[_ Old Earth _] Man and Woman?

[cupid dave]

Don't be. You make some good points even if I don't fully understand them all

Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

Thanks for the encpouragement.

I am not complaining.
I realize that what people think about the bible has been institutionalized.

The obsrvations I have been presenting are new and many if not all have never even been brought up until right here and now.
What I sense to be shock is a reaction pretty hard for people to hide.

They tend to spring back emotionally with little more than naysaying and rejections out ofhand because they they actually have not examined the ideas nor even encountered them.
Some of them are ministers or Rabbi, too.
All of them are "selling" their own ancient evermore indefensible interpretation coming from the private sources of their particular denomination.

I do not expect to find a person like yourself who is positive and open to these things.
My intention and expectation is that by floating these ideas on the internet some future discussion elsewhere will occur and like a seed, grow into the things I am sending out into cyberspace perhaps forever.

What I have done is create a site where the Theistic Evolution insights into the Bible are enumerated and explained directly in the context of the scrioture itself.
I hope that it will become a refernce Bible for the growing number of Theistic Evolution believers.

http://kofh2u.tripod.com

 

[Adam]

Quite a generalization, there.

 

[Stone-yarder]

This is kinda difficult to unpack because I have many, many questions. They all revolve around the gender binary.

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" - Genesis 1:27

This passage seems to say that human beings were created in some sort of discrete gender binary. Am I reading this wrong?

But we don't seem to have a true gender binary. Different cultures have conflicting opinions on how many genders there are and what constitutes a discrete gender identity. And then there are myriads of people within every culture that seem to be between gender roles or outside of gender roles. Some cultures' prescribed gender roles are internally inconsistent.

My current guess on how to reconcile the fluidity of gender with the passage quoted above has something to do with sin. Perhaps God had a perfect design for a consistent gender binary and eating the forbidden fruit ruined it. Am I totally off-base here?

If it is caused by sin, is it a sin? For example, Adam and Eve were originally vegetarians, but eating meat is not sinful. (At least I don't think it is Is it like that?

Or perhaps it's more like when young children die of cancer. Caused by sin, but certainly not their own. Is the false gender binary a product of God's mystery?

Or if it is a sin to accept the fluidity of gender then where in the Bible are the explanations of what the true, internally consistent gender binary looks like?

Thanks in advanced for thoughtful responses!

There is a serious error in your "chain of reasoning" You quoted Genesis 1:27 which clearly says "man" Not "mankind" Man was created in the image of God.

Man:
Noun
An adult human male.

Man-kind:
Noun
Human beings considered collectively; the human race.

Whether on accident or on purpose it is a very dangerous proposition to change the words of the living God.

 

[Free]

There is a serious error in your "chain of reasoning" You quoted Genesis 1:27 which clearly says "man" Not "mankind" Man was created in the image of God.

Man:
Noun
An adult human male.

Man-kind:
Noun
Human beings considered collectively; the human race.

Whether on accident or on purpose it is a very dangerous proposition to change the words of the living God.

Yet the Hebrew word used there for "man," is also often used for and translated as "mankind." Given the context here, it is better understood as mankind. But even if we accept that it is "man," the context implies that woman also is created in the image of God.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

 

[Stone-yarder]

Not neccesarily, in the image of God he created he him(singular)KJV Speaking of Adam only. Male and female created he them(KJV), is more of a summary of the creation of man and woman and a statement of "I did it" Which is an amazing statement within itself, because now there is no question of how it happened or who did it but puts the responsibility of beleif on the reader, "Do you beleive God did it" This is not directed at you my brother but to society in general.

 

[Free]

Not neccesarily, in the image of God he created he him(singular)KJV Speaking of Adam only. Male and female created he them(KJV), is more of a summary of the creation of man and woman and a statement of "I did it" Which is an amazing statement within itself, because now there is no question of how it happened or who did it but puts the responsibility of beleif on the reader, "Do you beleive God did it" This is not directed at you my brother but to society in general.

You are not considering the context and context determines meaning. "Male and female he created them," is not a summary but is tied directly to the first statements in the verse "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him." The "male and female" are a further explanation of what is meant by "man." Hence, the correct understanding is "mankind," a legitimate meaning of the word used for "man."

 

[cupid dave]

Not neccesarily, in the image of God he created he him(singular)KJV Speaking of Adam only. Male and female created he them(KJV), is more of a summary of the creation of man and woman and a statement of "I did it" Which is an amazing statement within itself, because now there is no question of how it happened or who did it but puts the responsibility of beleif on the reader, "Do you beleive God did it" This is not directed at you my brother but to society in general.

If the modern Genesis reader looks for scripture to support the correlation between what is read in the bible and what are the true facts as we know today, statement like Gen 5:2 clearly provide a foundation for understanding the genealogy, in general, as referring to species, not individuals.

