Ancestral home of all human beings just discovered by scientists

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,521
Reputation
-802
Daps
2,096
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
The world is 5780 years old. The 25th of Elul is the anniversary of the creation of the world. Nevertheless, the reason why we celebrate the first day of creation really on Rosh Hashanah, the 1st of Tishrei, which is the 6th day, is because that was when man was created and when time was counted. In the Torah, before Adam on the 6th day, there is no count of time (I mean, Hashem counts time, but it's His perspective; as opposed to the 6th day where it's now man's perspective).
 

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,521
Reputation
-802
Daps
2,096
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
So we’ve found Eden in nothern Botswana? :ohhh:

The place where heaven kissed earth. :ohhh:

The place where the first men and first women migrated out of to populate the world? :ohhh:


The Tree of Life, maybe?:patrice:

Who are the Jews again? :jbhmm:
The Garden of Eden was destroyed. The earth as we know it today is the result of the מבול. Also, neither Adam nor Chava were Jews.
 

Geek Nasty

Brain Knowledgeably Whizzy
Supporter
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
28,928
Reputation
4,231
Daps
109,124
Reppin
South Kakalaka
latest


If you know, you know :wow:

That look he gave momma before he came at that neck :wow: Chopping heads like his gang was Wutang
 

Koichos

Pro
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
1,521
Reputation
-802
Daps
2,096
Reppin
K'lal Yisraʾel
Genesis 1:27 New King James Version (NKJV)

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

:hhh:

@Koios
First man was not a Jew. We didn't start until Avrohom Ovinu and Sarah Imeinu.

And just to cover all the bases, the word in Loshon Hakodesh used for 'image' in Gen. 1:27 does not refer to a physical form of a thing. The word in Biblical Hebrew used for 'image' in Gen. 1:27 is צלם or "tzelem", which refers to the nature or essence of a thing, as in Tehillim 73:20, "You will despise their image (tzalmam צלמם)", that is, a person's nature, not a person's physical form. The word for physical image or form is תאר or "to'ar", as we see in Gen. 39:6 regarding Yosef HaTzaddik, "And Yosef was fair in form (תאר to'ar) and fair to look upon". Similarly, the Hebrew word used for 'likeness' (in Gen. 1:26) is דמות or "demus", which is merely used to denote a simile, not appearance or form. For instance, Tehillim 17:12 reads, "His likeness (דמינו dimyono) is like a lion, which yearns for prey, and as a young lion, which lurks in hidden places", referring not to similar appearance, but rather to similar nature. The 'likeness/image' in Gen. 1:26/1:27 is spiritual, not physical. Hashem has no physical shape or image or form (Deut. 4:15), and He is not a man, for all men lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Hos. 11:9). He has no body, nor power of the body; if He were to be a body then He would be like any other body and would not be G-d.

The Torah makes it clear that Adam HaRishon, Adam the first man, was neither black nor white. The word "Adom" (red) is spelled identically to "Adam" in Hebrew; alef, dalet, mem (א-ד-ם). "Adam" means 'man'. The root word for the color 'red' (Adom אדם) is the same word used to describe 'man' (Adam אדם). Original man according to the Torah was red, not black or white. Those who understand Loshon Hakodesh know that when man is formed from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), it is actually a Hebrew play on words. The Hebrew word for 'ground' is "Adamah" (אדמה). So "Adam" was formed from the "Adamah". In other words, אדם was brought forth from the אדמה, referring to the red soil Adam Ha'Rishon ('the First Man') was formed from. There is another Hebrew word that is also closely related. This is the Hebrew term for 'blood'. The Hebrew word for 'blood' is "Dam" (דם). So, Admoni (אדמוני), Adom (אדם), Adam (אדם), Adamah (אדמה), and Dam (דם) all come from the same root—אדם the first man. He who binds us all in unity no matter the skin's complexion. All people are ultimately descended from the same ancestors, Noach and Adam HaRishon.

New King James Version (NKJV)
Feh! KJV is a terrible translation (traduttore tradittore). Those who are reading everything in Tenach without meforshim are wasting their time. If you cannot understand Loshon Hakodesh at least read the translations alongside Rashi.
 

