But the point is that 33 generations isn't enough to change a race.
I've searched for where the Bible says Adam's sons where ruddy complexioned. I can't find it. Could you provide the verse, please?
By sons, I meant seed, just like in Gen. 6.2 with daughters of [0120] Adam.
Adam's name is word [0120], not [0119]. You're stretching it a bit to claim you can say Adam was of ruddy complexion by using a definition of a word that isn't there (even though it [0120] may be a dirivative of [0119]).
Like I said, look at the Hebrew and you'll see that 0120 in Gen. 2.5 is different than 0120 in 1.26.
There's no evidence that the Bible points to [0119]. That's an assumption. An interesting assumption, but an assumption non-the less. It doesn't validate your argument very well.
But when combined with the fact that the seed of Adam was ruddy, and the number of generations it takes to form races, and modern day observation, it's clear why the root meaning of Adam is "ruddy complected".
Give me the Bible verse that says other races where created before or after Adam, and I'll believe you.
Gen. 1.26 through 2.5. There was the sixth day, a day of rest, and then there's that big word "and" leading off 2.5. "And" God saw he needed an husbandman, in other words, it continued on from the day of rest. If "and" wasn't there, it would be harder to make this conclusion, but that word "and" is a big word.
33 generations is plenty to get different genes sorted out.
I don't see much difference in American blacks in 500 years since they've been here and that's even after mixing with white DNA. I'll bet there's been close to 33 generations for them. If environment can change races in 33 generations, then there already shouldn't be much of a difference between whites and blacks in America. It takes a lot more than 33 generations, especially when there's no mixing going on.
And your point is? There are english words that are derived that mean something different then their root words. Give me a better argument...like specific Bible verses giving Adam's complexion.
The word Adam's root meaning is "ruddy complected". His seed were ruddy. There was just a few generations, not enough to change a race. The "white" trait isn't dominant. 0120 in 1.26 is different than 0120 in 2.5. For me, that's enough evidence. For you it's not. We're at a place of irreconcilable differences.
I looked up each of these verses (using the nice online reference Blue Letter Bible). Each of them have the same word for man ([0120], all meaning 'Mankind' in context).
No, I said check the original Hebrew. 1.26 is different than 2.5 for 0120. There's some kind of qualifier. Strong should have distinguished this. He probably thought it wasn't important. It looks like it is important.
They all have the same meaning. Why should they be different?
They are different. Why should they be? Because that explains why God needed Adam after the sixth day creation.
I also looked them up in The Interlinear Bible. This Bible uses the Masoretic texts. If you notice something, each word is the Hebrew 'adam, but each of different tenses (such as our run, ran, running). The tenses for 'adam are the root form (Gen 1:26 talks about mankind in general as a group), the singular form (Gen 1:26 talks about a specific man, but in general reference to mankind), and the plural form (Gen 6:2 talks about 'many men' of the group mankind or 'humans'). (I'll try to find a site for you on this.) These are all [0120]. If you notice in 0120, it includes the definitions for each of these. There's no reason these should be different.
Except to explain the races and the fact that there's not that many generations from Adam to todays princes. Man has been around for at least tens of thousands of years. The bible doesn't dispute this. Mankind was created on the sixth day, Adam was created on the eighth.
The 'and' in Genesis 2:5 simply states another fact to go along with the first (And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth).
If you want to believe that, you can, but it doesn't explain the races. We have evidence of human existence before 6000 years ago. That shows me that that word "and" in 2.5 means that God rested and he saw he needed an husbandman.
Genesis 2:6 (But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground) explains why there was no man to till (that's where the 'But' comes in, in Gen 2:6, stating another fact to replace a previous one: "I'd go to the store, but it's raining"). Show me the Bible verse that says other races were here before Adam.
Mankind was created on the sixth day, Adam was created on the eighth. The bible is mainly the story of one man's family, that's why Chinese history isn't in there, Australian aborigine history isn't in there, the history of Satan's rebellion isn't in there. After all this pre-Adam history, God saw he needed an husbandman to save all that had gone before, So he created Adam, who's seed would become the reaper of men.
Also, if Adam was created with all the genes necessary to create all of our races (there's actually not very many of these that would be needed), then our races could easily have come from him in a short time.
There's no evidence that the races change so fast.Australian whites look nothing like Australian aborigines yet, and there've already been 10 generations.
That's an interesting theory. But what do you have to back it up?
The parable of the tares of the field:
Mat 13:37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
There you go, the husbandman. The Son of man will reap what he sowed, and he sowed the good seed. The tares will be burned, When the tares are burned it's clear he's talking of wicked men.
Where does it say this? I don't find it in the KJV.
Gen. 2.5. A husbandman is a farmer (a reaper of men).
Yes. Adam just needed the genes for each type of race (and some developed on their own). You'd be supprised how fast genes can get swapped around and isolated in groups. Take the breeding of dogs for instance. It really doesn't take all that much time to create new races of something.
I see no evidence of it today. There are races living in the same environment for years and they look nothing alike. Dogs have puppies every year or two years, not every 25 years. How do you explain the fact that there has been human habitation for at least 40,000 years (in chile)? That's long before Adam no matter how you count it.