Where did the three human races come from?

[Thorwald]

Genesis 1:27 tells us that God created male and female. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

In the previous verse, "And God said, Let us make man in our image" the word 'man' (adamah) is used in the sense of mankind.

Gen 2:21-25 is about the joining together of two people in marriage, notice the word 'wife'.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

The analogy of the rib illustrates the bond that is forged between husband and wife.

Matthew Henry says, “She was not made out of his head to top him, she was not made out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal to him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved."

Uh, duh....and your point is???????????????????

 

[Thorwald]

I agree with this. In Gen 1:26-27 God created a man in his own image, but who did he create? Adam. And at the time he was both male and female. See Gen 5:2. At the time Adam was also immortal -- even after the split in Gen 2. Furthermore, language in Romans 5 as well as 1 Cor 15 suggests to me that Adam (before the fall) was more similar to Christ after the ressurection.

This is not what our image is. Is it what we will be? Yes.

Where do you get, "and at the time he was both male and female"? God created Adam and Eve. Eve was begotten of Adam (Adam's rib) by God.

 

[Angelina]

Sorry, BUT THEY ARE WHITE!!!!!!!!

Sorry...they are not white. You have no proof of that except for your own personal experience which cannot be verified...God is Spirit and not made of flesh and blood and so is Jesus who for a small period of time, became flesh and blood for our benefit. :huh:

 

[Thorwald]

I fear your internet search has led you to some very dubious sources. Here’s from the good old National Geographic:

“When our ancestors first migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago, they were not alone. At that time, at least two other species of hominid cousins walked the Eurasian landmass—Neanderthals and Denisovans. As our modern human ancestors migrated through Eurasia, they encountered the Neanderthals and interbred. Because of this, a small amount of Neanderthal DNA was introduced into the modern human gene pool.
Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia (...)”
https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

As for us being made in God’s Image: It’s not our bodies that are made in God’s image, but our God-breathed souls. Souls don’t have a race.

I wouldn't put much faith in what is posted in the National Geographic, nor any other publication, that is based on trying to put 'two and two together' with very limited facts, and a lot of 'guesswork' being the main reasons for doing so. A lot of assumptions [not facts, as they don't exist] are being applied to their decision-making process. The 'bones of Lucy' [assumed missing link] turned out to NOT BE the 'missing link', at all. I corresponded by email, with the Australian gentleman who found those bones. Then we have another attempt at finding the missing link, which turned out to be pig bones. When archaeologists find bones and artifacts, they spend a great deal of time trying to 'make them fit' what they surmise, to be 'the truth'. Many of the artifacts could be a 'one time' occurrence, been stolen or traded, carried from long distances away, and so on. There is also the possibility, that 'many' different people used the same sight at various times...who knows? The changes in weather affect the aging process, also. Were the bones and artifacts perhaps covered by earth/sand and then exposed for a period of time, and then covered again? Who knows? Is the process of 'aging' the artifacts/bones, accurate, given the unknown exposure to the elements? The list of possibilities goes on and on.

 

[Thorwald]

Sorry...they are not white. You have no proof of that except for your own personal experience which cannot be verified...God is Spirit and not made of flesh and blood and so is Jesus who for a small period of time, became flesh and blood for our benefit. :huh:

What about the angels????? They are 'sons of God'. The Bible tells us of many encounters between angels and mankind. John corresponded with angels in Revelation, as well. Why would God tell us, that we are created, in His image, if God looked like a frog? Then we have to take into account, Jesus speaking to Philip. Philip asked Jesus to show them [the disciples], the Father. Jesus answered Philip, that if you see Him [Jesus], you see The Father. When I saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God, they appeared as men in their early thirties. They were identical in appearance. Also, they were 'clean-shaven', with well-groomed (combed) short, black hair. They were dressed in pure white robes.

Common sense should tell you, that in order to have Caucasians on earth today, Adam and Eve must have been Caucasian. The only way to have Mongoloid or Negroid in this world, is that they had to be 'introduced' by some means. To not break scripture, the only place in the Bible where this could have occurred, is Genesis 6:2. Any other 'assumption', is ADDING TO THE WORD OF GOD.

 

[0bed]

Uh, duh....and your point is???????????????????

This was in response to FHII who said Adam, "was both male and female."

 

[FHII]

Where do you get, "and at the time he was both male and female"? God created Adam and Eve. Eve was begotten of Adam (Adam's rib) by God.

Well, like i referenced with Gen 5:2. God created male and female and their name was Adam. When God created Adam Eve was a part of Adam literally. Adam said she was to be called woman because she was taken out of a man.

The whole point is that Adam was in the image of God and fell to what we now are.

 

[0bed]

Well, like i referenced with Gen 5:2. God created male and female and their name was Adam. When God created Adam Eve was a part of Adam literally. Adam said she was to be called woman because she was taken out of a man.

The whole point is that Adam was in the image of God and fell to what we now are.

adam (aw-dawm) [120]



Meaning
a. From 119; ruddy. That is, a human being (an individual or species, mankind, etc).

http://hebrewstrong.blogspot.nl/2013/04/adam-aw-dawm-120.html

 

[FHII]

adam (aw-dawm) [120]


Meaning
a. From 119; ruddy. That is, a human being (an individual or species, mankind, etc).

http://hebrewstrong.blogspot.nl/2013/04/adam-aw-dawm-120.html

Was there a point to that?

 

[0bed]

Was there a point to that?

Have you not heard the first human beings were of ruddy completion? They would be, coming as they did from Africa. It's such a shame the word adamah has been turned into a name.

