Granted that Adam and Eve are mythical/symbolic characters, nevertheless they were meant to symbolize SOMETHING as real as are you and I--and as we learn more and more from archaeological digs, random bones and teeth and intentional decorations and artwork and intentional burials discovered around the planet....with ever-expanding scientific discovery and analysis, determination of the "first" "man," "woman"/"human being"--becomes ever more blurry the more we learn and discover.

Homo sapiens sapiens (our species) is now scientifically known to be a combination of a growing group of "not-QUITE-human" species (Neanderthal, Denisovan, etc.), who we know with scientific certainty were some of our ancestral forebears.

So what specific species is being talked about in the Bible--especially since family groups, or community, or cooperative "neighborly" groups, at the time when homo sapiens sapiens were (at least in scientific hindsight) a specific, existing species--were not distinct, but were genetically mixed with other species close enough to "us" to reproduce together?

The authors of the biblical accounts were trying to be accurate (but they lacked enormous amounts of knowledge we now take for granted).

They were trying to say something about "us" (as they were able to perceive "us"), but had they known about our mixed-species history (which they might have known or suspected from oral accounts passed down the generations), did they mean to include (for example) Neanderthals, or genetically mixed ancestors, when they determined that Adam and Eve were the "first humans"?

Another way of saying this is: If the Adam and Eve biblical accounts were being originally written right now, with the scientifically established information we have available right now, where would those biblical writers have drawn the line?

Knowing what we know now, about these various, BARELY (if at all) "PRE-human" species, which existed across this planet, and thinking back to when these species co-existed with each other, what do Adam and Eve really represent?

[I have been thinking about this question for most of my life--every time "Adam and Eve" are mentioned by anyone, in life or in printed or video form, and I realized today that some people here might have thoughts of great value to add.]



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2019 05:02PM by Tevai.

According to church authorities, their son Cain was Bigfoot, which suggests they may have been another species.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to church authorities, their son Cain
> was Bigfoot, which suggests they may have been
> another species.

Is this for real?

[I am a nevermo, so I truly do not know.]

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > According to church authorities, their son Cain
> > was Bigfoot, which suggests they may have been
> > another species.
>
> Is this for real?

Yes I'm afraid it is. There is some very weird doctrine about this which is unknown to most members. Wait a second and I will find it.

"On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson's book on the life of David W. Patten. From the book I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his recollection of David Patten's account of meeting "a very remarkable person who had represented himself as being Cain.

"'As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me… His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark. I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men. About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the holy priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight…"'

(Miracle of Forgiveness, Spencer W. Kimball, (1969) p 127

Thank you for this!

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for this!


The book quoted is by Spencer W. Kimball who was church president during the 70s and 80s. "The Miracle of Forgiveness" is still widely read although the title is misleading.

I was taught this as a "deeper doctrine" but widely accepted belief as a member. Cain was cursed to walk the lands forever for being the first murderer. As time passed his hair grew longer and he became less civilized. Keep in mind that Mormon's believe that the Garden of Eden was in Far West Missouri, so it wasn't too far a stretch that he's been walking around the country and end up in the woods where Bigfoot supposably lives today.

See https://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon637.htm for more information about the history about the belief.

There's a problem with your question. The people who believe in the literal Adam and Eve, tend to be anti-evolution and or believe that it was guided by God to the results today. You're trying to apply reality to mythology and it doesn't quite work. It's one of many reasons why the "Adam and Eve" story falls apart whenever it's given any thought at all.

For those who don't accept evolution, Adam and Eve were Homo sapiens sapiens, to them it's literally impossible for them to have been anything but "human" as understood today.

For those who believe that evolution is guided, it's similar. Adam and Eve were the "first" that could be Homo sapiens sapiens. Anything else doesn't work.

In other words, Adam and Eve, according to biblical accounts, are where the "line" is drawn.

This is a good answer.

Thank you.

I agree.

Adam descended from dirt, so he was a homo dirtectus. Eve descended from a rib bone so she was a homo ribectus.

Together they gave rise to homo sapiens....and bigfoot.

The Mormon church still uses a statement from the First Presidency in 1909 to answer that question.
https://archive.org/details/improvementera1301unse/page/80

"The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

They were white northern europeans who would have looked right at home on a soap opera.

