THE UNCREATION OF ADAM and THE MAKING OF GOD IN OUR IMAGE Seeking to understand what the Bible says about man and woman in the image of God.

Application Introduction.

This article is predominantly exegetical as its aim is to understand what the Bible says. However, in the Title I could not help myself, but to express what seems to have been done with the message of Genesis 1 & 2, particularly of Genesis 1:26,27. We seem to have re-defined who God says we are. We have done this by re-defining who Adam is, by turning mention of the man Adam, the first and only man created from the ground, in 1:26,27 into a generic corporate “mankind”. We have un-created Adam and replaced him with a different understanding, a generic corporate version, of who he is, one of our own making. And since Adam is the image of God, we have re-defined the image of God. As we looked at Adam we were supposed to see what God is like. But, alas all we now see is our corporate generic definition of man(kind). The question is thus raised, are we really seeing God as He wants us to see Him.

Well, that sure is a cheery way to start an article.

Introduction of where the exegesis is going.

I am contending that the translators and readers of Genesis 1:26,27 have made a grave mistake in referring to the singular unique person “adam” (of v26) “ha-adam” (of verse 27) as the collective man or mankind. It is a mistake that has affected both our understanding of what it means for “ha-adam” to be the image of God and what it means for us to be men and women. And it has proven to be a springboard into modern non-gender understandings of men and women. [I refer you to my Article 7 Notes and analysis on all the instances of “adam” and “ha-adam” in Genesis 1 to 5. for my latest and most developed argument and text based evidence of why “adam” of 1:26 and “ha-adam” of 1:27 should be understood as the one specific unique individual Adam and not as generic corporate mankind].

Primarily translators and commentators seem to have tried to reconcile the seeming nonsensical aspects of the text where “adam ha-adam” is referred to in both the singular and plural. They have decided that this is nonsense and cant’ be understood as it is, and so have interpreted the two references to “adam” in 1:26 & 27 which are in the singular as being collective in intent (e.g. “mankind”) to match the other content where “adam” is referred to in the plural (e.g. v27 “male and female he created them”). I also propose that this collective interpretation has been re-enforced by our modern tendency to de-genderise language.

In effect, they have edited the one unique individual person “adam” out of the text of Genesis 1:26,27 and replaced him with a collective mankind.

The problem this creates is that we no longer hear the questions that the text is raising and so we no longer look for and hear the answers the text is providing.

The question raised by the text is a simple one “how can ha-adam be both singular and dual?”

This question is re-enforced by what we are told about God in Genesis 1:26,27. We see God referred to in both the singular e.g. v27 ” in His image” and the plural e.g. “v26 Let us…..in our image “. The text thus raises a parallel singularity/plurality question about God. “how can God be both singular and plural?”

These parallel questions regarding singularity/plurality in both God and “adam / ha-adam” are in the context where “adam / ha-adam” is “the image of God”. There is a parallel between what we know about God and what we see in “adam / ha-adam”. If we understand who “adam / ha-adam” is correctly then we are seeing something about God, and in the context this something has to do with singularity/plurality.

So, it is vitally important that we understand who “adam / ha-adam” is correctly. As I said above, the translators do not. They actually, edit his existence out of the text and replace him with a generic corporate mankind.

If we leave the text as it is (v26 “adam – Adam” and v27 “ha-adam the adam”) then we correctly come to the end of Genesis 1 with unanswered questions in regard to both God and man, as to how each of them can be both a singularity and a plurality.

I propose the answers are given in Genesis 2 where we are told that “woman” (“ishah”) is built by God “out of” “ha-adam” who happens to be a man “ish”. The one person (singular) “ha-adam” is now a duality, the two persons, man (“ish”)and woman (“ishah”). It is this making of adam a duality that constitutes his being made in the image of God. But, that is for the second article..

EXEGESIS OF GENESIS 1:26 & 27

Now, for the exegesis, for discovering what God is saying in Genesis 1 & 2. (Last edited 16th April 2021)

The Confusion with the words used for man in Genesis 1 &2.

In Genesis 1 & 2 in the original Hebrew there are various terms that our English translations translate as man and woman. The English translations have confused the original distinctions between some of these words. And in some places they have totally changed the intent and meaning of the word.

There is “adam” and “ha-adam”. The “ha-” is the word “the”.

