The story of Adam and Eve. Is it ethnocentric?

  • wesv

    Posts: 907

    Jan 30, 2015 3:36 PM GMT
    It's only one of many creation myths. How is this one somehow better?

    It was basically the creation myth of the ancient Israelites. Their beliefs later dominated the western world's spiritual thoughts, causing many to disregard other creation myths. Wouldn't this be an example of ethnocentrism? It's not any different from saying eating with a fork and spoon is more civilized than eating with chopsticks or using the Latin alphabet makes one's language "normal."

    What are your opinions?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Jan 30, 2015 3:40 PM GMT
    This one is better because it blames the weaker sex for man's fall from grace.

    /sarcasmicon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2015 6:46 PM GMT
    If existence arises from asymmetry then being is the fall from perfection.

    Though for whatever reason, even the politics of organizing societies, whatever, concepts which may have been incorporated into the dogma of any particular religion or ethos of any culture might very well have begun as observation of what's natural which might have been during or later interpreted or handed down figuratively, in images which transmit more information than words, allowing for both the original content but also options with purchase and some strangling stragglers. It's the risk truth takes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Y-chromosomal_Adam_and_Mitochondrial_Eve
    Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve

    The names Adam and Eve are used metaphorically in a scientific context to designate the patrilineal and matrilineal most recent common ancestors, the Y-chromosomal Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve. Those are not fixed individuals, nor is there any reason to assume that they lived at the same time, let alone that they met or formed a couple.[45][46] A recent study on the subject estimates that the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 120 to 156 thousand years ago, while the Mitochondrial Eve lived 99 to 148 thousand years ago. [47] Another recent study places the Y-chromosomal Adam 180 to 200 thousand years ago.


    So then a myth of creation might simply be wondering linearly, where did this all begin? No harm in that, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2015 4:13 PM GMT
    wesv saidIt's only one of many creation myths. How is this one somehow better?

    It was basically the creation myth of the ancient Israelites. Their beliefs later dominated the western world's spiritual thoughts, causing many to disregard other creation myths. Wouldn't this be an example of ethnocentrism? It's not any different from saying eating with a fork and spoon is more civilized than eating with chopsticks or using the Latin alphabet makes one's language "normal."

    What are your opinions?


    Sure, since the bible as we read it is a 16th century English ( King James) literary work. He who writes about history creates history. The myth dates back before the Jews. It's doubtful that a nomadic culture ( ancient Israel) did much writing. Any literacy would have been Egyptian in nature.
  • Antarktis

    Posts: 213

    Jan 31, 2015 5:15 PM GMT
    Technically mesopotamia
  • LJay

    Posts: 11612

    Feb 01, 2015 3:39 AM GMT
    Huh?

    Sometimes a cigar is just a metaphor for a snake when the apple ferments.
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Feb 01, 2015 4:53 AM GMT
    The story of Adam and Eve is not only the story of Israelites. Supposedly, Mohammad is the descendant Ishmael who was the bastard, pagan son of Abraham, by Sarah's maid servant Hagar. (The story of Jesus comes down through Abraham's legitimate son Isaac by Sarah -- Abraham the descendant from Adam and Eve.) Also, it is my belief that the story of Adam and Eve is a spin-off of the Story of the Mesopotanian Epic of Gilgamesh 's companion Enkidu and Shamhat the temple prostitute .

    FYI: The Epic of Gilgamesh is the oldest known written story. Written in 2000 BC, in Sumerian cuneiform. Is the story of a king (1/3 god) who ruled Sumerian Uruk (currently known as Iraq) in 2700 BC.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 6:40 AM GMT
    wesv saidIt's only one of many creation myths. How is this one somehow better?


    What are your opinions?




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 6:46 PM GMT
    See the diagram to determine which Adam and Eve is important to the question.

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 6:53 PM GMT
    theantijock saidIf existence arises from asymmetry then being is the fall from perfection.

    Though for whatever reason, even the politics of organizing societies, whatever, concepts which may have been incorporated into the dogma of any particular religion or ethos of any culture might very well have begun as observation of what's natural which might have been during or later interpreted or handed down figuratively, in images which transmit more information than words, allowing for both the original content but also options with purchase and some strangling stragglers. It's the risk truth takes.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Y-chromosomal_Adam_and_Mitochondrial_Eve
    Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve

    The names Adam and Eve are used metaphorically in a scientific context to designate the patrilineal and matrilineal most recent common ancestors, the Y-chromosomal Adam and the Mitochondrial Eve. Those are not fixed individuals, nor is there any reason to assume that they lived at the same time, let alone that they met or formed a couple.[45][46] A recent study on the subject estimates that the Y-chromosomal Adam lived 120 to 156 thousand years ago, while the Mitochondrial Eve lived 99 to 148 thousand years ago. [47] Another recent study places the Y-chromosomal Adam 180 to 200 thousand years ago.


