The Only True Adam of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Internet Radio
CHR20180629-OnlyTrueAdam.mp3 — Downloaded 9440 times


The Only True Adam of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2

This evening I am going to present a pair of short essays from Clifton Emahiser, which were originally titled The Only True Adam of Genesis 1:26-27 & 2:7, parts 1 and 2. Some of the comments and data that I may add to these articles as we proceed, I have already discussed at length in various podcasts and articles at Christogenea, but especially in Part 1 of my own Pragmatic Genesis series. Clifton himself has another article on this topic, which he had written some time later, titled "Adam" in the Hebrew in Genesis, and in that initial segment of Pragamatic Genesis I expanded on that article.

I am not going to get into much depth on Hebrew grammar this evening, which is the main topic of Clifton’s other paper and that first part of Pragmatic Genesis. But here I will only say that adding a preposition or a definite article to a noun does not by itself make that noun represent something different from what it represents without the preposition or article. The people who push the idea of two distinct Adamic creations attempt to do just that, and by it they display their own ignorance.

This evening I am making this particular presentation for two reasons. First, because we are traveling this week to the National Conference of the League of the South, and secondly, because even to this day there are certain so-called pastors in Christian Identity who cling to this fallacy of an 8th-Day Creation, and have the nerve to ridicule us for refuting it. One of them will also be at this conference. They do not even bother to offer a discussion, and they really do not know what they are ridiculing. In the end, it is they who shall be ridiculed.

So here we shall begin with The Only True Adam of Genesis 1:26-27 & 2:7, Part 1, by Clifton Emahiser:

It’s simply amazing how within the Israel Identity movement there exists a conglomeration of confused dogmas seemingly without an end. It appears like everyone wants to start his own personal pretzel factory! Whoever dreamed up the 6th & 8th day creation theory should win a blue-ribbon at some kind of prevarication fraternity, for it simply is not true. For those not familiar with the 6th & 8th day creation theory, its proponents claim that the non-white races were created on the 6th day and that the White Adam-kind was “formed” on the 8th day. Yet, search the entire Bible and nowhere does it speak of an 8th day creation! As a matter of fact, Scripture points out in no uncertain terms that the creation ended at the end of the 6th day!

It seems to both Clifton and I that those who seek to insert the creation of other races into Scripture, when there is no specific mention of their being created, are purposely seeking to apologize for the existence of those other races by imagining that Yahweh created them and doing their best to squeeze them into our Bible. What is more incredible, however, are the clear contradictions made by the 8th-day Creation crowd. On one hand they will profess that “adam” means to be ruddy, or to be able to blush, etc. But on the other hand they claim that the man of Genesis chapter 1, who is called “adam”, represents non-Whites. That is only the beginning of their contradictions. The truth is that Yahweh only created one race, the Adamic race, and all others are mere corruptions of His original Creation. The knowledge of that corruption is found in the accounts of the fallen angels, the symbols used in prophecy, and the parables of Christ. We have also discussed that at length in a series of podcasts in Pragmatic Genesis. But for now, we will follow Clifton’s original papers, so he continues by saying:

We will start this paper by referring to Josephus on the creation.


“1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; but when the earth did not come into sight, but was covered with thick darkness, and a wind moved upon its surface, God commanded that there should be light; and when that was made, he considered the whole mass, and separated the light and the darkness; and the name he gave to one was Night, and the other he called Day; and he named the beginning of light and the time of rest, the Evening and the Morning; and this was indeed the first day: but Moses said it was one day, – the cause of which I am able to give even now; but because I have promised to give such reasons for all things in a treatise by itself, I shall put off its exposition till that time. After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts; and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews. On the third day he appointed the dry land to appear, with the sea itself round about it; and on the very same day he made the plants and the seeds to spring out of the earth. On the fourth day he adorned the heaven with the sun, the moon, and the other stars; and appointed them their motions and courses, that the vicissitudes of the seasons might be clearly signified. And on the fifth day he produced the living creatures, both those that swim and those that fly; the former in the sea, the latter in the air: he also sorted them as to society and mixture, for procreation, and that their kinds might increase and multiply. On the sixth day he created the four-footed beasts, and made them male and female: on the same day he also formed man. Accordingly Moses says, That in just six days the world and all that is therein was made; and that the seventh day was a rest, and a release from the labor of such operations; – whence it is that we celebrate a rest from our labors on that day, and call it the Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.

