How a literal 7 day creation can work with evolution claims without changing a word of either

[drich0150]

How has He done this?

a literal vision.
I was answering a question on genesis on this website like in 2008ish and then my stock answer was it is ok to say idk. Then I was thinking about all of this and my mind went kinda blank and then began to see pictures and images of creation. some of it was out of sequence, and I began to write it all down as fast as I could not wanting any of it to be lost. then took a few mins and put everything in the right order. then started testing it. I posted this idea here several times in the past and in various other forums including every atheist forum that I could find to see if either side could scripturally debunk this theory. even sent a copy to the pope.. (still waiting back to hear from him )

the best anyone can do is name call or claim I'm changing God's word or what you are doing by appealing to tradition as if it were any sort of standard to go by.

 

[drich0150]

But your interpretation contradicts Genesis 5:6. Both the word “day” and “time” are translated from the same Hebrew word “yom”. You have to use the context in which it is used to determine the correct definition that was intended brother. If Adam died the day he ate from the tree of knowledge he would’ve had to be resurrected in order to live again. There’s no mention of his death or resurrection in the scriptures. The scriptures record his life continuing. Now if we use the definition of “yom” as “time”, “age” or , “era” then there is no contradiction.

I did not say Adam died. I said whatever was in the garden with God died just like God said he would die the very day he touched the fruit. that is as far as my argument needs to go. It is then on you to assume God was indeed telling the truth and Adam died on the DAY he touched the fruit. of it God lied to them. For me Adam died because GOD Said the DAY that they touched the fruit they would DIE.

This all boils down to one question. did god lie when He told them they would die the very day they touched the fruit? or did he tell them the truth. or do you believe god would tell them not to touch it or you will die that day but really meant you will start dying and 930 years later you will be dead...

In your video you say that God created man in Genesis 1:26 before He created Adam.

You are confused
Gen 1:26 describe the creation of man kind on day 6
Adam made of mud given a soul and placed in the garden was created somewhere between mid day 2 and mid day 3. per Genesis 2. Adam was the first living thing god created even before plants. Man made on day 6 was the very last thing God created at the very end of day 6.


Now just going by Genesis that appears to be a possibility but how does that hypothesis compare to the rest of the scriptures? In 1 Corinthians 15:45 Paul says that Adam was the first man.
Being created day 3 still makes Adam the first man

This would mean that Genesis 1:26 was referring to Adam since that was the first man that was created. Chapter 2 is another account of the 6 day creation in chapter 1 since Adam was the first man to be created and his creation is mentioned in both chapters 1 & 2.

Furthermore Adam named his wife Eve because she is the mother of all the living.

“Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
skip on down to verse of genesis 1
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

now look at genesis two
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up 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 being.

So what day was the heavens and earth created? (day 2, this is our first book end or the beginning of the garden/dam narrative) now keep reading, so what day did plants get created 2nd part of day three. so EVERYTHING in chapter 2 started on day 2 and was all done before plants of day three.

so what was the first thing created in this day 2 day 3 time frame?

Adam.. made from dust and water/mud.

So again Adam was the first of all of God's living creation.

Man made in the image of god in gen 1:26 was indisputably made day 6 the very last of God's living creations.

you still with me?

 

[drich0150]

Acts 17:26 says that men of all nations came from one man or one blood.

they did.. That man was Noah.

As all of the sons of Adam and the sons of god (men made in God's image) bottle neck at the ark. No one but the sons of Adam survived the flood.

“and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭17‬:‭26‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

agreed and what said here works with that 100%

So according to all these other scriptures outside of Genesis we must conclude that Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman and all mankind are descendants of them including Cain’s wife.

ah, no. for the reason stated.

Now if we do the math, Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born.

Seth was born 130 years after the exile from the garden.

We don’t know how old he was when Cain & Able were born so the closest we can get is from Seth’s birth. According to the math and assuming that Adam was created as an adult which I’m confident we can agree on, Adam could’ve potentially had 153 children if Eve didn’t have any twins or triplets, quadruplets, etc. Unfortunately I’m not smart enough to try to calculate how many children those children could’ve had who were of age to marry by the time Cain was born but I would imagine it should be in the thousands by that time if they began having children around the age of 15 or so. Keep in mind that even tho a lot of people believe that Cain & Able are Adam’s first two born that is not actually mentioned in the scriptures. In Genesis 5 the descendants of Adam are counted beginning with Seth not Cain & Able. It’s very possible that the only reason Cain & Able were even mentioned in the scriptures is because it’s a record of the first death or murder that took place since creation. So it’s very plausible that an entire city of people, Nod, could’ve existed completely composed of Adam’s children by the time Cain married. We also don’t know how long after Cain killed Able before he actually got married. That could’ve been another couple hundred years for all we know. So the thousands that existed when Seth was born could’ve multiplied into tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands by the time Cain married.