Not sure what species that is. Hollywoodus Glamourosus?

Adam was dirt and Eve was rib.

Adam was barbecue sauce.

The aboriginals have been in Australia for over 40,000 years. Which makes sense because there had to be a film crew following Adam around the garden of Eden.

One of my college professors speculated that the Adam and Eve story was an ancient recollection of our hominid ancestors leaving the verdant jungles of Africa for the dry, arid grasslands -- Paradise lost, but a necessary step in our evolution. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a metaphor for our coming into self-awareness.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of my college professors speculated that the
> Adam and Eve story was an ancient recollection of
> our hominid ancestors leaving the verdant jungles
> of Africa for the dry, arid grasslands -- Paradise
> lost, but a necessary step in our evolution. The
> Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a metaphor
> for our coming into self-awareness.

This is a good hypothesis--and it could actually be true (or more true than not).

Thank you, summer!

I can't help but suppose that a believer reading the Genesis would suppose that Adam & Eve basically looked like what the reader saw when he or she looked in a mirror.

This would taste like the same pudding made when a believer imagines what Christ looked like.

If I'm wrong, I'll apologize to whoever desires it.

Mormon A&E had to have been Homo sapiens sapiens *at minimum.* Don't forget that traditional mormonism takes Genesis literally, including the ridiculously long lifespans. Mormons are instructed to believe that Adam lived 930 actual years, therefore A&E would have to be a kind of enhanced superior variety of HSS, even if not a separate sub-species.

I suppose if someone takes Adam and Eve literally, they might also interpret that man is only 6000 years old as a species.

That would pretty much limit Adam and Eve to the current species we see today, right?

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose if someone takes Adam and Eve literally,
> they might also interpret that man is only 6000
> years old as a species.

There is a point (and probably layers as well) to the story--because there pretty much always is a point (and layers) to "Old Testament" stories, particularly this one.

The stories may not be factually true, but that doesn't mean that there isn't intended "truth" there (like the characters in a Shakespearean play for example).

In Jewish analysis, these are the four layers of meaning which may, or may not, be relevant to any given passage, story, song, etc. in the texts:

Peshat: (the literal meaning)
Remez: (the symbolic, or "hinted," meaning)
Derash: (the allegorical meaning)
Sod: (the mystical, or esoteric, meaning)

The same is often true of fairy tales and children's stories worldwide: Beyond the literary merits and drama of the surface plot, there may (or may not) be layers of meaning underneath.

In OT stories, it is the same--except that the study of the work's elements and layers is where much of the adult value of the passage exists.


> That would pretty much limit Adam and Eve to the
> current species we see today, right?

You are intentionally interpreting too literally.

The point of the story is that it is a meaningful myth about the beginning of humankind (and humankind DID appear on this planet at, or by, some specific date). Since it is a myth, in this particular instance, the period of Earth time in which it occurred is mostly irrelevant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2019 10:41PM by Tevai.

If you are asking what species they were, that would be determined not by interpretation, but by the time period they possibly existed. Species are scientific literal things so the time period would be relevant, it seems to me anyway.

What species were the dragons in fairy tales? Now there's a stumper.

I didn't mean Jewish meanings necessarily. Unfortunately the Adam and Eve story is taken as literal by the Young Earth Christian types. Those are the ones I had in mind.

If we are making up characters and interpretations, I guess we can make up species too maybe. How about species mythicus.

Tevai's point about multiple levels of meaning and the power of mythic imagery is correct.

But so is yours. One has to choose intentionally to move beyond the factual realm to get to the other levels. It is either a major error or an indication of a weak mind to elide the two.

Thanks.

I do understand multiple levels of meanings. My original response was intended to only apply to the literal types out there. It wasn't meant to imply everyone takes it literally.

If they were the "first" humans, wouldn't they by definition be the first humanoid species? If "first humans" is not literal it could mean any Homo genus. Like Tevai pointed out there were overlapping species for certain periods of time.

To your point, I agree it doesn't work very well to elide the two.

Yes, I am not doubting your post. I was tempted earlier to indicate that the question, like so many, rests on a number of dubious assumptions.

Like Tevai, I am someone who thinks artistic, literary, and musical myth are potent and valuable stimulants. But I feel better starting with your point rather than ending on it.