    So then a myth of creation might simply be wondering linearly, where did this all begin? No harm in that, right?


    The museums still put the origins of homo sapiens at 250,000 years ago. Why would the chromosomal and mitochondrial evidence only go back to 148,00 to 200,000--missing the first 50,000?

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating

    http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 8:43 PM GMT
    StephenOABC saidThe museums still put the origins of homo sapiens at 250,000 years ago. Why would the chromosomal and mitochondrial evidence only go back to 148,00 to 200,000--missing the first 50,000?

    http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating

    http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml


    Didn't check out your links yet and that wasn't my point. I've neither studied in depth nor even just perused info on that in particular but if I was to take a stab in the dark I'd guess that maybe the first part refers to some sort of genetic make-up recognizable as continuing through to today and I don't know if all of our genes are required to determine status as being homo sapient. I'd imagine some degree of genetic variations/mutations/dormancy/genes-dead-in-the-water, whatever, which might accumulate before a whole new species is declared? I really have no idea how that classifying works.

    I would imagine when discussing those extreme timelines that there might be some overlapping which could explain what you seem to think you've found as faulty. Perhaps a geneticist can chime in to set us straight.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 9:18 PM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    The [Hebrew creation] myth dates back before the Jews. It's doubtful that a nomadic culture (ancient Israel) did much writing. Any literacy would have been Egyptian in nature.

    Most Biblical scholars date the first writing of the so-called "Old Testament" (that term being a later Christian invention) during the "Babylonian Captivity" c. 600 BC. Most of the events mentioned in the Old Testament occurred centuries prior to the first known written recording of them. Adam & Eve, the Flood & Noah, Sodom & Gomorrah, Moses and the Exodus, the Battle of Jericho, the Kings David & Solomon, etc, all predate the actual writing down of these events.

    Leading some scholars to speculate these stories were intended to encourage & unify the Jews who were in captivity (though not all were, BTW). They were not literal history, but a form of nationalizing hype.

    And as some here have noted, they have strong similarities to much earlier creation and mythic legends from the same region. Funny that fundamental Christians may actually be worshiping according to beliefs that originated with the ancient Sumerians, or even earlier. LOL!
  • carew28

    Posts: 661

    Feb 01, 2015 9:56 PM GMT
    Y-chromosomal Adam doesn't refer to the oldest homo sapien. Rather, it refers to the original male homo sapiens who established a continuous patriline of male descendants (father-to-son) who've passed on their y-chromosome down to the present day. There were likely many forebears before him who've passed on their DNA to present-day descendants, but it isn't genetically traceable because the y-DNA patriline was broken at various points.

    The same applies to mitochondrial Eve. She very likely wasn't one of the first female homo sapiens. But she was the most recent female ancestor who established a traceable mother-to-daughter mitochondrial DNA lineage which still exists. There were almost certainly plenty of other female homo sapiens who preceded her, and who have descendants today, but at some point along the way, the continuous mitochondrial mother-to-daughter matriline was broken, and so their DNA can't be traced back to them.

    Regular DNA recombines with each new generation, so after many generations have passed, it's no longer traceable. But y-chromosome DNA (passed on only by males) doesn't recombine, so it's traceable in its pure state from male ancestors down through the generations. X-chromosomal DNA can be passed on by both parents, so it isn't traceable. However, the mitochondria in the female ova are passed on in the pure state, so the matriline may be traced. Each mother, through her ova (eggs), passes on her mitochondrial DNA to all her children, sons and daughters. But only the daughters, through their ova, pass it on to their own children. Thus it's traceable in the female line, down through the generations. The mitochondria of males will tell which matriline they descend from, but they won't transmit it to their own descendants, because it's only contained in the ova.

    Y-chromosomal Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve, in all likelihood, lived at different times and places, and had no relationship with each other.
  • jeep334

    Posts: 411

    Feb 01, 2015 10:10 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidThis one is better because it blames the weaker sex for man's fall from grace.

    /sarcasmicon_rolleyes.gif
    Everything you offer to the threads is good and I appreciate your sarcasm but the weakest sex just stood by and let her eat it...sigh....icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2015 11:00 PM GMT
    people just dont get it. Using technology explain using 5000 year old terms, and terminology. The bible was written in those terms. So if you have no formal knowledge. Just like Egyptians they explained it as best they can.
  • wellwell

    Posts: 2265

    Feb 01, 2015 11:42 PM GMT
    No, it's just another of the big religious lies. The "True" moral of the allegory of Adam & Eve is:

    DON'T LET ANY CHICKS TALK YOU INTO ANYTHING!
  • davfit

    Posts: 309

    Feb 02, 2015 2:15 AM GMT
    One lie.. tells a thousand stories ..The Greatest stories ever told...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 2:57 AM GMT
    carew28 saidY-chromosomal Adam doesn't refer to the oldest homo sapien. Rather, it refers to the original male homo sapiens who established a continuous patriline of male descendants (father-to-son) who've passed on their y-chromosome down to the present day. There were likely many forebears before him who've passed on their DNA to present-day descendants, but it isn't genetically traceable because the y-DNA patriline was broken at various points.