I know a lot of people have a problem with the idea of incest but it wasn’t actually forbidden until Leviticus roughly 2500 years after creation. If the scriptures specifically say that we are all descendants of Adam then obviously God couldn’t have had a problem with it before He commanded us not to do it.

you nasty..

especially when the scripture does not imply incest.. As it gives the creation of Adam day 3ish and man made in god's image on day 6.

 

[Hammster]

seriously?
post number 8 YOUR WORDS:


Brother respectfully if you can't keep track of your own argument, then maybe you shouldn't make them this is the second time you wanted proof from an idea YOU BROUGHT INTO THE DISCUSSION!!!

Maybe you would be better suited to simply say you disagree, or maybe I should just say that and allow you the last word because I'm not here to help you develop an argument against my own work.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that you misread my post.

 

[Hammster]

a literal vision.
I was answering a question on genesis on this website like in 2008ish and then my stock answer was it is ok to say idk. Then I was thinking about all of this and my mind went kinda blank and then began to see pictures and images of creation. some of it was out of sequence, and I began to write it all down as fast as I could not wanting any of it to be lost. then took a few mins and put everything in the right order. then started testing it. I posted this idea here several times in the past and in various other forums including every atheist forum that I could find to see if either side could scripturally debunk this theory. even sent a copy to the pope.. (still waiting back to hear from him )

the best anyone can do is name call or claim I'm changing God's word or what you are doing by appealing to tradition as if it were any sort of standard to go by.

A vision. Okay. Well, I can’t exegete a vision. So I’ll leave you to it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I did not say Adam died. I said whatever was in the garden with God died just like God said he would die the very day he touched the fruit. that is as far as my argument needs to go. It is then on you to assume God was indeed telling the truth and Adam died on the DAY he touched the fruit. of it God lied to them. For me Adam died because GOD Said the DAY that they touched the fruit they would DIE.

This all boils down to one question. did god lie when He told them they would die the very day they touched the fruit? or did he tell them the truth. or do you believe god would tell them not to touch it or you will die that day but really meant you will start dying and 930 years later you will be dead...

I apologize for misunderstanding you brother, it was not my intention to misrepresent you.

You never addressed the definition of the Hebrew word “yom” which is also translated as “time” in the scriptures. All of these verses use the same word “yom”.

“So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“It came about, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out through a window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was caressing his wife Rebekah.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭26‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Now after a considerable time Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died; and when the time of mourning was ended, Judah went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭38‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

By this interpretation it eliminates the claim that God lied if Adam didn’t die on that very day.

“The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the time that you eat from it you will surely die.””
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Now I did change the word day to time in this translation just because I do typically use the NASB but it does fit both the translation and the context of the story.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I did not say Adam died. I said whatever was in the garden with God died just like God said he would die the very day he touched the fruit. that is as far as my argument needs to go. It is then on you to assume God was indeed telling the truth and Adam died on the DAY he touched the fruit. of it God lied to them. For me Adam died because GOD Said the DAY that they touched the fruit they would DIE.

This all boils down to one question. did god lie when He told them they would die the very day they touched the fruit? or did he tell them the truth. or do you believe god would tell them not to touch it or you will die that day but really meant you will start dying and 930 years later you will be dead...



You are confused
Gen 1:26 describe the creation of man kind on day 6
Adam made of mud given a soul and placed in the garden was created somewhere between mid day 2 and mid day 3. per Genesis 2. Adam was the first living thing god created even before plants. Man made on day 6 was the very last thing God created at the very end of day 6.


Now just going by Genesis that appears to be a possibility but how does that hypothesis compare to the rest of the scriptures? In 1 Corinthians 15:45 Paul says that Adam was the first man.
Being created day 3 still makes Adam the first man

This would mean that Genesis 1:26 was referring to Adam since that was the first man that was created. Chapter 2 is another account of the 6 day creation in chapter 1 since Adam was the first man to be created and his creation is mentioned in both chapters 1 & 2.

Furthermore Adam named his wife Eve because she is the mother of all the living.

“Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬
skip on down to verse of genesis 1
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

now look at genesis two
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up 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 being.

So what day was the heavens and earth created? (day 2, this is our first book end or the beginning of the garden/dam narrative) now keep reading, so what day did plants get created 2nd part of day three. so EVERYTHING in chapter 2 started on day 2 and was all done before plants of day three.

so what was the first thing created in this day 2 day 3 time frame?

Adam.. made from dust and water/mud.

So again Adam was the first of all of God's living creation.

Man made in the image of god in gen 1:26 was indisputably made day 6 the very last of God's living creations.

you still with me?

There’s nothing to suggest that what is being said in chapter 2 is happening in any particular order. Chapter 2 doesn’t mention anything about days or sequence. The word “then” is added in by translation but is not in the Hebrew text. Chapter 2 is simply telling what happened in chapter 1.

 

[BNR32FAN]

they did.. That man was Noah.

As all of the sons of Adam and the sons of god (men made in God's image) bottle neck at the ark. No one but the sons of Adam survived the flood.
agreed and what said here works with that 100%
ah, no. for the reason stated.
Seth was born 130 years after the exile from the garden.



you nasty..

especially when the scripture does not imply incest.. As it gives the creation of Adam day 3ish and man made in god's image on day 6.

Then how did the entire population of the world come from Noah’s 3 sons without incest?

“Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[TheologyBuff]

how? The exact same story that was given to them is also given to us. what you guys always assume is because I give another interpretation to the same story that I change the story some how.. When in fact I have not changed a literal word.

My understanding of the world around me is greater and possible deeper than those people who first received this story.
which simply means I understand or have the ability to understand nuances maybe the original Israelites could not.

Do you not remember the parable of the talents?
where a master going off on a long journey gives to each of his servants money according to their abilities.
to one he gave 3 talents then to another 2 and then to the third 1 talent.

Again each to their ability.

Now take that principle and apply it here. While the Israelites are also receiving the same talent/gold IE information that I am I just received a little bit more. because of the time I live in gives us access to understanding and information they did not have.

You can't believe that a Bronze Age mans understanding of the world around him must remain the same through out the ages? that the understanding is not allowed to change.

You’re assuming the evolutionary lie that people evolved from ape-like creatures and were stupid. I believe that they were just as smart, and possibly smarter than people today because of less genetic mutations and not eating junk food. People were making bronze implements as early as seven generations after Adam. (Genesis 4:22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools)

The main problem with trying to combine the Creation account with evolution is that God said His creation was good. It wasn’t until Adam and Eve sinned that death entered the world. Yet evolution would have us believe that there were billions of years of death (supposedly evidenced by fossils). The most logical explanation for the mountains with fossils on top and the strata is Noah’s flood, which consisted of massive shifting of tectonic plates, the “fountains of the deep” opening (scientists have recently discovered that there’s a layer of water under the crust), volcanic eruptions, etc. that took place. There is good evidence of rapid burial, which is how the fossils were formed. We don’t see fossils today when an animal or sea creature dies. Instead, they are eaten by scavengers or rot.

Instead of puffing yourself up with your secret, “more insightful” knowledge, I suggest you read up on how the evidence is logically interpreted by creation scientists and why the Bible teaches a literal 6-day creation week. For example, the Hebrew word “yom” for “day” always means a literal 24-hour day. It’s not figurative. The Bible even emphasizes this further by stating, “Evening came, and then morning: the [1st, 2nd, etc] day.”

 

[TheologyBuff]

Then how did the entire population of the world come from Noah’s 3 sons without incest?

“Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Noah’s three sons brought their wives aboard the ark. (Genesis 7:7 So Noah, his wife, and his sons’ wives entered the ark…)

 

[BNR32FAN]

Noah’s three sons brought their wives aboard the ark. (Genesis 7:7 So Noah, his wife, and his sons’ wives entered the ark…)

Yes so their offspring would have to reproduce with each other being cousins.

 

[drich0150]

I apologize for misunderstanding you brother, it was not my intention to misrepresent you.

You never addressed the definition of the Hebrew word “yom” which is also translated as “time” in the scriptures. All of these verses use the same word “yom”.

“So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭4‬:‭3‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“It came about, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out through a window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was caressing his wife Rebekah.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭26‬:‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“Now after a considerable time Shua’s daughter, the wife of Judah, died; and when the time of mourning was ended, Judah went up to his sheepshearers at Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭38‬:‭12‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

By this interpretation it eliminates the claim that God lied if Adam didn’t die on that very day.

