We continue the argument by examining God's blessing of Noah at latter half of Genesis to garner that man in the male gender is the being who was created in God's image and does bare that image and not the woman in the female gender of humanity.

Genesis 9:6 - “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Also, in the ten commandments Exodus 20:13 - “Thou shalt not kill.”

(*Note! The following section of the argument does not condone homicide nor does it depict it as an act which is justifiable or irrelevant, neither inconsequential, nor absent an affront to God or Humanity. What the argument tries to deduce is what precedence is given as to what weight that particular offense accrues to the divine being under the various considerations; gender, Image of God, Mosaic Law, and New Covenant Theology. The section alludes to the gender distinction in the image of God being applicable only to man in the male gender of humanity through Genesis 9:6*)

Consider a grizzly scenario, the case of murder, a killing of a human being by violence, bloodshed. Genesis 9:6 conveys to us an imperative. That the killing of a man is a crime against God, and that the violence of that murder of man will be recompensed, the punishment for such a crime under God's justice will be paid. The reason God gives for maintaining this decree is that God made man in his own image, and that must bare a special significance to the Living God.

Now, before going on any further let one not assume that the killing of a woman is not a crime against God, it will later be asserted that it is a crime against God to kill a woman. For now though, we have to note that if a woman is slain in that scenario, it is not covered under Genesis 9:6 as woman is not made in the image of God. It would, however, be noted in the old testament of the Bible, that the case would certainly be applicable as prohibited under the ten commandments in Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill”.

Let us consider murder or any other crime of violence committed against man which sheds man's blood. It will be asserted that the crime is twofold in its offense. First, it is a crime against God. Second, it is a crime against humanity, against the man himself and against his fellow humanity as well as humanity as a whole.

Which of these two offenses does one suppose is the greater? It would be in the instance of the prior case, in that a crime committed against a Holy God is a more egregious injustice then the injustice present where a crime is committed against a flawed human being or humanity. That logically follows for the transgression committed against God in his perfection would seem an attempt to mar and offend that which is pristine, sacred, infinite, and Holy, perfect and priceless without equal and thereby irreplaceable and of the uttermost importance. It would be proportionally a much greater violation of justice then the attempted tarnishing of that which is already marred, common, unclean, quantifiable and finite as is the case where the being or beings offended are imperfect human beings, mankind and his fellowship with imperfect humanity. And this is the primary offense, the highest imperative involved in committing harm to a man. The higher offense is the offense committed against a Holy God in that in so doing one is abolishing a work brought about through God and through God's providence, a being with symbolic physical ties to God as that being posses God's image. Of lesser divine significance, but not without significance altogether, is the crime against that person and his fellow humanity.