“Peshat: (the literal meaning)
Remez: (the symbolic, or "hinted," meaning)
Derash: (the allegorical meaning)
Sod: (the mystical, or esoteric, meaning)”

Those are important distinctions. A good story has all of those elements. George Lucas included them in Star Wars. He had an eye for archetypes. So, Star Wars is true in the same way that TSCC is true. Mormons make an unrealistic claim of blanket truth, which is so much foolishness.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> “Peshat: (the literal meaning)
> Remez: (the symbolic, or "hinted," meaning)
> Derash: (the allegorical meaning)
> Sod: (the mystical, or esoteric, meaning)”
>
> Those are important distinctions. A good story has
> all of those elements. George Lucas included them
> in Star Wars. He had an eye for archetypes. So,
> Star Wars is true in the same way that TSCC is
> true. Mormons make an unrealistic claim of blanket
> truth, which is so much foolishness.

As a nevermo, I have always thought that one of the real limitations of Mormonism (and why I think I would be so driven loco by it) is that it has always appeared to me to be only one layer deep.

To my knowledge, there is literally nothing "underneath" the surface "paint."

Maybe rust. Mormonism is a parasite on Christianity the same way Joseph Smith was a parasite on society. One of the first things people do when they find out the church is bogus is try to fix it. You can’t fix a parasitic organization. Unfortunately, you can’t call an exterminator either.

They were Piltdowns.

My ancestors were--or, more precisely, should have been--eiderdowns.

Your ancestor was Donald Duck ?

Very unfortunate ducks, sadly.

I believe that is the scientific term. ;o)

Hugh Nibley talked about "pre-adamites". He believed in evolution, but the first "humans" were Adam and Eve. I read a piece he did on them. Basically everyone was an animal up until Adam and Eve took the fruit in the garden of Eden, that then allowed souls to inhabit the humans (something like that... its been a while).

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/transcripts/I00073-Before_Adam.html

Good luck with the link. the site kept failing to load when I tried, but maybe it will work later. :-/

Homo Sapiens Idaltu, The First Wise Man, or Elder, our forefather.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

Mitocondrial Eve could have been one of the 15 sub species of humans who co-existed in East Africa 100,000 years ago, not 6,000.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2019 10:59AM by schrodingerscat.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/meet-the-contenders-for-earliest-modern-human-17801455/

>>In 1967, a team led by Richard Leakey discovered possible Homo sapiens fossils in the Kibish Formation near the Omo River in southern Ethiopia. Originally the fossils, Omo I (a partial skull and skeleton) and Omo II (a partial skull), were thought to be 130,000 years old, but a dating reanalysis in 2005 revealed they were much older—195,000 years old, making them the oldest fossils assigned to Homo sapiens. Over the last 45 years, the species status of the fossils has been debated. Researchers largely agree Omo I was a modern human; it had the human hallmarks of a flat face, fully formed chin, high forehead and globular braincase.

That contrasts with that dubious Wiki link you offered which I tracked down...

>>Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley and colleagues unearthed three largely complete skulls, two adults and one child, in the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia in 1997. The skulls appear quite modern, the researchers reported in Nature in 2003. But because certain cranial traits are outside the range of modern human variation, the researchers placed the Herto fossils in their own subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu (idaltu means “elder” in the Afar language of Ethiopia). Cutting and scraping marks on the skulls suggest these early humans engaged in some sort of mortuary practices, as these types of markings are not typical of cannibalism.

Those "cranial traits... outside the range of modern human variation" are strong evidence they are not ancestral to modern humans.

Not knowing what species they were, but from a hypothetical standpoint, I'd say they were the first humans to grace the planet, even if their existence was metaphorical and designed as a parable to pass down from one generation to the next.

Since they were the progenitors of not only the human race, but the Jewish people and God of the bible (monotheism,) I would add they were also of Jewish origin and persuasion. (Check with Mel Brooks for reference on this, not really trying to be funny, just throwing in some humor because like it or not Adam and Eve is more likely an allegory that never actually happened.)

The fruit in the garden of Eden was evil v. good. Eve had to partake of one to understand the other. She was tempted by Satan, and led Adam into sin because of her own downfall. Then they both were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because they had fallen from grace.

