Bertrand Comparet on the Adamic Race

Genesis 1 & 2,

Detailing the Creation of the Adamic Race and the Subsequent Formation of the Individuals, Adam and Eve

By Pastor Eli James

Introduction

Consider this entry in Who’s Who in the Old Testament, Together With the Apocrypha:  ADAM (Heb. ‘man’) date unknown.  The first human being.

            This definition is quite unacceptable.  First of all, the date of Adam’s birth can be calculated from the Masoretic Text as being 4004 BC, Archbishop Ussher’s reckoning.  Bishop Ussher simply added up the lifespans of the Patriarchs as given in the Bible and came up with this date.  Since all of these men were literal persons, adding up their lifespans makes perfect sense.  The Septuagint, however, gives longer lifespans, which add up to an additional thousand years.  So, from known Biblical literature, we can say that Adam came into existence somewhere between 5 and 4 thousand BC.

            The second sentence in the entry is actually quite outrageous, because it is the same nonsense purveyed by the Jews and the Judeo churches, positing Adam as being the “first human being,” from whom, presumably, all races came.  This idea totally defies the known science of genetics, which states categorically that all DNA is designed to replicate itself and maintain its distinctiveness from all other species.  It is known fact that mutations are invariably defective individuals of the species, and the miniscule number that survive into maturity are incapable of reproducing.  Hence, genetics and evolutionism are in direct contradiction to one another.

            Consider this statement, explaining the situation:

The basic philosophy of evolution is that gradual change occurs over millions of years to evolve one species into another. This mutation occurs at the genetic level. In order for evolution to be possible, new information must be added to the gene code that creates new traits and eventually changes the species into a new species. This must be done without damage to the species. All mutations must be positive mutations or they will begin to destroy the species. The burden of proof rests upon evolutionists to show with observable science that positive mutations can and do occur. – Eddie Snipes, “Science Against Evolution.” {Source: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/genetics.shtml }

            The simple, undisputed fact is that NO POSITIVE MUTATION HAS EVER BEEN OBSERVED BY ANY SCIENTIST.  Evolutionary theory simply ASSUMES that such “positive mutations” have taken place.  In the real world, all observed mutations have been NEGATIVE; and most such mutations lead to disease.  We all know about genetic disease, but no one has ever had a “genetic cure.”  In other words, evolutionists believe in miracles that no one has ever observed.  It is BLIND FAITH!!!

            Of the two disciplines, evolutionism and genetics, only genetics is a science.  Evolutionism has no science backing it up at all.  This self-replication principle is actually stated in Genesis 1:  “kind after kind.”  We have a similar situation with creationism, which insists that, by some UNSTATED MIRACLE, all humanoid species instantly evolved from Adam and Eve!!!  By ignoring the actual definition of the Hebrew word AWDAWM, the theological world has pulled the wool over our eyes, so that we cannot see the obvious differences between the races.

            Gen. 5:1 states it very plainly.  “This is the book of the generations [TOLEDAW = line of descent, or family tree] of Adam.”  Verse 3 tells us that Seth was in the likeness of his father, Adam, which Cain was not!!!  A mulatto offspring will look nothing like either parent.

            To show that the Jews also teach this rubbish, here is a quotation from a Jewish website:  

            The first human ever to walk the earth was named Adam. The Torah explains the name. The Hebrew word for earth is adama. God formed man from the dust of the earth, and on the simplest level, that connection with adama, earth, is the basis for man’s name. Once Adam sinned and ate the forbidden fruit, he introduced death to the world and was sentenced to once again return to the earth from which God created him.

–          http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48956911.html

            The root meaning of AWDAWM is not “red earth.”  This is a Jewish fable.  The fact is that both Adam and Adamah are rooted in the Hebrew word DAM, which means blood.  We all know what color that is.  Here are the words Jeff Benner, publisher of a monthly Hebrew magazine:

            We are all familiar with the name “Adam” as found in the book of Genesis, but what does it really mean? Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם meaning, “blood”. By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child rootאדם  is formed and is related in meaning to דם (blood).

            By examining a few other words derived from the child root אדם we can see a common meaning in them all. The Hebrew word אדמה(adamah) is the feminine form of אדם meaning “ground” (see Genesis 2:7). The word/name אדום (Edom) means “red”. Each of these words have the common meaning of “red”.  Dam is the “red” blood, adamah is the “red” ground, edom is the color “red” and adam is the “red” man. There is one other connection between “adam” and “adamah” as seen in Genesis 2:7 which states that “the adam” was formed out of the “adamah”. – Jeff Benner. 

{Source:  http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/emagazine/001.html }

            But there is a little more to it than this.  The letter A (alef in Hebrew) has a meaning of its own.  It means “leader.”  Hence Adam is the leader of that race which shows blood in the face.  Also, the letter alef, when placed in front of a word as a prefix, performs the function in Hebrew as the English article, the.

            Here is what a team of philologists have to say about this subject:

Antiquity Of THE Name “ADaM.”

            After what has been already set forth, there seems scarcely reason to answer our interrogatory, above propounded, relative to “human creation” as narrated in Genesis.    Archaeological criticism might finally rest upon one Hebrew word; viz. ADaM…

            The reader will observe, notwithstanding, that the bisyllable ADM cannot be a primitive but must be a secondary formation, according tothe progressive scale of linguistic development. To reach the primary root, or monosyllable, within this triliteral word contained, an affix, a suffix, or a medial-letter, must be first removed. Among Hebraists of the highest modern school, on the European continent, the fact that “Adam” is a dissyllabic name alone suffices to prove that its possessor appeared on earth thousands of years subsequently to the primordial ages of humanity; because in principio man articulated but monosyllables. Or else (what is the same thing in result, no less than more positive) theIsraelite ‘who (in some form of coin-letter) wrote the word ADM, of Genesis, lived at a philological epoch when the pristine monosyllables had already (organically through development) merged into words of two syllables; and therefore, that writer committed an egregious anachronism when he retro-leptically ascribed a triliteral proper-name, or rather noun, to his first human progenitor.

            The word ADM, or with an additional vowel, ADaM, is consequently to be divided into two separate words, A and DaM; or A-DaM. Now, A, aleph, is the primeval, Semitic, masculine article A = “the,” an article that, in Scripture, is prefixed to above forty masculine substantives; although, until recently, the fact was unperceived by Hebrew grammarians, or Jewish lexicographers.

            In the next place, the word ADaM does not proceed, as the Rabbis suppose, from ADaMaH (Gen. ii. 7)—a hisyllable from a trisyllable!—butthe latter is an extension of the former root, DaM (Arabic, Dem), meaning blood; the color of which, being red, originated the secondary signification of DaM, as “red,” and “to be red.”

            Consequently, A, the letter “aleph,” being the masculine article the; and the noun DaM meaning blood, or “red,” we have only to unite these two words into A-DaM, to read the blood, or THE-RED, in ” Genesis;” which duplex substantive, applied to man, naturally signifies “the-red-man;” and, when applied to the ground, ADaMaH (” out of the dust” of which this (A-red-man, ADaM, was moulded), it means the-red-earth: i. e., that rubescent soil out of which the Jehovistio writer of Genesis had imagined Hebrew man to have been fashioned by Creative artisanship. TheBeNi-ADaM also, in Psalms (xlix. 2. Comp. Ps. Ixii. 9: and contrast with BeNoTi-HaADaM, Gen. vi. 2), are reputed to be patricians of the pure Abrahamic stock; whereas the plebeians (including all those who are, like AngloSaxons, mere GOIM, Gentiles) belong altogether to a different and lower level … in the eye of IeHOuaH.  [The authors are correct about the racial distinctions, but they are incorrect in saying that the Anglo-Saxons are non-Israelites, since the Anglo-Saxons are Shemitic Hebrew Israelites, but the Jews are not.  Certainly, they believed the Jewish lie as to their Shemitic descent, not taking into consideration the fact that, demographically, there are Jews of all races.  Nevertheless, we should understand that he is arguing for a race-specific interpretation of Genesis 1 &2.  Without realizing it, they are speaking of Judah. – Eli]

            We adopt entirely the Italian rendering of the great interpreter of Sacred Philology at the Vatican; and think, with Lanci, that il-rossicanle,“the-Blusher,” is the happiest translation of the old Semitic particle and noun A-DaM.

            How does this interpretation bear upon ethnography?

            Reader! Simply thus. As no ” Type of Mankind” but the white race can be said (physiologically) to blush; it follows, that, according to the conception of the writers of Genesis (who were Jews [sic, Judah]  and of the ” white race “), not only did the first human pair converse between themselves, no less than with God and with the serpent, in pure Hebrew, but they were essentially A-DaMites (man and woman) “blushers: ” — and therefore, these Hebrew writers, never supposed that A-DaM and ISE (vulgarice, Adam and Eve) could have been of any stock than of the white type—in short, Hebrews, Abrahamida, like themselves — these writers aforesaid.

            Thus, through a few cuts of an archaeological scalpel, vanishes the last illusion that any but white ” Types of Mankind” are to be found inthe first three chapters of the book called “Genesis.” – Types of Mankind: or, Ethnological Researches Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures and Crania of Races and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History, by Josiah Clark Nott, George Robins Gliddon, 1854.

            Our Patriarch, David, is described as “fair and ruddy.” (I Sam. 17:42.)   Fair means that he had white skin; and ruddy means that his complexion was rosy because his blood showed through his skin.  This is only true of the White Race, as Nott and Gliddon correctly observe.  Of course, all of the statues of David depict him as a pure, White man.  This is because his artisan descendants, the Caucasian people, depict their ancestors as being of the same race.   He was not a Jew, because the Jews are members of all races and colors, variously mixed up together in each individual Jew.

            Having established the fact that the Adamites are White, and only White, we can proceed with our analysis of Genesis 1 & 2.

The Chronological Account Versus the Recapitulation Hypothesis

This essay is intended as additional material for the Enmity Series, which is in 6 Parts on my website, www.anglo-saxonisrael.com .  My ongoing research into ancient technologies has revealed that the operating premise of the Enmity Series is totally correct, namely, that a highly advanced ancient civilization once existed before 10,500 BC.  This highly advanced civilization can certainly be identified with the lost Atlantis; and it is quite possible that there were other previous or contemporaneous empires as well.  Since the White Race has created all of the highest level civilizations, it has also been one of my premises that Atlantis, Mu, Lemuria, or whatever other earlier civilizations might have existed, were also developed by Whites.  In my ongoing dispute with Finck and Emahiser, I will also focus on evidence refuting their contention that the story of ADAM of Genesis 1 is contemporaneous with the ADAM of Genesis 2.   Their “Recapitulation Theory” postulates that Genesis 2 merely provides additional information about the same “day” (Day Six of Genesis 1).  My thesis, which I call the Chronological Account, refutes this notion as being both un-Scriptural and unscientific.  This essay will provide more evidence in favor of the Chronological Account, as the proof of pre-Adamic White civilization continues to mount.

            Finck and Emahiser have gone on record, stating that any pre-Adamites, including Cro-Magnon, could only be hybrid creations of the fallen angels mixing with some sub-human species.  My essay, Beast of the Field, refutes this contention on many grounds, scientific, historical and Scriptural.

