The Real Eve: Was she really black?

Or was the potential for many "racial" characteristics in her genes? Eve's Official Guest Book Click here to add your comment to our Guest Book. But first read the comments of our visitors below...

Thursday, March 02, 2006 9:32 PM I think The Real Eve story was correct. But I will say nice try. Life begin in Africa over 100.000 years ago. How can you even used the bible (Adam ) as a reference. Your creditibility was out the door when you used Adams as a point of reference. Thank you "Derrick McNeill" ddmcneill2002@yahoo.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "matrice jackson" href="mailto:matriceshaumbe@yahoo.com">matriceshaumbe@yahoo.com Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:36 PM Subject: Real Eve, questions COMMENTS ======== 1.What is the differance between the real eve and the biblical ? 2.When you say Adam was red you do mean reddish under tone like you average estern african, right? -----------------------response--------------------- Thanks, Matrice, for reading my article. In response to your questions:     1. As discussed at some length in my article, location is an issue. The scriptural account places the Garden of Eden, where Eve originated, at the headwaters of four rivers described in some detail in my article. A couple of these rivers flow toward Africa, but Eden was at the headwaters rather than the mouth of these rivers. The exact location is uncertain, but Africa is unlikely.     2. The word which may be translated "reddish" is more related to earth-color, which is often reddish. The use of the term relative to Adam is probably more related to the fact that he was created from the "dust of the earth" than to the color of his skin which is not an important issue in the Bible account. Skin color may be suggested in the names of some of his descendants as discussed in the article.     Nearly all humans have a reddish tone to the skin, depending on how clearly the color of the blood underlying the skin is visible and depending on the redness of their blood. Anemic individuals usually exhibit less redness for example. Elements affecting skin color vary from individual to individual and from family to family. Sunburn, for example, will achieve enhanced redness in nearly every individual human regardless of pigmentation. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: "Woody Smith"     whsmithsr@msn.com Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 3:06 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve COMMENTS ======== thank you, I like your evidence. --Woody Smith   Maryland -----------------------reply------------------------ Thank you, Woody...     You are a gentleman of discernment and good taste. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 1:00 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve From: "Sue Davis" snapap@adelphia.net COMMENTS ======== It seems to me that if white people truly evolved from a single black ancestor that black people should then be considered less evolved than brown people, yellow people,etc. I don't beleive that to be true however since all the black people I have met seem adequately evolved.Or at least as evolved as the rest of us. And as both yourself and Mr. Christie have also pointed out, as soon as some older bones are found everything will change again. Anyway, if African Eve was meant to appeal to black people and women, then as a woman let me say: count me out. When black people and white people intermarry thier children get lighter and lighter from one generation to the next until you couldn't really tell from looking at them that their great great great grandmother was black. So it seems like the most bred with race is going to be the dominant factor in determining skin color. For instance my husband has 1 native american in his ancestry, so he mostly looks like his gazillion Irish ancestors and doesn't look much like an Indian at all.I guess I haven't seen enough evidence to make me beleive in the migratory skin pigment evolution theories. Especially considering how quickly a family line can change colors. I think of race more as species. You mix a bulldog and a poodle and you're going to get a different kind of dog, but it is still a dog. There are various types of primate, and I beleive they are very geneticly different, but they are still primates.Trees. Flowers. Fish. I would expect to find that there were many different species of human to begin with. Well I'll keep waiting for the next set of bones I guess. Very interesting site though. Oh yeah, I don't think Mars was a mistake, I think we, or some of us, may have lived there, and maybe came here when Mars became uninhabitable. Why not? I am only lacking evidence. Also I think that many civilations have probably existed on earth that we are not aware of yet. When you consider how fast we make technological advances...somewhere between our known recorded history and 2 or 300 years ago, and you consider how long people have been on earth, I don't think it would be so far fetched to say that other advanced societies have existed here before us. Sue Davis snapap@adelphia.net Colchester, VT -----------------------response-------------------------- Dear Sue...     Thank you for your informed and informative comments regarding my review of the Real Eve video.     Many years ago I read a college text entitled "The Races of Mankind." The point of the book was that based on scientific comparisons of the various characteristics of the so-called races, there is really only one human race with many variations in skin color, head shape, body type, etc. that have been conveniently grouped into "racial types." But, the scientific writer concluded, we are all of the same human race. Even within the so-called races, black, white, red, yellow, there are many variations.     Of course the acid test is that members of all the so-called races easily interbreed, which is the test of the species boundary. Horses and donkeys may interbreed, but because they are so near to the species boundary, the result is a mule, which is a "hybrid" that cannot reproduce. As far as I know all human types may interbreed without producing the true "hybrid." That means we all belong to the same "race" or species.     People with narrow minds, looking for ways of separating people using varietal groups usually do so as a means of justifying prejudice, usually for economic or social benefit to themselves.     As to your theory concerning Martian civilizations and ancient, undiscovered, advanced civilizations, not likely. If you were writing at the time of Charles Darwin, you might get away with your theory as Darwin did; even though Darwin himself pointed out that the proof of his theory depended on fossil evidence that was yet to be uncovered.     The evidence, when it was uncovered, did not really prove his theory as advanced, so his colleagues have altered the theory here and there to give the appearance of adapting theory to evidence. The experienced paleontologist, however, recognizes that the evidence does not prove gradual evolution as Darwin hoped it would. The various species appeared suddenly and in wide varieties. The facts do not support the theory.     Dyed-in-the-wool evolutionists, however, refuse to abandon what remains an unproved theory, and they continue to present the theory as proven fact. You may have heard Ross's defense of evolution as a fact on an episode of Friends, the TV show. Not that Ross or the writers of the show were experts in the field. The dialog, nonetheless, made for an entertaining contrast, which is what TV is all about.     My point is that with all the digging that has been done, it is unlikely that any ancient advanced civilization has remained undiscovered...unless it is one of those Atlantis, undersea civilizations which may have escaped detection because of being under several feet of salt water. Several paleontologists claim to have found evidence of Atlantis in various parts of the world but really no specific evidence of "advanced" civilization is associated with any of them.     The enormous Andean line figures come as close as any. Some identify them with Martian visitors, but the most recent explanation is more plausible, that the figures are signposts identifying segments of a vast irrigation system. The civilization constructing the ingenious irrigation system apparently used the line figures because they lacked a written language. Written language, along with irrigation systems, is usually one of the early developments of an advanced civilization. Thanks again for your sensible observations. --Dwight Winenger

