Did God Create Adam With A Penis, But Have No Intention of Creating Eve???

21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24: And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

so he made whales after their kind, and winged fowl after his kind. the living creature after his kind, and the beast of the earth after his kind.
so he made the beast after his kind, and the cattle after their kind and everything that creepeth after his kind.

then he said let us make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness.
so god created man in his own image.......

who are their kind and his kind? and who are our(our image)?

or am i missing something?

or was god a man with wings and fur coat and have six legs with a human face?

and were they(their kind) cattle with flippers?

and if he made us in their image(our image) why did he go against it and decide to go with his image?


is the bible meant to make no sense? or was it just written in a way where its so vague you can make up any excuse or reason to answer the questioners?

some say don't take it literally, but how do you know which parts to take literally and which parts noy to? or is it choice? which ever fits?

reply to post by lifeform


Nah dude, I recon it's just a translation error - I think it becomes a big vague when dealing with pronouns. I assume that the HIS and THEIR is refering to the whales being made after their own kind, and the cattle being made after their own kind rather than refering to God shimself.

Originally posted by mortalengine
reply to post by lifeform

 

shimself.

are you doubting gods gender?

thanks for clearing that up, it makes more sense.

Originally posted by mortalengine
reply to post by lifeform

 

I assume that the HIS and THEIR is refering to the whales being made after their own kind, and the cattle being made after their own kind rather than refering to God shimself.

so he made man in their own image rather than gods.

reply to post by lifeform


I dont doubt Gods gender, but the lack of a suitable androgenous word in English leaves me no choice but to glue he and she together into shim and shimself. I think Val Valerian is to thank for that.

reply to post by AlexG141989


Wedding photos just in:

reply to post by lifeform


Ok first off, not "him" but rather "they" - As I mentioned earlier in the post the word God in Genesis is "Elohim" which is a hebrew plural meaning "angels of the lord" "messengers of God"

And in "his image" "their image" - whichever you prefer, I believe this to point towards... dare I say.... man being created by "Aliens". We are their offspring - early man called them angels but we now call them aliens.

Think about it for a second, all angelic experiences in the bible includes bright light/s, scary beings who tell the human to "not be afraid" followed by information which is beneficial to the human.
Doesnt that sound like what most people describe when talking about Alien contact ? barr ofcourse the "bad abductions"

reply to post by mortalengine


i totally agree and have considered the alien possibility and think there are a lot of things pointing in that direction, more than some like to admit.

my only point is how his refers to the creature being created in its own image, yet when mentioned in the creation of man changes to 'his' as in god.

or does it?

Elohim.....in Hebrew brings the idea of both male and female. Elohim, or the "all breasted one", is both male and female, and neither male nor female. El is the stem, it means one out front, Elonim denotes plural, although it is used as a singular verb in Genesis.

When St. Paul was caught up he saw that in Christ their in no such thing as male or female.......when Paul was caught up he said that he saw and heard things to which their is no human expresion.

Elohim spoke to Moses at the burning bush. When Moses asked for Elohim's name Elohim replied "אהיה אשר אהיה" I am that I am. Moses wanted to know the name of God but the name of God was not given.

This is the need to have enlightenment of the Spirit. Remember Jesus scolded the "priests" of the day saying you search the scriptures for you think that in them you have eternal life, but you are wrong, they simply bear witness of the Messiah.

If you apply that to modern day Bible thumpers some get all flustered. They do not know that early Christianity for the most part existed without any from of Christian literature. Matthew, mark, Luke and John where not written until at least 90 AD. And even if they were written earlier there was no such thing as a printing press. Early Christians needed to rely upon the Spirit of God. The spirit of God can bring forth the Shakina Glory.....clothing of light. (The return to the garden.)

Elohim, is the word given to Moses for God when he wrote Genesis. The Word, Logos, was given to Moses in the desert after he had left Egypt.

Adam. when made from the dust of the earth, was both male and female. Elohim, made woman out of man.

They were clothed with "Shekhinah", שכינה.

Shekhinah. was and is, the clothing of Elhohim, the all breasted one.

The garden, a place of relaxation, a place of with the fruits of the earth, a place where man and women explore each other, the garden full of wonder, at one time the family was doing well, playing like children in a "garden"

What is the fruit of the tree? Why is it in the story?

The fruit contains the awareness of evil. It awakens the desire to be apart from Elhohim, to be clothed with different clothes.

Does it make one wise? Yes. It surely will not allow you to die. Go ahead, it is good to the touch, pleasent to the eyes, good to the taste.

Ah, yes, for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh. the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life is not from God but is from the world.....the world being the system, the machine, the goverment of man.

And so the falling away, the lust for other things besides the simple pleasure given to us by God and by the earth.