            I will show that the pre-Adamic, White civilizations (referred to by archeologists as Cro-Magnon) existed BEFORE Adam and Eve were formed in Genesis 2 and that this Cro-Magnon race was the parent race of Adam and Eve.

            Theological misunderstandings of the creation account are due primarily to the failure of the translators to properly distinguish between the various meanings of the Hebrew words.  As the following word studies will show, the translators have done a miserable job of translating the Hebrew into English.

YOWM

To get a complete understanding of Genesis 1, we have to start with the concept of Yowm, the Hebrew word translated as “day” in Genesis 1.  It is true that this word is usually meant to designate a 24-hour day, but this is not always the case.  We find that, in Scripture, the Hebrew word yowmhas exactly the same range of meanings as the English word day has. The meanings of both words range from a 24-hour day to an unspecified length of great age, as represented by the English words, eon and era.

            While it is often difficult for the amateur to recognize the origin of English words from the Hebrew mother tongue because the two languages seem to be so different. However, the connection between aeon or eon and yom (Strong’s yowm) is not so difficult to understand since the sounds are very similar. Therefore, the translation of yowm in the Genesis 1 passages to aeon is also a good choice. We did not use this choice in the body of our discussion since eon or aeon do not appear in the King James Versions and Strong’s. –  “The Days of Genesis,”http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/day.html

            The quoted article cites a wealth of Scripture which backs up the fact that the Hebrew word yowm cannot be arbitrarily assumed to mean a 24 hour-day.   But this is what the Creationists do, without any justification.   Assertions are not facts.  Creationism is based on numerous false assumptions about Scripture, all of which conflict with natural history.  The reason they conflict with natural history is because these creationists do not care to consider the alternative meanings of the relevant Hebrew words. Their refusal to consider these alternative meanings proves that they are only interested in promoting a particular dogma.

            There is simply no doubt that, when we speak of “days” in Genesis 1, we are speaking of eons, not literal 24-hour days, especially since G1 does not record the sun and stars appearing in the sky until the fourth day.  Concerning the first three “days” of G1, how can anyone speak of a literal 24-hour day when there is literally no sunlight?  The root meaning of the word yowm is “to be hot,” meaning the heat of the day caused by sunlight.  The more we consider the meanings of the Hebrew words, the more we realize that the creationist interpretation is contradicted by the Hebrew.

            Bible skeptics have asked the question: “How can there be an evening and a morning if there is no sun to set and rise?”  Good question!!

            The fact is that, since it was discovered that the earth goes around the sun, not vice versa, many theologians have argued that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal.

            {For those interested in a scholarly debate about this fourth day, here two good articles:  http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/greg-moore-does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1 ; http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/genesis.htm }

THE EVENING AND THE MORNING

The fact is that the KJV was translated by scholars who had little or no scientific knowledge.  It follows that any passages of Scripture that deal with natural history could not possibly be translated by them, except from the perspective of 17^th Century knowledge.  Likewise, the KJV translators were very poor at understanding the Hebrew idioms that cannot be translated literally.  I have demonstrated this fact in my book, The Great Impersonation, and in many other writings.

            The next author makes the point, which I have often enunciated, that the translator’s first job is to translate, not EDITORIALIZE or interpret.  Regarding the poor quality of the KJV translation, this author states,

            Beautiful English is not so good, if it gives us only an approximation to the original (and that not a close one), as a rougher and less polished English, which gives the original as nearly as possible as it stands. Moreover, the change in the mode of presenting the matter to be communicated is a serious change, and without warrant.

When I read from Genesis i. to ii. 3 in the English Bible, I am as one listening to a narration; when I read the same portion in Hebrew, I am as one in the presence of God, the living God in action…Our authorized version, with its many words which have changed their meaning (some of them altogether) since it was written; with its many italic words, put in to make it like English; with its want of uniformity as to the use of the same word in English for the same word in the original (this last because of the king’s order, and with the view of showing the largeness of the English vocabulary, &c. &c.), is still (all that notwithstanding) a precious gift from God to the English people. But if it led the way, faith would follow on, through grace, to something better. –  George V. Wigram,  Examination of the Hebrew Bible as to the Structure and Idiom of the Language.

            {Source:  http://www.sedin.org/propeng/oldt_gen.htm  }

            Most translators, especially creationists, treat the concept of “day” and “evening and morning” in G1as literal.  This literal interpretation has led to enormous contradictions with established science that cannot be reconciled.  The problem is in the translations and the interpretations. The problem does not lie in the Hebrew.   If we make the effort choose the alternative Hebrew meanings of words to fit the context, then we find that there is no contradiction with natural science.

            Just as with the word yowm, the expression, evening and morning can have a non-literal meaning.  After having researched this subject probably more than any other Bible scholar – certainly in terms of trying to reconcile the Bible with natural history – I have concluded that this expression, “the evening and the morning” is an idiom which describes a phase.  Thus, day 1 is phase 1, day 2 is phase 2, etc.
This is not just idle speculation on my part.  Some Hebrew scholars have suggested the same idea:

            Some claim yôm attached to a number (i.e., ordinal, “first, second, third,” etc.) requires a 24-hour-day interpretation. However, Bible scholars dispute that. For example, noted Hebrew scholar Gleason L. Archer states the ordinal simply defines a symbolic unit of time and “serves as no real evidence for a literal 24 hour day concept on the part of the Biblical author.” Archer also points out that the days of creation do not bear a definite article in Hebrew (i.e., “the first day,” “the second day,” etc.). He states, “In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite… Thus they [the days of creation] are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time. –  The Days of Creation:
A Closer Look at Scripture, by Jon W. Greene

            G1 describes a sequence of phases of indeterminate length.

            The idea is similar to that of sowing and reaping, or beginning a project at a specific time and allowing the process to complete itself, like baking a cake.  The dough needs so much time to thoroughly bake before it can be taken out of the oven, cool off, spread the frosting on, and finally serve it to the guests.  Gathering the ingredients for the dough is the beginning of the phase.  The phase ends with a decorated cake.  This expression must be seen in the light of the Hebrew expression, “go out and come in” (Deut. 31:2 and 2 Chron. 1:10), which means “one’s daily activities,” or “one’s daily routine.”  In the case of Moses, it literally means, “I can no longer perform my every day duties as the leader of the children of Israel.”  Rather than take this expression, which I will call EM (acronym of “evening and morning”), as referring to any kind of literal evening or morning, EM must be taken to mean “beginning and ending,” or duration of a particular phase, from its inception to its completion.  Since there was no sunlight until the fourth “day,” the first three evenings and mornings cannot possibly be literal!  Certainly, there could not have been a setting or rising sun, by which these terms are defined!  And this would suggest that the other seven days are not literal either.  From this perspective, the imposition of the idea of 24-hour days is completely wrong.  It was an editorial decision made by an editorial board that was not qualified to make such decisions.

            Here is a commentary that shares my views on this expression, which will demonstrate that EM should not be taken literally.

            That the Hebrew word for “day,” yom, can mean a period of time other than 24 hours is abundantly evident.  In Genesis 2:4 we read, “In the day that the Lord god made the earth and heavens…” (RSV). “Day” here refers to all the creations days, whatever we believe about their length. In fact, any student of Scripture can find at least nine meanings of yom. (Perhaps the easiest way is to use a computerized word search.) While it does most often refer to a 24-hour period, it is also used to mean time, today, forever, continually, an age, a life span, and perpetuity.

            Perhaps the greatest obstacle to acceptance of the six creation days as long epochs is the “evening and morning” refrain framing each day’s creation events. In fact, I have often seen it argued in creationist literature that this expression seals the case for a 24-hour interpretation.But the argument simply does not hold, and the basis for my statement is the Bible itself, not some obscure linguistic reference.
            “Evening and morning” is an idiomatic expression in Semitic languages. Like all idioms, its meaning is nonliteral but clearly understood by native speakers. The phrase “evening and morning” can, like yom, denote a long and indefinite period. The Old Testament itself unambiguously uses the “evening and morning” phrase in just such a way. In Daniel 8 we read the account of Daniel’s ram and goat vision and the interpretation given by Gabriel. The vision covers many years; some commentators believe the time has not yet been completed. Daniel 8:26 says, “The vision of the evenings and the mornings that have been given to you is true, but seal up the vision for it concerns the distant future” (RSV). In Hebrew manuscripts, “the evenings and mornings,” is not in the plural but in the singular, identical to the expression we find in Genesis 1. Translated literally, the verse would read, “And the vision of the evening and the morning that has been given you.” Here we have a clear indication from scriptural usage that this phrase does not demand a 24-hour-day interpretation and can refer to an indefinite epoch.

            One might raise the objection that during the many years between the writing of Genesis and the writing of Daniel, the Hebrew usage could have changed, making the extrapolation from Daniel back to Genesis questionable. My response to such a challenge would be to underscore the stability of the ancient languages (perhaps due to the lack of general literacy and the rigorous professional training of those who served as scribes.) I see no way to escape this example of flexibility usage.

            The method and length of time God used to create the heavens and the earth and life cannot be stated with absolute certainty from science, but these are matters for scientific inquiry, not for dogma. If only I could remove from those Christians who struggle with it the sense of threat they feel when presented with the possibility of long days and an old earth. I know it is linked with their supposition that to accept the fossil record and its time scale is to concede the case for a radically materialistic worldview, i.e., nontheistic evolution. But this supposition is false. In fact, if Christians would cease to attack paleontologists and biologists (among others), the researchers themselves would be free to raise more questions about the validity of their theories rather than combining forces to fend off Christian attacks. Let’s not interfere with the investigative process. We Christians have everything to gain and nothing to lose from the advance of scientific discovery. For the God who speaks to us through His works of creation is the same God who speaks to us in the words of the Bible. – “How Long an Evening and a Morning?”  Dr. Otto J. Helweg.

            {Source:  http://www.leaderu.com/offices/o_helweg/eve-morn.html }

            Amen to that!!

            One more piece of grammatical evidence:

            Much of the confusion comes from the King James Version, which combines evening and morning together–“And the evening and the morning were the nth day.” As Collins notes, “Grammatically, the AV [Authorized King James Version] compresses the two events into a sum, namely, the evening plus the morning were a day.” This is incorrect. A more accurate translation is found in the NASB and ESV: “And there was evening and there was morning, the nth day.” Note the time period from “evening” to “morning” brackets only the night. As Collins states: “This means that any effort to find this as defining [24-hour] days runs counter to the author’s [Moses] own presentation.”

            In other words, Collins is saying that “evening and morning” only covers 12 hours, NOT 24 hours!!!       

            That “evening and morning” can be used to represent long periods of time is evident in Psalm 90, which is attributed to Moses, the writer of Genesis. In the Psalm, “morning” defines the beginning of life and “evening” the end of life. Thus, “morning and evening” brackets the entire human lifespan. As Hebrew scholar Gleason Archer states, “Concerning the recurring [evening and morning] formula at the end of each creative day… there were definite and distinct stages in God’s creational procedure… it serves as no real evidence for a literal twenty-four-hour day concept on the part of the biblical author. – From the Jon Greene article, cited above.

