Trying to reconcile Genesis 1:27 with Genesis 2

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.

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

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."

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."

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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...

.
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.
_

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.

When the sons of God (angels)