WAS THE RIB FLESH?
Genesis 2:21 “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (KJ)
Word says in two places that God used “rib” only to create the female. In the Hebrew “rib” is defined as (from “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible“):
“a rib (as curved), lit. (of the body) or fig. (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, lit. (of a person) or fig. (of an object or the sky, i.e. quartet); arch. A (espec. Floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collect., I.e. a flooring):- beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
As a further point of reference, this use of the word “flesh,” is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. (rosy (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings." The word ”flesh” itself means: "flesh (from it’s freshness), by extension body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of man:-body, (fat, lean) flesh (-ed), kin, (man -) kind, + nakedness, self, skin.”
Within the whole of the Bible the word “rib” is used a total of five (5) times, and “ribs” a total of two (2) times. In each instance the same Hebrew definition as given above applies whether it be “rib“ or “ribs.” With exception of Genesis 2:22, in every other four (4) instances, the word “rib” is used in direct reference to stabbing a person in the rib, hence even the “side” as defined in the Hebrew. Of the two (2) uses of the word “ribs,” one is in Genesis 2:21 and the other is found in Daniel 7:5. In Daniel 7:5 it says:
“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”
Here reference made to “ribs” also, I believe, may very well include that of flesh. Yet the issues surrounding the use of “ribs” in Genesis 2:21, and then “rib,” in Genesis 2:22 is a different matter.
In Genesis 2:21-22, the word is symbolically speaking within the realm of Creation, about a specific action taken by God, as completed upon a specific person, and within the life of one man. As such, as a Creative action and though while also symbolic, it is literal.
That is, the word states in Genesis 2:21-22, that God used “rib” alone from the man, yet in Genesis 2:24 we learn that it was the actual desire of God to create the male and the female as “one flesh.” But what did God do with the “flesh” of Adam? In Genesis 2:21 word records that he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.”
The word “instead” indicates that God had a will, a will even confirmed in Genesis 2:24, to use the “flesh” of Adam but did not, he made a choice “instead,” against what was his own highest desire, to reject the use of this man’s flesh by closing “up the flesh instead thereof.” And unless we believe now that God is unable to separate the flesh from the bone, what is twice stated in Genesis 2:21-22 is literally what he used, bone alone (and not the “side” and therefore also the “flesh”). If God proved able to create according to his highest desire for the male and female in his use of an Adam as a man exercising free-will, then word would certainly have recorded it and even to the delight and glory of God. Instead we have word in Genesis 2:24 speaking about what was (is) the highest desire of God in marriage for the male and the female but we know this is not inclusive of an Adam, for reasons already stated, but also because Adam had no parents to leave.
God speaks in this manner about a man leaving his father and his mother in Genesis 2:24 (parents which an Adam had not), because due to the flesh his foreknowledge was compelled to reject, he could not use an Adam along with a freshly created Eve as a model in word of marriage for believers. The only action left that He could take was to speak his desire for marriage purposed for future hearers and readers of his word, in the stark absence of the garden model he actually desired to use in an Adam and a freshly created Eve of “one flesh.” But a garden Adam and Eve were never of one flesh, they only shared a bone which God by the way did not otherwise symbolically purpose for anything between this man and woman as husband and wife.
The "flesh" of an Adam and an Eve, even as proven by the foreknowledge of God, were in fact opposite one from another. This act of God, in refusing the use of an Adam’s flesh (and having already called this man an “Adam,” meaning to be ashamed, mean man of low degree, a hypocrite) only further serves to confirm what was the foreknowledge of God about what and who this man would prove to be in the garden. It was a reality for an Adam not so, according to the foreknowledge and proven actions of God, for a fallen but righteously confessed and honored Eve (an “Eve“ with name meaning “life-giver“ and title won from God as “mother of all living” and that even as a virgin, childless female).
Given what is proven about the mind of God, we also cannot allow Adam to interpret Scripture for us when he in error says in Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of “Man.” God rejected his flesh.
But how do you interpret this?
*PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE THOSE ON THE BPN UNABLE TO DIGEST THE LIGHT OF THE HEBREW AND EVEN FEAR THE VERY DISCUSSION OF IT. LIKE THE GESTAPO, THEY FOLLOW ME FROM PAGE TO PAGE SPEAKING NOT TO THE WORD BUT ONLY IN LAUNCHING CHARACTER ASSAULTS DEVOID OF SOUND WORD ITSELF IN AN EFFORT TO EXTINGUISH AND BY-PASS THE THINKING OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND BASED UPON THE TRUTH OF WORD AND NOT TRADITION. YET IF THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING REGARDING AN ADAM IS TRUE, THEN WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR? PROVE THE WORD WITHIN THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE WORD AND EVEN IN RIGHT ALIGNMENT OF THE HEBREW. COMMENTS INCLUSIVE OF PERSONAL ASSAULT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH AND OTHERWISE IGNORED. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO DELETE THEIR COMMENTS BUT HAVE YET TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO SO ON THE EDIT PAGE OF A POST. IF YOU KNOW, PLEASE ADVISE.
If we believe God is Truth and Truth is Word, then why can’t we talk about it? If God is his Truth, then whatever truth we believe we have, if of God, ought to be strong enough to stand up to the test in the absence of finding need to resort to character assault. If what you believe in word cannot be credibly proven in the absence of character assault, then take a second look at what and how you believe. For any part I have ever allowed myself to be dragged into this, again I apologize, yet it has no place.
Word says in two places that God used “rib” only to create the female. In the Hebrew “rib” is defined as (from “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible“):
“a rib (as curved), lit. (of the body) or fig. (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, lit. (of a person) or fig. (of an object or the sky, i.e. quartet); arch. A (espec. Floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collect., I.e. a flooring):- beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
As a further point of reference, this use of the word “flesh,” is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. (rosy (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings." The word ”flesh” itself means: "flesh (from it’s freshness), by extension body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of man:-body, (fat, lean) flesh (-ed), kin, (man -) kind, + nakedness, self, skin.”
Within the whole of the Bible the word “rib” is used a total of five (5) times, and “ribs” a total of two (2) times. In each instance the same Hebrew definition as given above applies whether it be “rib“ or “ribs.” With exception of Genesis 2:22, in every other four (4) instances, the word “rib” is used in direct reference to stabbing a person in the rib, hence even the “side” as defined in the Hebrew. Of the two (2) uses of the word “ribs,” one is in Genesis 2:21 and the other is found in Daniel 7:5. In Daniel 7:5 it says:
“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”
Here reference made to “ribs” also, I believe, may very well include that of flesh. Yet the issues surrounding the use of “ribs” in Genesis 2:21, and then “rib,” in Genesis 2:22 is a different matter.
In Genesis 2:21-22, the word is symbolically speaking within the realm of Creation, about a specific action taken by God, as completed upon a specific person, and within the life of one man. As such, as a Creative action and though while also symbolic, it is literal.
That is, the word states in Genesis 2:21-22, that God used “rib” alone from the man, yet in Genesis 2:24 we learn that it was the actual desire of God to create the male and the female as “one flesh.” But what did God do with the “flesh” of Adam? In Genesis 2:21 word records that he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.”
The word “instead” indicates that God had a will, a will even confirmed in Genesis 2:24, to use the “flesh” of Adam but did not, he made a choice “instead,” against what was his own highest desire, to reject the use of this man’s flesh by closing “up the flesh instead thereof.” And unless we believe now that God is unable to separate the flesh from the bone, what is twice stated in Genesis 2:21-22 is literally what he used, bone alone (and not the “side” and therefore also the “flesh”). If God proved able to create according to his highest desire for the male and female in his use of an Adam as a man exercising free-will, then word would certainly have recorded it and even to the delight and glory of God. Instead we have word in Genesis 2:24 speaking about what was (is) the highest desire of God in marriage for the male and the female but we know this is not inclusive of an Adam, for reasons already stated, but also because Adam had no parents to leave.
God speaks in this manner about a man leaving his father and his mother in Genesis 2:24 (parents which an Adam had not), because due to the flesh his foreknowledge was compelled to reject, he could not use an Adam along with a freshly created Eve as a model in word of marriage for believers. The only action left that He could take was to speak his desire for marriage purposed for future hearers and readers of his word, in the stark absence of the garden model he actually desired to use in an Adam and a freshly created Eve of “one flesh.” But a garden Adam and Eve were never of one flesh, they only shared a bone which God by the way did not otherwise symbolically purpose for anything between this man and woman as husband and wife.
