I know what you're saying but it isn't natural. And another thing there just isn't enough time. There have been inhabitants in Chile for 40,000 years. That's a major piece of evidence that leans against Adam being the father of all humans.
The sons of Adam would be everyone. White, black, ruddy, etc.
That's not natural nor logical.
Yes, they are different...like a car and cars are different.
Adam was part of mankind. European makes are cars, Chevrolets are cars, but a Chevy isn't a BMW. Adam was created as a man to save mankind. The words should be similar but different which they are.
Same word, different forms (in 0120's case, plural and singlular), meaning the same thing, but in different quantities).
Why would God use plural in 1.26 and then singular in 2.5 if they were the same man? The fact that they are different is further proof that the 2.5 man is different than the men in 1.26.
Would you claim a car and cars are completely different words and should be stated under different places in the dictionary? Of course not. The same applies to 0120 (mankind, a man, men).
In Gen. 1.26 the Hebrew word for man is spelled with the Hebrew letters Aleph, Dalet, and Mem. In Gen. 2.5 the Hebrew letter Vav precedes that same word for man. The letter vav does not denote singular versus plural, but the best I can tell from rumaging through the web, vav denotes connectivity, grace, and therefore spirituality. Link below. It's a letter in God's name also, an important letter. It's the letter that connects God with man. In other words, The man created on the eighth day was to be the way for God to connect himself and give grace to the rest of mankind.
Adam's seed was also black, white, yellow, etc. This tells us nothing.
I believe most of Adam's seed stayed ruddy. Some of Adam's seed who mixed with the other 6th day races developed into the other races colors, though, being that the ruddy skin color isn't dominant.
You haven't given any verses to back this up, and you're completely ignoring the explination I provided for it.
Gen. 1.26 through 2.5 backs it up. God created mankind, God rested, God created Adam. The "and"s make it so.
Adam was created on the 6th day (the Bible states this rather clearly).
Aleph dalet mem was created on the sixth day. Vav aleph dalet mem was created after the seventh day.
If you want your point to be valid, you must show were it says he was made after the 7th day (and your explination is stretching things too much to try to make that claim, especially when Gen 1:26 says God made man {this was in the 6th day, which we see down in Gen 1:31}).
God created mankind on the sixth day. God rested. And God created Adam after that for a connection to spirituality and grace.
You're trying to give Gen 2:5 a far more complex meaning then you need to, when the explination for Gen 2:5 is given in Gen 2:6 in simple terms: No man was there to till the ground, because no man was needed to till the ground (because there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.)
AsI said, a man was needed to be the reaper of men, a "tiller of the ground".
Also, your explination contradicts Gen 1. Your explination isn't valid. It completely ignores and contradicts Gen 1:26 that states man was made in the 6th day (in context to Gen 1:31).
Aleph dalet mem was created on the sixth day. Vav aleph dalet mem was created after the seventh day.
And it completely ignores what Gen 2:6 is for. Also, Gen 2:4 says These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens....
Right. There were many generations of mankind before Adam.
Gen 2:7 says God made man. If we go with that, then we see that there also was no man at all before God created man in Gen 2:7 (meaning Adam was the first man God created).
God made a man, Adam.
To claim that the earth in Gen 2:5 means mankind is going a bit far.
At the time, mankind was just part of the earth, man didn't have a chance at spiritual redemption. That's why Adam was necessary, to make mankind spiritual beings.
There's no evidence that there was man before Adam.
Mankind was created on the sixth day as it says in Gen. 1.26
Note: Gen 2:4 starts a new section of Genesis which is an overview of creation starting with the creation of man (Adam) and telling of the creation of the Garden of Eden.
Gen. 2.4 is a conclusion to the first verses of Genesis letting the reader know that "these are the generations of the creation of earth and the heavens". In other words, God was now ready to begin the process of saving mankind with a tiller of the ground (a reaper of men), the Messiah.
We know Gen 2:4 is talking about what follows it do to the sentence structure (note the comma at the end and the 'And' following into the next verse).
To me it basically says: OK, the earth is done, mankind is ready, let's bring on Adam so we have a way to save these people.
This particular passage isn't temporally linear to Gen 1 (that is, they deviate from the timeline in Gen 1). The Gen 1 and Gen 2 account of the creation of man is talking about the same man...Adam.
I think it is linear.
