jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (124 posts)

Adam and Eve

  1. OpinionDuck profile image60
    OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago

    what language did Adam and Eve speak
    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/4229214_f248.jpg

    1. Pandoras Box profile image66
      Pandoras Boxposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have been told, by people I fully distrust, that the 'tongue of the angels' was the original language, right up to the Tower of Babble. If you ever wish to hear it spoken, just visit any charismatic church during a revival.

      Everyone's doing it. Makes ya feel so good.

    2. weblog profile image51
      weblogposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps Body Language..?

      1. know one profile image61
        know oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        *snicker*

        smile

      2. OpinionDuck profile image60
        OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        how do you record body language so you can pass on the names of all the creatures.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Video?

          1. OpinionDuck profile image60
            OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            If they did have video we probably couldn't that either today.
            Along with the thousands of other biblical artifacts.

    3. Jerami profile image74
      Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I have read that when we communication today, we depend upon body language and telepathy. I would think that as our vocabulary grew, these other abilities were diminished. 
        Have you ever sat and watched a dozen One year old children playing together. They communicate  without vocabulary.

        We can even communicate to a small degree, with other species of animals, without vocabulary.

        I'm quite sure that humanity used to be very good at using those other abilities.
        It is possible that something happened that diminished these abilities thus requiring us to expand upon the verbal aspects of communication.

      1. OpinionDuck profile image60
        OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        According to hearsay Adam and not Eve was able to name all the creatues. Apparently Eve didn't have that ability. We don't even know if she could repeat or remember those names. There is no record other than Adam named all the creatures.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          There's also two stories of creation in the Christian Bible: In one, Adam was created, and he named all the creatures, and then Eve was created seeing as how none of the other creatures were suitable as a friend to Adam.
          In the other, men and women were created at the same time. They're both in Genesis. Look it up.

          This is to say nothing of the various creation stories in other religions.

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            _______
            both stories are true

            Male and female were connected at the side.

            Than they were separated.
            The Hebrew bible says side, not rib

            And she wasn't created as his friend. It was Helpmeet.
            In Hebrew Helpmeet means someone to lie upon

        2. Nick Malizia profile image60
          Nick Maliziaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          That's too bad about Eve. I heard Lilith was extremely well-read, but she took the encyclopedias out of Eden when she was exiled, off-setting the pre-Linnaeus system by centuries. XD !

          1. OpinionDuck profile image60
            OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What were they written on, rock, paper, leaves?

            1. Nick Malizia profile image60
              Nick Maliziaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't mean that literally, I was just "fartin' around."

              Possibly, oral tradition like one person suggested. I'm not sure where/when the first written language was practiced.

              I think the earliest "paper" or otherwise were depending on world location: baked tablets, tree bark (sometimes in asia) like bamboo scrolls, papyrus in Egypt (I think it was made of leaves, not sure.)

              Well, that's a hub idea there. smile

      2. Nick Malizia profile image60
        Nick Maliziaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You make a great point, Jerami.

        The belief in Telepathy or Psychic phenomenon doesn't belong to Religion exclusively, meaning this theory could also relate to evolution (Psychic Neanderthals? Perhaps! Ha!)

        In Religious theory, Adam and Eve being created from the same flesh seems to (allegorically) imply they were of "one substance in a spiritual sense" as well... perhaps a shared mind? Meaning that their language may have been Psychic.

        Or more likely (to scientific detractors) rapid deduction of body language and breathing patterns similar to Isaac Asimov's elders of the "Second Foundation"- a great book whether you're atheist or spiritual. Sherlock Holmes and the best detectives also have this "intuition."

        I'd bet on body language and Psi as "The Divine Language."

        1. Jerami profile image74
          Jeramiposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I think that the farther away from the course we find ourselves, the more difficult it is to use these gifts that we were born with.
             The wiser we become of the technical things; ..  the dumber we get in the simple stuff.
             And if anyone is wondering what I meant by that, don't worry about it! 
            Because this is just simple stuff that is unworthy of worrying about.   .????

          1. Nick Malizia profile image60
            Nick Maliziaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I think it's worth thinking about. The difference between knowing how the machine works as opposed to being complacent because it works. What if it stops?

            Technology, like most tools, was initially a boon until it became overdeveloped and humans trapped themselves in labyrinths of their own making.