Benefited

Banned
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
10,787
Reputation
90
Daps
30,213
In my opinion Malenesians are the first people. I also have subscribed to the idea that many of the natives of the Americas migrated from the Pacific Islands and many of us infact have Malenesian dna because we were already here pre slavery. But you all let them fool you into thinking all black people came here by way of boat:snoop:
Mysterious link emerges between Native Americans and people half a globe away | Science | AAAS

Scientifically my theory just holds more weight than the European who we need to stop looking to,to explain our origins,they just don't get it even with the evidence right in front of their face. They want to convince you the original man was mixing with "Neanderthals"/Dennivosians,but imo the Neanderthals and Dennivosians were just gmo mutations of the Malenesians. It just makes more sense to me,especially when you factor in the fact that a place like Fiji has a baffling rate of albinism. If albinos are treated anything like they are now,they were probably outcasted back then too. Isolation creates not only adaptian but mutation through incest etc,not to mention if they were in the mountains in caves like some Dennovisians bones have shown them to be located. It could explain the higher ammount of sulfur base found in caucasians.Caucausians are just the mutated lower version of the black man and woman.A cancer that should have been healed instead of isolated and allowed to spread
wlHloyr.png
.
 
Last edited:

HarlemHottie

Uptown Thoroughbred
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
17,069
Reputation
10,459
Daps
71,622
Reppin
#ADOS
Feh! KJV is a terrible translation (traduttore tradittore). Those who are reading everything in Tenach without meforshim are wasting their time. If you cannot understand Loshon Hakodesh at least read the translations alongside Rashi.
Ha!! I hear you and agree about the kjv, but my books are in storage until i get the library set up, so Google it is.

So let's start with tzelem. Is this true? :jbhmm:
In ten of the twelve usages outside of Genesis, selem refers to a physical representation. In 1 Samuel 6:5 and 6:11, selem refers to a concrete, visual representation of a natural object. 1 Samuel 6:5 reads:

“So you shall make likeness of your tumors and likeness of your mice that ravage the land, and you shall give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will ease His hand from you, your gods, and your land” (emphasis’ mine, NAU).

The physical representation of rats is again mentioned in 1 Samuel 6:11. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, selem refers to the physical representation of non-Israelite deities (e.g. 2 Chronicles 23:17).

The other type of physical representation selem is used for is human likenesses associated with idolatry. In Ezekiel 16:17, it is used in reference to males, and in Ezekiel 23:14, it is used to describe figures hanging on a wall.

Selem’s uses by the Psalmist is particularly significant because they are two of the few that do not refer to a physical entity. In Psalm 39:6, selem is used to describe human existence as shadow like:

“Surely every man walks about as a phantom; surely they make an uproar for nothing; He amasses riches and does not know who will gather them” (emphasis mine, NAU).

Finally, in Psalm 73:20, selem is used to describe the remnants of a dream left over in the mind after one wakes:

“Like a dream when one awakes O Lord, when aroused, You will despise their form” (emphasis mine, NAU).

Imago Dei

If so, it's usage is not as cut and dry as you've made it seem.

And, if Adam is not purported to have been a jew (bc, as you alluded, the 'special arrangement' starts with Abraham and Sarah), I don't see why he couldn't have been our common Botswanian(?) ancestor.

(I'm quite familiar with the word play associated with the word root "adam-". I came at it from a different direction, the akkadian "Adamu", but i got it and i do enjoy Hebrew word play when I catch it. That's one of the privileges of being on the ground floor of the written word.)

The "red" thing is interesting, bc what did it actually mean? I recently learned the sudanese refer to their darkest people as "green". :dwillhuh: There's a whole reason why and I'm sure they've utilized it in all manner of extended metaphors that, if translated, would make no sense to people not of that time and place.

For example, am i to believe that the biblical Adam was literally red colored? The same color of blood? Fresh, oxygenated blood (bright red) or old (a darker reddish brown)? Ive never seen a literally red person (just like ive never seen a literally green person). I have, however, seen red soil. It's not red- red, but more reddish brown, cinnamon- colored, like many "black" (not literally black, but brown) people i know. :ld:
 

Roland Coltrane

Superstar
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
8,950
Reputation
3,670
Daps
30,157
Reppin
AA GANG
Ha!! I hear you and agree about the kjv, but my books are in storage until i get the library set up, so Google it is.

So let's start with tzelem. Is this true? :jbhmm:

If so, it's usage is not as cut and dry as you've made it seem.

And, if Adam is not purported to have been a jew (bc, as you alluded, the 'special arrangement' starts with Abraham and Sarah), I don't see why he couldn't have been our common Botswanian(?) ancestor.

(I'm quite familiar with the word play associated with the word root "adam-". I came at it from a different direction, the akkadian "Adamu", but i got it and i do enjoy Hebrew word play when I catch it. That's one of the privileges of being on the ground floor of the written word.)

The "red" thing is interesting, bc what did it actually mean? I recently learned the sudanese refer to their darkest people as "green". :dwillhuh: There's a whole reason why and I'm sure they've utilized it in all manner of extended metaphors that, if translated, would make no sense to people not of that time and place.