 {Source:  http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html }

             As I have been saying, EM is a metaphor for a phase, similar to “go out and come in.”  It is not to be taken literally.   Those who dogmatically reject the non-literal evidence from Scripture are taking a poor interpretation of His Word and forcing it to contradict His World.

AWDAWM

Another Hebrew word that shares a similar range of meanings with an English word is the word AWDAWM.  Just as the modern English wordman can mean the whole race, including both sexes, so can the Hebrew word awdawm mean the whole race, a portion thereof, or an individual Adamite, male or female.  Just as in the Bible, the word Adam can also be the proper name of a particular individual.

            Here, again, the KJV translators have established a false tradition, by which the Hebrew word awdawm is used to mean ALL RACES, when it can only mean that race which shows blood in the face.  This is probably the most glaring error that all creationists make, as none of them seem to be able to use a Strong’s Concordance, which clearly states that the meaning of the word is “TO SHOW BLOOD IN THE FACE.”  Also, there are many different Hebrew words which are translated as “man,” but the Hebrew words do not mean “man” in the sense of “all races.”  For example, IYSH means “mortal man.”  The IYSH does not specify whether the mortal shows blood in the face or not, so IYSH can mean a mortal of any race; and that is how the Bible uses the term.  The word iysh can also mean the male of ANY SPECIES.  To wit:  Gen. 7:2:

            Of every clean ²⁸⁸⁹ beast ⁹²⁹ thou shalt take ³⁹⁴⁷ to thee by sevens ^{7651 7651}, the male ³⁷⁶ and his female ⁸⁰²: and of beasts ⁹²⁹ that [are] not clean ^{2889 1931} by two ⁸¹⁴⁷, the male ³⁷⁶ and his female ⁸⁰².

            The two “males” (Strong’s 376, iysh) in this verse are definitely NOT humanoid, as they are of the clean and unclean beasts that were taken into the ark of Noah.  Again, contrast this with the word, awdawm, which can only mean that race which shows blood in the face.  The Bible is a history book about that race.  (Gen. 5:1)

            Since the race-mixers of this world want to argue that all races “came from Adam,” they want to justify their dogma with a false interpretation of Scripture.  By failing to use the same sense as the Hebrew, the KJV translators can preach universalism.  But this cannot be done if you stick to the Hebrew meanings of the words.  If Yahweh wanted all of the races to mix together, why where they ever separated?  Can some Creationist answer this question?

            The reality is that each of the races was created separately, in a particular habitat; and each race developed in that particular habitat until the White Race began its exploratory dispensation, as described in G10.  The Amerindians of South America are completely different from the Black Africans are completely different from the Mongoloids of Asia are completely different from the White Race.  That’s racial reality.  In OT times, no mingling of these different types of seed ever occurred on a major scale, except with the Canaanites of Scripture.  When such mingling did occur, it was because one or the other race wandered out of its original habitat.   The Israelites, who were unmixed Adamites, were absolutely forbidden from intermarrying with the Canaanites (Deut. 7:3, ref. 2 Cor. 10:6.)  There is no evidence that, in Old Testament times, that the Blacks, Amerindians, or Mongoloids ever wandered out their original habitat.  If they did, there was a war!  The fossil evidence of these respective races exists in their original habitat well before the Garden story.  Nor is there a single piece of evidence that any evolutionary changes have taken place in these distinct races in the last 12,000 years.

            White explorers had to first discover the existence of Blacks in Africa and Amerinds in America.  Then the imperialism of the Catholic (universalist) Church sent missionaries to convert them by the sword; and then Jews and Muslims used them as slaves.  This is how the races began to be intermingled.  There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that all races emerged from a single pair of hominids.  That is pure, unscientific fiction, which is taught as dogma by both the creationists and the evolutionists.   They are more alike than they are different.  Their dogmas vary only with the amount of time involved in the evolution.  Evolutionists require millions of years for their evolutionary steps, while the creationists say it all happened in seven literal days.  Then, in addition, the creationists say that it all happened again after Noah’s Flood, when all of these totally destroyed habitats were somehow repopulated by the same exact species that were there before.

            The most succinct way that I can put this situation is this:  Evolutionism is NOT scientific, and creationism is NOT Scriptural.  You can take that to the bank and let it collect interest!!!

Awdawm in Genesis 1

The best way to understand the different usages of the word awdawm in Genesis 1 & 2 is this:  In G1:26-27, the Bible is describing the creation (BARA) of the Adamic Race, male and female together, not Adam first and Eve second.  Scripture does not deal with Adam and Eve as individuals until G2, AFTER the yowm of rest.  In G2, the word FORMED (yatsar) is used of Adam and Eve, since their species has already been created in G1.

            At G1:26, we are informed, “Let US make MAN (Awdawm, generic for the race, male and female) in OUR image.”  Here we have a plural US for Elohim, with the collective noun MAN, for the race, and the plural pronoun OUR, designating the Elohim.   Just as all of the other living creatures of Genesis had to be created both sexes at the same time, so they could immediately reproduce, the Adamic Race was created both sexes at the same time, so they also could immediately reproduce.  It is NOT the case, as Finck and Emahiser maintain, that G1:26 is referring to the individual man, Adam.  G1:26 is clearly referring to the species, just as the words “after their kind” (plural) refer to the various species in the previous verses of G1.

            The rest of G1:26 treats Awdawm in the plural, not singular.

            Although G1:27 treats Elohim as a collective singular, it still treats awdawm as a plural:  “…in the image of Elohim created He THEM; MALE AND FEMALE created (bara) He THEM.  Both the grammar and the positing of both sexes prove the point.

            G5:1-2 states:  “in the day (yowm) that Elohim created (bara) awdawm, Male and female He created (bara) them (plural); and blessedthem (plural), and called their (plural) name ADAM (awdawm), in the day (yowm) when they (plural) were created (bara).   G5 is here referring back to G1.  This verse proves again that the word awdawm in G1 is applied to BOTH male and female in the yowm that the White Race was created.  THEIR NAME is ADAM.  As with the English word man, here we have the generic use of the word awdawm applied to the species, not to an individual.  We will see in Genesis 2, the Hebrew words surrounding the individual man, Adam, and the individual woman, Eve, are quite different in their usage.

            In addition, Yahshua gives us confirming evidence that G1:26 is a reference to the Race, and not to the single individual, Adam.  Matthew 19:4-5:

            Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

            Mark 10:6-7: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

            So, FROM THE BEGINNING, they were MALE AND FEMALE, not male first and female second, as many people falsely believe, because of the scenario in G2 and because of the confusion concerning the word man in G1 and G2.  Finck and Emahiser have convinced themselves of this false belief as well.

            Here is another precept that you can take to the bank and collect interest on:  G:1:26 describes the creation of the Race, but G2:7-25 describes the selection of two individuals, one male, one female, of that race, for a special FORMATION (yatsar) that did not take place until AFTER the seventh yowm, the yowm of rest.

            Bertrand Comparet agrees that G1 is about the Race and that G2 is about the individuals in the Garden:

             …the Bible tells us about the creation of men, in the plural, in Genesis 1:26-28, saying “Male and female created He THEM” (1:27), and God told these people, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth” (1:28)…In the next chapter, Genesis 2, we find THE ADAM (in the singular) created.  The Hebrew word, “aw-dawm” (rendered “Adam” in English) is from a root word meaning “to show blood in the face” or “of a ruddy complexion,” a word obviously not applicable to the dark races, which we also know from scientific evidence to be much older than the white Race. – Adam Was Not the First Man.

            There is no possibility that the stories of G1 and G2 are contemporaneous.  They were told to be fruitful and multiply BEFORE the Garden events.  Both the Hebrew language and the logical sequence of events prove conclusively that they are in chronological order, not an assemblage of contemporaneous events.  In fact, G2 would thus be the only chapter of Pentateuch which would not be in chronological order.  G1 is about the creation of the various species that exist on the entire planet.  The subject matter of G2 is localized to the Garden of Eden, after all of these species are in existence.

            In essence, those, who argue that the male of our species was created before the female of our species, have not paid attention to the Hebrew grammar, nor the order of events.

Genesis 2:7-25

Without consulting the Concordances and Hebrew language commentaries, it is impossible to make sense of Genesis 1 & 2.  By making this effort, we see how horribly the KJV has mangled the text.  This is very unfortunately true.  However, the KJV translators cannot be faulted for this, as they did not have the wealth of information about history and pre-history that we do now.  As I have stated previously, the KJV is the Flat Earth Society version of Scripture.  We saw that in G1, the translators were unable to deal with the idiomatic usage of the Hebrew; and we saw that they had to make editorial decisions about the meanings of critical Hebrew terms, such as “man,” “day,” and “evening and morning.”  Since they had no knowledge of archeology and geology, the idea of translating YOWM as EON never occurred to them.  But the creationists have no excuse!!!

            Here is Arnold Kennedy’s view of the subject:

            In Genesis chapters one and two we have Adam mentioned in the Masoretic Text, but not in the Greek Septuagint of Genesis One. Scholars may not agree but early translators, including the KJV, indicate plural in Genesis chapter one and chapter 5:2, but singular in chapter two. Even ignoring this, we have a man and a woman [‘them”] being created [bara ‘] in Gen.1 before the ‘Adam [singular] who was formed [yatsar] in Gen.2. “Created” and “formed” have differing meanings. We cannot remain honest if we try to say that “created’ = bara is the same as “formed”= yatsar. [The same goes for plasso and ktizo in the New Testament].

            From the sequence alone there is no way Genesis 2 could be a re-run of Genesis 1. On a weight of evidence basis, there is more to say that Adam [as we use the word] was the first spiritual man, but not the first biological man. In other words, God took one man from Genesis 1 and breathed into him the breath of life. “And man became a living soul”-[Genesis 2:7]. The word “became” is consistently used in a manner showing the subject became something that it had not been before. [This individual man became something that he was not previously.  He was changedinto something new and different.  We will discuss what the differences are later.  – Eli]  Eve was the “mother of all living” with God’s breath, not of the others. This indicates that there are those with the Spirit, and those “having not the Spirit”-[Jude v19]. The latter is the “natural man” who “cannot receive the things of God”-[1Cor.2:14], but he may become very religious. What we believe about these issues in Genesis conditions what we believe right through the Bible. From this we can see that there is no problem about where Cain found a wife; it was from amongst those who were not ‘living souls’.

            Because trees as trees cannot have the knowledge of good and evil, the trees in the Garden of Eden are shown to represent human family trees. We can see this through Scripture in such places as Ezekiel 31,“Behold the Assyrian was a cedar in Lebanon….” Then it talks about, “All the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God envied him”, thus relating this back to the Garden of Eden. These were the nations in the garden that the Adam who had become a ‘living soul’ was to cultivate or supervise. Without discussing what “Satan” as the “Enchanter” or “Serpent” means, we can see a seduction of Adam, through Eve, to divert to another purpose instead. We are not discussing here if Cain was a sexual product of this seduction. We find both “the seed of the woman” and “the seed of the serpent”, and as it was then, so it is today, with one seed hating the other and in no way have they now become the same. That is why Jesus could say of the Edomite leaders of the Judean nation, “Ye are of your father the devil”. Adam comes from a root word meaning “showing red in the face” or “of a ruddy complexion”, a description of part of the white race. Even today the serpent is attempting to reduce this seed by racial intermarriage, and to eliminate it by other means. The Churches have been seduced into believing that all races are the same in God’s sight.