The "flesh" of an Adam and an Eve, even as proven by the foreknowledge of God, were in fact opposite one from another. This act of God, in refusing the use of an Adam’s flesh (and having already called this man an “Adam,” meaning to be ashamed, mean man of low degree, a hypocrite) only further serves to confirm what was the foreknowledge of God about what and who this man would prove to be in the garden. It was a reality for an Adam not so, according to the foreknowledge and proven actions of God, for a fallen but righteously confessed and honored Eve (an “Eve“ with name meaning “life-giver“ and title won from God as “mother of all living” and that even as a virgin, childless female).
Given what is proven about the mind of God, we also cannot allow Adam to interpret Scripture for us when he in error says in Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of “Man.” God rejected his flesh.
But how do you interpret this?
*PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE THOSE ON THE BPN UNABLE TO DIGEST THE LIGHT OF THE HEBREW AND EVEN FEAR THE VERY DISCUSSION OF IT. LIKE THE GESTAPO, THEY FOLLOW ME FROM PAGE TO PAGE SPEAKING NOT TO THE WORD BUT ONLY IN LAUNCHING CHARACTER ASSAULTS DEVOID OF SOUND WORD ITSELF IN AN EFFORT TO EXTINGUISH AND BY-PASS THE THINKING OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND BASED UPON THE TRUTH OF WORD AND NOT TRADITION. YET IF THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING REGARDING AN ADAM IS TRUE, THEN WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR? PROVE THE WORD WITHIN THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE WORD AND EVEN IN RIGHT ALIGNMENT OF THE HEBREW. COMMENTS INCLUSIVE OF PERSONAL ASSAULT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH AND OTHERWISE IGNORED. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO DELETE THEIR COMMENTS BUT HAVE YET TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO SO ON THE EDIT PAGE OF A POST. IF YOU KNOW, PLEASE ADVISE.
If we believe God is Truth and Truth is Word, then why can’t we talk about it? If God is his Truth, then whatever truth we believe we have, if of God, ought to be strong enough to stand up to the test in the absence of finding need to resort to character assault. If what you believe in word cannot be credibly proven in the absence of character assault, then take a second look at what and how you believe. For any part I have ever allowed myself to be dragged into this, again I apologize, yet it has no place.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Ok, you got me with one, totally not expected! lol.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Chaplain Pat Harris on
-
Word says in two places that God used “rib” only to create the female. In the Hebrew “rib” is defined as (from “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible“):
“a rib (as curved), lit. (of the body) or fig. (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, lit. (of a person) or fig. (of an object or the sky, i.e. quartet); arch. A (espec. Floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collect., I.e. a flooring):- beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
According to the textbook on the anatomy of man, a Rib is a bone (or osseous material).
Osseous: Having to do with the bone, consisting of bone, or resembling bone.
From "os" which is a synonym for "bone." The Latin word "os" means "bone" as does the related Greek word "osteon."
As a further point of reference, this use of the word “flesh,” is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. (rosy (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings." The word ”flesh” itself means: "flesh (from it’s freshness), by extension body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of man:-body, (fat, lean) flesh (-ed), kin, (man -) kind, + nakedness, self, skin.”
Flesh, to simply put it, is the physical nature of humans as distinguished from the soul.
In Genesis 2:21-22, the word is symbolically speaking within the realm of Creation, about a specific action taken by God, as completed upon a specific person, and within the life of one man. As such, as a Creative action and though while also symbolic, it is literal.
That is, the word states in Genesis 2:21-22, that God used “rib” alone from the man, yet in Genesis 2:24 we learn that it was the actual desire of God to create the male and the female as “one flesh.” But what did God do with the “flesh” of Adam? In Genesis 2:21 word records that he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.”
