Male and Female...in the beginning

[Assyrian]

I don't think Eve was made that way either...unless men have one fewer rib than women.

Rib translates as curve. I see a strong possibility of Adam's DNA, the helix curve, being taken from him to form Eve.

Speculation? Yes...but it sounds more resonable than a rib.

Anywhere else in scripture where the word is used for DNA? Not that I want to discourage you from non literal interpretations of course

The heavens and earth I see as representing us. Those He has called and chosen are those He dwells in. It is also written that He dwells in heaven....so, who is the heaven in which He dwells?

.

Assuming heaven is a who rather than a what. So what has this got to do with God creating male and female?

 

[Jase]

I don't think Eve was made that way either...unless men have one fewer rib than women.

Rib translates as curve. I see a strong possibility of Adam's DNA, the helix curve, being taken from him to form Eve.

Speculation? Yes...but it sounds more resonable than a rib.

The heavens and earth I see as representing us. Those He has called and chosen are those He dwells in. It is also written that He dwells in heaven....so, who is the heaven in which He dwells?

.

Rib doesn't translate as curve. Tsela in Hebrew most commonly means "side" or "chamber". Less commonly, it means corners, beams, or planks. No definition of Tsela has any reference to "curve".

 

[1whirlwind]

Rib doesn't translate as curve. Tsela in Hebrew most commonly means "side" or "chamber". Less commonly, it means corners, beams, or planks. No definition of Tsela has any reference to "curve".

Rib #6763 ~ tsela from 6780 a rib, as curved, lit (of the body); or fig. or a door i.e leaf ) hence, a side, lit (of a person) or fig (of an object or the sky, i.e quater), arch, a floor or ceiling timer or plank (single of collec. i.e a flooring) - beam, board, chamber, corner; leaf plank, rib, side chamber.


.

 

[pilgrimage]

If you find out then you can tell the homosexual commitee that a loophole has been found. Oh ya, I unsubscribed

 

[juvenissun]

Because God calls it an abomination. Stop trying to blame Eve for something you claim she never heard.

God calls homosexual an abomination exactly because male and female are "different". If they are "equal", then homosexual will not be an abomination.

 

[juvenissun]

Adam was male and female in the beginning...it is written.

Why do you see male/female as not being "equal in spirit?" Where does that come from?


.

Because the love of a husband to wife is different from the love from a wife to husband.

Even homosexuals need to pretend that (disgusting).

Man and woman are born (or made) unequal. So, Adam is Adam, and Eve is Eve. Adam is not Adam "and" Eve.

 

[juvenissun]

How so? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and Christ died for all.

Not if you read Genesis as a figurative representation of God's purpose. Of course as someone once pointed out, while Eve came from Adam, every man since has come from a woman.

I don't know, the first part sounds a bit like Paul Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Certainly we are complementary as husband and wife, but spiritually, in Christ, the distinctions fall away

When I see you up there, we are the same when we worship God. But when I see you, I am certainly not the same as you. Each of us is also different in the eyes of God. We may want to see who is getting more rewards from Him. I believe your TE concept will cost you A LOT.

 

[juvenissun]

If you find out then you can tell the homosexual commitee that a loophole has been found. Oh ya, I unsubscribed

Don't go. Your idea is refreshing.

 

[1whirlwind]

Anywhere else in scripture where the word is used for DNA? Not that I want to discourage you from non literal interpretations of course

None that I know of. And, you can't discourage me in that way. Once the spiritual is seen...there is no going back to the literal. A door has been opened:

Revelation 3:7-8 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.
​

Assuming heaven is a who rather than a what. So what has this got to do with God creating male and female?

Good gosh....I have no clue. I'd have to go back to the beginning of this thread to pick up the reason. I'm sure it's there but I'm real forgetful.


.

 

[Assyrian]

When I see you up there, we are the same when we worship God. But when I see you, I am certainly not the same as you. Each of us is also different in the eyes of God. We may want to see who is getting more rewards from Him. I believe your TE concept will cost you A LOT.