            It is popular today to say that all cultures are God given and thus that God can be worshipped within any cultural form. But, in the Bible, God’s people are instructed, “Learn not the way of the heathen”. The word ‘way’ is given by Strong as “a course of life or mode of action”. This then is a matter of culture that God’s people are not to learn. There are many examples in Scripture about Israel practising the ways and culture of the heathen following association with them, “according to the abominations of the heathen which the Lord cast out from before the Children of Israel”-[2 Kings 16:3 and 17:8]. As it is the Lord who did the ‘casting out’, there is no excuse for any re-association with either the people or the culture. Further on in 2 Kings 17:15, this is connected with rejecting the covenant made with “the fathers”. Rejection of the covenant means being cut off from the covenant. Esau did the same thing, and we are warned in the New Testament, “Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person as Esau”-[Heb12:16]. The profanity is crossing a threshold or doorway according to Strong.  [Kennedy is referring to race-mixing here. – Eli] It is popular doctrine today to open such a door and to encourage God’s people to go through it. It is not difficult to follow the pattern of God’s judgement following racial mixture through Scripture, but this is encouraged both within and without the ‘Church”. Thus it can be seen that any apparent break-through following years of faithful missionary activity is only an apparent breakthrough. The valid missionary activity is teaching the laws of God and bringing the other peoples into subjection.  –  Source:  “Race in the Creation Story of Genesis,” by Arnold Kennedy.

http://www.israelect.com/reference/ArnoldKennedy/’Race’%20in%20the%20Creation%20Story%20of%20Genesis.pdf

            We can see from Kennedy’s analysis that he recognizes several facts from the Hebrew:

            1.  That awdawm in G1 is plural, not singular.

            2.  That awdawm in G2 is singular, not plural.

            3.  That awdawm (Adamic race) in G1 was CREATED (bara).

            4.  That Adam, an individual male of the already existing Adamic species created in G1, was FORMED (yatsar) in G2.

            5.  That because of these obvious differences in the language of the Hebrew, G2 cannot be speaking of the same events depicted in G1.  (I would also add that G1 is speaking of planetary happenings.  G2 is speaking only of the events in the Garden.)

            6.  That at least one of the “trees” of the Garden was another species of humanoid, since literal trees do not have any knowledge of good and evil, and because literal trees cannot envy.

            7.  That the Bible clearly differentiates between the genealogies of Cain and Seth.  Most Judeo-Christian theologians scrupulously avoid the study of the separate and distinct genealogies of the Adamites versus the Kenites/Canaanites/Edomites.

            8.  That the Adamites are commanded to remain separate from the “heathen,” who are of the wrong genealogy (seedline, or seedlines).

            9.  That those of Adam’s genealogical descent are to take dominion over the other races, even today.  (Gen. 1:28)

            10.  That the sequence of events described in G1 and G2 are in chronological order, not contemporaneous.

            Had Adam and Eve not sinned, planetary civilization would have developed according to the dominion mandate given in G1:28.  Their sinless offspring would have contained the in-breathed spirit that would have expanded this benevolent dominion to the rest of the planet.  Actually, this particular genealogy (the White Race) did, in fact, progress to the point of having dominion over the entire world.  But, this dominion could not succeed because we are still in our fallen state.   Also, the White Race has given up this dominion because of the intense brainwashing campaigns of the Jews (Edomites and Khazars) and the Judeo churches.  This factor is in fulfillment of the prophecy by Isaac made to Esau that the time would come when Esau’s descendants would have dominion over the descendants of Jacob Israel.  (G27:30-40.)

            Here is Bertrand Comparet’s summation of our fallen state, and why we are having to live through all of this tribulation:

            Adam was told, “Now don’t you get mixed up with these pre-Adamic races who have evil so ingrained in them that you are not going to be able to lift them out of

it; they will make you like one of them. You are here to have good only, and not evil, in your character and your conduct.” Then he let himself be persuaded by Satan that the way to have power in this world and rule, you had to get down off your pedestal and mingle with these people and learn their ways and out-smart them, and you had to be more clever, more crooked than they were. Until, what was the result? Satan, who had been the superintendent of this planet and probably some others, was deposed because he disobeyed God, he rebelled against God. Well, what did Adam do? He did the same thing.

            So Adam forfeited that position of rulership over the world which had been given to him. Now we are his descendants and we act the same way. When you see a sign on the wall, “Fresh Paint,” you have to go up and touch it with your finger to see if it really is fresh. We have to learn everything the hard way, just as Adam did,

            So we are being given a period of testing to see what our own character is and to let us learn by bitter experience that the evil is not to be monkeyed with.  When we come back in the resurrection and God says “Now don’t do this,” we are going to understand thoroughly what He is talking about and we are not going to think that we are smarter than He is. – “Merchants of Babylon,” by Bertrand Comparet.

            I couldn’t have said it better myself!

            Those who have discernment can see that everything that the White (Adamic) Race has built in the last six thousand years has recently been usurped by the descendants of Esau.  Adamic civilization is being destroyed before our very eyes because Jewish money has perverted Christian civilization.  This dominion of Esau is also depicted as the “little season” during which the descendants of Esau rule the world by deception under the dual dictatorship of Zionism and communism in these last days.  (Rev. 20:3.)  The thousand years spoken of in that verse are NOT a reference to a future time.  They are a reference to the Holy Roman Empire, which had kept Mystery Babylon in check by keeping the Jews in the ghettoes.  The HRE lasted from 800 AD to 1800 AD.  It was during this time that the popes crowned the kings of the empire.  Even though this empire persecuted the Saints, it held the Canaanite/Edomite seedline in check by keeping them confined to the ghettoes and by forbidding usury.  It was not until Napoleon’s armies liberated the Jews from the ghettoes that Jewish deception was able to take dominion over Christian (Adamic) civilization.

            Because the Judeo churches have rejected the teachings of the Old Testament, they are not able to see the connection between Isaac’s prophecy to Esau and its fulfillment in the current Jewish dispensation.

Genesis, Chapter 2:  Adam, the Gardener, Botanist, and Farmer

For a general overview of the difference between the Mesolithic and Neolithic eras, here is a good summary:

            The transition from hunting to farming in central Europe has long been a source of fascination to many archaeologists and others interested in the past. Agriculture—the domestication of both plants such as wheat and barley and animals such as goats and cattle—was invented in the Near East and Southeast Anatolia, about 8500 BC. The movement of these goods over the next three thousand years has been traced into Iran and Iraq, Pakistan and Turkmenistan; the last by about 6000 BC. The plants, animals and the people who brought them arrived in central Europe about 5500 BC, when the culture archaeologists have named Linearbandkeramik (LBK) first appeared in what is today Hungary and Slovakia.

            One of the most interesting debates about the spread of agriculture into this region was whether the LBK were farmers descended from people from the Fertile Crescent, or European Mesolithic hunter-gatherers who merely adopted the new technology, or a little of both. – From Hunting to Farming. {Source: http://archaeology.about.com/od/historyofagriculture/ss/hunting_farming.htm }

            Up to the time of Adam, agriculture was a small scale enterprise, limited to areas where wild grain and fruit could be easily harvested.  Whether or not there was organized planting of seeds is hard to say, but such communities, in order thrive in one location, had to have abundant food in that locale.  For thousands of years before Adam was born, towns and villages would spring up where such activity could sustain a small population.  But feeding herds of sheep and cattle required driving them around the countryside, in search of food.  Aside from this type of transitional settlement, the domestication of such animals was still in the nomadic stage.  The Blacks of Africa were still in this stage when they were rediscovered by White explorers.  This type of culture can only sustain small towns and villages, not cities.  Organized agriculture is required to sustain larger populations.  It was the invention of the plow that made large-scale farming possible.  So far, the earliest known archeological evidence of the plow dates to after Noah’s Flood, around 2,500 BC.

            The transition from the hunter-gatherer period to organized farming is clearly depicted from G1:29-30 to G2:5, where we are told that “there was no awdawm to till the ground.”  This means that there was, as yet, no Adamite that had the skill of farming.  The Adamites were already in existence, but none of them knew how till the earth.  If Adam invented the plow, we have no evidence for it. I suspect that Adam was taught to “till” with other instruments, such as a shovel or a hoe.  Now, pay very close attention to what these archeologists have to say about the transition from the Mesolithic (hunter-gatherer) culture to the Neolithic (agricultural) culture that followed:

            New evidence from the Belgian coastal lowlands presented by Crombé et al. (2002) indicates that key changes in microlithic armature technology coincided with the adoption of early ceramics by final Mesolithic hunter-gatherers at the site of Doel in the lower Schelde valley.These lithic changes are sufficiently diagnostic to differentiate the Doel assemblage from previous Late Mesolithic assemblages. No indications of economic activity other than that of hunter-gatherer type were associated with these finds, however, with no signs of domestication or cultivation. The final Mesolithic data from Doel were interpreted as evidence of indigenous late hunter-gatherers changing in response to contact with the earliest elements of neolithicization, well before the arrival of the fully Neolithic local Michelsberg culture. Crombé et al. (2002) compare the changes in the lithic tradition with similar final Mesolithic lithic changes elsewhere along the north-west European seaboard and consider them, together with early ceramic use, to be part of the first influence of Neolithic culture and the beginning of the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in this part of north-west Europe. Two radiocarbon dates for this changing final Mesolithic of 5980±35BP and 5835±35BP (uncalibrated) give a time context for this culture change and Crombé et al. (2002) draw attention to research in other coastal regions of the Baltic and North Sea which suggests that a similar shift in culture occurred within the same time period over much of the coastal lowlands of the region. They also suggest that acculturation of local hunter-gatherer groups was the main process in this change, through contact with and influence from more neolithicized communities.  –  The Start of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe – the Palynological Contribution, by Jim Innes, Jeff Blackford & Peter Rowley-Conwy.  {Source: http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/blackford297/  }

            From this brief analysis we can deduce several things:

            1.)  The transition from the hunter-gatherer period happened at the exact time that Bible says it did, circa 6,000 BC.

            2.)  There were Adamic men living along the western coast of Europe at this time, with the archeological evidence going all the way back to the last Ice Age, 11,000 BC.  They were hunter-gatherers, not farmers.

            3.)  There is no mention of this Ice Age in the Bible.  The creationists cannot explain the moraine evidence of this Ice Age, as they argue that Noah’s Flood deposited sediment over all the planet.  This would have obliterated the moraines.

            4.)  This transition began with the White Race, as only Caucasoids were living in Europe at this time.

            5.)  The Neolithic (farming) culture on the European shore was introduced from elsewhere, probably from Mesopotamia, where Adam and Eve lived.