            We need to remember these are just tools, many of them only "luxuries" yet we find them essential and don't search to clarify why. Our possessions and gadgets possess us as tools until the battery runs out: whether it's a car accident from texting or smothered by hoarded goods in a small apartment.

      3. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Just a guess; it has no historicity.

    4. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      same as GOD so that they can understand each other.

      1. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You may paraphrase it: the same that was taught by the Creator-God to Adam.

        I think it was Arabic.

        1. pisean282311 profile image54
          pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

          first of all adam/eve is metaphor and it is not that two people made entire world...now if we assume that adam/eve is real then also it cannot be arabic because arabic is not oldest known language in the world...forget about languages which have been extinct..

    5. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The fact that there have been and there still are thousands of languages and dialects, it is clear that Adam and Eve didn't exist, or they didn't have a language, and if they did have a language, it wasn't very good.

    6. profile image68
      paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think they spoke Arabic language.

      1. pisean282311 profile image54
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        i understand you think they spoke arabic because u think even god speaks arabic...but it is not about what u and me think ...it is what logically seems right...and arabic is not oldest language in the world...secondly there has to be adam and eve to speak at first place...they are metaphor...they dont exist...it is symbolic representation...

        1. profile image68
          paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Adam is not the first human being; he was the first person to have conversed with the Creator-God. Human beings existed before Adam.

          1. pisean282311 profile image54
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            now thats more logical but main stream islam doesnot believe that my friend....

        2. profile image68
          paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How do you know that Arabic is not the oldest language of the world? Please give arguments.

          1. pisean282311 profile image54
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            it is very simple...humans didnt get created in saudi arabia or middle east...abhramic religion did...but religion doesnot mean humans got created from there...humans came from africa...now presuming that humans didn't use language till they settle in middle east is ignoring the fact that humans developed language years back...secondly we dont have single language as mother of language...we have groups...largest being indo-iran group....english is part of that group...considering most advanced old civilizations were in china , india , persia , egypt and greece but not middle east ...systematic usage of language has to be their product...

            coming to arabic The earliest surviving texts in Proto-Arabic, or Ancient North Arabian, are the Hasaean inscriptions of eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BC, written not in the modern Arabic alphabet, nor in its Nabataean ancestor, but in variants of the epigraphic South Arabian musnad.

            that is 2800 years back...now vedic sanskrit has 700 years more than ancestor of arabic...chinese too might be older ...may be older than sanskrit...

            now coming to List of languages by first written accounts     Sumerian is oldest while vedic sanskrit dates back to 3500 years ago...so sanskrit should be as old if not more as greek , sumerian and even chinese...

            1. profile image68
              paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Human beings travel far and wide; they could settle down in Arabian Peninsula.

              1. pisean282311 profile image54
                pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                well when they could travel to australia , ofcourse arabia was just one sea away..that is not the point...point is they didnt travel in one night...they took their time traveling and language is old ...some where between 3k to 10k years ...arabic ancestor itself is mere 8 century before christ..that makes 2.8 k years only...vedic sanskrit is 3.5 k years old...so definitely it makes to be older than ancestor of arabic ...in same way greek , persian , chinese should be much older...sumerian is oldest in written form...

            2. profile image68
              paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              We are talking about the spoken language not the written one. Arabic remained mostly a spoken language till Muhammad's time.

            3. profile image68
              paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think Arabic is the mother of all languages.

              Shaikh Muhammad Ahmad Mazhar, a renowned scholar had argued that Arabic was the mother of all languages, to prove this he studied fifty languages. His long & arduous research showed that all the languages of the world were derived from Arabic. This was indeed his noteworthy achievement. He died on May 28, 1993.

              You may like to read his research work:

              http://www.alislam.org/topics/arabic/Th … guages.pdf

              1. pisean282311 profile image54
                pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                to speak language must exist...now how can a language who ancestor has been traced back to 2.8 k exist before something which itself has been traced back to 3.5 k...arabic which is spoken/written right now is modern product...as early as around 2k...not close to even older...

                coming to shaikh ..fifty..do you know how many languages are there in the world???????..50 is nothing...secondly linguistic societies who are experts in this field meet on regular basis...their conclusion till date has been that there is no one mother of languages...largest being indo-iranian ...so persian/sanskrit can be said to be mother of many languages in the world...arabic belong to another category and hebrew belongs to that category too...then there is dravidian category...which is very different from others...tamil is one of oldest language in the world...arabic is modern language...its ancestor can be traced back only till 2.8 k and current arabic is very different than its ancestor form..it is faith of shaikh which might have made him conclude what he did...much like many hindus say sanskrit is mother of all language then many say hebrew is oldest...

                humans think alike irrespective of faith...but we need to take holistic view not from prism of religion...

