Genesis 5:1-5

I decided to make a post from a comment on the previous thread.

Commenter Swanny River queried:  “I was reading Genesis 5 this morning and don’t recall what you said about verse 2.  I like the explanation of Genesis 1:27, but I don’t remember about 5:2 and it does seem to be at odds with it. Was there a particular post you covered it?”

I have never before made a devoted post about Genesis 5, but I have referenced it in a few comments.  As I have mentioned before the original Hebrew does not have punctuation, and Genesis 1:27 is a three line, or three complete sentence, Hebrew poem.

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in His own image.
In the image of God created He him.
Male and female created He them.

God first explains that He created Adam in his image, forward and then backwards, and then God contrasts that by saying that He only created “them” (which is not the word “Adam” in Hebrew) while contrastingly leaving off any mention of that creation being done in the image of God when referencing both male and Female combined. The male and female were not created in a combined event, but in two separate creation events, so their combined creation is a summarizing statement of two separate events, and those two separate creations when combined are never said to have been in the image of God. Reading that verse(Genesis 1:27) is when it first dawned on me, that God, the author, went to great lengths to never say that the woman, Eve, or both male and female, were created in the image or likeness of God, while saying four times, in Genesis 1:26-27, that Adam was created in God’s image or likeness.

Some English speaking folks insist on saying that line three of the poem given in Genesis 1:27 is not part of a separate sentence, but that it has to be referring, the male and female that were only said to be created, back to the statements about the man being created in the image of God. They do that partly because that is how it can seem in their English translations, but also because they would have to give up Feminism if God clearly made men superior, in the image of the Most High God, to be reverenced and obeyed by women who are created for men, to be men’s help.

So it is really telling that when an extremely similar restatement of the poem is again given in Genesis 5:1-2, they separate the verses right where the Feminists insist there is no separation, and right where I said there should be one. “Male and female created he them” is part of a whole new Bible verse, like I have taught that it could be divided and that the thoughts should be divided for better clarity in English.

Genesis 5:1(KJV) This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Now again the Bible backs me up that when only referring to Seth, Adam’s son, Seth is referred to as being “in his(Adam’s) own likeness, and after his image”, making clear that the image and likeness of God transferred from father to son, like it did from Father God to Adam who was a son of God.(Luke 3:38) And yet again when both the sons and daughters of Adam are mentioned, the likeness and image are not mentioned because the combined group of both male and female are not in the father’s image. The daughters take after their mother’s image and likeness.

The King James Bible almost always gets the gender of gendered words correct, and if you check it you will never find the likeness or image of God said to be upon any living earthly woman. While it tells of men and Jesus Christ(a male) being the image and likeness of God in multiple places.

Now any Feminist is going to try to exploit the fact that in Genesis 5:2 all people, male and female are called or named after “Adam” the man, the father of mankind.  Adam, in Hebrew, can mean: man or mankind, the first man, or ruddy(like clay). So also in English, the word “man” can refer to an individual male, all males, or even all humans. But “Adam”/”man” never refers to Eve individually, any individual woman, or womankind. “Adam”/”Man” only refers to women when they are lumped in with all men. That is a patriarchal colloquialism that God started, whereby we are called after our father, just like how my wife and kids all share my family name.

If God had wanted to make clear that Eve was in the image of God, he could have said that Eve, or the woman, was in the image of God but he clearly didn’t. The fact that all are called by the man’s Hebrew name “Adam”, is an honorary naming, that only goes to show that the man was created superior, and was the one by whom the others would want to be known by association. Just like today, wives and kids take on the man’s name, because he is the superior one, and it is an honor to be associated with your husband or father by name. Again I will mention that if both were equally made in the matchless image of God, the man would not be superior, but they would be equal. However only the man was made in God’s image and that is why it is such an honor for all to be called after his name, even to this day.

The believers of the church of Philadelphia(part of the bride of Christ) will be honored by being named after God and Christ: Revelation 3:12b I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
I’m looking forward to that new family name! What an honor it will be.

So, in review: “Adam” meaning “man” was the first man’s name which became the family name of all people, we are now all collectively known as “man” or “mankind” in English, which is the translation of the Hebrew name or word “Adam”. That does not negate all the rest of what God clearly told us, just because God honored us all by calling us “Adam-kind”, however some folks, on the side of evil, will always try to negate the truth by whatever means they can.  For further clarification see 1 Corinthians 11:7.

Bonus information:

Gary Naler has pointed out that when God counts people He usually only counts the men.
For example:
Matthew 14:21 And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children.
Matthew 15:38 And they that did eat were four thousand men, beside women and children.
Exodus 12:37 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. 38 And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle.
There are far too many examples to give them all.
While God certainly can and does count others, like in Jonah 4:11, He usually counts groups by the number of men present, and sometimes indicates there was also a multitude beside them. I think even God’s method of counting us has implications, as to God’s patriarchal priorities, that we may not have realized.

59 thoughts on “Genesis 5:1-5

  1. Thank you, Brother Sharkly, for expounding on this. All of Genesis was in my Bible study plan for this week, to include Chapter 5, and your explanation summarizes things quite logically and nicely.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. If we believe the deceptive lie that women are in the matchless image of God Most High, then all men can be no better than women. And was Christ not the “son of man”, the last Adam/man and the first/only-begotten son of God? Does the Bible not teach us that all firstborn males are to be offered to God, “the males shall be the Lord’s”?(Exodus 13:12-13)
    Romans 8:29 For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
    Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: …18 And He is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence.
    Does Christ not have preeminence in being a man, the sex created first and preeminently? Will a man(or woman) rob God,(Malachi 3:8) of His honor?
    Don’t be deceived by belief in a false-Christ who being bodily a man is no better than a woman. That is blasphemy against Christ! Bodily, Christ had to rightfully posses the lordship and dominion that is God-given to the mastersex!

    Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him the whole fulness of Deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fulness of life in Him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In Him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;

    Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    Don’t build your whole foolish religion on a false Christ who was no better in His body, image, and glory, than fickle women!
    Like a dam bursting and water flowing out, I pray that the Spirit of God will flood your minds with the truth of God, now knowing the truth about Christ, a preeminent Son, King of Glory, of necessity both God and man, that you will only build on true knowledge of Him, as your foundation, and that you men build upon the truth about your own preeminent male sex, that you share with Christ, while women, professing godliness, learn to shamefacedly reverence God and His image, represented in the man who rightfully rules over her, according to God’s holy patriarchy, her father or husband.

    Like

  3. LOL
    I’m not interested in hearing from a woman regarding my religious beliefs! I derive my beliefs from the holy Scriptures, not from the words of women. Although the commenting might be down a bit as a result of the defiling Eves’ collective expulsion from this sanctuary,(I have also been kept from posting recently) I think God is better glorified by their silence and by a brotherhood of men that fear Him, and together search out His truth, to live in it, as a testimony before our female-hearkening world.

    I presume by “interesting”, feeriker means in an amusing sort of way, like how “kids say the darnedest things”.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I think God is better glorified by their silence and by a brotherhood of men that fear Him, and together search out His truth, to live in it, as a testimony before our female-hearkening world.

    1 Co 14:34. He 12:28. Pr 27:17. Ro 12:10. Ho 4:15.

    Checks out. Checks out quite well.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. In the book of Jubilees it speaks of Eden as being a sanctuary that was more holy than all the rest of the earth. And Adam was not brought into the sanctuary until after a period of purification, whereas Eve required twice that period of purification before she was then brought into the holy sanctuary of Eden. Holy Eden was said to be a type or model, like the Israelite’s tabernacle and temple, of God’s sanctuary in heaven above. And of course we know that after their sin, Adam and Eve were then cast out of the holy sanctuary of Eden.

