13. Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:27-29 observes that significant virtuous character is ascribed to the person of a scant minority of men, but not by any women. He concludes this is all due to God making man upright which infers that according to Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;...”. Solomon conveys that there was a distinction in his time in which there existed a distinction in virtue between the sexes, and the sparse observance of virtue residing solely in the male gender derives from man alone being created and baring in his physical person the image of God.

14. Expounding upon Solomon's reasoning and the accrued total instances contained in this summation continued argument, when the contra position is taken that woman bares in her physical being the image of God, the question arises of how does one expound the difference in virtue that is observed in higher pertinence in man alone in his gender according to valid logical deduction inferred from the Holy Bible. The lack of insight into the inner workings of such dogma is problematic for anyone who would maintain that such a contemporary religious view would be valid and true regardless of whether or not it appears as common place and is considered orthodox in much of denominational Christianity presently.

15. (*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 of the following; gender, Image of God, Mosaic Law, and New Covenant Theology. *)

In the instance of Homicide, evidence is contained in the Holy Bible which conveys that in the narrower context of the old testament, in the passage of Genesis 9:6 alone without the application of old covenant theology, it is distinguished implicitly that the higher offense offered in such an instance of criminality is prescribed as an offense against God more so than against the person of the victim and humanity when it is the case that the victim is a man because symbolism in the violation of the divine becomes a factor. (*It is still a gross injustice carried out upon the victim be they man or woman, but a crime carried out against a Holy God one reasons must be magnitudes greater then one carried out a against imperfect beings. Also as grisly as all this is, thankfully one might note that Genesis 9:6 in itself doesn't necessarily preclude God from taken action against a perpetrator(s) of homicide upon a woman, for example the commandment though shalt not kill*) Tarnishing of God's Sacred Holy Image is enacted symbolically as a high crime against the Living God. This reasoning correlates back to Genesis 1:27, that that particular passage and indeed Genesis itself infers that man alone in humanity and not the woman is the human agency who is an image barer of God.

If it were otherwise, that woman was created originally in the image of God in creation, then the other 18 points which are included in the entirety of this argument would fail in terms of validity and thus Biblical Coherence, and the gender specific language of Genesis 9:6 wouldn't be entirely in masculine terms including a reference to God himself, “...sheddeth man's blood...”, “...by man...”, “...his blood...”, and “...image of God made he man.”