Tuesday, September 06, 2005 6:43 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve i believe that the original earth races were blue black, because the sun was close to the earth in those times, and black skin is the only skin that could tolerate the fierce rays of the sun. The black, red, and yellow races are the original races of earth it's a known fact!!!!! Krishna of india, was reported having blue black skin From: "Ameal Jones Jr" lightiron21@yahoo.com 20826 Deauville Dr. P.O.Box 77388 Houston,TX

Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:16 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve main i dey here brother!!!!!!!!!! waka From: "mike maga" mike4maga@yahoo.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "c roberts" tenkennomiko@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 4:22 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve COMMENTS ======== You attempt to create doubt about the genetic and anthropological evidence by using reliable affadavits from the bible? What exactly makes the bible reliable? The fact that you are religious? Your proof is that courts today accept certain written documents, and so books such as the bible MUST be factual and reliable? By this reasoning, ALL religious so called eyewitness accounts from thousands of years ago are considered proof. And yet, somehow I doubt that you'd find validity in such things as the Baghavad Gita or the Koran. Your replies to comments only serve to reinforce what you made rather clear in your piece. You are unwilling to accept the idea that your genetic heritage came from a BLACK WOMAN, and you attempt to argue through tenuous, relgious biases to prove to others, and more importantly, YOURSELF, that this cannot be true. This is offensive on so many levels. ----------------reply---------------- Dear C. Roberts...     Thank you very much for reading my article sufficiently to make a rather intelligent comment. You have done well in determining that one of my sources of proof is that the Bible is considered reliable eye-witness testimony.     Much has been written about the relative historicity of the various religious books. I have never heard of archeologists using the Baghavad Gita or the Koran to locate specific sites or to provide accurate cultural data related to specific time periods. Yet you class all religious writings together. You accuse my writing of bias. You seem to have a few of your own.     None of us have any control over our genetic heritage. How could I object to a black woman being an ancestor? You totally misinterpret my motive. And you overlook the scientific evidence I present to indicate the flimsiness of some of the misinterpretations of recent and shaky scientific facts used to support the obviously opposite bias, that all humans are descended from a black woman.     It is my experience that the first person to accuse another of racism is the racist. There is nothing in my treatise that would suggest racism to anyone except the individual looking for racism. You didn't, by any chance, discover my site by searching for the word "black," did you? I would not be so unjust as to accuse you of racism, but neither will I accept the epithet myself.     My article carefully points out that no one knows the precise color of the original Eve's skin except by speculation, but we do know that all members of the one human race are her descendants.     Please take the time to reconsider my writing from a less prejudiced viewpoint. Prejudice would make anyone's conclusions offensive on all levels. --Dwight Winenger

From: "Jerome Schoenfeld" JeromeSchoenfeld@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:07 AM "'Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.'     "Einstein was the first to put that idea into a scientific formula: E(eq)mc2 (Energy is Matter times the speed of light squared--and the reverse is logically true: Matter is Energy slowed down by the speed of light squared.) In other words, Isaiah was told in the 8th century B.C. that the universe, including all the stars, came into existence by God's converting an ''abundance of dynamic energy'' into visible matter. Notice, also, that God knows the stars each ''by name.'' Scientists have run out of names and are beginning to call them by numbers. '"     It is said that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Note that in that specific quote from the bible it says ''not one of them is missing.'" Could this possibly be stating the same thing? Also if it God who has converted energy into visible matter, would that not support the fact that God and the heavens can not be seen by the naked eye. Also it is said that when a human dies, energy is released from their bodies. This energy is not seen by the naked eye either. The point that I'm getting at is that our existence is this visible matter, and once deceased the part of us that is ''the soul'' is released into another plane of existence, presumably Heaven. Also the idea that the physical eye sees due to light reflecting off of matter. If you could take my ideas and put them in a more clear and educated form to be understood better would be wonderful. Also any additional information filling in the blanks would be appreciated. It seems this guest book is a bit old so I hope I get a response. Jerome Schoenfeld Bondsville, MA, 01009, USA ---------------------Response----------------------- Dear Jerome...     This guest book has been around a while, but its comments are not all "old" because you will notice that it has been added to several times recently. I usually add thought-provoking comments (and some not-so-thought-provoking) at the top of Eve's Guest Book.     What you say about energy is thought provoking.     The "soul" does not equal "energy" as you suggest, however; although that might seem logical. The soul is a composite creation. Genesis 2: 7 briefly recounts the creation of Adam without mentioning energy as such. He was created "from the dust of the ground," which was formed from "energy;" and "He blew into his nostrils the breath of life," which required energy; but then it states, " the man CAME TO BE a "living soul."     Adam did not POSSESS a soul as something distinct from his physical being. He BECAME a living soul as other animals before him and since are spoken of as souls, living as well as dead. The Hebrew word for soul, "nephesh" comes from a root meaning "breather." Plants are nowhere in the Bible called souls but all sorts of animals are, because they breathe the "breath of life" pretty much as Adam did and we do. When souls quit breathing, they are called dead souls because they were once breathers.     The scriptures do not say that our "soul" moves on to another plane of existence when we die; however it does confirm what you said about our "energy," our spirit returns to God. The Holy Scriptures state at Psalm 146:4, regarding death, that "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground. In that day his thoughts do perish."     The Hebrew word translated "spirit" here has several meanings. "Breath" is one of them as is "life force." When a person dies, he is dead. That is consistent with the context which states that "In that day his thoughts do perish." The individual does not continue existing as a "soul" on another plane because the soul requires a physical body to continue as a breather.     This same idea is clearly described in Ecclesiastes 9:5, "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all," and again at verse 10: "All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol [Hebrew word for the grave], the place to which you are going."     These expressions are consistent with the way the death of a soul is described at Ecclesiastes 12:7 after aging and old age are described in some detail, "Then the dust returns to the earth just as it happened to be and the spirit itself returns to the [true]God who gave it." Again, since the spirit is a word used to describe the "life force," a form of energy, it can return to God, not in the form of a conscious individual soul, but as the energy you mentioned, capable of being recycled by God, in a sense.     What you say about energy being essentially invisible is also quite logical. We can see energy only as it acts upon visible matter as when the wind blows dust or bits of paper down the street or when lightning causes molecules of air to suddenly heat and light up.     I know only what I have experienced and what I have found explained in God's Word, but I have been around several decades and have spent 3 or 4 decades studying the Bible in some detail. I hope my comments assist your thinking ability. Thank you for making serious comments. --Dwight Winenger