We see further down the road, in the genealogy especially in Gen 10, that the names of what seem to apply to an individual come to be eponyms, of titles for a whole peoples.

Canaan is a son but becomes the totem for the canaaites, for instance.

15 And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth,
19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza;


We see this again, when the science of the Earth's seven historical durations are marked in our Geology as long eras, and the Bibke supports this meaning for yowm, i.e., "days", by saying "a day to the lord is as if 1000 years."

The point being, that bible readers have the literal interpretation that compoares one-to-one with science as well as their ancient medieval interpretations that do not.

Why opt to buy into the doctrines of Smith, or Wesley, or Campbell, or Luther, Henry VIII, Knox, Williams, Williams, Russell, or Calvin?????
Were these NOT just men, men who started whole churches based on their foolish interpretations that defy Science as we now see?????

 

[Stone-yarder]

Whats your point?

 

[cupid dave]

Whats your point?

My point is that scriopture enumerates 22 links in the ascent oif man, all of whom went extinct after the "flood" Out-of-Africa by Modern Homo sapiens.

Gen 5:2 clues us that the Bible is referring to these creatures as a kind of mankind, or a species.
Science writers in the field of Paleontology largely agree that 22 now extinct humans were the source of our presence today:

Book:

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

The people who contestthis interpetation by recommending what these other church men established as doctrine in centuries past are just placing Faith in those ancient leaders. Why not see science and genesis as the same story???

 

[Adam]

My point is that scriopture enumerates 22 links in the ascent oif man, all of whom went extinct after the "flood" Out-of-Africa by Modern Homo sapiens.

It doesn't.

Science writers in the field of Paleontology largely agree that 22 now extinct humans were the source of our presence today:

They don't.

Why not see science and genesis as the same story???[/SIZE][/FONT]

They're not.

 

[Stone-yarder]

Well said Adam, thank you!

 

[Sparkey]

Not neccesarily, in the image of God he created he him(singular)KJV Speaking of Adam only. Male and female created he them(KJV), is more of a summary of the creation of man and woman and a statement of "I did it" Which is an amazing statement within itself, because now there is no question of how it happened or who did it but puts the responsibility of beleif on the reader, "Do you beleive God did it" This is not directed at you my brother but to society in general.

Gen 1:26
and·he-is-saying /// Elohim /// we-shall-makedo /// human /// in·image-of·us /// as·likeness-of·us

Note that Noun/Pronoun order doesn't conform to English.
And He is saying...
Who? Elohim is saying...


It's a little difficult to cut-n-paste from the Hebrew interlinear, but the difficulty comes in the reading (to those unfamiliar). Here's the where I cut the following from: Hebrew Online Interlinear PDF link.

Hebrew Text : WLC_v (v1.1): Westminster Leningrad Codex with vowels
Sublinears : WLC_t, CHES (v2.0),
Translation : Authorised Version.
​

Gen 1:26
u·iamr
and·he-is-saying
אֱ
הִ ים
aleim
Elohim
נַעֲשֶׂ ה
noshe
we-shall-makedo
אָ דָ ם
adm
human
בְּ צַ לְ מֵ נוּ
b·tzlm·nu
in·image-of·us
כִּ דְ מוּתֵ נוּ
k·dmuth·nu
as·likeness-of·us

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: [Note: See link above for following text] 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.

Gen 1:26
and·he-is-saying /// Elohim /// we-shall-makedo /// human /// in·image-of·us /// as·likeness-of·us

:

Gen 1:31
וַיַּרְ א
u·ira
and·he-is-seeing
אֱ
הִ ים
aleim
Elohim
אֶ ת
ath
»
־
-
כָּ ל
kl
all-of
־
-
אֲשֶׁ ר
ashr
which
עָ שָׂ ה
oshe
he-madedo
וְ הִ נֵּה
u·ene
and·behold !
־
-
ט ב
tub
good
מְ אֹ ד
mad
very

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Gen 1:31
and·he-is-seeing /// Elohim /// all-of /// which /// he-madedo /// and behold ! /// good /// very

Gen 1:31
וַיְ הִ י
u·iei
and·he-is-becoming
־
-
עֶרֶ ב
orb
evening
וַיְ הִ י
u·iei
and·he-is-becoming
־
-
בֹ קֶ ר
bqr
morning
י ם
ium
day-of
הַ שִּׁ שִּׁ י
e·shshi
the·sixth
:
:
פ
p

_________________________________
Although the Hebrew Interlinear may be relied upon for a very literal read, it lacks the dynamics of the highly poetic Hebrew especially for English readers like me.
For that purpose, and to get a better "flavor" of what is said, and to avoid what is termed "the paralysis of analysis" I love "The Five Books of Moses" by Everett Fox:

 

[cupid dave]

You are not considering the context and context determines meaning. "Male and female he created them," is not a summary but is tied directly to the first statements in the verse "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him." The "male and female" are a further explanation of what is meant by "man." Hence, the correct understanding is "mankind," a legitimate meaning of the word used for "man."

