Was Adam the first human being on earth?

All research or scholarship questions
Darrick Evenson

Was Adam the first human being on earth?

Postby Darrick Evenson » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:46 pm

According to The Bab, Adam lived about 10,500 B.C. Was Adam the first human being on earth?

According to 'Abdu'l-Baha, Adam had no father or mother. Do you believe this?

shm
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:40 pm

Postby shm » Sat Feb 25, 2006 9:59 pm

Well if AbdulBaha said Adam did not have mother or father than that would be a fact since AbdulBaha was appointed by Bahaullah and the intrepreter of His words, and was endowed with special power and wisdom by Bahaullah so AbdulBaha's words are the truth.

I have one question.
AbdulBaha says "Know that it is one of the most abstruse spiritual truths that the world of existence—that is to say, this endless universe—has no beginning."
then he goes on to say "names and attributes of the Divinity themselves require the existence of beings.........If we could imagine a time when no beings existed, this imagination would be the denial of the Divinity of God."

So therefore from this we understand that human being always existed or else it would go against the Divinity of God.

However AbdulBaha says "for there is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one: the origin of all numbers is one and not two. Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one"

If humans must have existed in the beginning that has no beginning so that the Divinity of God is not broken, then how could matter have ever been one. This goes against one another. If matter was in the beggining one, then that would mean at that time there was no human being alive since there was only one matter, and if there is no human being alive this goes against the Divinity of God which is not possible.

Is there anyone that can explain this?

If anyone can explain this I would very much appreciate it.

Guest

Postby Guest » Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:40 pm

Does it specifically say that Adam was a human being? Maybe he was really a monkey! (And the apple was really a banana!)

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:23 am

Anonymous wrote:Does it specifically say that Adam was a human being? Maybe he was really a monkey! (And the apple was really a banana!)


to me the above comment is not funny!

I hope jonah finds the note and deletes it.

Exactly when does a note cross a line into racial strife?

oneness
dh

Jonah
Site Admin
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:25 pm
Location: St Catharines, Ontario (near Niagara Falls)
Contact:

Postby Jonah » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:48 am

I hope jonah finds the note and deletes it.

Yes, the comment apparently was made in jest. But it does express a common interpretation of evolution. And, do the Writings state that Adam had the form of contemporary humans? I don't know. So I think it best to respond with a statement from Abdu'l-Baha on (nearly) this topic. From http://bahai-library.com/writings/abdulbaha/saq/47.html :

Let us return to our subject that man, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth, like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power. It is certain that in the beginning he had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty and this grace. There is no doubt that the human embryo did not at once appear in this form; neither did it then become the manifestation of the words "Blessed, therefore, be God, the most excellent of Makers." [Qur'án 23:14.] Gradually it passed through various conditions and different shapes, until it attained this form and beauty, this perfection, grace and loveliness. Thus it is evident and confirmed that the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and Divine Law.

And a question.
According to The Bab, Adam lived about 10,500 B.C.

Where is this statement? I don't recall having read that before.

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:20 am

Jonah wrote:
...

And a question.
According to The Bab, Adam lived about 10,500 B.C.

Where is this statement? I don't recall having read that before.


Thanks Jonah ... some jokes are very mean spirited and are really racist in nature ... me ... developing tough skin about this issue ... obviously I think there will be a time where even the slightest hint of racial slurs will be cause for disciplanary action by the Authorites ...

I too wonder about the 10,500 B.C. comment.

I also would like to point out that the comment about a banana is an obvious perversion of the Sacred Text ... the Bible clearly says apple ...
in fact I know of no religious Scripture or text that even hints at any other substance other than apple ... ... ...

but hey ... what is a little perversion among friends ... I mean just friendly dialogue right ?? right ?? right ???

heck ... let us see what else we can pervert ...
if an apple is really a banana
then ???????

where de we draw what lines ?? ??? ??????

its ok to let someone pervert the meaning of the Bible,
but not ok to let someone pervert the text of Baha'u'llah?

is that what we want in this forum ??

i don't know ??

just me ranting and raving ... but i do wonder why we allow ourselves to be abused? ? ?

if someone wants tro be funny ... let em go to a comedy club ...
let em paste his little racial joke on a black eterainment forum and see what sort of response he/she gets ...

to me the joke wasn't funny
to me the joke is tantamount to teaching that the perversian of the Sacred is enjoyable.