“The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the time that you eat from it you will surely die.””
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭2‬:‭16‬-‭17‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Now I did change the word day to time in this translation just because I do typically use the NASB but it does fit both the translation and the context of the story.

from the nsab 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You certainly will not die!5 For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3 - New American Standard Bible

from the nsab "1995":
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3 - New American Standard Bible 1995

so yeah... forgive me for not taking your word on this, but it doesn't seem to be panning out. can you provide citations to support your 'quotes.'

 

[drich0150]

There’s nothing to suggest that what is being said in chapter 2 is happening in any particular order. Chapter 2 doesn’t mention anything about days or sequence. The word “then” is added in by translation but is not in the Hebrew text. Chapter 2 is simply telling what happened in chapter 1.

if you are going to now also deny that the word DAY found in the NKJ and the NSAB (along with your misquote of the nsab 1995) provides as "a particular order" then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[drich0150]

Then how did the entire population of the world come from Noah’s 3 sons without incest?

“Now the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem and Ham and Japheth; and Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭9‬:‭18‬-‭19‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

go to genesis 7 and reread verse one.

This is where God commands Noah to take his HOUSEHOLD into the ark alone with SEVEN PAIRS of clean animals...

So the word in the Hebrew for house hold H1004 - bayiṯ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) includes servants and slaves, which were not 'counted' or identified unless they played a role in the narrative.. this is witnessed in genesis 12, 14 and 17 where servants are considered to be apart of the house hold. (click on the blue letter link and scroll down to biblical uses of this word and you will see several references where slaves were identified as being apart of a given house hold.

now couple this fact with the command to Noah to load in 7 pairs of clean animals. verse 2 pair of unclean... One can point out the reason 7 pairs of clean were loaded in were to keep the genetic lines 'clean'/no inbreeding.

So then why would God want to keep clean animals genetically 'pure' but allow man (seemingly the whole purpose of creation more specifically the whole and only reason he sends his son to die on the cross) to become unclean?

especially when all Noah need do is load in his sons their wives and the rest of his servants who helped them build the ark in the first place?

oh, and there is a word in the Hebrew for family only and that word is used far more to describe family where house or house hold describes everyone living under the authority of a given man.

H4940 - mišpāḥâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

 

[drich0150]

You’re assuming the evolutionary lie that people evolved from ape-like creatures and were stupid. I believe that they were just as smart, and possibly smarter than people today because of less genetic mutations and not eating junk food. People were making bronze implements as early as seven generations after Adam. (Genesis 4:22 Zillah bore Tubal-cain who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools)

The main problem with trying to combine the Creation account with evolution is that God said His creation was good. It wasn’t until Adam and Eve sinned that death entered the world. Yet evolution would have us believe that there were billions of years of death (supposedly evidenced by fossils). The most logical explanation for the mountains with fossils on top and the strata is Noah’s flood, which consisted of massive shifting of tectonic plates, the “fountains of the deep” opening (scientists have recently discovered that there’s a layer of water under the crust), volcanic eruptions, etc. that took place. There is good evidence of rapid burial, which is how the fossils were formed. We don’t see fossils today when an animal or sea creature dies. Instead, they are eaten by scavengers or rot.

Instead of puffing yourself up with your secret, “more insightful” knowledge, I suggest you read up on how the evidence is logically interpreted by creation scientists and why the Bible teaches a literal 6-day creation week. For example, the Hebrew word “yom” for “day” always means a literal 24-hour day. It’s not figurative. The Bible even emphasizes this further by stating, “Evening came, and then morning: the [1st, 2nd, etc] day.”

again... if you are one of those people who can just faith your way through what is touted as hard science then this theory/interpretation is not for you. I am not challenging nor trying to replace your NEC views.

but I will say again the church/christianity is loosing 70% of it's children it sends of to college in the first two years of their schooling, and the number jumps up to 80% after 4 years. the church is dying because it can not survive this attrition. we can not continue to loose 80% of the next generation and stay a solvent organization. So again if you are one of those 20%ers who can believe no matter what, good for you, but know 80% of your brothers and sisters are having their faith obliterated with the demand higher education places on them when they confront a creation as you understand it with the current evolutionary model.

