Replies

I don't know if you're being intentionally dull or not, so please forgive me if this post is condescending. Obviously (yes, obviously...well it should be obvious) there is no contradiction between the chapters. The first is a general overview "male and female he created them" and the second delves into specifics.

Yes, if I am being dull it is usually intentional. However, this is not one of those occasions where any dullness on my part is being exhibited. And, I'm not sure if you can be accurately called "condescending" if you are wrong in what you are saying.

Like I have said, go back to the Hebrew that it was written in. Secondly, it is not clear whether people were created on the fifth day or the sixth day, but if you are attached to the sixth, I'll concede for the sake of discussion.

Now, to get down to the crux of your argument: are you saying that women were not created in God's image, having been made instead from Adam's rib? Is this why this argument is important to you?

But even more important, why is it so necessary for you to see Genesis as a formula and with no deeper meanings? Why would you reject the idea that God would speak in allegory and parable? I just don't understand the attachment to this view of Genesis. When Jesus speaks of a wealthy landowner or a prodigal son, do you believe that there was actually a Mr. W. Landowner or P. Son? Did not Jesus speak this way so that we could glean deeper meanings as our faith matures?

I'm not really interested in trying to reconcile all parts of the Bible, because God had not provided me (or any other mere mortal) with the ability to see the whole picture. And I'm OK with that because I trust what God is doing. So, I'm going to leave you to arguing the finer points of relegating Genesis to some sort of formula. I just don't understand the reason we're even arguing.

Your big problem through this entire thread is you assume there is nothing deeper in Scripture than you have plumbed. Then you adopt a condescending tone toward those who have made a more diligent study than yourself.

Consider the seven kingdom parables of Matthew 13. Would a casual reader glean any useful meaning from the parables Christ didn't explain? Do you understand what is wrong with the mustard seed, or what the woman hiding the leaven signifies? Have you ever noted the parallelism of the parables to the seven letters in the book of Revelation?

I'm not trying to be overtly insulting to you; I'm really not, but have you ever considered the possibility all this looks so easy and obvious to you is you don't have enough faith to dig any deeper than what will confirm your own prejudice?

Jesus said God rewards those that diligently seek Him, and those that don't faithfully use that which they have been given (read: clues) will have even that taken away from them.

Do you not see the audacity of this statement? You are not interested in trying to "reconcile" parts of the Bible, and you claim you "trust" in God, but that no mere mortal can see what God wants to communicate to them.

You are just rationalizing your own lack of rigor with an internally contradictory philosophy.

Now, to get down to the crux of your argument: are you saying that women were not created in God's image, having been made instead from Adam's rib? Is this why this argument is important to you?

Wow. Do you look for offense intentionally where none is given? Is it your goal in life to be offended? If so, you will always succeed. First, in Paul's writings the account of woman being created from man is further confirmed. From 1 Corin. 11: 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

If you have a problem with that, that's fine. Take it up with Paul and with God. That said, of course woman is created in the image of God. God creating woman from man does not necessitate that woman was not created in the image of God also. In fact, it requires that she is. If you make an image of something, and then make an image of that image, shouldn't the second image still be made in the likeness of the original object? Why do you insist this can't be the case? Besides, God only took material from Adam--He then formed it to his purpose. But again, the purpose of my post had absolutely nothing to do with male-female specific creation order.

The purpose of my post is that Gen. 1 and 2 are NOT contradictory. The only contradictions you see are from your mind, not the text. Are things in the bible allegorical/symbolic? OF COURSE. Please point me to where I've said otherwise. Oh wait, you can't, because I didn't. Is Genesis actually symbolic? Maybe! It could be. The whole point of my post is that there is no reason it NEEDS to be. There is no contradiction that requires it.