and hence from the ground.

 

Excellent reply

 

Etymus can be interesting and even helpful, but it isn't the only criterion and also may be very tricky; pitfalls abound.

 

No doubt.

 

The Greeks smartly distinguished between etymology (the origin of a word) and semantics (what the word represents). Growing up in a very fundamentalist church, I saw etymology and morphology stretched to an unnatural extreme.

 

I remember once when I tried looking up Ζευς (Zeus), Θεός (theos) and deus... you think it ought to be that simple? :doh: It is also very interesting to read what Gesenius says about The Name [with remarks by the curator(s) of that site]. All on the fringes of sacrilege, get a load of it!

 

I like the notes added by the editor in brackets :hihi:

 

~modest

[dduckwessel]

Interestingly, modern genetics traces modern man back to to just one original woman and man.

 

Actually, everyone came from 'one' primate (it) as initially man was 'asexual'.

 

If the woman came 'from' man, it's because 'it gave birth to her (bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh)'.

 

After the woman's birth, man is called 'Adam' in the strictly 'male' sense.

[modest]

Yes this is in the Bible, but it's not readily noticeable.

 

The translation of 'soul' in Gen. 2:7 is 'the animal sentiment principle only' = in its initial state, man was only an animal - devoid of a higher consciouness.

 

Is there a different word, besides used in Gen. 2.7, that means 'human soul'? Can you please point it out?

 

If "nephesh" means 'animal soul' then why is it so often attributed to people in the bible?

 

When Gen. says that God made us in his image, I don't believe the author intended that to be taken as anything other than the human figure.

 

Which Hebrew word exactly do you think is inappropriate as referring to the human soul and which word exactly would be appropriate in referring to the human soul?

 

~modest

[Qfwfq]

I suspect Duck you might be perhaps thinking of the Latin anima (declinated as animam in that verse). There is a nexus, sure, but it means that we too are animals (and primates for that).

 

Actually, everyone came from 'one' primate (it) as initially man was 'asexual'.

I don't get where it says this about him being asexual. Neither have I heard of asexual primate species. Unless you mean she was made at his puberty, or something like that, or you're calling abstinence asexuality. I don't get it. :rolleyes:

 

If the woman came 'from' man, it's because 'it gave birth to her (bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh)'.

Uhm, but that's because of the rib.

 

After the woman's birth, man is called 'Adam' in the strictly 'male' sense.

Actually, much after that, because it isn't until translations. :doh: :hihi: Even in these however, the switch to naming him Adam occurs already in verse 19 but the rib and wife are in 21 and 22.

[CraigD]

A reality check on the thread’s strange evolutionary biology claims

You never can tell where these strange claim threads will go! ;)

 

This one’s gone theological (even so far as a word-for-word translation of the original Hebrew Torah), with a bit of paleoanthropology thrown in. Fun stuff, but I think we need to do a reality check on the thread’s strange evolutionary biology claims.

 

Evolution teaches that life began in the primordial soup (hot mud)!

This is a common misperception.

 

Biological evolution is the change of inherited traits between generations of biological organism. Scientific theories explaining it, such as evolution by natural selection, don’t address abiogenesis, the beginning of life in an environment containing only non-living things. A theory of abiogenesis is different from a theory of evolution. They explain different kinds of natural phenomena.

 

We have 97% Chimpanzee DNA.

... and, commutatively, you might with equal validity say chimpanzees have 97% human DNA.

 

However, either statement risks implying that one of these presently living species descended from another. Best evidence and explanation – and, via microbiological techniques developed in the last few decades, best evidence is impressively strong – indicate that most modern plants and animals, including great apes (humans and chimps are both members of this family) descended from common ancestors. Chimps did not descend from ancient humans, nor humans from ancient chimps. Rather, both descended from a long-extinct common ancestor species 5 to 7 million years ago (though there’s much uncertainty about this age, some estimating it as great as 13 million years).

 

There can only be one explanation - the animal/mammal 'ruddy' was a monkey.

Humans didn’t descend from monkeys, any more than presently living monkeys descended from humans, or either species descended from present day cats or dogs.

 

Adam was a primate

Humans are primates. So, if an animal named Adam is human, he is also a primate.

 

Interestingly, modern genetics traces modern man back to to just one original woman and man.

You need to be careful how you parse this statement for it to be scientifically accurate!

 

Modern genetics – specifically, the genetics of our mitochondria – strongly suggests that every human living today is the descendent of a single woman (“mitochondrial Eve”) who lived about 200,000 years ago. It also strongly suggests that we’re all descended from a single man (“Y-chromosomal Adam”) who lived about 75,000 years ago.

