22 Cindy K,

I intended to say more directly before that I don’t think that it is expressly “pagan” to believe that the “they” of Genesis 1:27 means that there was one person named Adam who was a “they of male and female,” and not necessarily a reference to the species of mankind. (It may not be Eve or female, but an “Eveishness”)

In Genesis 1 God reveals Himself as “Us” and it is not without meaning that he speaks of the creation of mankind of both male and female. The problem with making Adam a “they” instead of a grammatically correct “he” is that it would not only be incorrect grammar for a human, but it would make the human a God with a multiple with one person just as God is. This is not the way that the passage reads of the way that the church has understood it.

The NET bible translator notes reads:

The Hebrew word is ??? (‘adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in Gen_1:26 (i.e., Genesis 1:26b)) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in Gen_1:27. Usage elsewhere in Genesis 1-11 supports this as well. In Gen_5:2 we read: “Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name ‘humankind’ [???].”

So according to the translator notes, “Adam” is not to be considered a single man here but humanity and male and female is thus more than one person. I concur with their understanding of the Hebrew.

But to say that Adam contained something of Eve in some sense amounts to paganism is akin to a fallacy of distribution.

If one says that Adam contained something that God created into Eve is perfectly fine. But to say that Adam contained the female or her body parts of part male and part female or 100% male and 100% female (like Jesus was 100% God and 100% man) has no foundation in the scriptures. The only foundation it has is in mythology (mostly Greek) and Jewish story telling.

To believe something similar to what a pagan believes does not make one a pagan. It could well be that the pagans took the ideal and altered it.

I agree. To believe something similar or even to believe something exactly as the pagans, does not make one a pagan. I do think, though, that we should be concerned about what our beliefs might distort. To me it is like people calling God “mother”. That has similarities with pagan mythology too but it doesn’t make a believer a pagan. But removing or adding to God’s only image of Fatherhood, may very well cause us to see God differently than the inspired image He has created for us. It may also stop us from seeing other related things that He has prepared for us. I don’t want to be in a position to miss out on anything that God has for me.

So in and of itself, stating that Adam contained an aspect or quality of Eve when he was made, something that need not be a gender quality at all but “Eveishness,” is neither sacred nor profane.

The problem here is that scripture gives no indication that Eve was made from anything metaphysical. It only mentions “flesh and bone” not “flesh and bone and Eveishness”. God could have said something like that if there was more to it. But He didn’t. I don’t want to distort what He has given us to turn it into a story that is based on conjecture instead of solid fact. Many have followed that path before. I know because I have specialized in dealing with the cults.

Some people who are not familiar with the Hebrew style of telling and retelling as a literary device understand that Eve was made after God rested, though I do not find that to be cogent, because Genesis 2 said that God rested and was finished.

This would be an instance of a story telling that would contradict the revealed facts.

But the chronology is not abundantly clear, and though I ascribe to a young earth, I think that many good Christians believe that God did create Eve after day 6.

While I do believe one can be a good Christian and be an old earther, I would have trouble with any distortion of the text when Exodus says that God’s physical creation was “in six days” and having creation go past the “six days” would distort the sabbath.

Exo 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

The question is whether or not it makes any kind of difference to anything later on. Why would it matter one way or the other? I think it makes a big deal if you are fixated on anthropomorphizing God, and egal and comp can do that both alike.

I think it matters because it becomes the foundation for other doctrines. If the text is rendered as “unclear” on the creation of the first man and first woman what else is now unclear? Perhaps marriage is no longer clear between one man and one woman and perhaps the issue of sin is no longer clear?

You have been very gentle and respectful. I really appreciate that. My bottom line is that I want to be persuaded by the text. If we can make one human as “they” then we can no longer trust Paul’s wording in 1 Timothy 2:15 where Paul writes “she” AND “they”. Now the language becomes nonsensical and it appears to me that the Holy Spirit would be more willing to confuse us that give us the straight truth. I prefer to let the language speak for itself and just accept that “they” is more than one person.

Okay, that’s all I can deal with tonight. I will get to the remaining comments likely tomorrow.