Re: Two Adams??
Title: Re: Two Adams?? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Baha'i Studies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 16:19:54 EST To: Baha'i Studies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Two Adams?? In a message dated 10/27/03 11:15:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A friend has mentioned that she seems to remember reading something from either Shoghi Effendi or Abdu'l-Baha where he stated that the Adam of the Garden of Eden was not the same Adam who was the Manifestation of God. Does anyone know of any such statement and where it might be found? Dear Jeanne, My recollection is the Guardian said something along these lines about David not Adam. warmest, Susan -- Dear Susan, I checked with my friend. She remains convinced that she read the information about Adam (not David). She seems to think that she saw it in an article in the Baha'i Studies Journal and that the statement was attributed to Abd'ul- Baha. That wouldn't happen to ring any bells for you, would it? thanks, Jeanne -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
RE: Two Adams??
Jeanne, In the Jewish tradition, by and large there is not a sense that Adam was physiologically the first human. The two stories of creation in the Hebrew Scriptures are understood metaphorically and symbolically as the stories that tell the origins of the Hebrew people. There is no sense that these stories say anything about the origins of other peoples. Other cultures and tribes have their own respective creation, emergence, origin, genesis stories. [I might note that in the Jewish community, people regularly make fun of non-Jews appropriating the Hebrew creation story for their own purposes: e.g., Just because white folks have forgotten their own creation stories, they have to steal ours. . . . And they don't even understand it.] However we look at it, when people of non-Hebrew origins stake claim to the Hebrew creation story as their own, this represents a seriously problematic appropriation no less offensive than when non-Native people try to appropriate indigenous cultural stories and practices. I would hope that Baha'is would be some of the first peoples to respect the diversity of cultural and religious traditions and stories, recognizing the similarities in all of the origin stories, but also recognizing and respecting their diversity. My own current understanding of the Hebrew stories is that Adam and Eve symbolize the first of our [Hebrew people's] ancestors who had a consciousness of being human. In other words, the first of our people who (although possibly looking somewhat apelike, or not) consciously perceived themselves as different from the animals, with the ability to act contrary to natural/divine law (eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). With God speaking directly to Adam, there is the sense that he represents the first Manifestation of God for our people. If as 'Abdu'l-Baha states there were many Adams, if (as I believe) humans evolved all over the planet creating different languages and geographically based sacred traditions, then for each peoples, there would have been their own first Manifestations of God, their first families and peoples with a consciousness of being fully human and different from the animals. Of course, I am not a paleoanthropologist, but rather a scholar of oral tradition, of the history of ethnography, of Native American literatures. I offer the above as my own current understandings. I hope this helps to clarify my previous post. Susan Dr. Susan B. Brill de Ramirez, Professor of English Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; (309) 677-3888; fax (309) 677-2330 -Original Message- From: Jeanne Inamuco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:49 AM To: Baha'i Studies Subject: Re: Two Adams?? Dear Susan, I apologize for being so far behind in my reading. Thanks for your insights. Would you please clarify? Are you saying that the Adam that symbolizes the first human in an evolutionary is also the same man who is understood to be a Manifestation (the first?) of God? Additionally, I am not sure that I am clear on what is meant by the Story of Eden being a metaphor. When you say that Adam symbolizes the first man and symbolizes the first Manifestation of God, are you also saying that there was no flesh and blood human male named Adam who actually walked the earth? Thanks in advance, Jeanne -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
In a message dated 11/3/03 7:47:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you saying that the Adam that symbolizes the first human in an evolutionary is also the same man who is understood to be a Manifestation (the first?) of God? Dear Jeanne, The term Adam literally means 'man.' Keep in mind that our Writings speak of man as being the microcosm of the universe in that he expresses all the names and attributes of God: "Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him." But ultimately these are fully expressed on in the Manifestation: "Man, the noblest and most perfect of all created things, excelleth them all in the intensity of this revelation, and is a fuller _expression_ of its glory. And of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished, and the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth. Nay, all else besides these Manifestations, live by the operation of Their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of Their grace." Gleanings XC So ultimately the original man is also a Manifestation, hence Adam. Additionally, I am not sure that I am clear on what is meant by the Story of Eden being a metaphor. When you say that Adam symbolizes the first man and symbolizes the first Manifestation of God, are you also saying that there was no "flesh and blood" human male named Adam who actually walked the earth? That I wouldn't know. But whether or not there was a historical man called Adam, the stories about Him are all true. ;-} warmest, Susan P.S. For Susan B. Don't Jews see themselves as 'white folks'? -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
RE: Two Adams??
