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 Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene on
-
lol
-
-
Permalink Reply by Chaplain Pat Harris on
-
If you can Pastor Darby, stick around. Bro. Watson and Bro. Greene will slip in a little humor for time to time. Their humor helps to make these outrageous topics bearable to read and respond to.
:-) -
-
-
But if you think this topic is out there . . . try viewing the video posted under the topic "Black Women Don't Want Good Black Men . . ."
-
-
Permalink Reply by HOPE - Psalm 43:5 on
-
Here's the video
Black Women Don't Want Good Black Men
I must say while there may be some truths in what the narrator of that video says....brotha man is quite upset.
It seems that he loves black women but hates the "stoopid" ones. LOL -
-
-
Brotha man sounds like he's been hurt by a black woman.
-
-
-
Amen Bro. Watson.
This is exactly why I made the following statements in my previous comments to Sis. Davidson , , , ,
Please keep in mind, I personally am not attacking you as a person, but I will attack any and all false doctrines and the spirit that is behind them.
This feminism movement is nothing but a mask of the Jezebel spirit.
I am and will continue to pray for Dawn and others caught up in the snares of the enemy. -
-
Permalink Reply by Ms. Elaine Johnson on
-
Bro Watson, I think your SLAM BAM THANK YOU MAM' is a bit premature in light of all the MALE MINISTERS from ALL OVER THE WORLD who have spoken the same thing with regard to BLAME ADAM:
Check it out and THEN GET BACK WITH US WITH THE APPROPRIATE HIGH 5 Otaaaaaaay?
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... -
-
-
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 so, are you admonishing them for their HARSH 'critiFque' of male sexism throughout the ages? If not, then don't critique me for the SAME THING! -
-
-
Pastor Darby, I just woke up...my phone keeps buzzing as people respond to this discussion and I finally decided to get up to see why it was buzzing.
Pastor Darby, After reading what you just posted about the website let's just say I "woke up" again. I'm surprised at myself for not going to it in the first place.
I knew there was error in the teaching because it was unbalanced at best.I wasn't following nor believing it only wondering what was the motive or intent behind it.
The proof is most definitely in the pudding.
Sis Dawn I must rephrase something I mentioned earlier...I thought you were a sister who was merely over analyzing scriptures because you had questions. But you don't have questions Sis...you have theroies that you are trying to prove. Theroies that were formed by "reading between the lines" of scriptures feuled by a feminist ideology of what God "intended" that is not supported by scripture but can be conjured up in those areas..."Between the lines".
Eve is not the heroine and Adam is not the villian...
Adam is not the hero and Eve is not the villain....
BOTH disobeyed God
BOTH received God's rebuke and punishment
In your interpretation of scripture, you not only glorify Eve over Adam but you also call God's intention into question...
The serpent "beguiled" the woman by calling into question God's word... The Devil hasn't changed his tactic because it still works today.
I knew the info in your post here was wrong, I just thought the motive was different.
*sigh* -
-
-
Thank you Pastor Darby for this powerful and truthful insight. I am disappointed in myself for not doing my homework. I visited her website but that was about it. NOW my eyes are wide open. I guess this is why God kept prompting me to share information with you, Bro.Watson and Bro. Greene because He knew I would have never gotten around to learning the TRUTH behind this false doctrine of the "garden word;" without some much needed help and because you guys are more diligent than some in your research behind false doctrines.
This certainly explains why Dawn would not make reference to any other scripture to support her statements nor could she justify with scripture her so-called explanations. This feminism movement is nothing but a mask of the Jezebel spirit. -
-
-
Dawn,
Pastor Darby's research clearly explains why you never answered my previous questions on your other BPN blogs:
1. Where did you get this doctrine on the "garden word?"
2. Does your pastor teach and support this doctrine?
3. If you are married, are you and your husband on one accord with this teaching?
And, it certainly explains why all of your blog postings are centered around Genesis 3. You made a statement in your reply to Bro. Trevor Greene that you operate under the OT yet, you cannot seem to get past Genesis 3. f you are living your life based on this so-called garden word, then you are in bondage in the worst way.
*sign* -
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Pastor Darby,
I wrote as you copied and pasted: "Although Dawn Davidson is both aware and supportive of the free, full expression of the feminist theory ideology movement and all of the unique aspects that it brings to the table, she is merely a woman who had a problem and got a word even from the mouth of God about the full equality of the female in the garden". I fully stand by it. I am not afraid to hear the experessions of others as it is derived from the context and content of their own individual, and at times collective lives, and nor do I try to snuff the freedom of others out. I don't label them and I don't personally attack them. You either choose to agree with someone or not, sometimes you agree with some of it but not all.
I have said it before I will say it again, I am not a member of the feminist movement but you prove more than happy seeking to marginalize me as such. It's just so easy isn't it? Way harder to actually prove your position in word. Did you jump in the air clicking your heels too? Am I glad that such a movement got me the right as a female to vote and supports equal pay? Absolutely (and how many women would honestly say they too are not, and even the men who love them, having families to support in partnership with them where two paychecks are required?). Do I agree with everything and specifically anything about the feminist agenda to degrade the role and equal position of men? Absolutely not and nor have I said anything like that at any time. I don't even know the full feminist platform. What I write is about the full equality of both the male and the female within the context of the garden. Why are you so afraid of everything? Did God give you that spirit of fear? Why isn't your truth enough to stand up for itself? What is the validity of your statements here in word? Make your point in the word. I would be happy to discuss Genesis 3:15 again with you Pastor Darby. -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