See Gen 1:26  Then God said, “Let Us make adam ([an] adam) in Our image

and 1:27 So God created ha-adam (the adam)  in His own image

There is “ish” and “ishah”.

2:22 And the Lord God fashioned into an “ishah” (woman) the rib

2:23 ……..She shall be called “ishah”,[“ishah = woman”]’
Because ^[v]she was taken out of  “ish”.” [“ish = man”]

And there is in 1:27 in the image of God He created him; male (zakar) and female (uneqebah) He created them.

These latter two “male” and “female” are of no concern to our discussion in regard to the confusion of terms since they are never translated with the word “man” or “woman”. However, it is still worth noting their presence to fully indicate the complexity of the terms used in the passage that have reference to man and woman.

It is my contention that translators have made a grave mistake in their translation of “adam” and “ha-adam” in Genesis 1:26,27. They translate “adam” as “man” or “mankind” or “humankind”, in the translations, while at the same time also using “man” (meaning “male man”) for “ish”. So, in the versions that use “man” (e.g. KJV, RSV,ESV) we have two different Hebrew words being translated “man” in the English. This, unfortunately, hides important information in the Hebrew text.

Genesis 1:26 and Genesis 2:5 where the Hebrew word translated “man” is actually “adam” (without the article “the” which is “ha” in Hebrew.

End of Genesis 2:5

Genesis 1:27 & 2:7 where the Hebrew word translated “man” is actually “ha-adam” (with the article “the” which is “ha” in Hebrew.

Genesis 2:7

End of Genesis 2:23 where the Hebrew “ish” is also translated as “man” along with “ishah” as “woman”

In the Hebrew the word “adam / ha-adam” is a different word to the word “ish”.

In the text of Genesis 2:5-9 we find out some specific information about how the word “adam” is being used.

Basically, the word ground and the word “adam / ha-adam” are related.

The word ground in the Hebrew is “adam-ah”.

So, there is a play on the two words. “adam-ah” is the ground and “adam” is like a nickname based on ground, so let’s say something like “groundy”. So “ha-adam” will be translated “the groundy”. Just below I have copied the actual Hebrew text to look for you to check the use of “adam” and “ha-adam” but below that and easier for you to follow I use the NASB and insert the Hebrew words (with my translation of them) in at the appropriate place.

2:5

2:6

2:7

2:8

2:9

NASB with Hebrew added

Genesis 2:5-9

⁵ Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was not adam (groundy) to cultivate ha-adam-ah (the ground) . ⁶ But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of ha-adam-ah ( the ground). ⁷ Then the Lord God formed ha-adam (the groundy) of dust from ha-adam-ah (the ground) , and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and ha-adam (the groundy) became a living person. ⁸ The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed ha-adam (the groundy) whom He had formed. ⁹ Out of ha-adam-ah (the ground) the Lord God caused every tree to grow that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As we can see, the word “adam” is actually part of an intricate word play with the word ground “adam-ah”. So the term “adam” is not fundamentally the word for “man” as opposed to “woman” which we see in “ish” and “ishah” but is a term that describes adam in terms of his origins. It tells us he is from the ground. A more correct term might be something like “ground-creature” or “groundling”. (You will notice that I avoid using say “groundman” because it has “man” in it). It is a bit like we do with nick-names e.g. a boy with red hair might be called “reddy” or “a red-hair”. So, rather than “ground creature or groundling or groundman” I am going to opt for the more personal nickname like “groundy”. If, translators had stuck with the transliteration from the Hebrew “adam” it would not have given us the association and derivation from the word ground, but it might have at least told us that it is a specific descriptive name for a specific person rather than a generic name for man. As we move into later chapters of Genesis we see that the use of “adam / groundy” is clearly the name of the “ish – man” “Adam – Groundy”. e.g. 4:25 “Adam/Groundy had relations with his wife again; and she gave birth to a son…” So, in time what starts off as a description term/nickname (adam / groundy) will become his actual name “Adam /Groundy”. (See article 3 for more detail regarding this). As mentioned above, it is like what happens with nick-names which are often a description of some facet of a person. In fact, many of our names are like this e.g. Smith (was probably a blacksmith), Brown probably had brown hair or skin. The nickname or descriptive name eventually becomes the person’s name. Probably most of us know people who we think we address them by their name, only to find out later, that it is their nickname.