They had to break one of the two commandments God had given them in order to keep the other (according to Mormon doctrine.) Either they could remain in the Garden of Eden forever in paradise. Or partake of the forbidden fruit (sex and sin, nakedness and banality,) and be cast out into the world to toil and slave then die a pauper's death.

They decided they wanted to experience being human over being a museum piece in a perfect world. Perfection has its own flaws. If it sounds too good to be true, then it is (and it was.) It was a trap set up by God to not really deceive Adam or Eve. But to let them taste the paradox of living.

Out of the complexities of life comes the living. We have to be willing to risk our comfort zones if we're going to venture out and seek deeper meaning to our existence. With that comes its own rewards, just not the paradisical gloriy Adam and Eve gave up when they were cast out of the Garden and had to toil and slave for the rest of their days. Eve had to travail. Between the two of them they learned what suffering was. Even their nakedness they became ashamed of after they partook of the forbidden fruit (sex.) They had to grow though, or they'd have been stuck in the Garden forever. And that would've been a very lonely existence for them both.

Back to what species were they? Maybe aliens transported here by another star or planet aka God from a distant world. But human through and through.

Now if they weren't placed here by God, but had evolved then they'd most likely have been sub-Saharan African or Neandarthal. I prefer Neanderthal. Since they came from the Rhein Valley in Germany. That seems a more likely place for the Garden of Eden than sub-Saharan Africa, hands down.

Definitely not from Missouri, Joseph Smith's Garden of Eden.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2019 09:16AM by Amyjo.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not knowing what species they were, but from a
> metallurgical standpoint, I'd say they were the
> first humans to grace the planet, evey if their
> existence was metaphorical and designed as a
> parable to pass down from one generation to the
> next.
>
> Since they were the progenitors of not only the
> human race, but the Jewish people and God of the
> bible (monotheism,) I would add they were also of
> Jewish origin and persuasion. (Check with Mel
> Brooks for reference on this, not really trying to
> be funny, just throwing in some humor because like
> it or not Adam and Eve is more likely an allegory
> that never actually happened.)
>
> The fruit in the garden of Eden was evil v. good.
> Eve had to partake of one to understand the other.
> She was tempted by Satan, and led Adam into sin
> because of her own downfall. Then they both were
> kicked out of the Garden of Eden because they had
> fallen from grace.
>
> They had to break one of the two commandments God
> had given them in order to keep the other
> (according to Mormon doctrine.) Either they could
> remain in the Garden of Eden forever in paradise.
> Or partake of the forbidden fruit (sex and sin,
> nakedness and banality,) and be cast out into the
> world to toil and slave then die a pauper's death.
>
>
> They decided they wanted to experience being human
> over being a museum piece in a perfect world.
> Perfection has its own flaws. If it sounds too
> good to be true, then it is (and it was.) It was a
> trap set up by God to not really deceive Adam or
> Eve. But to let them taste the paradox of living.
>
>
> Out of the complexities of life comes the living.
> We have to be willing to risk our comfort zones if
> we're going to venture out and seek deeper meaning
> to our existence. With that comes its own rewards,
> just not the paradisical gloriy Adam and Eve gave
> up when they were cast out of the Garden and had
> to toil and slave for the rest of their days. Eve
> had to travail. Between the two of them they
> learned what suffering was. Even their nakedness
> they became ashamed of after they partook of the
> forbidden fruit (sex.) They had to grow though, or
> they'd have been stuck in the Garden forever. And
> that would've been a very lonely existence for
> them both.
>
> Back to what species were they? Maybe aliens
> transported here by another star or planet aka God
> from a distant world. But human through and
> through.
>
> Now if they weren't placed here by God, but had
> evolved then they'd most likely have been
> sub-Saharan African or Neandarthal. I prefer
> Neanderthal. Since they came from the Rhein Valley
> in Germany. That seems a more likely place for the
> Garden of Eden than sub-Saharan Africa, hands
> down.
>
> Definitely not from Missouri, Joseph Smith's
> Garden of Eden.


What word did you intend but that spell check posted as metallurgical?

It's my understanding that all the hominids came from out of Africa, with those who would become the Neanderthals leaving before the Jewish exodus.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What word did you intend but that spell check
> posted as metallurgical?

Yeah, I was wondering this myself.