“2. Moreover, Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth.* God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself ...”

Here at the end of his citation of Josephus, Clifton has a note:

Instead of “red earth”, Josephus should have rendered it “blood red” (red sort) as DAM is “blood.”

In truth, when languages develop naturally, the shorter words, called roots or stems by linguists, are the original words, and the basic building-blocks for more complex words. So the longer compounds with more complex meanings are derived from them. In the Hebrew Dictionary which is included with the original Strong’s Concordance, the author usually broke the entries for each word down by the parts of speech, and sometimes for other reasons. That is because the Masoretic rabbis used different vowel points for the parts of speech, or sometimes to distinguish uses of a word. One example of this is Adam, odem and Edom, which are actually all the same word in paleo-Hebrew, but each were given different vowel points by the Masoretic rabbis. Strong assigned these three nouns different numbers for that reason, and also assigned different numbers for adam as a common noun, as a verb, and as an adjective. But in the original and ancient Hebrew, which did not use vowel points, for all of these uses of the word it was spelled only one way, אדם, or from right-to-left, Aleph-Daleth-Mem, in English ADM. So in Strong’s lexicon the word adam has entries at 119 through 124. Then at 125 there is a word adamdam, which is reddish, and at 127 adamah, which is red soil. The root word for adamdam and adamah is correctly listed by Strong as 119, adam, since the shorter word is not derived from the longer, and here we see that even Josephus did not completely understand this. But here we must also ask, why does adam mean ruddy, or reddish, in the first place? The only proper answer could be that the Hebrew word for blood is dam, Strong’s # 1818, but not even Strong himself made that connection in his lexicon. Neither did Josephus. The word adam must have been derived from the word dam, and it means ruddy or blood-red, because dam means blood.

But in spite of the fact that we do not agree with this passage from Josephus in its entirety, Clifton chose to begin his essay in this way in order to demonstrate that Josephus, a native Hebrew speaker who came from a family of Levitical priests, did not interpret the creation of Adam in Genesis chapter 1 to be a different, earlier creation than the creation of Adam in Genesis chapter 2. We cannot agree with everything Josephus said about Genesis, and the Pharisees had indeed introduced some errors into their interpretations, but Clifton wanted to show that an ancient Hebrew reader was not compelled to imagine that there was an 8th-Day creation. Now we shall continue with Clifton:

Probably the most significant item we should consider is the fact that the creation of the earth with all of its creatures including the creation of Adam and Eve is not in chronological order! Just stop and think for a moment! Adam-man was created approximately 7,500 years ago, while some of the more distant stars are billions of light-years away, and how many more billions of light-years ago these distant stars came into existence we do not know! When one observes these distant stars, one is looking billions of light-years into the past. All one need do is check Genesis 1:14-19 and one will discover that the sun and the moon were not created until the “fourth day.” How then could the grass, herb yielding seed and fruit grow which is recorded to have been created on the third day without the aid of the sun? Whatever kind of day Genesis is talking about, it’s surely not the twenty-four hour day that we are familiar with! In spite of all this evidence, Eli James still insists that Genesis is written in chronological order. The answer is, neither Genesis in the Bible nor Josephus’ account of creation is in chronological order. Once this fact is firmly established, we can begin to make some order out of the creation story!