So, from Genesis 2:5-9 we learn that “adam / groundy” is not a generic term for man. Rather, it is a very specific term describing this one person and only this person, this one who is from the ground, who in due time we learn is an “ish (man)”, the first “ish”. Subsequently, there are many “ish” (See Gen 4:1 where Eve calls Cain an “ish”) but there is only ever one “Adam / Groundy”. As we study the text, we see that there is only one person who is from the ground in the whole history of mankind and that is “adam – the groundy” or “Adam – Groundy”. It is extremely important in understanding Genesis 1 & 2 to realise that there was only ever one Groundling.

It is possible that the KJV and other translators are having a two-way bet with their use of “man”. In English, the word “man” can mean either a singular “male man” or “mankind” or be a collective word for “man and woman”. (See the article “The Ambiguity of ‘Anthropos'” 2003 by Michael D. Marlowe for further discussion of the word “man” in the New Testament and the nuances required in translating it. http://www.bible-researcher.com/anthropos.html ) As the Hebrew for “adam – groundy ” is male in gender and singular, and as “adam – Groundling” is later specifically classified as an “ish”, then it is possible that the translators meant for the word “man” in 1:26 to be understood as a “male man”. And these versions, KJV RSV and ESV also retain the word “him” in the following part of the sentence, which indicates that it is a single male specific person that is on view. But, then again they all from KJV onwards may just mean by man the generic name for all mankind.

If so, my contention, is that they have miscued the import of the term, of the text.

As the accepted public use of language changed, particularly gender language, both readers and translators would more and more understand “man” as a more generic term in the senses of “mankind” and then further again as “humankind” as “man and/or woman”. Public language use has become more gender inclusive. So, now, even without any additional help from translators many people would read “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” as “Let Us make mankind/humans/humankind in Our image, according to Our likeness” and even as “Let Us make men and/or women in Our image, according to Our likeness“. However, translators are now even taking the step for the reader, so NIV says “So God created mankind in his own image” and The Common English Bible “Then God said, “Let us make humanity in our image” or the most common version in numerous translations “make human beings”. See Footnote 1.

It is interesting to have a look at what the Greek translation of the Old Testament (The Septuagint, the LXX) did with these verses. When you look at it please do not just read the English. It is the Greek that we are interested in.

Genesis 1:26 to 27 in LXX

Genesis 2:22-23 in LXX

The LXX does 2 things of note.

First, in both 1:26 & 27 it uses the word “anthropon” in contradistinction to
“andros” of 2:23 as opposed to KJV, NIV, ESV which use the same word “man” for both Genesis 1 & Genesis 2. That is, it carefully makes a distinction between “andros” and “anthropon” to retain that they are translating different words in the Hebrew. For the translators of the LXX, the one word “man” will simply not do justice to the Hebrew’s two different words.

Second, in v26 it uses “anthropon” without the article “anthropon” (a man) and in v27 it uses it with the article (the word “the”) “ton anthropon” (the man) as opposed to KJV, NIV, and ESV which have the word “man” without the article for both v26 & 27 and ignore the distinction created by the article that is seen in both the LXX and the Hebrew which uses “adam” in v 26 and “ha-adam” in verse 27. This use of a word without an article and then in a subsequent mention with an article strongly points to it being a unique specific thing that is being referred to. For example,

Neil had his eye on a car to buy.

Neil looked lovingly at the car he bought.

In both instances, it is the same car that is being referred to.

Another example.

We need to find a cook for our restaurant

We have found the cook for our restaurant.

The inclusion of the article in the second mention of car indicates specificity.

By translating both instances without the article, the translators are ignoring this indication of specificity.

They do this because they have made a prior decision to make “adam” a generic collective term for man, for mankind. However, the change from non-article to article in the Hebrew does not fit with their assumption, so it is left out.

If they took it into account the translation of the KJV would not be

²⁶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion 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 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

but would be, as it should be

²⁶ And God said, Let us make a man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion 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 So God created the man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

The translations that have gone all the way with mankind or humankind face even a greater problem.

So, NIV which has

²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,^[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

²⁷ So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

would sound nonsense if it retained the change from without article to with article, as in the following

²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make a mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,^[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

²⁷ So God created the mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

The change from non-article to article just does not work with the collective “mankind” so it is obviously ignored and in these translations.

Rather, the change from non-article (v26) to article (v27) should be a pointer, a clue, that it is a specific individual that we are dealing with and not a singular noun being used in a generic corporate sense.

Further, these “mankind” translations, which are clearly opting for understanding “adam” as a collective description of mankind rather than the one unique individual, then have to change other words which are in the singular to being in the plural, so that they match their assumed translation of “adam’ as the collective “mankind”. The Hebrew text and the LXX both in v27 conclude the following phrase with the word “him” which refers back to “ha-adam”. The English translations that used “mankind” for “ha-adam” change “him” to “them”.

So, below in the NIV, you see the boldened word “them” is actually the word “him” in both Hebrew and LXX.

²⁷ So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

I will below change the emboldened words back to what the Hebrew says

²⁷ So God created ha-adam (the groundling) in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them.

As you can see this has moved a long way from the descriptive naming of the first individual person “adam – groundling”.

In every mention of “adam / groundy” in Genesis 1&2 other than the first mention in 1:26 and another in 2:5 the phrase is “ha-adam / the groundy”. In 1:26 and in 2:5 it is “adam / groundy”. In every one of the other mentions it is “ha-adam” (the adam / groundy) and it is referring to the one who will later be referred to as an “ish” (man) as opposed to an “ishah” (woman). The article “ha / the” with the singular is telling the reader that it is a specific individual that is one view.

It is clear in 2:5 that “adam” is not referring to “mankind” but rather to an individual specific male person. We see this in that God then creates (2:7) “ha-adam – the groundy” who is the main subject of the rest of the chapter, and who is subsequently identified as being an “ish” (a male man) as opposed to an “ishah” (a woman). Yet, even in 2:5 translators obscure the fact that it is a specific person “Adam – Groundy” that is being referred to. Most do this mildly by once again using the word “man” but others go much further and use such words as “one” (NIV, NRSV, Good News) or “human” to try and make him a generic gender neutral person.

The end of Genesis 2:5

You can see here that it is the word “wa-adam” ie. “and adam” in the Hebrew.

Yet, the NIV uses “one” for “adam”.

So, I propose that to better clarify what is going on in the text of Genesis 1 & 2 that we use the word “groundy” instead of the spurious “man/mankind/humankind/one”. As discussed above, “adam” is a word-play on the word for ground “adamah”. So, when we translate “adam” as “groundy” we retain this wordplay.

Also, I propose that it is valid to retain the word “man” for “ish” and “woman” for “ishah” as this retains the wordplay inherent in these terms.

Below, I will set forth a translation based on this.

Immediately below is a link to the Hebrew Interlinear if you want to look at the whole section in Hebrew and then after that a copy of it for 1:26-27. Then, there is a NASB translation but interpose the words “groundy (adam)“, “the groundy (ha-adam)“, “man (ish)“, “woman (ishah)” in their appropriate places. By using the term “groundy” instead of “Adam” or “man” or “mankind” you will immediately see the depth of the wordplay in the text between ‘ground” and “groundy“.

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-27.htm

NASB (modified) Genesis 1:26,27,28

²⁶ Then God said, “^[ai]Let Us make (a) groundy in Our image, according to Our likeness; and ^[aj]let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” ²⁷ So God created the groundy in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ²⁸ God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that ^[ak]moves on the earth.”

NASB (modified) Genesis 2:4-25

^4 [c]This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven. ⁵ Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was not (a) groundy to ^[d]cultivate the ground. ⁶ But a ^[e]mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole ^[f]surface of the ground. ⁷ Then the Lord God formed the groundy of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the groundy became a living ^[g]person. ⁸ The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the groundy whom He had formed. ⁹ Out of the ground. the Lord God caused every tree to grow that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

¹⁰ Now a river ^[h]flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four ^[i]rivers. ¹¹ The name of the first is Pishon; it ^[j]flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. ¹² The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there as well. ¹³ The name of the second river is Gihon; it ^[k]flows around the whole land of Cush. ¹⁴ The name of the third river is ^[l]Tigris; it ^[m]flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the ^[n]Euphrates.

¹⁵ Then the Lord God took the groundy and put him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate it and tend it. ¹⁶ The Lord God commanded the groundy, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may freely eat; ¹⁷ but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not ^[o]eat, for on the day that you eat from it you will certainly die.”