The word “instead” indicates that God had a will, a will even confirmed in Genesis 2:24, to use the “flesh” of Adam but did not, he made a choice “instead,” against what was his own highest desire, to reject the use of this man’s flesh by closing “up the flesh instead thereof.” And unless we believe now that God is unable to separate the flesh from the bone, what is twice stated in Genesis 2:21-22 is literally what he used, bone alone (and not the “side” and therefore also the “flesh”).
God created Adam from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7). God created Eve from Adam "instead thereof" from dust, which only confirms the prior statement in Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them." Notice the italic emphasis on the word "own" indicating God's desire and decision as to how the first humans were going to be created . . . Adam from dust, Eve from Adam. This is why Adam made the statement about Eve being "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Adam and Eve were created equal (Genesis 1:26, 28). The only thing opposite about them is their gender - male and female.
If God proved able to create according to his highest desire for the male and female in his use of an Adam as a man exercising free-will, then word would certainly have recorded it and even to the delight and glory of God. Instead we have word in Genesis 2:24 speaking about what was (is) the highest desire of God in marriage for the male and the female but we know this is not inclusive of an Adam, for reasons already stated, but also because Adam had no parents to leave.
In Genesis 2:23, Adam's statement, "this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man," symbolizes the declaration of marriage. Verse 24, Therefore indicates a reasoned conclusion at Adam's joy at having a mate. To leave and cleave are strong verbs indicating that the husband and wife are now joined together as one. This is the strongest Hebrew construction to indicate a change of state. The process of becoming one flesh, totally united in life, purpose and pleasure is presented here.
-
-
Permalink Reply by newview on
-
Hi Sister Dawn,
I visited your website today about Eve and Eden and Adam...
Sister you CAN write. You are truly blessed. :-)
What is your beef with Adam though?
I know you problem with Paul - but why the negative feelings for Adam - your father - our father?
Your teachings ALL seem to lead to Adam. -
-
-
"Holy Concordance" I knew you couldn't resist! LOL
-
-
Permalink Reply by Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene on
-
I don't know why a person would have an issue with Paul. Apostle Paul, if a person would simply read his writings in its full and proper context, was all for women being able to minister to the fullest of their GOD-given capability. He also was one that had the MAJOR problem of bring order to chaos, something that I'm sure 9-outta-10 of people who argue against him would want to do.
-
-
-
So true Bro. Trevor. The Apostle Paul was constantly dealing with order in the body of Christ, and he was no respecter of men.
-
-
-
As a black man, I have no problem with the true type of slavery that Paul meant. As a black man, I have a problem with the slavery that was imposed upon our people, which was nothing but a curse. Paul referred to what GOD spoke to Moses in regards to slavery. The Epistle of Philemon should have cleared that up by now. If not, then you my friend are not looking at this from a theoligians view, but a view of a Black man bitter from oppression.
-
-
-
Brother Greene,
(I read your second post which led me to back to this one). You were speaking about me in this post but not seemingly to me. That is why I did not answer it.
My problem is not specifically with a Paul, it is about continued female subjugation despite the God-given ministry of a Paul that we are all free in Christ Jesus, the Good News of the Gospel, Salvation is here, the curse has been broken. And this subjugation even based upon a word in the garden that no one seems able to explain in the absence of degrading God. To prove subjugation, one points to Paul, and Paul in this area, proves only to rely upon the tradition of the garden and not the word. I operate in the OT but I personally commend Paul because he used women in his ministry. I honestly believe that he seems to say one thing yet do another because he understood his audience and his message was not one of gender equality, but of salvation.
I apologize for the time it has taken me to get to your post, but this weekend for me has not proven to afford the time required to be more timely than I have already been.
Peace and love. -
-
-
Mrs. Davidson, when I speak about a person, I make sure that they know I was speaking about them. Often times, the best way to do so is to simply name names. I was not speaking about you, but was speaking from a general standpoint concerning what Newview said, however this comment can go for you just as well if you have an issue with Paul.
