{"id":24,"date":"2017-11-04T23:20:00","date_gmt":"2017-11-04T23:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress_bw2\/first-woman-not-created-in-image-of-god\/"},"modified":"2017-12-10T02:55:20","modified_gmt":"2017-12-10T02:55:20","slug":"first-woman-not-created-in-image-of-god","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/the-case-for-lilith\/the-biblical-case-for-lilith\/first-woman-not-created-in-image-of-god\/","title":{"rendered":"3.4) The Overturning of God\u2019s Intention to Create Both the Male and Female in his Image"},"content":{"rendered":"

Another noteworthy evidence for Lilith may be pulled from the fact that only the male was created in God\u2019s image.\u00a0 It was God\u2019s original intention to have both the man and the woman created in his image.\u00a0 However, only the male ended up being created in God\u2019s likeness.\u00a0 This thwarting of God\u2019s intention can only explained by Lilith\u2019s legend.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In verse 26 God states, \u201cLet us make Adam in our image.\u201d\u00a0 From this, we see that God wanted both halves of the Adam male \/ female duo to be made in his likeness.\u00a0 Recall from the discussion of 3.2.1 that the proper name Adam (Mda<\/span>) here is in reference to the dual male \/ female creature.\u00a0 This notion is confirmed by the grammar of the verse.\u00a0 It states that God wanted to make Adam in his likeness and that he wanted \u201cthem\u201d to rule over the earth.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 By saying \u201cthem\u201d God was referring to both the male and female he was about to create.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 However, as documented in Table 3\u20115, God only created ha\u2019adam (the man) in his image.\u00a0 The sudden change in God\u2019s plans for the dual Adam can only be explained by Lilith\u2019s legend.\u00a0 The mist arose and preemptively animated the woman in Lucifer\u2019s likeness.\u00a0 God would have to take an alternate route to finally get his desired dual Adam creature.\u00a0 He would have to create Eve from Adam\u2019s side.\u00a0<\/p>\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
wdry:w<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
wn:twmd:k<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
wn:mlu:b<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Mda<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
hven<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Myhla<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
rmay:w 26<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
and let them rule<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
as our likeness<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
in our image<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Adam<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
let us make<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
God<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
and said<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 3\u20116: A Transliteration of Ge 1:26<\/strong><\/p>\n

The overturning of God\u2019s intention is also demonstrated by a remarkable phenomena in Genesis.\u00a0 Once God creates the man, the name \u201cAdam\u201d disappears from Genesis until chapter 4.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Before Ge 4:25, the name Adam appears only twice \u2013 Ge 1:26 and 2:5.\u00a0 Both usages are actually references to a future Adam before he exists.\u00a0 In Ge 1:25, \u201cAdam\u201d merely refers to the God\u2019s intention to create Adam, and Ge 2:5 simply notes that \u201cAdam\u201d did not yet exist.\u00a0 In this same span of Genesis, the masculine Adam is referred to 22 times as ha\u2019adam<\/em> (the man) — Ge 1:27; 2:7 (twice), 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24; and 4:1.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Why does the name Adam disappear once God creates the man?\u00a0 It is because God\u2019s intention to create the dual creature Adam was thwarted when only the male was created in his image.\u00a0 And why does the name suddenly return to use in Ge 4:25?\u00a0 That passage states that Adam knew his wife Eve, and they conceived Seth.\u00a0 With the birth of Seth, God\u2019s originally intended generations for the dual male\/female Adam were restored.\u00a0 \u00a0This is the beginning of the linage of Adam that God had intended from the beginning.\u00a0 Therefore, with Eve taken from the man\u2019s side, the dual Adam creature that God had originally intended was in existence and functioning. \u00a0After Ge 4:25 Genesis exclusively uses the name Adam instead of ha\u2019adam<\/em>.\u00a0 The name Adam is used in Ge 4:25; 5:1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.\u00a0 Ha\u2019adam<\/em> is nowhere used after Ge 4:25.\u00a0<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> The word for \u201cto rule\u201d in verse 26 is radah<\/em> (hdr<\/span> – Strongs 7287).\u00a0 The vahv<\/em> (w<\/span>) suffix to radah<\/em> is a plural feminine pronominal suffix.\u00a0 Thus, the word translates \u201clet them rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Without the dual creature understanding of Adam, the verse 26 phrase \u201cLet them have dominion\u201d is inexplicable.\u00a0 Adam is singular, yet the verse speaks of \u201cthem\u201d having dominion.\u00a0 It is probably for this reason that the KJV mistranslates the proper name Adam here as \u201cman.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> This phenomena is not apparent in the KJV translation.\u00a0 The KJV correctly renders ha\u2019adam<\/em> as \u201cthe man\u201d most of the time, however ten times it incorrectly renders it as the name Adam — Ge 2:19, 20, 21, 23; 3:8, 9, 17, 20, 21; and 4:1.\u00a0 The KJV also performs the opposite error.\u00a0 Twice it renders the name \u201cAdam\u201d as \u201cman\u201d \u2013 Ge 1:26 and 2:5.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Another noteworthy evidence for Lilith may be pulled from the fact that only the male was created in God\u2019s image.\u00a0 It was God\u2019s original intention to have both the man and the woman created in his image.\u00a0 However, only the male ended up being created in God\u2019s likeness.\u00a0 This thwarting of God\u2019s intention can only … Continue reading “3.4) The Overturning of God\u2019s Intention to Create Both the Male and Female in his Image”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":8,"menu_order":3,"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-24","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24","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=24"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":791,"href":"https:\/\/www.bitterwaters.com\/bw_12_21_2018\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/24\/revisions\/791"}],"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=24"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}