             If we ignore archeology and geology, we cannot understand the Bible.  When we endeavor to understand the Hebrew, we find that it is in perfect accord with the natural progression from the hunter-gatherer phase to the agricultural phase.  It is also in agreement with the geological record, which demonstrates a very old earth, previous to the Garden.

            Therefore, the Bible is true and every creationist is a liar.

The Recapitulation Hypothesis of William Finck and Clifton Emahiser

The recapitulation hypothesis (RH) of Finck and Emahiser fails to account for the existence of pre-Adamic Whites before 5,000 BC, because it asserts that G1:26-30 and G2 are contemporaneous events, all supposedly occurring within the sixth “day,” with no yowm of rest in between.   I will now critique their recapitulation thesis, taking into consideration all that has been said up to now.

            1.  Their RH exists in a vacuum that fails to recognize natural history.  They fail to accept the existence of the other races as the “beast of the earth” in G1:24-25.  They, especially Emahiser, unequivocally assert that the “beast of the earth” in G1 is merely a “wild animal.”  I have shown in BoF that this idea is totally contradicted by the way in which both CHAY and BEHEMAH are used in Scripture.  In both cases, these words are often used to depict humanoids, as in Jonah 3:8, where these behema creatures have hands and feet, vocal chords, and are capable of praying to Elohim and wearing the sackcloth symbolic of repentance.  All of this would be quite a feat for a four-legged animal, or even a monkey!!  I also cited several instances where the word CHAY refers to two-legged animals.  {Ref.  “Beast of the Field,”  http://anglo-saxonisrael.com/site/beastofthefield }

            2.  The RH fails to account for the plurality of Adamites, as demanded by the plural pronouns of G1:26-30.  As I have argued, these are the Cro-Magnon Whites well known to archeologists.  After I published BoF, Clifton Emahiser  acknowledged the pre-existence of Cro-Magnon man, but that still puts him in the untenable position of having to argue that these Cro-Magnon Whites were also hybrids of the fallen angels, since he does not recognize the possibility that any of the other races were created by Elohim.

            Finck & Emahiser (F&E) categorically deny the plurality of the Adamic Race in G1.  This means that they only recognize the existence of one man, Adam, in G1. This can only mean that the individual man, Adam, in G2, is the same as the Adam in G1.  F&E make this point many times.  It is the very dogma upon which their whole RH argument rests.  Both the Hebrew and natural history prove that they are wrong, as the Adamic race most certainly existed in the hunter-gatherer, Cro-Magnon phase before Adam became the first farmer of this race.

            3.  The RH utterly fails to account for the thousands of years that this hunter-gatherer period lasted.  I maintain that this period is depicted in G1:28-30.  Kennedy, Comparet and I have argued that G1 can only refer to the plurality of Adamites of the Mesolithic period.  I have also argued that these are the White Race known to archeologists as Cro-Magnon.  This is the parent race of Adam and Eve.  To be specific, Adam and Eve each had physical parents of the Cro-Magnon Race before being placed into the Garden.  The above article by Innes, et al, proves that the White Race was already in northwest Europe, as HUNTER-GATHERERS, before the Neolithic era.  This fact is in perfect accord with G1:28-30.  The most the RH argument can say in this regard is that the individual man, Adam (G1:26) was a hunter-gatherer before he became a farmer.   But Adam only lived for 930 years!  (Gen. 5:3-4)  If this is the case, then who were all these far-flung hunter-gatherers who existed many thousands of years before the Garden episode?  Their presence is documented all over Europe, from the time of the receding glaciers of the last Ice Age.  How can the history of Mesolithic man be ignored?  Furthermore, the transition period occurred in the same race, with Adam being the one most responsible for the transition!  (See the Appendix about Kennewick man, discussing the evidence for Caucasians in America as early as 10,000 BC.)

            With the exception of the creationists, all chroniclers agree that this Ice Age ended around 10,500 BC.  F&E’s thesis demands that no Adamite can have existed BEFORE the Garden, since G1 and G2 are supposedly contemporaneous!  By their own logic, this episode can be dated no earlier than 5,000 BC.  But this transition clearly happened within the White Race, whose ancestors can be traced back to the last Ice Age, if not earlier!  Because their thesis exists in a vacuum that disregards natural history, it is nothing but silly dogma, just as silly as the idea that all races came from Adam and Eve.

            4.   In order to justify their Recapitulation Hypothesis, F&E must argue that there was NO DAY OF REST.  They simply deny that G2:2-3 means what it says.  Finck has specifically argued that Yahweh is STILL RESTING!  I’m sorry, but this is an absurd doctrine, as I will now show.

Genesis 2:1-4, Yahweh’s Sabbath

The fact is that these verses clearly depict the seventh day as over and done with:  “and He rested (past tense) on the seventh day from all His work which He had made (past perfect tense).”  – Verse 2.  Verse 3 provides a double witness of this fact.  The Seventh Day was a YOWM in the same sense as the previous six yowms.  They were eons that are now past history.

            When establishing the seven-day Sabbath cycle, Yahweh uses the seven yowms of the creation week as the historically completed pattern for the basis of the Sabbath cycle.  Had this pattern not been completed, it could not be used as a pattern, since Yahweh would still be resting!  Observe:

            Exodus 20:10-11: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

            This pericope clearly treats the seventh day of creation as past history, just as it treats the other six days as past history.  Exodus 31:17provides a second witness: It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.

            The idea that Yahweh is still resting is ludicrous.  When I broke with Finck and Emahiser over their unscriptural RH doctrine, Finck tried to argue that Paul teaches that Yahweh is still resting.   He cites Hebrews 4:4-10 as the justification for this doctrine.

            For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. [Notice that this verse still refers to the Day of Rest in the past tense.  “Did rest” is hardly the same as “is resting”!!!!]  And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.   [Here, Finck makes the mistake of assuming that “my rest” means “I am still resting.”  On the contrary, it simply means that HIS REST is a state that we need to achieve.  There is here no assertion that Yahweh is still resting. Also, we have already seen that Yahweh only rested from BARA.  He has not rested from YATSAR.]  Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. [The context here is clearly that we have not yet been given OUR ULTIMATE REST, that being deliverance from persecution by our enemies.]  There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. (Still past tense!)

            There is NO WAY that this passage can be used to assert that Yahweh is still resting, as that would be in direct contradiction of the Old Testament teachings on this subject and the obvious past tense expressions used here by Paul.  Paul is simply saying that, as Yahweh rested from his work of creation, we will ultimately enter into our rest of freedom from tribulation.  Yahweh’s rest is an accomplished reality.  Ours is not yet manifest.

            From the Geneva Study Bible,

             For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world… the apostle shows that there are two types of rest spoken of in the scriptures: one being the seventh day, in which God is said to have rested from all his works, the other is said to be the rest into which Joshua led the people. This rest is not the last rest to which we are called, proven through two reasons. David long after, speaking to the people which were then placed in the land of Canaan, uses these words today and threatens them still that they will not enter into the rest of God if they refuse the voice of God that sounded in their ears. We must say that he meant another time than that of Moses, and another rest than the land of Canaan. That rest is the everlasting rest, in which we begin to live to God, after the race of this life ceases. God rested the seventh day from his works, that is to say, from making the world. Moreover the apostle signifies that the way to this rest, which Moses and the land of Canaan, and all the order of the Law foreshadowed, is revealed in the Gospel only.

            It is also quite obvious from Scripture that Yahweh rested from BARA, that is, creation.  He did not rest from YATSAR, or formation.  F&E assert that there is no difference in the meaning of these two terms.  Arnold Kennedy and I have pointed out that this is not the case, as only Yahweh performs BARA.  But anyone can perform YATSAR.  In Scripture, all instances of the verb bara have Yahweh as the subject.  This is not true of yatsar.  Gen. 2:1-4 is telling us that Yahweh rested from the work of creation.   Formation is another matter entirely, as it concerns molding and shaping the material that was created in G1. 

            Instead of asserting that Yahweh is still resting, the Bible tells us that He is, in fact, STILL WORKING at yatsar, that is, forming and maintaining the extant universe.

            Yahshua Himself asserts this.  John 5:16-18:

            And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

            Divinity does not need the type of rest that our bodies and minds need.  There is no more need to create.  Creation is past history.  The current work consists of sustaining that which was created in the six days.  The fact that Yahweh is still working, and has continued to work after He rested from the six days of creation, is confirmed in numerous passages of Scripture.  For example, Job 33:28-30:  He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light. Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man, to bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living.

            Other passages that confirm the fact that Yahweh is WORKING and NOT RESTING are Daniel 6:27; I Cor. 12:6, 11; I Cor. 16:10; Gal. 3:5.  Indeed, if Yahweh were not actively working in us, we would be a hopeless creature.

            If Yahweh is indeed resting, as F&E assert, then He is doing no work in them.  I know that they are teaching false doctrine, because without His work in us, we have no hope that His promises will be fulfilled.

            This is just another example of the illogical extremes that F&E have to go to in order to justify their feeble Recapitulation Hypothesis.    

            There is no doubt that Yahweh RESTED from the work of creation on the Seventh Yowm.  G2:1-4 asserts this no less than three times.  Exodus uses this PAST EVENT as the basis of our Sabbath rest.  And Paul does not contradict this teaching in any way.  There is not a single verse in which Paul states that “Yahweh is still resting.”  This is Finck’s contrived interpretation, which does not fit any facts.  Paul asserts the exact opposite in the other passages just cited, which confirm that Yahweh is WORKING, not resting.

            Finck’s assertion is a total abuse of the context of Hebrews 4:4-10, which concerns rest from tribulation, which is something Yahweh does not experience in Himself, as He is above and beyond such human feelings.  I would not hesitate to say, however, that He experiences our pain vicariously, as He most certainly works in us in order to remove our pain.  His current work is our ultimate rest.

            It is astounding that one who knows Greek so well can adamantly insist that the past tense is the present tense.  Amazing!  But this is what happens when you try make the Bible say what you believe (eisegesis) versus letting the Bible speak for itself (exegesis).  The fact is that F&E have to ignore the true meanings of many Hebrew words.  Among these are CHAY, BEHEMAH, BARA, YATSAR, and SABBATH.

            But wait!  It gets even worse for their dubious doctrine in Genesis, Chapter 2, when we find out that we are here dealing with individuals, not the species.

Genesis 2: 5-25.

            After Yahweh rested from the work of bara, which was completed in six yowms, we now find ourselves in the following circumstance:  There were no Adamites who had the knowledge of agriculture.  “…not a man [awdawm] to till the ground.”  The indefinite article a, placed beforeawdawm, clearly posits a single individual.  Given the plurality of the Adamites in G1, the grammatical construction of this verse indicates that there were MEN, but none of them yet knew how to farm.  Since the hunter-gatherer, Cro-magnons did not have this ability, Yahweh decided to teach one of them how to do it.  The existence of the other races is covered by Gen. 1:24-25.  My article, BoF, goes to great lengths, documenting from Scripture, the passages where “beast of the earth” and “beast of the field” are depicted as hominids.  To the extent that these pre-historic tribes of different races encountered each other, it is obvious that they made war against each other.  This is why Neanderthal man became extinct.  They were extinguished by Cro-Magnon man.  No doubt, Cro-Magnon considered Neanderthal to be a “wild animal.”  One of them had to go!  Just as Cro-Magnon could not interbreed with Neanderthal man without losing his Cro-Magnon characteristics, we Adamites cannot do so either.  The dominion mandate demands that we maintain our racial purity.

