We do see it happening today. I give you the person I know who's mother is white, father is really black, and he has characteristics of both. DNA gets interchanged from parents to children in one generation. Also, some people do mix, while others don't. This is what keeps things balanced, and keeps them from going over toward pure defined races, or mixing of them into less definable races: The fact that many people don't mix (like the Adamites, which you claim).
I didn't say they don't mix, I said their characteristics aren't dominant. You can't get a white race out of a non-white race in 33 generations.
They could if a ruddy gene showed up in a population and ruddy people desided to go with ruddy people (depending on how much of a contrast the gene was).
That's illogical.
Many people do tend toward others that look like them. For example, the person I know (who's black..but not as black as his dad.
Go to Africa and see if you can find a white race there descended from a non-white race in 33 generations because of a mutation.
His dad's really black) may deside to marry a lady who's black. His children may all be black. Or some might be black, and some white. Or all of them might be white. If they're all white (recessive gene I believe), then his entire family line will be white if his offspring down the generations marry only whites (even though he's black).
That's not true. Both parents pigment genes will be there even if one wins out temporarily.
In other words: It's possible. It's even easy to come up with a senerio in which it's possible. Also, according to you're line of thinking, if a dominate gene and a recessive gene intermix, the dominate gene should win out. If the Adamites did any mixing, why didn't they have groups of another gene mixed in with them?
Most Adamites didn't. That's why Jesus and David were ruddy. In cases where Adamites mixed with other races, the mix is clearly seen in their descendents, like the Arabs.
Show me why you think this is. (You might also note that ruddy is red.
Ruddy is rosy.
Red/being reddish is the very definition of ruddy.
If Adam were a red man, then his name would've clearly meant red, Adam means ruddy. Besides there were no American Indians in this area 6000 years ago.
So, by definition, calling one ruddy and another red is basically the same thing.
No, there are better names for red. Adam means ruddy.
In fact red is a synonym of ruddy. If someone is ruddy skinned, they're reddish-tinted, or a reddish-brownish, in skin tone.
No, they're rosy. There are better names for red, and one of those would've been used if Adam was an American Indian.
Either way, red tinted comes into it.) Another interesting point I'd like to bring out is that David's grandmother, Ruth, was apparently dark skinned (she was a Moabite, which were apparently a dark skinned race).
Where do you get that? Moab was the son of Lot and his daughter. Lot was Abraham's nephew.
So, if the dark skin gene is dominate, why wasn't David dark skinned?
Because the Moabites were ruddy Adamites.
Perhaps it's easily possible that not all of David's ancestors were ruddy. (This is simply to show that race A {ruddy} could have mixed with some of race B {dark skinned} and still remain ruddy.
Not with the ruddy gene not being dominant.
Now this allows Adam to be either race A or race B, ruddy or dark, and David still remains ruddy {assuming for a moment that Adam was of a seperate race}.)
Adam's name means ruddy, Adam was ruddy. Then his descendants should be ruddy. They were.
Your explination is complex.
My explanation is complex? I'm not the one making the illogical leap to say a ruddy race evolved from a non-ruddy race in 33 generations.
Everything fits in very well with Adam being the first man (the true first man), and the explination is more simplistic.
If all the races can come from one race in 33 generations, why don't we have all the races accounted for in the isolated tribes of Africa?
Occam's razor in action. Also, I don't ignore scientific observation. If you want to build a time machine and go back in time and take pictures, go right ahead and show me, and we'll have observation.
So these Neanderthal bones aren't Neanderthals?
Otherwise, history is infered, interpreted, by evidence it left behind, and that interpretation (not being directly observed without a time machine) might be wrong.
So you don't believe Neanderthals ever existed?
I find the Theory of Evolution (the historical side of it) isn't valid enough for me to take it as an acceptable scientific theory. There's a difference between a theory, and the evidence that theory is based off of. Let's try to stick with the evidence.
Neanderthal bones are evidence. Hard evidence.
(I'll gladly accept archeological and literature evidence though). Let's keep the theories out of it for the moment.
So you want to look at only the evidence that agrees with your belief that man didn't exist before 6000 years ago and ignore anything that proves otherwise? What about the earth? Do you believe the earth existed before 6000 years ago?
The Bible should be able to stand up on under it's own interpretation. If you'd like to toss in actual observed evidence (like historical ruins or writings), feel free. That's certainally allowable (and I encourage it).
I toss in Neanderthal bones to prove that man existed before 6000 years ago.
