Male & Female...in The Beginning

[whirlwind]

On another thread there was a question about man being created both male and female. The point being....to them it speaks of evolution, of mankind evolving from one thing (whatever evolutionist term the "thing" they believe we came from.) This thread doesn't concern evolution but is rather about the timing of male/female creation.


Jesus tells us....

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created He them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.​

Our choices in understanding this are:

1. It is about the man Adam (being them, which includes Eve) being made. Except that Adam, from whom Eve was taken, was formed, not created.

2. It is about mankind, also named Adam, being "them" who were made in the beginning.​

To me it is obviously about mankind. Then it must be decided on what is meant by being made male and female. The choices....

1. There was mankind and they were created as one being which housed both male and female, as was the case of Adam.

2. The "them" used in speaking of mankind is about just that....mankind and they were created male and female...not male and female in one body. But rather God created them as one or the other....separate bodies, separate creations​

.


As we are shown through the formation of Adam that he was one body made both male/female until separated then I see that mankind too began that way. So, the next question would be....when was "the beginning" in which they were created? Jesus tells us that "from the beginning of the creation God made them."



Genesis 2:1-3 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made.

Three mentions of "His work which He made." Repetition should draw attention to what is being said. We are to notice that everything was finished, including all the host of heaven and earth. We are of that group. We were finished before the seventh day, not yet born but already created and/or made although some were to be later formed. From the beginning of creation all the hosts were made. Not in the middle, not at the end of creation but "from the beginning of creation God made them male and female." Why? So they could be "fruitful and multiply." When was that?


Genesis 1:1 In (a) the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

In "the" beginning was mistranslated and should be in "a" beginning.​

11 Peter 3:5-8 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

We can see "the heaven and the earth" as more than our concept of the literal for they are both. They are the natural representing the spiritual.​

Psalm 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

The heavens are those souls formed by God into whom He breathed "the breath of life; and man became a living soul." [Gen.2:7]​

Psalm 115:16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD's: but the earth hath He given to the children of men.

Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, Thy Word is settled in heaven.

Jesus is Thy Word, His Word is in heaven and He dwells in us...we are the heaven He is in and as the heavens...we are the Lord's​

.

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.


Isaiah 51:16 And I have put My words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art My people

.

Zion is...His people. Zion is...the heavens. He dwells in heaven/His people.]


As the heavens are Zion, and Zion is His children, then the earth are those not yet of heaven. They are without form.....​

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Who is darkness? What or who are the waters?​

1:3-5 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

That was the first day of this age but we were created long before this age began. We were created male and female in (a) the beginning. The man Adam was both male and female in this age before Eve was taken from him. Why? From this one being would come the Saviour of the world. From him the line to Christ began and the two were one, "bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh."​

.

__________________

 

[veteran]

Not sure I follow that whirlwind. Sounds like you might be speaking of the ancient concept some called the 'andronyn' (one body with both sexual organs).

The Hebrew between Gen.1:26-27 and Gen.2:7 with the word for 'aadam' is specific. In Gen.1:26-27, two cases for 'man' appear. One is eth ha aadam, with the Hebrew article and particle, and the other is 'aadam' by itself.

'aadam' = mankind, in general

'eth ha aadam' = this man Adam

In Gen.2:7, it is also eth ha aadam (this man Adam)


My understanding from that is that God created on His 6th Day both the races of mankind, and... the specific man Adam He placed in His Garden of Eden. Two separate creations, placed in two different locations, but done at the same time.

With the forming of Eve, God took one of Adam's ribs. (Medically, both male and females today have the same number of ribs). So the word "rib" is probably about something else.

Hebrew for "rib" in Gen.2:21 is tsela, which can mean a curve. I think it's pointing to the curve of the DNA helix.

 

[whirlwind]

Not sure I follow that whirlwind. Sounds like you might be speaking of the ancient concept some called the 'andronyn' (one body with both sexual organs).

The Hebrew between Gen.1:26-27 and Gen.2:7 with the word for 'aadam' is specific. In Gen.1:26-27, two cases for 'man' appear. One is eth ha aadam, with the Hebrew article and particle, and the other is 'aadam' by itself.

'aadam' = mankind, in general

'eth ha aadam' = this man Adam

In Gen.2:7, it is also eth ha aadam (this man Adam)


My understanding from that is that God created on His 6th Day both the races of mankind, and... the specific man Adam He placed in His Garden of Eden. Two separate creations, placed in two different locations, but done at the same time.

With the forming of Eve, God took one of Adam's ribs. (Medically, both male and females today have the same number of ribs). So the word "rib" is probably about something else.

Hebrew for "rib" in Gen.2:21 is tsela, which can mean a curve. I think it's pointing to the curve of the DNA helix.

I don't think Adam was formed when mankind was created but rather came later...after the seventh day. I base that on.....

Genesis 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.​

Now is that saying that he, as a man of mankind was already created but he wasn't yet formed to fulfill the job God needed him for? I don't know. It could be understood either way.


