<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Steel Magnolia</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.girlsgonewise.com/archives/399/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.girlsgonewise.com/archives/399</link>
	<description>Mary Kassian&#039;s Girls Gone Wise in a World Gone Wild</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:56:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.girlsgonewise.com/archives/399#comment-994</link>
		<dc:creator>Sue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 21:42:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girlsgonewise.com/?p=399#comment-994</guid>
		<description>Mrs. Webfoot,

We are talking about two different things. I may have misunderstood your intent. I don&#039;t think humans are androgynous. But there are words which refer to humans that don&#039;t mean male of female. That is, the word &quot;human&quot; means a human being, either male or female. The word for human in Hebrew, that is, adam, and the word for human in Greek, that is anthropos, appear in the Bible a lot. I think they should be translated as &quot;human.&quot;  

I don&#039;t want to go beyond what the text says. So I don&#039;t think we are disagreeing on this - we are talkinga baout two different things. Forgive me for taking this off track.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mrs. Webfoot,</p>
<p>We are talking about two different things. I may have misunderstood your intent. I don&#8217;t think humans are androgynous. But there are words which refer to humans that don&#8217;t mean male of female. That is, the word &#8220;human&#8221; means a human being, either male or female. The word for human in Hebrew, that is, adam, and the word for human in Greek, that is anthropos, appear in the Bible a lot. I think they should be translated as &#8220;human.&#8221;  </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t want to go beyond what the text says. So I don&#8217;t think we are disagreeing on this &#8211; we are talkinga baout two different things. Forgive me for taking this off track.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mrs. Webfoot</title>
		<link>http://www.girlsgonewise.com/archives/399#comment-988</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrs. Webfoot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 16:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girlsgonewise.com/?p=399#comment-988</guid>
		<description>God created a male and God created a female, according to Genesis 1:27. The Bible nowhere says that God created anything but male and female humans. In the Bible, there is no such thing as an androgynous human being.  Androgynous can mean either having no gender or sex or having male and female characteristics blended into one. God never created any such human being who had no gender, no sex.

God created a male - a man- and then a female - a woman.  When Adam was formed from the dust of the earth was physiologically complete.  He was a man, a male.  

Adam is called the frist man, not the first gender-ambiguous human.  Jesus is called the last Adam, not the second gender-ambiguous human.  At the moment of Adam&#039;s creation, he was a man.  When God breathed life into him, he was male, with all his faculties and parts.

What he didn&#039;t have was a help meet, a suitable helper, one corresponding to him both emotionally and physically. Now the two could become one flesh. He had his parts. She had her parts, if you catch my drift.

God didn&#039;t make any additions or corrections to Adam&#039;s physiology. He took something from Adam, but did not add anything to Adam&#039;s body when He made Eve.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: &quot;The first man Adam became a living being&quot; ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.



Genesis 1:27 (Today&#039;s New International Version)
27 So God created human beings in his own image, 
       in the image of God he created them; 
       male and female he created them. 

   
Genesis 1:27 (New International Version)

 27 So God created man in his own image, 
       in the image of God he created him; 
       male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27 (King James Version)

 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 1:27 (English Standard Version)

