“I believe that the Genesis 2 creation


“I believe that the Genesis 2 creation account was designed to show the equality, compatibility and unity of the first man and woman. They both had the same source, ha’adam, and shared the same flesh made from the same ground that had been personally enlivened by God’s own breath (Gen. 2:7). Genesis 2 gives further detail regarding the equality of men and women previously stated in Genesis 1:26-28.

Genesis 1 and 2 shows that both men and women were given authority over the animals, but no man or woman is given authority over another man or women. There is no hint of any gender hierarchy among humankind before sin entered the world. There is also little evidence of a so-called “creation order” in either of the creation accounts in Genesis.” http://ow.ly/rwqrT


About "Rites O'Passage Ceremony & Coaching

Sheherezade using stories to transform the wounded and vengeful Sultan in 1001 Nights is my inspiration to fold stories and folktales into my coaching practice at Rites O'Passage I taught writing, literature, and women's studies for 13 years and got my start coaching as an academic coach at a medical school. "Women Who Run With the Wolves" stayed on my reading list pretty much the entire time I taught, and coaching gives me the opportunity to hold the classes and workshops I always dreamed of-- using archetypes for emotional alchemy

3 responses »

  1. Equality does not mean same. Men and women don’t have to be the same. In fact, we are so different we are compatible and complement one another.

    There is no hierarchy, no value placed on role distinctions which we take up in marriage.

    • No, equality does not mean the same. Nor is there any implication that we should be the same.

      Did you read the article in the link? I think you’ll find it very interesting- its looking at the hebrew (rather than the greek or latin) in the Genesis account. It shifts how most think about the creation account that’s given in Genesis. It certainly demonstrates the problems with using a gendered word, “man”, to talk of humankind… Please read it and let me know what you think!

      • With a Bachelor’s in Linguistics and as a former Classics minor (in Grk and Latin), I of course find this interesting. I just don’t quite see that we have to make this big a jump:

        “The first woman (ishshah) and the first man (ish) had both been a part of, or one side of, the first human being (ha’adam).”

        As though the first man (ish) were a different person altogether from the ha’adam.

        It’s cool to see what’s happening linguistically but Scripture always interprets Scripture, and there’s the context that the Adam who greeted Eve was the Adam formed first of the dust.

        I’d also rather speak with scholars well versed in Hebrew before speaking definitively. Either way, we agree on the equal standing God bestowed on Adam and Eve.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s