I hope you get a chance to reconsider ..... ... ...

one small victory for perversion
one large defeat for decency

oneness
dh

another guest

10,500 and apple

Postby another guest » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:19 am

I don't know why you are getting exercised by Darrick's unsupported statement about the Bab. I have found nothing to indicate that the Bab ever said Adam lived 10,500 years ago. Without a cite, it's just incitement.

As for the apple, onepence, the Bible does not ever indicate that the fruit that Adam ate was other than "the fruit of the Knowing of Good and Evil". Because Adam now (thought) he could distinguish Good from Evil, he was embarassed at being naked. He no longer trusted in God, but in his own perceptions/deductions. You don't get this effect from a Granny Smith : )

brettz9
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Fri Mar 03, 2006 10:47 am

As to the banana/apple issue, I don't get why someone would take any offense at that kind of joke...Corrupting the Writings is about twisting verses for an evil purpose, or in very rare cases, actually deliberately transmitting the Sacred Writings with interpolations... It would not surprise me one bit if someone found some examples of 'Abdu'l-Bahá making such a joke...Bahá'u'lláh is to have said that the Qur'án makes reference to all things and used it as an indirect insult to someone who had insulted it... C'mon now--this kind of joke was not slackening our morals or something...

As far as the year of Adam's mission, this does raise some questions, I think. In some places, 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to Adam as the progenitor of all the races (see various references in Promulgation of Universal Peace). Although this could simply be a spiritual metaphor for impacting all humankind as an early Manifestation of God (as the passage here shows Adam as the symbol of the Manifestation and Eve as the symbol of the first believer), it seems more like a corporeal reference in the above-mentioned contexts.

And though there are quotes about a graduated transition (as Jonah cited), there are also those which refer to the approximate duration of the Adamic cycle: "...the Adamic cycle...a process which commenced six thousand years ago..." (Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Bahá'í World, pp. 153-154; see other references in the same book also) 4004 B.C. is the traditionally ascribed beginning of the time of Adam.

Now take the following statement: "If being without a father is a virtue, Adam is greater and more excellent than all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother." (Some Answered Questions, p. 89) Now with this statement and the statements from Some Answered Questions that man has always existed (unless it simply refers to somewhere in God's universe), it seems we are left with the choice that: Adam was, like Jesus, a product of a kind of virgin Birth, but not the first man--perhaps simply as the Originator of a new cycle--a great Teacher before humanity diverged too greatly or impacting all humanity through His progeny of future Manifestations of God (and thus He was referred to as the Progenitor of all humanity--Progenitor in the much more important spiritual sense). Or, perhaps there could be another "Adam" from an earlier time who was in fact the original progenitor of humanity as we now know it.

I could be missing something, but I'm not sure what other possibility(ies) there is, taking into account all of these points.

best wishes,
Brett

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:15 pm

Anonymous wrote:Does it specifically say that Adam was a human being? Maybe he was really a monkey! (And the apple was really a banana!)


"He knoweth the inner secrets of the hearts and the meaning hidden in a mocker's wink ."

hey ... mock Adam all you want ... heck ... have ever Authority agree that it is ok to make a mockery of our Teachings, our Faith, and our Lives,

just don't expect me to allow such comments to go unchallenged

but hey ... if the Authority of this site says mock on ... good enough by me


mock on

oneness
dh

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:28 pm

agreed ... the text does not specifically state apple ...

indication is in other verses ...

Proverbs 7:2 - Keep my commandments and live; and my law as the apple of your eye.

so ... yeah ... I did jump the gun in critizing apple/banana issue ....

but I simply was trying to avoid the "monkey" issue

I suppose we feel it is ok for people to go to a jewish site and say are we sure Moses was a human , I think maybe he was a monkey ... I mean is that what we are saying is acceptable ?

I mean should we encourage our guests to go to a Muslem site and compare Mohamed to a monkey.

I mean God forbid that I have to offer to this site such vulgar thoughts to demonstrate how ugly and utterly inflametory raciest our guests remarks are

I mean is it acceptable to encourage our Guests to go to other Baha'i sites and question whether or not Baha'u'llah was human ? maybe he {notice small h} was a monkey ?

get real ... how gross ... how offensive to my soul ... comparing a Divine Being to a monkey .....

o ... lol ... so funny ...

yeah ... right ...