      2. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ________
        Arabic did not exist at that time

        1. profile image68
          paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          At what time? How do you know and are so sure about it?

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 6 years ago

    The language of love?  They had to populate the earth, after all!

  3. Paul Wingert profile image80
    Paul Wingertposted 6 years ago

    Whoever wrote the stories of Adam and Eve. Origionally the story was written by Jews, so at first they spoke Hebrew. Then Latin and then Greek and so on. So they spoke many different tongues.

  4. aka-dj profile image77
    aka-djposted 6 years ago

    Does it matter?
    They spoke to each other, and communicated with God.
    What more is there need of?
    The diversity of languages we have today came as a result of the Tower of Babel.
    It is never mentioned what the one, original language was.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Wow dj - you actually believe that people in China used to speak the same language as people in England? lol lol

      And they got forced to learn Chinese by God because someone built the Tower of Babel? I learn all sorts of new science from you. lol

      1. aka-dj profile image77
        aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Is that the level of your knowledge of scripture?
        Or are you just being sarcastic? It's hard to tell the difference with you sometimes!

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So - when was the Tower of Babel built? My "knowledge" of the Fairy tail is a little rusty. Or did it not apply to the Chinese?

          1. aka-dj profile image77
            aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Time to do some homework, I guess.
            I think the subject might be Ancient History, rather than fairy tales. You may have been looking in the wrong place. lol lol
            Better yet, be web savvy and Google it. lol lol lol
            Why single out the Chinese?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Because Chinese history goes back longer than your fairy tail tower's supposed age, that is why. lol lol

              1. aka-dj profile image77
                aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                So does their religion.
                Once were theists!

                Happy reading! big_smile

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting that their history (and language) goes back longer than the age of the earth don't you think? Almost as though your bible got it wrong. I shall not wish you happy reading - it clear you don't bother. wink

                  1. aka-dj profile image77
                    aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    You DO believe in fairy tales, after all!

                  2. profile image0
                    Baileybearposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Aborigine people were in Australia for 40, 000 years.  Along with kangaroos, koalas & platypus that never lived in the middle east

            2. OpinionDuck profile image60
              OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The ancient history you refer to doesn't exist because apparently Adam and Eve couldn't write.

              You can't google this because it doesn't exist.

      2. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ________
        There were no Chinese people than
        The Chinese civilization began in 5000 BCE with the Neolithic cultures and ended in the late 1300s CE with the Yuan Dynasty.

        How old is the earth?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wait, the Chinese civilization ended? There's over a billion Chinese people who will probably disagree...smile

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            _____
            Ended up with..wound up
            Read it slowly

            ended in the late 1300s CE with the Yuan Dynasty.


            From the dictionary

            Yuan |yoōˈän|
            a dynasty that ruled China ad 1259–1368, established by the Mongols under Kublai Khan. It preceded the Ming dynasty.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You didn't say, "ended up with," you said "ended in the elate 1300s."

              Write is slowly. smile

              1. profile image0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                ____________
                I said ended with

                Same thing
                One dynasty ended and it ended WITH the other dynasty

                I just used simpler words for you

                Misquoting me will not make you right.
                Don't try to act like I'm the dummy

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                  Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, first of all, I'm not misquoting you; I'm accurately quoting you.
                  Second of all, my rightness or wrongness doesn't depend on whether I misquoted you or not.
                  Third of all, the first time I assumed that you'd made a typo of some kind, and thought I'd make a joke about it. Apparently it was an unsuccessful joke, since you didn't find it funny.
                  Fourth, me catching you in an ambiguously worded sentence doesn't make you a dummy, and I never implied that it does. (Perhaps you were rushed, and didn't have time to proofread. Happens to the best of us. Sometimes it's funny, like now. smile)

                  Finally, when you say a thing A began with X and ended with Y, (and Y is over and done with) it's not that much of a stretch to assume that you meant that A has ended. I could parse the sentence for you, and demonstrate that both semantically and syntactically, the sentence you wrote says that the Chinese civilization ended in the late 1300s CE, but as they say, if you have to explain the joke...

