It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Adam & Eve's Incest Scandal!!

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 10:36 AM
Yes, I read this same story in a fairy tale once myself. I liked the story so much I read it six more times- then I studied it in classes and was finally asked to leave because my questions were a bit more intelligent than the answers the teachers could provide.

Then of course a movie came out called, Sister Mary Explains It All, starring Diane Keaton. I believe that about sums it up.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:04 AM
Hi sethdarke

I have a link to a very interesting albeit looooong read - but it kind of opens ones thinking to another level. Have a go and it may surprise you.

PS the rest of it is also very interesting - enjoy

The Urantia Book

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:09 AM

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
If Adam and Eve were the only two people on earth to start with, then we are all genetically related. It's lucky Kain and Abel weren't born with birth defects or deformed eh?

Everytime you sleep with someone, it is incest. Well... that is if you believe in the holy book

No it isn't, that term only applies to close family.

Whether you believe in the bible or whatever, ultimately, there would have had to be some "original" human (s)..........

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:15 AM
The word "adam" is the neuter-gender Hebrew word meaning 'humanity.' It encompasses both male and female, relating to the initial creation of man and woman simultaneously rather than sequentially.

The name Adam is a masculine form related to the Hebrew word adamah meaning "ground". Related words are adom, red (or brown) and dam, blood.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 11:49 AM

Originally posted by kacou
The 10 commandment has been known to have regenerated from a very old set of rules inscribe in some tablets in Mesopotamia 1500 before any account of Moses.

Do you have any proof for this statement or just your word? Not that it isn't true but I haven't heard of it.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:15 PM
The story of Adam is Eve is not true.

At some point 5 to 8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the two separate lineages we know today.

The end.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:47 PM
Evolution can also be considered in this debate:

Here's an interesting paper about the "Mitochondrial Eve". It seems that every human on Earth shares the same Mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed to us by our mothers. This paper explains how we can all trace our heritage back to a single woman. She isn't the "First Woman", but she is a comman ancestor to all of us. For some reason, the descendants of other women failed to survive as part of the present population of humans.

This one woman may have left Africa (with others), and her descendants eventually 'genetically conquered' any humans that were already out there, while anyone not related to her back in Africa died out.

That's not to say that her children necessarily interbred brother-to-sister, because she may have had many daughters who procreated with men not closely related to them. However, it seems to me that this idea requires first cousins to have "incestuous relations".

anyway, here's the's a pretty good read:
Mitochondrial "Eve"


[edit on 11/28/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Lurch
The story of Adam is Eve is not true.

At some point 5 to 8 million years ago, the common ancestor of humans and modern apes diverged to form the two separate lineages we know today.

your first statement is an opinion.
your second is a reasonable theory...

because there were a world of early humans for ages & millennia,
but they were from & of the God called 'Mother Earth'

the Bible claims ownership by their God of the first humans to develop
language and alphabets as a communication (AKA; the 'Word')
that addressed the 'higher' precepts of mankind, a higher order of Morality
and a higher thinking including the 'future'...iow, the modern Human...

Whereas the 'beasts-of-the-field'...which included Adams' companion
called Lilith, who were un-enlightened human animals governed by the
force-of-nature, were worthy of cohabitation and carnal knowledge as
it served the line of Adam...but an 'Eve' was the required vessel to
carry on the modern human traits/genes/DNA...& so the story was
structured after the happenstance meeting of these two advanced
sapiens-sapiens (relative to the rest of the sapiens & neanderthals,
along with the homo-erectus, cromagnons, etc, which populated the landscape.

fundamentalism is a narrow telescopic view of creation....
(this statement is not aimed at Lurch,
but at the general 'followers' of the Biblical presentation & it's
approved (as in self serving) interpetation doled out to the masses)

[edit on 28-11-2007 by St Udio]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 04:02 PM
What a stupid story. Two people are magically created and everyone is punished because they eat an apple.


I respect people's right to believe what they want to believe,

That story takes the cake when it comes to fairy tales.

As for incest, it's true. There would have had to be incest, pretending for the sake of this conversation that it actually happened.

"Adam and Eve" weren't brother and sister (I guess), so that's not incest. So they can give birth to as many kids as they want. But at some point when they die, their children are going to have to give birth to keep the human population around. That's when it becomes incest, because who the hell else do they have to have sex with?

It's all stupid if you ask me.

Adam and Eve is as laughable as "Noah's Ark". But if you people believe it..well, good for you.


[edit on 11/28/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:29 PM
Interesting ideas.

I read Genesis several times over many years, and it seems to me that like many enduring religious narratives it is essentially meant as an allegory.

It's not about 2 individuals, it's about 2 tribes. Locked up in their interaction is an understanding of modern human origins, and their interaction with 'fallen angels' from the sky - i.e. ETs.

It seems to me that Genesis was dumbed down to a narrative about 2 individual people, to make it easier for the uneducated and illiterate folks at that time to understand the essential moral message contained therein. But historically, the text is describing a long historical process more sophisticated and complex than the simplified narrative you read on the surface. The 'Garden of Eden' is not a physical place, of course, it's about a state prior to changes initiated into the human gene pool by some outside non-human intervention. Look at the word: 'Genes...(of)...Is (ISIS)'.

Moses, who is credited with first writing Genesis down in this form, later simplified the complexities of human morality, conscience and god-essence to '10 Commandments' so even seriously stupid folks would not fail to follow a simple set of rules. These are not meant for the more developed thinking people, they are meant for the dumb and unimaginative who need to be told what to do in order to keep them from harm.

He was wise. The feeble-minded, who need to follow a set of rules written down for them, are still with us 4,000 years later.