I agree with the helix curve.


As for the one man being male and female....I base that on certain Scriptures. And, we know Eve, the female, was taken from Adam so would that not be the template for all man? Also consider...

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.​

That could be seen as simply saying that all are accepted and it could be saying that those partitions are gone in the next age. I hope they're gone. It would be nice for man to truly understand woman....and vice versa. :lol:

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.​

Is that telling us that male/female is no more. Is being as the angels of God being as one complete being? Is that what the following is telling us?

Revelation 1:13 And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.​

The word "paps" is explicitly female. It is used four times in the Bible and the other three can only be seen as female. The word, chest, breast, torso, etc. weren't chosen in that verse and they could be understood as being male. So, is this a clue to the oneness?


.


.

 

[veteran]

I think what our Lord Jesus said about the resurrection being as the angels of God in heaven is the best clue. The sons of God being another major clue, for that label also applies to Christian females today.

We know the image of man is from God's Image and Likeness in shape and form also, from Gen.1:26-27, and that is the image of the angels also. I do not think it involves sexual organs at all. An eternal heavenly body would have no need for procreation. I believe the idea of female creation is only for this world, but not the next. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[whirlwind]

I think what our Lord Jesus said about the resurrection being as the angels of God in heaven is the best clue. The sons of God being another major clue, for that label also applies to Christian females today.

We know the image of man is from God's Image and Likeness in shape and form also, from Gen.1:26-27, and that is the image of the angels also. I do not think it involves sexual organs at all. An eternal heavenly body would have no need for procreation. I believe the idea of female creation is only for this world, but not the next. We'll just have to wait and see.

I agree that the male/female is for this age only...in order to procreate. But, does that not strengthen what the OP concerns? In the previous age we were one being...in the next age we are again one being. We were separated in this age only. So where it is written....He created them male and female either does or could mean, He created us both in one. Upon conception the one becomes either/or.


.

 

[MaxTO]

This is a topic that I find truly interesting and one not often looked at by most Christians .

When we take a look at the two reports pertaining to Mans creation in the bible we can clearly see to different stories .....



And the LORD [sup]3068[/sup] God [sup]430[/sup] formed [sup]3335[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup][of] the dust [sup]6083[/sup] of [sup]4480[/sup] the ground [sup]127[/sup], and breathed [sup]5301[/sup] into his nostrils [sup]639[/sup] the breath [sup]5397[/sup] of life [sup]2416[/sup]; and man [sup]120[/sup] became a living [sup]2416[/sup] soul[sup]5315[/sup].






And God [sup]430[/sup] said [sup]559[/sup] , Let us make [sup]6213[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup] in our image [sup]6754[/sup], after our likeness [sup]1823[/sup]: and let them have dominion [sup]7287[/sup] over the fish [sup]1710[/sup] of the sea [sup]3220[/sup], and over the fowl [sup]5775[/sup] of the air [sup]8064[/sup], and over the cattle [sup]929[/sup], and over all the earth [sup]776[/sup], and over every creeping thing [sup]7431[/sup] that creepeth [sup]7430[/sup]upon the earth [sup]776[/sup].So God [sup]430[/sup] created [sup]1254[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup] in his [own] image[sup]6754[/sup], in the image [sup]6754[/sup] of God [sup]430[/sup] created [sup]1254[/sup] he him; male [sup]2145[/sup] and female [sup]5347[/sup] created [sup]1254[/sup] he them. And God [sup]430[/sup] blessed [sup]1288[/sup] them, and God [sup]430[/sup] said[sup]559[/sup] unto them, Be fruitful [sup]6509[/sup] , and multiply [sup]7235[/sup] , and replenish [sup]4390[/sup] the earth [sup]776[/sup], and subdue it 3533

[font="'trebuchet ms"]Before[/font] we look at these two accounts of creation lets focus on the term " Man " and the name Adam ..
The name that we know as Adam is a direct translation of the original Hebrew name for " Man " . This term was used to classify all of " Mankind " men and women alike .

But what about " Eve " ? ....
Eve , or as translated from Hebrew , Chavvah , means " life " or Living and the term is used twice in the bible . " Adam " or " Man " also makes this known in Gen 3;20 when " Man " says ... And Adam called his wife's name Eve , because she was the mother of all living . That in and of its self is quite interesting , how did Adam know that Eve was the mother of all living the day she was created ?

If we can take a quick look at the story of Adam and Eve in the garden we will see that Adam didn't yet " Know " Eve . As result there were no children , so how did he know that she was the mother of all living when there was no apparent inclination to procreate ? Also worth pointing out , in the one version of mans creation procreation was one of Gods edicts to man , " be fruitful and multiply " . Once again and worth pointing out , this request didn't seem to apply to Adam . Adam was simply told to not eat of " The Tree of Knowledge " .