Perhaps, yet all any of us can do is try to be faithful with what the Lord has given us.
1Cor 3:11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw--
13 each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Our reward, not that we deserve any, is based on how we build on the foundation of Christ. Did he commission the disciples to preach a young earth and that God made Adam and all the animals out of clay? Did he teach his disciples to faithfully interpret scripture literally? I was a literalist when I was younger, but I learned God spoke in metaphors and parables through God the Son and how he spoke to us. I learned to love the metaphors in God's word and realised how easily we could mistake them as literal.

One of the main reasons I debate creationism is that I have found so often it is preached as a new legalism condemning Christians who do not accept it of idolatry. Jesus and Paul stood against the legalism of their day. We should do the same. Accepting creationism and rejecting science has somehow become part of the package in becoming a follower of Christ. This is something that was never part of the original message we are commissioned to preach. Creationism is a stumbling block to people coming to know and trust the Lord. It is a stumbling block for young Christians brought up in Creationist churches who find in college the evidence for evolution much more solid that the straw man they had been taught, and their faith is shaken because they had been told again and again if evolution is true then the bible is a lie.

 

[Assyrian]

None that I know of. And, you can't discourage me in that way. Once the spiritual is seen...there is no going back to the literal. A door has been opened:

Revelation 3:7-8 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.​

​

Couldn't agree more, though I think there may be a more spiritual meaning than DNA.

Good gosh....I have no clue. I'd have to go back to the beginning of this thread to pick up the reason. I'm sure it's there but I'm real forgetful. .

I noticed the way threads wander off like that

 

[1whirlwind]

Because the love of a husband to wife is different from the love from a wife to husband.

Even homosexuals need to pretend that (disgusting).

Man and woman are born (or made) unequal. So, Adam is Adam, and Eve is Eve. Adam is not Adam "and" Eve.

So says Juvenissun or...so says God?

I don't mean that to sound snippy but from where are you deriving that?


.


.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Genesis 1 and 5 call Adam them and says they were male and female.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man (adam) in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27 So God created man (ha'adam) in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam (adam). When God created man (adam), he made him in the likeness of God.
2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man (adam) when they were created.
Whirlwind's interpretations seem pretty odd to us today, but the idea of there being two Adams was common in first century Judaism from the Pharisees to Philo of Alexandria, the first Adam was heavenly in God's image (Gen 1) the second earthly made of dust (Gen 2). Even Paul picks it up in 1Cor 15 though he rejects the idea of the heavenly Adam coming first. The idea of Adam being created a hermaphrodite comes up in later Judaism.

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Truthfully, any ideas of Adam and Eve not being single, unique humans or representing a "group" of humans goes out the window. They are spoken of as having a relationship as man/wife do and conceiving children.

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Note, first it is "in the image of God He created him" and then "male and female He created them". The former speaks of a man (him = Adam) being made in the image of God, the latter speaks of the fruit --> meaning the human race was defined to multiply and propagate as male/female. God is giving not just Adam but the whole human race to come dominion on earth, that is why "them" is used here.

 

[Assyrian]

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from the LORD.” Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Truthfully, any ideas of Adam and Eve not being single, unique humans or representing a "group" of humans goes out the window. They are spoken of as having a relationship as man/wife do and conceiving children.

"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

Note, first it is "in the image of God He created him" and then "male and female He created them". The former speaks of a man (him = Adam) being made in the image of God, the latter speaks of the fruit --> meaning the human race was defined to multiply and propagate as male/female. God is giving not just Adam but the whole human race to come dominion on earth, that is why "them" is used here.

Yet Adam was God's name for them when they were created. You read the story in Genesis 2 and it sounds like Adam was God's name for a single man he created and everyone since then had their own names. So why does the bible take the name of the first individual God created and treat it like it means a lot more than one? I have heard plenty of attempts to rationalise it, but the simplest and the one, that fits how God so often speaks to us in scripture, is that the story in Genesis about God creating Adam is a parable, and it is really about God creating the human race, male and female, them.