            The language of G2:5-25 asserts that various changes were made to Adamic man, in the person of Adam.  Let us consider Verse 7:  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. 

            Now, there are two ways to take this verse.  First, it can be a reference back to G1, where the species was created.  Here, there is additional information being provided, namely, that Adamkind’s physical bodies were/are made of the same materials that are found in the ground.  Since this is true of all physical bodies, no matter what the species, it is true of every creature that was created in G1.  If it is a reference back to G1, then we are also informed that Adamkind, as a whole, had a specific in-breathing take place.

            In contrast, if we take Verse 7 to be a reference exclusively to THE MAN ADAM, then we have only one person being so treated.  This second interpretation would be justified by the contents of Verse 8, which state that the Adamite so formed was then placed in the Garden.  So, Verses 7 & 8, taken together, would suggest a singular reading.  Verse 15, which picks up the story of THE MAN, Adam, after the four rivers digression, also asserts the singular Adam.

            Verse 7 tells us that Yahweh Elohim FORMED Adam.  Since forming things is a type of work, it shows that Ywhweh is not resting in the Garden.  Here again, the doctrine that Yahweh is still resting is contradicted, as it is in Verse 8, which tells us that Yahweh PLANTED a garden after the Seventh Yowm.  More work.  But this time it is YATSAR WORK, not BARA WORK (G1).  No bara work takes place in G2.

            Verse 8 tells us a whole lot more, as it describes the fact that Yahweh for the first time planted a Garden.  There is no mention of any gardens in G1.  Into this Garden “He put THE MAN (very specific, emphatic singular, with the definite article THE).  This is the difference that Arnold Kennedy and I have been stressing, namely that G1 is about Man, the species, and that G2 concerns the individual person, Adam.  There is simply no doubt about this, as we allow the context of the narrative to explain itself.

            Thomas A Davies, in his book, Genesis Disclosed, insists that the Hebrew text of G7 is also singular, but that the KJV translators chose not to translate it in this way.

            His translation is: And the lord God formed THE ADAM (By translators, man) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and THE ADAM (By translators, man) became a living soul.  If he is correct about this, then this fact would clear up any confusion about singularity versus plurality.  Nevertheless, Verse 8 treats Adam as an individual, so the inconsistency of number is not affected in Verse 8.

            After the story about the four rivers, we continue the context of a single individual, THE MAN ADAM.  Verse 15 confirms the fact that this individual was placed into the Garden.  Verse 8 told us the same thing.  In other words, our patriarch, Adam, was already living somewhere on this earth BEFORE he was placed into the Garden.  This is perfectly consistent with the Chronological Account.  He was neither created nor formed within the garden.  Both of those events happened BEFORE he was placed into the Garden.  There is no mention of this Garden in G1.  This individual man was told to dress and keep the Garden, not necessarily the whole planet.  This verse is very specifically telling us that Yahweh was teaching Adam how to be a gardener.

            The rest of our Race, still living outside of this Garden, from where and which Adam came, was still dwelling in hunter-gatherer bliss.  Verses 8 and 15 are witnesses to the fact that this individual was already alive and was put INTO this Garden.  G3:23 is a third witness, where we are told that, after Adam sinned, he was expelled back out into the territory “FROM WHERE HE WAS TAKEN.”

            This means that Adam was already alive and well, living somewhere outside of this Garden, in that world which was created in G1.  Since the plurality has turned into a singularity, it can only mean that Adam had Cro-Magnon parents, of the Adamic species.  Verses 7, 8 and 15 are telling us that, at some point in this individual’s life, Yahweh selected him from among all of the other Cro-Magnon Whites who were already living.  All of archeology confirms that Cro-Magnon Whites were living many thousands of years before the events in the Garden of Eden.  There is no reason to suppose that Adam was not an individual of that race.

            With respect to the word, garden [Hebrew, gan], Gesenius’ Hebrew lexicon tells us that the general meaning of this word is “a garden, especially one planted with trees (prop., a place protected with a fence).”  From this, there can be no doubt that this gan was a place protected from the rest of creation, prepared for the introduction of Adam, as Adam had also been selected by Yahweh to reside there.

            Verse 16 uses the word tree [Hebrew, ets] in the literal sense.  The literal sense is apple trees, pear trees, peach trees, olive trees, etc.  After all, this IS a garden.

            Verse 17, however, uses the word ets in the figurative sense of human, or hominid “trees,” as Arnold Kennedy proves in his study of this subject, quoted above.  There is no shortage of Bible verses in which nations are referred to as “trees”.  In the book of Ezekiel, the nation of Assyria is described as a great “cedar.”  David is described as a “rod” and a “branch,” while his father, Jesse, is described as a “stem” and “root.” And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. – Isa. 11:1.  See also Job 18:16 and 29:19.

            From this usage, we can easily see that the word ets meant the family trees of humans as well as any other tree.  And, in my opinion, this sense is not even idiomatic in the Hebrew.  It should be part of the definition of the Hebrew word ets, (#6086).  Although Strong’s Concordance does not list any meaning besides wood, ets is used so often for humans that its figurative meaning is almost as common as its literal meaning.  As used in Isa. 11:1, and in many other places, this is how the Hebrew word was used.    It means the genealogical descent of any particular organism, plant or animal.   Today, we know that each specific life form, which has its seed WITHIN ITSELF (Gen. 1:11 and 12), reproduces AFTER ITS OWN KIND (Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25).  G1 & 2 are speaking of DNA.  There is no doubt about this.  While G1 speaks of the creation of specific life forms, G2:15-16 is speaking of the domestication of specific life forms.

            The tree of Verse 17 cannot possibly be a plant, as no plants have knowledge of good and evil.  Only humanoid trees have such knowledge.  The figurative usage of the Hebrew word, ets, is quite obvious here.  These so-called trees include the “beast of the field,” human (Hue-Man = colored man as distinguished from the White man) life, as well as the Cro-Magnon Whites.  Certainly, the expression, “tree of life,” is not a reference to a piece of wood.

            With this understanding, we can now see that Verse 17 is admonishing Adam, since Eve has not yet been formed (yatsar), that HE MUST NOT MIX HIS SEED WITH THAT OF ANY OF THE OTHER “TREES” of the garden, especially those that have knowledge of good and evil.  This would have to include the Cro-Magnon Whites, who were already in existence, as they had not had the “breath of life” breathed into them (Verse 7) as Adam had!!!!  This particular man, Adam, was specially selected for this in-breathing.  G1 says that the creation was “good” and even “very good,” but it was not perfect.  The fact that there was already evil in the world is obvious from the warfare between the Cro-Magnons and the Neanderthals, not to mention the threat of carnivorous animals.   It is also obvious that the Nachash (“serpent”) creature of G3:1 was a highly intelligent, but evil creature, capable of contradicting Yahweh, thereby deceiving Eve.

            This act of in-breathing was repeated by Yahshua, when He breathed the Holy Spirit upon the assembly of disciples, after he had been raised from the dead.  Here is the account:

            Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the LORD, and that he had spoken these things unto her. Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. – John 20:18-22.

            From this episode, we can see that Yahshua performed the same type of in-breathing upon His disciples that Yahweh performed on Adam.  Note that Yahshua only breathed upon a select few of His disciples.  Whether these disciples could pass on this Holy Spirit genetically is another question.  I think that they would have to breed exclusively among themselves in order maintain it genetically.

            Be that as it may, after Yahweh had done this to Adam, He needed to select a help mate for him and to perform the same “operation” on her.  For this, Yahweh needed to prepare, cook, bake, form, mold, build – whatever verb you wish – A WOMAN with the same “breath of life” that only Adam had.  As yet, there was no such woman.

            Verse 18 tells us of this need.

            Verse 19 informs us of the “beast of the field,” those who would help Adam tend the Garden.  These cannot be mere “wild animals,” as Finck and Emahiser insist, because wild animals cannot possibly help us tend our gardens!!!  DUH!  As Nord Davis correctly observed, “No farmer in his right mind would turn their cattle, sheep and horses into their vineyards and among their olive trees to trample and destroy them. So, these behemah Beasts can also refer to mankind who are not of the Adamic race.” – Star Wars, Lesson Six.  The “beast” of Gen. 2:19-20 and 3:1 is CHAY beast.  Only two-legged beasts, such as Blacks, Mongolians and Amerinds, can possibly be trained to do that!!

            Verses 19 and 20 tell us that Adam was the first botanist, giving names to all of these creatures in the Garden, not outside of the Garden.  Modern science has yet to complete this job!

            Now, let’s get back to the WOMAN.  The need for her was just mentioned in Verse 18.  Adam needed a suitable MATE, one with the same spiritual, intellectual and physical capabilities that he had, but with the obvious view of REPRODUCING their kind.  This woman was not a new creation (bara).  She was formed (yatsar).  Like Adam, she was selected from the existing Cro-Magnon population, as I will now show.

            Verse 21 talks about the deep sleep that came upon Adam.  But the Hebrew word for ‘rib’ here is tsela.   This is the only verse in Scripture where the word tsela is translated as “rib.”

            We need to dig into this verse a little more closely.  From “Adam’s Rib,” by Wayne Simpson, we read,

            This is really a strange picture if you think about it. Why didn’t God just make woman from the ground as He had made Adam. He apparently made male and female of all the animals from the ground. And why a rib, instead of a finger or a toe, or an ear? The story seems to smack of early Mesopotamian and Greek literature. Ea, the god of wisdom was said to be the ear of Ninurta. Athena, goddess of wisdom, sprang from the forehead of Zeus, and Aphrodite, goddess of love was said to have come from the sea foam that collected around the severed male organ of the god Uranus (JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis p. 22).

            In actuality, something far more meaningful is being expressed in this biblical account than making a new person out of a small piece of the body of another. If we look closely at the Hebrew word for rib we will learn of something quite surprising. The word translated rib in Genesis 2 is tsela. This word is used in a number of other places in the Bible and its meaning is shown to be quite different than what we have imagined. The only other place in the Bible where the English word rib occurs is in Daniel 7:5, translated from an altogether different Hebrew word. One Bible translation dares to break with the use of the traditional word rib. The Stone Edition of the Chumash renders the verse this way:

            ” …and He took one of his sides and He filled in the flesh in its place.”

            Right away you can see that what God took from Adam was a lot more than a small bone. But can this reading be justified? Let us examine other places in the Bible where this Hebrew word is used. We find that it is rendered side in a number of places.

Look at Exodus 25:12. In referring to the rings of gold on the Ark of the Covenant it says
” Two rings shall be on one side  (tselo – a variant of tsela) and two rings on the other side” Later in verse 14 it refers to the two “sides”  (tselot– the plural form).
Exodus 37:3-5 shows this same description of the Ark.