As we move along in the two versions of creation we can also see that one account states ...
And God [sup]430[/sup] said [sup]559[/sup] , Let us make [sup]6213[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup] in our image [sup]6754[/sup], after our likeness [sup]1823 [/sup]
[sup]
[/sup]
[sup]And the other version says ....[/sup]
And the LORD [sup]3068[/sup] God [sup]430[/sup] formed [sup]3335[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup][of] the dust [sup]6083[/sup] of [sup]4480[/sup] the ground [sup]127[/sup], and breathed [sup]5301[/sup] into his nostrils [sup]639[/sup] the breath [sup]5397[/sup] of life [sup]2416[/sup]; and man [sup]120[/sup] became a living [sup]2416[/sup] soul[sup]5315[/sup].


Once again , very interesting .. One version God , plural , says " let us " , plural , " create man in Our image " .
[font="'trebuchet ms"]The other version a singular God is named and given credit for creating man , Yehovah . Yehovah is the name we get when we translate the word " Lord " from the original Hebrew . What we read as Lord God is actually saying , God Yehovah . Not only that , we also see that man is created from dust with no mention to man being created in God's image as stated in the other version . [/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]
[/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]Could man have originally been created in some other type of state and been reduced to a material form somewhere down the road ? Or could man have been created two different ways ? If that were the case then Eve , the mother of all living , would have had to have some type of relation with those people as well , remember the one group of man was created to be fruitful and multiply and for them to multiply they would have had to have had the mother of all living involved if we are to assume that the names Adam and Eve are names of individual people . [/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]
[/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]When we look at the given genealogy in the Bible we will also see that the name of Cain's wife is not given , whys that ? We can see a full genealogy of both Cain and Adam in the bible but still no mention of Cain's wife ?? So just who did he marry ? Was it because Cain married some girl form the other group of people created ? [/font]

[font="'trebuchet ms"]
[/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]What does this all mean ? Am I simply looking at this all wrong ? I just don't know .. [/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]
[/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]
[/font]
[font="'trebuchet ms"]
[/font]

 

[SaberTruth]

Some important points to consider:

• "adam" means "soil" or "red" (interesting translation at The Original Translation Project). In Gen. 1:27 we see the words "zkr" (male) and "u-nqbe" (female), instead of "adam" and female.
• Gen. 2:4 is where a recap of the preceding narrative begins, only with more detail. Many do believe it is a second creation account, but others as simply a recounting in detail of the first; note that in this chapter the terminology goes back to "adam" instead of "zkr". In verse 22 the woman ("l-ashe") is made, and then "adam" says she is "ishah" because she came out of "ish". The narrative still refers to the male as "adam" after that (vs. 25), and a focused recounting of the "adam" as "them" is begun in ch. 5.

Given the preceding, it seems that there is not a clear and consistent division between male and female in the Hebrew text beyond "ish" and "ishah". So we have to be careful about making dogmatic assertions or leaps of logic solely on the basis of the other terms. Likewise for "formed" and "created"; some attach much more significance to the difference than I think is warranted by the text. We can't expect mathematical precision from a text, time, language, and culture that didn't concern itself with that level of exactness, but was more intent upon making central points about the Creator and creation: there is one God who made things from nothing or from previously-created material, human beings are uniquely made in God's image, and a malevolent entity (the serpent or "shining one") tricked Eve into sinning, after which Adam sinned without the need for trickery.

So we can only speculate about whether Adam was made with self-reproducing capability, but it would seem perfectly logical to theorize that what God took from Adam had something to do with reproduction. Some people get very upset at this idea and insist that it was in fact a literal rib that was taken, but there is nothing in the text or logic to make it necessary.

But can we then start lifting a verse here and a passage there, cobble them together, and make scripture equate "the heavens" with "those souls formed by God"? I see no possible way to make such a giant leap. Each verse or passage needs first of all to be understood in its immediate context before we can begin to try and apply it elsewhere. Psalm 33:6 is clearly about the literal skies/heavens, just as the first chapter of Genesis is. So also Ps. 115:16 contrasts these skies/heavens with the earth, not with the people he gave it to. And the "word settled in heaven" of Ps. 119:89 has nothing at all to do with The Word in its much later NT usage (and uniquely by the apostle John), but is all about the Law of God.

To continue, 2 Cor. 6:16 is Paul's own metaphorical usage of us being the spiritual temple of the Holy Spirit, as fulfilling the OT prophecy. We cannot turn around and impose this later metaphor onto Genesis. And if we continue with this faulty hermeneutic, we must take Zion to mean not only "my people" but also a literal mountain, not the skies/heavens. But then leaping back to Gen. 1:2 after all this is pulling a connection from thin air. That passage gives us no reason to allegorize, and no NT writer takes it as anything but historical narrative. Light means light and darkness means darkness, nothing more.

On a biological note, ever wonder why males have nipples? It's because female is the "default" body type if either the baby has XX chromosomes or something goes wrong with the hormonal "package" necessary to make a male out of XY. There are many people, and this tends to run in clans, where exceptionally beautiful women are found to be genetic males only after they discover they cannot conceive. The receptors for testoserone were faulty and so the male characteristics never developed. So "paps" per the opening post is not explicitly female at all.