 27So God created man in his own image,
   in the image of God he created him;
   (A) male and female he created them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God created a male and God created a female, according to Genesis 1:27. The Bible nowhere says that God created anything but male and female humans. In the Bible, there is no such thing as an androgynous human being.  Androgynous can mean either having no gender or sex or having male and female characteristics blended into one. God never created any such human being who had no gender, no sex.</p>
<p>God created a male &#8211; a man- and then a female &#8211; a woman.  When Adam was formed from the dust of the earth was physiologically complete.  He was a man, a male.  </p>
<p>Adam is called the frist man, not the first gender-ambiguous human.  Jesus is called the last Adam, not the second gender-ambiguous human.  At the moment of Adam&#8217;s creation, he was a man.  When God breathed life into him, he was male, with all his faculties and parts.</p>
<p>What he didn&#8217;t have was a help meet, a suitable helper, one corresponding to him both emotionally and physically. Now the two could become one flesh. He had his parts. She had her parts, if you catch my drift.</p>
<p>God didn&#8217;t make any additions or corrections to Adam&#8217;s physiology. He took something from Adam, but did not add anything to Adam&#8217;s body when He made Eve.</p>
<p>1 Corinthians 15:45<br />
So it is written: &#8220;The first man Adam became a living being&#8221; ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.</p>
<p>Genesis 1:27 (Today&#8217;s New International Version)<br />
27 So God created human beings in his own image,<br />
       in the image of God he created them;<br />
       male and female he created them. </p>
<p>Genesis 1:27 (New International Version)</p>
<p> 27 So God created man in his own image,<br />
       in the image of God he created him;<br />
       male and female he created them.</p>
<p>Genesis 1:27 (King James Version)</p>
<p> 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.</p>
<p>Genesis 1:27 (English Standard Version)</p>
<p> 27So God created man in his own image,<br />
   in the image of God he created him;<br />
   (A) male and female he created them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.girlsgonewise.com/archives/399#comment-986</link>
		<dc:creator>Sue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 05:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girlsgonewise.com/?p=399#comment-986</guid>
		<description>Excuse me. I have missed noting that my comment above is in response to Mrs. Webfoot, who has perhaps read my recent post on the androgynous interpretation of &quot;adam.&quot; Yes, I do think that this word applies to a group of only women also. It can mean both men or women and our English text should indicate this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excuse me. I have missed noting that my comment above is in response to Mrs. Webfoot, who has perhaps read my recent post on the androgynous interpretation of &#8220;adam.&#8221; Yes, I do think that this word applies to a group of only women also. It can mean both men or women and our English text should indicate this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sue</title>
		<link>http://www.girlsgonewise.com/archives/399#comment-985</link>
		<dc:creator>Sue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 05:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girlsgonewise.com/?p=399#comment-985</guid>
		<description>I have blogged about this, and it appears if you link to my name. However, there may be a misunderstankding. My reference is to the fact that the original text was ambiguous and only named the first human as &quot;human.&quot; It did not actually refer to his maleness, or name him as a man, male. 

In this case, I would like to see a concordant translation in English, where the Hebrew adam was translated as &quot;human&quot; for clarity. I very strongly support concordant translations but I know that a lot of people are against them because sometimes they perceive being concordant to the Hebrew or Greek as a form of feminism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have blogged about this, and it appears if you link to my name. However, there may be a misunderstankding. My reference is to the fact that the original text was ambiguous and only named the first human as &#8220;human.&#8221; It did not actually refer to his maleness, or name him as a man, male. </p>
<p>In this case, I would like to see a concordant translation in English, where the Hebrew adam was translated as &#8220;human&#8221; for clarity. I very strongly support concordant translations but I know that a lot of people are against them because sometimes they perceive being concordant to the Hebrew or Greek as a form of feminism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mary Kassian</title>
		<link>http://www.girlsgonewise.com/archives/399#comment-983</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Kassian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 05:44:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.girlsgonewise.com/?p=399#comment-983</guid>
		<description>Some Jewish theologians did indeed suggest this idea, but it has not been accepted as correct. I believe that Adam would not have felt his need for a counterpart so keenly if God had created him as an androgynous being. The people who are forwarding this interpretation are trying to skirt around there being role differentiation between the sexes. But the weight of evidence in the passage supports the conclusion that the &quot;firstborn&quot; of humanity was male, and not androgynous.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some Jewish theologians did indeed suggest this idea, but it has not been accepted as correct. I believe that Adam would not have felt his need for a counterpart so keenly if God had created him as an androgynous being. The people who are forwarding this interpretation are trying to skirt around there being role differentiation between the sexes. But the weight of evidence in the passage supports the conclusion that the &#8220;firstborn&#8221; of humanity was male, and not androgynous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