The story rings true for each family on earth. And the story is full of application to each person today.

This is the main point of the Genesis story. It is the personal application.

Of course Adam had a penis..he was told to go forth and multiply, he was made both male and female, but now man must be brought forth by woman in order to show that we are dependent upon each other.

A penis, like a hand, or a toe is simply a tool given to us.

Use it with wisdom.

Okay, here's food for thought:
The Bible always refers to men as trees. So I submit to you that when Eve ate of the Tree of Good and Evil, she was actually having sex with Satan. That is where Cain came from because Abel is the good one and only Seth their next son is mentioned in the Adamic line.

Originally posted by whiteraven
Elohim.....in Hebrew brings the idea of both male and female. Elohim, or the "all breasted one", is both male and female, and neither male nor female. El is the stem, it means one out front, Elonim denotes plural, although it is used as a singular verb in Genesis.

I can't find that in any Hebrew/english dictionary I own (four).

But I DO find that Elohim is the intensive rather than the plural.

EL means "god." its the same root as "allah." Nothing about breasts in the monosyllable "el" as far as I can find....

ELOHIM, read as an intensive, can mean 'God of gods,' just like Malachim can mean "king of kings."

_____________

The real point of this thread is for people who don't like the Bible to be able to ridicule it. We could do the same with "origin of the species," but somehow I don't think such a debate would garner the same level of interest.

The real problem here is not that the people doesn't make sense to some of you---Its that you don't like the fact that some people are religious, and you hope to tear them down.

But there is no thread about ridiculous statements in the Qur'an, or the Vedas, or for that matter, "the selfish gene."

If you're attacking the majority faith and culture, there are no low blows, no such concept as "out of context," no need for footnotes, no consideration of what the ancients saw in the text.

It's a war to the death against non-materialism, and all's fair.




[edit on 7-11-2008 by dr_strangecraft]

Gennisus 1

27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Oz created both together, according to the bible.

I just have to wonder why anyone spends their time thinking up ways to "one-up" a God he doesn't believe in. There's more to that than meets the eye; I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster but don't feel the need to dispel him those that do.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by Bombeni]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

This post isn’t proof that there is no God, it is however proof of the bible creators trying to undermine the creation of women (however they came about) and attempts to “put them in their place”. While doing so they forgot the fallacies in their logic.

Yes!

And it is my opinion that God is making up for mankind's degrading by raising up women, now.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the "new" Messiah were actually a woman?

Not sure if it's been discussed but with so many pages..

anyway..

Eve was not Adam's first mate, Lilith was his first and was created with Adam as a matching set. Lilith was not content to simply be subserviant to Adam's will and left the garden. God, in his wisdom, took Eve from Adam's rib, to show her that she is made of Adam, and as such, will serve him in that capacity.

When you put THAT spin on the story, it makes Eve's temptation all the more heart-breaking for Adam.

Of course, it's all just morality tales not to be taken literally.. which you would know if you were Jewish.

[edit on 7-11-2008 by HankMcCoy]

reply to post by bloodcircle

Because for a man to spill his seed is a sin,

This sin was created by man not God.

Man believed that all life came from a mans sperm,they knew nothing of women's ovaries,eggs etc.So ignorance spawned the sin of masterbation.

reply to post by asmeone2

The least of which were their gullibility and ignorance to be tricked into eating the apple.

So the question is, did God intentionally put those flaws in them, thus making Adam and Eve less than his own image. Or, God is inherantly flawed, and hemade Adam and Eve as close to himself as possible, and passed on his own flaws.

First of all, if one believes in the creation account; man was created with free will, not as automatons. They were to learn the notion of; choice versus consequence. This in turn would directly affect their descendants.

I believe that it would be a mistake to believe that perfection = "all knowing." Remember, Adam and Eve had no life experience! But they were given a conscience and probably an abundance of gray cells. This though, would not take the place of experience.

It is my belief that in reality, we are an experiment. Mankind has been put through a wringer of tests and circumstances, to either refine us, or expose us.

Originally posted by maus80

God knows the difference between right and wrong. If God made us in his image, then one could assume that God came to the state of being good through trial and error.

What I want to know is, if God created us in his image, and humans do evolve, then does that mean that God evolved, and if so wouldn't that mean humans are some day destined to be Gods?

Really good reasoning!

My thoughts are, that God actually experienced a growing up process, himself!

Again, if we are perhaps just an experiment, then this could be a whole new concept for God, and he in a sense, is being tested, himself. I also believe that we are a template for future generations.

I do not necessarily think that this translates to us being gods - eventually. I don't see the connection, but anything is possible. It is just possible that we are being fine tuned and the dross (sorry to say) will be weeded out.

reply to post by MatrixProphet


So that means God is not perfect. So why is he God?