sodapop Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 nobody knows..there's a lot of discoveries to be made. What has been discovered is just a pebble compared to what needs to be discovered. And I don't see a connection between historical art architecture and the skin color of the first race. So far, there is more to be discovered...so your teacher cannot make assumptions on about this. The only person who could answer this, is the first person who ever walked on earth, not sure...but if your teacher happened to be one of the first 5 people who lived on earth, then you might as well believe him..lol:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jennarator Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Adam was a humaniod from this planetEve was a half cylon baby from Caprica.Love this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenamarie Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 It dawns on me that if Eden is in Missouri it's plausible to say Adam and Eve were fairer skinned, and not likely black. With my belief that Eden is probably in the Middle East, near Egypt/Israel, it's much easier for me to think they was olive-skinned or darker.Why do you say? To my recollection natives of the American continents have tended to have fairly dark skin as well (perhaps not *black*, but not quiet European pale either). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 I'm a little dense. What's "historical art architecture"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Why do you say? To my recollection natives of the American continents have tended to have fairly dark skin as well (perhaps not *black*, but not quiet European pale either).Note that I said "plausible" and "fairer-skinned," rather than white. Still, you are right that Native Americans were also darker, perhaps as much as Middle-Easterners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 I'm a little dense. What's "historical art architecture"?It is a field of academics that allows you to comment on what color the skins of the first humans must have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skippy740 Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Other Heroes of The Book of Mormon Book Trailer: Check out what this particular artist was doing for his interpretations of how certain Book of Mormon figures looked.At :31 of the video, is the Jaredite Shule. (Not sure if I spelled that one correctly.)Sons of Mosiah Productions | Just another WordPress weblog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSJewess Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Who says that Adam and Eve were specific individual people. There is no mention of race, and in Hebrew there is no specifics given that Adam was an individual. Rather the name Adam or אָדָם, ʼĀḏām translated to English means dust, man, mankind as in a human race (mankind) of people made from dust not just an individual man named Adam. I don't think what color their skin was is relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustbringsyou Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Well, regardless we are all created in God's image and we are all brothers and sisters. Those are the things that we should focus on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 The other discussion along these lines goes like this: We know who Jesus' mother was. How come there are so many pictures of Him looking like a blond-haired blue-eyed Anglo-Saxon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipplecutBuddha Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 The oldest humanoid races are found in africa. The Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Seems it could be either way, but since we aren't fully versed on exactly what process God used in creating our bodies, the humanoid races in africa could have been Adam and Eve's children, or they could have not been. Since plate tectonics have shifted the continents (and it's even mentioned in the bible) There's no reason to discard the thought that Missouri could have been an equatorial area at first. More to the point....what difference does it make? In my experience, people that bring up stuff like this do so just to get the chance to call anyone speaking favorably for the white race as rascist. Because we all know, you can't make fun of a white guy and be racist, because whites are racist, they deserve it. I doubt this is the case in the OP's situation, but these issues just turn me off inellecutally because there's no intellectually valid point or benefit to them in any way. Nor is there any spiritual benefit to them. If race shouldn't matter, why do we talk about it so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Plate tectonics are NOT mentioned in the Bible. That the world was divided in Peleg's day does not reference a shifting of land masses, but that God politically divided the known world into 70 nations. This is known as the Table of Nations, the key 70 descending from Noah. Each was assigned a deity from the Divine Sons/Council of Elohim. Yahweh was assigned Israel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lines Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 Does scripture mention the race of Adam and Eve or their skin tone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 Does scripture mention the race of Adam and Eve or their skin tone?Eskimoes. I believe I have already established that in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 I have a non-member teacher who I take two clases with. Between them the other day he was saying that because of historical art architecture, the first people were darker colored skin. He knows I don't agree but I had no idea what to say.I private messages to another non-member friend and told her what he said. She apparently believes him and sent me a link which I haven't read yet.So how to I reply to these people?Thank for your help.I think it's pretty clear that your teacher is correct. The first 'people' (100,000 years ago) were dark skinned. Light skin is a later mutation. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhura Posted July 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 As it is, your art teacher probably was not thinking about Adam and Eve, but about Cro-Magnon Man, who was definitely darker skinned. Earlier humanoids included some that were definitely black skinned. This is proven via archaeology and science.He wasn't an art teacher, we just happened to get into a conversation since I was early. But I am agreeing with those who say we don't know and it doesn't matter. I guess I had been going only by pictures.By the historical art, I think he was refering to....those pictures in caves that came before writing. I don't remember what they are called.I didn't realize this would turn into such a long conversation. Either way I agree with those of you who have empathized that it doesn't matter. I guess I had just been going by pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 Seems it could be either way, but since we aren't fully versed on exactly what process God used in creating our bodies, the humanoid races in africa could have been Adam and Eve's children, or they could have not been.Most likely, those humanoid races of Africa were Adam & Eve's progenitors. I think it almost 100% that Adam & Eve were the first *covenental* 'man' on the earth, the first flesh that had the possibility of a relationship with God. HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiJolly Posted July 1, 2011 Report Share Posted July 1, 2011 (edited) Who says that Adam and Eve were specific individual people. There is no mention of race, and in Hebrew there is no specifics given that Adam was an individual. Rather the name Adam or אָדָם, ʼĀḏām translated to English means dust, man, mankind as in a human race (mankind) of people made from dust not just an individual man named Adam. I don't think what color their skin was is relevant.If we're talking Hebrew, then *red* is the color that comes to mind RE: Adam. But as you say, I'm sure it doesn't matter. HiJolly Edited July 1, 2011 by HiJolly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RipplecutBuddha Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 Plate tectonics are NOT mentioned in the Bible. That the world was divided in Peleg's day does not reference a shifting of land masses, but that God politically divided the known world into 70 nations. This is known as the Table of Nations, the key 70 descending from Noah. Each was assigned a deity from the Divine Sons/Council of Elohim. Yahweh was assigned Israel.Source please? I've never heard anything close to this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted July 2, 2011 Report Share Posted July 2, 2011 It is rather well known among LDS scholars. You can read up on it at my blog here: Joel's Monastery: Search results for pelegWhen the Most High [Hebrew: Elyon] gave to the nations their inheritance, When he separated the children of men [Hebrew: Adam], He set the bounds of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. (Deuteronomy 32:8 , ASV)You can read about the sons of Elohim (divine sons) and the sons of Yahweh here:https://sites.google.com/site/yahwehelohiym/sons-of-god/the-boundaries-of-the-nationsMormanity - A Mormon Blog (But Not Just for Mormons): Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Many Implications for LDS ReligionMormonism in the Early Jewish Christian MilieuThere are many more articles, but this should e a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mightynancy Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 . I guess I had just been going by pictures. This brings to mind the time a primary teacher in our ward pointed out that Jesus was a cute baby, with a painting as his reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dahlia Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 This brings to mind the time a primary teacher in our ward pointed out that Jesus was a cute baby, with a painting as his reference. That's funny, but that kind of thinking (?) also contributed to my staying away from religion for a looong time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 This brings to mind the time a primary teacher in our ward pointed out that Jesus was a cute baby, with a painting as his reference. By definition, babies and brides are beautiful. So his statement was trivially true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 If we're talking Hebrew, then *red* is the color that comes to mind RE: Adam. But as you say, I'm sure it doesn't matter. HiJolly I had a fellow tell me that "Adam" means "ruddy"--and he suggested that indicated he was white, since caucasians are the ones who turn red (ruddy). Since this definition of Adam is third in the Hebrew dictionary, I'm not putting much stock in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted July 4, 2011 Report Share Posted July 4, 2011 By definition, babies and brides are beautiful. So his statement was trivially true. Well, my dad always thought babies were kinda ugly. Also, Isaiah prophesied that the Messiah would have an appearance that would not be particularly attractive. I'm not saying that the teacher engaged in false teaching...just that the speculation was far from conclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.