 

[veteran]

This is a topic that I find truly interesting and one not often looked at by most Christians .

When we take a look at the two reports pertaining to Mans creation in the bible we can clearly see to different stories .....



And the LORD [sup]3068[/sup] God [sup]430[/sup] formed [sup]3335[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup][of] the dust [sup]6083[/sup] of [sup]4480[/sup] the ground [sup]127[/sup], and breathed [sup]5301[/sup] into his nostrils [sup]639[/sup] the breath [sup]5397[/sup] of life [sup]2416[/sup]; and man [sup]120[/sup] became a living [sup]2416[/sup] soul[sup]5315[/sup].






And God [sup]430[/sup] said [sup]559[/sup] , Let us make [sup]6213[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup] in our image [sup]6754[/sup], after our likeness [sup]1823[/sup]: and let them have dominion [sup]7287[/sup] over the fish [sup]1710[/sup] of the sea [sup]3220[/sup], and over the fowl [sup]5775[/sup] of the air [sup]8064[/sup], and over the cattle [sup]929[/sup], and over all the earth [sup]776[/sup], and over every creeping thing [sup]7431[/sup] that creepeth [sup]7430[/sup]upon the earth [sup]776[/sup].So God [sup]430[/sup] created [sup]1254[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup] in his [own] image[sup]6754[/sup], in the image [sup]6754[/sup] of God [sup]430[/sup] created [sup]1254[/sup] he him; male [sup]2145[/sup] and female [sup]5347[/sup] created [sup]1254[/sup] he them. And God [sup]430[/sup] blessed [sup]1288[/sup] them, and God [sup]430[/sup] said[sup]559[/sup] unto them, Be fruitful [sup]6509[/sup] , and multiply [sup]7235[/sup] , and replenish [sup]4390[/sup] the earth [sup]776[/sup], and subdue it 3533

Before we look at these two accounts of creation lets focus on the term " Man " and the name Adam ..
The name that we know as Adam is a direct translation of the original Hebrew name for " Man " . This term was used to classify all of " Mankind " men and women alike .

But what about " Eve " ? ....
Eve , or as translated from Hebrew , Chavvah , means " life " or Living and the term is used twice in the bible . " Adam " or " Man " also makes this known in Gen 3;20 when " Man " says ... And Adam called his wife's name Eve , because she was the mother of all living . That in and of its self is quite interesting , how did Adam know that Eve was the mother of all living the day she was created ?

If we can take a quick look at the story of Adam and Eve in the garden we will see that Adam didn't yet " Know " Eve . As result there were no children , so how did he know that she was the mother of all living when there was no apparent inclination to procreate ? Also worth pointing out , in the one version of mans creation procreation was one of Gods edicts to man , " be fruitful and multiply " . Once again and worth pointing out , this request didn't seem to apply to Adam . Adam was simply told to not eat of " The Tree of Knowledge " .

As we move along in the two versions of creation we can also see that one account states ...
And God [sup]430[/sup] said [sup]559[/sup] , Let us make [sup]6213[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup] in our image [sup]6754[/sup], after our likeness [sup]1823 [/sup]
[sup]
[/sup]
[sup]And the other version says ....[/sup]
And the LORD [sup]3068[/sup] God [sup]430[/sup] formed [sup]3335[/sup] man [sup]120[/sup][of] the dust [sup]6083[/sup] of [sup]4480[/sup] the ground [sup]127[/sup], and breathed [sup]5301[/sup] into his nostrils [sup]639[/sup] the breath [sup]5397[/sup] of life [sup]2416[/sup]; and man [sup]120[/sup] became a living [sup]2416[/sup] soul[sup]5315[/sup].


Once again , very interesting .. One version God , plural , says " let us " , plural , " create man in Our image " .
The other version a singular God is named and given credit for creating man , Yehovah . Yehovah is the name we get when we translate the word " Lord " from the original Hebrew . What we read as Lord God is actually saying , God Yehovah . Not only that , we also see that man is created from dust with no mention to man being created in God's image as stated in the other version .

Could man have originally been created in some other type of state and been reduced to a material form somewhere down the road ? Or could man have been created two different ways ? If that were the case then Eve , the mother of all living , would have had to have some type of relation with those people as well , remember the one group of man was created to be fruitful and multiply and for them to multiply they would have had to have had the mother of all living involved if we are to assume that the names Adam and Eve are names of individual people .

When we look at the given genealogy in the Bible we will also see that the name of Cain's wife is not given , whys that ? We can see a full genealogy of both Cain and Adam in the bible but still no mention of Cain's wife ?? So just who did he marry ? Was it because Cain married some girl form the other group of people created ?


What does this all mean ? Am I simply looking at this all wrong ? I just don't know ..