                  Okay, I'm gonna go get some Chinese food for dinner.


                  ...And my parents said I'd never use my linguistics training....

        2. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ahah. is this what your husband told you, because there seems to be a Chinese civilization still.

          When was the Tower of Babel built again?

          According to dj - the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, thus the Chinese civilization started before the earth did.

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            ______
            Read what I said again. I did not say there were no Chinese. I spoke of the Dynasty.
            Aha
            Get a life

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Get a life she says. lol that is the funniest thing you have said since  the Italian incident. lol

              1. profile image0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                _____________
                You look really ah Mature but you act so immature

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  And you are so serious it is actually a funny/sad combo. wink

            2. Rishy Rich profile image77
              Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Theres no exact date about when the Chinese Civilization begin. People just cant go somewhere & say, "Today, 5000 BCE, we the Chinese are beginning our civilization" - Its stupid. 


              The major components of civilization develops over centuries after centuries & sometimes over millenniums.

              The Neolithic age in China can be traced back to between 12,000 and 10,000 BC. Early evidence for proto-Chinese millet agriculture is radiocarbon-dated to about 7000 BC. I think this alone is good enough to prove Bible's 6000 year old concept false.

              Fyi
              LIST OF NEOLITHIC CULTURES OF CHINA

              1. profile image0
                Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                _____________
                Well the Hebrew bible doesn't say 6000.
                That is a belief of certain groups.

                So we don't know the exact date...but you gave one.

                As usual

                1. Rishy Rich profile image77
                  Rishy Richposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly how many Bible versions do you guys have. Sometimes it really freaks me out!!

                  & read carefully when I write...

                  1. profile image0
                    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    _________
                    We the Jewish do not have but one and it is not the bible.
                    It is the original Torah, prophets and writings.
                    Ask the ones who have the bible how many they have

                    Stop stereo-typing

                2. profile image68
                  paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree with you.

      3. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        and your summaries are quite hillarious.. completely wrong, but hillarious.

    2. aka-dj profile image77
      aka-djposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      ZERO chance, alright.
      There's nothing to read on that subject.
      Just conjectures! And I've read them.

    3. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Of course it matters if you believe in the stories of the bibles.

      It matters even more if you don't believe in the bibles.

  5. pisean282311 profile image54
    pisean282311posted 6 years ago

    lol well it should be language similar to that of apes...

    1. know one profile image61
      know oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "oo oo ah ah oo ah ah"

      Translation: How 'bout it?

      smile

      1. pisean282311 profile image54
        pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        well oo oo ah ah oo ah ah means oops we made mistake... we just ate an apple by heeding to advice that an apple a day keeps doctor away but doctor seemed to be god's favorite profession and so we got kicked out...

        1. know one profile image61
          know oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          lol, I must have been using the pocket translator. I thought she was just asking if he was up for it. But apparently the deed was already done wink

          1. pisean282311 profile image54
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            lol

            1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
              Rajab Nsubugaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              But before eating the apple they were Blind. So, what could they have possibly communicated?

              1. Rajab Nsubuga profile image59
                Rajab Nsubugaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                I think it was a "touchy-filly" language.

              2. pisean282311 profile image54
                pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                blinds do communicate..dont they?...secondly if apple opened up their vision , we all must celebrate...isn't it?...

                1. OpinionDuck profile image60
                  OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  If they were blind shouldn't God have given them a pass on the punishment. The bible doesn't mention what the intelligence or physical age of Adam and Eve when they made the tiny little boo boo.

                  You surely wouldn't punish a baby for not listening to you.

                  1. know one profile image61
                    know oneposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Lots of people do, much to the detriment of the child. sad

                    This god is very big on punishment.

  6. OpinionDuck profile image60
    OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago

    If Adam could name all the creatures, those names should have been words of some kind. And anyone that could do that must have some kind of alphabet that could have been written down.

    Otherwise what is the purpose of naming them.
    Instead of waiting centuries or longer, this informaiton should have been recorded at the time, and passed on to their children.

    What we have today are just mysteries, trying to find things mentioned in the bible so the bible can be validated.