    Does any man have any thoughts about that?

    Like

  6. The reason why I brought up the question about Eden was because I had always been misled to believe in Sunday school that “the garden” was just like a large nature-preserve/arboretum/state-park and Adam was assigned to be the park ranger, or a gardener/landscaper.
    There was no mention of Eden being a holy place modeled after the sanctuary of God in heaven or that Adam’s role was to have dominion over the holy sanctuary, as a high priest over the entire natural realm.

    Those who overcome, from the church of Philadelphia, are promised to regain a resplendent role in the great heavenly sanctuary, not merely the earthly model, and they become family with God, by name, never to be cast out:
    Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

    Like

  7. And Adam was not brought into the sanctuary until after a period of purification, whereas Eve required twice that period of purification before she was then brought into the holy sanctuary of Eden. Holy Eden was said to be a type or model, like the Israelite’s tabernacle and temple, of God’s sanctuary in heaven above.
    [..]
    Does any man have any thoughts about that?

    Adam being God’s son, Eve being God’s daughter, Jubilees is essentially re-stating Le 12: 2, 5 applied to Eden rather than society.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I don’t consult Jubilees, Enoch, or other related texts. What’s contained in the canonical Scriptures is enough on the plate. Adding more is confusing and dangerous.

    Not all overcomers necessarily are members of Philadelphia. However, all members of Philadelphia are overcomers, or will be by the time of harpazo.

    The total promises made to Philadelphia apply only to Philadelphians, although some promise elements to Philadelphians may cross-over to other sub-churches.

    The part about not ‘going out again’ likely concerns only angelic members of Philadelphia, given that no human beings have been inside the heavenly temple previously. Thus they would not be concerned about having to ‘go out again’.

    Angels come in and go out, on various tasks and missions, and so this clause probably represents a special promise to those individuals and orders. The King is comforting them with the assurance that they never will be tasked with having to leave the Sanctuary again. Because to say the least, they consider this place a hell-hole.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I’ve read a lot of apocryphal and even some pseudepigraphal books, and so far the only ones I have found that seem helpful are 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and Sirach. I haven’t actually finished reading Jubilees, and the first third of Sirach has the best proverbs, with the last two thirds seemingly diminishing in quality, as if the book is a bit like a ranked list of proverbs based upon their helpfulness, but also grouped together a bit topically. Or that the author wrote most of the best stuff first, but continued writing until the collected proverbs were pretty poor in quality.

    Tonight I just skimmed through the gnostic “gospel of Philip”, and it seems to be a very satanic text contrary to the rest of the Bible and full of lies and blasphemies, it reminded me of some Masonic, black magic, or satanic texts I have skimmed. The basic message was that God has deceived you, but here is the real truth that God isn’t telling you. It paints God as a malicious deceiver, but you might just be able to save yourself through looking for truth in the spirit realm. It claims the Holy Spirit is female and couldn’t have inseminated the virgin Mary, that Jesus was shacked up and making out with the whore Mary Magdalene, and that women’s children will take after the man they love the most, not necessarily who inseminated them. I am worse off for having read it.

    I agree with ray, there is plenty in the Bible to fill your time with and to learn. Whereas even the best apocryphal books need to be taken with a grain of salt. Since they were apparently questionable enough to be left out of the Bible cannon of books that were both inspired and reliably preserved. I however have read a lot of stuff, in search of wisdom, ideas, and any truth that might be found.

    I do think I have benefitted a little bit from my reading, but I’m pretty good about despising spiritual error, even before I know what is wrong with it. Kind of like how I can sense when I’m being sinned against, even if I can’t yet put into clear words the reason for the betrayal/defrauding I feel. I don’t think my conscience has been seared quite so badly like so many other people’s apparently has. I have had plenty of natural enmity with the wicked, and the hounds of hell seem to always recognize the scent of their enemy too. Oddly enough, back when I was a blue pilled churchian, I went to church out of a sense of duty and because I feared God and was seeking for Him. I rightly judged the gatherings to be social, phony, and the people to be rightly spewed out of God’s mouth. The churches would hide sins instead of expose them and renounce the wickedness, or ignore sins, there was no fear of God.

    I remember one afternoon when I was a teenager my mom was listening to a Jim & Tammy Faye Baker program when I got disgusted and shut it off. My mom asked, “why do you have such animosity against Christian stuff?” To which I replied, “That’s not of Christ. They’re just money grubbing.” Needless to say, I was majorly vindicated on my gut level disgust for the Bakers, only a few years later. Once the Lord red-pilled me, it wasn’t any loss to me to ditch the annoying Feminist churchian losers and seek God with my red pilled brethren online. I couldn’t quit that nonsense fast enough once I realized they were in fact only whoring after the world and then wiping their sloppy cunts with a few rounds of “Jesus is my boyfriend” praise music, and a couple twisted scripture verses to make it all seem OK. I don’t doubt that others went there seeking God too, but I found God wasn’t in today’s churches, so they aren’t going to find much relevant truth preached there either.

    And the truth that is most relevant, is mainly the much hated patriarchal truth that is being demonized in society, and consequently forfeit by the cowardly churches. Not the claptrap megachurch pastors preach, where they “courageously” charge the common ground by setting up a bad strawman and then beat the stuffing out of him while the crowd cheers, “Amen!” “Plunk some money in the offering and come back next weekend for another great show!
    Watch as our grandstanding pastor again pile-drives the radical LBGTQ agenda with the old ‘Adam and Steve’ joke. Did we mention you can now give online and by auto-debit? Stop at our coffee shop and gift store on your way out. Be warmed and be fed and have a blessed day.”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Your approach is sensible.

    I didn’t warn about the extra-canonical books because I was concerned about you. You have enough Scriptural experience and discernment not to be harmed by those ‘extra’ texts. But that is not the case for most Christians, especially those new to the faith. These are the ones I want to steer away from the extra-texts, and so it is probably unwise to encourage others by positive citation of those books.

    Your citation of the ‘gospel’ (tee hee!) of Philip is a good example. Many of the non-canonical texts are rooted in the various schools and cults of gnosticism that satan made flourish in the early centuries after Christ. When they start yapping about The Marvelous Magdalene and about how Jehovah is the ‘evil demiurge’ who is responsible for All Badness Everywhere, then you pretty much know you are in Demonville.

    My understanding and wisdom concerning the canonical Scriptures is far from complete, and it ain’t gonna get completed in this time and place, that’s for sure. The canonic Bible is more than enough for me.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. ray, in your Bible readings, have you come to the conclusion that the Lord will grant new hearts to men, replacing cowardice with boldness and the Kingdom be prefaced with a return to God’s commandments OR that the Son returns and institutes Order here on Earth on behalf of the father and that men uphold God’s commandments as they are ruled with Christ’s rod of iron?

    What verses can you suggest that support your understanding?

    Like

  12. It’s not something I’ve thought about, so it’d be your responsibility to formulate a proposition and support it with Scriptural citation. Your homework is yours to do. If able, I will confirm or refute your understanding.

    For moment, I can’t think of Biblical support for God altering the demonstrated (on Earth) characters of individual persons, after death. If indeed that’s your question. That does not sound like Him, and kinda moots the point of being on Earth at all. But there certainly will be restorations given by the King to those who enter into his Kingdom, some of those already defined Scripturally (e.g., Revelation 3 to Philadelphia) and some as yet unrevealed.

    If you evaluated this matter differently speak up.

    Like

  13. ikr —

    Also, without consulting Scripture I can say for certain that the Son will come here, soon, and assuredly will institute order on the planet, according to Father’s will, and that King Jeshua will rule with an iron rod, and so will His administrators.

