Have you wondered about the appearance and race of the Israelites of the Bible?
Are the people who live today in the modern state of Israel representatives of the ancient nation of Israel?
The Bible provides interesting answers to these questions.
The Bible is fundamentally a history of Adamkind. Biblical genealogy records that the race of Israelites descended from Adam. What does the word/name "Adam" mean? Contrary to popular belief, it does not mean "first man." Genesis does not declare Adam the first of mankind (more about this below). Jeff A. Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center explains the meaning of "Adam" in Hebrew:
"Let us begin by looking at its roots. This word/name is a child root derived from the parent דם (dam) meaning, "blood". By placing the letter א in front of the parent root, the child root אדם (adam) is formed and is related in meaning to דם (dam)....
Thus, Adam is the "blood red" or ruddy man, the mankind (kind of human) who shows blood in the face.
Which human race shows red blood in the face, a ruddy complexion?
There is only one. The 'white' or caucasian race. Only white people show blood in the complexion; in all other races the high melanin content of the skin obscures the blood in the faces.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, modern Judaism alleges that, according to the Genesis account, "Adam = man" and all human kind descended from "one parent," Adam:
"The doctrine by which Judaism exerted the greatest influence upon the history of the world is, however, that of the unity of the human family. The first eleven chapters of Genesis, whatever the origin of the narrative may be (see Babylonia and Genesis), teach that all the tribes of men have descended from one parent, Adam (= 'man'), and that consequently the various races constitute one family. This doctrine is the logical consequence of the other, the unity of God. "
However, this is not supported by Genesis. Genesis includes two creation accounts for mankind, one in chapter 1 and another in chapter 2. These refer to two different types of mankind, as I show below.
However, before I get to that, let us notice that in Genesis 1:26 God is described as plural, not unitary.
Fenton translated Genesis 1:26 directly from Hebrew to English:
"God then said, 'Let Us make men under Our Shadow, as Our Representatives....'"
The King James Version:
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."
According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word translated as God – elohim – is masculine and plural:
This contrasts with Yahweh, which is masculine singular.
So, the word translated as "God" is definitely plural (and masculine), and Yahweh is but One – not the only – of the entities called "God."
That means that those who call themselves Jews, who claim to be Hebrews, and experts in Hebrew language, who wrote the Jewish Encyclopedia, are either ignorant of Hebrew or lying about Hebrew when they say that Genesis posits a singular God.
But how can an apparently singular word – God – be referring to more than one entity? We have many words that are in fact uni-plural. For example, "man" and "mankind" are nouns that are grammatically treated as singular – e.g. "mankind is mortal" not "mankind are mortal" – but in fact refers to many. "Man has two legs and a large brain" is a statement about all mankind, not one individual. All family names – surnames – are singular proper nouns, yet refer to plurality. I am a Matesz, but Matesz refers to my brother, my father, etc. If I were to have a child the child would reproduce our Matesz image. The word "horse" is treated as singular in grammar, yet refers to all horses, in such locutions as "the horse has four legs, a single stomach and a flowing mane" which describe not just one horse, but all horses.
The conclusion is that the Hebrew elohim, translated GOD, refers to a family of at least two masculine persons, one of them being Yahweh (or the Father). Nowhere does it say there is only one member of elohim. The Gospel of John in the New Testament reveals that those persons are the Father – Yahweh – and Logos, the Word, the Father's spokesman, the Son – Jesus.
Next, Genesis 1:27 (Fenton translation direct from Hebrew) states:
"So GOD created men under His own Shadow, creating them in the Shadow of GOD, and constituting them male and female."
The King James Version:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
Note here that, as with GOD (elohim), the term "man" is uni-plural, meaning "mankind." When GOD made "man" in Genesis 1, it is clearly stated that he made many, as evidenced by the phrases "constituting them male and female" and "male and female he created them."
Logically, if GOD had not created many individuals when He created "man," the only route to reproduction for the first family would have been the highly deleterious practice of incest, which GOD absolutely forbids (in Leviticus).
Thus Genesis 1 reports that mankind was created towards the end of the first 6 ages of the process. And GOD saw every thing that he had made, including those first created kinds of man, "and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31).
Genesis 2:1 then states (KJV):
"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
After which GOD rested "at the seventh age" (Fenton translation).