From: "Amhmadhmad" fntastk@hotmail.com Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 8:53 PM wat is my father name ? -------------------Response--------------------- If your father's name is not Wat, and your name is Amhmadhmad, I would guess that your father's name is Mad or Hmad or Madhmad. Right? Otherwise, I haven't a clue. It certainly isn't Fntastk, is it?

Monday, February 14, 2005 7:29 PM From: david hudok Just about everything that you talked about on your page is something that I have always thought was the case as far as religion and science or what-have-you going hand in hand. Do you subscribe to some religious thought (or denomination if you will)? People usually think I am crazy when I say that I believe that God was from the other side of the black hole and started with Mars and screwed up, then tried again on Earth. I think we are basically a science project and God just is observing and taking notes. However, he did have some of his workers turn against him and they try to ruin the experiment. Wow. I am so happy that I am not alone in this path of thought. What is your take on roman and greek gods? Such as Diane - the most lovely creature to fall from the sky. Do you think that there were other gods and what is globally recognized by all of these single god religions took over and defeated the others? I also say that all single god religions are the same god. Please write back with any thoughts, or links that could aid me on my quest for further understanding. Have a great day. --------------------------Response------------------------ Dear David...     What a refreshing note you sent! You are an excellent example of what Paul stated at Romans 2:14. Paul was speaking as a Christianized Jew from the view of those who had "God's law" in the form of the Hebrew scriptures. He said to the Romans, some of whom were Jewish and some of whom were not, "For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused."     Some individuals simply recognize the truth when they hear it, and their conscience, which has somehow become God-trained, leads them in the correct direction.     God is the original "Scientist." He created the things that modern-day scientists study, and they are blown away by the things that he knows inside-out.     For example, Isaiah 40: 26, by inspiration from God, speaks of things that no human began to understand until thousands of years after it was written down by Isaiah.     "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing."     Einstein was the first to put that idea into a scientific formula: E=mc2 (Energy is Matter times the speed of light squared--and the reverse is logically true: Matter is Energy slowed down by the speed of light squared.) In other words, Isaiah was told in the 8th century B.C. that the universe, including all the stars, came into existence by God's converting an "abundance of dynamic energy" into visible matter. Notice, also, that God knows the stars each "by name." Scientists have run out of names and are beginning to call them by numbers.     You are remarkably correct about "some of his workers turned against him." They were led by the cherub who was put in charge of Adam and Eve on the earth. It was not an experiment, but it has not turned out precisely the way God intended because he allowed his "intelligent" creatures the ability to make choices. Some chose contrary to his intentions, but he has not given up on the creation because of what a few rebels have been able to do.     The Hebrew prophet Ezekiel was inspired to tell us Satan's story directed to one who was following his pattern, the king of Tyre: "In Eden, the garden of God, you proved to be. Every precious stone was your covering....You are the anointed cherub that is covering, and I have set you....In the midst of the fiery stones you walked about....You were faultless in you ways from the day of your being created until unrighteousness was found in you. Because of the abundance of your sales goods they filled the midst of you with violence, and you began to sin. And I shall put you as profane out of the mountain of God, and I shall destroy you....Onto the earth I will throw you. Before kings I will set you....And I shall bring forth a fire from the midst of you. It is what must devour you. And I shall make you ashes upon the earth before the eyes of all those seeing you." (Ezekiel 28:11-26)     The cherub that became Satan the Devil soon found other angels to follow him into selfish disobedience in the days of Noah. "...then the sons of the true God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose...The Nephilim proved to be in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of the true God continued to have relations with the daughters of men and they bore sons to them, they were the mighty ones who were of old, the men of fame." (Genesis 6:1-4)     Those "mighty ones of old, the men of fame" are the ones who became the models for Greek and Roman mythology. They were materialized angels, the "sons of the true God" and their hybrid children, the demi-gods, the "Nephilim" of Jewish history.     When the deluge came and the Nephilim were drowned, the "sons of the true God" dematerialized and returned to the invisible heavens condemned to what the scripures call Tartarus, "pits of dense darkness...reserved for judgment," unable to materialize again in their quests for perverse adventure. (2 Peter 2:4-5)     Most of the "single-god religions" you speak of are perverse imitations of the one true religion which is from the Creator. Satan has patterned himself after the true God by claiming to be the "creator" of this system of things. Our problem is to differentiate between what was originally created and purposed by the Creator and what has been distorted and "created" by his adversaries.     Jesus Christ passed along a couple bits of information that can get us on the path to true understanding. He informed his disciples, and Matthew wrote it down, that the "ruler of this world" is Satan the Devil. "All the kingdoms of the world and their glory" belong to him, and he can give authority to whomever will "do an act of worship" to him by joining in his movement toward independence from the true God. (Matthew 4:8-10)     The Hebrew prophet Daniel was told by an angel faithful to the true God that Satan has given authority over these "kingdoms" to "princes" who are angels overseeing the various nations who vie with one another for relative power and glory. (Daniel 10:13-21)     I, like you, spent several years searching for understanding. I was finally led to the true understanding set forth by the one Jesus Christ called "the faithful and discreet slave" whom he has appointed over all his belongings. (Matthew 24:45-47)     The next time "true wisdom" cries aloud to you "in the very street," ask one of Jehovah's witnesses your questions. You may be surprised what more you will learn and how much sense it will make. (Proverbs 1:20) You may recall that Jesus Christ, the son of the true God, foretold that he would stand at your door and knock. (Rev. 3:20) He added that if anyone hears his voice and opens the door, he will come into your house and exchange spiritual food. Likely Jehovah's witnesses have knocked at your door. Some are inexperienced and may be put off by your seemingly unusual ideas, but you are on the right track.     I am always available to help as long as my email keeps working. I recently experienced on my computer a battle between Symantec and Microsoft, who often act as though they are part of the system of "princes" and "kings." I was offline a week last month and a week this month because of their battling. I hope I have put up all the bulwarks to prevent future such invasions and crashes. --Dwight Winenger     Founder/webmaster     The Living Music Foundation, Inc.