    The instant issue is how severely the Lord will punish, and which nations. He will decide this element according to His promise in Malachi 4:6. His disposition towards nations (and the angels over them) will depend upon their obedience to, or rejection of, this command. This matter of dads and sons is paramount in His mind, then and now.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I have always understood that the world will continue a slow decent into madness wherein with the last possible soul saved, the King consumes this Earth, establishing the lake of fire and its inhabitants, and fulfilling His Kingdom promise.

    We see civilizations come and go. Rising with discoveries of God’s Creation, and falling when ignoring His Commandments. I see the West’s (forced?) decline, with powers coercing the (good) will of God-fearing men and women and wonder where the beauty lies if our reborn hearts are to bear the burdens of those who refuse to bow the knee to the King. I bounce between Joshua and Ecclesiastes in my heart.

    I understand that this Earth is irredeemable. Christ’s return will be required to bring about 1000 years of Paradise-on-Earth. This will be uncomfortable for many- undoubtedly- as the imagery is one of discipline (the ‘rod of iron’) and not cannabis (hippie Jesus, yo).

    What I wonder- and have no Biblical support one way or another- is if He will rise up champions like Samson en masse from the various (framented, atomized) churches and come to claim the throne, or will He return as King, calling men to ‘get behind Him’ as He sets about punishing evil as the Holy Spirit commands.

    Does man’s heart know boldness before the King’s return, or does it require the King’s return?

    Like

  15. Here is a Christian site where I made a lengthy comment about current Christian and conservative darling Amy Coney Barrett. Who needs three names to show she is fiercely independent from her husband but don’t mind that, she is ‘on God’s side’.

    And hey isn’t a coney a rabbit? Why would I want a female rabbit judging me?

    https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/trump-appointed-amy-coney-barret-leads-supreme-court-in-win-against-new-york-governor-cuomo-religious-services-ban-covid-1984/#comment-5168082085

    Like

  16. ikr —

    Jacob’s Trouble or the Tribulation is seen by Christ not so much as punishment, but as a time of trial and hope, as the horrors that take place will bring many to God, even if by stark terror and last resort. That’s a lot better than not. What is left in the final portion of the Tribulation are the irredeemable, who still hate and curse and deny God, even though they see His workings plainly.

    Yes this planet is under both spiritual and physical entropy, culminating in the antichrist spirit and kingdom busily building now. After, the King will return for a Millennium. Then there will be another final rebellion (almost certainly sourced in the same issues causing the current rebellion) and then the spirits of evil will be extinguished. For now they can only be resisted, cast out, or detained/bound/silenced. Only God can permanently un-make what He created eternal.

    ‘wonder where the beauty lies if our reborn hearts are to bear the burdens of those who refuse to bow the knee to the King.’

    Not exactly sure what you mean here. Do you mean how to bear the presence of rebellious persons in the Millennium, or how to bear the presence of sin and temptation in the Millennium?

    ‘What I wonder- and have no Biblical support one way or another- is if He will rise up champions like Samson en masse from the various (framented, atomized) churches and come to claim the throne, or will He return as King, calling men to ‘get behind Him’ as He sets about punishing evil as the Holy Spirit commands.’

    He will do and is doing both, just as was done in the OT, before His prior arrival. Unless you do not believe Him capable of fulfilling the claims He makes in Malachi 4:5? And many other places.

    Just like before, just like in any war, the expeditionary and small-tactical forces go ahead to prepare for the main assault, to plant spiritual and mental seeds, to ‘straighten the King’s Highway’. None of these persons will be perfect, but just like before, they will get the job done.

    I never think about to what extent it is possible to restore authentic Christianity, or to reform America, and so forth. I labor under the assumption that EVERYTHING can be restored and made whole — as whole as is possible under the current planetary leadership. It’s my constant assumption that I will win every battle and make the Kingdom of the Father as extant on the planet as His name is in my heart.

    Then, whatever happens after that, it’s on God. If He is ready to shut it all down, or if He’d prefer a delay, further restraint of evil and a national restoration, it is not my problem or worry. When the soldier lies down at night in his tent, he doesn’t fret on what the general is doing under the lamps. He just puts out his clothes and weapons for morning.

    Let me know if that addresses your comments and questions.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Upon re-read I can see how that sentence could have been phrased better.

    “I wonder where the beauty lies if our reborn hearts are to bear the burdens of those who refuse to bow the knee to the King”

    Should read better as:

    “I wonder where hope lies if those with reborn hearts are forced to bear the punishments brought about by those who refuse to acknowlege Christ and keep His Commandments.”

    For

    Unless you do not believe Him capable of fulfilling the claims He makes in Malachi 4:5? And many other places.

    This is not the issue. I believe every word written in the books of the Bible are from the Spirit, complete, inerrant. This does not mean we always understand everything, the order, the plain meaning, at first pass- or ever for some topics. Otherwise, brothers disciplining brothers in the Word (Pr 27:17) would not be a commandment.

    He will do and is doing both, just as was done in the OT, before His prior arrival. [..] Just like before, just like in any war, the expeditionary and small-tactical forces go ahead to prepare for the main assault, to plant spiritual and mental seeds, to ‘straighten the King’s Highway’. None of these persons will be perfect, but just like before, they will get the job done. [..] It’s my constant assumption that I will win every battle and make the Kingdom of the Father as extant on the planet as His name is in my heart.

    This is what answers my question and checks out with my knowledge of Scripture.

    When the soldier lies down at night in his tent, he doesn’t fret on what the general is doing under the lamps. He just puts out his clothes and weapons for morning.

    A good reminder to always look to one’s field (Pr 24:27). Not the neighbor’s, lest jealousy overtake you. Not the mountain range, lest despair overtake you. One field is enough.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. ikr —

    “I wonder where hope lies if those with reborn hearts are forced to bear the punishments brought about by those who refuse to acknowlege Christ and keep His Commandments.”

    The rain falls on the just and the unjust, and while I might grumble about it, make that DO grumble about it, it is no reason to lose hope. In this hour, the tares are mixed together with the wheat, all over the planet. So on Earth, yes we must bear the degradations brought about by the irredeemably wicked — to a point. In heaven, no. In the Millennium, the bridge between heaven and Earth, there is still sin and wickedness, but the King’s servants will not be under temptation and attack to anything near the degree we are now. It will be Christ’s world then, not satan’s.

    My advice is to remain in Philadelphia and not be moved, because only there can I guarantee removal of the whole sub-church before the earthly punishments you mention get unbearable. I believe this already is the case with you, and so I would ask that you understand and aid Philadelphia to the best of your abilities, and continue in the works which you have already begun. You will not be disappointed.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Here is a comment I left over at feeriker’s blog:

    William Bradford’s diary is a good book to read for historical perspective. Much better than the rubbish from modern historians. Marxists wail that Marxism would work if only we tried it in America. LOL After the early church tried it and failed, America was most likely the next place it was tried and spectacularly failed. The pilgrims at Plymouth Plantation were soon starving after having all things in common, and no private property. William Bradford eventually switched back to Capitalism, and concluded that even the most virtuous and godly could never make communism work, because communal living itself was a conceited Humanistic countering of God’s established(patriarchal) course for mankind.

    From Governor William Bradford’s diary:
    So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance), and ranged all boys & youth under some family. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would allege weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.

    The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s & other ancients, applauded by some of later times;—that the taking away of property, and bringing in community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young-men that were most able and fit for labor & service did repine that they should spend their time & strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals & clothes, then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors, and victuals, clothes, & Etc., with the meaner & younger sort, thought it some indignity & disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, & Etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all beginning to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object, this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them.