Regardless of what you want to think about the conventional claims in regard to the universe, and the age of the stars, or their distance from one another, Clifton is certainly correct that in the Creation account, the sun, moon and stars are not mentioned as having been created until the fourth day, a day after the grass, herbs and fruit trees. So there is a serious problem if we insist that Genesis is a scientific treatise, or a perfectly chronological account of creation. Once it is realized that the word day can also refer to an age, that exacerbates the problem. The sun by which plants live was not created until the fourth age of Genesis. So we see that the Creation account in Genesis cannot be interpreted literally, and instead, it must be an allegory, a parable meant to convey a particular message apart from the science of creation itself. Clifton continues:

The 6th & 8th day creationists make a big thing out of Genesis 1:27 saying “male and female created he them”, claiming it is speaking of the creation of the other races. They then point out that at Genesis 2:7 it mentions the formation of “the man” insisting that it is a separate and a second act of the Almighty at such an endeavor. They declare that the one was “created” while the other was “formed.” Thus, they try to show a contrast between the two accounts at Genesis 1:26-27 and that of Genesis 2:7, but if one will notice, Josephus says, “on the same [sixth] day he also formed man.” And he uses the term “formation” for “Adam” on the sixth day and additionally speaks of the “four-footed beast” being created “male and female” on that same day. We don’t know what kind of manuscripts Josephus might have had at hand, but from Josephus’ own words, we can determine that he definitely understood it to be a single account!

Now, Clifton is forced to interpret Josephus in English. However it is nonetheless evident that Josephus believed in only one creation of man, and not two. Again continuing with Clifton:

A footnote in the Kregel edition, which is standard in any complete edition of Josephus by Whiston, makes the following comment on the creation story on page 25: “Since Josephus, in his Preface, sect. 4, says that Moses wrote some things enigmatically, some allegorically, and the rest in plain words, since in his account of the first chapter of Genesis, and the first three verses of the second, he gives us no hints of any mystery at all; but when he here comes to verse 4, &c., he says that Moses, after the seventh day was over, began to talk philosophically, it is not very improbable that he understood the rest of the second and the third chapters in some enigmatical, or allegorical, or philosophical sense. The change of the name of God, just at this place, from Elohim to Jehovah Elohim, from God to Lord God in the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Septuagint, does also not a little favour some such change in the narration or construction.”

Now Clifton responds to the note and says:

We see several things worth observing from this footnote. It is noteworthy to observe that Josephus recognizes that in chapter 2 of Genesis, that Moses is using philosophical reasoning concerning the creation of Adam-man. The definition of philosophy is “critical study of fundamental beliefs.” We’re not talking about Greek philosophy here, which leads into “sophism.” So if Moses is using philosophical reasoning at this point concerning the creation of man, he is not recording the creation of a second kind of Adam as the 6th and 8th day creationists so loudly proclaim! And when the creation story is not given in a chronological order, how much more “enigmatical” or “allegorical” can it get? Eli James is exceedingly incorrect in proclaiming that Genesis is written in chronological order!

Eli James also contends that the creation of Genesis chapter 1 was by the “elohim”, whom he designates as “fallen angels”, and that “Yahweh” formed Adam at Genesis 2:7. Thus, his flawed premise is that the fallen angels created the non-Adamic races along with the earth, sun, moon, stars, animals, birds and fishes. He then points to the AKJV and shows that the Tetragrammaton doesn’t appear until chapter 2, especially verse 7 which says “And the Lord [Yahweh] God formed man of the dust of the ground ...” Had Eli James ever checked the Septuagint he would have found that the term “Lord”, which should be “Yahweh”, is not in verse 7, only “God” (or elohim), “then God formed the man, dust from the earth ...” So neither Josephus nor the Septuagint supports Eli James’ 6th & 8th day creation theory! Further, checking Strong’s Concordance under “God”, we see that elohim, #430, the same word appearing at Genesis 1:26 to 28 is the predominant word used to refer to Yahweh all through the Bible – used far more often than the singular el, #410. With this, Eli James’ theory collapses entirely!

