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 Ms. Elaine Johnson on
-
Let me assure you Newview, I am not one of them albeit, my household was/is attacked by a stalker crazy but that's a different story and has nothing to do with speaking on male HIERARCHY injustice against women the world over.
Perhaps, the problem is that all the FEMALE MINISTERS upon the board are NOT aware of the downright HATRED some males have for your very title and would literally do all in their power to end such titles. I don't know. I've never seen anything like this where DEBATE ON AN ISSUE is turned into a 'there must be something wrong with the passionate debater.'
Sheeesh, I hate for you all to come on a FOOTBALL SPORTS DEBATE MESSAGE BOARD...you'd damn all to hell for our fervent, passionate, speech....sheeeesh....LIGHTEN UP!
Life goes on amidst deep discussion about FALSE, HATEFUL DOCTRINES that have oppressed, suppressed and violated women.
By the way, we could just as well be discussing RACIAL DOCTRINE that would make you cry if you saw what was written against your black skin.
Just because RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION is shown against their insanity does not make it a 'you have personal hurt' rather, I have a HEART that ALL believers should have against wicked evil that violates people because of their race or gender but bottom line, it all boils down to passionate discussion on an issue....sheeeesh. -
-
Permalink Reply by HOPE - Psalm 43:5 on
-
Sisters....ladies...
My main point above all is that your tone in writing can be perceived as you having something against men whether by intention or not.
If you don't have a problem with men the okie dokie just be informed about your tone.
If you do have a problem with men then let's get healed from those wounds and move forward. -
-
-
Min. Tracy, forget MY righteous indignation TONE. Check out the tone of MEN the world OVER who have spoken on ADAM'S BLAME GOD AND THE WOMAN. As well, check out the hideous results including males, who have spoken on this very board as to YOU and every other member of FEMALE CLERGY and accused you all of 'SINNNG' for calling yourselves CLERGY ordained of GOD.
Then compare it to women like myself and Dawn who believe they are a LIE. At least, I DO!
http://www.learnthebible.org/sunday-school-outlines/the-fall-of-ada...
http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html
http://sg4.msntv.msn.com/search/Search.aspx?FORM=WEBTV&cfg=MSTV...
Oh, if you cannot click into any of these links JUST GOOGLE FOR YOURSELF:
ADAM'S BLAME IN THE GARDEN or something like that and you will see that countless number of RIGHTEOUS MEN CLERGY went before us describing Scripture in the same like manner....do DEAL WITH THIS REALITY MIN. TRACY AND ALL YOUR. uhm...followers.
Love ya in Christ though...and DO GET BACK WITH THE FACTS! -
-
Permalink Reply by Chaplain Pat Harris on
-
Dawn,
I am interested in how you came into the doctrine (if I may call it that) of the "garden word." Especially since you published a book entitled, The Real Skinny on Eve.
Also, would you be interested in discussing this topic on internet radio? I have a Christian talk internet radio show that I do live every Sunday evening at 6 pm - 7 pm Central time. You are welcome to invite a guest to share this platform with you. If you are interested, let me know asap. November 8 & 15 are open dates for this special show. If you accept this invitation, let me know which date fits your schedule. This show is done by telephone so you will not have to leave the comfort of your home. -
-
-
Here Chap Pat, if you can't reach Dawn in time to find out how the Holy Spirit told her, then you can try reaching SCHOLARS who have for centuries spoken this same truth.
Check it out:
http://www.learnthebible.org/sunday-school-outlines/the-fall-of-ada...
http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html
http://sg4.msntv.msn.com/search/Search.aspx?FORM=WEBTV&cfg=MSTV...
If you can't get into any of these WHITE MALE LINKS THE WORLD OVER. just GOOGLE 'ADAM'S BLAME IN THE GARDEN' and a whole host of others will pop up independently of DAWN'S findings.
In fact, centuries old independent of her findings.
And, if Dawn can't make it on your radio program, I CAN with the TRUE FACTS IN TOW. Do email me, dear. -
-
-
I appreciate your response on behalf of Sis.Dawn; but I would prefer to hear from her at this point. As to the links you have posted here, I have heard all I need to hear on this false doctrine.
I KNOW THE TRUTH and this "garden word" that you support is NOT THE TRUTH. So, let us agree to disagree and therefore, we will not have to travel in circles within the Garden. The Lord Jesus has so much for us than Genesis 3. -
-
-
AGAIN Chap Pat! Here are the FACTS INDEPENDENT of DAWN and MYSELF who agrees with her on ADAM'S BLAME.
Mind you, the findings of NON-'BITTER' INDEPENDENT WHITE 'MALE' SCHOLARS THE WORLD OVER:
Again, Check out the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and, nothing but the TRUTH:
http://www.learnthebible.org/sunday-school-outlines/the-fall-of-ada...
http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html
http://sg4.msntv.msn.com/search/Search.aspx?FORM=WEBTV&cfg=MSTV... -
-
-
THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD . . . THE HOLY BIBLE FROM GENESIS TO REVELATION!
-
-
-
Uhm...hmm..and the findings thereof:
AGAIN Chap Pat! Here are the FACTS INDEPENDENT of DAWN and MYSELF who agrees with her on ADAM'S BLAME.
Mind you, the findings of NON-'BITTER' INDEPENDENT WHITE 'MALE' SCHOLARS THE WORLD OVER:
Again, Check out the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and, nothing but the TRUTH:
http://www.learnthebible.org/sunday-school-outlines/the-fall-of-ada...
http://www.the-highway.com/fall_Sproul.html
http://sg4.msntv.msn.com/search/Search.aspx?FORM=WEBTV&cfg=MSTV... -
-
Permalink Reply by Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene on
-
To Chaplain Harris, & Hope:
A few hours ago you wrote that you despised Genesis 3:16 and even tried to rationalize it away. Truth be told, the only reasons why women would hate that verse and some men would still use that verse against females are because:
1) Genesis 3:16 is misunderstood. GOD did not punish per say the females because of the fall, rather, HE announced the punishment that the women placed upon themselves for the lust of being wiser and bypassing GOD.
2) People tend to forget or even overlook the fact/truth that when JESUS redeemed us from the curse of the law, the curse mentioned in Genesis 3:16 was ALSO apart of the redemption. I can prove that this has been overlooked: WE ARE ON THIS SILLY BLOG RIGHT NOW!!! Since the curse of the law has been broken, WHY ON EARTH has this "Garden word" issue even risen up!?!??!?!
Dawn Davidson, I am one that will stand here and say that your "mission" to liberate women from this misunderstanding was a mission chasing the enemy "Don Quixote style". -
-
-
Trevor don't mix words! What can I say? But you know, I respect him and his boldness for the Word.
-
-
-
I thank you, Chaplain.......
Sometimes, the nice way around it isn't the right way. -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