    Like

  20. This is modified from a comment I left at Gunner Q’s blog:

    This view of what humans are for, or perhaps what humans are not for … is … shaping our laws and our cultural imagination when it comes to what humans should do, and what we should be able to do with humans …

    And God said, Let Us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let him have dominion … And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

    Who is “Us”? That would be God the Father, the Son, and their united holy masculine Spirit who later impregnated Mary Himself. And so they made Adam as their son(Luke 3:38), with a masculine spirit, who would become the father of all men, and image all the fullness of the godhead bodily, just as Jesus Christ, the last Adam did.
    Colossians 2:9 For in Him[Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
    Jesus didn’t need a female counterpart to image God fully. Christ was not only God’s Son, and filled with God’s Spirit, but He also had the Father in Him.
    From John 14:6-11 ~ Believe Me that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me.
    Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man(1 Corinthians 11:9 see also verse 7), to be an help meet for him. And it isn’t good that men be left single or divorced by women who refuse to serve God’s purpose for making them.
    The Old English word “meet”, in that usage, is defined as ~ to fulfill or to satisfy.
    Like how “meeting” a contractual obligation is to fulfill or satisfy that obligation.

    In review: Men were created to be images of God and to have dominion over the earth. Women were created to help men and to fulfill and satisfy them. Now we just need to incorporate that into shaping our laws and our cultural imagination. And then we’ll be ready for the arrival of the Final Adam.

    Like

  21. Jude 1:14-15a And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all …
    Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

    Sometimes I picture a moment before the battle, returned from heaven, I’m mounted on horseback in the front row, arrayed for battle, just a few horses down on the left side, behind Christ. I have a front row seat, ready to watch him slay His enemies by the word of His mouth. I’m focused on watching Christ, who is on my strong side, but I suspect he is going to do all the killing Himself. I’m just there as a member of his sword bearing retinue, to watch and accompany as He lays waste to His enemies.

    Like

  22. The source of this world’s defilement is women, choosing to follow Satan and usurp their rightful head, men, and then being allowed by men to defile men, who are the image and glory of God.

    A woman led the image of God to defile himself in the beginning, and women are still being permitted to lead the images of God into continuing defilement today.
    The heavenly watchers also left their heavenly habitation and defiled themselves with the women of earth, who bore them giants(now dead) whose spirits are evil spirits and whose habitation is still earth.

    “Woman is the root of all evil.” ~ Saint Jerome AD 347 – 420

    “…it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman.” ~ Saint Augustine AD 354 – 430

    To return mankind towards greater righteousness men must quit hearkening to women, and instead rule over them, and men themselves should also seek to return to God’s ways.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. From a comment I left at Σ Frame:

    We are marinated in our culture, and it is hard to see which part is our culture, and what is just the toleration of wickedness. Sometimes the clearest path forward when things are deteriorating, is to retrace your steps back into the past, because even though we may not know what is wrong, we at least have references for what our past was like. When a non-instrument rated pilot flies into clouds at night, and is not certain how to get out, the most certain path back out is a quick 180 degree turn to exit where you entered into the blinding cloud cover.

    The church lost their basis for patriarchy(the innate absolute superiority of the male sex) long before they gave up all the practices of patriarchy. Because men’s superiority is so innate, the patriarchal culture persisted for over 1500 years from when the “absolute” basis for men’s superiority first began being torn down around the late fourth century. Once you lose the absolute divine superiority of men, then gradually men’s superiority to women becomes relative to changing earthly factors, and subject to individual men’s subjective moral performance. And now churches are even inverted preaching as though women are the better sex, which more closely approximate our deity.(our Father & Son Godhead)

    Liked by 1 person

  24. “Woman is the root of all evil.” ~ Saint Jerome AD 347 – 420

    “…it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman.” ~ Saint Augustine AD 354 – 430

    The love of money is the root of all evil. (1 Tm 6:10) We already know that all women are ‘daughters of Eve’ just as all men inherited Adam’s traits. For men, a spirit of cowardice, for women, a spirit of pride that seeks to usurp. (Ge 3:16).

    It bears reminding that our authority comes from Scripture- alone, God-breathed. Not those who interpret it. Both Jerry and Auggy were already well-practiced with rewriting Scripture in the 4th century. It did not take man 20 centuries to summon the courage to.. rewrite the Law.

    Besides, ol’ Auggy never got his dick wet.. or something like that. What did he know about legitimate intercourse and the roles of the sexes?

    Like

  25. 1 Timothy 6:10(NASB) For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.
    My father used to point out that the NASB had translated that verse better than the KJV. All sorts of evil can be motivated by money, but not all of it is. A person may even give up money to commit sexual immorality with a prostitute just because of their lust of the flesh, while the prostitute is most likely committing the sexual immorality, at least in part, for the money. I reckon Saint Jerome may have been referring to how all sin can be traced or rooted back into “original sin”. The woman, like Satan, having acted as a defiler. But, I certainly don’t discount women’s constant defiling influence on the debauchery of this present Feminist age. One wonders if we will have to be reduced to utter poverty and starvation, becoming “Famininsts” before people will repent of hearkening to women instead of God?

    From the historical stuff I have read about Saint Augustine, he was in an extended relationship with a woman who bore a son during that time. And Augustine apparently believed the boy to be his own son. He later seems to have reacted to his former sexual immorality, and perhaps in a pendulum swing to the opposite, his doctrine was then very anti-sex, like many of the Ascetics, Stoics, and Gnostics, of his day.

    Often religious folks try to outdo others. My Mennonite ancestors came to America as very pious people who happened to drink a bit of wine and often had a cigar or cigarette after dinner. However upon discovering that American Christians believed those practices to be sinful, they soon were just as good as they, at abstaining from those prior liberties, so as not to cause offense or to be outdone by those outlanders.

    I don’t doubt that with many of Augustine’s contemporary ascetic, stoic, and gnostic sects considering the physical body and sex to be inherently evil and to be abstained from, that many of the early church fathers went overboard in regard to abstaining from satisfying sexual passions even when it is sanctified during marriage and considered the liberties of legitimate physical pleasures as the dangerous indulgence of a physical body at war against a person’s spiritual ascension to some higher state of being. They weren’t wanting to be considered libertines and be too far outdone by those who outwardly afflicted their bodies as evidence of their piety.

    I don’t doubt that today we may have “recovered” too far in the other direction, where churches really are full of gluttonous libertines who won’t worship without all their modern comforts.
    They seem to be of the opinion: “If there is a flu going around, close the churches! We might die, and that would be a frightening end for us!” We need to separate ourselves out from among those faithless ones. And what faith they do have is usually misplaced, in stuff like prosperity theology, popular psychology, or in how being inoffensive to the world is seemingly their supreme directive.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Evil entered the world through Adam, the first man. Its power was broken by Christ, the last Adam. A woman is a natural usurper, but not the source of evil.

    Rm 5:12

    We must be careful in attaching ourselves to narratives that begin as Biblical but get carried away. The best lies are those founded in absolute truth. ALL notions are to be tested.

    2 Co 10:5

    Where we will agree, because their is plenty of anecdotal evidence, is that women love money. ;Never enough’ is the status. The shopping sprees for women of all backgrounds. The dependency behavior that becomes leech behavior when unchecked. It is the natural love of money (cited in KJV* as the ‘source of all’ evil) that perhaps naturally taints a woman’s heart and actions.

    A woman loves money. Money being the currency of man’s labor. Money reflects male work, and can command male work. And women will work full-time jobs to bank their own cash while expecting men to ‘romance’ them. It is even better if you can command man’s efforts both in action (eg. dates, lifestyle, et al) AND in symbology/potential (eg. assets like money which can be traded in the future for action).

