Talk:Pre-Adamite

message: I saw a copy of this very rare book during a brief visit in September 2001 to the tiny Savings Bank Museum at Ruthwell in Dumfriesshire. DFH 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duncan, Mrs. Isabella (1860) — ''Pre-Adamite Man''; 

message: I removed the section which stated that the notion that the Mark of Cain consisted of black skin originated in Europe "and was popularised in 19th century America by the founder of Mormonism Joseph Smith, Jr." If Joseph Smith in fact preached this doctrine then he likely had a minor effect in popularizing it, as the Mormons were only a minor fringe group at the time.  Unless someone can come up with a good citation for this statement I believe it is not NPOV.
The LDS church doesn't believe that doctrine today and teaches that no human on earth today is descended from Pre-Adamites.--JBPostma 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mormonism & Pre-Adamites

message: There should be an alternate term used instead of Pre-Adamism, such as pre-Abrahamic humans, or something. The term is misleading and  is ironic because, in Hebrew and Arabic: "Adam" or "Adham" simply means "human". Therefore, from this "mis-" logic, pre-Adamic humans would be humans before humans! But of course, ignorant Christians who do not know a Semitic language, or even have any connection to the Middle East would not know this. Le Anh-Huy 06:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way I can report this user for his bigotry-laden comment? 96.251.89.15 (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: It is an accepted academic term and is not really open to debate in the scope of this article. One could call people ignorant for using it, but that would make you look rather uninformed. Butlerblog (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

text: What is the most common term in the literature? --Filll 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-Adamism a ridiculous term

message: (clarify who "Adam" is, to make the article more accessible to readers not from a Jewish/Christian/Islamic background.) - doesn't this edit contradict the whole article? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First Human Being

message: "John Rogers", described as noting Pre-Adamism in Friesland in 1768, currently links through a redirect to John Rogers (c.1500–1555), which can't be correct as that John Rogers was obviously dead at the time. None of the John Rogers disambiguated here and here look particularly strong contenders, so I've unlinked the term completely for now.
JimmyGuano (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John Rogers

message: Should there be a section in this article about pre-Adamism from a Jewish perspective? It seems to concentrate on racism derived from such beliefs, but pre-Adamism exists in Judaism without racist connotations. There are numerous reference to the 974 generations that lived prior to Adam, as well as to his children and grandchildren seeking wives in other lands. Perhaps we should add something on this subject? Ruyn13 (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Pre-Adamism?

message: This article is not clear from the outset that Pre-Adamism is a theological belief.  I'm pretty sure the "theory that humans existed" 100,000 years ago or more is an accepted scientific theory that nobody outside of specific religious denominations refers to as "Pre-Adamism".
At the very least the article should refer to this as a theological belief, and perhaps differentiate between (for example) Protestants who simply believe in the timeline of evolution and view all of Genesis as allegorical, versus those who believe in literal Adam but also that other humans existed during that time.  Right now I'm not sure which one this means--but there's no way it simply means "belief in evolution". 204.210.247.243 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could this stress theology? 

message: The following paragraphs lack any source for their claims, and in view of previous spurious assertions about Muslim science really need proper sourcing, so I've moved them from the article:
:The Kitab al Khazari (c. 1130–1140), a book by Judah ben Samuel Halevi, features a debate between the King of the Khazars and three theologians, a Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim, in which the King attempts to find out which is the true religion. The King asks the Jew whether he is concerned that the Indians claim to have buildings and artifacts that are millions of years old. The rabbi dismisses these beliefs as unworthy ideas held by a dissolute and unreliable people with no fixed form of religion, or no book "concerning which multitude of people held the same opinion".
:In this same work Halevi attacked a number of ideas that appeared in a book titled Nabatean Agriculture, written or translated by Ibn Wahshiyya in 904. The ideas, attributed to the Sabeans, were that people lived before Adam, that Adam had parents, and that he came from India. Halevi dismissed these notions simply by saying that these people did not know of the revelation contained in Scripture.
:The claims in Nabatean Agriculture mentioned above were also discussed by Maimonides (1135–1204) in his Guide for the Perplexed. Through Maimonides, they became known to the 17th-century French Millenarian Isaac La Peyrère – This is cited to Almond, but a search of the volume in Google books finds no mention of Maimonides.
When reliable sourcing is shown, these can be reinstated. . . dave souza, talk 14:37, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: info reinstated, amended in line with cited sources. More work needed. . dave souza, talk 07:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced claims, 1000 – 1700