Well, one thing I certainly don't believe, and that's the idea that my flesh body is my 'real' self. So if we're talking about the idea of a creation type prior to Adam's flesh, then I think it would have to involve a heavenly type body. Our future state is to be like that of the angels (Matt.22:30).

Because Gen.1:26-27 makes a distinction in the Hebrew with 'aadam' and 'eth ha addam', and the man of Gen.2:7 is also 'eth ha aadam', I must hold to a 6th day creation of the races of mankind, and that of the man Adam which God placed in His Garden. I'm aware of an 8th day creation view for Adam in Gen.2.

If you study a bit deeper in Gen.1:26-27 about the idea of God's Own Image and Likeness, you may find a pattern there that applies only His outward likeness or shape to general mankind (aadam) created male and female on the 6th day, but His Spirit likeness for the man Adam (eth ha aadam) also for that 6th day.

Thus I believe the nations (races of mankind) were created male and female on the 6th day and placed 'outside' God's Garden, while the man Adam which Christ was to be born through was placed in God's Garden. That would point to the people of the land of Nod where Cain got his wife being those existing nations outside God's Garden. It would mean they were already there from the 6th day creation.

The Assyriologists (Sayce if I recall) discovered a date like 3800 B.C. for Sargon in some of the Babylonian tablets. Sargon was a semite who came to ancient Sumer to those who called themselves "Black heads". A metal mask of his facial features still exists in the British museum. Bible scholars like Ussher went backwards from the time of Christ's birth to the man Adam, and reckoned the time for Adam as 4004 B.C. So 4004 B.C. for Adam is not far from 3800 B.C. for Sargon, suggesting what? Sargon may have been Cain. And ancient Sumer may have been the "land of Nod."

 

[SaberTruth]

Races? There is only one: human. Humans from any ethnic background can safely mate with any other, and their children are no less healthy (and often more healthy) than others, because of less chance of duplicated mutations from the parents. Different ethnic groups arose after the scattering at Babel, where inbreeding to some degree resulted in speciation. Skin and hair color, facial features, body height and weight, etc. are all built-in variations in the human genome and not separate created lines.

 

[veteran]

Races? There is only one: human. Humans from any ethnic background can safely mate with any other, and their children are no less healthy (and often more healthy) than others, because of less chance of duplicated mutations from the parents. Different ethnic groups arose after the scattering at Babel, where inbreeding to some degree resulted in speciation. Skin and hair color, facial features, body height and weight, etc. are all built-in variations in the human genome and not separate created lines.

I don't believe in evolution theory. Not even a little bit.

Still today two of one race will not produce offspring of a different race. Nor is there anything written in God's Word that declares sin causes a differiention in racial characteristics. God created peoples the way He wanted them to appear. Any other idea is allied with evolution theory.

Before I go further on this, understand that I'm not a racist. Using evolution theory to explain to people of different races why they appear as they do has to be quite a let down feeling. It's better we understand God created mankind the way He wanted us to appear, and He said it was good.

By the way, I have part Cherokee Indian in my ancestry. My great-grandmother had clear Cherokee features. My grandmother somewhat, but my mother and later generations virtually none. That's prove of the opposite of the theory of evolution. Instead, it shows that if a mixed offspring continues in one lineage or the other, the traits of the other line will recede (see Deut.23.2).

 

[SaberTruth]

I don't believe in evolution theory. Not even a little bit.

Still today two of one race will not produce offspring of a different race. Nor is there anything written in God's Word that declares sin causes a differiention in racial characteristics. God created peoples the way He wanted them to appear. Any other idea is allied with evolution theory.

Before I go further on this, understand that I'm not a racist. Using evolution theory to explain to people of different races why they appear as they do has to be quite a let down feeling. It's better we understand God created mankind the way He wanted us to appear, and He said it was good.

By the way, I have part Cherokee Indian in my ancestry. My great-grandmother had clear Cherokee features. My grandmother somewhat, but my mother and later generations virtually none. That's prove of the opposite of the theory of evolution. Instead, it shows that if a mixed offspring continues in one lineage or the other, the traits of the other line will recede (see Deut.23.2).

We must be misunderstanding each other. I don't believe in evo either.

You appeared to be promoting God having created each "race" separately and that Adam was the only one of those people to be placed in the Garden. I'm challenging that idea by pointing out that all the "races" can be explained fully through genetics alone; there was no special creation of distinct human "races". I said nothing about sin causing differentiation, but only that "races" manifest when people interbreed in small sub-populations, and that such subgroups were formed as a result of the scattering at Babel.

 

[242006]

Not sure I follow that whirlwind. Sounds like you might be speaking of the ancient concept some called the 'andronyn' (one body with both sexual organs).

The Hebrew between Gen.1:26-27 and Gen.2:7 with the word for 'aadam' is specific. In Gen.1:26-27, two cases for 'man' appear. One is eth ha aadam, with the Hebrew article and particle, and the other is 'aadam' by itself.