I got a mockers wink for ya

oneness
dh

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:27 pm

Racism

http://opalmist.livejournal.com/11313.html

I found out just how much I really hate racism today. I would of thought it would be homophobia I'd be most affected by...but it's not. The degree of emotional response I had to this was surprising to me.

I know it's right after the point in time in which this incident occurred, but at this stage, I really feel as if I won't be able to tollerate this person's company anymore. It's an incredible shame, because I really felt we had a really nice friendship going along just fine, and I held...and still do, great feelings of affection for her. It almost feels wrong just labeling her as a racist, as if I should somehow be attaching reason to it all...but at the core of it, it all boils down. Probably like most people in her position, she feels like she isn't a racist, somehow reasoning in her own mind that what she said doesn't qualify as racist. You can say things in a certain way...it doesn't justify the motivation behind it.

Sure, it wasn't "White power!" or anything like that. It wasn't even a slur. But 'mere' attitudes have the same amount of impact. Even more, because it's not as summarily dismissable for a lot of people...which means it's more often tollerated/accepted. The disturbing thing is that a part of her logic made sense...not, of course, to the point of validating the whole of her position...but some of it.

One irritating aspect of it all is that it rubs off onto my id, if that makes sense. I don't know if one is supposed to be conscious of one's id or not, but if I concentrate or am caught off guard...well, sometimes rather racist, sexist, chauvanist, etc etc thoughts creep in. It's not as if I hear voices in my head or anything, nor are they figments of my actual feelings or formed opinions. Just random stabs of nastiness through my head. I get that from hearing {censered} like I heard today.

I personally don't give a {censered} if she's upset that I stormed out on her, or if she's worried that she hurt my feelings. It isn't about me...not for a second. She can stew until she feels bad about the motivation behind her words. Until then, I can only feel sorry for her, and bad for not allowing myself to be as forgiving as I feel I want to be.

I feel sick from it all.

MatW.

Postby MatW. » Mon Mar 06, 2006 2:41 am

Not withstanding any kind of racism or torment or hardship from the many comments left with directed opinions. Lets turn to a different view.

Be thankful for what YOU have learned and then there seems to be no need to scorn the teacher. Since your lesson was learned so well.

God Blessed you. Please this is honest do not assume this was made sarcastic. No amount of hurt or intent to mock has been attempted. Just pointing out a possible different view.

Mat

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:27 am

MatW. wrote:Not withstanding any kind of racism or torment or hardship from the many comments left with directed opinions. Lets turn to a different view.

Be thankful for what YOU have learned and then there seems to be no need to scorn the teacher. Since your lesson was learned so well.

God Blessed you. Please this is honest do not assume this was made sarcastic. No amount of hurt or intent to mock has been attempted. Just pointing out a possible different view.

Mat


The view that Adam was a monkey is worse than racism,
it is sheer blasphemy.

I am grateful that my Teacher teaches me
that there is such a thing as "open blasphemy".
and how some "utter perversion of the truth".

I don't consider myself in need of "a different view" in this matter.

a person of oneness,
Dean Hedges

brettz9
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:04 pm

Dean,

As far as the original posting, I had understood this to be referring to the "form" of Adam--the original man--being like a monkey. As Jonah already cited, "It is certain that in the beginning he [man] had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty and this grace." It should not be offensive if an earlier Manifestation of God had in fact the form of such proto-humans, particularly if we are, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá states (assuming it is in the physical sense), descended from Him! He would need to be, if not as a physical Ancestor, then as a Being which could communicate well with the people of that time--and thus would need to have their basic appearance.

That is how I understood the "joke". Needless to say, if it was really a monkey, it couldn't communicate to establish a religion!

As far as your comment on blasphemy, just because there is in fact discussion of blasphemy in our Writings to help us to see in clear terms what is right or reasonable and what is not does not mean that we are supposed to so readily accuse others of it! We are supposed to endure ridicule (I don't even think this was) and show no perturbation by it. We will be facing much more in the future, so we should learn to deal with it. It is our responsibility to defend the Faith from misinformation (at least to the extent we are given an ear), but it is not our duty to force a change in anyone. We can only hope to change such peoples' thinking with love--to demonstrate that our own Faith is reasonably-based, patient, and not easily rattled.