 

Obviously, however, m-Eve and Y-Adam didn’t have children together, so we’re not all descended from “one woman and one man.”

 

Also, neither m-Eve nor Y-Adam were the first or “original” woman or man. Both had human parents, and human neighbors.

 

Also, everyone who ever lived after m-Eve wasn’t her descendent, nor everyone who lived after Y-Adam his. What appears to have occurred is that all people not related to either of them eventually had no children, leaving only their descendents.

 

In short, m-Eve and Y-Adam weren’t special or unique, but artifacts of the uncertain outcome of thousands of generations of human reproduction. The statistics of human reproduction – some people having many children, some few, and most importantly, some none – lead to an entire population having a single most recent common mitochondrial ancestor, and a single MRCY-chromosomalA.

[dduckwessel]

Is there a different word, besides used in Gen. 2.7, that means 'human soul'? Can you please point it out?

 

If "nephesh" means 'animal soul' then why is it so often attributed to people in the bible?

 

When Gen. says that God made us in his image, I don't believe the author intended that to be taken as anything other than the human figure.

 

Which Hebrew word exactly do you think is inappropriate as referring to the human soul and which word exactly would be appropriate in referring to the human soul?

 

~modest

 

There's no other word, nephesh (Hebrew/psuche = Greek), is the word for soul (a 'breathing' creature, Gen. 2:7). It's attributed to people because we have a 'body (soul/animal)'. There's a distinction because people are different from the other animals because only Adam got 'God's image (ruwach)' in addition to his soul. Most definitely 'God's image' means so much more than 'human'.

[modest]

There's no other word, nephesh (Hebrew/psuche = Greek), is the word for soul (a 'breathing' creature, Gen. 2:7). It's attributed to people because we have a 'body (soul/animal)'. There's a distinction because people are different from the other animals because only Adam got 'God's image (ruwach)' in addition to his soul. Most definitely 'God's image' means so much more than 'human'.

 

You are making no sense to me. What is it about Gen.2.7 that implies Adam was made to look like a monkey?

 

~modest

[dduckwessel]

 

... and, commutatively, you might with equal validity say chimpanzees have 97% human DNA.

 

However, either statement risks implying that one of these presently living species descended from another.

 

we have the remnants of a 'tail' - where on earth do you suppose that came from?

 

Best evidence and explanation – and, via microbiological techniques developed in the last few decades, best evidence is impressively strong – indicate that most modern plants and animals, including great apes (humans and chimps are both members of this family) descended from common ancestors. Chimps did not descend from ancient humans, nor humans from ancient chimps. Rather, both descended from a long-extinct common ancestor species 5 to 7 million years ago (though there’s much uncertainty about this age, some estimating it as great as 13 million years).

 

did I miss something!! since when is evolution-science disregarding our monkey beginnings?

 

 

Humans didn’t descend from monkeys, any more than presently living monkeys descended from humans, or either species descended from present day cats or dogs.

 

dogs and cats are considerably different from monkeys (yes there is common DNA among all life forms but less so among dogs, cats and monkeys). Ever watch little kids on the monkey bars at a playground - I dare you to tell me we are not descended from monkeys! We have even perfectly retained the 'monkey swing' (hand over hand, slight turn of body).

 

 

Humans are primates. So, if an animal named Adam is human, he is also a primate.

 

this is what I've been saying all along

 

Modern genetics – specifically, the genetics of our mitochondria – strongly suggests that every human living today is the descendent of a single woman (“mitochondrial Eve”) who lived about 200,000 years ago. It also strongly suggests that we’re all descended from a single man (“Y-chromosomal Adam”) who lived about 75,000 years ago.

 

Obviously, however, m-Eve and Y-Adam didn’t have children together, so we’re not all descended from “one woman and one man.”

 

Actualy m-Eve and y-Adam did have children together - homo-sapien.

 

Also, neither m-Eve nor Y-Adam were the first or “original” woman or man. Both had human parents, and human neighbors.

 

according to my studies, man was the first, original - it gave birth to the woman (m-Eve). Adam had three states, the first man (soul/animal), second state Neaderthal (in which state it gave birth to a female), and homo-sapien.

 

Also, everyone who ever lived after m-Eve wasn’t her descendent, nor everyone who lived after Y-Adam his. What appears to have occurred is that all people not related to either of them eventually had no children, leaving only their descendents.

 

m-Eve was the mother of 'all' because she was the first female (the mould from which everything else came), including Neanderthal and Homo-sapien.