> It's my understanding that all the hominids came
> from out of Africa, with those who would become
> the Neanderthals leaving before the Jewish exodus.

The Jews aren't that old. Even if Abraham never existed (which would be a shame, since my Jewish name proclaims that I am his daughter), Jews as a people are only about four thousand years old--and with "Adam and Eve" (actually, their real-life counterparts), we are talking in the low millions of years.

Tevai, I was kidding with Jewish exodus from Olduvai Gorge.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tevai, I was kidding with Jewish exodus from
> Olduvai Gorge.

I'm not altogether sure Amyjo was kidding.

My "new name" is Abraham.

Thanks, Amyjo!

You said a number of things here (even the remarks in jest) which are actually meaningful.

Because of them, I did some searching, and I think I might have either "a" answer (which is not that likely), or perhaps a few "also true enough" possibilities--and this was kicked off by your remark re: sub-Saharan Africa, because I know (from my work re: the Dakar Rally) that the Sahara used to be green and productive.

Put those things together with "Khoisan"/southern Africa, and there was a kind of "squiggle" which formed in my head which led in some productive directions about Africa as a whole.

Tot ziens for now.

I have some facts to work through.

I meant hypothetical, not metallurgical. I was travelling two days, first by plane, then yesterday by car to get home. First, from Salt Lake City, home to Neanderthals and sub-Saharan Jews & Gentiles.

Then on to picking up my three month old pup in Ohio and back home again, with jet lag. By time I returned home I was exhausted.

The trip went well though. Visited with my son who was visiting from overseas. We had time to visit with my half-nephew who is two years older than I am, and retiring this week from his job he's been at for the past 35 years. The timing was sweet because he and my son got to bond as cousins for maybe the first time. They were both pallbearers at my mother's funeral, but didn't really have time to get acquainted then. Both in the same major from college too, so something to connect over. :)

I don't believe the Neanderthals came from sub-Saharan Africa. There is a split in the scientific community on this very subject. It is open to conjecture and hypotheticals. They in fact were a distinct and separate species from humans until they inter-bred and evolved into one race and eventually became extinct.

In that sense therefore, were there an actual Adam and Eve, they wouldn't have come from the Neanderthals. Unless God were a Neanderthal. Since we are created in his image, then I suspect he created Adam and Eve as humans rather than Neanderthals.

> I don't believe the Neanderthals
> came from sub-Saharan Africa.
> There is a split in the scientific
> community on this very subject. It
> is open to conjecture and hypo-
> theticals. They in fact were a
> distinct and separate species
> from humans until they inter-bred
> and evolved into one race and
> eventually became extinct.


Do you have any URLs you can post that will lead us to the evidence of which you speak? On one level, EVERYTHING is open to conjecture and hypotheticals. But from my dabbling in this area, the matter seems pretty settled that H. Neanderthalis, or his ancestors, came up out of African way before H. Sapiens made the move.

I don't think you can call H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalis "distinct and separate species" and then turn around and say they interbred. That's not what the nomenclature means.

Is it as simple as you not wanting to be from African heritage, no matter how minute?

It honestly wouldn't bother me if I was from African heritage. But I don't have any in my DNA or my genealogy.

Projecting your prejudices much?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2019 06:14PM by Amyjo.

It isn't "absolute" science. It is conjecture at best.

What "may" have occurred is a far cry from what did occur. It is not scientific proof when it is based on conjecture only.

"Scientists estimate that humans and Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) shared a common ancestor that lived 800,000 years ago in Africa.

Fossil evidence suggests that a Neanderthal ancestor "may" have traveled out of Africa into Europe and Asia. There, the Neanderthal ancestor evolved into Homo neanderthalensis some 400,000 to 500,000 years ago.

The human ancestor remained in Africa, evolving into our own species—Homo sapiens. The two groups "may" not have cross paths again until modern humans exited Africa some 50,000 years ago."

https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/neanderthals

Science cannot say with specificity, so how can you be so certain? Hint: you can't.

"A Single Neanderthal Gene Differentiates African from European Immune Systems.

The earliest homo sapiens to settle Europe interbred with Neanderthals and benefited from their immune systems."

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/a-single-neanderthal-gene-differentiates-african-from-european-immune-systems

Where did Neanderthals live?
Neanderthals evolved in Europe and Asia while modern humans - our species, Homo sapiens - were evolving in Africa.