'aadam' = mankind, in general

'eth ha aadam' = this man Adam

In Gen.2:7, it is also eth ha aadam (this man Adam)


My understanding from that is that God created on His 6th Day both the races of mankind, and... the specific man Adam He placed in His Garden of Eden. Two separate creations, placed in two different locations, but done at the same time.

With the forming of Eve, God took one of Adam's ribs. (Medically, both male and females today have the same number of ribs). So the word "rib" is probably about something else.

Hebrew for "rib" in Gen.2:21 is tsela, which can mean a curve. I think it's pointing to the curve of the DNA helix.

It is true that the terminology 'eth ha-adam exists in both Gen. 1:27 and 2:7. This leads to confusion in that some will conclude [as you do] that the singular man Adam was created on the 6th Day. However, that confusion is easily cleared up when one reviews God's purposes for the mankind created on the 6th Day, as given in 1:26, and for Adam, as given in 2:5. There was no man created on the 6th Day to till the ground. Clearly, Adam was not part of the 6th Day creation, and was formed thereafter the 7th Day of rest.

That leaves one with the problem of the same 'eth ha-adam wording in 1:27 and 2:7. The bottom line is that the translation is improperly rendered in English as 'this man Adam'. The proper rendering is 'this very man', which is subject neutral. With the correct rendering, one needs to acquire the subject man referred to by 'eth ha-adam elsewhere. In the matter of 1:27, 'this very man' is detailed in 1:26, which was mankind -- all of the races. In the matter of 2:7, it was the singular man to till the ground, as described in 2:5.

With the correct rendering being 'this very man', instead of 'the man Adam', the scriptures are squared. The rendering of 'this very man' is made by Dr. Green, of the Green's Interlinear.

 

[veteran]

We must be misunderstanding each other. I don't believe in evo either.

You appeared to be promoting God having created each "race" separately and that Adam was the only one of those people to be placed in the Garden. I'm challenging that idea by pointing out that all the "races" can be explained fully through genetics alone; there was no special creation of distinct human "races". I said nothing about sin causing differentiation, but only that "races" manifest when people interbreed in small sub-populations, and that such subgroups were formed as a result of the scattering at Babel.

I do hold to the idea that God created distinct 'root' races of mankind, which was not about interracial mixing. The idea of different races coming from genetics is a promotion of evolution and a separate idea distinct from people mixing. There's no archaeological nor Biblical evidence that the races evolved, and that includes the Genesis event of the tower of Babel confusion. It was the one tongue that God confused with that event, and that's why the peoples split off to the four corners of the globe. Linguists point to something like seven root stems for later language origins. That's only a theory, and it actually doesn't stand up to the evidence of how peoples that remained separated kept their racial characteristics. Moreover, Deut.23:2 reveals a purification requirement under the Old Covenant that supports God not wanting peoples to mix their race.

 

[SaberTruth]

I do hold to the idea that God created distinct 'root' races of mankind, which was not about interracial mixing. The idea of different races coming from genetics is a promotion of evolution and a separate idea distinct from people mixing. There's no archaeological nor Biblical evidence that the races evolved, and that includes the Genesis event of the tower of Babel confusion. It was the one tongue that God confused with that event, and that's why the peoples split off to the four corners of the globe. Linguists point to something like seven root stems for later language origins. That's only a theory, and it actually doesn't stand up to the evidence of how peoples that remained separated kept their racial characteristics. Moreover, Deut.23:2 reveals a purification requirement under the Old Covenant that supports God not wanting peoples to mix their race.

I see nothing in either scripture or science for "root races". Not even evos believe that races were separate evolutionary lines anymore; genetics has proved all came from one source. This is a big problem for evo theory but of course they sweep all such problems under the rug and try to explain it away. They still hold to that first human evolving from apes, but no separate human race roots.

What it means that the "races" developed after Babel is that since people can't communicate with those speaking other languages, they split off into separate groups and only marry those they can understand. That's how regressive genetic traits are expressed, even today, in any group of living and sexually reproducing organisms. This is simple Mendelian genetic theory at work; no need for "root races". And the Biblical account of Babel is well-supported by the scientific theory of language roots, another embarrassing fact of science that works against evo.

As for Deut. and mixing, that was FOR JEWS ONLY and to purify a genetic line from the time of Moses to Jesus. God separated out a people for himself from the pagans (Abraham was a Chaldean) BY FAITH, but it wasn't until Moses many hundreds of years later that the law of being separate was given by God.

So I conclude from both scripture and empirical science that all humans came from Adam.

 

[veteran]

I see nothing in either scripture or science for "root races". Not even evos believe that races were separate evolutionary lines anymore; genetics has proved all came from one source. This is a big problem for evo theory but of course they sweep all such problems under the rug and try to explain it away. They still hold to that first human evolving from apes, but no separate human race roots.

What it means that the "races" developed after Babel is that since people can't communicate with those speaking other languages, they split off into separate groups and only marry those they can understand. That's how regressive genetic traits are expressed, even today, in any group of living and sexually reproducing organisms. This is simple Mendelian genetic theory at work; no need for "root races". And the Biblical account of Babel is well-supported by the scientific theory of language roots, another embarrassing fact of science that works against evo.