Clifton is correct that κύριος does not appear in the Greek of the Septuagint until Genesis 2:8, and only θεός in 2:7. However I am not going to address the errors of Eli James here beyond what Clifton presents. Clifton wrote these papers around the time that we had to separate ourselves from Eli, who is actually Joseph November, for his heresies concerning Genesis and other subjects. Eli himself changes his positions often, and I do not even know or care what it is that he professes today. However his arguments at one time were representative of the professions of many older Identity Christian pastors or writers who follow similar heresies.

Before continuing, I will only say that at one time what we now know as Genesis (a word which appears nowhere in Scripture) was actually more than one book, or scroll. The proof of that is at the beginning of what is now Genesis chapter 5, where it opens with the words “this is the book of the generations of Adam….” The scrolls which now comprise Genesis were put together by ancient scribes, but not necessarily by Moses.

It can be argued effectively that Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were a separate scroll, which we can call the creation scroll, and Genesis 2:4 through the end of chapter 4 was another scroll. A third scroll began with chapter 5. The language of the first scroll is different, as it does not contain the Tetragrammaton, representing the name Yahweh, for that reason. Then, for that same reason, we see in Genesis chapter 2 verse 4: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,” and that day was already described in the first scroll, which is now Genesis 1:1 through 2:3. So if one wants to think that the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7 is a different man, then in order to be consistent, one must think that the heavens and earth of Genesis 2:4 are a different heavens and a different earth! But if the heavens and earth were already created when this was written, then so was Adam already created when this was written, and we see a recounting of that part of creation in more detail. But this is not describing a separate creation, or we need an 8th-day heavens and an 8th-day earth and 8th-day plants and herbs as well as an 8th-day Adam! However it says in Exodus chapter 20, and it is repeated elsewhere in Scripture, that “in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them”. There are other cognitive discrepancies in the claims of the 8th-Day Creation people, but we will wait to discuss them later. For now, Clifton continues to expose Eli James:

Actually, the idea that the world was created by angels, which is what Eli James is teaching here, is a Gnostic doctrine according to the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, chapter 11 [this is actually from Book 3, Chapter 11 of Irenaeus’ Against Heresies - WRF]: “But according to Marcion, and those like him, neither was the world made by Him; nor did He come to His own things, but to those of another. And, according to certain of the Gnostics, this world was made by angels, and not by the Word of God. But according to the followers of Valentinus, the world was not made by Him, but by the Demiurge.” However, Eli James designates “fallen angels”, and Eli credits them also with the creation of the non-Adamic races!

With that last part we would agree, that the origin of the other races is with the so-called “fallen angels”, only that the account is not found in Genesis, and they are really a corruption rather than a creation. Clifton is responding to something which Eli had written, but I cannot recall what that may have been. At first, Eli was a proponent of the traditional 6th & 8th day Creation theory which holds that the other races are the “adam”, or man, of Genesis chapter 1. Then after working with me for awhile, Eli began to promote a clown from the 19th century named Thomas Davies, who held that there were different races in the “man” of Genesis 1:26 as opposed to the “man” of Genesis 1:27. Once Eli was shown how stupid that argument really was, he changed his position a third time to insist that the other races were the “beast of the earth” of Genesis 1:25, a position which we have also thoroughly discredited. But Eli will do anything he can to squeeze a nigger, a street-shitter or a squat-monster into the Bible and the Creation of Yahweh. That is his real agenda, and while he says they are “beasts” in relation to the Old Testament, then he claims they are “men” in relation to the New Testament! Continuing with Clifton:

Now there may be some who think that Josephus was a “bad fig Jew”, and that we shouldn’t use him as a reference, but I would have anyone of this opinion know that Josephus was a pure-blooded Levite on both sides of his family. [From] Josephus’ Life, 1:

“The family from which I am derived is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the priests; and as nobility among several people is of a different origin, so with us to be of the sacerdotal dignity, is an indication of the splendor of a family. Now, I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, I am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather’s father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus; he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who first of all the high priests was named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias; he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest; which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also.”