Then Genesis 2:5 (KJV) states:
"And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. " [Bold added]
Did you catch the significance of that last phrase? Mankind was created before this (Genesis 1:27) but there was not yet a man to till the ground.
That is: there was no farmer. The first men GOD created, who existed before Adam-kind (Genesis 2:7), did not practice agriculture. They lived by foraging, not by farming.
Then, according to Strong's Concordance, Genesis 2:6 states:
"But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."
Fenton translates Genesis 2:6:
"A vapor then rose up from the Earth, and saturated the whole surface of the ground."
This appears to describe a flood-type event that followed the first (Genesis 1) creation of mankind toward the end of the first 6 ages. This flood-type event likely refers to the ice ages, when much of the Earth was covered by frozen water. This preceded the formation of Adam-kind, since according to Strong's Concordance Genesis 2:7 states:
"Then the Lord [Yahweh] God [Elohim] formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living soul."
Note that Yahweh is here called "the Lord God" which plainly means the head honcho of the God beings. Now this passage is reporting the formation of a specific type of mankind...not just mankind in general.
I also want to emphasize here that there is no definite article "a" in the Hebrew text translated as "formed a man...." Refer to Strong's concordance for this verse, and the accurate King James Version translation:
"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."
Also, the Hebrew word translated as "man" here is hā·’ā·ḏām.
The LORD formed "adam," not "an adam." Thus, the Biblical account of Adam's creation refers to the creation of a kind of man – Adam-kind – not an individual man called Adam.
According to Genesis 2:15, this new kind of man – Adam-kind – had a specific purpose different from the previously created mankind. Here is the King James Version:
"And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."
Fenton translated the Hebrew directly to English:
"The EVER-LIVING GOD then took the man and placed him in the Garden of Eden for the purpose of cultivating and taking care of it."
Once again, notice from Strong's concordance that there is no definite article "the" or "the man" in the original Hebrew text. In the Hebrew faithfully rendered it simply says that GOD took adam-kind (uni-plural term) and put "him" in the Garden. If we substituted "agricultural man" for "adam" we would write: "GOD then took agricultural man and placed him in the Garden." That would correctly refer to placing a unique type of mankind, consisting of many individuals, in a specific place.
The first created men (Genesis 1:27) were made to live in the wild, to "fill up the Earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the skies, and over every living animal that moves upon the Earth."
And GOD saw every thing that he had made, including those first created kinds of man, "and, behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31).
This new kind of man (Genesis 2:7) was made to live not in the wild, like the other men, but in a garden – a planned space – which he/they cultivated and cared for according to GOD's laws (Genesis 2:15).
In other words, Genesis 1:27 reports the creation of pre-agricultural man, while Genesis 2:7 reports the creation of agricultural man.
It is noteworthy that Biblical dating by genealogy places Adam arriving about 6000 years ago, and according to modern science, genetic lineages indicate that the earliest genetic evidence for pale-skin, blonde hair and blue eyes in humans dates to between 7700 and 5800 years ago. According a Science magazine article titled "How Europeans evolved white skin" the white-skinned, blue-eyed people who characterize Europe came from two stocks: a) ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north, and b) farmers who originated in the Near East:
"But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
"Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency." [Bold added.]
Thus according to science, the birth/creation of a mankind having pale skin and blue eyes and living by farming dates to about 6000 years ago, the time when the Bible reports the creation/arrival of Adam i.e. "the ruddy man" i.e. the pale-face man.
It is also interesting to note that scientists in 2008 concluded that all people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor dated to 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Although this really does not make sense genetically, because blue eyes are a recessive trait which would have been lost in the next generation if this single individual had no option but to marry someone with dominant brown eyes, nevertheless this points to a blue-eyed founder population , which the Bible calls "Adam" (remember, "Adam" can be a uni-plural like "man") and Eve (which can also be a uni-plural like "woman"), about 6,000 years ago.