From: "mattie" Leilat4@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 10:14 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve ADDRESS ======= P.O. Box 932 CITY/ST/ZIP/COUNTRY =================== Kathleen,Florida,33849 COMMENTS ======== i will love to learn about the history of the first human being ---------------------Reply----------------------- Dear Mattie... Good for you. Read on. If you have any questions after reading my article, you have my ear. --Dwight Winenger

From: "Bassam Shamkhi" bshamkhi@hotmail.com Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 6:07 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve ADDRESS ======= 19 Greyton Cres CITY/ST/ZIP/COUNTRY =================== Toronto/Ontario/M6E 2G1/Canada COMMENTS ======== I was blown away to say the least when I saw The Real Eve. I have many questions regarding my ancestors as I know they can be traced back to Babylon. How could I get in touch with Professor Oppenheimer. Can anyone help as it is very important that I hear his input. ------------------Reply-------------------- Dear Bassam Shamkhi... You might do a search for Professor Oppenheimer on a web search engine. The ancestors of all of us date back to before Babylon. All the way back to Noah and his family. Everyone on the Earth is descended from them. Nimrod, the founder of Babylon, was the first to organize an empire with armies to kill other humans in order to take over their land and resources. Nimrod was a great-grandson of Noah. --Dwight Winenger -------------------Reply to our Reply From: Bassam Shamkhi Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 8:13 PM It is obvious that you have very little knowledge of Babylon and its history and contributions to civilization. Perhaps you should read more about it and you would realize that besides the corruption that was going there at the time, which was no different or more than anywhere else in the world, you might come to agree that Babylon has given us a lot to be thankful for today. Quick examples, The first code of law, The first school, The first to predict a solar eclipse. These are contributions that plays a big role in our lives today. Thank you for your opinion anyway, but there was no cause for you to express your hatred the moment you heard that I'm Babylonian. However, the reason I needed to contact Prof. Oppenheimer had nothing to do with Babylon or its history. ---------------------Second Reply------------------ Dear Bassam Shamkhi... I was not expressing hatred for you or for Babylon. I am not ignorant of Babyon's contributions. With your extensive knowlege of your own background, you must know that there have been several historical "Babylon's" and many rulers in the area once called Babylonia. The original Babylon with Nimrod as emperor is not usually called Babylon by archeologists, rather it is known as Sumeria. Archeologists usually start using the term Babylon, in application to the city in present-day Iraq, by the time of Hammarabi, the king who wrote the first law code you mentioned around 1700 B.C. The Sumerian civilization, the original Babylon, was flourishing by 3500 B.C. with several city-states such as Ur, Erech, Umma, Eridu, Lagash, Nippur, Sippar, and Akkad with an advanced culture featuring urban life, metal working, textile manufacture, monumental architecture, and an efficient system of cuneiform writing on clay tablets. This earlier system of city-states was supplanted by Arabian tribes. Sargon of Akkad, about 2550 B.C., having absorbed the Sumerian culture, conquered the Sumerians and carved out an empire which eventually stretched from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. The Third Dynasty of Ur under Gudea of Lagash ended around 2000 B.C. with the rise of the Amorite kingdom under Hammurabi. The original Sumerians disappeared as a people and their language ceased to be spoken in Babylonia. Their system of writing, cuneiform, was adapted by Hammurabi and subsequent rulers and their governments. The Sumerians and the Babylonians laid the foundations for civilization in the Near East. Business organization, technology, and scientific knowledge of today owes its origins to the Sumerians and the Babylonians. If you are proud of modern-day civilization, how can you say I am expressing hatred for you and your heritage by pointing out that civilization began in Babylonia? Of course the positive aspects of civilization are, as you point out, counterbalanced by some rather negative practices. I am one of those in favor of retaining the positive aspects and refining out the more negative ones, such as imperialism. With the current concern about current events in Iraq, I can understand why you might be sensitive about some aspects of the history of your people. I do not hate you or your people and did not intend that my comments should be interpreted as hateful...merely historic. As an American, I have to recognize some quite negative aspects of American history. My family has been located in the United States for only four generations, so we were not directly involved in slavery, the displacement and murder of hundreds of thousands of native Americans, or the political acquisition of territory by political intrigue and downright force, but we have to admit that history records the bad with the good. As a mature individual, you recognize the facts whether they flatter or condemn. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Rios" Rios425@juno.com Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 5:54 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve The Bible in Genesis 1:7 states that Mankind was formed from the soil of the Earth and later in Genesis 1:8 it states that Mankind was taken to a Garden which God planted in Eden. Therefore the long held belief that Man was created in Eden is not even a biblical truth. If we then take the Genesis account as factual it clearly states that Mankind was created somewhere but in Eden. Furthermore, Eden can be seen as a place where Mankind first encountered itself with the notion of a Creator Being. Therefore if the original mytochondrial Eve is placed somewhere in Africa by means of Scientific Analysis of DNA, it by no means negates the validity of a Genesis biological beginnings of Mankind on Earth. ------------------------Reply------------------- Dear Jerry... Thank you for reading my review of "The Real Eve" and for commenting on it. In my Bible, Genesis 1:7 speaks of the "expanse" being made a division between the waters below and the waters above the expanse, and the next verse recounts God calling the expanse Heaven at the end of the first creative day. You may mean Genesis 2:7 where God formed man out of the dust of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils so that he became a living soul. Verse 8 next states that God planted a garden in Eden, toward the east, "and there he put the man whom he had formed. There is certainly validity to your statement that man was formed somewhere else other than in the garden where he was later placed; however Eve was not "built" until verse 22 of Genesis 2. That was obviously in the Garden of Eden where Adam had been settled for an unknown period of time as God brought to him "every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens" to see what he would call it, each living soul. You may be suggesting that since Eden was east of the ground where Adam was created, he was created in Africa, which is southeast of the region defined by the rivers described in Genesis. Quite possible, but you do not state the significance of that possibility other than that it does not negate "the validity of a Genesis biological beginnings of Mankind on Earth." I agree with your thesis. I disagree with only some of the details and the conclusions presented in the film, "The Real Eve." The thesis of my article, briefly, is that the "original mytochondrial Eve ... placed somewhere in Africa by means of Scientific Analysis of DNA" is not the original Eve" built from a rib of Adam who was apparently living in the garden at the time. It is interesting to note that Eve was not called "Eve, because she had to become the mother of all living," until after they left the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:20). There is, however, no indication that the original Eve (not the "original mytochondrial Eve") migrated as far as Africa before she died, probably hundreds of years later. Genesis 3:24 suggests that Adam and Eve may have migrated east of the Garden of Eden rather than west toward Africa because the cherubs were posted "at the east of the garden of Eden." This situation may have discouraged them from migrating westward at all. Tradition has always concluded that the garden of Eden was located somewhere near present-day Iraq because of the location of the four headwaters of the river "issuing out of