Look at how the flood is described, it explains Gods reaction to the wickedness of man, but the language is straight out of the creation account and the word for man is the same ha'adam we read in Genesis 2.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
It talks of God making ha'adam and blotting out ha'adam he had created along with all the animals and birds. This is God saying he had created Adam and was going to drown him in the flood. Except Adam if he was literal would have been long dead at this time. Instead Gen 6 is treating the story of the creation of Adam as if it was really about God creating the human race, not a single individual.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Yet Adam was God's name for them when they were created. You read the story in Genesis 2 and it sounds like Adam was God's name for a single man he created and everyone since then had their own names. So why does the bible take the name of the first individual God created and treat it like it means a lot more than one? I have heard plenty of attempts to rationalise it, but the simplest and the one, that fits how God so often speaks to us in scripture, is that the story in Genesis about God creating Adam is a parable, and it is really about God creating the human race, male and female, them.

When the creation of man is first mentioned, it is mentioned as God creating a "him" in His image. Parable, parable, parable. Trying to argue that "Adam" is purely an element of a parable holds no weight whatsoever. Even the original Hebrew makes a distinction between the generic reference to the "umbrella" of humanity (them) and the first human being a unique person (him) who lived, had a wife and had children. It is strange how you go around highlighting all the "them"s and yet ignore the "him" that is present within that first line, which represents a single, unique being.

Look at how the flood is described, it explains Gods reaction to the wickedness of man, but the language is straight out of the creation account and the word for man is the same ha'adam we read in Genesis 2.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
It talks of God making ha'adam and blotting out ha'adam he had created along with all the animals and birds. This is God saying he had created Adam and was going to drown him in the flood. Except Adam if he was literal would have been long dead at this time. Instead Gen 6 is treating the story of the creation of Adam as if it was really about God creating the human race, not a single individual.

Like I said, if you check the original Hebrew, 1:27 makes a distinction between the singular and plural, so whether you like it or not the distinction is there. Also, as of Genesis Chapter 4, claiming everything to be simply a parable or "symbolic" is not feasible, and it is blatant. There are also the genealogies, and how ridiculous it is to hold to the idea that it is only "part" real and "part" symbolic. They do not all coincide simply because different names might have been used or certain generations were skipped, it only becomes an issue if people erroneously assume all the genealogies should have been both identical and exhaustive.

 

[Assyrian]

Like I said, if you check the original Hebrew, 1:27 makes a distinction between the singular and plural, so whether you like it or not the distinction is there.

The singular is there in English too. But the interesting part is the plural. How can someone be both singular and plural?
Deut 32:15 But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek; then he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his
16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. salvation.
What it tell us is that the him in the story is really about them.

Also, as of Genesis Chapter 4, claiming everything to be simply a parable or "symbolic" is not feasible, and it is blatant.

I don't claim everything is symbolic, but the story about Adam is. Genesis itself in chapter 6 interprets the creation of Adam figuratively.

There are also the genealogies, and how ridiculous it is to hold to the idea that it is only "part" real and "part" symbolic. They do not all coincide simply because different names might have been used or certain generations were skipped, it only becomes an issue if people erroneously assume all the genealogies should have been both identical and exhaustive.

Didn't Paul tells us to avoid genealogies? And Luke tells us the genealogy he gives was 'supposed'. I don't genealogies are a very firm foundation for our understanding of scripture when they come with recommendations like that.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

The singular is there in English too. But the interesting part is the plural. How can someone be both singular and plural?
Deut 32:15 But Jeshurun grew fat, and kicked; you grew fat, stout, and sleek; then he forsook God who made him and scoffed at the Rock of his
16 They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. salvation.
What it tell us is that the him in the story is really about them.