For further scientific evidence that the Biblical Adam refers to Caucasian agricultural mankind, genetic studies report that European fair skin, hair and eyes appear to have emerged in conjunction with and as a design for and adaptation to agriculture and significant cereal grain consumption, about 5,000 years before present. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, geneticists (Wilde and colleagues) argue that people living in a European climate with relatively low sunlight exposure and eating cereal-rich diets with lower dietary vitamin D content could not obtain adequate vitamin D from diet+sunlight without fair skin and vitamin D-rich dairy products, because dark skin requires up to 6 times more sun exposure than fair skin to obtain similar vitamin D production. Indeed, they write: "The samples in our study were from between 42ºN and 54ºN, a latitudinal belt in which yearly average UVR is insufficient for vitamin D3 photosynthesis in highly melanized skin." Thus only fair skinned individuals who also had some dietary vitamin D source could survive and successfully reproduce in those latitudes long-term.
To top this off, molecular genetics research has shown conclusively that Europeans do not have genetic markers unique to Africans, therefore can not be descended from African migrants. Instead, the European family of haplogroups arose in the geographical triangle between Central Europe on the west, the Russian Plain on the east and the Levant on the south, broadly in accord with the Biblical account of the Garden of Eden (see: Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy).
Other evidence is accumulating that Europeans emerged in central Asia, and are not migrants from Africa (see: Is the Out of Africa Theory Out?).
Returning to the Biblical account, in Genesis chapter 2, Eve gives birth to Cain and Abel. Cain kills his brother Abel. GOD then curses Cain, and Cain goes to the land of Nod, east of Eden, where he obtains a wife. Genesis 4:16-17 (KJV) reports:
"And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
If, as the rabbis claim in the Jewish Encyclopedia (linked above), Adam was the one and only first father of all humans, and all people are descendants of that one Adam, where did the people in Nod who provided Cain with a wife come from? Adam and Eve did not have a daughter at that point, and nowhere does the Bible state that Cain married his sister, he married a woman from Nod.
This brings up another point. If you maintain that one Adam was the one father and one Eve was the one mother of all peoples on the planet, then you would have to also agree that the sons of Adam and Eve could have had no wives but daughters of Adam and Eve. In other words, you would have to maintain that all the people of the planet came from incestual relations between the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.
If this was the case the 'god' responsible for creating the situation did not know that incest between first-degree relatives has seriously harmful genetic consequences, namely "the odds that a newborn child who is the product of brother-sister or father-daughter incest will suffer an early death, a severe birth defect or some mental deficiency approaches 50 percent."
Any "god" who tried to found a human race by creating only one man and one woman from whom to generate a growing population did not forsee this Natural Law, and therefore was both stupid and immoral. That would not be the GOD described in the Bible.
The Ever-Living GOD of the Bible explicitly prohibits incest with first-degree relatives:
No person shall approach to a relative of his body to uncover their sexuality; I am the Ever-Living. Leviticus 18:6
The sexuality of your sister, a daughter of your father or a daughter of your mother, born in the house, or born out of it; you shall not uncover the sexuality of them. Leviticus 18:9
Since the GOD 'of the Bible' gave these Natural Laws against incest, it follows that He did not create a situation in which it would be impossible for humans to expand their population without violating these (His) Laws. From this I conclude that the true (i.e. not self-contradictory) GOD did not create only one Adamic man and only one Adamic woman to found the Adamic race. Rather, He created Adamkind (including Eve-kind) consisting of many individuals.
Obviously, Genesis does not offer the unbelievable thesis that all mankind descended from one individual named Adam, nor that all the various races/kinds of humans come from or belong to one family. Genesis 1:27 plainly states that GOD created some of humankind before Adam the farmer. Those other humankind included all types of man that existed before "Adamkind," i.e. before Caucasian mankind. They had daughters, one of which Cain took as his wife. Cain's descendants are listed in Genesis 4:17-24. The descendants of Cain are collectively known as Kenites, which according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance are "an Oriental tribe."
Recall, the Land of Nod where Cain got his wife was "east of Eden." One can reasonably conclude that Cain married an "Oriental" woman, i.e. a woman of east Asian tribes, that were created before the Adamkind.
After Cain murders Abel, Adam and Eve mate again, and Eve births another child, Seth (Genesis 4:25-26). Then Seth takes a wife and has children. From whence did Seth get his wife if all mankind descended from one man named Adam and one woman named Eve? Do you worship a 'god' that created a situation in which Seth's only option was to have incestual relations with a sister, with the likely result of children damaged by inbreeding?
