NightCrawler
05-19-2006, 09:49 AM
Just to add to what Jon/Skynes have said as well as add an interesting comment, God make Adam and Eve PERFECT and IN HIS IMAGE. I mean, of course they're gonna be w/o faults, especially as they were originally intended to live -forever-. But when you think about it, God made Adamn and Eve "in his image"...when it was just Adam. Meaning the whole and completely perfect biological person was most likely an asexual single sex organism. Seeing the need for human to human companionship, however, God split that image into to ala Adam and Eve/Male and Female, hehe (and, yes, a correctly translated version of Genesis will say God took "half" of Adam, not "A Rib," which was a very odd translation which somehow stuck...).I saw this in the other thread, I thought it best to split and discuss here.

Genesis 2, New International Version:
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs[1] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib[2] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.


23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman,'
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

[Foot notes:]

Genesis 2:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31&context=chapter#en-NIV-52) Or took part of the man's side
Genesis 2:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=2&version=31&context=chapter#en-NIV-53) Or part
Amplified version:
21And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and while he slept, He took one of his ribs or a part of his side and closed up the [place with] flesh. 22And the rib or part of his side which the Lord God had taken from the man He built up and made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

Luther Bibel 1545:
21Da ließ Gott der HERR einen tiefen Schlaf fallen auf den Menschen, und er schlief ein. Und er nahm seiner Rippen eine und schloß die Stätte zu mit Fleisch.
22Und Gott der HERR baute ein Weib aus der Rippe, die er vom Menschen nahm, und brachte sie zu ihm.
['Rippe' means rib, 'Rippen' means ribs]

NightCrawler
05-19-2006, 09:58 AM
From http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Outline of Biblical Usage



1) side, rib, beama) rib (of man)
b) rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
c) side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
d) rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
e) leaves (of door)
f) side (of ark)

http://panheads.org/boards/images/smilies/laugh.gif

amodman
05-19-2006, 11:43 AM
I'm actually quite surprised you've never heard this before Jonathan. It's a pretty common thing. Here's an example article I found in some seconds of Googling, never even read it before - http://www.jasher.com/Adamsrib.htm . If I've heard this conclusion from one person, I've heard it from 10. Ie. My pastor, brother, speakers at conventions, a guy a know with 3 different kinds of degrees on history/theology, heh. I believe it even mentions it in my Bible. I was under the assumption it was just one of those commonly known little misnomers in the Bible. Guess I was wrong.

unshakeable15
05-21-2006, 01:02 PM
Nope, not so commonly known. i didn't know it either. (Or maybe Jonathan and i are just out of the loop.)

skynes
05-22-2006, 12:44 AM
I've never heard of it either.

I also checked my Hebrew dictionary and it said the same meanings.

It meant rib.

bob
05-22-2006, 06:35 AM
Yeah, but what does it matter if it was a rib or half a rib?

amodman
05-22-2006, 01:35 PM
Yeah, but what does it matter if it was a rib or half a rib?

Err, the question is whether it was a "rib" or literally half or one side of Adam.

bob
05-22-2006, 02:38 PM
Okay, my apologies.

The way that it was always explained to me was as one rib. *shrugs*

Reeper
05-23-2006, 05:10 AM
Did you know that the only bone in your body that has the ability to grow back if lost is your bottom rib? God knew what he was doing.

Peace

NightCrawler
05-24-2006, 07:06 AM
I'm actually quite surprised you've never heard this before Jonathan. It's a pretty common thing. Here's an example article I found in some seconds of Googling, never even read it before - http://www.jasher.com/Adamsrib.htm . If I've heard this conclusion from one person, I've heard it from 10. Ie. My pastor, brother, speakers at conventions, a guy a know with 3 different kinds of degrees on history/theology, heh. I believe it even mentions it in my Bible. I was under the assumption it was just one of those commonly known little misnomers in the Bible. Guess I was wrong.1) Somehow I am not convinced, considering the other accounts (such as other versions of the bible, etc.)

2) Also, the site bothered me. So the credibility of the source is lost to me. Why? Because of the rhetoric ("One Bible translation dares to break with the use of the traditional word rib." -- as if it is the only one right, and it was standing up against the evil translations [or at least that is the tone and connotation I take from 'dares']), the propaganda/agenda tone and several other pages that the author wrote on that site (check them, you'll see what I mean), I found them disturbing in some senses.

