How many of you have heard this left-wing liberal theological stance that Adam was not a man, but a he/she with the genetic info for both sexes within itself? Yeah, I know right? They call it, “The Adam” and then their story goes something like this; God made it from the dirt, thus its name, because the Hebrew word for dirt is, “’adamah” so that is why that he/she creature was called, “Adam.” Then God put it to sleep and didn’t literally make females from its rib but more figuratively created the separate genders at that point. If you are laughing like I was when I first heard this nonsense, stop! This is the garbage they are teaching in seminaries. I may not have represented their position the way they would like, but this is how I understand what they are saying.
So how about all the verses talking about gender roles, authority, submission, shadows and types that depend on these concepts, and the authority of scripture? Well, no problem for the liberal theologians, they just call what they don’t like allegory and when they can’t, they say that the Bible isn’t really fully the word of God, and it can’t be fully relied on. Well, not to sound like, “The Church Lady” but who does that remind you of? Hmm? Someone with a serpent sounding hissing voice in the garden maybe? Well, I wonder who that could be? I wonder who casts doubt on God’s word? Who could it be? Does it remind you of… SATAN!!!?
Surely God made Adam, the first human as a male from the start. Surely Eve was made from and for Adam as the word of God says. In 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 we can even read what God said about it as Paul restates the creation of man and woman in the New Covenant for a group of believers who were falling into egalitarianism just like we are today. They needed a correction from God then as we do now.
Here is a section of an article arguing for the erring position posted on http://newlife.id.au/ the link to the original article is, http://newlife.id.au/equality-and-gender-issues/human-man-woman-genesis-2/
“In Genesis 2 we have the creation account of the very first human being. In English translations of Genesis 2 this first human is simply called “man”. This “man” is understood by most people as referring to a male human rather than to a generic human. However, in the Hebrew text, the first “man” is not specifically referred to as a male human (ish) until after the “operation” mentioned in Genesis 2:21-22.
After the “operation”, the now male human sees the female human and says, “This one is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh! She will be called ‘woman’ (ishshah) because she was taken out of ‘man’ (ish).” The first woman (ishshah) and the first man (ish) had both been a part of, or one side of, the first human being (ha’adam).[1] In Genesis 2:23 the man indicates that they shared the same flesh and bone.
The Hebrew word adam means “human being” – and not necessarily a male human being. In the early chapters of Genesis it is often used with the definite article = ha’adam (הָאָדָם) meaning “the human being” (cf Gen. 5:2). Occasionally it serves as a proper name “Adam”, usually written without the article.[2]
In the screenshots below, I have highlighted every incidence of ha’adam (the human being) in yellow. (N.B. In verse 5 there is no article but the context indicates that adam is not a proper noun.)[3]
I have also highlighted every incidence of ish (man) with blue, and ishshah (woman) with pink. By looking at the screenshots below it is evident that it is not until the woman is taken out of the first human that we clearly see an ish, a male person, and not before.
Have a look. Is it clear?”
Just because what is implied by the author could be so, doesn’t mean that it is. This is an error in logic that she has made without considering the rest of scripture. Let’s take a look at the problem. She assumes that the first of mankind was a creature containing both sexes or neither and that God did an, “operation” on this creature to turn the source creature into a masculine one as it was not before and then to make a feminine one from that source creature. The scripture doesn’t support this furthermore, it definitely repudiates it in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Don’t take my word for it look for yourself.
1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
In v. 7 God explains that man is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. We can see the plain meaning of scripture here. Then the Greek word, “ἀνὴρ aner” is used in v. 8 it is specifically, “man.” Read how woman came from man according to God through Paul. So either God is confused or the egalitarians are willfully in rebellion against the God of scripture and their God given roles, or God is confused and doesn’t remember what He said in Genesis, or Paul was just a sexist member of the patriarchy trying to keep women down… Really people?… I mean, seriously? Just repent, accept what God says in His word and conform to His word and will. Then v.9 hammers it home, “9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” It is that simple. To go a bit further so that the liberals don’t try to eisegete vv. 11-16 yes, men and women in Christ are all dependent on Him, and men are born of mothers, but the point in context is not the condition of procreation stated here, but rather God’s creation and it’s total dependency on Him. If you still want to be a whiny baby I refer you to v. 16. Basically this is how it is and if you don’t like it tough. Paul is putting it simply, “You are wrong.” Have a good day.
p.s. if my tone seems a bit abrasive, that’s because I am irritated by all of the nonsense we have to entertain and argue against. It seems ludicrous to me that people would keep rehashing all of the old heresies with new labels and faces. It agitates me that people have to make apologetic answers instead of just saying, “You’re and idiot. Sit down and be quite Sir/Ma’am.” Ignorant people listen to these misguided guides and follow them into folly, so we have no choice, but to speak up.
Snyder's Soapbox 