If you think logically like an adult it becomes obvious that when GOD created Adam-kind (including Eve-kind) He created many individuals and Seth took his wife from among the women of Adam-kind. The Jewish Encyclopedia's "theology" falls flat on its face!
Moreover the Jew's endorsement of the "one Adam, one Eve" story is a virtual endorsement of incest being required for the perpetuation of the human race. I wonder, through their "one Adam" theology are they covertly revealing that they actually worship a 'god' other than the true (not self-contradictory) GOD, a 'god' (perhaps a Babylonian idol, such as Molech) that approves of incest between parents and their children, or between siblings? The Jewish Survivors of Sexual Abuse blog might be relevant here. Or just search "rabbi molests" on Duck Duck Go Go.
"Ye shall know a tree by its fruits." ~ Jesus the Christ said this in reference to the rabbis.
In Genesis 5:1-32 you find a genealogy of the descendants of Adam. Here is how it starts in the King James Version; notice that the first listed son of Adam – "begat in his own likeness, after his image" – is Seth, not Cain!:
"This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
"And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos: ...."
Of interest, Cain is not listed as a son of Adam, nor are any descendants of Cain listed as descendants of Adam! Evidently, Cain was disowned for his crime against Abel.
In the King James Bible, Lamentations 4:7, Jeremiah describes the Judean Nazarites residing in Jerusalem (Zion):
"Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire.."
In his direct translation from the Hebrew, Ferrar Fenton translated the verse as Lamentations 5:7:
"Bright as snow were her Nazarites,–whiter than milk! Red as coral their faces, as polished as sapphires."
Whiter than milk, and more ruddy than rubies or as red as coral in their faces.
Which nation of people – a.k.a. race – is white and ruddy? Which race has visible blood in the face?
Sapphire is a sparkling blue. What visible human feature do we commonly refer to as sparkling like a gem?
I argue that the "polishing" referred to blue eyes that sparkled like gems.
Let that sink in: The race of Israelites, the Judeans, described by Jeremiah had skin whiter than milk, ruddy features and (probably) sapphire-blue eyes.
That describes a white man, a caucasian.
That does not describe the people who call themselves Israelis or "Jews" today.
Grasp this! At Jeremiah's time, the Judeans (descendants of Judah, one of the 12 sons/tribes of Israel) that inhabited Zion/Jerusalem were not "middle eastern" in appearance (dark skin, hair and eyes). They were white, as white as snow!
(Maybe that's why the "Jews" living in the state of Israel call themselves Israelis, not Israelites? In the Bible, an Israelite is a physical descendant of the son of Isaac called Israel, not merely any individual who happens to live in a particular geographical region. Similarly, a Judean is a physical descendant of Judah, one of the 12 sons of Israel. Unlike modern "Jewry" the Bible accounts lineage through fathers, not mothers.)
Note: Jeremiah described these Nazarites among the Israelites of ancient Jerusalem/Zion as having features white, red and blue....red, white and blue...where have you seen that before?
A Nazarite is an individual who voluntarily took a vow described in Numbers 6:1-21. The vow requires the nazarite to abstain from the following:
for a time period specified when the individual takes the vow. After completion of the discipline period, the person had to make several offerings: a lamb as a burnt offering, an ewe as a sin-offering, and a ram as a peace offering, as well as a basket of unleavened bread, grain offerings and drink offerings. He also was required to shave his head in the outer courtyard of the Temple and place the hair on the same fire as the peace offering. Throughout the time of his vow, the nazarite is considered consecrated unto GOD (Numbers 6:8).
You might notice that "nazarite" is similar to "Nazareth," which names the town in which some say Christ was born. However, there is good reason to believe that John the Baptist, Jesus the Christ (Anointed One), James (brother of Jesus, Bishop of Jerusalem) and Paul were all nazarites.
Which would very likely mean that all of these men were whiter than milk, more ruddy than rubies and sparkling blue.
They were white men.
Feb 08, 21 08:22 PM
Gaining strength and X3 bar training vlogs
Dec 21, 20 02:30 PM
Review of "Training for strength and hypertrophy: an evidence-based approach" by Morton et al.
Nov 30, 20 07:05 PM
Review of Weightlifting Is A Waste of Time by John Jaquish and Henry Alkire