Not only was Josephus of pure blood, but growing up he was a child prodigy. We see this in Josephus’ Life, 2 as follows: “I was myself brought up with my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father and mother; and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law ...”

There was no reason for Josephus to lie about his own lineage. He himself did not fully understand the difference between the Edomites and Israelites of Judaea, and he actually thought very well of many of the members of the family of Herod, whom he knew to be Edomites. Josephus, in the typical fashion of the times, was quite the egalitarian, and in his time the separation of the Pharisees was only a religious separation, not really a racial one. Clifton continues:

It is important, then, to understand that Josephus understood there was but a single Adam, and that Adam was formed on the 6th day of creation! It is also significant to comprehend that Josephus recognized philosophic allegory when he saw it, and he followed suit with Moses from Genesis 2:3 to chapter 4. When people are spoken of as “trees”, it can’t get much more allegorical than that! In other words, the trees were not trees and the serpent was not a snake, and what Eve “did eat” wasn’t consumed through her mouth! So it is safe to acknowledge Josephus’ accountability [or reliability - WRF].

Now Clifton departs from Josephus, and he spends the remainder of this paper and the opening part of the next discussing the image of God. This is important, because in Genesis chapter 1 we are told that man was made in that image, but we are not told this in Genesis chapter 2. If one claims that the Genesis chapter 2 man is a different man, a separate creation, then one cannot say that this supposed “8th-Day” man is made in the image of God, something which is only attributed to the man created on the 6th day. So Clifton continues under the subtitle:


It is a very serious assertion by the proponents of the 6th and 8th day creation theory to claim that the non-white races were created on the 6th day at Genesis 1:26-27! It is serious because according to 1 Corinthians 11:7, 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15 Yahshua is [said to be] in the image of God! Are we to believe that the non-white races are in that image? Does that make our Redeemer also non-white? How absurd the thought!

1 Corinthians 11:7-9: “7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

Here Paul is not really talking about Yahshua, but about man in general, in his own times. But we see that the connection is sure, where Paul must be referring to the Genesis 1 man, while all White men must have descended from Seth, the son of the Genesis 2 man. So if there are two creations of Adam, the entire Bible is a confused lie. But fortunately for us, Josephus did not believe there were two creations of man, and neither did Paul. So neither should we. Clifton now moves to his next citation:

2 Corinthians 4:4: “In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.”

This is of course speaking of Christ, and now we will present Clifton’s final citation:

Colossians 1:13-15: “13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.”

Now Clifton responds to his citations:

The term “man” at 1 Corinthians 11:7 can only be speaking of Adam-man, which would be the same “image” of Yahshua born of Mary. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 surely is not speaking of the non-white races! 2 Corinthians 4:4 then enforces the same idea as 1 Corinthians 11:7. Ditto for Colossians 1:15! Where do the 6th & 8th day creation advocates come up with all of those preposterous ideas? This subject is much too important to be passed over lightly, and will be continued in The Only True Adam Of Genesis 1:26-27 & 2:7, (Part Two).

We will immediately commence with that second part of Clifton’s essay, however we will omit the portion of the first paragraph which only repeats his original introduction. Then he says:

We will begin this paper at the point [where in part 1] we started to consider the importance of the “image” at Genesis 1:26-27.

Now Clifton repeats his subtitle, and his admonition concerning the claims of the 8th-day Creation proponents in relation to the image of God, and his citations of Paul’s epistles which he gave at the end of part 1 along with his final conclusion, things which we will not repeat again here.