 

[junobet]

I wouldn't put much faith in what is posted in the National Geographic, nor any other publication, that is based on trying to put 'two and two together' with very limited facts, and a lot of 'guesswork' being the main reasons for doing so. A lot of assumptions [not facts, as they don't exist] are being applied to their decision-making process. The 'bones of Lucy' [assumed missing link] turned out to NOT BE the 'missing link', at all. I corresponded by email, with the Australian gentleman who found those bones. Then we have another attempt at finding the missing link, which turned out to be pig bones. When archaeologists find bones and artifacts, they spend a great deal of time trying to 'make them fit' what they surmise, to be 'the truth'. Many of the artifacts could be a 'one time' occurrence, been stolen or traded, carried from long distances away, and so on. There is also the possibility, that 'many' different people used the same sight at various times...who knows? The changes in weather affect the aging process, also. Were the bones and artifacts perhaps covered by earth/sand and then exposed for a period of time, and then covered again? Who knows? Is the process of 'aging' the artifacts/bones, accurate, given the unknown exposure to the elements? The list of possibilities goes on and on.

.
[SIZE=11.5pt]Actually the National Geographics article had more to do with genetics than with fossils. Being among the majority of Christians who traditionally read Genesis as a theological text and not as an essay on natural history, I have no problems with what the scientific consensus tells me about the origin and development of the human species. That you seem to be especially concerned about the fact that the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ was most certainly not white but black, makes me wonder where exactly you get your ideas from. Personally I could not care less whether my ancestors were black, white or purple with green dots. Why should I?[/SIZE]
.​.

 

[Thorwald]

.
[SIZE=11.5pt]Actually the National Geographics article had more to do with genetics than with fossils. Being among the majority of Christians who traditionally read Genesis as a theological text and not as an essay on natural history, I have no problems with what the scientific consensus tells me about the origin and development of the human species. That you seem to be especially concerned about the fact that the ‘mitochondrial Eve’ was most certainly not white but black, makes me wonder where exactly you get your ideas from. Personally I could not care less whether my ancestors were black, white or purple with green dots. Why should I?[/SIZE]
.​.

For the simple reason of trying to put the scriptures together, in order to understand the 'history' of mankind, as God has told us.

 

[Mozzie]

This was a topic of discussion here at me home the other night. There is nothing in Genesis that tell us the colour of Adam and Eve. At the tower of Babel it says that the languages were changed and not races. There have been people that say it was the mark od Cain that divided the races, tho once again no evidence. The things with us humans is that we tend to look at things from a human stand point rather than a God factor, still by doing this it won't answer then question, to be honest, tho it is an interesting subject, it is one an answer for may not exist for us to find.

 

[Dan57]

The word "man" in Hebrew is aw-dawm' which means ruddy and comes from the root word aw-dam' which means to blush or to show blood in the face of which the Caucasians are the race which blushes. Ergo, Adam was white. God created all of the different races, they did not all come from Adam; "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).

 

[0bed]

The word "man" in Hebrew is aw-dawm' which means ruddy and comes from the root word aw-dam' which means to blush or to show blood in the face of which the Caucasians are the race which blushes. Ergo, Adam was white. God created all of the different races, they did not all come from Adam; "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27).

You are absolutely correct including your comment about all races not coming from Adam, simply because he was alive in the bronze age. See here.

However as the first people were from Africa, and the earliest emigrants from Africa were either the American Red Indians, or the native Australians, I forget which, the land masses were joined together, may I suggest their skin colour combined with the African climate would have been of a red hue.

 

[Mozzie]

All races turn red in the face so to speak, but nether the less it is interesting

 

[kerwin]

Thorwald,

[a] Since we all are descendants of Adam and Eve, Adam and Eve must have been Caucasian

This reasoning is invalid since b does not fellow from a.

There are more that three [races]. As far as I know race is term that has arose after Revelations was written. I know of nowhere that it is used in Scripture so the answer to your question is speculative or at least based on extra-biblical sources.

I am sure God can breed any of his creation as he chooses just a humanity has with a number of beasts. Unlike humans, God even controls what changes he allows.

 

[Naomi25]

Sorry, BUT THEY ARE WHITE!!!!!!!!

Um. As you have no evidence apart from your 'vision', you are not going to convince anyone of this. Especially anyone who asks for (as required by God -Acts 17:11) evidence from scripture.
Also, I find it very interesting that you claim to have seen the face of God, when scripture tells us that no one can survive that. I assume that to post this, you've not com busted after seeing his face? And you're not just claiming to have seen God by seeing Christ...you're actually claiming to have seen the face of God.

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
(John 1:18 ESV)

But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”
(Exodus 33:20 ESV)

So, having zero biblical proof that Adam and Eve, or Jesus, was white, there is zero credibility on your part.

 

[Naomi25]

Sorry...they are not white. You have no proof of that except for your own personal experience which cannot be verified...God is Spirit and not made of flesh and blood and so is Jesus who for a small period of time, became flesh and blood for our benefit. :huh:

Actually, I think there is enough scriptural content to make a case for the fact that Jesus still has his 'new' body, and is therefore not just spirit. When he returned to the disciples after rising from the dead, he was in his new body. He ate and was touched, so it certainly had a physical nature. When he was taken up into heaven, there's nothing written to suggest that he then shed it. In fact, when Paul later speaks of the sort of bodies we will have in the resurrection, he tells us that we will have bodies like Christ does, that Christ is the first fruits. Everything we know about what our resurrection bodies will be like, tells us that they will be physical ones. I think that, along with his physical interaction, suggests that Christ's resurrection body was physical as well, and there is no scripture that tells us that Christ gave up that body.