Genesis, Souls, and the Spirit of God—Uncovering the Truth

Reading from the Wycliffe Bible (1382)

In this post, I'm reading from the Wycliffe Bible (WYC translation), which was translated in 1382 by John Wycliffe. This version has some significant differences compared to newer translations. Of course, all translations vary somewhat, but the Wycliffe version contains some major distinctions that can really change how we understand Scripture.

One example is found in Genesis 1.

Many Christian denominations—out of the 45,000 worldwide—teach that animals do not have souls. But the Wycliffe translation clearly states otherwise. It says that animals were created with living souls. Specifically, in Genesis 1:21, the Wycliffe Bible reads: "And God made of nought great whales, and each living soul..." referring to the animals.

By contrast, modern versions like the NIV and many others, they often omit the term "souls" when referring to animals, and that is why the churches teach that they don't have souls. This is just one of many examples of how translation choices can affect doctrine and understanding.

Life Comes from God Alone

As you read thought my website you will see that I continue to point out many other alterations that significantly impact our understanding of Scripture. Life comes from God and God alone—He is life. This truth appears early on, even in Genesis 1:2. God is the life force that sustains everything: our breath, our heartbeat, our ability to see and move—it’s all because of Him.

Christ is the source of life, and His presence is within everything that lives—animals, trees, all of creation. Trees and fish breathe oxygen, just like we do. Oxygen is essential to all life on Earth. And that’s not just a scientific fact—it’s a spiritual truth. The breath of life that sustains every living thing is Christ Himself, and that’s incredibly important to understand.

As Colossians 1:17 says:
“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
This verse reminds us that Christ is not only the source of life but also the one who continually sustains it.

Creation in Genesis 1: A Closer Look

What I really want to focus on is the creation of male and female in Genesis chapter 1—we’ll get to that shortly. But before we do, I want to take a moment to explain what I meant when I referred to verse 2.

In the Wycliffe translation, Genesis 1:1–2 reads:
"In the beginning, God made of nought the heavens and the earth. Forsooth, the earth was idle and void, and darkness was upon the face of the earth; and the Spirit of God was borne upon the waters."

Now, in modern translations like the NIV, it often says the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. But here, in the Wycliffe version, it says the Spirit was borne upon the waters—borne, as in B-O-R-N-E.

That word borne is key. It’s the past participle of bear, and in this context, it means brought forth, carried into existence, or manifested. It suggests that the Spirit of God wasn’t just passively floating—it was actively brought into the scene, emerging into the chaos to begin shaping creation. It’s as if the Spirit was born into that moment—deliberately and powerfully.

This is more than poetic language. It points to a deep spiritual truth: that when God created the heavens and the earth, it wasn't just physical matter taking shape. The Spirit—the very breath and power of God—was manifesting into creation itself. Not just hovering. Borne.

Sometimes I describe this using a simple analogy: when two forces—like an electrical charge and a conductor—are joined, something new is born. That’s what I believe happened here. Out of the void and the darkness, when the Spirit of God was borne upon the waters, life began.

Male and Female in Genesis 1 vs Genesis 2

In Genesis 1:27, it says:
“And God made of nought man to or in His image and likeness. God made man in the image of God; He made them male and female.”

This verse tells us that both male and female were created together in the image of God. From the beginning, humanity was made as a reflection of Him—both male and female.

But then, in Genesis chapter 2, we see a different scene. Adam is alone in the garden, and God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” So God puts Adam into a deep sleep, takes one of his ribs, and creates the woman from it.

This raises an important observation:
In chapter 1, both male and female are created together, as a unified act of creation.
But in chapter 2, we see a more detailed account that focuses first on Adam alone—then later introduces the woman as being created from Adam’s side.

Now, I get a lot of rebukes from the Christian community when I talk about Scripture—especially when I share things that differ from traditional denominational teachings. I understand there's a lot of speculation around this topic, but let me explain what I’ve found.

Two Hebrew Words: A Subtle but Powerful Difference

When I study Scripture, I use tools like BlueLetterBible.org and Strong’s Concordance to go deeper into the original Hebrew words. So, I looked up the word "female" used in Genesis 1, and I compared it to the word used for "woman" in Genesis 2.

