Ancestral home of all human beings just discovered by scientists

[invalid]

The Garden of Eden was destroyed. The earth as we know it today is the result of the מבול.

What date do you place the deluge? How do you reconcile, for instance, the Amazon rainforest which is 55 million years old, how do you reconcile the age and existence of vegetation systems that have been around for that long and the deluge? Surely they would have been destroyed as well. Either the deluge was not worldwide and was only a local event or it happened at a time that preceded our oldest vegetation system, the Daintree Rainforest in Australia, currently of which, is about 180 million years old.

Also, neither Adam nor Chava were Jews.

Fair enough.

 

[Koichos]

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?

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

The form of the body and its build is not called צלם but rather תאר or תבנית (neither of which is at all applicable to G-d). Since they would say יפת תאר (beautiful appearance), not יפת צלם. And in Judges 8:18, "As you are, so were they; one was as the תאר (to'ar) of the children of the king." The Targum Yonasan (Jgs. 8:18) renders: "One among them appeared like the children of the king"; as you are, so were they, possessing one appearance. To indicate the construction of the parts of a body, they would say, "the תבנית (tavnis) of the Mishkan and the תבנית (tavnis) of all its vessels (Ex. 25:9)." Rather, צלם is used in reference to anything that is made to resemble something else. צלם is derived from the word צל (shadow). With regard to the verses that are mentioned outside of the Torah, namely in nevi'im or prophets, צלם is used, typically as a homonym, and would be applied to anything that was created to resemble something else; like a drawing or painting created to resemble a specific person (Ezk. 23:14), or a statue created to resemble a frame (Ezk. 16:17; 1 Sam. 6:5, 11; 2 Chron. 23:17). Perhaps the reason צלם is used for idols is due to their being worshipped on account of some idea represented by them, not on account of their actual figure and shape. However, it must be admitted that the term צלם is employed in these two cases (1 Sam. 6:5, 11) on account of the external shape. Here צלם is employed as both a homonym and a hybrid designation, and would indicate both the distinct (non-physical) form (that which symbolizes the essence of a thing), and characteristics relating to the proportions and the structure of corporeal bodies; whereas in B'reishis 1:26 and 27 the term צלם symbolizes the distinct form of man, i.e., his intellectual perception or cognizance, his essence, and does not refer to his 'build' or 'shape'.

צלם is first used in B'reishis and applied to man, who is created in the צלם אלקים or image of G-d. This is not proof that the Torah teaches that Hashem has a physical/human form. To the contrary; the Torah makes it clear that Hashem is incorporeal, He is one (Deut. 6:4, from which the shma—the flagship statement of Jewish monotheistic faith—is derived). For something to exist physically, it necessarily follows that there can be two or more of it. By saying Hashem is one, we are denying that there is any multiplicity of Hashem. In Deuteronomy 4:39 we read that "Hashem is the G-d in the Heaven above and on Earth below, there is none other", and a body cannot be in two places at once. Similarly, "All that Hashem wished, He did in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all the depths (Ps. 135:6)." And as it says in Deuteronomy 4:15, "For you did not see any form of any kind the day Hashem spoke to you". And Isaiah 40:25, "To whom shall you compare Me?". G-d forbid there should be attributed a physical form to Hashem. Corporeality is a creation, therefore there must be a beginning; and if there is a beginning so too is there an end. But the one and only G-d is eternal (Genesis 1:1), with neither a beginning nor an end, hence there is no question according to the perspective of the Torah. G-d is infinite, incorporeal, everywhere at all times, and without figure or shape. In the words of Dovid Hamelech: "Where shall I go from Your spirit, and where shall I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to the heavens, there You are, and if I make my bed in the grave, behold, You are there (Ps. 139:7-8)." The human soul, the neshoma—the utter essence of man—is exalted above the rest, for it is immortal, and so created in the צלם אלקים, the livingness of Hashem Kel Oylam, the Everlasting G-d.

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.

Some things we will never have access to, like the burial place of Moshe Rabeinu (lest it be a place of idolatry). Similarly, tradition holds that Adam and Chava were buried in a cave outside of this world, accessed (by the patriarchs) from the Cave of Machpelah which is in Chevron.

The "red" thing is interesting, bc what did it actually mean? I recently learned the sudanese refer to their darkest people as "green". 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)?

At one point, Sarah Imeinu was barren, unable to conceive. The restriction of 'Saray' שרי ("my princess") was liberated with 'Sarah' שרה ("princess"). The once-barren princess (of Abraham) could now become the princess (of nations). As we know, the Hebrew letter hei ה is a very fertile letter. It is considered to be the softest and most feminine of all the letters, and it is the very suffix that makes a word feminine. Therefore, in Hebrew grammar, when you want to switch a word from masculine to feminine, for example, 'Melech' מלך (King), you add a hei ה to make it 'Malkah' מלכה (Queen). 'Yeled' ילד (Boy) becomes 'Yaldah' ילדה (Girl). 'Ish' איש (Man) becomes 'Ishah' אשה (Woman). So too with the word 'Adam' אדם (Man). (Here, 'man' means human.) If you add a hei ה to אדם it becomes 'Adamah' אדמה (Ground). אדמה is the feminine form of אדם .אדם was formed from the אדמה, neither of which represent any one particular batch nor grouping. אדם represents neither white nor black, but rather an amalgamated root from which mankind stems.

