Observation.
Trait swapping is something one can observe with one's own eyes. One mistake you seem to be making is that the dominate gene will always win out.
No I didn't. I said that due to the fact that almost all of the individuals mentioned as Adam's seed were ruddy and the fact that the root word for Adam means ruddy, we can conclude that Adam was ruddy.
This isn't the case. The dominate gene might mix with the recessive to 'dilute' the gene, or the recessive gene might show up in the offspring.
Yes, but the fact that the root word for Adam means ruddy is a good indication that he was ruddy. When we discovered new lands such as Africa and Australia in the age of discovery, there wasn't a caucasion scattered here and there in the ethnic tribes, the seed of the progeny resembles the fathers. The genes of the fathers were dominant and no single person in the tribe resembled a caucasion. There may have been scattered outposts from the "phoenician" era, but there just didn't all of a sudden pop up a caucasion looking person in an ethnic tribe such as in Africa or Australia.
An example of this is children from a white mother and a black father. The children can be black, like their father, white like their mother, or somewhere in between (depending on what genes get mixed. With white and black people, both people have the dark pigments, just in different quantities, and so those can get mixed at times). (I know someone who's mother is white, and who's father is black...really black. He's definitely black, but certainally not as black as his father. He also has certain traits of his mother as well (such as certain facial features, and I think he has his mother's eyes.) Also, because both dominate and recessive genes can make it through to offspring, one person could have genes for, say, three different eye colors, and if he had three children (and the odds were for him), it's possible that each child could have a different eye color. And, in fact, people do have children with different eye colors.
But the bible says an entire population of Adamites were ruddy (the Nazerites), that would suggest that Adam was ruddy.
You also claim that all races should look alike by now if trait swapping could happen rapidly.
No, I said that if you were right that the environment changes races in 33 generations that all the races should already be looking alike in places where two or more different races occupied the same environment for a significant fraction of those 33 generations. This is not the case.
This would happen if humans were indiscriminate about who they took as mates and if there was constant mixing of races for the majority of people, independent of location. However, this isn't true with humans. Most are rather picky about who they take as mates, and most stick with their own races, thus providing a way for the genes and races to stay well defined.
Not at all. A particular person is picky, but most members of a human population will have progeny. In your example of animals, the owner of animal will breed only the ones that he wants furthered, which can be a very small percentage of the population. In a human population, a very high percentage of the population has descendents that further the population.
Note however, there are many people without a well defined race. Their traits may come from two or more other races. This can happen within a few (literally) generations of race mixing.
Again your speaking of race mixing. Your original claim was that environment was the enough of an agent of change to change a race in 33 generations.
Sometimes it's seen within one generation (such as when an American desides to take a Chinese as his wife. Their children may have traits of both Americans, such as skin tone, and Chinese, such as the Chinese eye trait). Other traits, like eye color, height, hair color, etc. are also like this. This isn't something assumed or speculated. This is something observed. Walk around and try to figure out the race of different people. Depending on where you live, you might supprise yourself. Trait swapping can happen rapidly. But at the same time, because humans, not unlike many animals, are picky about who they mate with, certain races remain well defined. This isn't even Micro Evolution we're talking about (which even that can happen rather rapidly under certain situations. Far more rapidly then scientists used to think it could). This isn't speculation or assumption. This is something observed, sometimes as soon as children are born.
Again, you've changed this discussion to race mixing when your original position was that Adam and Eve's progeny scattered and were changed by the environment in 33 generations. There's no doubt that race mixing can change the look for a minority of a population in a few generations. But the environment alone can't change a population significantly in 33 generations as would have had to happen if Adam was the father of all the human race.
Given the above information, if Adam had a number of gene traits, he could have passed them onto his children, and by the time we were born, the gene traits could have gotton isolated enough to give us the different races we have today.
But that is not observed in society. As we can see in America, when two races live in close proximity to one another they gradually intermarry, they don't run off each with only those that he looks alike with.