Eden" to water the garden in Genesis 2:10-14: Pishon, the one encircling the entire land of Havilah; Gihon, the one encircling the entire land of Cush; Hiddekel, the one going to the east of Assyria; and Euphrates. Euphrates is often connected with Babylon, which is near present-day Baghdad in Iraq. Hiddekel is the name used for Tigris in ancient inscriptions, found in the same region. Gihon, on the other hand, is sometimes associated with the River Nile in Africa and sometimes with the Red Sea encircling the Arabian Penninsula. Most authorities suggest that the "main body" of the Cushites (assumed to be "a Negro population") "migrated southward," presumably to Ethiopia in Africa. The identification of the Pishon River is also admittedly "conjectural," suggestions ranging from certain rivers in Armenia all the way to the Ganges River in India, which is east of the east of Eden. All the above is not particularly useful since the flood in Noah's day probably diverted and changed to some extent the ranges of the river issuing out of Eden and its four headwaters. It does explain, however, why tradition locates the garden in the east of Eden as somewhere near the Tigris and the Euphrates; although tracing the course of the four headwaters might also lead one to Arabia or Ethiopia. My contention is that "the original mytochondrial Eve" in Africa is more likely a "daughter of Eve" as mentioned in the video, the subject of my review. There is likely considerable work left to be done tracing mytochondrial DNA before one can definitely identify the "Real Eve," the mother of all living or her final resting place. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Marks" karenmarks33@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 5:24 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve Karen Marks 13854 Edmore Detroit/MI/48205/USA COMMENTS ======== I believe Eve was Black or of a dark skinned race. If you read the Bible closely, Adam and Eve were created in somewhere in Africa and the Bible states that Eve was going to be the mother of everyone living. It is intesting that the Bible doesn't place emphasis on race; especially in the beginning of the Bible, race was not important to God, but, the personality. Also, the rest of the entire world decended from God-fearing Noah. We don't know what race Noah and his wife were, but, we have come to understand that one of Noah's sons was Black, Asian, Caucasian and from these three, we have all decended. It's just that easy. ----------------Reply--------------- Dear Karen... It is a great pleasure for me to have someone like you who actually knows something about the Bible and its eye-witness accounts of historical figures comment on my web site. There are not many of us around these days. You are entirely right about the Bible's general lack of concern about race, all existing humans being descendants of Noah. Noah himself was a descendant of Eve as you know. As to the Bible stating that Eve was created in Africa, I think you will find that the Bible specifically states that the Garden of Eden where Adam and then Eve were created was between several rivers, one of which was the Euphrates (Genesis 2:14) The Euphrates has never been located in Africa but, if you are conversant with recent events in Iraq, the Euphrates is still and has always been located in Asia. The rivers mentioned in Genesis in connection with the Garden of Eden drain toward Aftrica. One of them may have become what we know today as the Red Sea. You are also correct about Adam and Eve being "dark-skinned." The Hebrew word from which Adam is derived suggests they were the color of the earth, the elements from which Adam was originally formed. Eve, being created from one of Adam's ribs likely possessed the same DNA and similar characteristics. You will notice that I never said Eve was white, but neither can one say she was black. As you mention, the first evidence of a black-skinned human is found in the naming of one of Noah's grandsons, Cush. Cush's father, Put, was apparently also darker than what was normal at that time. If you follow the migration routes of Cush and his descendants, you notice that they migrated into Africa, not out of Africa. For hundreds of years, Africa has been known as the land of Cush by geographers and anthropologists... until scientists recently have been able to trace certain mitochondrial DNA characteristics through the female of the species to a woman in Africa who was, of course, a descentant of Eve, but not the original Eve. In fact these same scientists have taken to speaking of Eva and also of "the daughter of Eve," recognizing that there may be room for error in their theories. I commend you for your interest in these important matters. Important because many people would like to drive a wedge among individuals of the human race by appealing to their pride and self-interest. I feel there are too many divisions among us already. The Bible promises of reward for serving God's purposes are destined to be awarded to people of "all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues" at Revelation 7:9 as well as other places in scripture. Thanks for reading and responding to my article. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: latreaseclark (Latrease Clark) Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:17 AM I did not see the documentary, however I would like to begin my own research on this subject. What books shall I read in addition to yours? I've read in revelation chapter 12 about a woman giving birth to a son and more children. Is this the same woman as the Real Eve? I will await your response. Thanks ------------Reply------------- Dear Latrease Clark... Thank you for sharing with me your opinion about Eve and your interest in the subject. I am familiar with the account in Revelation 12. A book that deals with the entire Revelation in some detail, verse by verse, is "Revelation-- It's Grand Climax at Hand!" distributed at no cost by Jehovah's Witnesses. I, at one time, felt that the "sign" of the woman in heaven was either Eve, who was told her seed would destroy the original serpent, or Mary, Jesus' mother who was told her son would rule on the throne of David. Both were typical pictures of the "mother" of God's kingdom. Chapter 27 of the book goes into some detail about this symbolic "woman." Paul at Galatians 4:26 spoke of her as "our mother," speaking as a member of the anointed class of holy ones bought from the earth to rule with Christ on heavenly Mount Zion. God had addressed his symbolic "wife" at Isaiah 54:5, 13, saying, "All your sons will be persons taught by Jehovah." The description in the Revelation, with sun and moon and a crown of stars associates this woman with God's wifely organization of faithful angels from whom Jesus Christ himself came and to which he returned as the archangel upon his resurrection to establish "New Jerusalem" in the heavens, preparing an abode for each of his apostles as he had promised. From this angelic organization God's kingdom appears as a son with Jesus Christ as king of kings and high priest in the manner of Melchizidek as spoken of at Hebrews 5:6. It is not surprising, therefore, that the great fiery-colored dragon is waiting to try to devour the "child." It is by means of this kingdom that God's will is to be done on earth as it is in heaven as mentioned by Jesus in his model prayer, something Satan has continually tried to prevent. Just as Satan attempted to have Jesus killed as a small child, and as he manipulated Cain to kill Eve's faithful son, Abel, Satan would attempt to devour the kingdom at its birth early in the last century. This "son," however, the kingdom of God, will "shepherd all the nations with an iron rod" as indicated in Daniel 2:44 and elsewhere. I appreciate your sincere interest in my article and the research I have done on the subject. There are many books on the subject, but I would start with the "Revelation--It's Grand Climax At Hand!" It contains a thorough discussion of the "signs" delivered to John on the Isle of Patmos by God through the resurrected Jesus Christ and an angel sent to make sure we receive with understanding this important message for our time. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tiffany Proctor" teanastic4@aol.com Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2004 4:37 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve ADDRESS ======= 501 Longfellow St Washington,DC 20011 COMMENTS ======== I feel every one is making a big deal because if she is of African decent than the white people would feel like they don't belong. Eventhough I feel we all come from the same place which is Africa or Egypt. If we all knew how to put our difference aside and come together as one. No one would feel like they don't belong. -----------reply------------- A wise comment, Tiffany.

