I am not familar with pagan religions. However, in the first 5 chapters it is appearent that Adam was first created then Woman from Adam. As for any movements that push confusion between the sexes, it is really not part of this discussion, at least at my end.
You may not want that to be about pagan ideas of history, but that's where the dual sexual attributes for Adam is coming from. It certainly IS NOT coming from God's Holy Writ, that's for certain. I don't think you intend to make that parallel intentionally. I've read enough of your posts to figure you wouldn't intend such ideas.
This is not so according to my Strongs Greek dictionary. From what I read it could be either. Sentance structure does note that he was talking about a "them". However, how many men do you believe God created in verses 26 and 27? As we shall see, Woman was not yet formed at this point unless you believe Genesis 2 runs parallel to Genesis 1. Chapter 5 also will bear explaining if you believe that Woman and Adam were formed as separate beings.
Consider going the next level in study of God's Word. Get yourself an Interlinear Bible of the Hebrew and Greek. I recommend the Green's Interlinear. Bullinger, an excellent 19th century Christian Hebrew scholar, also covered the Hebrew difference of those verses in his KJV study Bible called
The Companion Bible. You'll find it there also if you don't want to consult an Interlinear Bible of the manuscripts. It's about this kind of difference...
Gen 1:26-27
26 And God said, Let Us make man (
aadam) in Our image, after Our likeness: andlet them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man (
eth ha aadam)
in His Own image, in the image of God created He him;
male and female created He them.
(KJV)
Gen 2:7
7 And the LORD God formed man (
eth ha aadam) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
(KJV)
aadam = mankind
eth ha aadam = this particular man Adam
In the Hebrew with the word
aadam by itself, it's the same as saying mankind in general. But with the Hebrew article and particle as with
eth ha aadam, it means a specific singular man. In the deeper sense of those verses also, the
addam (mankind) is created with the outward "likeness", but with the
eth ha aadam he is created with God's Own Image (Hebrew
tselem written twice for emphasis). It's pointing ultimately to a specific man Adam which God placed in His Garden to till the soil, for the purpose of the start of Christ's lineage separate from the other peoples of mankind created and placed outside His Garden, like in "the land of Nod."
There are other indicators later in God's Word that He created all the different races of man on that 6th day, and not just the man Adam He placed in His Garden. None of the root races evolved, they were created by God on the 6th day. Anything else is the theory of evolution. That's why even still for today, two people of one race does not produce offspring of another race. God in the beginning created the races how He wanted them to be.
Man was formed in Gen 2:7 out of the dust of the earth and the breath of life was given to him.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 1:26-7 says that man was formed in the image of God. I do not know where in the Bible God is ever described as being "dust of the earth" (which with reason we can call "flesh"). In other words, what God formed in Gen 1 was a spiritual being. What God formed in Gen 2 was a spiritual being in immortal flesh with the God's breath (not blood) sustaining his life.
The "breath of life" God breathed into Adam's flesh was about God placing Adam's soul and spirit in a flesh formed body, the same spiritual operation we go through, except we go through birth in our mother's womb. And of course Adam's flesh was of flesh of blood, we know because of Gen.2:24 about man and woman joining to become "one flesh", which is about offspring descending from both mother and father. The idea of flesh death was not yet, but it would soon come after that per the sin in God's Garden. The idea that God created their flesh to be eternally immortal is man's supposition of not understanding why God created flesh Adam (so Christ's Salvation by His ordained crucifixion before the foundation of the world could come).
Woman was not created until Genesis 2:21-2. This verse clearly shows that Woman was taken from Adam's body (his rib) and it was some time after Gen 1:27 and/or 2:7. It may be that Adam was fully man with no "woman" attributes, but whatever Woman became, it came from Adam. she wasn't a separate creation from Adam, but they were either created as the same being, or Woman came from the creation of Adam.
Per the Hebrew with aadam, and the Gen.1:27 end phrase of "male and female created He them", it reveals God created the races of 'mankind' on His 6th day, and also the man Adam (eth ha aadam). It was specifically Eve that God made from the rib (curve per Hebrew, like DNA) of the man Adam (eth ha aadam).
Let's look at Genesis 5:1-2:
Gen 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
In these verses it says God created man, in the likeness of God he was created (singular) and God called THEIR (plural) name Adam (Singular). Woman's or Eve's original name was "Adam", as she was a part of Adam.
Yep, the word 'aadam' (Adam) is actually what's in the Hebrew there, even when Adam is capitalized as a pronoun, it applies to all mankind. So all mankind is being included in that with verse 2, but not in verse 1 which is about a specific man Adam which God created in His Own Likeness from which Christ would be born through.
I am not confusing them. Christ, born in sinful flesh, died, and was risen to an immortal, spiritual fleshly body that yes, had no blood (like Adam when he had the breath of life), could walk through walls or somehow appear in a closed room and yet was still solid matter as we know it.
Wtihout going into the Hebrew, it's impossible to know about the two distinctions between the races of aadam vs. the man Adam as eth ha aadam. The KJV Bible doesn't bring that distinction forth into English.
The "spiritual body" Paul taught, also calling it the "image of the heavenly", is the angelic state. There's only 2 different dimensions of existence written in God's Word. There's this earthy dimension we live in with a flesh body image, and then there's the heavenly dimension which image is not one of flesh of blood, like Paul also taught in 1 Cor.15:50. One image is mortal, the other one isn't. One is made up of earthly elements, the other is made up of Spirit from God. When we die, we cast off the earthy image of flesh and blood.
I have no idea why you are talking about zombies and horror stories and whatnot... When you start talking about that, it is confusing. I am certainly not confused so I'm not sure who you are saying is confused.
Adam is likened as the first Christ in 1 Cor 15:45, and is again compared in Romans 5:14. In 1 Cor the order of events is reversed between Christ and Adam. One was made a spirit, received immortal flesh that could do things our flesh couldn't and then fell to mortal and sinful flesh; the other was born in mortal and sinful flesh, was ressurected as immortal flesh, and became a spiritual body.
It's because of how confused some are about the type of body the resurrection is.
It's not a body of this same dimension which we live in today. It's that simple. Even our Lord Jesus' flesh body was 'transfigured' to the heavenly resurrection type body to show that, even still having the wounds of His crucifixion to show what He did for us, and that it will always be remembered. Further, what if Christ's flesh body had not been transfigured, but found still in the tomb after three days and nights like our flesh body would have been? The unbelieving scribes and Pharisees would then have had substance to their argument that God did not raise our Lord Jesus!
Apostle Paul was very clear about the differences between our flesh body of "corruption" not being that body which shall be. That's why he said corruption CANNOT inherit incorruption in the 1 Cor.15 chapter. It's why he made distinct comparisons between a body of flesh and a spiritual body. Calling a flesh body like we have today a spiritual body is confusion, big time!
A flesh body like we have today cannot walk through walls. Try it. The flesh body has bounds set for this present world. It is not of the world to come. But the "spiritual body", that's a different matter, because it's of a different dimension than this earthly dimension. Does the "spiritual body" have substance? Yes. But not the kind of material matter we can assign like our flesh body has. It would have to be of a much, much, finer substance than science knows of today. And that's what the other dimension of existence is about, which is the heavenly where God dwells. This is why angels per God's Word have often suddenly appeared right in the direct presence of God's servants. And if I recall, it frightened a lot of those servants when they saw them suddenly appear out of nowhere. All those Bible examples exist to reveal this difference.