If Adam was, as you claim, made different from anyone else, then his offspring could have mixed with other races,...
So you're admitting that there were different races other than Adam?
...and David's ruddy skin could have come from another race.
But why claim it was another race when the word "Adam" means ruddy.
David's skin color, therefore, is inconclusive to Adam's skin color, especially when they're 33 generations apart.
I would conclude that since the word "Adam" means ruddy complected and since David, Jesus, and the Nazerites were ruddy, and that the ruddy "gene" isn't dominant that Adam was ruddy complected.
It only takes one generation of race mixing for offspring to show another trait.
Yes, but your original claim was that the environment made all the races in 33 generations when Adam's seed spread out across the world. The environment doesn't change a human race significantly in 33 generations.
33 generations is plenty for this.
There's no evidence today that the environment is changing human races significantly in 33 generations.
Therefore, Adam's skin color can't be determined from David's skin color (without alot of assumptions).
The word "Adam" means "ruddy complected". That's no assumption.
Also, there's another theory I've found, assuming Adam's name does infer 'ruddy', is that the word for 'ground' {adamah - Strong's [0127]}, which also comes from 0119, might have been the reason Adam was named as he was, given that he was made from the ground.
The ground isn't ruddy (rosy).
This is an odd quote from you. First you say 6000 years isn't enough time for races to develope or converge, then you make this statement, which says some races did develope.
The mix of a Semite with an Egyptian produced the Arabs. I didn't claim that "all" of Adam's seed would be ruddy, but that if most of Adam's seed mentioned is ruddy and that since Adam's name means "ruddy complected", Adam was ruddy.
You're contradicting yourself here. Also, dominate genes aren't the ones that always come through.
Not at all. I never claimed that "all" of Adam's seed was ruddy. I claimed that since Adam's name means ruddy and that most people and races descended from Adam in the bible are ruddy that Adam was ruddy.
Let's first look at why Jesus came to earth. Jesus came to earth because of sin. He came down to die for mankind's sin. Where did this sin come from? We learn, from the Bible, that sin came when Adam and Even of Eden ate from the Tree of Good and Evil. Sin didn't exist before then.
Sin didn't exist for the family of Adam until then. The bible is a history of one man's family and those who interact with Adam's family. Eve commited the first sin, Cain commited the first murder, etc.
In Gen 3:6, Adam and Eve ate of the Tree. Gen 3:17-18 describes earth being cursed (why would God curse it if it was already cursed before Adam was created?)
Look up the word "earth" in your concordance and you'll see that it could be as small as a field. God cursed Adam's land. Look at the Grand Canyon and you'll see it's been raining on the earth for millions of years. Adam and Eve lived in a "garden". Look up "garden" in your concordance and you'll see that it was an "enclosure". The Garden of Eden was a special land that was separated from the rest of the earth.
The timeline was then: Adam was created. Adam sinned. Because of sin, Jesus came down to earth to give man a way to forgive his sins.
Actually to pay the price of man's sins.
Therefore, claiming Adam was created (before sin) because Jesus had to come down (because of sin) would be illogical.
God had a plan to save his children that would believe in him and follow his ways. This plan was necessary because of Satan's rebellion before Adam. One third of God's children rebelled with Satan. This plan involved the creation of a family to lay the foundation for his own earthly existence to pay the price for sin for all that would believe and follow. There has been sin long before Adam.
Why would Jesus need to come down (and Adam required to be created) before sin was in the seed of mankind? This is the question that needs to be answered.
Because of Satan's rebellion and non-Adamite sin that existed before Adam.
You claim there's been people in Chile for 40,000 years. Show me evidence.
The Monte Verde site is 14,000 instead of 40,000, still doubling Adam's origin. But that's all right. Let's go for 200,000 years for the Neandethals and their clash with modern humans 40,000 years ago. Here.