The only exceptions to showing kindness, 'Abdu'l-Bahá wrote, are for the deceiver, the tyrant, and the thief.

best wishes,
Brett

MatW

Postby MatW » Mon Mar 06, 2006 12:27 pm

The view that Adam was a monkey is worse than racism,
it is sheer blasphemy.

I am grateful that my Teacher teaches me
that there is such a thing as "open blasphemy".
and how some "utter perversion of the truth".

I don't consider myself in need of "a different view" in this matter.

a person of oneness,
Dean Hedges


You are the best judge of what was learned for yourself. Other's respectively disagree. Therefore if another point of view is presented then another point of view is allowed by God.

Blasphemy should be constrained to those comments which harm's the progression of religion in my view. In other words, if something said with a mean heart that disway another from seeing God's truth then that is blasphemy.

In my view the words have bolstered your belief and the resulting posts seem to propagate the same, in a different way, with others.

Mat

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Mon Mar 06, 2006 6:49 pm

Split hairs all you like
you will never convince me
that calling My Father a monkey is funny.

lol

Blasphemy is blasphemy
just because one sees.

God willing
no one will ever theif from me my belief!

you guys can play its ok to flirt with the deceiver
all you like
but as for me I shall not be deceived.

ADAM has never been referred to as monkey in any Text I know of.

As an offer of peace
I suggest we all agree in writing that nowhere in our Sacred Text does our Writings state Adam was a monkey.

and then perhaps we can start a new thread as to what is blasphemy.

So are we all in agreement?

oneness
dh

Hasan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Lima - Perú
Contact:

Postby Hasan » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:24 am

At least many religious tradition say that Adam existed including the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Bahá'í Faith mentions Him. Even they said Adam had children, Cain, Abel and Set. Ancestors of Abraham were Noah, Enoch, and Set.
The Bahá'í writings says that the history of Adam has a lot of interpretations. My personal opinion is that it is pretty simbolic; it tells the history of Adam the Prophet, Adam the first human being (first hommo sapiens?), and metaphysical spirit of man and woman.

Keyvan
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:58 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Keyvan » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:44 pm

we didnt just materialize out of pixy dust

my opinion after study of the writings is that
we did evolve to the fullest extent that science can explain, but the point to which we call ourselves "MAN" is at the point Adam appeared. Adam must have held the last gene that separates us from "man: in the making"

onepence
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:44 pm
Location: Longwood, FL, USA

Postby onepence » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:35 am

Lisle doesn't share his colleague's conclusions. "The Big Bang is not science in an observational sense," he tells the Rocky Mount audience. "It's an atheistic story of how life came to be. I'm surprised at the number of Christians that have bought into the Big Bang. It's shocking." Then he starts to enumerate the theory's shortcomings. For one, the Big Bang model would predict a universe with hot and cold spots, but in fact the temperature is surprisingly uniform throughout. The model would also predict an equal amount of matter and anti-matter, but in reality the universe has far more matter. Mainstream astronomers have long been aware of these flaws, and have refined their theories to account for them while still insisting the weight of evidence favors the Big Bang. Lisle says the refinements are "just a story."

Besides, Lisle says, there was only one witness present at creation, and His account contradicts the Big Bang. "God knows who created the universe," he says, sounding not so much like a Ph.D. scientist anymore. "Are we going to trust God, who was actually there, never makes mistakes, never lies, and was actually responsible for creation? Or are you going to trust man, who wasn't there, makes mistakes, has limited knowledge, can often misinterpret the evidence, is sometimes dishonest, and had nothing to do with creation? It's very arrogant for us to tell God, 'Sorry, you didn't get the details right.'"

Narrowing the lens to his own planet, Lisle says scientists have gotten other details of creation wrong. They say Earth began as molten rock. Wrong: It was created as paradise. The stars preceded the Earth? Wrong: Earth came first. Billions of years? No: 144 hours from "Let there be light" to the first human beings. Dinosaurs before birds? Actually, Genesis is clear it was the other way around. "A lot of Christians think, 'Well, maybe I can make the days really long," he says. "But that doesn't work, because the order is different. The Bible is very clear that God created [the universe in] six ordinary days."