    How did Moses break the tablets containing the ten commandments?
    Surely something created by God and of supreme importance would not be able to be destroyed by a mere mortal.

    And why would TEN commandments require 2 Tablets. God could have carved it on the Moon in huge letters for everyone to see. That is waht a God could do, mere mortals would put it on a fragile rock pad.

    The bibles are not self authenticating, they were not written by one person, no by any person that recorded the event at the time that it happened.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "And anyone that could do that must have some kind of alphabet"
      Or a series of characters, as in Chinese, that contain the whole word/concept and are not a phonetic alphabet like the Latin one we use, or the cyrillic one used in Eastern Europe.

      But even if we include a character-based written language, the premise is full of fail, since there have been many many documented spoken languages that had no written language to go with them.

      The assumption that you need an alphabet to name things assumes that there were no preliterate societies (but there were many), and people just grunted and pointed until someone had the idea to invent cuneiform some time about 3000 BC. And then all of a sudden we had names for things, and could say stuff like, "Pass the stew."

      You don't need a written language to have a language.

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ___________
        You are thinking of a written language.
        Speech came first and they drew pictures to express thier speech.

        The Hebrews passed things down orally for hundreds of years.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "The Hebrews passed things down orally for hundreds of years."

          Exactly. You don't need to have writing to have a language.

      2. profile image68
        paarsurreyposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I agree with you.

      3. OpinionDuck profile image60
        OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        you do need a written language to name all the creatures, especially when there is no previous life.

        you need a written language to keep the recording consistent.
        We all know how speaking cannot make it correctly from person to person.

        A person with a cough could be misunderstood and thought to be speaking when it was just trying to clear their throat.

        None of these verbal or visual attempts at communication could name all of the creatures on earth, and then be understood by anyone else.

        nice try.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          "you do need a written language to name all the creatures, especially when there is no previous life."
          Um, what?

          "We all know how speaking cannot make it correctly from person to person."
          Funny, the Ojibway managed to have a rich culture complete with legends and history and customs and names for places and animals and each other, all with no written language.

          nice try.

          1. pennyofheaven profile image79
            pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes agree, that is the same with our culture.(Maori) We had no written language till the Europeans arrived. We too had names for every thing and the different tribes had no trouble understanding one another.

            Our socio economic system seemed to work well without language for the most part too!

  7. Hotplate profile image61
    Hotplateposted 6 years ago

    I speak the language of love, or atleast that's what I told Eve!

  8. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago

    Jeff

    There was no typo. I guess you don't understand some words.

    What I said..note the words to see are ended IN
    began in 5000 BCE with the Neolithic cultures and ended in the late 1300s CE with the Yuan Dynasty (as in "stayed in")

    end |end|
    noun
    1 a final part of something, esp. a period of time, an activity, or a story : the end of the year | Mario led the race from beginning to end.

    verb
    (end in) eventually reach or come to a specified place, state, or course of action : I ended up in

    come or bring to a final point; finish : [ intrans. ] when the war ended, policy changed | the chapter ends with a case study | [ trans. ] she wanted to end the relationship.
    • [ intrans. ] reach a point and go no further : the boundary where agnosticism ends and atheism begins.

    1. Hotplate profile image61
      Hotplateposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You tell him Deborah!

      1. OpinionDuck profile image60
        OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Wow how the heck did we get here?

        Someone must be following a Moses Map.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Jeff

      There was no typo. I guess you don't understand some words."

      Wow, this just keeps getting funnier and funnier.

      So, if I said WWII began in 1938 with Germany's invasion of Poland, and ended in 1945 with Japan's surrender to the US, would that mean to you that WWII still going on somewhere?

      I'm really curious to see your answer to this. It will be very telling.

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        _________
        I know it's hard for you to follow and you have to have every word explained.

        You will see I said the 1300s

        ended in the late 1300s CE with the Yuan Dynasty

        You tell me when the Neolithic culture ended!?

        Started with one, that ended with the new Yuan dynasty in the 1300s.
        Do you u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d?

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Wow. Now you're talking to me as though you think I'm an idiot. big_smile

          Let's go back: here's the sentence that inspired my original wisecrack:

          "The Chinese civilization began in 5000 BCE with the Neolithic cultures and ended in the late 1300s CE with the Yuan Dynasty."