What I discovered is this:
In Genesis 1, the word translated as female refers to a young female, possibly undeveloped or not yet mature. - A female child.
But in Genesis 2, the word for woman refers to a fully grown, mature woman of age to be married.

To me, this suggests there may be a deeper distinction between the creation described in chapter 1 and the formation of the woman from Adam’s side in chapter 2. It opens up a lot of questions about what was really happening in those two accounts.

What About Lilith? My Take

Now, a lot of other studies will try to divert the conversation by introducing the idea that Adam had two wives—one of them being Lilith. Some say that Lilith appears in the creation account of Genesis 1, and then Eve comes later in chapter 2. I’ve looked into that teaching before, but I don't buy into it.

I don’t believe that the woman mentioned in chapter 1 and the woman supposedly formed from Adam’s rib in chapter 2 are two different people. I believe it’s the same woman, shown at two different points in time. She wasn’t created twice—rather, God brings her back to Adam in a deeper, more intimate way in chapter 2.

Moses, Oral Tradition, and Ancient History

Now, what we have to understand is this: according to many studies and historical estimates, there were about 2,500 years between the time of creation in Genesis and the time of Moses, who is traditionally credited with writing the book.

That means there were roughly 2,500 years of undocumented history before these events were ever written down. These were oral traditions and stories passed down through generations until Moses recorded them. So, when we read Genesis, we’re reading stories rooted in ancient accounts that were passed on from generation to generation long before they were ever written down. This knowledge is KEY to for our understanding.

The Bible Is Inspired—But Not Without Human Error

I believe the Bible is 100% inspired by God. And when I say "inspired," I mean that it contains divine truth, even though, as humans, the writers couldn't always fully grasp or perfectly interpret everything it shown to them. I saying there is some error in scripture. Human error not Godly error. That’s why studying both secular and biblical history together is so important. Some Christians might rebuke me just for saying that, but I stand by it—I believe the Bible is truly inspired by God. - Like a movie that is "inspired" - there is some error.

Now, for some reason, God chose Moses to document these stories. But we need to understand the context: there were roughly 2,500 years of history between the events of Genesis and the time Moses actually wrote them down. These were stories passed down, orally preserved, and eventually written to help us understand something spiritual and foundational.

Bridging Science, Scripture, and Mental Health

When I study, I bring in my experiences with schizophrenia and mental health, and I also incorporate science. And the incredible thing is, science often confirms what I see spiritually. Then I pull in the scriptures to connect the dots. That’s how I build a foundation of substantial evidence to support what I believe—such as my belief that schizophrenia is connected to the gift of prophecy. I believe I can prove this, but not with scripture alone, and not with science alone. It takes both.

Science is real. It helps us understand the world in profound ways. Moses didn’t have access to modern science—he didn’t have the tools or studies we have today that talk about things like evolution, for example. Today, science tells us that humans share common ancestry with primates. In that sense, I’m open to the idea that we may have evolved, and that evolution also takes place in the mind as well.

So, what am I saying? I’m saying it’s possible we evolved from monkey—and yet, at the same time, we were made from the dust of the earth, as Genesis says. I believe both can be true. I believe the animals were formed from the dust and "Human Consciousness" formed way after the cave man era. 

Genesis 1:27 says,
“And God made of nought them.”
He made them—male and female—right here in chapter one.

Now, before you dismiss what I’m saying or label it as "false doctrine," I want to ask you to just hear me out. Don’t tune me out right away. It's important to consider something: there are over 45,000 different Christian denominations in the world. That’s a real, statistical number—you can look it up.

Each one teaches its own version of doctrine. So, the question is: whose doctrine is the truth? With so many differing interpretations, we need to be open to studying Scripture deeply and honestly.

So, I’m just asking you to listen. You might not agree with everything I say—and that’s okay. But stay with me, because at some point, something I share might make you stop and say, “Wow... I never knew that about the Bible.”

Strong’s Concordance & the Power of Language

A lot of times, people don’t even take the time to open a Strong’s Concordance and read what’s actually there. For those who don’t know, Strong’s Concordance is a reference book that links every word in the Bible to its original Hebrew or Greek word. It gives each word a number, and that number allows you to trace the word back to its etymology—that is, the study of the word's origin and how it was used in its earliest form.