Red is ruddy is red. Don't believe me? Look here!
There's were no American Indians in that area, therefore Adam means ruddy.
Yes, it is a 'blushing' look. In fact, 0119 is a verb. I've seen arguments that Adam was white because of this. (Why? Because, 'only white people can blush', or some such argument).
Maybe so.
It can't be conclusive because there are other options.
It's conclusive to me.
Give Biblical evidence for the stars including 'we'. (Not Evolution theory. Not the theory that the 6th day man was before Adam {because that theory seems to be built off the Evolution theory, and not Biblical evidence}.
90% of what I've given you is biblical evidence. Genesis says man was created on the sixth day, then God rested, saw he needed a tiller of the ground and then created Adam.
Biblical evidence only {since we have no observable historical evidence for it}.)
It takes wisdom. He who has ears to hear will hear. We and the angels are the stars of heaven. This is proven in Revelation. Revelation 12.4 says a third of the stars are going fall to the earth. If even one physical star fell to earth, we'd all be dead. LOL It's not physical stars.
The 7 time periods were days. Morning and evening.
Mornings were beginnings of the time periods, evenings were the ends of time periods. This is specifying that there were beginnings and ends to these time periods. Simple. He who has ears will hear. Are you saying the earth is not more than 6000 years old?
Very specific. Gen 1:8 - And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.. "And the evening and the morning were the nth day" is the phrase used over and over again. Evening ([06153] - `ereb) is a literal period of moving from daylight to darkness. We know it as when the sun sets. Morning ([01242] - boqer) is a literal period of moving from darkness to light. We know it when the sun rises. Sunset and sunrise, basically. Day ([03117] - yowm) can mean several things: Time of light (when the sun's up), a 24 hour period (recognized by a circle of morning to morning), a year (oddly enough), or an undefined time period. By itself it might mean any of these things. However, in each of the 6 days of creation it's very carefully, and very specifically, combined with a literal evening and morning, denoting an actual 'day' (as in time of daylight or a 24 hour period). Seeing how each time statement is specified with a "evening and the morning", we can safely assume the 'day' means an actual 24 hour period. There's no room for making it anything else (unless you ignore the evening and morning. And in the Hebrew, there's no room for shifting the definitions on these two words).
LOL A long explanation for a simple point. God likes to relay his word in parables. Mornings are beginnings, evenings are ends.
As for the order of Creation vs. Evolution, they don't match up. For example Genesis gives account that the plants were made on the third day (Gen 1:11), then the sun was made on the fourth day (Gen 1:16). Evolution says the sun was here possibly even before the earth.
Light was created on the first day.
As for the dinosaur, Job 40:15-24 describes the behemoth, which is interpreted as a dinosaur. This was after Adam was born.
There may have been survivors ala Loch Ness. Most were created in the fifth time period.
Neanderthals: Evidence, yes. Observable fact, no. The Bible does mention dinosaurs...after Adam was born.
Their bones make it an observable fact.
God also gave us brains to recognize logic and context, too :)
Exactly. And it's not logical to claim Neanderthals didn't exist, that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that all races can evolve in 33 generations.
I find no evidence for that (beyond speculation). Please provide Biblical evidence.
Genesis 1:2. Look at the Hebrew and you'll see that it says that the earth became without form. Do a search on "became" and you'll see that it matches with Genesis 1:2. Why did the earth become without form? Because of Satan's downfall.
It paid the price for all man's sins.
Nope. Only for those that believe and will try to follow His ways.
It covers those who accept it. (Just how much more technical do you think we'll be able to get here? ;)
There, you got it right.
Show Biblical evidence.
Those with ears will hear. It's not logical to think that a billion physical stars are going to hit the earth.
1 John 3:8 says He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning.
Right. Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. John 3:8 says Satan sinned in the beginning. Genesis 1:2 says that the earth became without form. Conclusion: Satan's rebellion caused the earth to become without form. Adam came after the six days of creation and the day of rest to provide a way to save whomsoever will.
For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. It basically says "Those that sin belong to the Devil. Jesus therefore came down to fix this." It says nothing of the fallen 'stars' with the Devil, or of mankind.
If you want to believe that a billion physical stars are going to collide with the earth, go ahead. I say that the stars are God's children including us. Revelation says that a third of the stars joined Satan.
Jer 1:5 doesn't say anything about pre-existance. Let me give you an example: King George declared his son, before he came out of his mother's womb, a prince.
But King George didn't claim to know his son.