    The same applies to mitochondrial Eve. She very likely wasn't one of the first female homo sapiens. But she was the most recent female ancestor who established a traceable mother-to-daughter mitochondrial DNA lineage which still exists. There were almost certainly plenty of other female homo sapiens who preceded her, and who have descendants today, but at some point along the way, the continuous mitochondrial mother-to-daughter matriline was broken, and so their DNA can't be traced back to them.

    Regular DNA recombines with each new generation, so after many generations have passed, it's no longer traceable. But y-chromosome DNA (passed on only by males) doesn't recombine, so it's traceable in its pure state from male ancestors down through the generations. X-chromosomal DNA can be passed on by both parents, so it isn't traceable. However, the mitochondria in the female ova are passed on in the pure state, so the matriline may be traced. Each mother, through her ova (eggs), passes on her mitochondrial DNA to all her children, sons and daughters. But only the daughters, through their ova, pass it on to their own children. Thus it's traceable in the female line, down through the generations. The mitochondria of males will tell which matriline they descend from, but they won't transmit it to their own descendants, because it's only contained in the ova.

    Y-chromosomal Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve, in all likelihood, lived at different times and places, and had no relationship with each other.


    Thanks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 3:00 AM GMT
    It's the 21st fucking century. Why would anyone care?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 9:17 PM GMT


    lol, the story of Adam and Eve has such gaping holes in it and leaps of bizarre assumptions that it's laughable at best.

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 02, 2015 9:36 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    lol, the story of Adam and Eve has such gaping holes in it and leaps of bizarre assumptions that it's laughable at best.


    To its credit, it's the only biblical myth (that I know of) that implores humans to be stewards of the environment... It's kind of ironic that the most critical advice in the whole Bible has also been the most flagrantly ignored.icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 02, 2015 10:21 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    meninlove said

    lol, the story of Adam and Eve has such gaping holes in it and leaps of bizarre assumptions that it's laughable at best.


    To its credit, it's the only biblical myth (that I know of) that implores humans to be stewards of the environment... It's kind of ironic that the most critical advice in the whole Bible has also been the most flagrantly ignored.icon_sad.gif


    No, Joe, it doesn't. I think you'd better go read Adam and Eve again.

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 02, 2015 11:04 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    HottJoe said
    meninlove said

    lol, the story of Adam and Eve has such gaping holes in it and leaps of bizarre assumptions that it's laughable at best.


    To its credit, it's the only biblical myth (that I know of) that implores humans to be stewards of the environment... It's kind of ironic that the most critical advice in the whole Bible has also been the most flagrantly ignored.icon_sad.gif


    No, Joe, it doesn't. I think you'd better go read Adam and Eve again.


    Hm, then I guess there aren't any redeeming qualities to your religion. Sorry you got conned.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2015 1:44 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    meninlove said
    HottJoe said
    meninlove said

    lol, the story of Adam and Eve has such gaping holes in it and leaps of bizarre assumptions that it's laughable at best.


    To its credit, it's the only biblical myth (that I know of) that implores humans to be stewards of the environment... It's kind of ironic that the most critical advice in the whole Bible has also been the most flagrantly ignored.icon_sad.gif


    No, Joe, it doesn't. I think you'd better go read Adam and Eve again.


    Hm, then I guess there aren't any redeeming qualities to your religion. Sorry you got conned.icon_rolleyes.gif


    lol, actually I didn't. There are lots of flaws in the book just as there are truths. You got conned by your Murika version of Christianity.

    Here's the thing I notice about you; you not only dislike the religion, but you also attack people who believe in it, even though you don't know WHAT it is they believe in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 03, 2015 1:51 AM GMT
    pazzy saidthought that adam and eve was discredited as false because of adam and steve. icon_confused.gif


    LOL!

    Here, for you Pazzy. Problem one: God told Adam and Eve that if they ate the apples they would surely die, BUT neither Adam or Eve, as they had NOT eaten of the apples yet, knew what death was. It also didn't exist, death.

    Problem two: God did NOT tell either of them that if they disobeyed Him it would be an evil thing to do, and that they would be punished by being driven out of Eden.

    Problem three: The bible said the snake was the smartest animal in Eden, which is I assume supposedly why it alone could talk. Which makes no sense at all, as speech would have been something God created and bestowed when he made the first snake, and God being all-knowing, would have known what the snake was going to do and say.

    btw, I'm Christian, although likely not the kind you'd be familiar with, lol.