{"id":23,"date":"2017-11-04T23:20:00","date_gmt":"2017-11-04T23:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress_bw2\/generations-of-the-heavens-and-earth\/"},"modified":"2017-12-12T04:37:32","modified_gmt":"2017-12-12T04:37:32","slug":"only-the-man-was-created-in-gods-image","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/the-case-for-lilith\/the-biblical-case-for-lilith\/only-the-man-was-created-in-gods-image\/","title":{"rendered":"3.3) Only the Man was Created in God’s Image"},"content":{"rendered":"

An intriguing Biblical evidence for Lilith comes from the first and third creation accounts of Adam.\u00a0 Both Ge 1:27 and Ge 5:1-2 state that when God created the male and female, only the male was made in God\u2019s image.\u00a0 It is nearly inconceivable that Eve was not created in the image of God.\u00a0 She was taken from Adam\u2019s side.\u00a0 She was in Adam\u2019s image, and his image was in the image of God.\u00a0 How can these passages be rectified against the known linage of Eve?\u00a0 If the female they mention is Lilith, then all makes sense.\u00a0 Lilith was not animated in the image of God, but rather in the image of Lucifer.<\/p>\n

Although the passages are reasonably clear in the KJV translation, I have provided a literal translation below in Table 3\u20114 and Table 3\u20115 to elucidate completely the underlying Hebrew.\u00a0 The passages are very clear that God made only the man in God\u2019s image.\u00a0 Ge 1:27 re-iterates this fact twice.\u00a0 First, it states that God created ha\u2019adam (the man) in his image.\u00a0 It then re-iterates this fact for emphasis.\u00a0 It states, \u201cIn image of God he created him<\/u>.\u201d[1]<\/a>\u00a0 The verse then goes so far as to remind the reader that God created both a male and female.\u00a0 The passage is clearly stressing that the female was not created in God\u2019s image, whereas the man was.\u00a0 Could this be true of Eve?\u00a0 It hardly seems that it can.\u00a0 Eve was taken from the man and is fully in the image of God.\u00a0 So why does the passage go out of its way to announce that God created both the female and the male, but then reiterates twice that only the man was created in the image of God?\u00a0 Only Lilith explains this emphasized statement.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Ge 1:26-27 (My Literal)<\/strong>
26\u00a0 And God said, Let us make Adam in our image, as our likeness: and let them rule 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 And God created the man in his image.\u00a0 In image of God he created him.\u00a0 Male and female he created them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 Hebrew is read right to left<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
Mlu:b<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
w:mlu:b<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Mda:h<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
ta<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Myhla<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
arby:w 27<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
In image<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
in his image.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
the man<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
et<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
God<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
created<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
M:ta<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
arb<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
hbqn:w<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
rkz<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
w:ta (<\/sup>12<\/sup>)<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
arb<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Myhla<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
them.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
he created<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
and female<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Male<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
him.<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
he created<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
of God<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 3\u20114: A Transliteration \u00a0of Ge 1:27 (View Pic<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

The fact that the female is not created in God\u2019s image is stated again in the third creation account of Ge 5:1-2.\u00a0 The fact is not repeated twice for emphasis as in the first account, but it is again very clear God only created the masculine \u201chim\u201d in God\u2019s image.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

Ge 5:1-2 (My Literal)<\/strong>
1 This is<\/em> the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created Adam, 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

<=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 Hebrew is read right to left<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=\u00a0\u00a0 <=<\/div>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
w:ta (<\/sup>12<\/sup>)<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
hve<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Myhla<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
twmd:b<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Mda<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Myhla<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
arb<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Mwy:b<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
him<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
he made<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
of God<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
in image<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Adam<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
God<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
created<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
in the day<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
M:ta<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Krby:w<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
M:arb<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
hbqn:w<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
rkz<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
them<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
and blessed<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
he created them<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
and female<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Male<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 3\u20115: A Transliteration of Ge 5:1-2 (View Pic<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is another indication that the female was not created in the image of God.\u00a0 In verse 2 both the male and female went by the masculine name Adam.\u00a0 This implies an ascendancy of the male over the female that was inherent in their creation.\u00a0 The female not being created in the image of God would explain the inherent inequality between the first created male and female\u00a0 Only the Lilith legend explains this inequality, as she was animated by the mist of Lucifer whereas the man was created from the breath of God.\u00a0<\/p>\n

If one asserts that the female not created in God\u2019s image was Eve, then that causes serious theological issues.\u00a0 However, if one accepts that Lilith is the female of the passages, then all is well.\u00a0 She was created by God just like the man Adam from the dust.\u00a0 But instead of being animated by God\u2019s Holy Spirit within her, she was instead animated in the image of Lucifer.\u00a0 For that reason, the man would have ascendancy over the first female.\u00a0<\/p>\n

There is one final hint that Lilith is the female referenced in both passages.\u00a0 It centers around a word play concerning the literal Hebrew meaning of the words for \u201cmale\u201d and \u201cfemale.\u201d\u00a0 These words are zakar and neqebah (\u201cmale and female\u201d).\u00a0 The two words are not commonly used in the Bible, as there are other more common words that mean \u201cman\u201d or \u201cwoman.\u201d\u00a0 Zakar<\/em> (rkz<\/span> \u2013 Strongs 2145), which means \u201cmale\u201d, is used 81 times in the Bible.\u00a0 The Gesenius lexicon relates this word stems from the root zaker<\/em> (rkz<\/span> – Strongs 02142), which means \u201cto remember\u201d, \u201crecall\u201d, or \u201ccall to mind.\u201d \u00a0Gesenius holds that zaker<\/em> came to mean male because it is through the son that the memorial of his father is continued.\u00a0 Hence the Hebrew word for male in Ge 1:27 has a very positive connotation.\u00a0 It is as if saying that through Adam, the memorial of his father Jehovah would continue upon the earth.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Now consider the word for female, neqebah<\/em> (hbqn<\/span> – Strongs 5347).\u00a0 It is used only 22 times in the Bible.\u00a0 This word has a negative connotation.\u00a0 It comes from the root naqab<\/em> (bqn<\/span> – Strongs 5344), which means \u201cto curse\u201d, \u201cto blaspheme\u201d, or perhaps more literally \u201cto pierce\u201d or \u201cto perforate.\u201d\u00a0 The meaning of \u201cto curse\u201d stemmed from a more original meaning of \u201cto pierce\u201d or destroy, and hence curse.\u00a0 Gesenius holds that naqab<\/em> came to be used to denote a female because of its descriptive power for her genitalia, which is a piercing or slit in her.\u00a0 In any case, the root of the word for female, naqab<\/em>, has a negative connotation of cursing.\u00a0 This is precisely what the female Lilith did.\u00a0 She received curses and was a curse unto God\u2019s creation.\u00a0<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> The singular masculine pronoun et\u2019v<\/em> (w:ta<\/span>) means \u201chim.\u201d\u00a0 This pronoun makes it clear that the passage is speaking only of the man Adam being created in God\u2019s image.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An intriguing Biblical evidence for Lilith comes from the first and third creation accounts of Adam.\u00a0 Both Ge 1:27 and Ge 5:1-2 state that when God created the male and female, only the male was made in God\u2019s image.\u00a0 It is nearly inconceivable that Eve was not created in the image of God.\u00a0 She was … Continue reading “3.3) Only the Man was Created in God’s Image”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":8,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-23","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/23","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/23\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":850,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/23\/revisions\/850"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}