Basically, Clifton makes the correct assertion that if the other, non-White races are the man, the small-a adam, which is described as being created in Genesis chapter 1, then they were created in the same image that Christ was created. But if the Adam of Genesis 2:7 is a separate 8th-day creation, as they assert, then he does not have that image. The White nations which came from Noah were descended from the Adam of Genesis chapter 2. So if that Adam was a creation separate from the Genesis 1 adam, then Christ is in the image of the other races, and not of the White race. This is the quandary to which the silly so-called “6th & 8th Day Creation” theory leads. So now Clifton proceeds by discussing some of these implications, and he says:

W. E. Vine, in his An Expository of New Testament Words comments partly on pages 264-265 as follows: “IMAGE 1. eikon (1504) denotes ‘an image’ ... of the descendants of Adam as bearing his image, 1 Cor. 15:49 ... (a) of man as he was created as being a visible representation of God, 1 Cor. 11:7 ... (d) of Christ in relation to God, 2 Cor. 4:4, ‘the image of God,’ i.e., essentially and absolutely the perfect expression and representation of the Archetype, God the Father; in Col. 1:15, ‘the image of the invisible God’ ...”

From the Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon we have the following description of the Greek word “image”: “1504 εἰκών [eikon/i·kone/] n f. From 1503; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament 2:381; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Abridged 203; Goodrick-Kohlenberger 1635; 23 occurrences; AV translates as ‘image’ 23 times. 1 an image, figure, likeness. 1a an image of the things (the heavenly things). 1a1 used of the moral likeness of renewed men to God. 1a2 the image of the Son of God, into which true Christians are transformed, is likeness not only to the heavenly body, but also to the most holy and blessed state of mind, which Christ possesses. 1b the image of one. 1b1 one in whom the likeness of any one is seen. 1b2 applied to man on account of his power of command. 1b3 to Christ on account of his divine nature and absolute moral excellence.”

Now in response to this definition of the Greek word for image, Clifton rather correctly exclaims:

The non-white races hardly fit this portrayal!

Then he continues with another citation:

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, page 768, says in part: “Man was made in God’s image (selem) and likeness (dĕmût) which is then explained as his having dominion over God’s creation as vice-regent. Ps 8:5–8 ... is similar citing man’s God-given glory, honor and rule. God’s image obviously does not consist in man’s body which was formed from earthly matter, but in his spiritual, intellectual, moral likeness to God from whom his animating breath came ... But it was seen in perfection in Christ and will be made perfect in us when salvation is complete (Heb 2:6–15).” Note: We must correct the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament here inasmuch as Yahshua did in fact take on Adam’s fleshly “body which was formed from earthly matter” when He was born of Mary!

Aside from Clifton’s comments, I would argue that the image of God is the nature not of His flesh, but of His Spirit. This we see first in Hebrews chapter 1, where Paul of Tarsus wrote of Yahweh God that Christ was “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person”. If Yahweh is the “invisible God”, as Paul also called Him in Romans, Colossians, 1 Timothy and in Hebrews chapter 11, then the image must be something other than a physical appearance, which we would instead consider to be His likeness. Then, in chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon, we read: “23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” If the Genesis 2 Adam has both the immortal Spirit as well as the image of God in which the Genesis 1 adam was made, then they are both the same man and there was really only one creation of man, not two.

Clifton, referring to the reference in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, now discusses the passages it cited in regard to the image of God:

Hebrews 2:6-11 identifies the true and only Adam of Genesis 1:26-27 & 2:7 thusly: “6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Yahshua, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of Yahweh should taste death for every man. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.”

Clifton cited this because it must be noted, that Christ being in the same image in which the Genesis chapter 1 man was created, and that only the Genesis 1 man was set over the works of the Creation of God, Christ must have descended from that Genesis chapter 1 man, and therefore the sixth day man must be the Adamic man, the same man descended from Adam and Seth. Now he continues, where the language of Genesis chapters 5 and 9 relate the descendants of Adam to the Genesis chapter 1 man:

Not only was Adam in Yahweh Elohim’s image, but it states at Genesis 5:3 & 9:6 that Adam’s offspring are in that same image thusly:

Genesis 5:3: “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years [LXX has 230], and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth.”

Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (And in each instance, man in this verse is Strong’s #120.)

Clifton’s point is that the image of God is not mentioned in relation to the creation of Adam in Genesis chapter 2, but only in relation to the creation of Adam in Genesis chapter 1. If they are not the same Adam, how does the race descended from the Adam of Genesis chapter 2 have that image? Now he continues:

A better than usual explanation is found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers: volume 1, [Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book 5,] chapter 16:2 on this topic: “2. And then, again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. For in times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but it was not [actually] shown; for the Word was as yet invisible, after whose image man was created, Wherefore also he did easily lose the similitude. When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the visible Word.”

Another excellent passage from the Ante-Nicene Fathers is found at volume 1, [in the epistle of Ignatius to the Antiochians, which is considered spurious, in] chapter 2. – “The True Doctrine Respecting God and Christ”: “For Moses, the faithful servant of God, when he said, ‘The Lord thy God is one Lord,’ and thus proclaimed that there was only one God, did yet forthwith confess also our Lord when he said, ‘The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the Lord.’ And again, ‘And God said, Let Us make man after our image: and so God made man, after the image of God made He him.’ And further ‘In the image of God made He man.’ And that [the Son of God] was to be made man, [Moses shows when] he says, ‘A prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me.’”

Now Clifton responds to his citations:

This not only shows that, unlike today’s 6th & 8th day creationists, the Ante-Nicene Fathers understood that the “man” created at Genesis 1:26-27 was the same man (Adam) at Genesis 2:7, but also fathomed the seriousness of the subject of the “image of God.” By citing ‘A prophet shall Yahweh raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me.’ The reference is to Deuteronomy 18:15, Acts 3:22 & 7:37:

Deuteronomy 18:15: “The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken.”

Acts 3:22: “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.”

Acts 7:37: “This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.”

While these passages don’t say “in the image of Yahweh Elohim”, it is highly implied in the phrase “like unto me.” The “prophet” spoken of here is no other than our Messiah. If, then, the Messiah was in the image of Yahweh, then too are the “brethren.” The theory that the non-white races are in the “image of God”, which the 6th & 8th day creationists promote, is pure tommyrot, and I’ve heard all their convoluted arguments and I don’t buy a single word of it!

While Moses meant to refer to himself where he said that the prophet, which Clifton admits later, this is a reference to both Joshua and to Christ, would be “like unto me”, it nevertheless shows that since Christ was in the image of God, Moses must also have been in the image of the Genesis chapter 1 adam, and therefore all White men are descended from the Genesis chapter 1 adam, which is the only Adam of Creation. Clifton continues:

While Joshua partially fulfilled the office of prophet for Israel concurring to a degree with Deuteronomy 18:15, it was fully implemented in Yahshua our Messiah, [according to] Matthew 21:11, 46, Mark 6:4, Luke 7:16, John 4:19, 7:40. The Messiah alone was like unto Moses the prophet, Deuteronomy 34:10 [“and there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face”]. Thus Christ (the anointed) was the prophet spoken of here who was “like unto me” (Moses). Thus the prediction, then, which was fulfilled 1,500 years after it was uttered is expressly applied by Peter (Acts 3:22-23) and Stephen (Acts 7:37) in Yahshua the Christ as fully answering the description given of Him, and part of that depiction says “like unto me.” Who is it, then, that has the authority to remove the “image” of Genesis 1:26-27 from the first and second Adam (Christ) and apply that image to the non-white races? Wittingly or unwittingly, it is a blatant blasphemy!

It would be well to read the four verses following Deuteronomy 18:15: “16 According to all that thou desiredst of Yahweh thy Elohim in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my Elohim, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17 And Yahweh said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

It was necessary, therefore, that the one who was to sustain the character of a prophet like unto Moses should be inspired, and receive an unmistakable commission to that office. Yahshua the Christ laid claim both to the inspiration and a divine legation (Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18-19, John 8:28, 12:49, 14:24). To divest [the] Messiah of the “image” at Genesis 1:26-27 is to rob Him of His commission, for the phrase still says, “like unto me”, meaning the Adamic Moses.