¹⁸ Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the groundy to be alone; I will make him a helper ^[p]suitable for him.” ¹⁹ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the groundy to see what he would call them; and whatever the groundy called a living creature, that was its name. ²⁰ the groundy gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for ^[q]the groundy there was not found a helper ^[r]suitable for him. ²¹ So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the groundy, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. ²² And the Lord God ^[s]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the the groundy, and brought her to the groundy. ²³ Then the groundy said,

“At last this is bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
^[t]She shall be called ^[u]‘woman,’
Because ^[v]she was taken out of ^[w]man.”

²⁴ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife/woman; and they shall become one flesh. ²⁵ And the groundy and his wife/woman were both naked, but they were not ashamed.

It is a major point of the text that adam is a “groundy” for he was made from the dust of the ground, and is in fact “the groundy“, and further is the only groundy. The woman is NOT a groundy. She is not Groundy. For she was not made from the ground. Only adam is a groundy, only Adam is the groundy . Only, man is a groundy, as only man is Groundy. And only the groundy is a man. Only groundy is a man.

This is because it is only Groundy who is a groundy who is the groundy. who is made from the ground.

The woman in NOT made from the ground. So, she is NOT a groundy or the groundy or the Groundy since she is neither made from the ground nor is she a man. And in fact, as I will discuss in more detail later, she is the ONLY creature in all of creation that is not made from the ground. She is a special make.

I will also argue later that the fact that she is not made from the ground is fundamental to the man /Groundy / the groundy being made in the image of God.

I will also later argue that the fact that the woman being made not from the ground but from man is critical to our understanding of who God is, or more precisely how man images God. And it is as we understand how man images God that we understand properly who God is. The point of an image is to tell you something about the one imaged. We think that the point of man being the image of God is that we are like him, but the real point is that we the image show what God is like. It is thus vital and fundamental that those who are in Christ align their lives and relationships in their families and in the church in accordance with the pattern of the image of God seen here in Genesis 1 & 2. The complementarian and egalitarian understandings of man and woman display different pictures of man and woman. Both cannot be right, for that would mean there are two gods. Only one image of God can be true, at least one of the views may be straying into idolatry. But alas, I have delved into application and strayed from exegesis.

OBJECTION TO ME FROM THE TRANSLATORS.

Why have the translators done this substituting the word “man” or “human” or “mankind” for both the nickname “Adam – Groundy” and the description the groundy.

That is, other than my accusation that it is increasingly so because of the public push to use gender inclusive language.

The main reason would seem to be to interpret the text about “Adam – Groundy” in light of the second half of the verse 1:26 “and let them rule over” and the second half of verse 27 “male and female He created them“.

Starting with verse 26 “and let them rule over“. In these words, there has been a sudden and dramatic change from the first person masculine “Adam – Groundy” to the 3rd person plural “them”. It is vividly clear that there is a disjunction in the content of the text between the singular and the plural. So, the text seems to be speaking of the same person in both the singular and the plural. The translators are trying to solve this problem by translating the previous translation “man” as the collective plural “mankind” or similar.

Yet, what other alternative do the translators have, other than to leave the sentence in its seemingly non-sensical original sense? It seems non-sense that a singular male can be a plural them, and presumably (in view of v27) a male and female them. So, the translators solution seems an eminently sensible one.

The other alternative is to leave the text as it is, and to ask oneself the questions raised by this seeming non-sense. That question is “How can a singular male person be a plural male and female persons?” or more succinctly “How can” Adam – Groundy” be both singular and plural? The subsequent question to ask oneself is, “does the preceding or following text give us an answer to this question or at least a clue to it?” We will come back to this subsequent question in due course as we look at Genesis 2.

To their credit, the translators seem to have noticed and asked the question “How can a singular male person be a plural male and female persons?” However, they have given their answer, and it is that they believe it cannot be. So, it seems that they have changed the text to suit their answer.

This is a great pity and a great tragedy for it is Adam – Groundy who is the image of God. As we redefine him then we redefine the image of God and so ultimately we will end up re-defining God.

Let us look at the text again ,my version of NASB

Let Us make Adam – Groundy in Our image

It is clear in the text that it is “Adam – Groundy” who is the image of God.

By re-interpreting “Adam – Groundy” as “mankind” then we are changing the content of the image of God. We are making up our own “image of God” and substituting it for “Adam – Groundy“.