    Ever witness a woman who faces the storm alone? Who sits quietly at night, praying- having nothing? That is content on an empty stomach at the dawn of a new day, trusting the King to provide?
    I have met countless men- I have been such a man at various points in my life- who have met the gravity of this existence. But women? 2? Both of them well-trained, well past sexual prime, a lifetime of devotion to Christ and trust in their husbands. For this, and other purposes, the elderly woman is extolled in Tt 2.

    A woman is addicted to money, to the promise of security it provides. Her loyalty should instead lie with her father, then her husband. It is a wise man who keeps financial matters- both the ups and the downs- from his wife, knowing her proclivity to stray on this topic. It’s like offering a man who is out of town on business a virgin 22 year old supermodel in lingerie who is in heat, waiting in his hotel room. The wise person just does not open that door.

    * I use NASB, KJV, ESV along with a concordance in my English Bible studies. I am *not* a KJVO zealot. My interpretations always go with the most spiritually conservative, least socially liberal translation of a passage.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. As far as I know there was no earthly money, when Eve, and then Adam, sinned. Nor is it recorded that they wanted some money or loved it, at that point. I really think that the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil, but not necessarily the root of all evil, like how the King James translates it. To try to make every sin about money, would really be stretching things.

    I won’t say, because I don’t want to offend anybody, but there is one group of people that I know of, who are popularly lampooned for their love of money. It is no wonder they have historically gotten involved in every sort of evil.

    Like

  28. ‘I won’t say, because I don’t want to offend anybody, but there is one group of people that I know of, who are popularly lampooned for their love of money. It is no wonder they have historically gotten involved in every sort of evil.’

    You won’t say the word Jews because it might offend somebody, so you will just leave the dangling inference there so that everybody on the Jew HateMobile will know you are down with them?

    If — like many others — you believe that Jews are especially worse than the other tribes and peoples of the Earth, have the balls to say so. That way everybody knows where you stand without having to fill in blanks.

    If you or anybody else calling themselves Christian imagines that Christ Jesus likewise hates the Jews, considers them collectively greedy and at fault as a special case beyond the faults of other groups, you are going to be very disappointed. What’s next, Teddy Beale graphics of hook-nosed old men standing on piles of cash, rubbing their hands together? (((Those people))) encased in the triple parentheses?

    For the record, while I have serious ongoing issues with the synagogue of satan that will have to wait awhile for resolution, I do not hate ‘the Jews’ nor do I single them out for special condemnation. Nor do I hate the blacks, which is the other popular target of the alt.right pseudo-intelligentsia. Anybody who hates any entire tribe of people can eff off.

    Like

  29. Ray,
    Please don’t read any personal contempt for Jews into what I wrote. Just because I said that it was popular to lampoon their love of money, from which you clearly picked up that I was referring to Jews, because you are also well aware of those jokes. Furthermore, the Bible contains a record of the Jews’ frequent descent into the idolatry and wickedness of the nations surrounding them. And even today, in places like Hollywood, Satan delights to turn apostate Jews against their God. I personally try to evaluate people on their own merit, and according to the relative dignity God created them in. I know that race, nation, tribe, city, and family are all important to God, even if we don’t understand how He views those matters. I believe The Jews are His chosen people, have a special covenant with God, that “salvation is of the Jews”, and that God will bless those who bless them and curse those who curse them. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. I hope to one day dine at Abraham’s table. You’re preaching to the choir here. BTW God says certain things about the Jews, so even He doesn’t think they’re exactly like every other people group. We shouldn’t try to make all people equal, when God made them all unique. I’m glad you want to protect them. However their persecution is foretold, just as our own is foretold. The best thing that can be done to help them is to guide them back to their God and Messiah, and to His truth and righteous ways.

    Ray, I’d really like to hear your thoughts on Jews versus Israelites, the “ten lost tribes”, and Ephraim and Manasseh as “firstborn” in prophecy. I’ve heard a lot of stuff over the years, and often wonder what to believe, about who those people might be today, and such.

    Like

  30. Jn 8:44. ~> who are the spiritual and ethnic sucessors to the -edrin who willingly self-identify using the mantle of the (((tribe))) in 2020? Messianics? Or the (((Synagogue of Satan)))?
    Je 3:8 + Is + Rm 10 ~> (((they))) have been divorced, with repercussions:

    Lk 12:48.* ~> those receiving special revelation, and denying it, are held to a higher standard
    Mt 27:22 ~> those rejected Him
    Rm 1:24 ~> they have been given over. Tel Aviv is 1 big gay nightlife orgy. Approach the Wailing Wall and get spit on by 4 (((men))) pushing past you because you are visibly not wearing a black hat. Loxism is evidenced everywhere- absolutely everywhere- in academia, the workplace, media. It is truly institutional, endemic, systematic.

    There is an unholy marriage between a belief of being the (((chosen ones))) coupled with seething hatred for any and everything that represents Christ. I firmly stand on the statement that yes, the venerable (((Synagogue of Satan))) has unleashed evil into the world that is second to none.

    Satan was the most trusted of angels. After his fall, he is the chief of those tormented. Among tribes, does this logic not hold? It holds for individuals. The “chosen”, dethroned, become the chief architects of evil. I think the primary fault is the closing of ranks that always occurs. Protecting the (((tribe))) takes precedence over everything, including Truth. Let evil not be counted in your midst ~> bad company corrupts good morals ~> you partner with evil ~> you do evil.

    I will be happy to discuss my knowledge on the lies of WW2: the wives’ tale that is Hitler’s persona and the perished 10m Christians. Some of these goings-on in the past century I additionally have family anecdotes to support as well.
    We can point to the agitation of the Napoleonic wars and the ensuing single monetary system. We can review the assassination of the Romanovs- including women and children- by the hand of those who bear the (((title))). (((Those))) who are behind forced assimilation of darkies throughout Europe and the ensuing murders and rapes and encouraged societal collapse we see there. Who were the boat owners in the Triangle Trade of the 15-17the centuries? We can discuss these and more. I may not know as much as some, but I am fairly gifted man who has made a professional living with trend identification a feature.
    That most of these topics are passed over and ignored, while some are actively suppressed, is indicative indeed of a great evil.

    Ja 4:4 ~> who keeps turning the world increasingly into Satan’s playground? It does not happen on its own.
    Lk 6:43 ~> (((they))) have decisively been singularly involved in a lot of widespread evil both in present day and throughout history. Shakespeare knew it. Ford outlined it. Solzhenitsyn suffered dearly to remind us in the current day of it.

    Who is the persecuted? Who is the persecutor? << A chameleon who plays with nationality when the aggressor, then ethnicity when the victim. >> Scapegoating faults while grifting societies for centuries now. The current era ‘anti-semitizm’ is a tired trope of a false narrative used to dismiss-in-hand any criticism or call for accountability under the guise of ‘hate squeaks’.

    Now, how do (((they))) singularly stack up to the blasphemies, heresies and apostates of the Humanists, the Feminists, the Khmer Rouge, the Communists, the RCC, Hindus, voodoo shamanism et al? For one, none of these have been denying Christ as King for 2000 years.
    The Celts gave up paganism, the Nords their gods, the Slavs and Anglo-Saxons have spread the Word East and West, respectively. While the heart of man is evil, and brings about evil deeds, there are undisputedly tribes who have made an effort to embrace the King, versus those who continue to ignore, or worse: deny.
    Mk 3:28 ~> anyone who denies the Spirit will burn

    All this touches the collective. We stand before our Creator as men. Until that day, evaluating individuals:

    Jn 14:6 ~> every man, woman, child must proclaim with words and actions CHRIST IS KING!
    Mt 12:30 ~> there is no middle ground, no lukewarm
    Ep 5:3 ~> do not associate with even the lukewarm
    1 Th 5:22 ~> flee evil. You are RIGHTEOUS to not associate.

