> General Discussions

Adam's mother

<< < (7/7)

Deborah-Leigh:
According to the linguists, all human languages obey Zipf's Law. It's a really weird law, but it's not that hard to understand. Start off by getting a big fat book. Then, count the number of times each word appears in that book. You might find that the number one most popular word is "the" (which appears 2,000 times), followed by the second most popular word "a" (which appears 1,800 times), and so on. Right down at the bottom of the list, you have the least popular word, which might be "elephant", and which appears just once.
Set up two columns of numbers. One column is the order of popularity of the words, running from "1" for "the", and "2" for "a", right down "1,000" for "elephant". The other column counts how many times each word appeared, starting off with 2,000 appearances of "the", then 1,800 appearances of "a", down to one appearance of "elephant".
 
If you then plot on the right kind of graph paper, the order of popularity of the words, against the number of times each word appears you get a straight line! Even more amazingly, this straight line appears for every human language - whether it's English or Egyptian, Eskimo or Chinese! Now the DNA is just one continuous ladder of squillions of rungs, and is not neatly broken up into individual words (like a book).

So the scientists looked at a very long bit of DNA, and made artificial words by breaking up the DNA into "words" each 3 rungs long. And then they tried it again for "words" 4 rungs long, 5 rungs long, and so on up to 8 rungs long. They then analysed all these words, and to their surprise, they got the same sort of Zipf Law/straight-line-graph for the human DNA (which is mostly introns), as they did for the human languages!

There seems to be some sort of language buried in the so-called junk DNA! Certainly, the next few years will be a very good time to make a career change into the field of genetics.

So now, around the edge of the new millennium, we have a reasonable understanding of the 3% of the DNA that makes amino acids, proteins and babies. And the remaining 97% - well, we're pretty sure that there is some language buried there, even if we don't yet know what it says. It might say "It's all a joke", or it might say "Don't worry, be happy", or it might say "Have a nice day, lots of love, from your friendly local DNA".

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2001/04/04/133634.htm?site=science/greatmomentsinscience

Jesus is the "missing" link ~ :) ...He's not really "missing'" ~  :D

Arc

zvezda:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So God created humanity - male and female, right?

But guess what? Adam was not male or female, he was both male and female.


from http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=3720.5
How did he know it was bone of his bone?  How could he look at Eve and say, you came out of me?  What did he see?  God didn’t say, 'Adam I know your going to wonder where this woman came from, I put you to sleep and I took a rib, I made her.'  No, he could tell, he looked and saw and he said that’s me, you come from me.  How did he know that?  He looked, he had something before he went to sleep, he had something and when he woke up and God brought him to the woman, he didn’t have it anymore.  She had it!  What do you suppose that was?  He (just like God) was male and female.  God is male and female, Adam was male and female. God took the female part and made a woman out of it.  Adam saw that what he had was now gone, it’s over there.  She came from me, that’s bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh, she came out of me.


So my question is:

Did God create a bunch of males and females in the first place, and Adam was the only one who's both male and female?

OR

Did God create a bunch of people who were both male and female(hermaphrodites??), and then took out their female (or male) part to create another human, just like what He did to Adam?

I am inclined to think Adam was the only one who's both male and female, hence he's different and and an outcast, people might not understand his condition, that also explains "If women were around, why a different creation for Eve?" Because no one wanted him, probably not even his biological parents, he was despised and rejected. But giess what? God chose him and took him to the garden.

1 Cor 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

Does it make sense?   ???

dave:

--- Quote from: Kat on June 14, 2011, 07:05:15 AM ---
The whole human race had their start with Adam and Eve is what the church teaches! That Adam was literally formed from the dirt and gave life is what the church teaches! One thing I have learned from Ray is that if the church teaches it.... well it's probably not right, as they receive their understanding from the father of liars.

John 8:44  You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you will do... for he is a liar and the father of it.

It seems we still cling to those old ideas that we were raised up believing. How many of us believed the flood was worldwide before? Then after Ray showed us his research of what 'seemed' obvious in Scripture, who of us still believe the waters covered the whole earth?

What about the creation days, that seemed to be without question... 6 literal day. But now we know there is a great deal more to it, billions of years more to it.

So why would this account of Adam be any different? It is quite clear that there were other indigenous (hunter gathers) people on the earth way before the time of Adam. Why would God need to create a person (Adam) from scratch, so to speak? He already had all of these people that He had already created. It is quite easy for me to see how He would use these people to give birth to and care for the baby Adam and then separate Adam from them at some point. There are no Scriptures that dispute this, there are just preconceived idea that do. 

We need to look at this subject with an open mind.  There is no reason to fight one another over this idea, we are here to reason these things out and let the spirit reveal what is true.

mercy, peace and love
Kat



--- End quote ---

I may have read this but please give me a refresher. Thanks "He already had all of these people that He had already created." Kat

dave:

--- Quote from: John from Kentucky on June 15, 2011, 05:36:00 PM ---You know this whole subject is just ripe for speculation.  We can all go off in a thousand tangents.

Until God gives us understanding, we don't really know what is literal, what is symbolic, or what is a combination of both.

The whole story could be an allegory that teaches profound spiritual truths.

Adam is also the Hebrew name for humanity.  Adam could be a stand in for the human race.  Eve is the mother of all living.  For sure, at some point, there had to be a first man and first woman, or there would have been no reproduction of the human race.

Jesus always taught in parables in the New Testament.  He is the Word of God.  Why would He have changed His modus operandi in the Old Testament and not taught in parables too.  New Testament parables---Old Testament literal truth?

For sure, the fundamental purpose of the Scriptures is to show spiritual truths, that only God will reveal to those to whom it is granted.

--- End quote ---

I like that. I for one am lead to lean for the parable view.
You stated "Eve is the mother of all living." for me that is interesting. That word "living" is H2416 chay From H2421; alive; hence raw (flesh);  is the same word "life" of breath of life.
So knowing this I dont accept the notion that the "breath of life" is the somehow God's Spirit. My God is not part of Adams Eve, the mother of all living.
Eve is the mother of the alive. That breath of life for me was the ignition that started the respiratory system that keeps the living soul/breathing creature LIVING.

Having said that when I read Ecc 12:7  Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. I read "...and the breath shall return unto God who gave it."

I hope I said that clearly enough.

mharrell08:
I would like to thank all the members for their comments. Good discussion without any hurt feelings.  :)

With that being said, I think we should end this thread on a good note. Thanks again to all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page