answersLogoWhite

0

Was Adam a white man

Updated: 12/11/2022
User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

Best Answer

Adam & Eve, along with all of their descendants until sometime after the great flood, were probably a medium tan/brown. Several things have led me to this conclusion even though I am considered a "white" man myself.

Going by the account of history given in The Bible every person on earth today is descended from Adam and Eve. This is a very unpopular idea among people who wish to place themselves above certain others, yet if a search for the truth is the main concern rather than just those things which magnify our pride then we can come to no other conclusion than that we all are related.

The common practice these days of attempting to divide people into different groups called "races" cannot be justified from a Biblical point of view. It is the result of the belief that evolution is true which causes people to think some are more "evolved" than others. From the Bible's perspective some people are more degenerated than others, in various ways some discernable and some not, in various amounts to various degrees, and various combinations too numerous to be tamed by any other classification than the Bible's. Those who are not as degenerated as others should not feel any pride because it is not due to their own efforts nor of their ancestors (unless they were blessed by following God's word for living properly) because we all are heading in the same direction - downward toward more degeneration.

A common question arises here "If we are all related then why are we so different?" I think the answer can be found by observing what happens to the descent of other forms of life. Dogs are an excellent example. Most people believe that dogs have descended from wolves. This seems reasonable. Going by the Bible we can conclude that those wolves were descended from two wolves which exited Noah's ark after the great flood roughly 4400 years ago. Yet, if all dogs are descended from wolves then why do they look so different - not only from wolves themselves, but each other? There is an amazing variety of dogs today. Something important to keep in mind is that most of the different varieties have "developed" over just the past few hundred years through the breeding efforts of people.

This takes us to the subject of natural selection versus artificial selection, mutations and genetics. Artificial selection is basically Natural selection in fast-forward, except the defects are alot more likely to be preserved. When people see traits in a dog which they like (such as uniform hair color) they select that dog for breeding in order to preserve those traits. These traits are then emphasized because the other, non-desirable traits (such as patchy coloring) are ignored and allowed to disappear over the generations. Once a trait, which is expressed in the genes of the dog, is gone it will never return unless that dog mates with another dog which still has that trait. By the way, this fact is profoundly damaging to the belief in evolution because evolution requires traits which did not previously exist to come into existence (which is the complete opposite of what is actually observed. Genes are not formed by mutations - genes are deformed by mutations.)

Dogs with similar traits are likely to be closely related since they inherit those traits from their parents. This artificial selection of traits promotes close breeding which is BAD for any lifeform because the offspring are more likely to not only inherit the arbitrarily-defined "good" traits, but the non-arbitrarily-defined BAD traits such as disorders and birth defects which cause misery and death, among many other problems.

Over time, artificial selection produces offspring which are more and more different than the original "stock." At some point somebody arbitrarily decides the differences are enough to justify calling it a new "breed" and a new "kind" of dog. Needless to say, such attempts at classification are relative, tentative, and completely arbitrary. A "new breed" can disappear in only one generation (ever had your "pure-bred" dog get loose in the neighborhood and come back with 10 "mixed" puppies?) Most times "breeds" are coined because of greed - the desire to profit from selling offspring from "pure breeds." This is a good place to say that there are no such things as "pure" breeds because there are no such things as "mixed" breeds. Dogs are dogs and will always be dogs. If you like the way yours looks then great - just don't try to place some kind of special, absolute significance on it based purely on arbitrary classifications.

A Chihuahua and a Great Dane are dogs, and they have the same common ancestors if you go back far enough in history - to the time when two wolves walked off of Noah's ark a few thousand years ago. They are very different in some ways, and very alike in others, yet they are both related and viewed as equal from God's perspective. This is the same way we can view ourselves and understand the differences between us.

Today, most people on this planet have a medium-tanned/brown skin. Genetic variation works by going away from a middle-of-the-road trait and magnifying it in either direction. If the root population of people throughout history was medium-tanned/brown then we should expect that most people on earth today would look the same way, and that variations would exist in either direction in smaller populations. The lighter brown you are the closer you are to being called "white" these days, and that is a pretty accurate description because there are some people nearly white as snow. The darker brown you are the closer you are to being called "black" these days, and that is a pretty acurate description because there are some people nearly black as coal.

Now lets consider how these variations on the root population originated. Going by the Bible only eight people survived the great flood. Noah and his wife, their three sons and their wives. This was the root population after the flood and from which everybody has a common ancestor because we all descended from one of those four couples. I recommend reading a book called "After the Flood" by Bill Cooper. In it he describes the likely origin of the Europeans/Russians/Caucasians as being from the descendants of Japheth, one of Noah's sons, migrating north in the centuries after the great flood. If you locate Mt. Ararat on a map you may notice an interesting pattern of descent which is consistent with what we would expect if the Bible is an accurate account of history.

Mt. Ararat is located on the border between Turkey and Iran. Today, people live in every direction away from that mountain, yet not everybody in every direction looks the same. In general, people to the north of Mt. Ararat look light-skinned, people around Mt. Ararat and to the east look medium-tanned/brown, and people to the south look dark-skinned. Hmmm... three main shades of skin which seem to converge at one point on the earth. It seems that after the flood Japheth's descendants migrated northward, Shem's eastward, and Ham's southward. Due to accumulations of mutations being magnified from close breeding by small populations artificially selecting people who looked similar to themselves for marrying their differences became more and more dramatic over the years, even though they all descended from the same family. Today, our differences are so dramatic that people believe they are absolute and somehow intended by God when in reality it is simply an effect of naturally drifting away from a common average, and a common ancestor's DNA.

To summarize, Adam was probably tan-skinned, along with all of his descendants through Noah's family at least (and possibly for a few hundred years after the great flood.) At the Tower of Bable people were forced to disperse into separate groups which gradually devoloped into the different shades of skin we see today. There is no such thing as different "races" because such a concept is based on evolution being true. Evolution is false so therefore distinct races don't exist no matter how much some people with they did. If you go by what the Bible teaches about history then you cannot possibly be a rascist. Nowhere in the Bible are people referred to by the shade of their skin - but rather by what language they spoke or where they lived or who they descended from - things which offend nobody (unless your inlaws are outlaws - Ha!)

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Was Adam a white man
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Who was the first white man?

Adam unless you believe god is black :)


What is Adam richman's man v food cultural heritage?

Adam is American, and says he's white in one of the episodes.


When was Adam named?

The name Adam is simply Hebrew for 'man'. In fact, different analyses can be made of the chapters in which Adam (and 'man') is mentioned, by either replacing 'Adam' by 'man', or replacing 'man' by 'Adam'.


When was Adam White - zoologist - born?

Adam White - zoologist - was born in 1817.


When did Adam White - zoologist - die?

Adam White - zoologist - died in 1878.


Was Adam a man or a boy?

Since God gave Adam a wife, it is most likely Adam was created as a man.


Is Adam a man or woman of god side?

Adam Is a man Eve is a Woman


Who is the Straightest man in the bible?

Adam


Is Adam the angel of the from the bible?

there is no angel named Adam. Adam is the name of a man.


What race is Adam Lambert?

Adam Lambert's race is white.


What position does Adam Eaton play?

Adam Eaton plays for the Chicago White Sox.


When was Ol' Man Adam an' His Chillun created?

Ol' Man Adam an' His Chillun was created in 1928.