Excellent outline. 
1 Like
Genesis 2:6 there went up a mist from the earth, that watered the whole face of the ground. I don’t believe it rained till Noah’s flood.
2 Likes
Interesting, i never thought about that! And welcome to the community Ron!
Love your explanation of this. Reading the part regarding questions still coming up…I thought for sure you were gonna say “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” 
Thanks for posting, Ron; welcome aboard.
Man and women were created on the sixth day, together, they were made,
They were told to go out into the world to have dominion over all the animals, birds and fish.
They are your natives.
Day seven, God rested.
Day eight, God created the Garden of Eden, he made Adam, only, not women/Eve, with him.
God placed Adam into the Garden to be a Gardener, naming whatever animals God brought to him.
God realised Adam had no helper/partner, like the animals did,
So, God put Adam to Sleep and removed a rib, then fashioned a woman from it.
Which means, Eve was not made on day six in creation, since God made man and woman together.
The sin entered the world when Eve had sex with Lucifer, and Adam, twins were born, Cain and Able, Cain murdered Able, which means, Cain is the son of Lucifer, the reason I say this, is because Adam and Eve are the first generation of mankind, perfect in their own right, since God made them, God is perfect.
Lucifer beguiled Eve into believing she would be looking me God and know good and evil.
Therefore she ate the forbidden fruit, Adam also ate of the fruit.
Sin entered the world because of disobedience, as the saying goes, as it was in the beginning, so shall it be in the end.
Looking at the the world today, science is the church of Lucifer, all worship an artificial intelligence d vice that is just another face of Satan.
God said not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The word is one second from annihilation due to atomic weapons as Satan is trying to make a one world government, but the Russians are fighting against it. God bless, Oddballs2u2.
2 Likes
Welcome aboard Ron!
There was probably rain before Noah’s flood, I believe, so that the life on earth would continue to grow.
Welcome aboard Michael!
This is an interesting viewpoint. However it comes with so many implications.
For instance, how does it deal or reconcile with Romans 5:12-21?
In addition, in the article it is mentioned that, " We are told, there were no plants as there was no rain , and no man to “till the ground”. Plants of any sort cannot grow without rain.
Indeed there was no rain but in verse 6, “there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.” With this, it is possible to have plants grow without rain for as long as they are watered.
In addition, I would like to call attention to the word “for” used in Genesis 2:5 because this is where the problem appears to rise from. The Hebrew word here is “kiy”. Looking at its usage in other parts of scripture (Gen 1:4, 2:3, 4:12, 24, 25, 17:15, 29:32, Exo 3:12, Num 16:13, etc), I do not think its use here is to state that there were no plants and herbs because God had not caused it to rain or because there was no man. It is used as emphasis that God had not caused it to rain… I think it is good to read the entire sentence of Genesis 2:5 instead of starting from the middle. From verse 4, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 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.”
The article goes further to state that, “In fact, we are being told plants were not created until after man was created.” Per Gen 2:1, and 4-6, this is a strong assumption.
It is further stated that, “According to Genesis 2:5-8, God created Adam, and then God created plants.” A question naturally arises, is planting the same as creating? Is making to grow (verse 9) the same as creating?
In this same section the claim is made that Genesis 1 describes the creation of mankind(all races) and Genesis 2 describes the creation of Adam. At this point I ask, what race does Adam fall then?
The next section discusses God creating animals in Genesis 2:19. The same question as asked before will suffice, is forming the same as creating as used in the Hebrew? There are 3 words used in Hebrew to refer to creation and they should be treated carefully. There is ברא (bara ), which is creation that only God can do. There is יצר (yatzar ), often translated as “formed,” and this is a type of creation that can be done by both God and humans. And there is עשה (asah ), translated as “made,” and again both God and humans can do this. Distinctions in these 3 paint a clearer picture of creation and bring into harmony some issues that might seem to be contradictory.
In conclusion, if Adam is the father to only the special people of God, then the scripture is false in stating that, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12. It is also false in stating that, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” 1 Corinthians 15:22. It would thus follow that God is unjust in imputing sin to all the other races that are not in Adam since they were not given the same commandment as was Adam in the garden of Eden.
These are my thoughts and reflections on the article. Otherwise the critical view of the two chapters is quite interesting.
Theo, welcome to the community.
Let me just touch on a couple of the points you made.
I think that’s the part you may have missed.
On the third day of Genesis, we’re told,
“the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind” - Genesis 1:12
On the sixth day of Genesis, we’re told,
“God created man in his own image” - Genesis 1:27
So in Genesis 1, plants were already growing on the third day without mankind, we didn’t have mankind until the sixth day.
Now let’s read:
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.
In Genesis 2, we’re told, the plants didn’t grow not just due to a lack of rain, but since there was not a man to till the ground. So there’s two conditions there, not just one. God never expected Adam to till the entire earth. Instead, He now speaks of a specific place on earth, the Garden of Eden.
Moreover, don’t forget what I pointed out about the birds.
Genesis 1:
- Plants were created on the third day.
- Birds were created on the fifth day.
- Man was created on the sixth day.
Genesis 2:
- Adam was created.
- Plants were created.
- Birds were created.
Do you see the mixed up order?
Not just plants, but birds as well.
This is where we have to divide Genesis 1 from 2, not combine them. In Genesis 1, plants were created and growing without man around. Yet, reading Genesis 2, plants didn’t grow yet, as there was no rain or man.
Just slowly read Genesis 2…
- Gen 2:5 - No plants, no rain, no man.
- Gen 2:6 - Mist, watered the ground, (still no plants)
- Gen 2:7 - God formed Adam.
- Gen 2:8 - God planted a garden (now plants which Adam cultivates)
- Gen 2:9 - “out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree”
So Genesis 2:5 lays the subject, there were no plants, as there was no rain and no man. By the time we get to verse 9, we have all the conditions that were required being met.
I actually addressed this in the past, you can find it here. To summarize, Scripture said, “by one man sin entered into the world.” However, that’s not true.
Who sinned first, Adam or Eve?
Give the link a read, it will help.
1 Like
There are no actual contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2. The only contradiction is in your interpretation of those passages. You cannot just start with Gen. 2:5 and conclude there is a different order to creation in that chapter. You have to take the whole of scripture into account. You seem especially fixated on the second part of Gen. 2:5, saying that shows there were no plants before God created Adam, and that it contradicts the account in Gen. 1. That’s simply an error in interpretation on your part.
Gen 2:8 says God had planted a garden in the East, and that’s where he put the man He had formed. It’s clear that the garden was already there before God made Adam - clearly there were plants before Adam.
Also, Gen. 3:20 says, " Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living." Adam and Eve came first.
Thank you Brandon for the welcome.
Brandon, I think you need to read the entire paragraph to construct the point, not just a single statement/sentence on the points made.
Looking at Genesis 1;12 and 27, the order of events is very clear. Yes, plants were already growing on the third day without mankind. Simply put, plants do not need man kind to grow. What do they need then? They simply need water, not rain but water.
Turning now to Genesis 2, you have to read the entire statement concerning the plants and herbs not just half of the statement (Genesis 2:4-6), otherwise you are gong to take it out of context as I mentioned earlier. You are taking this as 2 conditions (a conditional statement). I called your attention to “kiy” and its usage elsewhere and pointed out that it is not always used for conditional statements. In fact KJV has a colon before this word to show emphasis as opposed to showing a condition explaining the reason for the previous statement. Here, again, is what I am saying for clarity, " These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: [that] the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. It is common knowledge that as long as the ground is watered you will always have plants growing, provided all factors remain constant. Again, man is not needed, and rain is not needed. Only the ground with its nutrients and water are needed. To propose that man and rain are the conditions needed for the plants to grow is to negate your own sense of logic.
Your interpretation that the reason for them not growing is because they lacked rain in addition to man tilling the ground is therefore untenable. And I pointed this out again in the previous response that you get this reasoning from the word “for” used to translate the Hebrew word “kiy”. I called your attention to this word usage in scripture to see how it is translated and in most cases its translation is not used for “as a reason to…”. This is pointed out in the third paragraph of the previous response. The absence of rain, and man does not stop plants from growing. Verse 6 of Genesis 2 informs you that there was a mist from the earth that watered the whole face of the ground. Again, what do plants need to grow? They need water. This water came from the ground long before there was ever a thing called rainfall. This water was in existence long before man was ever created.
I did not also forget what you pointed out concerning the birds. I called your attention to the three Hebrew words used to refer to creation. Bara, yatzar , and asah, cannot both mean created in the same senesce as bara. You need to pay extra care when different words (that are closely related) are used in Hebrew unlike in English where one word is used for so many meanings without distinction.
In addition, the other assumption you are making is that all of Genesis 2 is in chronological order as opposed to noting that the original scripts do not have chapter and verse divisions which naturally you would conclude that chapter 2 is giving a detailed account of the creation mentioned earlier in chapter 1. This style of writing is very common in the old testament where chronology is given and there after a topical account is made (as an example see the story of Joseph, Judah and Tamar). We should avoid seeing and taking the scripture only in the chronological mindset. The scripture is not written in a mechanical manner.
Allow me to bring your attention also to Jesus’ account of the creation. Jesus himself never saw a contradiction with chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis, see Matthew 19:3-6, lest he would have pointed it out. He takes Genesis 1:27 directly linked to Genesis 2:24. To consider Genesis 1 and 2 as two separate creations of human beings is to contradict the witness of many other scriptures. Scripture is interpreted using scripture and so there must be harmony of the whole of scripture, not just a few portions of it.
Concerning Romans 5:12, I read your reply on it, and now that you bring it here, I will provide my detailed response after this. If you agree that scripture said, “by one man sin entered into the world” and at the same time say that is not true, you are by default negating yourself on your claim that scripture does not contradict itself.
You ask the question, " Who sinned first, Adam or Eve?" I will reply in this manner, " What does Genesis 2:24 say? What did Jesus say ? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
In conclusion, your position and response have not addressed the implications of Genesis 2:6. You have not addressed the Hebrew word “kiy” and its usage. You have not addressed the three Hebrew words used in the creation account, bara, yatzar , and asah. You have not addressed 1 Corinthians 15:22 and how God can be just in imputing sin to all the other races that do not come from Adam. In refuting Romans 5:12 you negate Christ’s words as well as Genesis 2:24. So either Christ was also mistaken on this subject matter or He knows what He was talking about and we need to take Him at his word. What you have done is simply a reiteration of the seeming contradiction without expounding on the objections brought forth.
Thanks for your reply.
Jeff, welcome!
This study is in addition to a very detailed study titled, Did We All Come From Adam And Eve? The purpose of the study we are discussing is to point out the inconsistencies in the common understanding of Genesis 1 and 2.
I think you’re missing my point in Genesis 2:5, the Bible says there were no plants and provided this reason, “for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.”
- No rain, no man, so no plants.
While a midst comes upon the ground in verse 6, we still have no man to till the land until verse 7. Now we have all the conditions that God laid out in verse 5 to bring forward plants. In verse 8, now the garden is planted by God. Then in verse 9, we see God bringing this garden to life.
The whole point here is, the plants of Genesis 2 are very specific to the Garden of Eden. That is why God did not create them, there was no man to till the soil. God did not want or need man to till the entire earth, only the Garden. So that alone tells us, Genesis 2 is discussing a very specific place, the Garden of Eden.
You also need to account for the birds. It all has to come together in the same exact order, otherwise, it’s not the same account. What I have explained removes contradictions and helps us understand where the races came from. They certainly didn’t come from Adam and Eve.
I did want to mention, you misquoted Genesis 3:20,
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
In Genesis 3:20, Eve didn’t even have her first child yet. So this was a prophetic statement concerning Jesus Christ. I discuss that in the link above.
Hey, thanks for the discussion.
2 Likes
Hey theo, we’re trying to bite off too many subjects and wrap it into one discussion. It’s muddying the waters. We need to focus on Genesis, I’ll only touch on Jesus and Romans, just click the ► icon to view, but I won’t discuss further in this post. I moved your other post to your own thread for further discussion on those subjects.
Jesus in Matthew
Concerning Jesus, what I explained does not contradict Him. In the beginning God did make them male and female. Both in Genesis 1 and 2, God made them male and female. The question is, who were “they” in Genesis 1:27? You assume it’s Adam and Eve, and I disagree and stated why. No contradiction with Jesus.
Romans Discussion
In the link I provided, I discussed Romans 5:12 in detail. I feel you distorted what I said and then side stepped my question. Scripture said, “by one man,” yet it was by Eve. That’s the reality here. Adam simply gets the blame as he is the head honcho of his family, “one flesh” even. You must agree since you didn’t answer the question.
Genesis 2: The Garden of Eden
This is where we’re butting heads. We all understand plants do not need man to grow. That’s common sense, right?
However, in plain English, Scripture said, there were no plants as there was no rain and no man to till the ground. That’s just what it says. That tells us we are not talking about the entire earth, but a specific place on earth where God was going to plant a Garden.
Who takes care of a garden?
A man does.
Without a man, you cannot have a garden. We all know that, and that’s the heart of the matter in Genesis 2:5 that I have explained. Therefore, Genesis 2 simply discusses Adam and the Garden that God planted, which Adam would maintain. Meanwhile, Genesis 1 discusses God’s creation of the entire earth.
The Word “For”
You mentioned the word “for” (kı̂y - Strong’s: H3588) and its usage.
So we’re all on the same page, it means,
kı̂y H3588 Meaning
H3588 Definition:
A primitive particle (the full form of the prepositional prefix) indicating causal relations of all kinds, antecedent or consequent; (by implication) very widely used as a relative conjunction or adverb; often largely modified by other particles annexed: - and, + (forasmuch, inasmuch, where-) as, assured [-ly], + but, certainly, doubtless, + else, even, + except, for, how, (because, in, so, than) that, + nevertheless, now, rightly, seeing, since, surely, then, therefore, + (al-) though, + till, truly, + until, when, whether, while, who, yea, yet,
You’ll notice, it’s a “conjunction” word which is “a word used to connect clauses.” That’s what we’re talking about in Genesis 2:5. Now, in the Old Testament, kı̂y H3588 is used 4454 times. Of those, it’s translated “for” 2334 times, “that” 710 times, and “because” 445 times.
kı̂y H3588 Word Usage
H3588 Occurrences:
although ( 9 ) and ( 5 ) as ( 2 ) Assuredly ( 3 ) because ( 445 ) but ( 258 ) Certainly ( 1 ) Did ( 1 ) die ( 1 ) Doubtless ( 1 ) either ( 1 ) Else ( 3 ) even ( 7 ) except ( 9 ) for ( 2334 ) forasmuch ( 4 ) furthermore ( 1 ) haply ( 1 ) his ( 1 ) how ( 12 ) howbeit ( 1 ) If ( 172 ) meet ( 1 ) Neither ( 1 ) Nevertheless ( 5 ) not ( 1 ) Now ( 1 ) Of ( 2 ) only ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) rightly ( 1 ) save ( 13 ) saving ( 1 ) Seeing ( 13 ) since ( 1 ) so ( 2 ) Surely ( 44 ) than ( 3 ) that ( 710 ) then ( 1 ) there ( 1 ) Therefore ( 7 ) Though ( 44 ) Thus ( 1 ) Truly ( 1 ) unless ( 2 ) until ( 1 ) was ( 1 ) When ( 247 ) Whereas ( 5 ) wherefore ( 1 ) whether ( 2 ) Which ( 1 ) while ( 3 ) whose ( 1 ) yea ( 8 ) yet ( 14 )
Therefore, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind, there was no plant in the ground: “for” or “because,” there was no rain and no man to till the ground. That’s what the Bible said.
What ground?
The ground in the Garden of Eden.
So my sole point, Genesis 1 and 2 discuss two different foundations:
- One of the earth, Genesis 1.
- One of the Garden of Eden, Genesis 2.
Birds and Beasts
In Genesis 2:7 God created Adam.
Then…
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
What order do we have here?
The birds and even the beasts are brought from the ground, and then they are brought to Adam. These verses tell us, Adam was already in existence when these animals were brought “out of the ground.” That’s the order we have, and that’s what Genesis 2:7 tells us. Man before birds and beasts. Yet, a different order in Genesis 1.
I assume you believe this verse and even Genesis 2:7 are just generalizations, and no specific order is intended. That would be your opinion. However, if we understand Genesis 2 discusses the Garden of Eden, then that’s the subject, and there is no reason to assume this links us back to Genesis 1.
Note: I don’t like discussing other scholarly opinions, but I have noticed other scholars also explain, Genesis 2:5, 8 discuss a different creation than Genesis 1, so I’m not alone in my rational here.
I want to make a few other notes.
Father and Mother
Notice what Adam here,
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Adam and Eve didn’t have a fleshly father or mother.
- So what was he talking about?
- How did he know people have fathers and mothers?
Perhaps God told him, perhaps he observed it. Speculation.
Where Did The Races Come From?
Let me close by asking you a question.
- If Adam and Eve were the only people God created, then where did the races come from?
Hey, a single white couple cannot produce black children. It’s impossible, throughout all of human history, it’s never happened. Our DNA dictates our race, the color of our eyes, etc. God hardcoded these things, they cannot change, and Scripture never said God changed the races or performed a miracle for Adam and his children to transform into other races. Not to mention, this would have had to happen in Noah’s day for believers of a global flood.
God never mentioned a word about any of that. Not one word about one of the biggest issues in the Bible, our origin.
To me, that speak volumes.
1 Like
Brandon,
When you say that without a man, you cannot have a garden. You are making the statement from the perspective of the Fallen state. You need to remain alert so that you do not transfer the fallen state of man into a perfect environment created by God. Thorns and thistles did not come until after the fall, so maintenance takes on a different perspective altogether. You need to realize there is a paradigm shift from what you have grown up accustomed to and avoid reading that into the scripture especially when looking into the state of Adam before the fall.
The Word “For”
Now concerning kı̂y, you have the definition and you are right, it is a word used to connect clauses and “for” is not the only connecting word as you pointed out. You have “that” and “because”.
Now consider kı̂y of Genesis 2:5 and the other places it appears, what prevents one from translating kı̂y as “that”, an emphasis of the statement that came before it? That is, “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew:”
You are too much fixated on “…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.” But you cannot start a sentence from the middle.
If the translation “for” – “because” is to be used in its strict sense then the sentence loses meaning for that would mean that, because their was no rain or man to till the ground, everything else that comes before kı̂y could not be (happen). Do not pull out only one part of the sentence because it suits your narrative, treat the whole and do justice to it.
Granted, lets put it out there that you can stand on only half the sentence. What negates the view that the Garden of Eden is covered in the 6 days? And that Moses is giving a detailed picture (topical) on what happened those days. Explain, “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth…”
Birds and Beasts
It seems we are not making any progress on this discussion because you are stuck on the order of events yet I called your attention to the words “bara”, “yatzar”, and ”asah” to point out that in Genesis 2 God does not “bara”. Why is that so if you claim that Genesis 2 is a different foundation from Genesis 1? You are yet to answer this distinction. I do applaud you in your acknowledgement that the beasts are brought from the ground because that is a detail of how they are bara-ed.
When you say, “I assume you believe this verse and even Genesis 2:7 are just generalizations, and no specific order is intended. That would be your opinion.” Likewise I would argue that it is your opinion that Genesis 2 is distinct from Genesis 1. And because you hold this opinion, you are reading into the scripture to suit this opinion. You can’t avoid the discussion of other scholarly opinions because you are not the only one that wields the Truth of God, that makes you Proudful. It is always good to remain humble more so when discussing such topics with fellow believers.
Father and Mother
What makes you think that Adam is the one telling the story of Genesis 2? This is actually Moses reporting(narrating) the account under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Moses, having had parents can make a conclusion, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,…
Where Did The Races Come From?
I have answered this question under Was Noah’s Flood Global? And it is shown that the races can all be traced back to Noah who is a descendent of Adam.
Now, as a rebuttal, who told you that Adam was white? Where do you get such a notion unless of course you are viewing scripture in the lens of the old sin nature? Show me white DNA that has no common ancestry with Black DNA or any other race you can think of. I mean, just show me a single DNA and maybe, just maybe, your assumption might be true?
Indeed you are right in concluding that all races can be traced back to Noah. This has been proven both scientifically and historically. The burden of proof is now on you to validate your theory.
You say, “God never mentioned a word about any of that. Not one word about one of the biggest issues in the Bible, our origin.” Ah, but why does God go through the burden of giving you genealogies. Do you think He had no idea that there would be people who think the way you think? 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
The fact that an individual could think that God would violate Himself by making distinct DNAs of the human race shows the degree at which man is so fallible. To me, this position of yours speaks volumes and serves to demonstrate how America can end up in such a state with so much racial disparity as we see today. It is very sad.
1 Like
Like calling someone “proudful” and “imprudent”.
Proverbs 6:19
2 Likes
Hello Cozar,
If you have ever participated in a debate, or written an essay, you would know that in any argument put forth, an individual is held to a high degree of standard. It is disrespectful when you do not view yourself or treat the others in that manner.
When providing a rebuttal to ones argument, an individual is expected to address the points mentioned thoroughly and not selectively choose from what has been stated. This shows politeness and care to what is going on. Otherwise, the lack of which is termed imprudence (carelessness).
Now, this has been violated not once, not twice. I think there is nothing wrong in providing positive criticism if it is geared to build us up. I would expect the same from you.
Likewise, no man is an Island, and in the study of the Word, God has used so many people for over 2000 years to help teach and expound the scripture. To state that one is not beholden to what others have to say is clearly a demonstration of pride. If I hold a view and don’t care to test it against what others have to say on the same topic and see how well it stands, that could be taken as demonstrating a high self-regard of one’s own views. This is what is called proudful. 1 Corinthians 10:12
Calling these things out is a demonstration of being a brother’s keeper. Better to speak up than to let a brother down. This is the frame of reference and the spirit in which the statements are made. There is no harm intended.
Proverbs 27:17
Have yourself a good day.
You’re setting up strawmen sir.
It’s not prideful to have your own opinion. I didn’t dismiss scholarly opinion, I mentioned it. Yet, my point is, I don’t discuss other scholars in my work. Each man plows his own field.
I never said that. It was a hypothetical statement. Two Asians cannot have a Black child, and so on.
I never said that, quite the contrary. Neither has science or history linked mankind to one couple. There was an article that alluded to it once, but it’s speculation. That’s why the world still wonders about human origin. It’s far from settled. Every race has unique features and DNA, not just skin color.
1 Like
Brandon here are some of your quotes,
Quote:
Note: I don’t like discussing other scholarly opinions, but I have noticed other scholars also explain, Genesis 2:5, 8 discuss a different creation than Genesis 1, so I’m not alone in my rational here.
The fact that you do not like discussing other scholarly opinions makes you dismissive of them. In setting up an argument you cannot avoid the discussion of other scholarly opinions to include the ones in opposition to your viewpoints. This gives credibility to what you are teaching. Now, how is this strawman? (What proposition have I setup that is different from the one under discussion?)
Now that you have moved your stance/position to opinion. It is best you do not bring your disposition into the argument such that we can remain focused on topic, otherwise including it in your argument makes it subject to discussion. A mention of something, is not a discussion thereof. For example I could say, there is a theory of evolution and I have noticed other scholars also hold to the same theory, so I am not alone in my rational here. Would you call that a discussion of evolution? It is a mention of it alright, but certainly not a discussion.
Now observe the double talk here, at one moment you state you have an opinion and in the same place you state that you have a point, that is, “I don’t discuss other scholars in my work. Each man plows his own field.” One needs makeup their mind. At this moment, I will assume that you have a point and not just an opinion, which takes us back to where we started. 
Quote:
Let me close by asking you a question.
- If Adam and Eve were the only people God created, then where did the races come from?
Hey, a single white couple cannot produce black children. It’s impossible, throughout all of human history, it’s never happened.
In your defense, you state that you never said that Adam was white. But in your response above, this is implied. Nevertheless, I still ask you again, What Race is Adam? You still have not yet answered this question from all the discussions we have had regarding this.
Furthermore you state that two Asians cannot have a Black child, and so on. And in the earlier response, a single white couple cannot produce black children. No evidence is provided for your statements. Why? Could it be because you do not study what others have published concerning this topic? I will refer you to the stories of Sandra Laing, Ben and Angela Ihegboro, a black Nigerian couple, and the land of Africa where you can find people with all shades of color, etc yet sharing a common ancestry. In addition, since you plow in the filed of God (not your known), could you care to explain Cush and his descendants, Genesis 10:6? What Race is Cush by the way?
Yet still, do you ever wonder why the bible is silent about Race but always talks of Nations?
Quote:
Our DNA dictates our race, the color of our eyes, etc. God hardcoded these things, they cannot change, and Scripture never said God changed the races or performed a miracle for Adam and his children to transform into other races. Not to mention, this would have had to happen in Noah’s day for believers of a global flood.
For believers of a global flood this is the conclusion. In your reasoning, you came to this conclusion assuming a global flood. This is what I am in agreement with when you made that conclusion.
Next, you state that Neither has science or history linked mankind to one couple. There was an article that alluded to it once, but it’s speculation. That’s why the world still wonders about human origin. It’s far from settled. Every race has unique features and DNA, not just skin color.
At this point I ask, who classifies/chooses what Race is? When you look at DNA, does it show a marker of Race, that this person is Black, White, Asian, etc or it houses a combination of genes? How many Races are there by the way? Are you to say that the children of a couple have the same DNA as the couple, and that the DNA of the siblings is identical, since these things are hardcoded and cannot change? With your claim, I challenge you to show us the DNA type – black, the DNA type – white, the DNA type – Asian, etc. If you cannot find it, then you might need to reconsider your position. On the other hand, it can be shown in Genesis 10 and the migrations of the NATIONS that we share a common ancestry. What are your objections to Genesis 10 now?
The world wonders about human origin because they simply do not want to accept the clear truth before them, we are all related to each other biologically. That we are distant cousins in one way or another.
1 Like
I did an extensive study on the Bible and the creation stories. I agree with Brandon that these are actually two creation stories and they are chronological. One of the big differences for me are the differences in man. Genesis 2 man has a soul, and this is not mentioned in Genesis 1. This makes sense when looking at the name of God in Genesis 1 is an omnipotent God while in Genesis 2 it is Father God. Genesis 2 man will have a special relationship with God that Genesis 1 man will not have. I believe Genesis 1 man did not have the intellect to understand God’s calling to him, both because he didn’t have the mental capacity and he didn’t have a soul. Genesis 1 man is cave man, and original sin didn’t affect him. Genesis 2 man has a soul and all his descendants are affected by his original sin.