Trying to reconcile Genesis 1:27 with Genesis 2

[southernf]

I believe that God was looking into the future when He stated, "male and female". We have the absurd situation in Australia where biological gender means very little now. While we are supposed to "believe the science" when it comes to climate change, it's "believe the whims of an ignorant child" when it comes to gender.

God is clear: male and female=man and woman. The alphabet soup of gender and sexual orientation is the result of wilful rebellion against God and His ordering. This nation is reaping what it has sown.

I agree things have gotten confusing lately -- mostly because of liberal agendas to redefine terms. I have noticed in older writings they tend to use the word "sex" the way we use the word "gender" today, but unfortunately "sex" has a dirty connotation now. But I believe it is the more correct term (biological sex). I have absolutely no doubt that the terms man/woman and male/female in Genesis are based on biological sex and that God intended for there to be a distinction based on how you are born. I believe God meant for there to be two and only two sexes and that we don't get a say in which one we are.

 

[Cameron143]

I agree things have gotten confusing lately -- mostly because of liberal agendas to redefine terms. I have noticed in older writings they tend to use the word "sex" the way we use the word "gender" today, but unfortunately "sex" has a dirty connotation now. But I believe it is the more correct term (biological sex). I have absolutely no doubt that the terms man/woman and male/female in Genesis are based on biological sex and that God intended for there to be a distinction based on how you are born. I believe God meant for there to be two and only two sexes and that we don't get a say in which one we are.

This is not new. Man has been deciding for himself for a long time. What is so appalling today is the altering of body parts. It's another attempt to destroy the image of God placed in man.

 

[tomhillbilly]

The real issue here is a very touchy one. The idea that Adam and eve were not the first people would upset many people

 

[BonnieClaire]

The real issue here is a very touchy one. The idea that Adam and eve were not the first people would upset many people

But Adam and Eve were the first . . .

Acts 17:26
From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. ~NIV

 

[Papermonkey]

This is one of those things I think I have always been puzzled by when I read Genesis... and I've always felt weird speaking up about it in Sunday school or in front of church friends, so I figured I would ask it here to get people's thoughts. As a woman I have read the first few chapters of Genesis 1000 times to try to fully understand the nature of how God created us and what it's really trying to say.

Gen 1:27 says "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." But then Gen 2:7 says "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." Obviously, here man (Adam) is alone... and there is no concept of male and female (except I guess among animals since God seems to have created both sexes at the same time). Then later after creating everything else and after Adam didn't find a helper "fit" for him, God creates woman from man (Gen 2:21-23).

Usually I manage to convince myself that maybe Gen 1 is just an introduction and that Gen 2 just has more detail about the order of creation. But then I get hung up on the wording "male and female" in Gen 1:27. Every translation seems to use that wording. It's just strange to me that it doesn't say "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; man and woman He created them." So it makes me wonder if "male and female" is more general... as in "God created man" (as in created all mankind or humankind) and he also created male and female versions of things (animals, people, other concepts like masculine, feminine, etc.)... as in "woman" is just grouped into that general category.

I would love to hear anyone else's opinion or other resources. It's just one of those things that really irks me because I can't "get it."

I always wondered about that too. Then I found an audiobook written by a OT scholar who reviewed all the Old Testament books in detail.
I got this book solely for his expertise explaining those specific chapters and verses.

What's he say, after stating the obvious, those verses have been an issue for the faithful for years?
That's just they way they talked back then.
🤦‍♀️
And that was the end of his contribution in explaining those verses.
Big help. 🙄

 

[tomhillbilly]

God looked upon what he made and sanctified the 7th day. Clearly distinct from Adam and eve

 

[Moses_Young]

This is one of those things I think I have always been puzzled by when I read Genesis... and I've always felt weird speaking up about it in Sunday school or in front of church friends, so I figured I would ask it here to get people's thoughts. As a woman I have read the first few chapters of Genesis 1000 times to try to fully understand the nature of how God created us and what it's really trying to say.

Gen 1:27 says "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." But then Gen 2:7 says "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." Obviously, here man (Adam) is alone... and there is no concept of male and female (except I guess among animals since God seems to have created both sexes at the same time). Then later after creating everything else and after Adam didn't find a helper "fit" for him, God creates woman from man (Gen 2:21-23).