----- Original Message ----- From: "jr" internetnewsdaily@yahoo.com Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:04 PM Search engine used: Alta Vista interesting site www.internetnewsdaily.com

Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:09 AM It sounds like you are struggling with an agreement of true science and true religion. A new Holy Spirit has filled the earth and an agreement is possible. But to be a true seeker, one must be willing to set aside the recitations of preceding generations to re-find the truth those generations loved - the new wine in its new bottle - but the Wine of Astonishment nonetheless. From: "Chris English" cenglish@wizwire.com PO Box 33454 Phoenix, AZ USA

NAME ==== mugu ADDRESS ======= onyeosi street,lagos CITY/ST/ZIP/COUNTRY =================== ik,oshodi,nigeria COMMENTS ======== i dey here for those of my fan whole realy understand whats up

----- Original Message ----- From: "bernard lawrenson" bjlawr@intekom.co.za Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 10:53 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve COMMENTS ======== Your commentary seems to be largely based on the National Geographic program on 'The Real Eve'. Whilst meant to stimulate inevitably a popular lowest common denominator presentation of the evolving role genetics is playing in shedding light on our past is clearly too lightweight a vehicle to engender serious debate. Far more pertinent is Stephen Oppenheimers recent publication 'Out of Africa,s Eden' published by Constable in 2003 with its very scholarly treatment and extensive research references. I suggest that anyone interested in the topic get his/her mind around the detail subject matter of this very rewarding book before he/she grandstands on the topic. As a addendum your grammitical restriction are mindblowingly restrictive get real if you want real debate. bernard lawrenson po box 78521 Sandton Gauteng South Africa ---------------reply-------------- Dear bernard lawrenson...       Thank you for commenting on my article. Without realizing it, apparently, you support my point.       I did not intend to "grandstand" on the topic, simply to point out some of the problems with the film, the same problems you mention.       If you bother to read my article, you will discover that I, too, find the Nat.Geo. film amateurish with little real documentation. You might also notice that I provided data from at least two other sources, but not from Oppenheimer, which I am happy to hear about. Perhaps after reading it, I will do some real "grandstanding."       Finally, you are the second person to mention "grammatical restrictions" without any clue as to what you are talking about. If you are pointing out problems with punctuation restrictions to prevent html code's being emailed to me, that is primarily so I will actually receive your email since earthlink tends to spot any sort of code as potential virus material.       After the last complaint I redid the authentification program to allow more punctuation, but I am not sure what that has to do with grammar. I thought I had solved the "mindblowing" part of the "restrictive" authentification program. I apologize if you were unable to adapt your writing style to my punctuation restrictions. If you would let me know what specific grammatical problems you had, I will do my best to facilitate real debate. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: "DANNY RAY CONNELL" drichey7021@charter.net Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 1:51 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve ADDRESS ======= 1825 HEATHERMOORE EST. LOT 100 CITY/ST/ZIP/COUNTRY =================== MOODY AL. 35004 COMMENTS ======== T.V AND I A HALF CHERAKEE INDIAN BELIVE!!!!! PRAISE THE LORD!

