1:26 tn The Hebrew word is אָדָם (‘adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1- 11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read:”Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name’ humankind ‘(אָדָם).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5- 7 and in 9:5- 6
1:27 sn The distinction of “humankind” as “male” and “female” is another point of separation in God’s creation. There is no possibility that the verse is teaching that humans were first androgynous (having both male and female physical characteristics) and afterward were separated. The mention of male and female prepares for the blessing to follow.
‘ “So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1.27)’
Ian Paul’s translation of Genesis 1:27 (as in new NIV, and other translations) is a disputed issue.
Old NIV gives, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”
ESV gives, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”.
A lot depends on the right understanding of the hebrew word translated ‘human beings’ or ‘man’ in these rival translations. This matter was debated at some length in the ‘old’ fulcrum, now no longer in the public domain, and remains a critical issue in the ordination of women disagreement. In that debate I said, in response to a post from DavidR,
“I refer you to point 2 of my 16/9/2011 post (slightly amended here because I got some of the verse references wrong before) where I point out that the word translated ‘man’ or ‘Adam’ in 2:7, 2:8, 2:15, 2:16, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 2:23 (And Adam said…), 2:25, 3:8, 3:9, 3:12, 3:20, 3:22, 3:24 is the same word e.adm. The person this word refers to from 2:23 onwards is clearly of male gender.”
In Genesis 2 and 3 Adam is an individual male human. In Genesis 1 the word means mankind. This summaries the whole creation. Genesis 2 has a man and a woman created separately, but both by God. Ian Paul makes the limited point that “neither gender on its own is the image of God” The image of God is to be found in the general characteristics of humanity, the specifics of each gender and the relationship between the two. I trust you are not saying woman does not have the image of God.
Does anyone know whether and where the scholars who translated Genesis 1:27 in different ways (see my June 2 post on this thread) have anywhere explained, in depth, taking full account of Hebrew grammar, syntax etc., the grounds for their rival translations?
Is this any help Phil.
1:26 tn The Hebrew word is אָדָם (‘adam), which can sometimes refer to man, as opposed to woman. The term refers here to humankind, comprised of male and female. The singular is clearly collective (see the plural verb, “[that] they may rule” in v. 26b) and the referent is defined specifically as “male and female” in v. 27. Usage elsewhere in Gen 1- 11 supports this as well. In 5:2 we read:”Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name’ humankind ‘(אָדָם).” The noun also refers to humankind in 6:1, 5- 7 and in 9:5- 6
1:27 sn The distinction of “humankind” as “male” and “female” is another point of separation in God’s creation. There is no possibility that the verse is teaching that humans were first androgynous (having both male and female physical characteristics) and afterward were separated. The mention of male and female prepares for the blessing to follow.
from the NET Bible notes
There is something about maleness which C S Lewis grasped and we are in danger of loosing. http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=04-01-005-f
Dave
‘ “So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Gen 1.27)’
Ian Paul’s translation of Genesis 1:27 (as in new NIV, and other translations) is a disputed issue.
Old NIV gives, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”
ESV gives, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”.
A lot depends on the right understanding of the hebrew word translated ‘human beings’ or ‘man’ in these rival translations. This matter was debated at some length in the ‘old’ fulcrum, now no longer in the public domain, and remains a critical issue in the ordination of women disagreement. In that debate I said, in response to a post from DavidR,
“I refer you to point 2 of my 16/9/2011 post (slightly amended here because I got some of the verse references wrong before) where I point out that the word translated ‘man’ or ‘Adam’ in 2:7, 2:8, 2:15, 2:16, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20, 2:21, 2:22, 2:23 (And Adam said…), 2:25, 3:8, 3:9, 3:12, 3:20, 3:22, 3:24 is the same word e.adm. The person this word refers to from 2:23 onwards is clearly of male gender.”
Phil Almond
In Genesis 2 and 3 Adam is an individual male human. In Genesis 1 the word means mankind. This summaries the whole creation. Genesis 2 has a man and a woman created separately, but both by God. Ian Paul makes the limited point that “neither gender on its own is the image of God” The image of God is to be found in the general characteristics of humanity, the specifics of each gender and the relationship between the two. I trust you are not saying woman does not have the image of God.
Dave
Does anyone know whether and where the scholars who translated Genesis 1:27 in different ways (see my June 2 post on this thread) have anywhere explained, in depth, taking full account of Hebrew grammar, syntax etc., the grounds for their rival translations?
Phil Almond