P.S. For Susan B. Don't Jews see themselves as 'white folks'? Yes, I should have written gentiles which would have been the more common referent. As a Native Studies professor, I slipped into the referent used in Indian country from non-Indians. Within the Jewish community, non-Jews are usually referred to as Christians or gentiles, the latter being the more common. And, yes, for many centuries Jews have sought to be viewed as white. Many people of Arab or north-African ancestry are frustrated in the U.S. by our ethnicity/race categories since they too, like Jews, mark white. Since we of middle-eastern/north African/near Eastern ancestry are categorized by the same semitic label [yes, I know Iranians are Aryan], we are either all white or not. Jews have fought so long to be considered white and not subaltern, but now perhaps recognizing difference needs to be accepted. I expect that soon we will see a new category on our ethnicity/racial background forms for whiteoriginating from the peoples of North Africa, the Middle East and Near East. Anyway, thanks for the correction. Susan Dr. Susan B. Brill de Ramirez,Professor of English Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625 [EMAIL PROTECTED]; (309) 677-3888; fax (309) 677-2330 -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
Re: Two Adams??She seems to think that she saw it in an article in the Baha'i Studies Journal and that the statement was attributed to Abd'ul- Baha. That wouldn't happen to ring any bells for you, would it? Dear Jeanne, The only reference i know to *two* Adams is from the New Testament where Paul speaks of Jesus as the 'second Adam.' But there are references in the Writings to numerous Adams as others have pointed out. warmest, Susan -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
The 10,000 to 100,000 year mentioned by the Master seems to indicate the beginning of human race around that time in my opinion. Aside from being a confirmation of current scientific thinking, does it matter, from a scientific point of view, when the Master said that the human race started? Dear Mark, I suspect that the reason 'Abdu'l-Baha gave two figures is because He was signaling the fact He was willing to go along with whatever science said. It is kind of like the Surih of the Cave, you know 'some say there were six and the dog makes seven' etc. warmest, Susan -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
Susan, I wrote: Aside from being a confirmation of current scientific thinking, does it matter, from a scientific point of view, when the Master said that the human race started? You responded: I suspect that the reason 'Abdu'l-Baha gave two figures is because He was signaling the fact He was willing to go along with whatever science said. It is kind of like the Surih of the Cave, you know 'some say there were six and the dog makes seven' etc. Right. That is what I meant about it being a confirmation of (then) current scientific thinking. He was acknowledging the authority of science in its own magisterium or office. However, looking back at my message, I didn't phrase it very well. Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
The origin of H. sapiens has not yet reached an overwhelming consensus, and the answer depends to some extent on which group of researchers you happen to sample. The multiregional evolution model proposes an earlier origin for H. sapiens than the Eve or Out-of-Africa model. One of the underlying assumptions of the Eve or Out-of-Africa model is H. sapiens evolved from a small, relatively isolated population of early humans. The change from H. erectus to H. sapiens did not occur in a gradual and global flux throughout the range of H. erectus, but as an event of speciation, geologically rapid under punctuated equilibrium and local in geography, according to S.J. Gould (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pages 911-916). Their success as a species enabled their migration and replacement of other Homo species. mtDNA "estimates" divergence from a common ancestor around 200,000 years ago. The oldest anatomically modern human fossils from East Africa are 130,000 years old. Modern human fossils in the Near East are dated before 90,000 years ago. Multiregionalism proposes that H. populations migrated out of Africa about 1.5 to 2 million years ago and evolved into modern humans on the other continents. Multiregionalists and Eve researchers examine the same fossil evidence and come to different conclusions, with the Eve theorists relying more on molecular biology techniques for dating. An article published in May 2003 in Proc Natl Acad Sci USA shows evidence for genetic discontinuity between Neandertals and 24,000-year-old anatomically modern Europeans, supporting the Out-of-Africa model with Neandertal replacement by our modern descendents: During the late Pleistocene, early anatomically modern humans coexisted in Europe with the anatomically archaic Neandertals for some thousand years. Under the recent variants of the multiregional model of human evolution, modern and archaic forms were different but related populations within a single evolving species, and both have contributed to the gene pool of current humans. Conversely, the Out-of-Africa model considers the transition between Neandertals and anatomically modern humans as the result of a demographic replacement, and hence it predicts a genetic discontinuity between them. Following the most stringent current standards for validation of ancient DNA sequences, we typed the mtDNA hypervariable region I of two anatomically modern Homo sapiens sapiens individuals of the Cro-Magnon type dated at about 23 and 25 thousand years ago. Here we show that the mtDNAs of these individuals fall well within the range of variation of today's humans, but differ sharply from the available sequences of the chronologically closer Neandertals. This discontinuity is difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that both Neandertals and early anatomically modern humans contributed to the current European gene pool. Susan Maneck wrote: "If you accept the evidence for the Eve or the out of Africa theory, science has already confirmed the origin of our present species 100,000 years ago." Dear Marlene, I think even without the 'Eve' theory Homo Sapiens are supposed to emerge about 100,000 years ago aren't they? The Agricultral Revolution begins about 10,000 years ago. warmest, Susan -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public) -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