Judging by their comments afterward, many of the evangelicals present are less interested in the Big Bang--and more concerned about whether humans "came from monkeys." Here, Answers in Genesis' scientists are equally disdainful of their secular colleagues. "The fossil evidence does not compel belief in the existence of apemen, nor that man is the product of evolution," wrote chemist Russell Grigg in the organization's Creation magazine. "Fossils of so-called 'hominids' are often only fragments of bones which, when combined with a huge dose of imagination, are transformed into apemen."

Among mainstream scientists, ...

<><><><>
oneness
dh

Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:39 pm

How come nobody has pointed out that in "Some Answered Questions" Abdul baha states that we didnt originate from monkeys? I see there are conflicting viewpoints within the book but none the less this shouldnt be left out. I believe it stated that prehistoric man had the same skull yet more crude than current man.

CJ

Postby CJ » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:43 pm

Anonymous wrote:How come nobody has pointed out that in "Some Answered Questions" Abdul baha states that we didnt originate from monkeys? I see there are conflicting viewpoints within the book but none the less this shouldnt be left out. I believe it stated that prehistoric man had the same skull yet more crude than current man.


I might be wrong but did Abdu'l-Baha rule out the fact that we might be descended from a common ancestor as monkeys etc? I thought that what he made clear was that God had the plan for us to evolve to our present state all along, but that we were in a less evolved form in the past...

A Fleeting Shadow

Hmmm...

Postby A Fleeting Shadow » Thu May 04, 2006 4:03 pm

I was just reading over the above and was wondering:
Could the Revelation of Genesis and the creation of the earth be symbolical. I mean, could the Lord not have been referring to the re-creation of man (or the spiritual creation or birth of humanity in a general sense)?
From the way I see it, the seven days of creation refer to the development and maturation of humanity through the guidance and assistance of the Divine Being manifested in His Mediators. Each day refers to a period for each of the Mediators or Manifestations of God.
As is my understanding, these could be the dispensations being referred to, each 'day' being followed by a 'night' during which the people of the dispensation degraded the moral standards and teachings of the Divine:
(day) 1. Adam
2. Noah
3. Abraham
4. Moses
5. Christ
(and thus far is believed in by the Chrisitans. The bible mentions 'two deaths' that a man will go through which can be characterized as the next two Mediators which a soul will believe in.)
6. Mohammad
7. Bahá'u'lláh
(and thus we believe that on the seventh day God rested, because creation was finished, or symbolically meaning fulfilled or perfected in a (what Bahá'ís believe) "Day that will not be followed by night.")

This is an educated interpretation for what Creation in Genesis is symbolically referring to in a sense that is more approchable for the people of the time.

-PR

Hasan
Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:03 am
Location: Lima - Perú
Contact:

Re: Hmmm...

Postby Hasan » Thu May 04, 2006 11:08 pm

I think most of Bible and texts about creation and first man are allegorical.

brettz9
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Wed May 17, 2006 9:14 am

Dear A Fleeting Shadow,

That is an insightful interpretation...'Abdu'l-Bahá Himself says in Some Answered Questions that there are multiple allegorical meanings to the Adam and Eve story.

The Barstow collection had as I recall reading something interpreting how the creation story referred to the composition of man (one day referring to his vegetable composition, another to his animal composition, etc.). Looking at the index to this collection, I wonder whether it may have simply been a talk by Alfred Windust. Nevertheless, it is interesting (and could, if researched further, perhaps be found to be based in authoritative text).

When searching this, I also came across this note to a pilgrim's note: '...He quotes the Bab, "Before the appearance of the 1st Adam an hundred thousand Adams appeared upon the earth, but in these days the people only know the Adam which came 5000 years ago."'