----- Original Message ----- From: "Eves daughter" Evesdaughter@planetearth.net Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 2:01 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion This is BS. You won't let anyone use commas colons semicolons slashes parenthesis or quotations marks in order to post URL's quotes or anything that could properly argue against your opinions without looking like an idiot. You're full a crap. ----------------reply----------------- Dear Evesdaughter... You are the first person to find it impossible to adjust to the limited punctuation on our Real Eve site; however, just for you, since you are so closely related, we have added the comma, the slash, the colon, the semicolon, and the parentheses. We do this primarily because you actually know the parenthesis and the semicolon by name. We cannot quite figure out why they are all so totally necessary for your communication since you seem to make efficient use of a descriptive vocabulary limited to crap and BS. "full a crap," however, should be "full OF crap." (caps ours) "Idiot" is a totally legitimate descriptive term, especially when it applies so well. We apologize for not being able to add quotation marks because our JavaScript validation program reads them as "end of data." You may, however, use an apostrophe instead, which is commonly used as quotation marks within quotes. If that doesn't look right, use it twice, which is pretty close to quotation marks (' '). Also, If your communication is so totally dependent on the dash, you may use a double hyphen (--), which is frequently used as a dash anyway. That one was already there. Thank you for your constructive comments. The others we will ignore until you write us again. Sincerely yours, Dwight

----- Original Message ----- From: "Black man" Blah@blah (ficticious name and address) Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 6:44 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve ADDRESS ======= yup P.O.Box ======= nope CITY/ST/ZIP/COUNTRY =================== africa COMMENTS ======== Are you kidding me? do you really believe this? How is this possible? Have you ever seen a black caveman or woman? Does this throw out the whole Adam and Eve theory? ------------- reply ------------ Dear Black man (likely not)... These are the answers to your questions: No. Not. No. No. Now my questions: Did you bother to read the article? Did you realize that the article is a review of a video? Have you ever seen a depiction of a caveman or woman that was not so hairy that it is difficult to tell what color the skin is? Are you aware of the difference between the Adam and Eve "theory" and the theory of evolution? Realizing that the information you provided about your identity is, after all, not reqwired, did you provide false ID and responses to keep a consistent flippant attitude? Or was consistency at all a concern? I know it is a lot to ask, but just in case you drop in to see if we put your comment in Eve's Guest Book, would you attempt to read enough of the article to at least have an idea what it is really about? Thank you for leaving tracks even though they seem to be "Lucy" tracks. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 1:23 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve COMMENTS ======== I saw this report on T.V. and would very much love to have a copy of the video. Please send to me any inforamtion you may have inregards to this subject matter. i thought it was excellent Michael Fondren Epaschool@aol.com 4901 E. 31st Street Indianapolis, In. 46218 ---------- reply --------------- Thank you, Michael, for your opinion concerning the Real Eve video.       I found several sources on the internet for the video...for a price. I got the image used on my site from one of them. I no longer have the address, however. Try searching for "real eve."       My opinion, if you read my article carefully, is that there are several holes in the theory. Otherwise well done. It must have been well done if someone such as yourself missed the lack of structure in the factual underpinning for the theory. --Dwight ----------reply to reply ------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: EPAschool@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 2:07 PM Subject: Re: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve Thanks for your response, I guess I wasn't looking at the video for fact other than it stated it was based upon DNA. I will research it farther. once again thank you! ---------- reply to reply to reply ------------ Michael...     Let me know what you find out.     I understand that DNA sampling cannot be used accurately in old fossils. I didn't catch the detail, but the implication is that "Lucy's" actual DNA record is in doubt.     People have a tendency to put all their marbles in one bag without checking for holes. It used to be carbon dating. Now it is DNA. --Dwight

From: "Thomas Christie" Azreal_shen@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 9:37 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve ======= 112 malettes bay ave winooski/vermont/05404/usa ======== What we know is still not a enough to prove or disprove race or skin color. What evidence is there aside from bone structure to show what exactly Eve looked like. also these remains may not be Eve. we still may find older remains down the road this is a virtual new born subject and more reseach should be done. ----------------reply----------------- Bravo! Thomas Christie. My point precisely, and yet the documentaries are presented as if they are based on absolutely proved fact. Thank you for your supremely rational comment. A more recent documentary considered in my update reminds us that there are, indeed, older remains which some authorities are now linking into the chain of fossils supposedly "humanoid." Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Therrien" fortdeposit@aol.com To: Dwight Winenger Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:47 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve I watched your program on Discovery and was searching online to see if the story was there with the details and it was. Thank you. What a breakthrough it would be if people would realize their true geneaology and put away unwarranted prejudice. Please keep me updated on any developments. Dan Therrien Fort Deposit, AL --------reply----------- Dan... I just updated the site this morning with some snatches of information I saw in a recent film. I came in in the middle and missed the title and much of the background. I supplied some of it from my copy of Collier's Encyclopedia. The new film, which featured Meava Leakey and her anthropological finds along with her father's and her grandfather's and those of Eugene Dubois, pretty much debunks the idea of all "humans" descended from one precursor, male or female, in favor of the evolutionary principle of "radiation," which has nothing to do with nuclear or similar sorts of radiation...but that is mentioned in more detail in the update. Just click on the February 15, 2003, update link near the top, to the right of the picture. You will jump to the update at the bottom of the page. If you hear about the film I saw and learn its title or some way I might view the whole film, I would appreciate your letting me know. Thanks for the kind words. --Dwight

