Jump to content
Science Forums

Adam Was A Primate.


Recommended Posts

I thought some of you might find this interesting.

 

 

Adam/man (ruddy) was created from the 'dust (powder, mortar, earth, mud)' of the 'ground (earth, mortar, powder, mud)' during a time when the earth was 'hot' (Gen. 2:4 - day = 'to be hot').

 

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

 

 

Adam/man = soul (Gen. 2:7) = the animal sentiment principle only.

 

If Adam was only an 'animal' - what animal was it?

 

We know we are mammal but where did we get that from?

 

We have 97% Chimpanzee DNA.

 

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

 

As to when and how ruddy gained a 'higher consciousness', which enabled it to change is in Gen. 2:8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I guess we know now why Adam was embarrassed when God saw him naked :o   ~modest :hihi:

I thought some of you might find this interesting.     Adam/man (ruddy) was created from the 'dust (powder, mortar, earth, mud)' of the 'ground (earth, mortar, powder, mud)' during a time when the ear

this mythical creature is known as a manticore.  

If Adam was only an 'animal' - what animal was it?

 

We know we are mammal but where did we get that from?

 

We have 97% Chimpanzee DNA.

 

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

 

Actually, primitive man, before the inclusion of the soul, were hunters and gatherers. The Greek "skorpios" comes from the root "skerpo/skopos" (to search and pierce—the action of a hunter) and the Hebrew "ariy" comes from the root "arah" (to pluck or take—the action of a gatherer).

 

As found in the bible, 'skorpios' means scorpion and 'ariy' means lion so Adam was most likely half scorpion half lion.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt things in those narratives were meant to be taken as allegory but I wouldn't say the author of that was thinking of evolution and it doesn't make sense to draw conclusions of scientific relevance. Who you need to talk to is scholars of biblical hermeneutics.

 

I have no faith in scholars of Biblical hermeneutics, they tend to think one way. A Jewish scholar, familiar with a midrash about this topic would be helpful though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I think I myself would have blushed a bit too! :hihi:

 

The Greek "skorpios" comes from the root "skerpo/skopos" (to search and pierce—the action of a hunter) and the Hebrew "ariy" comes from the root "arah" (to pluck or take—the action of a gatherer).

 

As found in the bible, 'skorpios' means scorpion and 'ariy' means lion so Adam was most likely half scorpion half lion.

Interesting, but do you have a ref to where the Bible associates these two words with man or Adam?

 

Isn't it more likely it's speaking of 'Neanderthal' as being hunter/gatherer?
Surely you're aware that our own species has been hunter-gatherer quite a bit. Apparently, agriculture spread from the middle east a mere 10 thousanf years ago and hasn't yet 100% replaced hunter-gathering ways of life.

 

I have no faith in scholars of Biblical hermeneutics, they tend to think one way. A Jewish scholar, familiar with a midrash about this topic would be helpful though.

I quite agree that the Hebrew/Jewish scholars are better for what was originally in Hebrew, but where did I exclude them? Note that midrash, exegesis and hermeneutics mean basically the same thing: interpretation.
Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL I think I myself would have blushed a bit too! :hihi:

 

The Greek "skorpios" comes from the root "skerpo/skopos" (to search and pierce—the action of a hunter) and the Hebrew "ariy" comes from the root "arah" (to pluck or take—the action of a gatherer).

 

As found in the bible, 'skorpios' means scorpion and 'ariy' means lion so Adam was most likely half scorpion half lion.

Interesting, but do you have a ref to where the Bible associates these two words with man or Adam?

 

You mean my logic that 'skerpo-arah' means 'hunter-gatherer' and that Adam was a hunter-gatherer doesn't imply that Adam was skorpio-ariy? :doh:

 

:) No, I was being intentionally convoluted and no doubt less funny than I tried to be. Certainly, I wouldn't mean to imply that the bible really could be seen as saying that Adam was a manticore, or a chimp or neanderthal.

 

It might be worth getting into, however...

 

The idea that Adam and Eve represented a hunter-gatherer way of life I got from a History Channel (or Discovery Channel, perhaps) documentary that I can't find exact reference to at the moment. The theory comes from archaeologist Juris Zarins,

 

To this southern Sumerian theory Dr. Juris Zarins, of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield... believes that the Garden of Eden lies presently under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and he further believes that the story of Adam and Eve in-and especially out-of the Garden is a highly condensed and evocative account of perhaps the greatest revolution that ever shook mankind: the shift from hunting-gathering to agriculture...

 

http://ldolphin.org/eden/

 

While Zarins' interpretation may be too specific (he claims that Genesis holds the clues as to where the garden is), I'm rather fond of the underlying interpretation. Likewise, in the epic of Gilgamesh,

 

In the beginning both Enkidu and the Edenic couple are in harmony with nature. They live naked among the trees and wildlife and have a naive innocence. However, that innocence is lost once they each participate in an act that puts them out of harmony with nature.[14] Once Enkidu has sex with Shamhat, the animals no longer respond to him as they did before. Shamhat proclaims that Enkidu has become "wise" and "like a god". She fashions clothing for him and introduces him to a human diet. In the final stage of his civilization, Enkidu journeys to the great city of Uruk where new pleasures and experiences await. Similarly, once Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, they fall out sync with nature. In contrast to the story of Enkidu, however, the Genesis tale presents this transition in a negative way. Rather than leaving the wild to become human and join civilized society, the couple from Eden experience tragic loss. The serpent's promise of wisdom and godlike status is misleading. Adam and Eve clothe themselves out of shame. The new food they eat is forbidden, resulting in divine punishment, and the new realm they enter is one of hardship and toil.

 

Wikipedia -- Epic of Gilgamesh

 

It would be very easy to interpret the story as the loss of innocence associated with the loss of a hunter-gatherer tribal lifestyle which is more in harmony with nature. Reminds me of ch. 80 of the tao talking about how simple things are a paradise when complicated things like writing and warfare are absent.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, primitive man, before the inclusion of the soul,

 

In Gen. 2:7, man is referred to strictly as a 'soul' = the animal principle only

 

...were hunters and gatherers. The Greek "skorpios" comes from the root "skerpo/skopos" (to search and pierce—the action of a hunter) and the Hebrew "ariy" comes from the root "arah" (to pluck or take—the action of a gatherer).

 

As found in the bible, 'skorpios' means scorpion and 'ariy' means lion so Adam was most likely half scorpion half lion.

 

 

Where does it use 'skorpios' and 'ariy' when referring to Adam/man?

Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean my logic that 'skerpo-arah' means 'hunter-gatherer' and that Adam was a hunter-gatherer doesn't imply that Adam was skorpio-ariy?
That's logical enough but I hadn't followed your logic! :hihi:

 

Main reasons I had failed to do so:

  1. I wondered why hunter-gatherers have no soul!
  2. I hadn't seen the discovery channel.
  3. If I had seen it, I would have found the conjecture matches up with my own hermeneutics of Gen:2... well, not quite exactly.

Indeed I already agreed with Juris Zarins that Adam symbolizes the first farmer, but not for having bit that damn friggin' apple! Instead, verses 5 (especially the end) and 15, along with a few milder cues, make it sound more like that Guy had created Adam for the very purpose of garden...er, farming and Eve to assist him. The forbidden fruit's a more subtle thing. Oddly enough, in the Hebrew text, Adam isn't his name! The Hebrew word אדם (adam) means man or mankind but, starting from verse 19, translations begin to use it as his name instead of as a noun... apparently a whim of the Greek scribe.

Edited by Qfwfq
slight revision
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Gen. 2:7, man is referred to strictly as a 'soul' = the animal principle only

 

Adam/man = soul (Gen. 2:7) = the animal sentiment principle only.

 

If Adam was only an 'animal' - what animal was it?

 

Duckwessel, I suspect you're making mountains out of molehills.

 

Here is the Hebrew with translation for Gen. 2:7...

 

וַיִּיצֶר — yatsar — (made)

יְהוָה — Yhovah — (the Lord)

אֱלֹהִים — elohiym — (God)

אֶת-הָאָדָם — adam — (the human)

עָפָר — aphar — ([of] the dust)

מִן — min — (of)

הָאֲדָמָה — adamah — (the ground)

וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו — naphach 'aph — (and breathed into his nostrils)

נִשְׁמַת — neshama — (the breath) or (the spirit)

חַיִּים — chai — (of life)

הָאָדָם — adam — ([and] human)

לְנֶפֶשׁ — nephesh — (souls)

חַיָּה — chai — ([became] alive)

 

Can you please tell me why and how this says "Adam was only an animal".

 

Where does it use 'skorpios' and 'ariy' when referring to Adam/man?

 

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

 

 

 

Instead, verses 5 (especially the end) and 15, along with a few milder cues, make it sound more like that Guy had created Adam for

the very purpose of garden...er

 

I can see that :agree:

 

Oddly enough, in the Hebrew text, Adam isn't his name! The Hebrew word אדם (adam) means man or mankind but, starting from verse 19, translations begin to use it as his name instead of as a noun... apparently a whim of the Greek scribe.

 

Agreed. It is interesting also that not only in Hebrew, but in Latin, the word for 'man' or 'mankind' comes from the word 'ground'. In Hebrew: adam = man, adamah = ground. In Latin: homo = man, humus = ground. I recall being told by my youth pastor when I was young that the same thing is true in other unrelated languages. I wonder, if true, what this signifies. Perhaps Ecc. 3:20 was a typical prehistoric idea.

 

~modest

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is interesting also that not only in Hebrew, but in Latin, the word for 'man' or 'mankind' comes from the word 'ground'.
Not quite exactly, they are thought to share a common root which means red(dish), or ruddy as Duck says.

 

In Latin: homo = man, humus = ground. I recall being told by my youth pastor when I was young that the same thing is true in other unrelated languages. I wonder, if true, what this signifies.
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:
Perhaps Ecc. 3:20 was a typical prehistoric idea.
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. This is likely behind "from the dust of the ground" in Gen 2:7. Considering these verses and versions too, notice the laxity in translation and ambivalence between dust and ground (or earth), with the one being the granular composition of the other. The Latin Vulgate does not use humus at all but terra instead and "dust of the ground" is limo terrae.

 

Etymus can be interesting and even helpful, but it isn't the only criterion and also may be very tricky; pitfalls abound. I remember once when I tried looking up Ζευς (Zeus), Θεός (theos) and deus... you think it ought to be that simple? :doh: :rotfl: 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!

 

No small wonder that misunderstanding abounds when discussing chiefs, lords, gods and spiritual beings in ancient cultures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...