 

In short, m-Eve and Y-Adam weren’t special or unique, but artifacts of the uncertain outcome of thousands of generations of human reproduction. The statistics of human reproduction – some people having many children, some few, and most importantly, some none – lead to an entire population having a single most recent common mitochondrial ancestor, and a single MRCY-chromosomalA.

 

it all had to begin somewhere!

[modest]

we have the remnants of a 'tail' - where on earth do you suppose that came from?

 

 

did I miss something!! since when is evolution-science disregarding our monkey beginnings?

 

"Evolution-science" does not claim, and has never claimed, that our tailbone (or any other part of our anatomy) is the remnant of a modern monkey.

 

To help you understand the most basic concepts of evolution, here is a post I wrote a couple days ago:

 

Some basics as far as genetics and evolution goes... Anatomically modern humans like us have been on earth no more than 200 thousand years. Our ancestors, before that time, start to look somewhat different from modern humans. They were more chimpanzee-like.

 

About 600 thousand years ago your ancestors looked like this: Homo heidelbergensis. By three million years ago our ancestors looked like this: Australopithecus afarensis. Before 15 million years ago our ancestors were not yet great apes.

 

Our ancestors looked more like this, Aegyptopithecus, around 20 million years ago, and looked somewhat like ground moles when the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.

 

Going further back in time, humans are the descendants of reptile-like animals at around 250 million years ago and amphibians at around 350 million years ago. Before that, our ancestors were fish and lived in water.

 

That should give an ok picture of how evolution works. You can think of it in terms like this: You and your first cousin (if you have one) share a common grandparent two generations ago. You and your second cousin share a common great grandparent three generations ago. Dogs and wolves share a common ancestor a few thousand generations ago (about 15,000 years ago I think). You and a mouse are both descended from the same animal (ie you share a common ancestor) that lived on earth 100 million years ago.

 

All life on earth is descended from early forms of bacteria billions of years ago.

 

If you want to interpret the bible in an evolution-friendly way then you'll need to find out what evolution is.

 

~modest

[dduckwessel]

"Evolution-science" does not claim, and has never claimed, that our tailbone (or any other part of our anatomy) is the remnant of a modern monkey.

 

You're right I did say Chimpanzee but that's hardly my fault as I've heard the same thing quoted in many evolution-science circles. I did not however, say 'modern' monkey - I simply said that 'man' must have been a monkey. As to what kind of early monkey it was is anybody's guess.

 

 

To help you understand the most basic concepts of evolution, here is a post I wrote a couple days ago:

 

 

 

If you want to interpret the bible in an evolution-friendly way then you'll need to find out what evolution is.

 

~modest

 

 

I don't believe what I have said conflicts at all with more-recent ideas of evolution (which have changed somewhat based on Genome sequencing).

 

I was making the 'Biblical' point that 'man' in the initial state was a 'soul/animal'. Therefore I concluded that 'man' (in the first state) was a monkey of some kind (because we have the remnants of a tailbone and our behaviour closely resembles monkeys). Then I concluded, based on the fact that the woman came 'from' man, that this monkey must have been an 'it (I should have said 'dual-sexed' instead of asexual)'.

 

At the time the woman came from the man, it/man had not been on the earth but somewhere else where it had got God's image. It apparently left that place to give birth to the female, at which point I assumed it must have been Neanderthal (or near Neanderthal), because the garden caused 'changes' to occur to it. Then based on the fact that Neanderthals were around at the same time as Homo-sapien, I deduced that before returning once more to the garden, Adam and his female mated and left Neanderthal children on the earth.

 

Adam and his female returned to the garden for who knows how long but were reintroduced on the earth (who knows how much later) as Homo-erectus or Homo-sapien as the Bible says they were clothed with 'skin' at this time.

 

Thus I concluded from all this that man had three states at different times: animal - Neanderthal (or somewhat like it) - Homo-erectus or sapien.

 

I realize of course it's not the usual interpretation, but I have based this on 20 years of study by a method I call The Bebaiow Principle and it had never let me down.

 

You cannot explain why people are different from the other animals and I'm telling you it's because this 'one' animal got something the others didn't and passed it on.

[modest]

I'm sorry, Duckwessel.

 

I'm not sure there's anything I could say that would help.

 

~modest

[coldcreation]

You cannot explain why people are different from the other animals and I'm telling you it's because this 'one' animal got something the others didn't and passed it on.

 

All species of animals are different to some extent from other species (just as all species have similarities to varying degrees). They all 'got something' the others didn't and passed it on. Our specie is no different. Darwin explained it quite nicely, and others have elaborated on the mechanism since.

 

 

Don't take a shower for a week and you'll see that you are no different from our cousins at your local zoo.

 

 

CC