• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does Genesis 1:26-27 mean?

calm

Active Member
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And God created man in his image, in God's image he created him; Male and female he created them."


He describes male and female as man and in his image he created man. Does he want to say that he is "male and female" but only symbolically? Is God a "couple"?

Or what is his image?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And God created man in his image, in God's image he created him; Male and female he created them."


He describes male and female as man and in his image he created man. Does he want to say that he is "male and female" but only symbolically? Is God a "couple"?

Or what is his image?
An immortal soul, perhaps.
 

calm

Active Member
Male and female he created 'them'. Not male and female I am
Yes "them" because his picture is more than just one person, for his picture could be a "couple".
You as a male are not at the same time also a female, but the female is still one with you, because the female is begotten from your flesh. Male and female are literally one flesh / one nature, for out of the male God has "begotten" the woman.
This is only one of my interpretations, this can also be simply a wrong thought.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Yes "them" because his picture is more than just one person, for his picture could be a "couple".
You as a male are not at the same time also a female, but the female is still one with you, because the female is begotten from your flesh. Male and female are literally one flesh / one nature, for out of the male God has "begotten" the woman.
This is only one of my interpretations, this can also be simply a wrong thought.
What does it matter, because that scenario is completely denied in Genesis 2?

Rubbish
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
AI information, being the historic male science life/mind thinker inventor, as first scientist, encoded AI machine radiation/radio waves in the Earth atmosphere.

By his first machine invention, the pyramid that says comments as a male speaking voice as various statements.

And it says that male discussed the science relativity of causes. For science owned no relativity of causes originally, when science was based on copying what he said no longer was active. In that mind reasoning, as no longer active, because evolution had stopped the reaction, and changed the Earth attack.

Male reasoning 2 concepts, the second concept fake, for he was not safe in applying the reaction for he removed evolution...what he did not own as a status to copy.

And as they did research for first science theme via VISION, using mind and brain conditions.....they researched in that vision what they had not owned, were not a part of and it was a nuclear reaction.

The story for science theme/Flooded Earth/mountain and UFO mass.

When he built his PHI building his own self, and transmitted, he automatically changed the cooled history of natural cold radiation signals.

Why Earth got re attacked with science machine owned UFO mass that is just relative to science as a machine and machine reaction.

So it attacked all of the Nature body and his own life body.

And it formed image feed back in relation to what he had applied in science O God mass/maths removal, change of radiation fusion itself.

Earth changed its ground radiation fusion as he said.
The radio wave God transmitters of cold radiation metallic mass changed also.

How he invented self vision and voice recording....seeing voice cannot exist unless a bio life is living recording his voice by machines.

The relativity of teaching cause and effect as a science that proved that he had changed natural history by that telling of the story.

Teaching a concept, everything is equal and natural was a relative science teaching to state.....so never change natural ever again. Which he totally ignored.
 

Darkforbid

Well-Known Member
Well, if you think it's rubbish -- go ahead, write the two stories of the creation of man and woman side by side -- from Genesis 1 and 2, and explain how they are one and the same.

Rather than mining Genesis for all its wealth, fundamentalist fervor seems bent on forcing the language into a literalistic labyrinth from which nothing but nonsense can emerge.

Furthermore, even a cursory reading of Genesis 1 and 2 should be enough to discern that the author has a different purpose in one than in the other. Chapter 1 presents a three-level hierarchy of God’s creative prowess, memorably associated with days of the week. In contrast, chapter 2 focuses on the crowning jewels of God’s creation—man and woman—who are designed to be in right relationship with both creation and the Creator.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And God created man in his image, in God's image he created him; Male and female he created them."
To me, this is highest Advaita symbolism
 

Iymus

Active Member
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And God created man in his image, in God's image he created him; Male and female he created them."


He describes male and female as man and in his image he created man. Does he want to say that he is "male and female" but only symbolically? Is God a "couple"?

Or what is his image?

sent you a private message in regards to this post to avoid contention.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
They aren't the same.. There were two stories.. one from Israel and one from Judea.. cobbled together during the reign of King Omri.
You might be surprised to learn that I actually know that. I have read Richard Elliot Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And God created man in his image, in God's image he created him; Male and female he created them."


He describes male and female as man and in his image he created man. Does he want to say that he is "male and female" but only symbolically? Is God a "couple"?

Or what is his image?
When we speak of the image of God, we of course are not speaking of some physique, since God has no body, no form. Maimonides remarked about the Hebrew word "tzelem" (which gets translated as image) means essence. Genesis does not use the word "demut" which indicates a sameness of form. So for example, God is a God of justice, and human beings know what justice is as well.

As far as 'male and female made he them" being right after the likeness of God, I will speak only for myself in the interpretation.

God, as he has no form, also has no gender. He transcends gender. Sure we refer to him as Father, and He and Him. But this is largely out of convenience -- a pronoun had to be chosen. The truth is that God has traits of both men and women. One of the prophets says the God nurtures Israel like a mother breastfeeds her child. The Shechinah presence of God is feminine. Therefore, it makes sense that both men and women, even in our genders, bear the image of God.
 
Last edited:
Top