The 10,000 to 100,000 year mentioned by the Master seems to indicate the beginning of human race around that time in my opinion. Aside from being a confirmation of current scientific thinking, does it matter, from a scientific point of view, when the Master said that the human race started? Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.m.foster.name -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
If you accept the evidence for the Eve or the out of Africa theory, science has already confirmed the origin of our present species 100,000 years ago. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The 10,000 to 100,000 year mentioned by the Master seems to indicate the beginning of human race around that time in my opinion. It'll be sometime before science can confirm his statement. Fariborz -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public) -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
If you accept the evidence for the Eve or the out of Africa theory, science has already confirmed the origin of our present species 100,000 years ago. Dear Marlene, I think even without the 'Eve' theory Homo Sapiens are supposed to emerge about 100,000 years ago aren't they? The Agricultral Revolution begins about 10,000 years ago. warmest, Susan -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
Dear Susan You're right. I have seen what you say about the age of this world, but I couldn't find an answer to this Word of `Abdu'l-Baha about `ten thousand years'. Could you look at it in Makatib or second volume of Ma'idih (vol. 2, chapter 35)? (you can find it in both books) Dear Faruq, The passage is from SAQ and I note that 'Abdu'l-Baha did not say the earth was millions of years old, He said it was much older! As you see, we have no records of twenty thousand years ago, although we have before proved by argument that life on this earth is very ancient. It is not one hundred thousand, or two hundred thousand, or one million or two million years old; it is very ancient, and the ancient records and traces are entirely obliterated. I note this passage as well: As the perfection of man is entirely due to the composition of the atoms of the elements, to their measure, to the method of their combination, and to the mutual influence and action of the different beings--then, since man was produced ten or a hundred thousand years ago from these earthly elements with the same measure and balance, the same method of combination and mingling, and the same influence of the other beings, exactly the same man existed then as now, warmest, Susan -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
A friend has mentioned that she seems to remember reading something from either Shoghi Effendi or Abdu'l-Baha where he stated that the Adam of the Garden of Eden was not the same Adam who was the Manifestation of God. Dear Jeanne, I thought I'd answer this post earlier, but for some reason it has not appeared. I don't know of any quotation of Shoghi Effendi or Abdu'l-Baha which says this. I wonder if it isn't be confused with the reference to two Davids? warmest, Susan -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
Re: Two Adams??
Yes, you are right, we are all the same "species" Homo sapiens, which I think is what you meant. Races are actually subspecies in terms of classification. Whether or not we are all descended from Eve remains unclear, despite its popularity in the mass media. Scientific consensus is not unanimous as far as the Eve or Out of Africa hypothesis is concerned. New questions and issues have arisen in the last few years undermining the mtDNA evidence supporting the Eve hypothesis, compounded by the conflicting fossil remains when compared to the mtDNA evidence. See "Is Out of Africa Going Out the Door?" http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00062D52-ABB0-1C72-9EB7809EC588F2D7catID=2 and "The Modern Human Origins Morass" http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009EA76-8C30-1C75-9B81809EC588EF21catID=4 Jerry Joplin wrote: M Chase [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Neither the story of Adam nor Eve theory supports we are all one race; they claim that all races developed from a common ancestor. Different races developed from various geographical adapations. Hi Marlene, yeah perhaps I should have been a little clearer. I was trying to emphasize *human* race, we're all one *human* race, i.e. homo sapiens. And we're all descended from the same homo sapien, Eve. Being of Northern European heritage, perhaps I'm overly sensitive to this because quite a lot of Neandertal bones have been found in Northern Europe, and some people claim that we have more barbaric neandertal genes than other people. :-) Which is untrue! Hey, I may look like a Neandertal, but we are *all* homo sapiens descended from the same Eve who lived a relatively short time ago considering the whole scheme of things. If there are any Neandertal genes in us, then we all share equally in our Neandertal heritage. (Maybe we need a new Neandertal appreciation week?) Jerry -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public) -- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