Verse 27.

The same mistakes in translation continue to occur in v27.

In this verse we have “ha-adam – the groundy“.

In all the translations we have the same problem as in v26, from KJV onwards, that the singular male “ha-adam – the groundy” is translated as the collective “man/mankind/humankind”.

However, there is an additional factor that must be looked at in v27. In V26 we have “adam” but in v27 we have “ha-adam”.

From Genesis 2, from the sentences “ha-adam” is used in, and it is used a number of times, it is abundantly clear that “ha” in “ha-adam” means “the”. Verses such as 2:19 NASB “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.” show that it is a specific man that is on view by using the word “the” for “ha” in “ha-adam”. In fact, nearly every translation uses the word “the” in this verse, for the sentence structure does not make sense without “the”.

Yet, a number of those same translations when it comes to “ha-adam” in 1:27 leave out the “the” from their translations. And so, if they use “man” then it becomes “man” in a general sense. Some, just follow what they did in v26 and use “mankind” to make their point clear. This is an increasing trend amongst more modern translations.

The change in emphasis of translations over time can be seen by comparing the RSV and the New RSV.

RSV “So God created man in his own image“

NRSV “So God created humankind in his image“

The first stage of re-defining “ha-adam” can be seen in the RSV where the “the” is left out.

The next stage of re-defining “ha-adam” is to change “man” to the “humankind”.

This translation has moved a long way from “ha-adam – the groundy” being a specific person, the first created person, the only person created from the ground. In these translations “ha-adam” is no longer “the groundy“, he no longer ever existed. Once again he has become, he has been re-defines as, all of mankind, and each individual of mankind whether male or female can associate them-self with being him.

There is a further modern modification of the text that has occurred in some translations. It has involved a change of the word “him” to “them” in v27.

Interestingly, it has occurred in the NIV (and in the RSV to the NRSV) from earlier to later versions.

Earlier Version (1984?) NIV

So God created man in his own image,
    in the image of God he created him;
    male and female he created them

Later (current) Version NIV

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

We see in the updated version a change from “man” to “mankind” so that it is no longer ambiguous that NIV does not want to refer to ha-adam as the unique and only person/man created from the ground.

This is re-enforced by changing the translation of the Hebrew from “him” to “them”.

The NIV and NRSV has effectively re-written and re-defined ha-adam out of the bible and out of ever existing. The NIV has re-defined the image of God.

On this issue of replacing “him” with “them” I refer you to an article by Lionel Windsor where he reviews the book “What the Bible Actually Teaches on Women” 2008 Kindle Version by Kevin Giles where Kevin quotes the NRSV on Genesis 1:27 which similarly to the NIV replaces “him” with “them” contrary to the Hebrew. Kevin Giles subsequently, replied to Lionel admitting it was a mistake to use that mistaken translation. I provide the link to Lionel’s review. http://www.lionelwindsor.net/2019/06/17/equality-order-gen-1-27/

This shows us that the modern tendency to increasingly replace “ha-adam – the groundy” with initially “man” and then “mankind” is a serious and real re-defining of “ha-adam – the groundy” as the image of God that is affecting the readers of those bible translations understanding of the image of God and by extension their understanding of who God is.

As we look at the further content of 1:27 we see that if we keep the text as it is, it raises the same sort of question that verse 26 did.

I²⁷ So God created the groundy in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

In verse 27 we have “ha-adam – the groundy” in the singular masculine AND we have this re-enforced by by the word “him” in the phrase “He created him”. So, there is a double emphasis that it is “the” groundy and “ha-adam – the groundy” is a him (a singular masculine description). Yet, the verse immediately goes on to say “male and female He created them“.

So, verse 27 has raised the same question as verse 26, but in even more emphatic terms. “How can the groundy be a plural male and female?”

Yet, the translators continue to answer this question that they believe it is a non-sense question that has to be eliminated.

They once again eliminate the question by re-defining “ha-adam – the groundy” so that he is no longer a specific person, so that he is no longer the only person created from the ground. Now, magically, he has become all mankind.

So, in the two verses 26,27 it is really about Groundy who is the groundy, who is the image of God. Yet, he has been re-defined out of existence and along with him the true image of God.