----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Fondren" Epaschool@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 11:09 AM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve COMMENTS ======== I had a chances to view this show on the T.V. and was very please with the reseach it brought to light. i think it is truly sad that as a race of people we are blinded by the color of another person skin. God created one race the human race we have labeled ourselves. and because of this we will never fully understand the truth of our begining. I think the answer lies within each of us and only when we come together as one will mankind understand that he is many parts but one race

----- Original Message ----- From: "tom adams" vortex@improbable.org Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 7:57 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve > COMMENTS ======== google popped you out on a search ocean levels historical red sea you mention routes across the Red Sea... what have the water levels been in the red sea over the time period? was there ever a land bridge across the south end? is is possible that the river gihon mentioned as one of the four rivers of eden that encompassed Ethiopia may have flowed all the way down there? ---------------reply--------------- Most of your question is answered in the context of my article. You may want to read it again. As to Ethiopia, national boundaries have changed since 1500 BCE; however, the word "Ethiopia" in some accounts may refer, not so much to a national border, as to a region inhabited by the sons of Ham. --Dwight Winenger

----- Original Message ----- From: "URITHE " RRR.@webtv.net Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 4:12 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve COMMENTS ======== YOU ARE A COMPLETE FOOL. YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER IS BLLLLAAAAACCCCCKKKKKKK BLACK IS THE ONLY TRUE RACE WITH OUT BLACKS NO OTHER GROUP WOULD EXIST EXIST EXIST WE INVENTED YOU AND OTHER WE MY BE YOUR GOOOOOOOOOOOOD BY         THE         WAY         UFO         ARE         gg YOU DONT KNOW THE TRUTH         BRAINWASHING ADDRESS ======= 555 EAST ST CITY/ST/ZIP/COUNTRY =================== UFO UFO BLK -------------Response------------ Dear Urithe...       You may be right...but you present only astoundingly biased personal opinions apparently based entirely on what you wish were true.       I don't mind my father and mother being Black. Could you say the same if your parents were White?       Your totally biased comments support what I have long suspected...that the whole idea of The Real Eve is meant to appeal to Blacks and to Women...for whatever reasons..       The basic generator of the Real Eve film was a Black Woman...or appeared to be so.       The archeologist with the Leakey expedition who pieced together dozens of tiny bone fragments found over an area exceeding a square mile to create the basis of the theory was also a woman. She did not appear to be black, but it was obvious, with so many small fragments, that she could create nearly any sort of shape she wished...then she filled in the missing spaces with a plastic putty at will. Check it out.       The documentary dealing with the Leakey discovery of the Lucy skull was not clear about whether or not the fragments were verifiably from the same skull...or even if they were all of human origin. There are tests to verify such things.       These questions still need to be answered before one may rationally make the sort of statements you make.       Our readers will have to decide for themselves precisely who the fool is. --Dwight

----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Kibby" lkibby@ruralfree.net Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 12:44 PM Subject: Real Eve, sharing my opinion about Eve COMMENTS ======== What you are calling eyewitnessed accounts are in fact stories that have been passed on through the generations by either word-of-mouth or coppied and translated written documents. There is nothing as of date to prove the validity or reliablity of these stories and can not be considered as factual. In your article you have stated that most systems of jurisprudence prefer eye-witness testimony to hearsay. Please present your eye-witness so that he or she may be answer any questions so that the judges can obtain a clear understanding of the story being told. I really don't believe that this is possible since the eye-witnesses have been dead for a very long time. In truth there are no witnesses leaving only to specualate what the truth really is. The fact is that your explaination of the true Eve is no more or less plausable that that of the those who believe Eve came from East Africa. If I were force to choose between the two I would choose the black Eve. After all the court will accept DNA evidence over written testimony. --------------------Reply----------------- Dear Louis...       Thank you for your singularly intelligent comment. There is, of course, some basis for what you say; however, you are probably aware that courts accept written and spoken testimony by witnesses who are not personally present...outstandingly death-bed statements which may, in actuality be hearsay.       Such testimony must be weighed as to reliability of course. Several Archeologists, you may also recall, have testified as to the reliability of the details of the eye-witness accounts you accurately call "word-of-mouth or coppied and translated written documents." They survive as essentially reliable affidavits even though not all details may be equally verifiable and, as in any eye-witness testimony, the character and the perspective of the individual witness must be taken into consideration in interpreting the evidence.       We must admit that the witnesses may not be personally cross-examined at this point. If we believe the accounts of many of them, however, the day for their cross-examination may not be far off. I, personally, would like to be there when it may be possible to ask them questions.       I am very happy with your mentioning DNA testimony. As I pointed out in my reply to Urithe above, it is now plausible to determine whether each fragment of Lucy's skull was actually from the same individual or even from the same sort of animal. Perhaps you are aware of whether or not that has been done.       If you are personally acquainted with Richard Leakey, you may wish to ask him how diligently the expedition substantiated its find.       Richard Leakey is reported to have said: "Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions." Of course that was in April of 1973 in the University of Iowa "Spectator." He may have changed his opinion since then. Witnesses sometimes do that. --Dwight

We invite readers to e-mail the author.

Be advised that your using the form constitutes waiver of copyright and permission to publish your comments with our replies in this GuestBook and elsewhere.

Click through to our Home page: