Originally Posted By: forests
The bible does not teach a "young earth". The earth is not 6,000 years old nowhere in the bible does it say this, the scientific evidence shows us the earth is much older than that. Modern day scientific age of the earth is not in contradiction with the bible.

The bible can trace the first man called "Adam" to around 6,000 years ago, you are correct here, Adam gave birth to the adamic race.

Biologically and scientifically speaking, how is it possible for the pure-blooded black, asian, and white races to have descended from Adam and Eve, Noah and his wife, or any other common ancestor? Could Adam and Eve reproduce and have black, white, and asian children? Of course not. That's biologically impossible.

The black, white, and asian races -- in their pure-blooded states, absent any mixing among the races -- are of completely different lineage. They were created separately, and are essentially different species of "humans." The fact that separate races can interbreed (and produce hybrid species) is not proof of common origin or common species, as this phenomenon exists among other animals -- eg, lion and tiger can mate and produce a hybrid "liger", horse and donkey to produce mule, etc.

The Bible -- when translated and interpreted correctly-- confirms the fact that Adam was not the first "human." There were other people on the earth before Adam was created. That is why Cain feared other people would kill him after he was banished, and how Cain was able to find a wife, have his own descendants, and build a city after being banished from Adam & Eve and their descendants.



Wow. These statements are flat out false. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that is ridiculous. Different races were created seperately???? What?

Every human being in the world is classified as Homo sapiens. Scientists today agree that there is really only one biological race of humans. Geneticists have found that if we were to take any two people from anywhere in the world, the basic genetic differences between these two people would typically be around 0.2 percent, even if they came from the same people group. “Racial” characteristics account for only about 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation. That means that the “racial” genetic variation between human beings of different “race” is a mere 0.012 percent.

Overall, there is far more variation within a people group than there is between one people group and another. Anyone who continues to make racist distinctions does so based only on superficial, outward appearances rather than on sound scientific fact and clear biblical reasoning. If a Native American person is looking for a tissue match for an organ transplant, for instance, the best match may come from an Asian person, and vice versa.

The only reason many people think these differences are major is because they’ve been brought up in a culture that has taught them to see the differences this way. Race is a social construct derived mainly from the perceptions conditioned by the events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality. . . . curiously enough the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture.

More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial. Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because it’s meaningless. . . . We accept the idea of race because it’s a convenient way of putting people into broad categories, frequently to suppress them . . . the most hideous example is provided by Hitler’s Germany. . . . What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.

In Genesis 11 we read of the rebellion at the Tower of Babel. God judged this rebellion by giving each family group a different language. This made it impossible for the groups to understand each other, and so they split apart, each extended family going its own way, and finding a different place to live. The result was that the people were scattered over the earth.

Because of the new language and geographic barriers, the groups no longer freely mixed with other groups, and the result was a splitting of the gene pool. Different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within each group. The characteristics of each became more and more prominent as new generations of children were born. If we were to travel back in time to Babel, and mix up the people into completely different family groups, then people groups with completely different characteristics might result. For instance, we might find a fair-skinned group with tight, curly dark hair that has blue, almond-shaped eyes. Or a group with very dark skin, blue eyes, and straight brown hair.

Some of these (skin color, eye shape, and so on) became general characteristics of each particular people group through various selection pressures (environmental, sexual, etc.) and/or mutation.31 For example, because of the protective factor of melanin, those with darker skin would have been more likely to survive in areas where sunlight is more intense (warmer, tropical areas near the equator), as they are less likely to suffer from diseases such as skin cancer. Those with lighter skin lack the melanin needed to protect them from the harmful UV rays, and so may have been more likely to die before they were able to reproduce. UVA radiation also destroys the B vitamin folate, which is necessary for DNA synthesis in cell division. Low levels of folate in pregnant women can lead to defects in the developing baby. Again, because of this, lighter-skinned individuals may be selected against in areas of intense sunlight.

On the flip side, melanin works as a natural sunblock, limiting the sunlight’s ability to stimulate the liver to produce vitamin D, which helps the body absorb calcium and build strong bones. Since those with darker skin need more sunlight to produce vitamin D, they may not have been as able to survive as well in areas of less sunlight (northern, colder regions) as their lighter-skinned family members, who don’t need as much sunlight to produce adequate amounts of vitamin D. Those lacking vitamin D are more likely to develop diseases such as rickets (which is associated with a calcium deficiency), which can cause slowed growth and bone fractures. It is known that when those with darker skin lived in England during the Industrial Revolution, they were quick to develop rickets because of the general lack of sunlight.

Of course, these are generalities. Exceptions occur, such as in the case of the darker-skinned Inuit tribes living in cold northern regions. However, their diet consists of fish, the oil of which is a ready source of vitamin D, which could account for their survival in this area.

Real science in the present fits with the biblical view that all people are rather closely related—there is only one race biologically. Therefore, to return to our original question, there is, in essence, no such thing as interracial marriage.

You state that nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is young. A literal reading of Genesis clearly says that the earth was created in 6 days. The Hebrew word "yom", when preceded by a number ALWAYS means one actual day. Adam was created on the sixth day, he lived the whole sixth day, then the seventh day and he lived many years longer. He was obviously not millions of years old.

Cain's wife is easily understood! If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extrabiblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to marry sisters or there wouldn’t have been any more generations!

We’re not told when Cain married or many of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that Cain’s wife was either his sister or a close relative.

A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.”

And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch (Genesis 4:17).
The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam.

And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23).
Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated.

There is MUCH MORE about this topic that I can share with you. Clearly your statements were made without knowing the evidence. Study all the facts!



Eric Johnson


Acts 4:12