The explination of the Parable is correct. The linking it to Adam is not. Why should there be a tiller of men because of sin, when sin didn't exist for mankind before Adam came?
Sin has existed since at least Satan's rebellion.
There's no reason Adam had to be created.
Adam was created to save God's children that would follow him and believe and not support Satan.
Also, all parts of the Bible to match up with the rest...as a whole. But individual verses can't be matched up with any other verse without making sure the verses are in context. That's true for any work of literature.
The bible isn't a normal piece of literature. The fact that the whole book is interlinked with the rest of it proves that it took supreme intelligence to write it.
You have to include context to determine what the passage says.
Jesus fully explains the parable. He is the farmer. God said Adam was created to bring about a farmer.
The phrase These are the generations... is an important phrase in the Bible, and very specific on its intent. There are 17 verses total with this particular phrase in it (including Gen 2:4). If we ignore Gen 2:4 for the moment, we see that most of the passages which use this phrase speak of people's family trees. In every instance, the phrase starts (not ends) a segment of the passage. In every instance the phrase denotes the end of the previous passage and the beginning of the following. And in every instance, the phrase denotes a general history of something that has been or has happend. You can see this for yourself here. This phrase does one thing, and one thing only. This phrase starts a brief history of what was. It should be no different in Gen 2:4. There's nothing in Gen 2:4 to claim this is any different. In fact, if you look at Gen 2:4, it 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,. The context and wording of the verse claims that the generations listed after will be the generations of that which was when God created the heavens and the earth. In other words, like every other phrase of These are the generations..., it starts a rough overview of something; in this case, the days of creation. Nothing in the context of the verse says the generations it's talking about has anything to do with other humans. In fact, without Gen 2:4, 100% of the verses containing These are the generations... are an overview. This is very strong evidence that Gen 2:4 starts an overview of the creation period. Also, there is no and between Gen 2:3 and 2:4. All indications point that Gen 2:4 is not a continuation of the days of creation from Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:3. Therefore, not evidence Adam was created on the 8th day.
It looks simple to me. Gen 1.1 to 2.3 outlines to generations of the creation of the earth and heavens. Gen. 2.4 confirms this. Gen. 2.5 continues on with the word "And" to get into the story of Adam.
As for USA being Israel, it is not.
Then explain this:
Gen 48:14 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid [it] upon Ephraim's head, who [was] the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh [was] the firstborn.
Gen 48:15 And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day,
Gen 48:16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.
Gen 48:17 And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father's hand, to remove it from Ephraim's head unto Manasseh's head.
Gen 48:18 And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this [is] the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.
Gen 48:19 And his father refused, and said, I know [it], my son, I know [it]: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.
It clearly says that Ephraim and Manasseh inherited Jacob/Israel's name "Israel".
Since this is a new thing that just came up for this debate, I'll try to find some references on this. As for the word 'adam [0120] being different, your link doesn't prove anything, since it talks about certain letters of the alphabet, by themselves, and not attached to any word.
It proves it's not the difference between singular and plural though and shows that Strong should have differentiated between the two since they are two different words.
Note that almost all letters have meanings by themselves on that page. That doesn't mean anything when they're attached to other letters/words. The letters' individual meanings simply can not be transfered to the words' meanings which their in. Nothing would make sense in the Bible otherwise. Do you really think every word that has vav in it denotes a holy meaning? The terms used is 'adam (man or Adam) with a modifier.
But you said that the difference was singular and plural, which is not the case. They are two different words and Strong should've gave it it's own number.
Also, Jesus, the Messiah, was not man. If vav did give the 'adam word a modification of 'holy', it couldn't have met the Messiah anyways, because Jesus isn't part of mankind.
Jesus was "Son of Man" during the time he was on the earth.
He is God. As for what the modifiers mean on 'adam, the context of the verses should point it out rather clearly. But I'm still looking for specifics on it for you, though.
They are two different words. They are spelled different. Strong should have differentiated between the two.