So, then it seems this could answer how (one) Adam had no father or mother and was the progenitor of the human race and yet came 5000/6000 years ago...

best wishes,
Brett

brettz9
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Wed May 17, 2006 9:17 am

Also, perhaps along the lines of your interpretation, there is the following fascinating item from the same collection (unconfirmed for authenticity):

Regarding thy question as to the beginning of Creation: Know thou that the Truth (GOD) has eternally ever been, and so also have His creatures, for there is no beginning either for the Truth (God) or for the creatures. According to the bodies in the contingent world, the "beginning" mentioned in the Holy Scriptures means the beginning of the Manifestation, and "creation" signifies the Second Spiritual Birth: as Christ says, "You must be born again." There is no doubt that the beginning of this Spiritual creation was the Manifestation Himself, for each Manifestation of the Divine Manifestations is the Adam (of His time,) and His first believer is Eve, while all the souls who are born of the Second Birth are His children and decendents. In the New Testament it is recorded: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit." Again in John 1:13" Which was born not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."
.....
BC#286B
.....
(Signed) Abdul-Baha Abbas.

(Revealed Oct. 24, 1903. Translated in the Holy City. Translation certified to by Mirza Fareed Ameen, Dec.26, 1903.)
Pub. by C.e. Sprague, 3502 Lake Ave., Chicago, Ill. Apr. 19, 08.
BC#286C

brettz9
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:12 pm
Contact:

Postby brettz9 » Mon May 29, 2006 9:21 am

Here's another quotation on the topic:

"We Bahá'ís do not believe in Genesis literally. We know this world was not created in seven days, or six, or eight, but evolved gradually over a period of millions of years, as science has proved. As to where the idea of a seven-day week originated, it is certainly very ancient and you should refer to scholars for an answer."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1658)

nnnick
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:06 pm

Postby nnnick » Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:18 pm

shm wrote:Well if AbdulBaha said Adam did not have mother or father than that would be a fact since AbdulBaha was appointed by Bahaullah and the intrepreter of His words, and was endowed with special power and wisdom by Bahaullah so AbdulBaha's words are the truth.

I have one question.
AbdulBaha says "Know that it is one of the most abstruse spiritual truths that the world of existence—that is to say, this endless universe—has no beginning."
then he goes on to say "names and attributes of the Divinity themselves require the existence of beings.........If we could imagine a time when no beings existed, this imagination would be the denial of the Divinity of God."

So therefore from this we understand that human being always existed or else it would go against the Divinity of God.

However AbdulBaha says "for there is no doubt that in the beginning the origin was one: the origin of all numbers is one and not two. Then it is evident that in the beginning matter was one"

If humans must have existed in the beginning that has no beginning so that the Divinity of God is not broken, then how could matter have ever been one. This goes against one another. If matter was in the beggining one, then that would mean at that time there was no human being alive since there was only one matter, and if there is no human being alive this goes against the Divinity of God which is not possible.

Is there anyone that can explain this?

If anyone can explain this I would very much appreciate it.


I am not learned in bahai, but logically i dont think your conclusion is apt; just because this source says that the universe has no beginning, this does not mean that mankind had a beginning. What i am saying is that adam is not God, but that God was from the beginning and created adam "about 10,500" years ago. Following this, we cannot imagine a time when no being existed, because God always had existed (see john 1:1-18 among others).
As for the part about there was one in the beginning, not two, and this one was matter (am i correct?); this is illogical. matter is dependent upon time, as i think you were saying. to resolve this, it must be that something greater than both, that is, something that exists independent of time and space was there before both, and that this thing was the one to which the origin can be accredited to. This 'thing' would have the characteristics "was, and is, and will be" as he exists outside of time, but can be known from those within time.
There must be a creation point of time and matter, as otherwise, what exists now cannot!! assume matter was always existent, and somehow time was as well (as it must necessarily be), then there would be infinite years before this one; this year would never come to pass!! no time could come to pass, because for whatever point of time you choose, there would be infinite years before it! Thus proving creation; and that only something that is independent of time and matter (God) did it!!
seek and you shall find

tiptoe
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:10 pm

Adam, Symbolism and Human Origins

Postby tiptoe » Thu Jun 15, 2006 5:37 pm

brettz9 wrote:Here's another quotation on the topic:

"We Bahá'ís do not believe in Genesis literally. We know this world was not created in seven days, or six, or eight, but evolved gradually over a period of millions of years, as science has proved. As to where the idea of a seven-day week originated, it is certainly very ancient and you should refer to scholars for an answer."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1658)


Indeed, this is a mysterious topic with endless views

"Contemplate with thine inward eye the chain of successive Revelations that hath linked the Manifestation of Adam with that of the Bab" - Bahá'u'lláh (1)

"In the Baha'i writings the term "Adam" is used symbolically in two different senses. The one refers to the emergence of the human race, while the other designates the first of the Manifestations of God." (2)

"Now, when you behold in existence such organizations, arrangements and laws, can you say that all these are the effect of Nature, though Nature has neither intelligence nor perception? If not, it becomes evident that this Nature, which has neither perception nor intelligence, is in the grasp of Almighty God, Who is the Ruler of the world of Nature; whatever He wishes, He causes Nature to manifest.