In verses 26,27 it is God who the verse is about. It is in God’s image that Groundy who is the groundy is made. As we look at Groundy who is the groundy we are supposed to see God. But, if Groundy who is the groundy is no more and is replaced by something else – by some other persons, then we are no longer seeing God.

So, if these verses and the mention of the image of God is all about who God is, do these verses actually tell us anything specifically about God that might help us to solve the riddle of “How can Groundy, who is the groundy, be both singular and plural?”

There are actually some things that we can learn about God. However, what we learn about God will only re-enforce the riddle. It will only re-enforce the question “”How can someone be both singular and plural at one and the same time ?” for what we learn about God in verses 26,27 raises the very same sort of question about God.

These things we learn about God in verses 26,27.

²⁶ Then God said, “Let Us make Groundy in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the livestock and over all the earth, and over every crawling thing that crawls on the earth.” ²⁷ So God created the groundy in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

1. The word God “elohim” is in the plural just as it is through-out the rest of the Old Testament.
2. God for the first time speaks first person and as He does so He refers to Himself and his actions in the plural “Let Us make …. Our image …. Our likeness”. It is quite possible to speak in the first person and refer to oneself in the singular, but God does not do this. When He looks within Himself, as it were, He speaks in the plural.
3. God when His actions and person are described from externally God is spoken of in the singular.
4. So, we have the curious situation of both the singular and the plural applying to God. This is the same type of seemingly non-sense situation that we have observed in regard to man in these verses.
5. Man as the image of God is spoken of in both the singular and plural. God the one who the image is of is spoken of in both the singular and plural. So, the text seems to beckon us to us a similar question that it did in regard to “the groundling”. “”How can God be both singular and plural?” It is the same question that we asked of the groundling “How can the groundling be both singular and plural?”

As we saw, earlier, the modern trend of translations is to re-define ha-adam out of existence, so that there is no longer a riddle to answer.

When, we come to the translations in regard to God, do they do a similar thing with God? Fortunately, they do not seem to.

However, in regard to God, there are already a plethora of explanations such as the “royal we” available that would do away with the question that the text raises as to how God can be both singular and plural.

It is not my intention to look at any of them, but rather to leave chapter 1 of Genesis with the riddles and the questions hanging over the text.

As we look at Gen 1:26,27 there do not seem to be any answers given to solve the riddles about God and about Groundy the groundy.

We are left in suspense as we approach Genesis 2.

Addendum to this chapter.

What is actually happening by re-defining Groundy the groundy out of existence? What is he really being replaced with? In the translations it is the somewhat vague “mankind” or “humans”. However, what do these terms really refer to in our culture?

The predominant view about mankind, about man and woman, is that they are equal. They are two independent equal creatures. That is what is understood by mankind.

I think that what is being promoted is the teaching that God has created in His image and from the ground two separate independent equal creatures. There seems to be in the translations no attempt to do away with creation from the ground nor of being created in the image of God. In fact, it would seem that there is an idea that all humans can see themselves as being created out of the ground and created in the image of God, but most specifically both male and females should understand themselves as each being created independently out of the ground and each independently possessing the image of God.

As we read Genesis 2 to see if it has any light to shed on the riddles of Genesis 1, we also need to keep present in our our minds what Genesis 2 has to say about our world’s and the the modern translators view about mankind being two independent yet equal creatures.

Footnote 1. I have mentioned the KJV (1611). Once we go back to and beyond the KJV there are very few other translations. There is the Geneva Bible (1599) and the Wycliffe (1390) and the Coverdale (1535), the Bishops Bible . These two also use the term “man” in both verse 26 and 27 of Genesis 1. However, in v27 the Geneva Bible does retain the article “the” in verse 27 whereas the Wycliffe does not, strangely translating the “‘the” as “a” ie “a man”.

Geneva Bible

Wycliffe Bible

Coverdale Bible (1535)

For many centuries before this, it is the Latin Vulgate which is the predominant translation of the Bible, however, it seems to use a different word “hominen” to translate “adam & ha-adam” than what it uses to translate “ish” in 2:23 where it uses “vir”, and here it uses “virago” for woman. That is, it follows the Hebrew and the Septuagint in distinguishing between the Hebrew words “adam & ha-adam” and “ish”.

Bishop’s Bible (

So, it seems we have the whole history of English Bible translations conflating “adam / ha-adam” of 1:26,27 and “ish” of into the one English word “man”.