            In Exodus 27:7 it refers to “the two sides (tselot) of the altar” upon which staves and rings were attached “to bear it”. Notice that it refers to only two of the altars four sides – the two major sides as opposed to the front and rear. Similar usage occurs in Ex. 38:7.
Then in Exodus 26:20, the Hebrew word  ul-tsela is used, meaning “and for the
side” of the tabernacle. This is the same Hebrew word with two initial letters that have the meaning “and for”. In verse 26 we read of one side (tsela) of the tabernacle and the second side (tsela) of the tabernacle. In verse 35 we see mentioned a table on the south side (tsela) of the tabernacle, referring this time not just to the outer skin of the tabernacle but to its south half. Identical usage occurs in Ex. 36:25, 31.

            Notice that in each of these accounts there is nothing resembling a rib or pillar- like structural member. It refers to an entire side, essentially half, of a structure. This is very different from the notion of Adam’s rib, but let us continue.

            In Job 18:12 Job refers to “calamities at his side” (la-tselot) and Jeremiah 20:10 speaks of “fear on every side”. It would be ludicrous to speak of fear at every rib.

The only mention which might remotely be construed as anything like a rib is this:

            “As David and his men went along the road, Shimei went along the hillside (ba-tsela) and  cursed as he went…”. II Sam 16:13.

            While The New Brown Driver Briggs Gesenius Hebrew English Lexicon   suggests that this is the ridge or the rib of the hill. This seems to be interpretive because this episode could have taken place on one of the sides of the hill as easily as on the
ridge of the hill.   From the context you simply cannot tell which it was.    Because of
the preponderance of usage of the word side as the translation, it seems likely that
should be the meaning here as well.

            We conclude from this analysis that there is no real justification to render the word in Gen. 2:21 as Adam’s rib. Rather, it should be Adam’s side. As a result, a new and bold imagery begins to emerge from Gen. 2:21. What is really meant by the use of the word side? Was it the side of his torso, like a side of beef? Did it include an arm or a leg? Once we are freed from the notion of a rib, what really makes sense here? I suggest that what is meant here is virtually an entire side or half of Adams body. There are several Hebrew words that express the notion of half, chiefly variants of the verb chatsah, which means to divide.
This word is most often used to signify halving a weight or volume or quantity of some substance, whereas the examples we previously mentioned seem to refer to a side, that is a half of an object or structure. That is especially clear in Ex. 20:35, where a table is located in one side or one half of the tabernacle.

            The traditional mythical interpretation of Adams rib is of very long standing. We do not know when it first began, but it is clear that the ancient Hebrews did not understand this episode in the way moderns do. When Genesis and Exodus were written, the concept was one of Adams side, not his rib. Remarkably, we have the testimony of a Jewish authority of about 2000 years ago on this issue. Philo Judeaus addressed the subject thus: “The  letter of this statement is plain enough; for it is expressed according to the symbol of the  part, a half of the whole, each party, the man and the woman, being as sections of nature  co-equal for the production of that genus which is called man.” (The Works Of Philo, p. 796, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts,)

{Source: http://www.jasher.com/Adamsrib.htm  }

            The Hebrew word here is tsela, which means SIDE.  Remembering that this is a translation by the KJV, it is something that needs to be looked at more closely.  If Moses intended a rib at all, I think that Adam’s rib was involved only to the extent that our bone marrow is the prime source of stem cells, which determine the organic development of the embryo, that is, which cells become muscle, brain, heart, liver, spleen, etc.

            Eve had to be a perfect counterpart of and for Adam.   But she was NOT taken out of Adam, as the KJV falsely leads us to believe.  Whatever was taken out of Adam was used to make Eve the perfect counterpart:  the female side of the newly designed genealogy.  Her side of the haploid DNA molecule had to be adapted to Adam’s newly designed, spirit-breathed male haploid DNA, so that the two of them would have compatible DNA.  Thus, they could reproduce according to the Holy Spirit that was now in them.  This newly adjusted DNA program differentiated them from the already existing Cro-Magnon species, thus making them a NEW FORMATION, but not a new creation.  As explained above, these Cro-Magnon Whites were already all over the place, as early as 10,000 BC.

            The newly discovered site at Gobekli Tepe proves that there was a human settlement in Asia Minor as early as 10,000 BC.  Anyone who believes that all races came from Adam and Eve would have to think that monkeys built all of these stone settlements!  Since 99% of theologians place Adam and Eve no earlier than 4,000 BC, any such non-natural monument or structure would, necessarily, pre-date the Garden of Eden story.  Hence, it is not possible that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of all races.   All of the races were already in existence.  There is no disputing this as factual history.  As Arnold Kennedy stated, this fact explains where Cain got his wife.

            The Judeo-Christian tradition surrounding G1 & 2 conforms to neither the scientific record nor the actual Hebrew meanings of the words. This is why all of Jewish and Christian tradition surrounding G1 and 2 are complete nonsense.

            In short, IT’S BUNK!

            The G2 Adam and Eve were not created.  They were FORMED from the already existing Cro-Magnon Whites, whose pre-existence is abundantly proved by archeology, and whose pre-existence is proven by the proper understanding of the Hebrew text.

Genesis 2:21-23

Let’s look at these very crucial verses with a better understanding of what is going on:

            And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his tsela, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the tsela, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 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.

            Evidently, the KJV translators were uncomfortable with the idea that Yahweh took a whole side of Adam’s body in order to form Eve.  It would be rather difficult to “close up” a whole side of one’s body and leave only half a man.  Obviously, there is more going on here that meets the eye.  As explained above, I believe that Yahweh took a sample of Adam’s bone marrow and adapted it for Eve’s female body.  She was already a full-grown female, but she did not have Adam’s spirit-breathed DNA.  The female side of Adam’s DNA had to be spirit-breathed to match Adam’s spirit-breathed male DNA.

            In Verse 22, the Hebrew word for “made” is banah, meaning “built.”  As Adam had already been elevated to a condition of potential immortality, so it was that he needed a female, potentially immortal counterpart, his female half, or female side.

http://www.biblefragrances.com/studies/gen2b.html

            Verse 23 requires special consideration.  First, let’s look at it as the KJV translates it:  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.

            We can take the first clause to mean that the male and female sides of their DNA are now compatible.  But the words, Woman and Man, in the second clause are not what we expect.  Neither one of these words come from AWDAWM.  Woman comes from isha and Man comes fromiysh.  Quite surprisingly, the word Man is NOT here translated from AWDAWM, despite being capitalized in the text.  The fact that it is capitalized in the KJV suggests that it is a proper name, signifying the individual Adam.  Until I actually looked the word up, I had always assumed that it was capitalized in reference to Adam, THE MAN.  But it is not!

            In verse 23, where it states that Eve was taken “out of Man,” the KJV has terribly misled us.  The word for Man in this instance is IYSH.  The translators have taken us at high speed around a dangerous curve!  Just as tsela does not mean “rib,” neither does IYSH mean Adam!!!  What’s gong on here?

            Let’s take a closer look at this word, IYSH.  Here are some definitions and commentaries from various sources:

            In the Bible, the first man is called Adam, meaning “a man, ruddy.” However, Genesis 2:23 (KJV) states “she (Eve) was taken out of Man.”The Hebrew word translated as Man is iysh (376), which is also commonly translated in the Bible as “every, everyone,” i.e., all men, and also conveying a sense of both unity and totality. – Charles Pope.

            “great, mighty man, he, high degree, him that is, husband, mankind; Contracted for ‘enowsh (or perhaps rather from an unused root meaning to be extant); a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more definite term (and in such cases frequently not expressed in translation) — also, another, any (man), a certain, + champion, consent, each, every (one), fellow, (foot-, husband-)man, (good-, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him (that is), husband, man(-kind), + none, one, people, person, + steward, what (man) soever, whoso(-ever), worthy. – Strong’s Concordance.

            “The word iysh is derived from the root, anash, meaning weak and frail.  When the writer wishes to refer to “man” from the perspective of “humankind,” in the sense of being related by blood, he chooses the word adam, because of its roots being in the word dam, meaning blood.  On the other hand, if he wishes to refer to man and his mortality, then he would choose iysh, because of its roots being in the word anash, meaning weak and frail (mortal). – Jeff Benner, The Living Words.

            Young’s Analytical Concordance gives this simple definition: A man, husband, individual.

            From all of these sources, we can see that IYSH has absolutely no relationship to the word AWDAWM.  The consensus seems to be that we are talking about a MORTAL MALE, irrespective of race.   We can put it this way:  All Adamites are ishes, but not all ishes are Adamites.  Awdawm is a specific race.  Iysh is not.  The most accurate translation of G2:23, therefore, has to be: “she shall be called ISHA, because she was taken out of IYSH.”  Adam is here being quoted, so this is not Yahweh speaking.  He is saying, “I will call her isha because she was taken (or formed) out of me, a male (iysh).”  But since both Adam and Eve were taken out of the mortal gene pool of the Cro-Magnon race, he could also have said this because he knew that they both derived from this originally mortal species.   Adam and Eve were originally mortal beings, since both were taken from outside of the Garden and placed into the Garden for the purpose of establishing an upgraded genealogy of the species, now to be IMMORTAL. 

            The latter interpretation is supported by G2:17 and G3:3, where it is affirmed that Adam and Eve were potentially immortal, as long as they did not partake of the forbidden “tree.”

            Since the root meaning of the word iysh is MORTAL, then the verse is telling us that both Adam and Eve were taken out of the already existing, mortal race of Cro-Magnon.  The same is true of G4:1, where Eve expresses her surprise that Cain was an IYSH, instead of an AWDAWM!!!  She was hoping that Cain was of Yahweh, but she was wrong!  Just as Adam was taken out of the pool of the already existing species, AWDAWM, so was Eve.  From this perspective, Verse 20 means that there was not a suitable White woman for Adam, as all of the existing women were still mortals.  Rather than making taking rib material and growing a woman out of it, as the KJV implies, what really happened is that an already living, mortal woman was made like Adam, so that the two of them could produce immortal offspring.   Adam had already been changed in Verse 7.  Eve was changed in Verse 22.

            In verse 23, the Hebrew word for woman is ISHA, meaning generic female.  The Hebrew word for Man is Ish, meaning generic male.  This verse is telling us that Eve was taken out of the IYSH population (Cro-Magnon) and had to be adapted to Adam’s upgraded, spirit-breathed DNA. She was NOT made from Adam’s rib.  Rather, she was adapted to the DNA contained in Adam’s rib.  Now we have a male and female of the same species, specially made for each other, because she now also has the “breath of life” in her.  Verse 25 confirms that this Isha and Ish were, at this point, sinless, because they were naked and not ashamed.

            The shame was brought in by the nachash creature of G3:1.

