Here's a list of generations from Adam to Jesus. This tags David 33 generations down from Adam. A bit more then a "few Generations". Also consider everyone came from Adam. In modern times, 33 generations could only be 660 years. Not that long considering the thousands of years of human existence.
We could point to a black man and say "His lineage came from Adam, that means Adam was black". Right? Nope. Not a conclusive argument.
That's not what I said. I said combining Adam's name with the fact his sons were ruddy complected with the fact that that gene isn't dominant over other pigment genes makes it almost a certainty that Adam was ruddy complected.
We can't say one way or another from the Bible.
I can simply from his name.
And if you don't believe everyone came from Adam, the Bible doesn't specify either way, and again you can't get any solid conclusion from the Bible.
Yes it does. Adam was created when God knew it was time to bring on the reaper of men.
It's an assumption that David had the same skin complexion as Adam did. Also consider David didn't live where Adam did, and environment has a hand in altering complexion at times.
But not over just a few generations.
This makes the argument even weaker. Also, Adam already has a base definition (First Man) and a descriptive definition (Mankind, which would make perfect sense since Adam is the father of mankind).
Like I said that was derived. The author of the concordance was a human scholar.
Also [0119], though where [0120] is contrived from, is simply not used for Adam (which wouldn't make much sense using it anyways since Adam's complexion is really never mentioned). It's a different word with different a different meaning.
Combine it with the other evidence though and a clear picture emerges.
I searched for the term "daughters of Adam", but only one verse has "daughters" and "Adam" together (Gen 5:4 - And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:). Where are you getting this verse?
Genesis 6.2. Look at the Hebrew word for man (the actual Hebrew words up above the English) for Gen 1.26, Gen 2.5, and Gen. 6.2 and you'll see they're different. Strong called all three 0120 but maybe he shouldn't have.
What are you talking about? This is what the Bible says: (Gen 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. The next verse telling what day it is: Gen 1:31 - And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.) There is no mention of races being created.
Well there are races on the earth, they've been here for tens of thousands of years, and so put two and two together. :^) We have all the generations of Adam even down to today's kings. That's just not enough to develop the races into the diversity we see today. And the bible doesn't duspute that. It says God rested and then created Adam. The word "and" in Gen. 2.5 is a huge word.
Incorrect. If you read the passage in context, you'll find the reason there was no man to till the earth because man didn't need to till the earth (Gen 2:5 - 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, and [there was] not a man to till the ground. Gen 2:6 - But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.).
When God needed a "tiller", he was talking of the Messiah, a tiller of men.
Adam was the one whom the races where made from...all of them.
How do you explain that huge word "and" in Gen. 2.5 then? It says God rested and God needed a husbandman and so he created Adam.
In modern times, 33 generations could only be 660 years. Not that long considering the thousands of years of human existence.
That's in modern times. However, people didn't have children until later in early Biblical times. I'm trying to find you a site to show a chart or something of years between Adam and David (I'm supprised how hard it is to find one online).
That's not what I said. I said combining Adam's name with the fact his sons were ruddy complected with the fact that that gene isn't dominant over other pigment genes makes it almost a certainty that Adam was ruddy complected.
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?
I can simply from his name.
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]). 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.
Yes it does. Adam was created when God knew it was time to bring on the reaper of men.
Give me the Bible verse that says other races where created before or after Adam, and I'll believe you.
But not over just a few generations.
33 generations is plenty to get different genes sorted out.
Like I said that was derived. The author of the concordance was a human scholar.
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.
Genesis 6.2. Look at the Hebrew word for man (the actual Hebrew words up above the English) for Gen 1.26, Gen 2.5, and Gen. 6.2 and you'll see they're different. Strong called all three 0120 but maybe he shouldn't have.
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). They all have the same meaning. Why should they be different? 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.
Well there are races on the earth, they've been here for tens of thousands of years, and so put two and two together. :^) We have all the generations of Adam even down to today's kings. That's just not enough to develop the races into the diversity we see today. And the bible doesn't duspute that. It says God rested and then created Adam. The word "and" in Gen. 2.5 is a huge word.
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). 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. 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.
When God needed a "tiller", he was talking of the Messiah, a tiller of men.
That's an interesting theory. But what do you have to back it up?
How do you explain that huge word "and" in Gen. 2.5 then?
Explained it above.
It says God rested and God needed a husbandman and so he created Adam.
Where does it say this? I don't find it in the KJV.
Plus, do you really believe that that is enough generations to develop into what we see today?
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.
-The Hajman-