One of the things which has appeared in the world of existence, and which is one of the REQUIREMENTS of Nature, is human life. Considered from this point of view man is the branch; nature is the root. Then can the will and the intelligence, and the perfections which exist in the branch, be absent in the root?" -'Abdu'l-Bahá (3)

If we deduce that mankind had been around before the coming of the Manifestation of God, Adam, then human evolution had reached the point when God's Manifestation was timely. God can do anything, and if it was willed that Adam had no father or mother then so-be-it. However, Adam is placed in context with interaction in the phenomenal world. Is the mystery of His temporal appearance more important than its symbolism? Are we not all ultimately fathered and mothered by God? "O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty."- Bahá'u'lláh (4) Since Adam was a Manifestation of God then the appearance of His Holy Spirit would be primary as with Christ, Who was born of a virgin, something upheld in Islam (5) and the Bahá'í Teachings. Are we not reborn into the Kingdom of Faith by the Holy Spirit of God, the Father, rather than from mere human contact? Again, the symbol - which can vary - appears more important than the physical event, itself. Further, could the appearance of Adam without mortal parents and his entitlement as Father of mankind be an allusion to the attributes of God, the Essence, God the Father and Fashioner of Creation? Just a thought.

Finally, "...the development and growth of man on this earth, until he reached his present perfection, resembled the growth and development of the embryo in the womb of the mother: by degrees it passed from condition to condition, from form to form, from one shape to another, for this is according to the requirement of the universal system and Divine Law." - 'Abdu'l-Bahá (6) The differing forms do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that this particular line of evolution was not always human. Maybe later with the supporting text. Time's up.



(1)"Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh" XXXI
(2)(Note # 50 on "Gleanings...", p. 74. from booklet entitled "BAHA'U'LLAH"(1))©1992, The Universal House of Justice, Baha'i International Community Office of Public Information, New York
(3) "Some Answered Questions" p4 (1990 ed)
(4)"The Hidden Words" Arabic 3
(5) Qu'rán (interesting)
19.17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
19.18 She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God."
19.19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
19.20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
19.21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed."
19.22 So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
(6) "Some Answered Questions" p183 (1990 ed)

inpurnitraw
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:43 pm
Contact:

Postby inpurnitraw » Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:23 am

brettz9 wrote:Dean,

As far as the original posting, I had understood this to be referring to the "form" of Adam--the original man--being like a monkey. As Jonah already cited, "It is certain that in the beginning he [man] had not this loveliness and grace and elegance, and that he only by degrees attained this shape, this form, this beauty and this grace." It should not be offensive if an earlier Manifestation of God had in fact the form of such proto-humans, particularly if we are, as 'Abdu'l-Bahá states (assuming it is in the physical sense), descended from Him! He would need to be, if not as a physical Ancestor, then as a Being which could communicate well with the people of that time--and thus would need to have their basic appearance.

That is how I understood the "joke". Needless to say, if it was really a monkey, it couldn't communicate to establish a religion!

As far as your comment on blasphemy, just because there is in fact discussion of blasphemy in our Writings to help us to see in clear terms what is right or reasonable and what is not does not mean that we are supposed to so readily accuse others of it! We are supposed to endure ridicule (I don't even think this was) and show no perturbation by it. We will be facing much more in the future, so we should learn to deal with it. It is our responsibility to defend the Faith from misinformation (at least to the extent we are given an ear), but it is not our duty to force a change in anyone. We can only hope to change such peoples' thinking with love--to demonstrate that our own Faith is reasonably-based, patient, and not easily rattled.

The only exceptions to showing kindness, 'Abdu'l-Bahá wrote, are for the deceiver, the tyrant, and the thief.

best wishes,
Brett


Return to “Discussion”