    No one gets a free pass. No one gets a ‘leg up’. By one’s action one is known. No one gets a sob story. Your Profession, grants you a parlay. Followed by your weighed deeds, gets you a seat at the table.

    On the End-Day:

    He is separating the wheat from the chaff of all persons- both genders, all tribes, all locations.
    Je 3:12 ~> how and when the Father will exercise His Mercy vis-a-vis the Remnant is known but to Him. But that is not today, and the rest of the remnant’s (((tribe))) has indeed been given over.

    [[Hopeful anecdote on this last point. I am friends with a family from the (((tribe))) for several years now. I have been blessed to witness my faith through action AND to see the fruits of this, plus any other efforts unknown to me. The mother and second son pray- daily- to Christ now. I do not have firsthand knowledge, but second-hand, through a female blood-relative who has witnessed and conversed with the mother.]]

    Like

  31. Do you imagine that you, ikr, and the other self-appointed Judges of the Tribe can tell me something about the Jews that I don’t already know? Do you think I haven’t heard all your rationalizations and long explanations many times already? There is not even ONE of you that knows who the ‘Jews’ and ‘Israel’ are. Yet you are ready to condemn because your internet buddies do.

    I’m not doing this again, ten years of it at Dalrock’s was sufficient. It ain’t your donkey to kick, but you insist on kicking it anyway, good luck. I will not be associated with it further.

    Like

  32. Yes, let’s not get side tracked into contentious disagreements over the Jews, if we don’t have to. I would prefer that we are all respectful of each other as men, and that we keep our focus more towards dealing with the tsaw-raw’/feminine-vexer/great-whore.

    Like

  33. ray, your statement dismisses-in-hand every Scriptural reference provided, and proceeds with, by my count, 6 loaded assertions about my character. Let us be clear on these loaded assertions.

    1. I do not appoint myself Judge of anyone. I cite Christ, exactly within proper context, so as to ‘judge with righteous judgement’ that we are- as His followers- commanded to do. But I Judge (ref: Salvation) no one.

    2. I do not know any ‘judges of the tribe’. Kindly do not apply to me the false narrative of guilt by association.

    3. I do not pretend to know what you have heard versus not heard. Hence, spelling out what I did, how I did with references. You are most welcome to bring references of your own.

    4. You have accused me- along with a group of faceless others- to ‘none of us knowing’ who the true Jews are or Israel is. If you have such unique knowledge, share it. You have done this in other areas on different topics, for which I remain grateful. However, not doing so, it is squarely the false narrative of claiming both ‘one true Scotsman’ and ‘gatekeeping’.

    5. No one is unequal before the Law. I condemn evil where it lies, full stop. Not because of social ties (see #2).

    6. I ignore who you are, or the path you have walked (see #3). If this is a tired topic for you because of your 10 year experience at Dalrocks, I can appreciate that. I spent less than 2 months there, before coming to my own conclusions about the host and the comments posse. I have been elsewhere, associated with other people, discussed other things. Kindly do not attribute your experience there, with me (see #2).

    If, this is a topic that will receive no advancing in understanding, let us dust off our shoes at the edge of the city and proceed to other areas where growth may yet still occur.

    Like

  34. Pingback: Feminism’s Flimsy Theological Foundation | Laughing at Feminism

  35. Pingback: Cunts Cancel Christian Clergyman | Laughing at Feminism

  36. Pingback: The chief human enemies of Christ? | Laughing at Feminism

  37. Is [אָדָם adam] made in the image of God? Yes.

    Genesis 1:26
    Then God said, “Let Us make [אָדָם adam] in Our image, after Our likeness…

    Who is [אָדָם adam]? Man? Woman? Both?

    Genesis 5:2
    Male and female He created them, and He blessed them. And in the day THEY were created, He called THEM [אָדָם adam].

    God used the term [אָדָם adam] to describe both male and female.

    Like

  38. Welcome onesquarelight,
    You ask: “Who is [אָדָם adam]? Man? Woman? Both?”

    The answer is that the Hebrew word “Adam” can be the first man’s name, or mean a man, all men(mankind), or all humans(also called mankind), however the word never means a woman or womankind. God chose the right word, since the image of the Father & Son is shown by fathers and sons, never by a woman or womankind. But, primarily the word “Adam” Strongs#120 is a Noun – Masculine Singular. If you look at the number and gender signified by the other Hebrew words in the following verses it becomes clear that the image of God is being assigned to a singular male, “him”, and not to plural “them”.
    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1-27.htm
    https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/5-2.htm

    In case you missed it above, I’ll repeat the following:
    Now any Feminist is going to try to exploit the fact that in Genesis 5:2 all people, male and female are called or named after “Adam” the man, the father of mankind. Adam, in Hebrew, can mean: man or mankind, the first man, or ruddy(like clay). So also in English, the word “man” can refer to an individual male, all males, or even all humans. But “Adam”/”man” never refers to Eve individually, any individual woman, or womankind. “Adam”/”Man” only refers to women when they are lumped in with all men. That is a patriarchal colloquialism that God started, whereby we are called after our father, just like how my wife and kids all share my family name.

    If God had wanted to make clear that Eve was in the image of God, he could have said that Eve, or the woman, was in the image of God but he clearly didn’t. The fact that all are called by the man’s Hebrew name “Adam”, is an honorary naming, that only goes to show that the man was created superior, and was the one by whom the others would want to be known by association. Just like today, wives and kids take on the man’s name, because he is the superior one, and it is an honor to be associated with your husband or father by name. Again I will mention that if both were equally made in the matchless image of God, the man would not be superior, but they would be equal. However only the man was made in God’s image and that is why it is such an honor for all to be called after his name, even to this day.

    So, in review: “Adam” meaning “man” was the first man’s name which became the family name of all people, we are now all collectively known as “man” or “mankind” in English, which is the translation of the Hebrew name or word “Adam”. That does not negate all the rest of what God clearly told us, just because God honored us all by calling us “Adam-kind”, however some folks, on the side of evil, will always try to negate the truth by whatever means they can. For further clarification see:
    1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

    There the Apostle Paul clarifies the assignment of the image of God in Greek, to males in the New Testament. And the Greek word used there for man refers only to an individual man or husband, never mankind. The apostle also indicates the husband, who does not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, is in contrast with the woman who should cover her head, because she is the glory of man. Note: the English word “but” in the verse above is used to introduce a contrasting statement. Because the defined function of the word “but” is to introduce contrasting statements. The translators chose that English word to give their best representation of the contrast being made in Greek.
    In a couple of my other post’s I give some quotes from the writings of the earliest church fathers showing that it was originally the unanimously held belief of the men whom the apostles trained that only men were in the image of God.
    Females being passed off as the image of the Father and Son was a heresy not seen prior to the latter fourth century AD, as part of the effort to exalt Mary to be co-redemptrix and equal with Christ.

    I give some of the early church father’s quotes in some of my posts, like this one:

    Sharkly – Heresiarch or Church Reformer?

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Theres one more thing!This is a illustration of how I see the diffirence between men&women from st.paul in 1st corinthians15:41:”The sun has one type of glory,the moon another”!See how simple I can make things sometimes?

    Like

  40. Genesis 1:27
    So God created man [masculine singular] in His own image; in the image of God He created him [masculine singular]; male and female He created them [masculine plural].

    Like

  41. Genesis 5:2
    Male and female He created them [masculine plural], and He blessed them [masculine plural]. And in the day they [masculine plural] were created, He called them [masculine plural] man [masculine singular].

    Notice God called male and female “man” in the singular sense.