The point is that Genesis supplies a direct statement which can be used to support the Theistic Evolution understanding in spite of the rationalization of that verse so as not to deny others their perrogative to maintain anti-science interpretations.


Try as one may to dismiss the clear language, it does support the insight that these 22 links corr4spond to science in listing the 22 species in the ascent of only the three "sons" of Modern Homo sapiens to surivive the mass extincion of all other mankinds, in an accompliment to a great "flood" 40,000 years ago Out-of-Africa.

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

[Free]

The point is that Genesis supplies a direct statement which can be used to support the Theistic Evolution understanding in spite of the rationalization of that verse so as not to deny others their perrogative to maintain anti-science interpretations.


Try as one may to dismiss the clear language, it does support the insight that these 22 links corr4spond to science in listing the 22 species in the ascent of only the three "sons" of Modern Homo sapiens to surivive the mass extincion of all other mankinds, in an accompliment to a great "flood" 40,000 years ago Out-of-Africa.

The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-TwoSpecies of Extinct Humans

by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

Not only does that not address the points being made, you are going beyond Scripture, making it say something it does not.

 

[cupid dave]

Originally Posted by Free
You are not considering the context and context determines meaning.


Free:
Not only does that not address the points being made, you are going beyond Scripture, making it say something it does not.

?

I am only showing that paleontology corrresponds to scripture, in regard to the listing of the line of the now 22 extinct man-kinds which ended with a "flood" of Modern man out-of-Africa, in the form of three Racial Stocks comparable, agai,n to the three sons of Noah.
There is no "going beyond scripture."
There is only the comoarison when we lay the two diferent books side by side.

In conjunction with that, I presented a literal and clear verse that stated the name of one of these "kinds" of men in the line of ascent as a "species" or type of mankind, called Adamites.

 

[Adam]

When we lay the two books side by side we see that they are very similar in that neither says anything even close to a "listing of the line of the now 22 extinct man-kinds which ended with a "flood" of Modern man out-of-Africa, in the form of three Racial Stocks comparable, agai,n to the three sons of Noah."


Yes, the compare very well in regard to that neither says what you claim they say.

Neither are your unsupported claims relevant to the discussion.

 

[Sparkey]

?
In conjunction with that, I presented a literal and clear verse that stated the name of one of these "kinds" of men in the line of ascent as a "species" or type of mankind, called Adamites.

 

[cupid dave]

Hmmm..

I think I get your point, that when God "called them Adam" he distinguished a new species or kind from all the other animals...?

Gen 5:2 Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species),in the day when THEY were created.

 

[Sparkey]

Hmmm..

I think I get your point, that when God "called them Adam" he distinguished a new species or kind from all the other animals...?

Gen 5:2 Male and female created heTHEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species),in the day when THEY were created.

God made man from dust, he "portioned out" different kinds of animals prior to His creation of man who was formed from the dust of the ground with life breathed into his nostrils. See Gen 2:7

Eve was formed from something that was curved inside of the first man (an angular bone most likely a rib) and thus was made mankind.

See Gen 2:23 and thereabouts.

 

[cupid dave]

1) God made man from dust, he "portioned out" different kinds of animals prior to His creation of man who was formed from the dust of the ground with life breathed into his nostrils. See Gen 2:7

2) Eve was formed from something that was curved inside of the first man (an angular bone most likely a rib) and thus was made mankind.

Hmmm...
Yes, we can examine the Hebrew expression, but still the word "angular bone" doesn't make any sense and seems a foolish choice between other meanings for the Hebrew word used there, when we list all the synonyms and connotations we could choose to select:

I perfert to understand this word in conjunction with the meaning of "soul" whereby is intended the concept of the psyke', which better defines it in the Greek Bible:

So what I get then is this:



Gen. 2:21 And the LORD God, (Father Nature?), caused a deep sleep, (a progressive series of evolutions), to fall upon (the first species of mankind: [Gen 5:2]), Adam, (to psychologically change him), and he (evolved over many thousands of years as if he had) slept:

and he, (the Universal Power, in time), took one of his (seven Freudian psychic Subconscious) ribs, (Tsela; a side of a person, figuratively, “a door:” [Hebrew]), and closed up the flesh (of this psychic facility) instead (of including Human Intiution) thereof (within the rest of the mind of man);



Gen. 2:22 And (with) the rib, ([Tsela; a side of aperson, figuratuvely, “a door.”: Hebrew]), which the LORD God, (Father Nature?), had taken from man, (this evolving part of his psyche), made he a woman, (he created the Anima, a subtle psychic mechanism inside all men, this source of human Intuition so much more powerful in woman), and brought her, (See: The Big Mother Principle: [Dr. Tessa Warshaw]), unto the man, (as anarchetypal power that is available to influence his Conscious mind).