You do not seem to understand. "Someone" is not both singular and plural. What you are doing is throwing out the singular, which will result in a faulty understanding of the meaning of that text. The singular refers to "one", the plural is simply a reference to the "whole".

I don't claim everything is symbolic, but the story about Adam is. Genesis itself in chapter 6 interprets the creation of Adam figuratively.

As of chapter 4, it is not feasible to take the creation of Adam as symbolic. This is what I meant, it is in relation to Adam (and Eve by extension). All the events, figures, time periods, all of it becomes "fiction". It is truly a gross error to attribute all of these texts to the status of "parables".

Didn't Paul tells us to avoid genealogies? And Luke tells us the genealogy he gives was 'supposed'. I don't genealogies are a very firm foundation for our understanding of scripture when they come with recommendations like that.

No need to push the eject button. I understand this, I was simply referring to how ludicrous it is to assume only part of the lineage to be real (the later parts) and other parts to be non-real (the earlier parts).

 

[juvenissun]

So says Juvenissun or...so says God?

I don't mean that to sound snippy but from where are you deriving that?

Ephesians 5.

Genesis 2.

 

[juvenissun]

Yet Adam was God's name for them when they were created. You read the story in Genesis 2 and it sounds like Adam was God's name for a single man he created and everyone since then had their own names. So why does the bible take the name of the first individual God created and treat it like it means a lot more than one? I have heard plenty of attempts to rationalise it, but the simplest and the one, that fits how God so often speaks to us in scripture, is that the story in Genesis about God creating Adam is a parable, and it is really about God creating the human race, male and female, them.

Look at how the flood is described, it explains Gods reaction to the wickedness of man, but the language is straight out of the creation account and the word for man is the same ha'adam we read in Genesis 2.
Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them."
It talks of God making ha'adam and blotting out ha'adam he had created along with all the animals and birds. This is God saying he had created Adam and was going to drown him in the flood. Except Adam if he was literal would have been long dead at this time. Instead Gen 6 is treating the story of the creation of Adam as if it was really about God creating the human race, not a single individual.

If Adam means human race, would the first sin also become a metaphor? If so, would the sacrifice of Jesus also become a metaphor?

If one of the Adams (he might not even called Adam) sinned. Why should other Adams also be condemned? Which Adam and which Eve committed the sin?

I think your ultimate "goal" is to make all Gen 1-11 allegorical. So people can make whatever interpretation to the whole Bible as needed. This is one of the major reason that I want to be a YEC. It is not so much about the age of the earth.

 

[Assyrian]

You do not seem to understand. "Someone" is not both singular and plural. What you are doing is throwing out the singular, which will result in a faulty understanding of the meaning of that text. The singular refers to "one", the plural is simply a reference to the "whole".

If you take Adam as a a single individual, the whole is still he. Especially if you are talking about when he was created as Genesis 5 is. Later, we had Adam and Eve, then Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, but Adam still the name of a single individual. However if you look at my example, Jeshurun was the name of a single individual in Moses' parable, but the meaning of the parable was talking about the whole nation of Israel.

As of chapter 4, it is not feasible to take the creation of Adam as symbolic. This is what I meant, it is in relation to Adam (and Eve by extension). All the events, figures, time periods, all of it becomes "fiction". It is truly a gross error to attribute all of these texts to the status of "parables".

Why do you need to take everything as a parable? The story of Jeshurun interweaves the literal and the metaphorical. It is only the modern mindset that demands neat sanitary categories, history must be literal facts and metaphors clearly labelled.

No need to push the eject button. I understand this, I was simply referring to how ludicrous it is to assume only part of the lineage to be real (the later parts) and other parts to be non-real (the earlier parts).

But you are not just looking at the genealogy and thinking it must all be literal, you are taking your analysis of the genealogy (which Luke and Paul warned you about) are letting it decide how literal other passages are, like the accounts about Adam. I think you should look at what the bible tells us about Adam and then if you want come back and try to figure out the genealogies rather than the other way round.