Judging from fossil evidence from Sima de los Huesos in northern Spain and Swanscombe in Kent, the Neanderthal lineage was already well-established in Europe by 400,000 years ago.

The species ranged widely in Eurasia, from Portugal and Wales in the west across to the Altai Mountains of Siberia in the east.

Neanderthal populations were adaptable, living in cold steppe environments in England and Siberia about 60,000 years ago, and in warm temperate woodlands in Spain and Italy about 120,000 years ago."

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/who-were-the-neanderthals.html

that comes closest to describing what you are talking about -- excluding mythology of course.

https://www.dw.com/en/first-organisms-to-possibly-have-had-sex-discovered/a-18629791

First organisms to possibly have had sex discovered

Before the birds and the bees, there was Fractofusus, a prehistoric creature that scientists think was the first organism to use complex methods to reproduce, rather than just asexually multiplying.

Researchers at Cambridge University believe they have uncovered the first possible example of a complex organism that may have used both sexual and asexual reproduction. But scientists emphasize there are still several links in the evolutionary chain left before they can say for sure that these were the first creatures to ever have sex.

"This would be the first time we've actually got evidence for how large, complicated organisms reproduced, and we believe, one of the oldest ones," Dr. Emily Mitchell, one of the Cambridge researchers, told Deutsche Welle. "So it's the first time that we can say for certain that things weren't just splitting in two and reproducing like that."

The organism is called a "Fractofusus," neither fully plant nor animal, and lived roughly 565 million years ago in the Ediacaran period, in the pre-Cambrian, pre-dinosaur days. Franctofusus falls under the category of "rangeomorphs," plant-like creatures that lived in the sea.

Researchers were able to definitively show that Fractofusus had two forms of reproduction: one was asexual, and similar to how strawberry or spider plants reproduce today.

"But they also had a phase where they could release little bits of themselves into the water, which we refer to as waterborne propogules," said Mitchell. "So these propogules, may have been sexually reproduced, but they also might have just been tiny, tiny little buds or fragments. Unfortunately we can't differentiate between the two."

:D

Yes, *but* did Fractofusus have ribs? Was it male and female?

Did the male come before the female, and did they begin as one and separate personages? Or a multiplex/plethora of hosts?

By the time man & woman came to earth it was already filled with life forms and habitation. Just not humans, not yet anyway.

I wouldn't have missed this thread for all the ... fill in the


blanks.... in China


Hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahha



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2019 07:20PM by saucie.

OK here we go!!!
I have been doing anthropological research now for about 15 years. I have come to some conclusions.
One of the main books that I have accepted as text is the lost book of Enki.
This is a controversial source and so I affirm that it is a personal acceptance that allows me to use it.
That being said I now reference you to the fifth cuneiform tablet translation.
In it the vast experimentation that genetically modified a creature already found on this planet by the Anunnaki, “those who from heaven to earth come”, created what we know as homo sapien. It speaks of using earth/chemicals thereof to create this being. This directly relates to the Old Testament version of the creation of man.
This is an extremely brief synopsis so before anyone jumps on my shoulders and does a tap dance on my head I would exhort you to read for yourself and then comment.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/24/2019 03:52PM by thedesertrat1.

I have heard about Enki before (maybe from my aunt's books, or the survey courses in Western Civilization I took long ago?), but I've never followed up.

Thank you, thedesertrat1--I will follow up now.

Thank you very much.

What species was Hercules (Heracles in ancient Greek)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles

>>Heracles Greek...was a divine hero in Greek mythology, the son of Zeus and Alcmene, foster son of Amphitryon.[3] He was a great-grandson and half-brother (as they are both sired by the god Zeus) of Perseus. He was the greatest of the Greek heroes, a paragon of masculinity, the ancestor of royal clans who claimed to be Heracleidae (Ἡρακλεῖδαι), and a champion of the Olympian order against chthonic monsters. In Rome and the modern West, he is known as Hercules, with whom the later Roman emperors, in particular Commodus and Maximian, often identified themselves.

Dammit! theoracleatdelphi.com is down! It was hacked by that new minotaur malware! As soon as it's back online I'll ask for you.

Same as Jesus? Half human species with a magic Y chromosome?