In other words, it's not talking about pre-existance of Jeremiah, but rather God's pre-ordained status to Jeremiah as a prophet when he will walk the earth. Pre-destination (basically), not pre-existance. Try again :)
That's illogical. If God says He knew Jeremiah before he was born, then that's good enough for me.
And use context and logic with it, too. I've studied much of the Word off and on.
It's not logical to think that a billion stars are going to collide with the earth. :^)
This has little to do with logic, and alot to do with probability. It's possible for that to happen. Whether or not it's probable is another matter.
It's illogical to think that 2 people can evolve into all the races we see in 33 generations.
Never heard of the Flood? This has more to do with probability then logic.
This is funny. Suddenly you want to not rely on logic. Instead you want to rely on prbability. Since all things are possible with God, it's an argument you can make. Any claim in the universe can be made then. I could claim that, in the beginning, monkeys flew out of people's butts and nobody could prove me wrong because with God all things are possible, but I'm not going to make these nonsensical, outrageous claims that aren't supported by biblical evidence. The bible supports everything I've said, it makes sense, it's the most probable explanation, and therefore the most logical. I believe the bible was written to give us enough evidence to combine with common sense and observation to know exactly what went on and what's going to happen in the future. If you want to believe illogical things just because they were possible, go ahead but I'm going to use the common sense and logic that God gave me to know what's going on instead of take the attitude of "we can't know".
It's possible for a book tied to the end of a string hanging from a ceiling to jump up and down apparently on it's own (caused Brownian movement). It's not very probable though (though it can happen if given a long enough time, theoretically). This has nothing to do with logic.
You, who lectured me on logic, are now running away from it and saying we shoudn't consider it. Funny.
Not to ignore the evidence, no. But to ignore the interpretation of the evidence (if it doesn't seem valid), yes.
What's not valid? Are you saying that Neanderthal bones aren't Neanderthal bones?
What you state has little to do with logic. The logic is in how you use the statements, not if something is possible or probable, or a theory (though logic has a big hand in helping to interpret evidence for or against a theory to validate it). It's not your evidence that's illogical...it's your interpretations of that evidence. And I've been trying to show you where your logic is weak. Logic and evidence arn't the same thing.
It's your logic that's weak. You want to think that the earth is only 6000 years old. You want to think that all the races of the earth can evolve in 33 generations. You want to think that dinosaurs were created at the same time as man. You want to think that Neanderthal bones aren't real.
No I didn't. I didn't claim you didn't claim that Adam was formed to lay the foundation for the Massiah. What I said was it doesn't say that in my Bible. In other words, I'm differentiating between your interpretation and my interpretation of the Bible (what you say and what the Bible says). You claim the Bible means that. The Bible doesn't say that outright. And I don't see how it can be interpreted to say such. Thus, my statement about it 'not showing up in my Bible'.
Those with ears will hear.
Who claims Jesus' explination isn't correct? I didn't. However, it still doesn't mean it's linked to Adam's creation. Two different things there.
The whole bible is linked with the rest of it. That's the main difference between you and me. When you read that a third of the stars will fall to earth, you assume that the earth will collide with a billion physical stars. When I read that a third of the stars will fall to earth, I remember other parts of the bible and realize that Satan and his angels are going to cause confusion on the earth.
I don't see the interpretation of Adam's existance being specifically so Jesus could come down to earth to be valid. But that aside, I agree with the rest of your statement.
Adam was created because God needed a tiller. The Messiah is the tiller.
I don't see how what you just said contradicts with what I said. It was the generations of the creation of the earth and heavens (in other words, an overview of what came before, or 'proceedings'). Why should this passage be any different the all the other passages of the Bible that start with "These [are] the generations..."? That's what you seem to be claiming; that for some reason it is different.
It's different because the Strong's allow for a difference. God given logic and common sense gives the answer. He who has ears will hear.
The question is: Why? (You can't use 'because man existed before and Adam was created after' to validate the Why, because you must use the Why to validate that Adam was created on the 8th day {after}. That would lead into circular reasoning. Must give another reason.) {Personally, even if you think it's irreconcilable, it's still fun to bump ideas around. That's how we learn.}
Why what? Satan rebelled. God did not want to kill all the children that joined Satan without giving them a chance in this dimension under these circumstances. God destroyed the earth that was (asteroid belt, perhaps), created this one, sent the messiah, and is now taking names.
Alright, so here we have a nation of Israel. What does this have to do with the USA?