    Now let us look at Genesis 1:27.
    God created man [masculine singular] in His own image.

    Like

  42. The word “adam” is singular in Gen 1:26-27 AND Gen 5:2.
    There is no doubt that God is referring to both male and female in 5:2.

    Asserting that 1:26-27 must refer only to males because “adam” is singular doesn’t hold water.

    Like

  43. onesquarelight,
    Genesis 5:2, specifically, does not contain any reference to the image of God for the combined couple. And when they are called “Adam”, a word or name which is most generally considered as singular, it could be referring to “Adam” as the name of the man which would be correctly rendered as singular because there was only one “Adam” from which the name originated.

    What doesn’t hold water is churches claiming that women are the image of the Father and Son, when God never ever said that any earthly woman was in His image, throughout all the Bible. And God said that His Son, Jesus, and men were in his image in numerous places. The teaching of women as “gods”, or God’s similitude, does not come from the Bible. It is Feminist idolatry that first originated in Rome around the latter part of the fourth century AD.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. The issue at hand is whether God created human beings in his own image, or just males.

    Genesis 5:2 says that on the day he created male and female he called them man (Hebrew “adam”). There can be no debate that in Gen 5:2 the word “man/adam” is referencing both genders of the human race.

    When we take what we know about the word “man/adam” from Gen 5:2 and apply it to Gen 1:27 we see that it is perfectly valid to read that verse to mean: “God created MALE AND FEMALE in his own image”.

    You might say, “But wait! The second line of verse 27 refers to God creating HIM in the His image! Clearly this means that line one is referring to the male adam, not both male and female.”

    But there is a problem. The words “him” and “them” in verse 27 are the same Hebrew word.

    In the image of God created He HIM (eth – Strong’s 853).
    Male and female created He THEM (eth – Strong’s 853).

    Strong’s has this to say about the word “eth”.
    eth [אֵת] – untranslatable mark of the accusative case

    So basing your case against the proposition that all humans are created in God’s image on “eth” is flimsy to say the least. Why? Because verse 27 could just as easily be read:
    “In the image of God created He THEM”

    One last point before I stop badgering you.

    We read in Genesis that Adam, after naming all the creatures that God created, could not find even a single one that was suitable for him. What is it, I wonder, that made all the creatures on earth unsuited for Adam? I would wager to say they were not suited to Adam precisely because they were not created in the image of God as he was.

    When God formed ishshah out of ish and for ish, He created a human being suited perfectly to Adam, a mate worthy of his position as “the glory of God”, a mate who, like himself, was made in the image of God.

    The image of God is a turn of phrase which means to resemble. Human beings were created God in “Our” image. Our here is clearly a reference to the triune God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). If ish has a spirit, then she is made in Gods image. If woman can be indwelled by the Holy Spirit by faith in Jesus Christ, they have a spirit. Animals; the creatures that Adam named… they have no spirit for they were not made in the image of God.

    Woman is the glory of man. That alone insists she is much more than a beast of the field.

    Like

  45. “But there is a problem. The words “him” and “them” in verse 27 are the same Hebrew word.”

    LOL No, those two are actually different words, and were both correctly translated. אֹת֑וֹ = “him”(third person masculine singular) and אֹתָֽם׃ = “them”(third person masculine plural). Just because both words share a common root word,(as referenced in Strong’s Concordance) does not make them into the same word.

    An “image” is generally a visual representation of something.
    I see you making a speculation about what the image of God might be,(a three part being) and then declaring that women are in the image of God, because they fit your speculative definition. Many others have done this as well, while speculating other completely different possible meanings for the image of God. However, we should try to stick to what we are actually told in the Bible, because otherwise your speculation is no more valid or provable than some other person’s theory to the contrary. Saint Augustine speculated that the image of God was abstract rational thought, and that women, (who weren’t the image of God, per the apostle Paul) weren’t because they were driven by emotion and not detached reasoning. Augustine tried to make his theory fit with the Bible and the unanimous belief of the apostolic and patristic churches, that women were not the image of the Father, Son, or their masculine united Spirit. Others believed the image was “dominion”, or “the visage of a man”, Etc.

    Often times females are reactionary and they try to say that by taking the image of God away from females, I must then be saying that women belong amongst the beasts, or that they don’t have souls, or can’t be saved. LOL That is just an emotional ploy to try to get us to back away from the truth to prevent them from claiming to be offended. But, I’m not against women, in fact I believe they are human, do have souls, and can be saved, and I appreciate good women who faithfully live out God’s intended purpose for women.

    The problem with Jamming women into the image of God contrary to God’s word, is that women (the second class of created human, who were created to serve and reverence the image of God) then automatically become equal to men. And then marriage becomes slavery or the unfair subjection of one equal by another, and then next thing you know people are talking about “mother god” and saying “Awomen” after they pray. It is just a blasphemous emasculation of God that knows no bounds. Feminism is a satanic heresy that started in and through the apostasy of the church.

    Onesquarelight, you aren’t badgering me, you’re giving me an opportunity to share God’s truth from the Bible. I will ask you a question I have asked others in your position before:
    In Ephesians 5, where the husband images Jesus Christ and the wife images the church, which is the image of God?

    Liked by 2 people

  46. … the creatures that Adam named…

    Don’t forget that Adam who was given dominion over all the earthly creatures also named Eve, just like he named the animals, and that we should not worship the creature but her Creator.
    Romans 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

    The Book of Jubilees 3:5 ‘And YAHWEH our Sovereign Ruler caused a deep sleep to fall upon him, and he slept, and He took for the woman one rib from amongst his ribs, and this rib was the origin of the woman from amongst his ribs, and He built up the flesh in its stead, and built the woman. 6 And He awaked Adam out of his sleep and on awaking he rose on the sixth day, and He brought her to him, and he knew her, and said to her: ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called [my] wife; because she was taken from her husband.’ 7 Therefore shall man and wife be one and therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. 8 In the first week was Adam created, and the rib -his wife: in the second week He showed her unto him: and for this reason the commandment was given to keep in their defilement, for a male seven days, and for a female twice seven days.

    According to that version of events Adam consummated his union immediately before he even named her “woman/wife”.
    First he named her “woman” (by kind) signifying that she was taken out of man/Adam, and then later, after she bore children, he also individually named her “Eve” signifying that she was the mother of all living.
    The apocryphal Book of Jubilees indicates that Adam was made on Friday before the first Sabbath, while Eve was made on the Friday before the second Sabbath.(Giving Adam time to name all the animals and find that he was missing a mate) So, on the sixth day when God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good, perhaps woman (the defiler) had not yet been made. LOL

    Liked by 2 people

  47. If the husband is the head of the wife and Christ is the head of the man, then what does it mean that Christ is the head of the church. Does is mean that the church consists only of men?

    Like

  48. Gen 9:6
    Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man

    Lev 24:21
    21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.

    Animals are not made in the image of God.
    That’s why the punishment is different for killing an animal than it is for killing a man.

    Do you think vs 21 is contrasting A. animals and males or B. animals and human beings? I’m going to assume you know the answer is B.

    Killing a human being carries a more severe punishment… Why? See Gen 9:6… because human beings are made in the image of God?

    Like

  49. “Does it mean that the church consists only of men?”

    That’s actually a pretty good question. While I generally see things as pretty Black & White, Wrong or Right, I think certain words, Like “Adam” have more than one possible meaning according to context. So also does the Greek word “ekklésia” which Strong’s says usually means: an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.
    In the largest sense the true “church” is the body of those belonging to Christ. However, “church” could also refer to whomever showed up to such a gathering.
    We must be careful of today’s widespread bridal-mysticism where people individually imagine themselves to be bride’s of Christ and men and women sing “Jesus is my boyfriend – praise music” as though they personally were Jesus fiancé or homosexual lover. It can make it difficult for straight men to want to join into such a doctrinally perverted celebration of effeminacy.

