Updated every weekday.         Please vote!    



Well, doesn't it? I mean, how could he create man and woman in his own image if he didn't like to strut around in heels and stockings every now and then? Maybe a little lipstick... eyeliner... some rouge? God must be the prettiest darling at the Mt. Olympus Ball.

On a topic unrelated to God's cross-dressing, we should ask ourselves, is this Adam and Eve? The bible has two different accounts for the creation of people. The first is found here in Genesis 1:27, the next one is found in Genesis 2:7. Names are given to the people in Genesis 2, but not in Genesis 1. Are they the same people, and if so, why are the accounts of their creation so different?



Mr Know-it-all writes:


Actually, that first woman would be Adam's first wife, Lilith, created from clay or mud or whatever he was made of. Adam cried basically because she was bad in bed, and had her expelled from Eden, thus resulting in Eve's creation. That is (more or less) in the original rabinic account of the ordeal. Lilith was overall deleted from the christian version, but as you seem to have noticed, her original introduction remains there.
A vestigial verse, proving the bible's evolution, isn't it?

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


The bible has evolved over the years, as you point out, so it's difficult to be sure exactly how much of Lilith's account was redacted from the KJV.

The story of Lilith being the first woman comes from "The Alphabet of Ben-Sira", but that book wasn't written until around 700 CE. It was, however, probably based on older stories since the concept of Lilith predates the bible by a couple thousand years. Many of the other stories in the bible come from earlier legends as well.

The only named appearance of Lilith in the bible is in Isaiah 34:14, but the KJV translators converted the Biblical Hebrew "lilit" into "screech owl", thus eliminating her. Other translations state her proper name while some call her a vampire or a night hag; either way, more accurate than an owl.

Mr Know-it-all writes:


KJV? I think that's either the protestant or the anglican edition of the bible in english, right? I should state I am writting this from Mexico, so the version I'm (somewhat) familiar with is the Catholic, so you know, more unrationality, more homophobia, more machism, and in general more intolerance. In my discharge, I'm an atheist ever since I posed myself that question (at age 9).
I think the one late Lilith you mean is the folklore version where she becomes a demon of sorts after expulsion and "takes the spilled seed of men" to procreate hundreds of demons. That account had been created to justify why masturbation, fellatio and overall foreplay is a sin, and believers have to get straight to the misioner's pose. It kind of surprises me that it made it onto the written text, if that's the case.

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


Yes, the KJV (King James Version) is the last English translation of the bible that was considered "authorized" by the Church of England, back in 1611. From what I've gathered, it is used by most of the denominations that are the product of the Protestant Reformation (Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.). America is mostly a Protestant country, so it's what I'm most familiar with.

Of course, Christianity is spread all over the place with its ideals and the bible has about a bajillion different editions. However, most of the bibles in print today have the same source material, so that at least gives them all some common ground.

There are plenty of verses in the bible that Christians interpret to condemn any form of sex not specifically designed for reproduction. Never fear, I'll be sure to cover them all! :-)

Katy writes:


Actually the term you would be looking for would be transsexual ... but in truth, God would be more properly considered neither gender yet both genders by some. Personally I feel that there is a Goddess who has been swept under the rug - come on, creation is woman's work, not man's! The concept of a male god is fairly new - the oldest deities are women.

Katy writes:


Also, there are definitely hints of the whole "two creations" I mentioned earlier that have resulted in this confusion between the first two chapters of Genesis. The first creation ended badly with destruction of the world - thus "Elohim created heaven and earth; and the earth was void and without form and the darkness lay over the deep." So, the first creation was destroyed, but there were still people existing, because after expulsion from the garden and the birth of only two sons - Cain and Abel - when Cain is sent out into the world he is concerned about being set upon by the people out there, thus necessitating a special mark showing Cain was not to be harmed: "and he took a wife from among the children of men" is how I think Cain's marriage is put - therefore, the remnants of Elohim's first creations. Otherwise, who did Cain marry? It's only logical ... :-)

School Child of Today writes:


There are only two Entitys that are neither gender, God, and Michael Jackson.

wm writes:


2 explininations to this gender identity problem (other than the transveestite thing) and 2 explination to the repeat

1 what my preacher dude said he was refering to our capicity for emotions and free will and junk
2 trinity thing one was in the image of God, Jahova and the other being the holy spirit, my youth group dude says he thinks of the holy spirit as female

1 he tried once and they screwed up and god smote them and tried again
2 the first chapter or so is a summery and later he slowly goes into more and more detail

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


@wm: This is an ad hoc explanation that doesn't fit with scripture. There is no mention of the Holy Spirit until the New Testament, and even then there is no mention of a female aspect.

Also, the second chapter can't be a summary because it contradicts greatly with the first, as you'll soon see.

Bahookee writes:


So childish or childlike... This is obvious. Womb-man man living being body soul and spirit

TheAlmightyGuru writes:


The bible makes just as much sense as your comment.


Oh the irony!