Usually I manage to convince myself that maybe Gen 1 is just an introduction and that Gen 2 just has more detail about the order of creation. But then I get hung up on the wording "male and female" in Gen 1:27. Every translation seems to use that wording. It's just strange to me that it doesn't say "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; man and woman He created them." So it makes me wonder if "male and female" is more general... as in "God created man" (as in created all mankind or humankind) and he also created male and female versions of things (animals, people, other concepts like masculine, feminine, etc.)... as in "woman" is just grouped into that general category.

I would love to hear anyone else's opinion or other resources. It's just one of those things that really irks me because I can't "get it."

As some have already stated, Genesis 1 gives an overview (on the sixth day, God made man (i.e. mankind), which includes male and female). I believe He didn't use the term "man" and "woman" as used today, because a woman is still of mankind - of equal value, not worth more nor less - she is just a female man (kind). Some feminists today try to subtly make out that "man" and "woman" are different kinds - hence the opposition to words such as "postman", "chairman", "policeman" etc. as if a woman isn't a female of mankind. Logically, the opposition would extend to the word woman, which includes "man".

Genesis 2 simply provides a more detailed account of the creation of man, and shows that male and female are not independent of each other - the woman would not exist without the man, but the Saviour could not have been born without the woman. We are all descended from the first Adam, and as a result, we can all be redeemed through the last Adam.

 

[hornetguy]

Genesis 2 simply provides a more detailed account of the creation of man, and shows that male and female are not independent of each other - the woman would not exist without the man, but the Saviour could not have been born without the woman. We are all descended from the first Adam, and as a result, we can all be redeemed through the last Adam.

So you are saying that God created Adam, had him take care of all the animals, and the fish in the sea... (in the garden??) name them, then put him to sleep and created woman, then Eve was tempted, and they disobeyed God, who was walking through the garden in the evening, and they were cast out of the garden.... being told to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth...
all on the 6th day?
Oh, and all of this was AFTER all the animals were created?
All in the 24hour period (evening and morning) of the 6th day?
Okay...

 

[hornetguy]

I believe He didn't use the term "man" and "woman" as used today, because a woman is still of mankind - of equal value, not worth more nor less - she is just a female man (kind).

um.... male and female? That's pretty specific...

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," how were Adam and Eve supposed to do that while in the garden?

 

[southernf]

As some have already stated, Genesis 1 gives an overview (on the sixth day, God made man (i.e. mankind), which includes male and female). I believe He didn't use the term "man" and "woman" as used today, because a woman is still of mankind - of equal value, not worth more nor less - she is just a female man (kind). Some feminists today try to subtly make out that "man" and "woman" are different kinds - hence the opposition to words such as "postman", "chairman", "policeman" etc. as if a woman isn't a female of mankind. Logically, the opposition would extend to the word woman, which includes "man".

Genesis 2 simply provides a more detailed account of the creation of man, and shows that male and female are not independent of each other - the woman would not exist without the man, but the Saviour could not have been born without the woman. We are all descended from the first Adam, and as a result, we can all be redeemed through the last Adam.

This is a great explanation! I definitely think the word “man” in Genesis 1 means all people (men and women), and especially after reading all the replies here I’m now convinced that “male and female” was just a way to emphasize that God created man with 2 distinct sexes. Honestly I have never had a problem with using the word “man” for all people. I think that’s just how the English language was for a long time and as long as you understand how it’s used it’s not a big deal. I can also believe that when God spoke these words, he was speaking through mainly men since few, if any, women would have been in a position to record things in written form. It’s just how society was in those days, and I feel sorry for people that get hung up on that and miss the key truths in the Bible.

 

[Moses_Young]

um.... male and female? That's pretty specific...

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," how were Adam and Eve supposed to do that while in the garden?

I don't follow. Are you saying that Adam and Eve could not reproduce while in the garden? Or something else?

 

[hornetguy]

I don't follow. Are you saying that Adam and Eve could not reproduce while in the garden? Or something else?

Everything else. How were they to do all the things God told male and female to do, if God intended them to live in the garden?
"Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth."

 

[Moses_Young]

Everything else. How were they to do all the things God told male and female to do, if God intended them to live in the garden?
"Let Us make mankind in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth."

I believe the intention was that they start in the garden. As there were more people born, the task of expanding the garden across the Earth would have become easier.

 

[Cameron143]

I believe the intention was that they start in the garden. As there were more people born, the task of expanding the garden across the Earth would have become easier.