There's not all that much mixing going on between blacks and whites, either. Dark skin seems to be dominate. I've seen children and children's children of mixed marriages that have a bit different toned skin then their parents and grandparents. Also, genes can get isolated and become dominate very quickly in isolated societies (which is why African pigmies are all short. If they started mixing with Americans, in a few generations we'd probably start having average heights for people again (I think tallness is genetically dominate). If you don't believe that traits can get swapped or 'changed' (isolated) quickly, just look at dog breeds.
You said that the environment can change people in 33 generations, whites and blacks haved lived together in this country for almost 33 generations, they should look alike by now even with no mixing if your theory was true, but I don't think they've changed hardly at all, even with intermixing.
The root of the word does nothing to ensure that the definition of the derived word will be the same or simular(sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't). This is a basic rule of speach. To assume you can derive definition through a word is just that...assumption.
Like I said, it's a compilation of evidence. You also have to consider that the ruddy trait isn't dominant, the lack of generations, the fact that Adam's seed was ruddy.
If you want to assume that, go right ahead. But you can't use it to claim it as fact because there is no evidence for such. I'll let you keep your opinion if you like, but if we're going to have a nice debate, let's leave assumptions out of it and base things on fact.
You're assuming a race can markedly change in 33 generations. I think we both have a right to assume things when we're trying to figure out what happened 6000 years ago. :^)
I've been looking for an actual source to show you what the qualifier means. I'm supprised how hard it is to find it.
I found a source. It's connectivity, grace and therefore spiritualy. Here's a link.
The english translation tells you what the qualifer is though, quite nicely. The qualifier is most likely a plural/singluar specifier (like a car, and car). They arn't different words...just different forms of the same word. Big difference.
No, the best I can tell, it may even denote the Messiah. Read the link. Vav Aleph Dalet Mem may translate into Messiah-man which is exactly what I've been saying. Through Adam's seed came the reaper of men.
Nothing claims God needed Adam after the sixth day (especially when Gen 1:26 says God made Adam on the sixth day).
2.5 says God needed someone to till the ground (a reaper of men).
It's you that keeps claiming God needed Adam after the sixth day. Not the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible that claims that.
2.5 says God needed a tiller of the ground (a reaper of men).
If you ignore the simple explination that's written in black and white. I think what you're getting stuck on is that Gen 1 and Gen 2 do not follow the same time line.
I think they do.
If you reference other parts of the Bible, they are all consistent with Adam being created in the 6 days of Creation. There is no indication of other races being created before Adam. All Biblical references to Adam (other then the Bible) all claim Adam was the First Man. Even the definition of [0120] has Adam - The First Man.
Adam was the first man, the first man of the family that the bible was written about.
Traits can get swapped around and isolated far faster then you seem to realize.
I disagree. There's been no evidence of that in 500 years of American history.
That's just a simple fact of Biology. And anyone that breeds dogs, cats, other animals or plants knows this, and uses it to their advantage to create completely new 'species' of an animal in a relatively short amount of time.
Cats and dogs breed faster than humans.
No, actually it's the story of a common lineage leading up to Jesus and of God's chosen people, the Jews.
The elect are the chosen people. Israel is the U.S. and the U.K. Read toward the end of Genesis when Jacob/Israel was on his death bed prophesying and you'll see that Manasseh (a great nation-the U.S.) and Ephraim (a company of nations-the U.K.) inherited Israel's name. Judah didn't inherit the name. It was a mistake to name Israel Israel. It should have been named Judah. Judah is our brother, but it's not Israel and never has been. When the bible speaks of Israel in end-time prophecy, it's speaking of the U.S. and the U.K.
You're reading far more into the Bible then you need to. It simply doesn't require a complex theory like yours. Observe Occam's Razor, or you'll be left wondering why people arn't agreeing with you. There is another explination that's much simplier, goes along with the Bible better, and does explain everything (yes, it does). The first thing you need to realize is that it doesn't take tens of thousands of years for traits to get swapped or isolated. Fast trait swapping is observed constantly in biology. It can, and does, happen. You don't need to make a mountain out of a molehill to explain where the molehill came from.
But there's no evidence of it today, even with all the travel of the last 1000 years.
Those races are, for the most part, geologically isolated. You wouldn't expect to see much change there in traits if the race is already adapted to the environment.