Conclusion

Both the archeological record and the Hebrew terms prove that G1 describes an era PREVIOUS to the events of G2.  There is no possibility that these two accounts are set in the same time frame.  Furthermore, the accounts are radically different as to content.  For example, many commentators have pointed out that the lower order animals are introduced into the Garden AFTER (Verse 19) the formation of Adam.  This would be a complete violation of the natural order of creation, from lower to higher species.  If these accounts are to be taken as contemporaneous, then this would be an IRRECONCILABLE contradiction between the two accounts.  Here, again, we are merely being advisedwhat they were made out of, not when they were made.  The chronological record of their creation was already established in G1.  This is another detail that is missing from G1.  It is not the case that G2 is merely adding more contemporaneous details to G1.  Here is a summary of the reasons why the Recapitulation Hypothesis fails, with emphasis on the vast differences in the narrative of G1 and G2:

1.  G1 is speaking of the Species.  G2 is speaking of two individuals, who were selected from the existing species.

            a. Adam in G1 is plural (THEM)

            b. Adam in G2 is singular (THE MAN), an individual to whom God gave special treatment.

            c. The Adamites of G1 were created (BARA).

            d. Adam and EVE of G2 were formed (YATSAR) from the already existing species that was created in G1.

2.  G1:28-29 describes the hunter-gatherer period of pre-history.  At best, the RH can only account for the 930 years that Adam lived.  In other words, the Neolithic era can be no earlier than 5,000 BC for Adam, according to Finck and Emahiser, since by Biblical reckoning, lived from about 5,000 to 4,000 BC.

            a. Fossil and artifact evidence clearly proves that Cro-Magnon Whites lived before 5,000 BC.

            b. This was the hunter-gatherer (Mesolithic) period, which, without question, occurred before Adam was taught how to farm by Yahweh.

            c. G1 describes this Mesolithic period as having occurred first, then

            d. G2 describes how Adam became a gardener (farmer)

3. The Seventh Yowm is ancient history.  The Bible says so.

            a. Moses could not have memorialized the Sabbath Day of Rest unless Yahweh Himself had rested from the work of creation.  The six days of creation and the seventh day of rest are the pattern for the Israelite Sabbath.

            b. Both Yahweh and Yahshua are still working.  The idea that Yahweh is still resting is patently absurd.

4.  G2 states that Adam was already living outside of the Garden before he was put into the Garden.  Eve was also taken from this pool of mortal Cro-Magnons, as she was taken from MORTAL MAN (IYSH), not from the individual, Adam.  Yahweh used Adam’s DNA to produce a FEMALE COUNTERPART to Adam.  Yahweh upgraded her genetics, thus making her a suitable helpmate, sidekick, other half, “better half.”  She is now the female half to his male half.

5.  G2:19 introduces lower-order life forms AFTER the formation of Adam, thus directly contradicting the order in which they were created in G1.

6.  The rest of the story of Adam in the Pentateuch is in sequential order, with occasional references back to earlier history.  G2 fits this same pattern.

7.  The Chronological Account explains where Cain got his wife.  The RH cannot account for the pre-existence of White hominids before 5,000 BC, so from this argument, Cain could only have married a monkey or a half-breed monkey/fallen angel hybrid.  This is exactly what Finck and Emahiser argue.  The only concession F&E are willing to make is that these races could have already existed, but only as hybrid species, not created by Yahweh.  But this assertion rests upon no evidence whatsoever.  It is an assertion backed by nothing.   In the same way, the evolutionist assertion,  that positive mutations lead to evolution, is backed by no evidence either.

            As I have said before, I have no problem with the assertion that the fallen angels engaged in hybridization experiments.  There is no doubt about this.  But to assert that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY that the other races could have come into being is sheer guesswork.  It is turning speculation into dogma.  They would have to prove that Blacks, Mongolians, and Amerinds are not true species.  The fact is that these races fit the G1 requirements of a true species: they have their specific DNA within themselves and they reproduce true to their own kind.  (G1:11.)

            In BOF, I cited the hybridization literature at some length.  To the extent that they can be produced, cross-species hybrids are always sterile.  Only intra-species, or sub-species hybrids have the potential to reproduce, but not without the management of a breeder.  There is no doubt that the fallen ones were creating chimerical creatures by experimentation.  We have no idea how long this was going on.  It could have been going on for thousands of years.  This would be plenty of time to develop unusual hybrids.  But the question is: “Were these hybrids self-replicating or were they being constantly bred by the fallen ones?”  The former is a possibility, but the latter is much more likely.   There were still giants in the days of David.  Goliath was one of the last members of the tribe of Gath, a tribe of giants.  They were dying out.  Since the fallen ones had been destroyed and their spirits cast into the pit, their monster creations eventually died out because the breeders were no longer present to maintain the breeds.

Appendix:

Kennewick Man or Dead “Indians” Don’t Lie

by Louis Beam

The remains of one of the oldest North Americans ever found have been recovered in Washington state. The 9,300-year old skeleton is 90% complete and belongs to a Caucasian male about five foot ten inches tall. Described as one of the most complete skeletons ever unearthed in the Americas it was discovered near Kennewick, Washington in July of 1996 and dubbed “Kennewick Man.” Now it is the subject of a court battle between anthropologists who desire to learn all they can about it, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which wants to cover it up, both literally and figuratively. The Corps wishes to turn this remarkable find over to American Indian tribes who want it reburied without further study based on the claim that the skeleton is an “Indian” and therefore should not be studied. The Indians had no explanation as to how one of their “ancestors” could be Caucasian. At stake at the center of this controversy is the rewriting of American pre-Columbian history–sooner rather than later.
            As if the discovery of an 9000 year old Caucasian in the United States would not of itself be sensational enough, the excitement over Kennewick man has led to a breaking down of “an iron curtain of silence” which had previously existed in the news media and among some archeologist and anthropologist over the finding of at least SIX OTHER Caucasoids of greater antiquity than any Asiatic Indian remains known in North America! Including the nearly ten-thousand-year-old mummy of a Caucasoid male found in Spirit Cave Nevada, and the skeletal remains of a nine year old Caucasoid female child found in Nevada of equal antiquity. From their graves, men, women, and children are speaking to us and their tale is that of an ancient culture stretching at the least from Arizona to Washington state. Their story, long unknown, now uncovered, rushes to greet us from the misty depths of the past. A sensational story of life and death in America B.C.
            Interestingly enough the Kennewick man had imbedded in his pelvic bone a two inch Clovis spear point of gray volcanic rock thrown by an enemy with every intent to kill. Kennewick Man survived the attack but the spear point remained imbedded in his hip. Some have jokingly speculated that this was the first incidence of “Cowboys and Indians with the Indians winning.” While this light-hearted statement adds sorely-needed humor to an otherwise tense situation now existing in federal court in Washington state, it should be pointed out that there is little proof that there was a single Indian of Siberian extract in the entire Northwest when Kennewick man lived, hunted and fought there. The present non-Caucasian Indians in that region are believed to have been there less than a thousand years, which makes them the invaders and Kennewick man and his people the “native Americans” of the Northwest, for whatever that is worth.
            In fact, such terms as “first”, “original” and “native” really have no scientific or historical context in this time period, as so little is known (and if the federal government has its way little will be known) of this era. But such terms are convenient and useful for present day social engineers to provide preferential treatment to one class at the expense of another. As one lawyer involved in the court case stated, “A lot of their [Indian] pride and claims might not be true and that might impact them in financially adverse ways.” This may explain in part the veil of secrecy that has surrounded the other ancient Caucasian people found, as well as attempts (some successful) to prevent further studies, among the most important of which, for proper classification of remains, would be DNA testing.
            In southern Idaho the skeletal remains of an 10,600-year old woman, found in a gravel quarry near the town of Buhl, was reburied in December, 1991 after the Shoshone-Bannocks — believed by many scientists to have moved into the area less than a thousand years ago–claimed the remains were those of a dead ancestor. Tribal officials exercising authority newly granted them by the federal government refused permission for archaeologists to perform DNA tests and chemical analysis that would provide clues as to the racial origin of the skeleton, as well as other valuable information.

Most Americans, taught the Bering Strait theory as an explanation for the peopling of America, are unaware that it is no longer seen as the sole explanation for the migrations to this continent. Archeological finds in South America, on the Eastern Seaboard of the US and elsewhere show conclusively that there were several distinct and separate migrations of different racial groups to the Americas. Furthermore, recent studies point to the hypothesis of a “North Atlantic Crescent” which existed between Europe and the Americas. With both water and ice serving as a “bridge” between the two continents.
            Archaeologists such as Thor Heyerdahl and many others have uncovered the oldest ruins in the Southern hemisphere of the American Continent. These ruins present politically correct archeologists with the problem of the most ancient civilizations being found at the Southern end of the American continent rather then at the Northern end, where one would expect to find them had the first settlers come across the Bering Strait. It is clear also from genetic DNA sequencing of haplotypes that there was more than one migratory event. Indeed, as one DNA study bluntly stated, “The notion of a homogeneous Amerind genetic pool does not conform with these and other results⁽¹⁾“.
            In ancient cities of South America, some of which may have been populated by over 50,000 people, were found the mummies of Caucasoid nobles buried in the bowels of ancient temples. As ruins continue to yield their secrets it now appears that many of the ancient pre-Columbian civilizations were sea-faring peoples with a long tradition of open-sea sailing. Rather than walking 10,000 miles from Mongolia to Chile, it now seems that the “first Americans” may have sailed first class. And where they came from will soon be firmly resolved by DNA testing. Peru, Chile, and Ecuador are all revealing long forgotten cities of ancient peoples classified as racially part of the Indo-European family of people. From Red headed mummies in pre-Inca graves in Peru to blond headed Toltek warrior priests in central Mexico, this is not the history of your father’s generation.
            Pre-Columbian tombs are shattering the adage that “dead men tell no tales.” And the exciting tales they relate will force the rewriting of pre-Columbian history. Shattered will be the myth of “Indians” as the first Americans, along with the credibility of those who view the advancement of mankind as a series of unconnected events and developments independent of outside influence from distant cultures; a deleterious school of thought that became popular in American universities in the 1960s along with “progressive socialism” and bell-bottom pants. Such thinking mutated in the once hallowed halls of academia into a form of politically correct archaeology that has greatly hindered the interpretation and understanding of American pre-history.
            Great steps in understanding the origins of American history are being made, and they are being done so over the academically dead bodies of fearful, politically correct social historians, who now find themselves haunted by the long dead bodies of stone age Americans. Some archaeologists have built empires based upon theories resembling in magnitude the Mayan city states just before their collapse. They see for themselves now an uncertain future in their chosen field where their long held notions are seen as relics as useful to modern man as Mayan bloodletting rituals. DNA research has placed them under siege and when the lab returns are in they will be out for job retraining.
            In future essays we will explore some of these ancient civilizations of the Americas and who may have founded them. The author, an amateur archaeologist, with an ancillary interest in anthropology, has for more than twenty years studied the ruins of Central America. He is seen here on a 1996 tour of the pre-Columbian ruins in Copan, Honduras. He stands on the steps of an ancient temple erected by a now vanished culture.

1. Callegari-Jacques, S.M.; Salzano, F.M.; Constans, J.; Maurieres, P. (Univ. Fed Rio Grande Sul; Inst. Matemat; Dept. Estatist; Campus Vale; BR-91540 Porto Alegre; RS, Brazil).
GM Haplotype Distribution in Amerindians – Relationship with Geography and Language. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: 90(1993)4, p.427-444