For example, am i to believe that the biblical Adam was literally red colored? The same color of blood? Fresh, oxygenated blood (bright red) or old (a darker reddish brown)? Ive never seen a literally red person (just like ive never seen a literally green person). I have, however, seen red soil. It's not red- red, but more reddish brown, cinnamon- colored, like many "black" (not literally black, but brown) people i know. :ld:
pulled that nikka's card something serious :picard:
 

Hopeofmypeople

Veteran
Joined
Aug 18, 2014
Messages
13,013
Reputation
1
Daps
64,468
Goes to show how great we are, father of all man is the black man and mother of all is the black woman. Just a shame our mutated sons regressed and are out of line these days, guess daddy has to deliver a spanking to his spoilt children.:wow:
 

Torrez

Rookie
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
260
Reputation
50
Daps
434
Reppin
NULL
Morocco fossils got this beat

Oldest Homo sapiens fossils discovered - CNN

(CNN)The oldest fossil remains of Homo sapiens, dating back to 300,000 years, have been found at a site in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco. This is 100,000 years older than previously discovered fossils of Homo sapiens that have been securely dated. The discovery was presented in a study in the journal Nature on Wednesday.
This marks the first discovery of such fossils in north Africa, and widens the "cradle of mankind" to encompass all of Africa, the researchers said. Previous finds were in south or east Africa. The fossils, including a partial skull and a lower jaw, belong to five different individuals including three young adults, an adolescent and a child estimated to be 8 years old. Stone tools, animal bones and evidence of fire were also found within the same layer at the site.
But what the researchers found to be most remarkable about these fossils is that they capture a moment in time of evolution. The facial features of the skull look like a modern human, but the brain case is very elongated and archaically characteristic of early humans.

There has been increasing evidence that the modern human lineage diverged from Neanderthals and Denisovans 500,000 years ago, making us close relatives rather than direct descendants. Before this discovery, it was believed that the early modern humans we evolved from were in Africa 200,000 years ago and looked very similar to modern humans. But what happened in between that time?
This is still unknown, although the researchers suggest the possibility that there were multiple groups of hominins, or human ancestors, overlapping and having complex relationships.

Because they didn't previously have fossil evidence of Homo sapiens from 300,000 years ago, this helps to fill a small part of that gap in the fossil record. The fossils provide insight about this evolutionary time for Homo sapiens before the early modern stage 200,000 years ago.
"Our analysis convinced us that this material represents the very root of our species, the oldest Homo sapiens ever found in Africa or elsewhere," said Jean-Jacques Hublin, lead study author, paleoanthropologist and professor at Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.
"We confirmed that they display this surprising combination of very advanced features and more archaic conditions. It allowed us to envision a more complex picture for the emergence of our species with different parts of the anatomy evolving at different rates, some features being fixed very early in a modern way and others taking a longer time to reach the modern condition."

If we could see these Homo sapiens from 300,000 years ago walking around today, they would look very similar to us -- if they were wearing a hat, Hublin said. Their faces would be short, flat and retracted compared to Neanderthals, and even some of the dental aspects are similar to ours.
But that elongated skull would give them away as being not quite like us. Their brains, and specifically the cerebellum, wasn't shaped like ours. But based on the brain case they discovered, these Homo sapiens did have a larger cerebellum than Neanderthals.
"The story of our species in the last 300,000 years is mostly the evolution of our brain and in this time period, a number of mutations occurred affecting brain connectivity," Hublin said.
How the fossils were discovered
East Africa has been considered the "cradle of life" for the origins and evolution of humans, but north Africa has been largely ignored in this aspect. A skull was found in Florisbad, South Africa, in the 1930s and originally dated to 260,000 years ago, but it's fragmentary and the exact date is subject to debate, the researchers said.
During the 1960s, mining began on top of a large hill of limestone in Morocco and when the miners hit a pocket of sediment, it partially collapsed to reveal a human skull, bones and stone artifacts. Initial research revealed the artifacts to be 40,000 years old, although that didn't align with the features of the bones.