It might be worth considering that the bible begins in a garden but ends with a city. It was probably included in subduing the earth that there would be advancement.

 

[hornetguy]

I believe the intention was that they start in the garden. As there were more people born, the task of expanding the garden across the Earth would have become easier.

Of course that could be possible, but it requires quite a suspension of "timeline" to be ok with it... although this is what I was taught from kindergarten on up through my whole Christian private school education.
This is why I started with my hypothesis in the first place.... the "timing" didn't work, when you say that the creation of Adam and Eve is just the "detailed" description of the 6th day....
When you entertain the idea that God created "mankind" on the 6th day, and told them to go forth into all the earth and be fruitful and multiply, and to subdue all the animals and fish of the sea..... and then he Created Adam (not mankind, but son of God) specifically to live in the garden, then a whole lot of other questions have viable answers...
Why did Cain worry that "whoever finds him will kill him" if he and Abel were the first two children born to Adam and Eve after leaving the garden. Who would have he been worried about? How many generations of kids would Adam and Eve had to have produced to ensure that there were "people" out there that might kill him?
Also, in the same vein, who did Cain take as a wife? If we assume Adam's family all lived in the Eden area (not the garden), and Cain was driven out into Nod, who lived there?
It would also help explain the odd description of the sons of God taking the daughters of man as wives....
There are many other questions that could be asked, and my hypothesis would answer most of them....

I have no problem with blind faith.... faith becomes the substance of things not seen.... but we also should be willing to think about things with an open mind.. My hypothesis would not change the scripture at all, it would simply change the understanding of it...

 

[Moses_Young]

Of course that could be possible, but it requires quite a suspension of "timeline" to be ok with it... although this is what I was taught from kindergarten on up through my whole Christian private school education.
This is why I started with my hypothesis in the first place.... the "timing" didn't work, when you say that the creation of Adam and Eve is just the "detailed" description of the 6th day....
When you entertain the idea that God created "mankind" on the 6th day, and told them to go forth into all the earth and be fruitful and multiply, and to subdue all the animals and fish of the sea..... and then he Created Adam (not mankind, but son of God) specifically to live in the garden, then a whole lot of other questions have viable answers...

Adam - who represented mankind - is a son of God, just like the angels. God created Adam directly, so it is correct (scriptural) to refer to Adam as a son of God. This is also why he is juxtaposed with Jesus - the first Adam, a son of God and the Last Adam, only begotten Son of God (note that Jesus is not created, but rather begotten - God become flesh).

Why did Cain worry that "whoever finds him will kill him" if he and Abel were the first two children born to Adam and Eve after leaving the garden. Who would have he been worried about? How many generations of kids would Adam and Eve had to have produced to ensure that there were "people" out there that might kill him?

Did Cain kill Abel before other children were born to Adam and Eve? The bible isn't clear, so it's not inconsistent to believe other sons and daughters were born to Adam and Eve and were out there. Presumably, Cain's murder occurred some decades after the exile from Eden.

Also, in the same vein, who did Cain take as a wife? If we assume Adam's family all lived in the Eden area (not the garden), and Cain was driven out into Nod, who lived there?

A niece. A sister. Any female relative. One doesn't always marry a girl from the place one lives (especially if there are no girls in that place).

It would also help explain the odd description of the sons of God taking the daughters of man as wives....

When the sons of God (angels) took human wives, they produced Nephilim. This is spoken against in scripture (Genesis 6 and Jude), and is not a legitimate way for Cain to have reproduced. Were this his method, I would expect it to have been mentioned earlier in Genesis.

There are many other questions that could be asked, and my hypothesis would answer most of them....

Your hypothesis creates a subclass of humans, irredeemable by Jesus' sacrifice. This is incompatible with scripture - "for God so loved the world..."

I have no problem with blind faith.... faith becomes the substance of things not seen.... but we also should be willing to think about things with an open mind.. My hypothesis would not change the scripture at all, it would simply change the understanding of it...

Jesus can only be our redeemer as He is our kinsman. To assume there are other humans out there who God did not create, or who did not come from Adam, would mean that Jesus could not redeem all of mankind. This is not a view that is consistent with scripture.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Jesus is one of David's biological descendants.