          You've got a noun phase [the Chinese Civilization], the verb [began], and two prepositional phrases. The first one, [in 5000 BCE], modifies the verb, and tells when the beginning happened. The second one, [with the Neolithic cultures] modifies the whole verb phrase, denoting that the neolithic cultures were contemporary with the beginning of Chinese civilization. Then we have the conjunction [and], linking two independent clauses.

          The second independent clause assumes the noun phrase [the Chinese culture], that is, it isn't explicitly stated that the Chinese culture is the thing that's doing the ending, but to repeat the noun phrase would be redundant.

          It's just like the noun is assumed in the second clause in this sentence: "Jim sat on the porch in the morning, and sat on the sofa in the evening."  Who sat on the sofa? Jim did. (What ended? Chinese culture did.)

          Then we have the verb [ended] followed by another set of prep. phrases, to wit, [in the late 1300s CE] and [with the Yuan Dynasty]. The phrase [in the late 1300s CE] tells us when the Chinese culture ended, and the second prep. phrase, [with the Yuan Dynasty] contemporizes the ending of Chinese culture, the late 1300s CE and the Yuan Dynasty.

          It could be argued that in the sentence we're analyzing, the Yuan Dynasty is said to be either beginning or ending (or merely just happening) in the late 1300s CE, but in that sentence, Chinese culture is definitely ending in the late 1300s CE.

          Clearly you didn't intend to say that Chinese culture ended at all. I get that. (Especially since at one point you pointed out that the Yuan dynasty--the one you said Chinese culture ended with--was followed by the Ming Dynasty, which is also Chinese.) But the words you wrote absolutely say that Chinese culture ended in the late 1300s CE. Not 'reached its height in,' or 'stabilized in,' or 'arrived in,' or even 'stopped changing in,' but 'ended in.'

          Are you trying to tell me that you meant to say that the Neolithic cultures are what ended in the late 1300s CE? 'Cos that's sooooo not what you typed.

          My WWII example is syntactically identical to your original sentence about Chinese culture. If you imagine your original sentence means that Chinese culture is still going on somewhere, then you must agree that my example sentence means that WWII is still going on somewhere. If you agree that my sentence means that WWII stopped (or 'ended'smile) in 1945, at the same time as Japan surrendered to the US, and that WWII is no longer taking place, then you must also agree that your original sentence means that Chinese culture stopped in the late 1300s CE, and is no longer in existence.

          At this point, though, I'm not really interested in getting you to see how your original sentence says that Chinese culture ended, even though you didn't mean to say that it did. All I'm hoping for now is that others will see our exchange, and learn that 1) words mean things, 2) ambiguity leads to misunderstanding, 3) syntax and semantics are both useful and important, and 4) it's good to proofread.

    3. OpinionDuck profile image60
      OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago

      What language??

      You would think that Adam and Eve would have a language of God, and that there would be that same language today.

      Communication would certainly be better than it is today.

      1. profile image0
        luabuposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        it was more action than words quackers
        more like movement and bubbles like with a bit of rock crawling at the bottom of  a toxic sea ya clueless clown
        luabu

        1. OpinionDuck profile image60
          OpinionDuckposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Have you tried AA, it may help with you speech.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image28
        Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        A page from my Save Satan hub

        Satan first origins was a talking snake, who offered Eve a healthy apple. God jumped in and said everybody out of the pool, then forced Adam and Eve to wear clothes. It turn them on so much so, they had children and their Children had incest. God has a hell of sense of humor when he took Satan arms and legs away and make him crawl on his belly. Then God made Satan evolved into a seven headed flying red dragon beyond our wildest fantasies. Then about 5000 years ago, religion became to evolve.


        God keep the evolution of Satan going, so he must love the beast. Once we all pray and give our love to Satan, he can turn him into a handsome prince. Then we can see the light, darkness becomes the light.

      3. pennyofheaven profile image79
        pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe they did and were a part of God language.


        Perhaps that is what the original sin points to?

        When they chose to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Instead of seeing wholeness, they saw duality. They were then able to tell they were naked and an inability to communicate again in God Language was hindered by that which perceived duality. The ego..the serpent or what have you. Not because they were not part of the wholeness any more but because they chose to distinguish this from that instead of what it was part of the whole.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image28
          Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Religion often wants to separate people and nature when the Universe is all connected

          1. pisean282311 profile image54
            pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

            religion also separates human beings...our people ,our book , our god..nothing divides more than religion...