But you said the environment changed the races in 33 generations. The aboriginal and British Australians should've already begun to look alike after 10 generations even without interbreeding if all it takes is 33. American black and whites should be almost there if all it would take is 33 generations, and there has been much interbreeding and an equivilant environment in this case.
That's really stretching it (and taking verses out of context).
Saving bandwidth, You have the blue letter bible, you could go look it up. :^)
The parable has nothing to do with the creation of man, and it doesn't give any indication of such. This is taking scripture out of context. Trying to make one part of the scripture support another part, even though the two are completely unrelated.
I believe all the bible is related to the rest of it.
It's an invalid Biblical argument. It doesn't work. One can't just toss Bible verses together and expect them all to work.
Jesus flat out explained what the parables of the field was. He said he was the sower and what he sowed would be reaped at the end of the world. A sower reaps, otherwise there's no use sowing. Explain what you think the parable of the fields means if it's not talking about the sowing and reaping of men.
Gen 2:5 says nothing of the sort. It says and [there was] not a man to till the ground. In other words, a farmer of the earth.
We're at another irreconcilable difference. You believe no one farmed before 6000 years ago, I believe there has been farming for tens of thousands of years. I believe that the farmer God needed was the reaper of men.
Claiming it's talking about a reaper of men is completely assumptous and isn't supported (except through long hoops of complex explinations which don't even match up with scripture).
The parable of the fields says the son of man will reap both the tares and the good, and burn the tares. You're taking the bible literally only and are not at all thinking of the spiritual implications.
Yes, Dogs have puppies every year or so..but they can change rapidly in a short amount of generations. Isolation of traits take place even faster. If Adam had all the traits necessary for mankind, then it could easily have been done (one reason we don't see all that much change in humans is because they're already isolated, and their traits have become specific to their race.
Actually with the travel of the last 1000 years, humans are less isolated than ever, and there still is very little change.
Not much room for mixing traits unless we toss, say, America and China together and get every other person to have a cross-race marriage).
That's basically what happened with Blacks. Over 90% of blacks are part white.
I'll give you an example of a simple word that has an origin of the same word (but with different meaning). Gay (as in 'homosexual'). This is obviously taken from gay(meaning 'happy'. Taken probably deliberately). It's the same word, but when you discuse gay as homosexual, one knows you don't apply the older definition of 'happy' to it. Or Enormousness and Enormity (both derived from the Latin word, enormis), but they mean two different things (Enormousness means "largeness" or "immensity". while Enormity means "depravity" or "wickedness" and also means a "crime" or "error."). {A good site explaining these two words}. Root terms don't necassarily carry their definitions over to the derived versions, and that's why 0119 and 0120 arn't necassarily compatible (and there's no true indication that they are).
But when added to the evidence that there has been so few generations and the fact that Adam's seed mentioned in the bible were all ruddy, I'd conclude Adam was called Adam because he was ruddy.
To recap: Gen 1 and Gen 2 arn't part of the same timeline.
Irreconcilable difference. I think it is.
Gen 1 and Gen 2 both talk about the creation of Adam on the 6th day (Gen 2 being an overview of Adam's creation and the creation of the Garden of Eden).
Gen 1 is the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. Gen. 2 is the creation of the spiritual man.
It's biologically possible for all existing races to have come from Adam.
The short amount of time makes it impossible, plus there's has been human habitation in at least Chile for 40,000 years, long before Adam, no matter how you count it.
[0119] and [0120] arn't necassarily compatible, and there's nothing to suggest the two definitions can be interchanged with each other.
The evidence that Adam's seed was ruddy is a good indication why Adam was named Adam.
And it's as simple as that. Gen 1 and 2 don't require a complex argument like yours. And nothing else in the Bible backs up such an argument (though it backs up the argument that Adam was the first man, and everyone came from Adam).
Everyone who lives will live because of the creation of Adam. Genesis goes step by step through the creation of the earth, heavens, mankind, rest, Adam. The bible does not dispute scientific observation that the earth is billions of years old, that animals have been around for millions of years, and that mankind has been around for tens of thousand of years. You skipped my question on Chile. How do you explain the evidence of human habitation in Chile 40,000 years ago?
Here's Jesus' explanation 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;
Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];
Mat 13:39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Jesus sowed the seeds, a seed sower is a farmer, a tiller.