Saturday, 12 September 2009
-
Are Women Created In God's Image?
Recently there has been news released that NIV will be undergoing a transformation. They are trying to change the grammar of certain parts to reflect gender neutral ideals. One of the things they want to change is the line that says God created man in his image. Instead they are going to change it to "human beings." A friend brought up a fairly valid conflicting view point to this change."I see that the Bible says that God Created MAN (as in the Male gender) in his image.. And made Women for Man.. To be mans companion and to serve him.. "References: Genesis 1:26-2 & 2:22-23.Her other argument was that there are two separate events here. One when God created them both in his image (Ch. 1's account) and then he created the bodies seperately(ch. 2's account). He waited until after Adam named all of the Animals before he made woman. Thus why many people thought for a long time that women were inferior. This is not what Ch. 1 says.Based on Gen. 2, here is a basic outline of what happened. Please note this is in conflict with Ch. 1 for some reason.1. God created the heavens and earth (space/planets, heaven) vs 42. Streams/water, "God formed Man...from the dust of the ground & breathed into his nostril sand man became a living being." vs 5-73. Garden of Eden, then he "placed man" there after made trees (including trees of life and knowledge) so that he could tend the garden. vs 8-17. Then God give ADAM the command not to eat of the tree of Knoweldge of Good and Evil.4. God formed "all the beast of the field and birds of the air" and had Adam name them vs 19-20 Note after saying he was going to make a suitable helper he makes animals...not immediately woman!5. God formed woman after no "suitable helper" was found. God brought her to him and he named her Woman.Now, many believe that God created the souls of men and women at the same time in the beginning when it says: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen 1:26-27Remembering that we are using ch 2's account lets ask this question. Were MEN made in image of God and Women made in the image of MAN? Or were we all created by God in His image male and female both? What do we say about the totally different accounts between ch's 1 & 2? Does this effect your view of the creation story?
-
recommend
- recs 0
-
share
-
email
- sent 2
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: GodsBelovedAng@xanga
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 6 Views: 0 6958 Comments: 0 141 View all posts by GodsBelovedAng@xanga
Comments (31)
Uh, probaly. Because we're all people, DER.
Yes
Ge 1:27 - Show ContextSo God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he themBoth are created in the Image of God!I loathe the NIV to create a gender neutral version as it detracts from the original! That is only part of the problems with the NIV
Dom
It wasn't until the woman was created, saving the best for last, that God said the work was complete and good.
All things were created spiritually before they were created physically.
Where the confusion lies is that traditionally words like "man" or "mankind" and "men" were understood to be gender-mixed. It's only recently that we've been particular about recognizing the two genders equally and saying "men and women" or "humankind" when referring to groups of mixed gender.
Genesis 2 does not say that God created woman to serve man. That's a mistake in interpreting the text, which unfortunately has been perpetrated far too often through the centuries. The actual Hebrew word translated "helper" is not one that denotes subservience. In fact, the other times it is used in Scripture, it denotes God's help to the faithful. That's hardly a subservient relationship! The word itself does not mean "helper" in the sense of a servant, but more in the sense of an ally.
Um Christ died for both men and women. I don't think anything else is really worth argueing about. Plus why are we so focused on this life when we should be focused on the next and making sure that others have the oppertunity to trust in the Lord as well.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Both were created in the image of God, the Bible makes this clear. What a few people seem to misunderstand is that to be subject to the husband is not to be less important, or somehow not equal. For instance, all people are equal in America, and just because some people have more power does not make them more valuable, or those subject to them not their equal.
I am a staunch KJV advocate for reasons such as this. It is very important not to take away or add anything to scripture.
It seems to me that if you are looking to find the image of God in the human person, you cannot find a complete image without both Man and Woman.
In the Genesis account of Creation, God started out with the most simple and then progressed to the more complex. Since woman was created last, it is she who is most complex. This is not feminism. Woman gives birth to new human beings. Men were not created to do that.
And it was woman, the Virgin Mary who gave birth to Jesus, the savior of mankind. God, bypassed man and impregnated woman directly so that His Son could be born into the world.
This indicates that woman has a unique and special relationship with the Father. Yet Jesus was born man, not woman. So men also have their own unique and special relationship with the Father.
Man and woman were created in the image of God. Each glorify Him in their own way.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - Excellent, excellent point
God is Spirit. We are flesh. When it says we are made in his image, it's not speaking of the flesh, but that God made us with a spirit and to have the ability to communicate and fellowship with God.
uh... is this question seriously being asked? the answer to is women also created in the image of God? the answer is a resounding YES...
let's be sure again... men were created first to be sure, this is not about simplicity VS complexity... that is an irrelevant point and only misinterpreted out of some wild notion....
the image of God speaks directly the a human in the sense that men and women both have VALUE... intrinsic value that no social status, no socio-economic placement, no popularity, no amount of excersise, not anything a degree, pedigree, heritage, cultural background, social class etc can put upon a person...
do men and women have differing roles... yes... but role and value are not mutually exclusive... women who are created in the image of God has about as much value as men... which is why when the Gospel of Christ enters a society, the status of women are boosted exponentially as well as the sense of worth in the feminine... the ony thing that differs between male and female are the roles... but that's not what the question asked...
