First of all...what Bible are you reading from, and what are you using to translate into Hebrew (Old Testament)? Your post is correct in one sense that Adam and Eve were equal (humankind). Throughout the Bible, it will refer to the masculine word of "man" which in the Old Hebrew is humankind (one meaning) which includes woman also. ou do need the Hebrew translation (for the OT) and Greek (for the NT). One word can have different meanings considering what context it was written in and how it pertained to how the word was being used, or conversational context in scripture. If you study the Bible long enough, you will find that scripture interprets scripture.
However, in the 27th verse, you have added "a" as in He created "a" male and "a" female. It doesn't say that in the Bible (KJV). It says male and female created He them.
I am not Episcopalian / Anglican so I don't go entirely with KJV which was commissioned by a King to follow certain edicts of the Church of England in its translation. I'd rather go with more modern translations that go back to the original language and try to translate it without any interpretation, so that you can see the ambiguities (like the definition of "adam") and allow yourself or other theologians make the interpretations based on context and other writings / scripture. For the "quotes" I was trying to translate the Hebrew Mechanical translation of Genesis (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/genesis/index.html) using their word morphologies as well as other translations found on the web. You are correct that the original Hebrew did not have the indefinite article "a", but rather is literally translated as: "and He will fatten Elohiym at the 'ha-adam' in image Him in image Elohiym He did fatten at him male and female He did fatten at them." (where "fatten" means to fill as in to fill a person with life, and image as meaning a likeness or copy but not necessarily a physical picture). I was not trying to translate anything into Hebrew, rather using the original Hebrew in translation into English. The Hebrew word "adam" does indeed have more than a single definition, which is why you are correct in saying that you need to look at context and other writings in order to get a full interpretation. But even with that, their are still opposing theories as to what is the "correct" translation. There are factions within Christianity that try to show that God favors males over females (God originally created man and later created woman, Jesus was a male person, and Jesus' apostles were all male, etc.), which is why I'd rather point out the Hebrew word (which is masculine in its declaration -- a foreign concept in English, but in other languages there are masculine, feminine, and neutral nouns which get different grammatical rules applied to each) and show all of its possible meanings.
Lets keep men out of this like St Augustine, and St Thomas of Aquinas (who were they?) This sounds like another plug for Catholicism and I'm not Catholic nor choose to be, so I don't particularly accept the significance of their translations.
Yes both of these theologians were Catholic, but that is because that was basically the only Christian religion at the time (at least for Augustine. For Thomas, Greek Orthodoxy was also practiced but not within the major European nations). Augustine of Hippo lived between 354-430 AD and was considered one of the most influential theologians in early Christianity. He was the one that originated our understanding and theories of "original sin", "divine grace", and "salvation". Thomas Aquinas lived from 1225 to 1274 AD and was also a major theologian of his time. He brought Aristotle's teleological argument (an argument for the existence of a supreme being based upon the logical order of the natural world) into Christianity in his 5th proof of the existence of God when he wrote his "Summa Theologica". It is partially this reason why he is a proponent of Creationism "ex nihilo" and is inspiration for the modern "Intelligent Design" theories.
I have to disagree with you here, but Catholicism was not the only religion practiced, even though they tried to be. The Apostolic church that was formed on the Day of Pentecost, is still alive today. and flourishing. In fact, many have tried to wipe it out, but God has always had a remnant. While I understand your history lesson, it's wrong. The newer versions of the Bible are not the oldest. The King James Version is one of the oldest, and coincides with the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the Qumran Caves in Israel near Engedi. What is the difference of you saying your theologians like Augustine and Thomas are correct, but those writings of the Apostles in the new Testament are wrong? While you knock KJV, you really should read what went into translating of the Word under his reign. There was no biased translation just for the Church of England.
While the JKV Translation is further translated with a good Hebrew and Greek Concordance, we get a good quality of reasoning about what the Lord was trying to say. Okay, you added an "a", which changed the whole meaning completely. Not trying to be nitpicky, but just that one letter changed the whole meaning of what could have been said. Do we know for sure that God made more people? For the 4th time....uh...no. Is it a Salvational issue? Not really. However, some things you have posted are actually spot on. It is a masculine presentation, but on further study, it actually encompasses all
of humanity...woman also. That's why studying gives us a greater understanding of what we are
reading. I haven't found anything in the KJV to contradict itself, even though it's been accused of such.
I do need to ask this because I really don't know. I was told that Catholics are discouraged to read the Bible, instead referred to books written by the Catholic church, and it's own saints as your interpretations of it? I found this interesting. is this common practice?
Since both came before the reformation of the Catholic Church, and because their theological ideas / theories had a profound impact on the Christian church as a whole, I think their viewpoints are very important when discussing theology, and it was not meant as a way to inject Catholicism into the discussion. It would be like ignoring Mozart on a discussion of musical theory because "I don't listen to classical music"
Well, to be honest, I've studied your history and how the Catholic religion was founded. While I reject your teachings and that Augustine and Thomas wrote other books about the existence of God, etc., doesn't mean that I don't agree with some of what you have to say. Whatever impact they had, was on the Catholic church as a whole, not the Christian church. I'm strictly Apostolic which adheres to the Apostles Doctrine in the Book of Acts. I know the Catholic church teaches that they were the first Christian church, but history does not bear that out Biblically. If we want to see the very beginning of the church and the Law, it was given to the Hebrew children on Mount Siani, and then progressed from there. The chosen people were the Jews, and through their bloodline was the Messiah born to cement the Christian church on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost was poured out after Christ arose and left. Telling them to return to Jerusalem and wait for the promise from on high (Holy Ghost). Actually, Apostle Paul was the first Evangelist to found churches (after the Holy Ghost had been poured out) in his travels.
I know you have your "saint's" and statues of people that hold special honorable mention to you as a Catholic, but to others that are not Catholic....not so much. People that lived and died for God, and the writings they left behind that are written in the Bible are our examples. There are books written galore by this one or the other about how the Bible should say this or that, but actually it stands on it's own. I can leave out Augustine and Thomas because to me they did not develop the Christian church. They most certainly developed the Catholic church. I'll give you that.
In the book of Acts, when the Apostles received the Holy Ghost, they spoke in tongues. Many churches teach that doesn't happen today because it was just for the Apostles. The Catholic church says this also. Well, people are still getting the Holy Ghost today with the same experience just like the Bible says. It is for everyone. I got it at 19. I've proved the Bible to be real in my life many times over. Not just some of it, but all. I can't uphold any religion, Minister, or movement of any kind that takes just a part of the Bible and not ALL of it.