Interpretation of Gen 1:27

I would say God did not give me facial hair because he has it. He also did not give my wife a uterus because he has one.

 

I would recommend the book: In the Image and Likeness of God by Valdimir Lossky

In XC
-

 

Question: How was the original Adam supposed to create other Adams, I mean was it God's purpose to create this whole universe for only one Man Adam or did Adam have the capabilities to procreate by himself?

 

I don't think the whole point of Genesis 2 is to show that God created "impulsively" and then decided he needed a woman to fulfill creation's ability to fully reflect his being. I don't even think all of creation was ever intended to be a complete reflection of God. I think you are stretching to support your position that God has feminine attributes.

 

Adam was created with Eve in mind. God did not have some surprising thought that Adam couldn't reproduce. God knew that it would not be good for Adam to be alone. I am guessing that God did it the way he did so Adam would see what a blessing "his" woman was. I wish all men were able to see what a blessing "their" women are.

Woman was created to be a helpmeet suitable to man. Men need to see that they were created to have helpmeets.

 

That may be true. But Matt started this thread as an offshoot of a thread that is now-closed. In that thread a statement (from a website) was made, and then defended by others here that: "God has feminine traits."
I find the statement heretical, and my comeback (not yet answered) is:
What feminine traits did Jesus Christ have?

 

Did you vote for the Clintons? :laugh:

 

Maybe you should all just acknowledge that the feminine gender has traits that God has and call it quits!

 

Dogs come in "male and female" and are NOT "made in the immage of God".

You need not "dumb down the text" so that simply by breathing or having gender or having chemical reactions "we have all the image of God that is intended in the text" thus giving "the image of God to plants and animals".

RATHER Humans were made perfect -- intelligent, in harmony with God's Law, comprised of free will, instantly endowed with complete language as we see in Gen 2 and able instantly to evaluate animal characteristics and NAME them.

But of course all that requires that we GO WITH THE BIBLE on this literal act of God instead of "just making stuff up" on our own AS IF the Bible did not exist.

I am sure you would agree there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You are on the wrong track in general -- but you are right to emphasize the fact that BOTH Adam AND Eve reflect the traits of God and are each ONE made in the Image of God.

Look at Matt 23 for example Christ said "How I wanted to gather your children as a mother hen gather's her chicks under her wings" the compassion of God is more clearly reflected by the feminine and so also the desire to communicate and to interact at the personnal level.

But make no mistake about it "In the Image of God" is meant in the high sense of moral awareness, justice, mercy, free will, intelligent and capable of mastering complex thought. No doubt that all finite beings (even angels) are "infinitely less than infinite God" -- yet God is ABLE to create these finite beings IN His image if He so chooses and in the case of man -- He did.

You see then how the COUNTER proposal to scripture "that MONKEY-Primate is MAN's template and designer" strikes at the heart of both the Gospel and scripture itself. That distinctively atheist darwinist position leaves only the compromised Christian option of "dumbing down" Genesis to a "meaningless" set of statement amounting to "so that just means humans have gender".

in Christ,

Bob

 

Compassion is not a female only trait.

1 Peter 3:8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:

Peter exhorted all to be compassionate, not just women, but men as well.

 

There is probably NO human trait that is "completely absent" in one of the genders -- women have physical strength, a competitive spirit, fight-or-flight responses etc but you tend to find more of that "to a higher degree on average" in men. Men also have a nurturing, comassionate abilities as well as the desiire to communicate and forge strong family relationships through personnal interaction and open communication -- but you find that to a higher degree in women.

To ignore these facts is to claim that there is "no difference at all " between men and women.

I for one - am not comfortable with that solution.

in Christ,

Bob

 

As far as I know the word 'image' only refers to a sensual representation, one that can be seen or felt (you may look in the dictionary yourself, if you like).

Thus, the 'image of God' must refer to our physical apperance, IMHO.

But the fact that the verse clearly mentions male and female indicates that both have distinct characteristics, therefore they are not exact images.
Think about it: a scarecrow is in the image of a Man, but does not have most of the characteristics of a man. It has two legs, a head, and two arms. This is enough to qualify it as an image.

Our similarities to God may go no further, yet this does not exclude differences for male and female charactaristics.

In other words, just because they are male and female images, does not mean the model is male and female, because of the meaning of the word 'image'.

To make a case for the femininity of God from this verse is more than a stretch, I'm afraid...

 

OK, I will jump on this.

I think you have to separate these two statements. Just like God did in Genesis 2.

God created man in his image. Then he took the woman out of the man. You can't isolate one scripture passage from the rest of the bible and expect it to make sense.

God is complete. Adam, as made from the dust of the ground was also complete. Then God took the woman out of the man. Today we are incomplete alone. Only when the man and woman come together are they complete as God is.

I know some of you single guys and girls will probably disagree with me on this and that is ok. I do think women can function better without men, but men without women are missing vital parts of God's original creation.

I see nothing wrong with the statement that God has some characteristics that we would consider more feminine than masculine. The male human, without those female characteristics is incomplete.

 

It is absolutely ridiculous to define love and compassion as feminine traits.
Again I ask, Was Christ feminine?
What fenminine traits did Christ have/
If you can point to any; then I will point to blasphemy!

Those traits that you seem to associate with femininity (love and compassion), perhaps just because they are the opposite of the "macho-man" does not mean they are not masculine traits. We are commanded to love. Love is a fruit of the Spirit. Love is a Godly trait. It has nothing to do with being feminine. Indeed many ungodly women know nothing of love. Last month the city found a baby infant tossed behind a garbage bin. What does that say about a "mother's love"?