            1. pennyofheaven profile image79
              pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Nothing divides more than people. Religions cannot divide in my opinion, simply because they are written by people. People interpret, people teach, therefore people cause division.

              1. pisean282311 profile image54
                pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                religion is too emotional issue and works in masses...so potentiality of religion used for division is more than anything else...even nationality and ethinic erode in front of religion...religion is two way sword...yes it has successfully being used for controlling masses and also directing them in positive directions too at times...yes religion's contribution to is immense but the threat which religion cause pose against human race is more than what all nukes put together can...it is most dangerous weapon ever made by human mind...

                1. pennyofheaven profile image79
                  pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Or is it the human mind that is the most dangerous weapon? For me it is.

                  It is human minds that influence other human minds. We each have minds that we can choose to use or not use. If we choose to subscribe to what another human being is telling us via religious text or other wise. It is our choice and our choice alone. When we blame a religion for causing what we ourselves chose to follow it is  not the religion it is ourselves.

                  Masses are made up of individuals with minds of their own.

                  Even when it is enforced by law, we can still choose to not be controlled by it. Brings to mind Victor Frankl. He could have had all the reason to die with the others that did. However while they might have broke his body, they did not break his mind.

                  1. pisean282311 profile image54
                    pisean282311posted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    human mind is agreed biggest weapon and most needed on to survive..it is tool which evolved with evolution...but religion is product of same human mind...human mind is most powerful tool which humans have and same human mind created most lethal weapon ever...that is religion...it has successfully controlled humans since years and would keep on doing so...but what religion did for humans is also appreciable...without religion establishment of social system would have been tough call to make...so it is good...but now religion needs to be discouraged and sent to its right place...that is strict personal domain...if that doesnot happen , we are heading for tough time ahead....

                    1. pennyofheaven profile image79
                      pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                      We did not have a religion till the European thought we needed one. And in their ingenious ability they explained their religion in the way that our ancestors could relate to.

                      Their laws etc and rules were enforced. Yet most of our ancestors while having to follow the seemingly intergrated religion and beliefs, they continued to hold close to ancient practices that gave them greater awareness.

                      I would discourage any one from listening to people who do not advocate love first and foremost. I would also encourage one to listen to the small voice within when discerning what any person of religion advocates.

                      For me, when exploring religions,there can be much wisdom gained if we listen to our inner heart.

          2. pennyofheaven profile image79
            pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes agree however I don't think it is religion in itself but people who make religion out to be what it isn't. Jesus apparently had a few run ins with religious people because he wasn't keeping the sabbath..amongst other things?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image28
              Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Penny

              You might, agree more people have been killed in the name of God than anything else.

              Earlier before, we had a discussion about hand guns, you said guns don't kill people, people kill people

              I said a person with a hand gun has 6 times the chance of killing someone he knows (like family or friend) than the criminals he is trying to protect from, I think you had agreed with that.

              Just think about Religion as some form of tool or sometimes like a gun for the greedy rich, for the rich and media like war, generally most people do not like war, but are brainwashed into it.

              Can we agree that religion is used as a tool or sometimes like a gun? Think about the issues in the USA as GUNS, GOD and GAYS and a lot of Sodom and Gorrmorah and Satan gets blamed again

              1. pennyofheaven profile image79
                pennyofheavenposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Oh yes I can agree to that!

                1. Castlepaloma profile image28
                  Castlepalomaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You’re a fearless sweetheart; you inspire me to be sweet and lighter

    4. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 6 years ago

      And, if people listen to Jesus in the first place and he wasn't executed, then religion as we know it as it is now, would not even be in existence.

      It's unfortunate Jesus died, not for the sins of the world, but for the sins of the few, who rather control and dictate, the false idol that Jesus warned about to begin with.

      It's actually, a damn shame more people just do not get it.

      Thus, understanding Jesus' teachings, then throws out the OT that which was created before his arrival on scene. Which, throws out Adam and Eve story, since it is directly tied to the actions of the god of the OT.

    5. Greek One profile image78
      Greek Oneposted 6 years ago

      Greek.. same dialect they used at my dad's village. it's a known fact

     
    working