@leadworshipper82 - let's be sure again... men were created first to be sure, this is not about simplicity VS complexity... that is an irrelevant point and only misinterpreted out of some wild notion....
A cursory reading of Genesis yields the understanding that God started with the simple and progressed to the complex. Religious fanatics simply will not tolerate the relevant notion of evolution or a tangible, logical order. This is because, by accepting such, the fanatic can no longer make things up to suit his purpose or define reality by personal proclaimation.
Men cannot have children. Their being does not possess the complexity. Only woman possesses the complexity to bear children. This is simple and obvious and biblical and RELEVANT.
Why can't religious fanatics see what is obvious? Genesis clearly states that reality was created in steps (days) that progressed from the most simple, to the most complex.
Woman was created last. Therefore she is most complex. The only one with irrelevant and misinterpreted notions is you. This is evident by the fact that your pre-conceived notions force you to deny what the Bible clearly says.
@leadworshipper82 - the ony thing that differs between male and female are the roles... but that's not what the question asked...
Men and women can interchange roles at will and when needed. But, barring some technological evil, man cannot have babies.
Women can work at most any job a man can do, but men cannot have babies. Motherhood and playing for the NBA or NFL are about the only roles that are not interchangeable.
So it is you who has the irrelevant, wild notions about the roles of men and women.
@LoBornlite@xanga - and you would definitely assert in some wild fanatical radical feminist notion (which clearly gets it cues either from some past pain or from the culture) in that complexity of womanhood=superiority... if child-birth is the one thing that justifies your assertion of female supriority rather than echoing Scriptural complimentarianism... you definitely have some hidden issue that distorts what Biblical roles between sexes are...
and make note... I am not asserting that women are less valuable... roles do not equate value according to Scripture... in fact, women are more valuable than man... when Paul talks about submission in Ephesians/Colossian and when Peter speaks of the same kind of submission in his epistles... that word "submit" in Greek is transliterated from a military term stating that a veteran lower ranked officer still salutes and executes the command of an upstart higher ranked officer... CLEARLY, the lower ranked vet holds more value than the upstart higher ranked official, but still the vet salutes and executes the command he is given... but I presume you knew that right? or am I overstating my point with exegesis?
Clearly we can see that value does not equate role... value dictates value and women are indeed valuable and to be honored most assuredly... but the role of men and women differ entirely, child-birth notwithstanding which that is but one of the many differing roles between the sexes...
@leadworshipper82 - and you would definitely assert in some wild fanatical radical feminist notion (which clearly gets it cues either from some past pain or from the culture) in that complexity of womanhood=superiority...
The religious fanatic rarely reads for content and meaning. Had he done so, he would not have seen "superiority" either explicitly or implicitly implied in any of my comments.
Genesis says that God created man and woman in his image. The religious fanatic might then ask himself how one image can be superior to itself.
@LoBornlite@xanga - LOL
@LoBornlite@xanga - religious fanatic? ok you say that... do you know what that means? and yet the measure of your comments fully suggest a notion of child-birth/complexity=superiority... why such the focus of child-birth and equating that with complexity? Scripture clearly notes that women is distinct among Creation for sure... but by no means does it note complexity... distinction yes... complexity, only if you choose a hermeneutic not back theologically or exegetically... I highly recommend you listen to a preacher by the name of Voddie Baucham on the issue of roles of men, women, and the Kingdom...
Hmm, I do believe we were created in His image (male and female both). As such the question of roles doesn't even come into this
Also I believe that although the accounts differ we gotta remember that what we read is not the original text. Languages don't always translate into what we need to see and as such the original translation can get lost and lead to some contradictory elements.
That is not to say what we read is not true for the Bible is truth and I believe that with all of my heart and mind. But when you think about these things, it is best to keep that in mind otherwise so many things can grate on the subconscious and really it doesn't have to.
@leadworshipper82 - religious fanatic?
A religious fanatic believes without reason or intellect. For example I showed you that Genesis clearly shows creation happening in steps, the simple to the more complex. And you then deny what is plainly written on the page. No thinking, just proclaimation.
You equate complexity with superiority. This may be true physically, but spiritually man and woman are created in God's image and it doesn't get any better than that.
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - I like that.
this is as stupid, backward, and thoroughly caveman question as "are women human?" because you know what, the answer's the same. women are human, and women are created in god's image.
Simply put the Bible makes clear that God has no express physical image, therefore, "in His image" pertains to the way we reason, our emotions, etc. Anything that's not physical basically.
When it says God made man in his image is means mankind or humankind... the problem is people do not read it like this anymore, so as long as the NIV is NOT changing the meaning but merely making it more clear I have no qualms about the change(s) really.
It mgiht also help if epople actually studied the Bible, it would make things easier on those who teach it sometimes...
People didn't believe women were inferior because God created them second. Actually, women have been considered inferior in cultures other than Jewish and Christian.