Read Jacob's prophesy. Ephraim (a company of nations - the U.K.) and Manasseh (a great nation - America) inherited Jacob/Israel's name. America and the U.K. are the Israel mentioned in all the end-time prophesies. Why wouldn't America be in the prophesies, America is the most Christian nation on earth. It would be illogical for it not to be mentioned.
Yes, I need to prove it. Still trying to look for some information. I may be going to the library for it, for you. Actually, we have no evidence vav, when combined with a word, denotes connection and grace for the meaning of that word. The only source we have gives the meaning of vav all by itself. We both need to find something that gives the meaning of vav with a word.
There's no doubt that the Adam of the sixth day is spelled different than my Adam of the eigth day. If it's not something simple, you're in deep kaka. :^)
Like 'car' and 'cars'?
Like I said, prove it. I've proven that the vav means connection and grace, if you can't prove that the vav is essentially an "s", then you've got big problems. I would venture to say that the Hebrew isn't like English in it's logic. I would go as far to say You're not going to find a magic bullet of a letter that has the same use as an English "s". What's great about this is that as we get deeper and deeper in this and new evidence is found, the evidence always support my theories. Such as the vav, the "became", the Adam difference. When I've looked for something, I've found it, when you've looked for something, you haven't found it.
You claim as fact that the words Adam are different. This is what's being presumptuous (since we have nothing to show what vav means with the word adam).
I have proven that the vav means connection and grace. If you can't prove your theory, then mine stands.
If you'd like to claim it as a theory, that's fine. However, don't claim something as fact that isn't (and then try to use that to prove your other points).
I set out to prove that the Adam of the sixth day was different from the Adam of the eigth day and by golly if it didn't prove to be true. They are spelled different. Words that are spelled different are different. The vav does not denote plurality, if it did the Hebrew study I linked would have said so.
Wait until we have enough evidence to show either way, then we can use them to validate other points.
I did. I said they were different, they were different.
The adam with vav is undetermined at the moment, so it's invalid to use to try to claim an invalid premise.
It's spelled different, it is different.
I'll try to get to the college library. They should have some textbooks on Hebrew (I hope). I'll let you know what I find. A question I'd like to ask you is this: How does your definition of adam with vav fit in with the verse it's in?
The vav denotes connection and grace. vavadam became a spiritual being.
One of my favorite subjects is debating ;)
Obviously. To the point of being illogical. Read Romans 1:29. It's possible to debate to a fault. I would've let you go your way a long time ago if this wasn't a forum read by the public. I think it's important for the common sense truth to get out to refute some of these illogical claims that the earth is only 6000 years old, Adam was the father of all races, etc. There are so many who won't read the Word because they've been told that the bible makes these illogical claims that go so far against observation. I know I'm not going to change your mind but hopefully there might be some who will see that there's much more to the Word than what they've been told.
Your theories are interesting. However, Historical Evolution is an unproven theory, and I don't deny dinosaurs (and I don't deny Neanderthal fossils, either. I just don't think they were pre-homo-sapien). Historical Evolution could be wrong.
So you believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
Me: It's not logical to say that the geologic structures of the earth all formed in a few thousand years.
You: Never heard of the Flood? This has more to do with probability then logic. It's possible for a book tied to the end of a string hanging from a ceiling to jump up and down apparently on it's own (caused Brownian movement). It's not very probable though (though it can happen if given a long enough time, theoretically). This has nothing to do with logic.
What about the Hawaiian Islands? These islands extend halfway across the Pacific Ocean underwater. They are formed over a geologic hotspot as the Pacific plate moves across this hotspot. As they move away from the hotspot, they lose their volcanic characteristics and begin to be worn down by the waves since they haven't a way to overcome this wearing down. The rate of movement over the hotspot hasn't changed in millions of years for these islands. The new island being formed underwater right now is spaced about the same as all the others before it. It takes millions of years for these islands to be worn down to where they're under the water again. Are you going to try to cram the formation and the life and then the wearing down of these islands into 6000 years?
The white cliffs of Dover are deposits of limestone made when the island of Britain was a seabed. It took millions of years for tiny creatures to deposit this limestone and then for the limestone to rise above the waves. Are you going to cram this into 6000 years?
The salt bubbles of America exist under the American continent. As the huge salt layers changes shape (which salt does) huge bubbles (tens of miles wide) form and make their way to the surface. It takes millions of years for these bubbles to move up as far as they have. Are you going to cram this into 6000 years?