So, with the link you provided, I don't trust. And the accounts that I generally do trust, they contradict the one I don't trust, seemingly)... I am kinda stuck and will remain unflexible or somethin'. Unless you got something else.

dawn of light
06-07-2006, 07:41 AM
Whether God took a rib or the side out of Adam, I think, is irrelevant. But as far as I can tell in the Bible, God initially created Adam as a male not asexual.

Genesis 1:26-27
God said, Let Us [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit] make mankind in Our image, after Our likeness, and let them have complete authority over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the [tame] beasts, and over all of the earth, and over everything that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in the image and likeness of God He created him; male and female He created them.

An argument could be made though, that God doesn't refer to Adam as 'male' until he created the female. 'Man' refers to mankind-he created man, male and female he created them...

However God refers to Adam as he.

Genesis 2:6-8
But there went up a mist (fog, vapor) from the land and watered the whole surface of the ground--Then the Lord God formed man from the [a]dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath or spirit of life, and man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden [delight]; and there He put the man whom He had formed (framed, constituted).

These verses are from the Amplified...BibleGateway.com

unshakeable15
06-07-2006, 04:33 PM
God refers to himself as He but it could very easily be argued that God is not male, nor female. If God didn't say "he" it would have been "she" or "it" and neither of them work as well as a genderless male pronoun.

(Note: i am not taking sides on this because i honestly do not care all that much, though it be interesting. i just thought i'd point this out, that the use of "his" proves nothing.)

NightCrawler
06-07-2006, 10:11 PM
God refers to himself as He but it could very easily be argued that God is not male, nor female. If God didn't say "he" it would have been "she" or "it" and neither of them work as well as a genderless male pronoun.

(Note: i am not taking sides on this because i honestly do not care all that much, though it be interesting. i just thought i'd point this out, that the use of "his" proves nothing.)

Our Father in heaven?

unshakeable15
06-19-2006, 02:49 PM
As humans, we need something we know to reference. We cannot imagine anything outside of our scope of knowledge. Since the Father is the head of the house and the one who does the punishing (and from whom you recieve your inheritance), it's apt to use the analogy of the father instead of that of the mother.

skynes
06-20-2006, 12:22 AM
What if it's the other way round? That God didn't base His 'gender' so to speak, upon us, but that we based our gender responsibilities upon Him.

Ergo: God does not call Himself Father, to make it easier for us to relate. We use them term father because He did it first.

The responsibilities and ideals of a father that we have, are there because God did all that first and we are copying Him.

disciple
06-20-2006, 10:10 AM
The responsibilities and ideals of a father that we have, are there because God did all that first and we are copying Him.
That raises an interesting point.

unshakeable15
06-22-2006, 11:16 AM
Scott, that would take research into which idea came up first in the Old Testament, that of family, or that of God refering to himself as "Father".

(Although, the argument could still be made that God referred to himself as "Father" before then, but it wasn't recorded. However, we can only go on what we have, not what we suppose.)

skynes
06-23-2006, 12:33 AM
God may not have referred to Himself by 'Father' in words, but I'm sure He did in actions. It's in His nature to Father us, not just His name.

Adam walked with God in the garden of Eden, couldn't He have based His own fatherhood on how God was during those times?
Setting down rules and examples, punishments for disobeying the rules etc.

NightCrawler
06-23-2006, 12:15 PM
God may not have referred to Himself by 'Father' in words, but I'm sure He did in actions. It's in His nature to Father us, not just His name.

Adam walked with God in the garden of Eden, couldn't He have based His own fatherhood on how God was during those times?
Setting down rules and examples, punishments for disobeying the rules etc.

According to Luke 3:38, Adam was the Son of God Himself. On top of that, the Father is the head of the home. And Christ the head of the man. So, God is the Father in nature and relationship.

unshakeable15
06-28-2006, 04:08 PM
*shrugs*

It was just a thought. Nothing i had fleshed out or was even willing to wrestling someone over. :)

NightCrawler
07-05-2006, 11:26 PM
I'm just here as a contradiction. Don't mind me :P