You thought on Paul is totally off. He has shown that salvation has released all forms of oppression: race, gender, financial, demonic, educational, political, ect. This is clearly shown by ALL of his Epistles. He goes to bat for those who others would choose to oppress, so your analysis of this man is not only wrong, but actually quite foolish. It is the Pauline epistles that are used when women are justifying their place in Ministry, or have you in your press for equality ignored this? -
-
-
The "flesh" of an Adam and an Eve, even as proven by the foreknowledge of God, were in fact opposite one from another. This act of God, in refusing the use of an Adam’s flesh (and having already called this man an “Adam,” meaning to be ashamed, mean man of low degree, a hypocrite) only further serves to confirm what was the foreknowledge of God about what and who this man would prove to be in the garden. It was a reality for an Adam not so, according to the foreknowledge and proven actions of God, for a fallen but righteously confessed and honored Eve (an “Eve“ with name meaning “life-giver“ and title won from God as “mother of all living” and that even as a virgin, childless female).
Genesis: 3:12-13 . . ."And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of this tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me; and I did eat."
Your claim that Eve made a confession is not true because to confess is to acknowledge that you have sinned and therefore you would request forgiveness. Eve merely made a statement of truth without the knowledge of her action as a sin. While we might agree that Adam was pointing the finger at Eve, he also made a statement of truth when he said, she gave me of this tree, and I did eat. So, to assume that Eve made a confession would prompt us to assume the same about Adam. Therefore, neither Eve nor Adam made a confession.
As to the meaning of the names Adam and Eve .....I do not see where the definition of Adam is stated within the creation story. This means the scribes that penned these scriptures reflected on the actions of Adam and therefore associated same to describe his character, thus giving a definition to the name Adam.
Eve comes from the verb to live. Adam giving his wife the name Eve can be seen as an act of faith, looking to the future with hope after being cast out of the Garden of Eden. -
-
-
Sister Harris,
The difference between an Adam and an Eve is that it was an Adam who received not only punishment but the death pronouncement, not an Eve who was even honored in name and title by will of God in the garden, even receiving it post fall. So what are we saying about God to say that in the face of sin he yet still honored Eve despite a lack of an accepted confession? Eve proved obedient in offering truth to God when asked. Genesis 3:16 is not judgment by God of an honored female, it only equates to a statement of consequences for her given the now presence of sin and the broken state of her relationship with an Adam. Adam however received harsh punishment by God in addition to getting the death pronouncement. God did that, so it is not me who you say is at fault.
Further, in Genesis 3:13 Eve confesses to being “beguiled” by the serpent which means she was tricked. To be tricked into doing something inherently means that it was not otherwise in your mind to do so. The same was not true for an Adam, present during this time for the female, but silent making no interference but still knowing that the fruit could be touched only not eaten. Adam did not have to be tricked, or beguiled into eating the fruit, Adam did what Adam wanted to do. Note too that God accepted the confession of an Eve, who said that she alone was tricked and not that she was also guilty in any way of tricking or leading an Adam to also eat the fruit. So if an Eve was guilty of having committed anything else in the garden then God is now made into a fool because it was God who accepted her confession. So you can say it wasn’t a confession but word proves that He found it to be fit.
You said: “As to the meaning of the names Adam and Eve .....I do not see where the definition of Adam is stated within the creation story. This means the scribes that penned these scriptures reflected on the actions of Adam and therefore associated same to describe his character, thus giving a definition to the name Adam.” Ok. And why is it that the scribes knew to do what we don’t? Reflect upon his actions, carefully consider them, and then call it for what it is.
You said: “Eve comes from the verb to live. Adam giving his wife the name Eve can be seen as an act of faith, looking to the future with hope after being cast out of the Garden of Eden.” Except that among other reasons, his timing was all wrong for this to be true. God is Eternal. His will is Eternal. The will of God was always that the female should be called “Eve,” even from the first moment of her creation. It was a rebellious Adam who had other plans in Genesis 2:23. Yet God does not change his mind, first calling her “Woman” and then “Eve,” and Adam was not authorized to act independently of God’s will in the garden. Eve earned her name from the foreknowledge of God because as the only human due to make right confession of sin in a soon fallen world she alone would provide reason for a righteous God to continue life for the humans in the earth. A righteous God could not continue life in the earth in the total absence of a demonstrated show of his righteousness in the earth, that would only be to further the evil. He doesn’t do that. -
-
Permalink Reply by HOPE - Psalm 43:5 on
-
Sister Dawn....Where is all of this villifying of Adam coming from?
-
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