Now I could understand an objection if this interpretation of creation were theologically unsound, but look at the 5 pages of discourse I've had here. we had one exegetical challenge concerning the total age of Adam, which has yet been supported either by an actual reading of the supposed quoted material (meaning when I looked it up, the passage did not read as quoted) nor has any citation or link provided to support the reading provided.

out of 5 or 6 pages of dialog that's the only thing that has come close. everything else is either an objection to tradition, an objection to christian scientific 'facts' or an objection based on personal feeling. why is that if this is a theological unsound argument?

so like I said.. if you are one f those 20%ers or did not goto school/been indoctrinated to only believe in science then this message is not for you and know I am not trying to change what is taught in your church nor do I oppose you. My 'puffed up" interpretation is still humble enough to know not everyone need accept it and it is not a believe or leave your faith at the door because their can be no other explanation. I chose to leave that sort of nonsense to the yec's and evolutionists who demand believe their way only. Leaving me to address only those who need something like this so they can maintain a 7 day creation Adam and Eve/the whole lot (without incest) and at the same time fully understand and accept any version of evolution science is currently peddling.

 

[BNR32FAN]

from the nsab 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You certainly will not die!5 For God knows that on the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will become like God, knowing good and evil.”

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3 - New American Standard Bible

from the nsab "1995":
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 3 - New American Standard Bible 1995

so yeah... forgive me for not taking your word on this, but it doesn't seem to be panning out. can you provide citations to support your 'quotes.'

What citations do you require? Obviously you know how to use a lexicon, are you implying that the Hebrew word “yom” is not translated as both “day” and “time” in the scriptures?

 

[BNR32FAN]

if you are going to now also deny that the word DAY found in the NKJ and the NSAB (along with your misquote of the nsab 1995) provides as "a particular order" then we have nothing more to discuss.

Ok you are obviously ignoring the facts here. You know that the word “yom” IS IN FACT translated as both “day” and “time” not only because I quoted passages using the word time but also because you know how to use a lexicon. So now the problem is your just refusing to admit that I’m right. My interpretation doesn’t contradict any of the scriptures, your’s causes you to contradict how many days Adam actually lived. My interpretation doesn’t contradict either verse.

 

[BNR32FAN]

go to genesis 7 and reread verse one.

This is where God commands Noah to take his HOUSEHOLD into the ark alone with SEVEN PAIRS of clean animals...

So the word in the Hebrew for house hold H1004 - bayiṯ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) includes servants and slaves, which were not 'counted' or identified unless they played a role in the narrative.. this is witnessed in genesis 12, 14 and 17 where servants are considered to be apart of the house hold. (click on the blue letter link and scroll down to biblical uses of this word and you will see several references where slaves were identified as being apart of a given house hold.

now couple this fact with the command to Noah to load in 7 pairs of clean animals. verse 2 pair of unclean... One can point out the reason 7 pairs of clean were loaded in were to keep the genetic lines 'clean'/no inbreeding.

So then why would God want to keep clean animals genetically 'pure' but allow man (seemingly the whole purpose of creation more specifically the whole and only reason he sends his son to die on the cross) to become unclean?

especially when all Noah need do is load in his sons their wives and the rest of his servants who helped them build the ark in the first place?

oh, and there is a word in the Hebrew for family only and that word is used far more to describe family where house or house hold describes everyone living under the authority of a given man.

H4940 - mišpāḥâ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

Again your ignoring other scriptures outside of Genesis.

“who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.”
‭‭1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭20‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

8 people, Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and their 3 wives. That’s 8 people. There were no servants aboard the ark.

“On the very same day Noah and Shem and Ham and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife and the three wives of his sons with them, entered the ark,”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭7‬:‭13‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

You assumption as to why God brought 7 of each clean animal is incorrect. The reason was so that some of them could be offered as a sacrifice for the Lord.

“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar. The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8‬:‭20‬-‭21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[BNR32FAN]

So then why would God want to keep clean animals genetically 'pure' but allow man (seemingly the whole purpose of creation more specifically the whole and only reason he sends his son to die on the cross) to become unclean?

All this is completely unnecessary because God controls the gene pool. The unclean animals didn’t appear to have any genetic problems as a result of inbreeding and neither did mankind.

 

[drich0150]

What citations do you require? Obviously you know how to use a lexicon, are you implying that the Hebrew word “yom” is not translated as both “day” and “time” in the scriptures?

You said the NASB1995‬‬ said "yom" day or time. when in fact it does not mention day or time. I want a point of reference that supports your assertion. I show that the NASB translates the passage as from the DAY you touch the fruit.