The effect of the so-called 6th & 8th Day Creation theory is that the non-White races are made in the likeness and image of God, and that they have been given dominion by God over all the earth, while the White man descended from Adam has only the spirit of God, and was made only to be a farmer. We can continue with the contradictions, but that alone should be sufficient to discredit the entire idea. Clifton continues:

Hebrews 1:1-3 says: “1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.”

Now Clifton warns the fools who insist on the notion of an 8th-day Creation:

Returning to Deuteronomy chapter 18, one verse further we read: “20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.”

Finally, under the subtitle:


In every respect, our Yahshua the Messiah was a perfect but ordinary man. Being such, every cell in his body was made up of 46 chromosomes as with any healthy person. In the conception process, each parent contributes 23 chromosomes in matching pairs. Therefore, it was only possible for Mary, the mother of Yahshua, to supply half of the chromosomes necessary for a normal child. The other 23 chromosomes of necessity came from Yahweh Himself; however, not by sexual intercourse, as other men were after Adam. To be perfect genetically, Yahshua’s DNA would have to be flawless in His pedigree as Noah’s was and all the patriarchs’ were.

While Clifton did not get into all of the details here, around this same time Eli James had been promoting another clown, named Ron Wyatt, who concocted this crazy story that Christ had only 24 chromosomes. For any so-called human being, life would be physically impossible with 24 chromosomes, but some people will believe anything strange or novel, while others will teach such things for their own profit. Eli falls into both categories. Clifton continues:

Once the chromosome factor is considered we can begin to understand why the “image” at Genesis 1:26-27 is so very important and must be applied properly. And without a fleshly image, our Redeemer becomes no redeemer at all! Also, without the chromosomes of Mary He could not claim to be our “kinsman” Redeemer! I’ve heard grown men who claim to be teachers in Israel Identity declare that the genetics of the children come only from the father! I would have you know, while you need to check this out for yourself, the female contributes equally as much to the genetic makeup of a child as the male! Sadly, today, the chromosomes of conception are being joined in unmatched pairs, violating the Biblical law of kind after kind, and the Seventh Commandment!

This concludes Clifton’s essays on the subject. He later wrote a short paper on the grammar aspect of the argument, "Adam" in the Hebrew in Genesis, but he never wrote a part 3 in this series. Surely it should not have been necessary.

Here I shall read Genesis 1:26-28: “26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

And now Genesis 2:5-8: “5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 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. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. ”

Notice that there is NOTHING about likeness or image or dominion over the earth in Genesis chapter 2. If the Adamic man is in the likeness and image of God, and if the Adamic man is to have dominion over the earth, he MUST be that same chapter 1 Adamic man! Otherwise, we should only be farmers and serve as slaves to the other races, who were given that dominion! This is the utter foolishness of the 6th & 8th Day creation clowns.

Genesis chapter 5 proves the assertion that the Genesis chapter 2 Adam is the same as that described in Genesis chapter 1. From Genesis 5:1-3: “1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. 3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth...”

With this, it should be obvious that if one wants to believe that the Genesis 2 Adam is different than that of Genesis 1, then the Genesis 5 Adam must also be different, as it too must also be describing a new “day that God created man”. So if there was an 8th-day creation, there must also have been a 9th-day creation. Where does the stupidity end?

The stupidity ends only here: in the understanding that there is only one Adamic man, one race created by Yahweh, and that is our White race. All other so-called races are sin, they are bastards, they resulted from the falling of the angels, and they are the branches on that “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which did not come from God. That is why, in the end, all of the goat nations share the same fate as the “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels”, as Christ Himself professes in Matthew chapter 25.