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 05:30 PM
My take on the whole Adam and Eve story is that its a story about 2 people, Adam and Eve, who were created in Gods image to bask in the glory of a land called Eden. I'm not sure that they were actually created out of clay, or Adams Rib but rather think they were simply the first to be 'chosen' or blessed with Gods awareness on a personal level. Thus placed, located or created/born in a new and pristine land called Eden. A land which should of provided abundantly for whomever inhabited it.

Historicly speaking, and considering the somewhat dated timeframe of this union between man, land and God, people were still hunter gatherers, that is, until Adam and Eve tasted the fruit of knowledge. Perhaps this is a refrence from when man turned from hunter gatherers to farmers and masters over the land and nature.

Until then, all of mankind had to submit to the balance of which nature could provide but after this change(sin?) of man taking control over nature, a balance between nature and man skewed greatly in favor of man. And everyone can relate to the dangers and disruptions man has caused the earth by taking control of nature(born in sin).

Again, and speaking of a somewhat credible timeframe outlined by the Bible and science, the exact time Adam and Eve were said to be gracing Eden, is the same timeframe man changed from hunter gatherers to farmers.

To me, after understanding the story of Adam and Eve, and giving credit to historians of the bible as well as science, its plausable this may very well be the true meaning of Adam, Eve, the tree of knowledge and the first sin..

Just a personal theory, but it makes perfect sence to me.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by HomeBrew]

posted on Nov, 28 2007 @ 09:04 PM

Originally posted by jedimiller
Because the bible is the final word. the bible says it's wrong. jesus said it was wrong. therefore, all of our foundations here in America come from the bible. our founding fathers used the ten commandments, the bible to make the laws. if it wasn't for the bible, people would still be performing numerous incest cases. hope this helps.

I'm surprised at this for two reasons. 1) That there are people who actually believe this to be true, ie, that the bible has anything to do with the founding fathers or the constitution, and 2) that this thread went on for almost 2 pages afterward without anyone calling you on it.

Consider yourself called out.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 12:55 AM
There is no way to prove or debunk the Bible in the scientific way coz it is beyond science, it is faith all about.

If you don't believe it won't bother you a bit, so save your time for more UFO !

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:05 AM

Originally posted by sethdarke
Where the hell are the people who believe that adam and eve were the only 2 people on earth ??

They are furiously reading their bibles hoping to come up with the perfect answer to quench your evil desires to oust the story as a little bit goofy.

It's complicated to apply the metaphor (that adam is men and eve is women) theory to it because so many players are given direct names, unless these names are distinguishing a group of people.. I don't know.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by XyZeR

Originally posted by Jedimiller
if it wasn't for the bible, people would still be performing numerous incest cases.

You mean like the numerous incest cases you constantly hear about involving mostly catholic priests ?

[edit on 28-11-2007 by XyZeR]

Priests are having sex with their mothers and fathers now?

Dear God, when will they stop this madnesss !!!11

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:20 AM
"bovarcher" intresting,,, i too have wonderd if it was two tribes of men called Adam and a tribe of woman called Eve.
I remember i read in a post somewere last night that the DNA of humans can be traced back to two people if that is the case then i would go with the fact that the gene pool was not corupted and allowed brothers sisters cousins to "Know" each other lol... but that makes another conundrum Noah and his Family as they were suposed to be the only humans left..wernt they?
But i agree the story was ment for more simple minds.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:26 AM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

Whether you believe the story or not is up entirely to you, but I think if you'd read the thread you would have found that most people in it are discussing the interpretation of the story.

Nothing wrong with that, it is an old story, part of human history, whether you believe it or not.

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 01:40 AM
Here is something to think about. Adam was made of dust from the ground, basically earth. Adamah is Hebrew for earth.

What if it was referring to Earth instead of earth? Adam was made of the Earth. Eve was made of Adam.

Couldn't this also be interpretted as taking a pre-existing species, Homo-erectus, etc., and modifying it to create Homo-sapien?

posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by Polite American

What ever I will submit to this claim, I hope you will also take some time to make some research for your self.
Before explaining to you the real origin of the 10 commandments you have to understand that Moses was very likely a legendary character based on a much older mythological character known as Sargon of Agade. Because of too many similarity.
It is also imperative to know that Moses was not the first man to be given commandments from a god. Shamash, the god of Babylonia, gave his laws to Hammurabi long before Yahweh (the god of the Israelites), gave his laws to Moses.
And before either Moses or Hammurabi received their laws, the Sumerian King Ur-Nammu was given laws from the sky god An and the wind and storm god Enlil.
These archaeological facts suggest that the Israelites simply borrowed the idea of a divine law giver to carry their human laws with more influence, because they know that it was an efficient way to implement the law and make them believe that God was showing only to them the best way to live, here by the Jewish claim of the chosen people.
It seems that ancient people were more likely to follow laws if they were understood to come not from a mere man but from a god.
The Code of Hammurabi are inscribed in Old Babylonian on an 243.84 centimetres tall black diorite. It was discovered in December 1901 in Susa, Elam, which is now Khuzistan, where it had been taken as plunder by the Elamites in the 12th century BC. This tablet is in display today at the Louvre Museum in Paris.


posted on Nov, 29 2007 @ 03:01 AM
Further more;
On the subject of Adam and Eve, you can also trace it back to the Sumerian.
Aarcheologists have discovered, not in biblical Israel, but in the rejoin of the most ancient civilization known as Sumer, a seal portraying a very important events described in the book of Genesis.
This find, known as the Temptation Seal, is in the British Museum. It has been estimated as old as 5000 years before Christ . This relic shows a man and a woman viewing a tree, and behind the woman is a serpent. The man and woman are both reaching for fruit of the tree.
How many similarity one wants to come to conclusion that the old testament is just a combination of old tells.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in