The idea of "regressive genetic traits" for cause of race is a hoax. I don't know what journal or publication, or biology book you got that out of, but it's simply not so when it comes to two separate races of peoples. One of mixed race that continues only in one side, the traits of the other side will recede. So if a Caucasion person went to Japan let's say, and married an Oriental, and their children continued only in the Oriental lineage thereafter, the Caucasian traits would be purged out over a number of generations. That's proof in itself of God's creation of the races of man, and not genetic evolution from Babel, which it's evolution that you're actually suggestiing with that idea.

Moreover, if the races of today came about from mixing at Babel, that automatically implies the pre-existence of different races in the beginning.

As for Deut. and mixing, that was FOR JEWS ONLY and to purify a genetic line from the time of Moses to Jesus. God separated out a people for himself from the pagans (Abraham was a Chaldean) BY FAITH, but it wasn't until Moses many hundreds of years later that the law of being separate was given by God.

Actually, Abraham was a Hebrew (Gen.11 from Eber, from which comes the word Hebrew. Abram only lived in Chaldea, which would be like the Vietnamese refugees who were relocated in Texas which can now also call themselves Texans. Geographic location does not presuppose racial origin.)

Whether you admit it or not, you apparently support the idea of mixing up one's race. I don't, and neither does God's Word support such a doctrine. But the evolutionists and biologists certainly do. God's law even forbids the mixing up of crop seed and mixed materials for clothing (Lev.19), so references to biological evolution certainly isn't going to fly.

 

[SaberTruth]

The idea of "regressive genetic traits" for cause of race is a hoax. I don't know what journal or publication, or biology book you got that out of, but it's simply not so when it comes to two separate races of peoples. One of mixed race that continues only in one side, the traits of the other side will recede. So if a Caucasion person went to Japan let's say, and married an Oriental, and their children continued only in the Oriental lineage thereafter, the Caucasian traits would be purged out over a number of generations. That's proof in itself of God's creation of the races of man, and not genetic evolution from Babel, which it's evolution that you're actually suggestiing with that idea.

Moreover, if the races of today came about from mixing at Babel, that automatically implies the pre-existence of different races in the beginning.

This is devolving into a facepalm charade.

Do you know nothing of the science of genetics? Traits such as skin and hair color, facial features, etc. are all encoded in our DNA. When you isolate a sub-population the recessive traits are more likely to appear. If people from different subgroups marry, their children exhibit mixed traits as expected; there are several cases of twins born to black/white parents where one twin is white and the other black. This is NOT EVOLUTION but empirical, observational, falsifiable science. Check ANY biology book; they all agree, even the creationist ones. It is your theory that is a hoax, and your logic that is fallacious. Babel explains the isolation of populations from each other and the resulting interbreeding, which in turn exhibits the recessive traits. There is no implication of pre-existence of different races.

Actually, Abraham was a Hebrew (Gen.11 from Eber, from which comes the word Hebrew. Abram only lived in Chaldea, which would be like the Vietnamese refugees who were relocated in Texas which can now also call themselves Texans. Geographic location does not presuppose racial origin.)

Wrong again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham . Completely wrong. "Hebrew" means "wanderer" and did not come from Abram/Abraham's name, which means "exalted father/father of nations". You're simply making things up.

Whether you admit it or not, you apparently support the idea of mixing up one's race. I don't, and neither does God's Word support such a doctrine. But the evolutionists and biologists certainly do. God's law even forbids the mixing up of crop seed and mixed materials for clothing (Lev.19), so references to biological evolution certainly isn't going to fly.

Ah, now the truth comes out: you're a racist. You believe some races are better or more godly than others. You mistakenly apply JEWISH LAW to everyone in every epoch of history, forward and back, and use it to justify a legalistic elitism that is completely at odds with the unity and equality we have in Christ Jesus. Your racist, elitist, legalist nonsense is what ain't flyin', pal.

 

[242006]

This is devolving into a facepalm charade.

Do you know nothing of the science of genetics? Traits such as skin and hair color, facial features, etc. are all encoded in our DNA. When you isolate a sub-population the recessive traits are more likely to appear. If people from different subgroups marry, their children exhibit mixed traits as expected; there are several cases of twins born to black/white parents where one twin is white and the other black. This is NOT EVOLUTION but empirical, observational, falsifiable science. Check ANY biology book; they all agree, even the creationist ones. It is your theory that is a hoax, and your logic that is fallacious. Babel explains the isolation of populations from each other and the resulting interbreeding, which in turn exhibits the recessive traits. There is no implication of pre-existence of different races.


Wrong again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham . Completely wrong. "Hebrew" means "wanderer" and did not come from Abram/Abraham's name, which means "exalted father/father of nations". You're simply making things up.