• Rom 1:3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word translated "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah)
which is a bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual posterity as well as
to biological; for example:

• Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual posterity; whereas David's is biological
because it's "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

This information may be somewhat insignificant to most Gentiles-- other
than their interest in Christ's connection to Abraham's promises --but Jesus'
association with David is extremely important to the Jews because in order
to validate the Lord's right to ascend David's throne and rule over the land of
Israel, he absolutely must be biologically situated in the Davidic dynasty: no
getting around it. (2Sam 7:8-17 and Ps 89:3-4)

Anyway; my point is: Males and Females together brought David's seed to
the final moment; but in the end it was a woman alone who gave Jesus his
human identity; which was seen coming from the very beginning.

• Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; you will strike at his heel, whereas he will strike at
your head.

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that prediction
pertains to Christ.

* Seeing as how Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body,
then if so that Christ was her seed, then Jesus is also Adam's seed.

This is a mite difficult for some folks because Adam was a created being;
thus his biological posterity are created beings too, ergo: the Word was
man's creator (John 1:1-3) whereas the Lord is a man (John 1:14)
strongly suggesting that the Word exists as a spirit being and a physical
being simultaneously (cf. 1Cor 15:45). Exactly how that's possible I don't
know. This is one of Christianity's baffling mysteries that has to be taken as
a revelation rather than an empirical fact.
_

 

[Moses_Young]

.
Jesus is one of David's biological descendants.

• Rom 1:3 . . Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David
according to the flesh

The Greek word translated "seed" in that passage is sperma (sper'-mah)
which is a bit ambiguous because it can refer to spiritual posterity as well as
to biological; for example:

• Gal 3:29 . . If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed.

That seed is obviously spiritual posterity; whereas David's is biological
because it's "according to the flesh" i.e. his physical human body.

This information may be somewhat insignificant to most Gentiles-- other
than their interest in Christ's connection to Abraham's promises --but Jesus'
association with David is extremely important to the Jews because in order
to validate the Lord's right to ascend David's throne and rule over the land of
Israel, he absolutely must be biologically situated in the Davidic dynasty: no
getting around it. (2Sam 7:8-17 and Ps 89:3-4)

Anyway; my point is: Males and Females together brought David's seed to
the final moment; but in the end it was a woman alone who gave Jesus his
human identity; which was seen coming from the very beginning.

• Gen 3:15 . . I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
your offspring and hers; you will strike at his heel, whereas he will strike at
your head.

Just about everybody on both sides of the aisle agrees that prediction
pertains to Christ.

* Seeing as how Eve was constructed with material taken from Adam's body,
then if so that Christ was her seed, then Jesus is also Adam's seed.

This is a mite difficult for some folks because Adam was a created being;
thus his biological posterity are created beings too, ergo: the Word was
man's creator (John 1:1-3) whereas the Lord is a man (John 1:14)
strongly suggesting that the Word exists as a spirit being and a physical
being simultaneously (cf. 1Cor 15:45). Exactly how that's possible I don't
know. This is one of Christianity's baffling mysteries that has to be taken as
a revelation rather than an empirical fact.
_

I agree on the Incarnation being a mystery revealed by scripture.

However, I believe the importance of Christ's lineage from Adam to be as critically important to the Gentiles as to the Jews - if Christ were not a man - a kinsman-redeemer, descended from Adam - he could not die for our sins in our place - whether Jew or Gentile.

 

[hornetguy]

Your hypothesis creates a subclass of humans, irredeemable by Jesus' sacrifice. This is incompatible with scripture - "for God so loved the world..."

or who did not come from Adam, would mean that Jesus could not redeem all of mankind. This is not a view that is consistent with scripture.

Remember.... everyone NOT descended from Adam died in the flood. The only ones that Jesus could have come to earth for WERE descendants of Adam..
Mankind, created on the 6th day were not a "sub-class" of humans.... God made them and blessed them, and told them to populate the earth.... Adam was like God's "special" project... he was intended to live in the garden forever, until he/they broke God's command...
Mankind was still out there, taking care of the earth.

note: I'm answering this as if my hypothesis is true.... I'm not saying it IS true, it is, after all, just a hypothesis. I'm just using my hypothesis to respond to your rebuttals....

 

[hornetguy]

When the sons of God (angels)

We only assume scripture is referring to angelic beings....
I was under the impression that angels could not have sexual relations.... not sure where I heard that, perhaps someone else knows the answer to that....