pinklight

If I’m going to be consistent and the man alone was banished which according to the grammar only he was, then also only the man had become unlike God.

How do I know that “the human” in Gen 1 is inclusive meaning “humankind” while not in Gen 3 where “the human” is banished and has become unlike God? After all, I absolutely believe that Gen 1 is just a further view of the creation account while Gen 2 is a close up of it. So how do I determine when “the human” is inclusive and when it isn’t used in that sense? I think I can now get an idea of why some egals have argued that when God made “the human” in Gen 2 that he made the first singular human being both male and female? So now it appears in my mind as I’m thinking about it presently that in Gen 1 “the human” stands for the very first singular human being made and NOT both of the humans.

So God made the human in his own image, in the image of God he made him, male and female he made them.

K, here’s what I think Gen 1 is saying. God made Adam, the singular human being from Gen 2 in his image. So the first person ever made, his HUMANITY was made in God’s image. Then Gen 1 goes on to say that he made “them” male and female, which means that the female has the EXACT(!!) same “humaness” as the male (like a cloning process) therefore since the image of God is their HUMANITY and NOT their gender as they have the exact same flesh and bone therefore there was no need for God to say he made “the humanS” (pl) in his image in Gen 1.