    Who are the “royal priesthood” of 1 Peter 2:9? Just the men, or women too? Often you have to look at the Biblical context, of who is being spoken to. One thing that becomes obvious reading certain sections of the Bible, is that the presumption is that it is written to males. While other sections seem to be written to everyone. Often the text even addresses the men or brethren, or everyone, to make it clear. So parts of the Bible were not written directly to women, while other parts were. Many false/distorted doctrines come from misunderstanding who is directly being addressed in certain parts of the Bible. Feminists will usually assume the whole Bible is written to everyone, except for when it suits them, to lay more blame on men.

    We must first understand that the body of Christ is male, and intended to be male dominated, and that women are to be silent in the churches. The “priestly” role has been reserved for Christ and for husbands who are the image of Christ.
    1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? 37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

    Ecclesiastes 3:15(ICB) What happens now has also happened in the past. Things that will happen in the future have also happened before. God makes the same things happen again and again.
    A huge misconception is that Christ marries His own male body which became sin for us taking on the sin of the whole world on the cross. The “bride of Christ” is made from a tiny remnant or a rib that is separated out from the body of the last-Adam who was symbolically pierced through his side and opened up, not just for doubting Thomas’s hand to feel, but to bring out the rib to be born of both the symbolic water and blood which flowed form the side of the Son of God. The bride of the last Adam will be a small remnant or rib separated out of the slumbering or figuratively-dead earthly body of Christ, just like God separated out a small rib out of the first Adam whom God had made to be asleep. A dead body is an unclean thing. Jesus repeatedly spoke of death as sleep. Our churches are ALL asleep, losing, teaching licentiousness, their god/goddess is their own belly/loins.

    Ephesians 5:14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise,
    2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. 18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
    John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    So in answer to your question: The “church” or “body of Christ” is the gathering of all people who profess Christ as the Son of God who came in flesh and died for our sin and took His life back up by the same power that will resurrect the redeemed. Christ is the exalted head of His body. However, Christ’s body is not His bride. The Last Adam’s bride is a tiny remnant taken from the side of His body, a tiny subset of the church separated from the body of Christ by being led back to faith in the truth that the church has gone astray from. The bride is purifying and readying herself, not by might, nor by power, but by God’s Spirit. The faithful ones are those who are not ashamed of any part of God’s inspired word in this adulterous and sinful generation, those who don’t hearken unto the voice of the woman, but unto the law of God.
    1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

    Liked by 2 people

  50. Both Dominic “Bnonn” Tennant, and Commenter Swanny River, have asked me this question about murdering the image of God, and murdering men and women both being capital crimes, before.
    https://laf443259520.wordpress.com/2020/09/30/dont-be-stupid/#comment-2683
    I replied: “… the point you just brought up, from Genesis 9 about murder and the image of God, was probably what I thought was his toughest contrary argument, of all the ones he brought up.”
    Now I believe I’ve got an answer, it just isn’t as resounding a refutation as I’d like it to be yet, so I’ll still pray for a better answer to give. You can read what I and commenter, ikr, said in response to the question at the link above.

    Basically the law given about murdering the image of God, was given in reference to men.(“Adam” in Hebrew)
    However the law is repeated in Exodus 21:12 and there it uses the very male specific Hebrew word אִישׁ (ish).
    Exodus 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
    Again, no mention of women in that verse. The fact that free Jewish women were not lawfully to be murdered either, as part of the ten commandments, and were protected by a similar capital punishment, does not in any way negate what is said about killing men who are the image of God. I believe commenter ikr was right about the wife being one flesh with her husband, and that extending the sentence of death to any who might murder her. It becomes a deadly attack on the husband and his house, or the father’s house in the case of an unbetrothed daughter.
    Only God has the power to give life, the Antichrist will perform many of Christ’s miracles to fool people, but he will not and cannot raise the dead. The son of lawlessness has no power over our soul, like God does. And that being the case, only God has the right to end a life. Of course when God calls out for war or capital punishment, then those who enact it, are carrying out God’s sentence not their own. So it is right to kill a murderer, even if he was also created in the image of God, because God says to kill them for their crime against the property of the Father of all spirits and all flesh.

    Not only are animals not made in the image of God, but they’re made out of tasty foods, like beef, mutton, and ham. 😉
    Leviticus 24:21 uses the Hebrew word “Adam” again, while Leviticus 24:19 uses a contraction of the Hebrew word “ish” again, so I don’t see how those verses would have any bearing on who is in the image of God or counteract the truth of 1 Corinthians 11:7.

    Did you ever wonder why wives are to reverence their husbands (Ephesians 5:33) yet women are to adorn themselves with shamefacedness (1 Timothy 2:9)? Or why God cursed Eve, and didn’t curse Adam, but instead cursed the earth from which he was made? Once you understand who the image of God is, so much more of the Bible will make sense.

    Onesquarelight, in Ephesians 5, where the husband images Jesus Christ and the wife images the church, which is the image of God?

    Liked by 2 people

  51. Something I have noticed is, that while I usually try to answer the questions of others. I repeatedly asked both Bnonn and now onesquarelight to answer a very simple question and they just don’t. Why can’t they determine, in Ephesians 5, where the husband images Jesus Christ and the wife images the church, which is the image of God?

    The question is exceedingly simple and elementary. The problem for them, I believe, is that to say or write the obvious answer is a blasphemy or sacrilege against the object of their true worship.

    For them to even give thought to the possibility that women are not the likeness of the Son of God, the Bridegroom, our High Priest & Intercessor, “for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”, their entire Feminist worldview must implode. And a new solely masculine deity must then emerge in their mind. A God who doesn’t want women circumcised unto Him, because he made them for, and gave them to, men, who are the image and glory of God, but the woman is only the glory of a man.
    Hippity Hoppity women are property!
    Women were made for men for men’s glory, and belong in subjection to men, just as men were made for God to reflect His glory, and belong in fear of God. We men were made for God’s glory and to serve Him directly, while men own women and women serve God by serving and reverencing God’s image. There are to be no other graven images of God, other than men, whose kind God formed out of the earth into His own likeness. God owns the men, and gave women to men. Perhaps that’s why God usually only counts the men. Because they’re His property. Because they were purpose built for God’s good pleasure, like how women were designed to please men. You can’t circumcise a woman into covenant with Jehovah, and any attempt to do so is just female genital mutilation. God has circumscribed men who are His property and minted in His image.
    Genesis 17:13b My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

    Jewish men, like the Herodians who came questioning Jesus regarding Roman taxes, knew they were both made in God’s image and inscribed to God.
    Matthew 22:19(YLT) show me the tribute-coin?’ and they brought to him a denary; 20 and he saith to them, `Whose [is] this image and the inscription?’ 21 they say to him, `Caesar’s;’ then saith he to them, `Render therefore the things of Caesar to Caesar, and the things of God to God;’

    It’s hard to fathom how wrong profiteering hirelings preach that, as if it is there to help tax the sheep for their big church budgets. God wasn’t asking the Herodians for a cut of their money. The Herodians believed that Herod was the Messiah. The real Messiah was reminding them that they could pay a day’s wage in tribute to Caesar, but that they as men entirely belonged to God in perpetuity.

    God’s patriarchal kingdom is not a democracy. The Father turns over all power to His Son. When we pray, “Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven”, we are praying for the absolute restoration of God’s heavenly patriarchy to earth. Amen!

    Like

  52. Pingback: The worth-ship of Women | Whitewater Community Church

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s