Ah, now the truth comes out: you're a racist. You believe some races are better or more godly than others. You mistakenly apply JEWISH LAW to everyone in every epoch of history, forward and back, and use it to justify a legalistic elitism that is completely at odds with the unity and equality we have in Christ Jesus. Your racist, elitist, legalist nonsense is what ain't flyin', pal.

What's racist about claiming that God created all of the races of people??

Gen 1:31​

​

​

​

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

​

Since God claims that His creation of all the races of people was "very good", I find it impossible for anyone to be a racist for claiming the same.

Your moronic position [that somehow the race of a group has changed over time due to isolation] is easily debunked. Based upon a fairly recent population study of DNA deviation, it can be shown mathematically that it is physically impossible for the various races in existence today to have evolved from a single set of pure-blood parents. Here is the link -

http://www.onehumanr...noah&family.asp

Based upon this study, there is only a 0.2% deviation in DNA among all humans, which explains all of the physical and racial characteristics among us all. The study furthermore details the racial component of that 0.2% deviation to be 6% thereof. Accordingly, race DNA deviation, over time from the beginning to present with all the potential for intermixing of races, is only 0.012%.

So, if one assumes that racial deviation was present with Adam and Eve [which it was not], the racial deviation component of their DNA could be no greater than 0.012%. For the sake of argument, one can use the maximum deviation percentage of 0.012% and then calculate the generations of offsring that would need to occur to produce 1 single individual with a 50% race deviation from Adam and Even. When one does the math, the answer is 5,776 generations, which proves that all of the races never came from a single set of pure-blood parents.

Therefore, all of the races of people could have only come into existence as of the divine hand of God. The only place that took place was in Gen. 1 and 2.

 

[SaberTruth]

What's racist about claiming that God created all of the races of people??

When someone wants to make one race "better" than another, that's racism.

Since God claims that His creation of all the races of people was "very good", I find it impossible for anyone to be a racist for claiming the same.

God did NOT create "all races" in the beginning, so what was "very good" was what he DID create: the universe, earth, and Adam and Eve. Genesis 1-2 says nothing about anybody else.

Your moronic position [that somehow the race of a group has changed over time due to isolation] is easily debunked. Based upon a fairly recent population study of DNA deviation, it can be shown mathematically that it is physically impossible for the various races in existence today to have evolved from a single set of pure-blood parents. Here is the link -

http://www.onehumanr...noah&family.asp

That article says exactly what I'm saying! Now who is the moron?

Anybody that clueless earns a spot on my "ignore" list.

 

[veteran]

saber,

Something else you might want to look into. Birth of twin offspring of two separate races is called fraternal twins. It is not a normal event. It's medical fact that it's caused FROM TWO SEPARATE EGGS FROM TWO SEPARATE FATHERS. I recall a news article a few years ago of a German Caucasian woman who gave birth to twins, one Caucasian and the other Black. They were fraternal twins, two eggs from two different fathers. Look it up or ask your doctor.

Also, the word Hebrew comes from the man Eber in Gen.11, Abraham's ancestor. Abraham was of Hebrew stock.

You're the one that's way out of line saber, no one here has slurred any race of man. No one here has said or inferred that one race of man is better than any other. You've only resorted to slander using the race card to try and justify your agreement with evolution theory. It's bad enough that some branches of Christianity still hold to the false believe that the Black people came from Noah's curse upon Ham's son for what Ham did against Noah. God created all non-mixed peoples the way He wanted, and it was very good.

 

[HammerStone]

Regardless of thoughts, the language and terms used better ratchet down a couple notches. Consider this a blanket warning.

God did NOT create "all races" in the beginning, so what was "very good" was what he DID create: the universe, earth, and Adam and Eve. Genesis 1-2 says nothing about anybody else.

On that note, let me pose this question. Since it doesn't say anything about anybody else, where did the wives come from? Do you assume that they were daughters of Adam with their own sons and daughters born in incent or perhaps we <i>assume</i> that there were others by this time?

Babel explains the isolation of populations from each other and the resulting interbreeding, which in turn exhibits the recessive traits. There is no implication of pre-existence of different races.

To this assertion, I've yet to find a Bible that says God divided the races. The reference is clearly and unmistakably about language. The assertion that this deals with race is based on assumption. The fact that it's traditional and mainstream doesn't make it correct. We all know the Pharisees' argument. "God created various languages, so he must have changed skin color too!" The Father tends to be pretty logical.

Regardless of view, to simply dismiss the idea as racism is the joke. Unfortunately, that is the argument is built in ignorance; yet it remains the card to be played time and again, even in religion. God is not a respecter of persons (Romans 2:11), yet certain men and women are given certain gifts and abilities. Adam happened to be white. That's not the crux of the argument at all, and to assert as such is nothing but a red herring for lack of a better argument. I'm comfortable with folks believing differently than me. Christianity often defends what the Jewish culture does - so does that make it racist in a way by the same definition? Is God sexist because the vast majority of major characters were men? Is he sexist, too, because no women angels are mentioned in the Bible?