In 2004, efforts were made to clean up the site and excavate it in order to figure out its true age. It's been an active site ever since, and there is still more to be discovered, the researchers said.
Hublin and Abdelouahed Ben-Ncer of the National Institute for Archaeology and Heritage in Rabat, Morocco, found human and animal bones, stone flints and evidence of fire in a preserved layer of the site.
While this isn't the oldest evidence of fire, not many sites can document this back to 300,000 years ago. And these fires were controlled, being created and used easily. The fire evidence on the animal bones and burnt flints were key.
Through a dating technique called thermoluminescence, which measures how long it's been since a material with crystalline minerals was heated or exposed to sunlight, they determined that the site was anywhere between 300,000 to 350,000 years old. This included other previous discoveries at the site.
"This was a 'big wow,'" Hublin said. "We realized this site was much older than anyone could imagine."
This discovery, combined with a Homo sapien skull found in South Africa, challenges the theory that Homo sapiens were confined to east Africa.
"I'm not claiming Morocco became the cradle of modern humankind," Hublin said. "Rather, we would support the notion that around 300,000 years ago, very early forms of Homo sapiens were already dispersed all over Africa. This is facilitated by the fact that between 330,000 to 300,000 years before present, Africa did not look like it does today and there was no Sahara Desert. There was a lot of connections between other parts of the continent."
The Sahara was effectively "green" at the time, with open grasslands, groupings of trees, rivers and huge lakes and more wet and humid than it is today. This supported animal life like gazelles, zebras, wildebeests, lions and other big cats -- all of which were discovered at the site through fossil evidence of animals that these Homo sapiens hunted.

The tools and fire evidence also point to this being a site linked with the Middle Stone Age. A period spanning a million and half years before this involved the use of large, heavy stone tools like hand axes and cleavers.
"What distinguished the Middle Stone Age is a shift from large, heavy-duty stone tools to an emphasis on producing stone flakes that were smaller and lighter," said Shannon McPherron, archaeologist at Max Planck and one of the study authors. "They would transform these flakes into pointed forms that most archeologists think were part of weaponry, increased sufficiency in hunting at a distance, which was more effective and safer for the hunter."

During the time these Homo sapiens lived, the site at the collapsed hill was actually a cave that provided shelter. Their findings paint a picture of a hunting encampment where people passing through the landscape would spend the night, take shelter and clean and consume the animals they hunted, McPherron said.
There are also no nearby sources for flint, meaning that the Homo sapiens found their high quality raw materials elsewhere. McPherron believes that the flakes indicate that the hunters were sharpening and transforming the flints while they were in the cave.

What's next
Sequencing of the Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes happened at the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, but that won't happen with these fossils. Although they tried to extract DNA from them, it wasn't there, Hublin said. Ancient DNA has yet to be recovered from Africa because the fossils are too old and the conditions are too hot.

The researchers hope to return to Jebel Irhoud because there is still more to be excavated.
But this discovery creates more questions about how, when and where we evolved.

Evolution was not a sudden shift, but a gradual accretion of features and a series of mutations affecting development, the researchers said. And due to environmental changes, it was happening sometimes in isolated populations; other times, exchanges of genes and innovation occurred when populations came together, causing favorable mutations to spread through populations due to positive selection, Hublin believes.

This is the oldest known fossil to date -- for now, Hublin said. And the center of origin for us as a species is still unknown. But this discovery widens the "cradle of life" from East Africa to the whole continent, Hublin said, and suggests that these evolutionary changes were happening across the continent at the same time.
"Our results challenge the preconceived notion of early modern humans in East Africa in many ways regarding the date of emergence of our species, the geographical conditions of this emergence and the conditions of the evolution of the early forms of Homo sapiens," Hublin said.
 

HarlemHottie

Uptown Thoroughbred
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
17,069
Reputation
10,459
Daps
71,622
Reppin
#ADOS
This study doesn't say shyt new. Many other studies put the origins of humans in either south, east or northwest Africa. Watch the origins change next year or so when they find an older skeleton in another part of Africa...
But this study isn't based on fossils. Imo, fossil- based findings are less accurate bc who can say what you might happen to stumble upon?
 

Torrez

Rookie
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
260
Reputation
50
Daps
434
Reppin
NULL
But this study isn't based on fossils. Imo, fossil- based findings are less accurate bc who can say what you might happen to stumble upon?

Yes that study is based on DNA and climate analysis.

The study I linked is based on the fossil + thermoluminescence. They dated the area where they found the fossil "Through a dating technique called thermoluminescence, which measures how long it's been since a material with crystalline minerals was heated or exposed to sunlight, they determined that the site was anywhere between 300,000 to 350,000 years old. This included other previous discoveries at the site."

This doesn't mean that the first homosapiens started in Morocco, it means they could be anywhere in Africa. We just don't know yet, it is all a guess, until the next discovery.
 

invalid

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
19,972
Reputation
6,797
Daps
80,715
The world is 5780 years old.

The first King of the unified upper and lower Egypt, Menes, is recorded to be born in 3,200bc. If we were to consider that the Egyptians have a written documented history springing forth from the reign of Menes, are you saying the world was created 561 days before his recorded birth of 3,200bc?

And what about Sumer, which documented its own history through its cuneiform system of which predates Menes by 1,300 years?

We have a written history going back to, at the very least, 4,500bc, which is well beyond 3,761bc that you’re claiming is the time of creation. Where are you getting your number from?
 
Top