Strong’s is often used alongside tools like lexicons or resources like Brown-Driver-Briggs, which dig deeper into definitions based on earlier Bible manuscripts and original languages. That’s helpful when trying to understand what a word really meant at the time it was written.

For example, take the word “female.” In Strong’s Concordance, it’s given a number—in this case, 85347 (though this may vary depending on the specific word and verse). Once you have the number, you can look up the original Greek or Hebrew root, and see what that word meant in its earliest use—not just how we interpret it today.

This is similar to what happens with the word “Apocrypha.” Most modern Christians think "apocrypha" means “unauthentic” or “non-canonical.” But if you actually study the etymology of the word, you'll find that in its original Greek form, apokryphos, it simply meant “hidden” or “secret things.” It wasn’t until the 16th century, when the word entered the English language, that it began to carry the meaning of “unauthentic.”

So, when early translators like John Wycliffe (who translated the Bible long before the 16th century) referred to something as apocryphal, they weren’t calling it fake. They were acknowledging it as hidden knowledge—something sacred, mysterious, or not yet fully revealed.

But today, because the English definition has changed, many Christians misunderstand the word. We see “apocrypha” and immediately assume it's not valid or true. That’s not how it was originally meant. This is why studying the original languages and word roots is so important—it clears up a lot of modern confusion.

Now, the word “female” in Genesis 1 is listed as H5347 in Strong’s Concordance. I’m using a Strong’s-based lexicon, which is a great tool for digging deeper into the original meanings of words.

You can look this up yourself by clicking this blue link here—Strong’s gives the definition for this word as:
“female, woman, maid, female child,” indicating a young female, possibly childlike or youthful in age.

That detail is important, because it shows that the word used in Genesis 1 might refer to an undeveloped or young female—not necessarily a fully grown woman. This contrasts with the woman supposedly created from Adam’s rib in Genesis 2, who is presented as a mature, complete partner.

Let’s take a closer look at Genesis 2:18–22. Verse 18 says,

“It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.”

And verse 22 says,

“And the LORD God built the rib which he had taken from Adam into a woman, and brought her to Adam.”

Now, this brings me back to the idea that Moses—who wrote Genesis—didn't have access to the kind of scientific understanding we have today. For example, I picture this creation event similarly to the way identical twins are formed. If we evolved from monkeys or formed as humans from the start, I imagine this: Twins, it’s like one being splitting into two. And yes, identical twins can be born male and female in rare cases when there's a genetic variation.

All created life comes in pairs—male and female. The waters brought forth reptiles; well, those reptiles had to be male and female to reproduce. The same applies to monkey as well as humans. I believe the original male and female were split from one source even if it was simply a primate species. This is both a spiritual and scientific concept.

Moses wouldn’t have known these biological details. In the Bible, when twins are mentioned—like Jacob and Esau—there's no explanation of how twins form. They simply appear in the story. That’s because people at that time didn’t have our level of scientific knowledge. And I’ve been told before, “Stop using science to explain Scripture,” but I actually believe we should use every tool available—including science—to gain understanding. God created both the Bible and the universe, so they can’t be in conflict.

Now back to the word “woman” in Genesis 2. This time the Strong’s Concordance gives us a different number: H802. When you look it up by clicking this blue link here, the meaning includes:
“woman, wife, female, adulteress”—this clearly implies someone of age, a mature woman capable of becoming a wife.

So, we have two different Hebrew words being used:

• One in Genesis 1 for a female child or young girl,

• And another in Genesis 2 for a mature woman.

That tells us something. I don’t believe these are two entirely different women like some speculate—such as the Lilith theory. I think it’s the same woman at different stages—not created twice, but rather separated and reunited. Maybe they were split apart in some way, and God later brought her back to Adam. The Bible says God brought her to him, which could mean she had wandered and then returned. Even that return, though, would still be God’s doing, because God is sovereign and moves even in our thoughts. Scripture tells us to take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ. That means God has influence over our decisions and perceptions.

If you found this post helpful, please consider rating it. A small donation to support my continued efforts would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you!