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.

There's lots of phenomena we don't see today, like someone living 930 years...

 

[Koichos]

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?

From the Tenach. Time starts, as we know it, from the 6th day of Creation, on the 1st of Tishrei, the day Adam Harishon was created.

What date do you place the deluge? How do you reconcile, for instance, the Amazon rainforest which is 55 million years old, how do you reconcile the age and existence of vegetation systems that have been around for that long and the deluge? Surely they would have been destroyed as well. Either the deluge was not worldwide and was only a local event or it happened at a time that preceded our oldest vegetation system, the Daintree Rainforest in Australia, currently of which, is about 180 million years old.

1656 in the Jewish Calendar. The verses in B'reishis lead to Noach being born in 1056, and the verses in parshas Noach (Gen. 6:9-11:32) state that the מבול occurred when Noach was 600.

Scientific dating is fooled by the reality of creation, as Hashem created the earth old. When the world was created there were layers of rocks and trees with rings, etc.

 

[shagnificent belafonte]

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.

They aren't our mutated sons...pure africans dont have neanderthal DNA...


They are subhuman....which explains their behavior...

 

[Hopeofmypeople]

They aren't our mutated sons...pure africans dont have neanderthal DNA...


They are subhuman....which explains their behavior...

I know I was just fukking around, we don’t come from the caucasoid mountains.

 

[skeetsinternal]

crackas are gonna be heated.

 

[invalid]

The verses in B'reishis lead to Noach being born in 1056

So who is right?

Biblical history purports David became King a year later in 1055.

11th Century BC - Ancient History Timeline (Bible History Online)

Scientific dating is fooled by the reality of creation, as Hashem created the earth old. When the world was created there were layers of rocks and trees with rings, etc.

We’re not even discussing scientific dating, but written records. It’s confusing to me how Noah could be born essentially in the same century as Grecian monarchs for whom we actually have written records.

11th century BC - Wikipedia

There are no written records, with exception to an obscure stela, that purportedly has the inscription ‘bytdwd’ which some have tried to translate as “House of David”, that even supports that David existed.

 

[Koichos]

So who is right?

Biblical history purports David became King a year later in 1055.

11th Century BC - Ancient History Timeline (Bible History Online)

That's BCE/CE, not Jewish year, and it's incorrect nonetheless. Dovid Hamelech was born in the Jewish year 2854, which translates to 907 BCE; he died in 2924, or 837 BCE.

Dovid became king of Judah in Chevron (Hebron) in 2884, or 877 BCE; and king of Israel in Yerushalayim in 2892, or 869 BCE (under which Judah and Israel were united).

11th Century BC - Ancient History Timeline (Bible History Online)

We have our own sources, we do not rely on theirs. This is a Xtian source that employs the Biblical dating of a 17th-century Xtian's chronology.

We’re not even discussing scientific dating, but written records. It’s confusing to me how Noah could be born essentially in the same century as Grecian monarchs for whom we actually have written records.

11th century BC - Wikipedia

There are no written records, with exception to an obscure stela, that purportedly has the inscription ‘bytdwd’ which some have tried to translate as “House of David”, that even supports that David existed.

You're confusing the Gregorian calendar (2019) with the Jewish Calendar (5780). Noach was born in 1056 on the Jewish Calendar, which is 2705 BCE on the Gregorian calendar, or the end of the 28th century BCE.

 

[Amestafuu (Emeritus)]

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
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

.

 

[Roland Coltrane]

now they're trying to say Africans have Neanderthal DNA

You may have more Neanderthal DNA than you think

A new model upends old assumptions, revealing more Neanderthal ancestry for both modern Africans and Europeans than once thought.

www.nationalgeographic.com

there's one problem with this tho

the African samples they used were from North Africans

Instead, Akey and his lab used large datasets to examine the probability that a particular site in the genome was inherited from Neanderthals or not. They tested the method with the genomes of 2,504 individuals from around the world—East Asians, Europeans, South Asians, Americans, and largely northern Africans—collected as part of the 1000 Genomes project. They then compared this DNA with a Neanderthal genome.

cacs be so quick to delineate "Sub-Saharan Africa" from Egypt when it suits them but when it comes to that Neanderthal DNA they wanna start reaching











and this is only based on one australian study, against years and years of scholarship stating that Africans are the only humans that don't have neanderthal DNA. So if some brehs ventured out and bred with Neanderpawgs then came back that's the only way it could have been introduced into the continent, and not the part our ancestors came from.

that original man ether making them cacs souls burn slow


some of these scientists say Neanderthals hunt, raped and ate humans

well if that's the case what kept the Neanderbrehs from venturing into the lands of Original Man



believe it or not, they still don't have a reason for this, but they got narratives for everything else about their cave-dwelling ancestors