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
-
Hi Min. Tracy, powerful points as well. I met Dawn and her teachings when I first arrived and found them very intriguing. I still do. However, you bring up some very good points which I look forward to reading Dawn's reply to.
I haven't been upon her board. In fact, didn't know she had one. However, with regard to her teachings, I think they are worth discussing because we do know that males lied about the true role and worth of women in the eyes of God.
She does hit many striking points but I like your point with regard to the 'serpent going to the WOMAN.' That was the convo in a nutshell.
Still, I like God's redemptive counterpoint, this woman satan used to be the fall, God too, would use to bring about redemption (Gen. 3:15). Satan thought he had destroyed God's creation 'woman' but God let him know otherwise. Not only have you not caused me to despise and forfeit the woman, I am going to use this same woman you thought to bring down to instead bring forth the Redeemer who throughout all eternity would be referred to as the 'SEED OF THE WOMAN' (Gen. 3:15).
In other words, God stepped in to do what the man should have done but did not and that was 'defend the woman' from the serpent's deceit.
Anyway, it's all so interesting and I think worthy of discussion but I do understand your point, 'in all your getting, get understanding.' God bless you. -
-
Permalink Reply by HOPE - Psalm 43:5 on
-
You are right Bro. Watson...
It was a presumptuous statement on my part since we don't have the details of any dialogue for Adam (like we have for Eve and the serpent) that would reveal Adam's motive behind his choice to disobey God by accepting the fruit from Eve.
Scriptures only reveal that he was there when all of this was happening, Eve offered him the fruit and he accepted it and ate it.
Gen 3:1-6
1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"
2 The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
4 The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
5 "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."
6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Prior to that, the scriptures also reveal the reason God created Eve (a helper suitable for Adam); we see Adam's response (bone of my bone, etc.); and we see another reason mentioned (for this reason ....leave, cleave, one flesh)
Genesis 2:18-25
18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."
19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.
20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.
21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.
22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.
23 - The man said, "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man."
24 - for this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
The last thing I want to be guilty of is over analysis...even though I am analyitcally bent.
Thank you for challenging my statement. -
-
-
I wont sit in judgment of the scriptures...the scriptures judge me.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
As Tracy has said and I agree: "Scriptures only reveal that he was there when all of this was happening, Eve offered him the fruit and he accepted it and ate it," how is it that we can't talk about what it took for him to stand there, knowing the fruit could be touched only not eaten, knowing that death (what ever it was to him although certainly not presented by God as good) was sure or at least likely to come? This is the same man Brother Watson, who you just said had an "unbrided" desire for her, and in the absence of your objection to the location of Adam during the temptation of Eve, he was present yet chose to remain silent. That speaks to a great deal more than a weak man who later made a decision to suddenly hearken to his wife to actually eat the fruit. Why did this man so full of passion for her (as you say) not first hearken to her need for truth in the face of the serpant? Then would have been the time.
-
-
-
Sis. Dawn,
Bro. Watson was quoting me in order to challenge my statement. I'm the one who said Adam had an "unbridled desire" to please Eve. His challenging question caused me to revisit that particular statement that I made.
The problem with my statement is that we don't have any text to go by. Sure, we can talk about various reasons why Adam was there and there is no dialogue listed of him engaging in the convo between Eve and Satan... but because we have no text about it, anything we speculate will be just that.... speculation alone...not proof of his intentions. Even if Adam did participate in the conversation, it is not written. And that is the only thing we have to go by. His silence doesn't prove his weakness nor his strength...it only shows that he was either silent or that the Holy Spirit saw fit not to impress upon the writers heart to write the dialogue.
In either case, that secret thing...belongs to God...not for us to analyze nor quarrel over.
That is my example of chasing dandelions. The focus of that entire passage was that both were disobedient and both received a chastisement that fell not only on them but upon all men....
But the thing we miss as we debate about such things is that the chastisement of OUR PEACE was placed upon another....Christ Jesus. The Genesis story is the beginning in a story of .... redemption and reconciliation back to God.
Focus on the Savior and some things that don't make sense will make perfect sense.
My concern for you Sis, and I really do love you mamacita, is that you gravitate towards the negative and then magnify it..... if you are going to do that, remember to magnify Christ more. I'm not saying don't ask questions.... I'm big on asking questions... but like the girl in the pictures I've posted in this discussion, when you over analyze you lose sight of the connection to the Gospel.
Ask your questions in light of the Gospel...curb your curiosities to how the topic of your question connects to Christ versus magnifying the sin of the man or the woman. Magnifying a fault, failure or sin will not draw people to Christ...it will just keep them in thier bondage to sin or just confuse them all together. (And I mean both Believers and non-Believers alike) -
-
-
Sister Tracy,
I don't disagree with anything you have said here and sorry to have confused one of your statements. What you write is good for me so please don’t stop, that we have areas where we don’t agree is a small thing in the total process of learning. I do agree with you about not magnifying the negative but what do we do when it is the word of God and as his word, it has been given with purpose? My problem is this Tracy, hypocrisy and arrogance has run amuck due to the male tradition of the pulpit, we can either feed it or we can speak the truth of God to it. In speaking the truth of God to it, a humiliating truth for the man to be sure, perhaps some or many will cease to think more of themselves than they should. In so doing, perhaps they too might avoid, as an unrepentant and still arrogant Adam did not, the punishment of God in whatever end he declares to all of this. When I can see that someone is on their way to hell, it is just not in me to blow them kisses, they need the unadulterated word of God to get over. From my perspective, this isn’t about hatred it’s about love. Truth is love is it not? I would rather hurt someone with the truth, then to have seen what was coming, watch them suffer, and then be judged by God for having said nothing. We are never right to withhold the truth of God.
Also, as I have said before, let’s apply the NT word to everyone and stop subjugation of the female in the Church. In light of the Gospel message, and in the face of continued subjugation, we should be vocal about this if we as a Church believe it. I agree with you but where is leadership? Meanwhile, people are being lost, not coming to Christ at all because of this or even barely hanging on. In many instances, they charge God with the evil. The Church wants that on their hands? And frankly, I have seen the effect of the tradition upon the immature and arrogant man, thinking now that he has full license from God to abuse his wife, and she doesn’t suffer in isolation, the children suffer too. This is the design of God? We are supposed to rubber stamp this? All they hear is the negative about the female and inflated positives about themselves as taught and endorsed by the Church with nothing being based upon truth. So why does she have to suffer? I understand suffering for Christ but within the context of our discussion, it should be based upon call and/or truth in word, not male vanity. I honestly believe that if we see this and we don’t call it we will be judged for it. And it is ok not to fully understand the garden word, it’s a hard word to take, I know that. But then as leadership repent, stop subjugating the female, and live up to what we have been given in the NT word. It can’t be had both ways as that only breeds hypocrisy and makes God into a liar. What I see is people wanting to apply the NT word for the sake of an Adam but not so for a still subjugated Eve. We can do better than this. Whether I am using the Hebrew in the garden or not to do it, that’s all I am trying to say. What we are doing right now in the Church is completely ridiculous.
I disagree about the issue of silence. Silence is what brought the Germans time to commit the holocaust. Silence is what landed us in Iraq killing people who had nothing to do with 911. The problem with Adam is that while remaining silent during her temptation, he hearkened to her offer to eat the fruit also, the same fruit that he thought all along might kill her. I think that says a lot about the thinking of this man as a person. If a husband or wife did that within our own lives (and we found out as did Eve) many of us would think it right to hold charge against them. Keeping each other alive is a rather basic expectation in marriage is it not? But what did Eve do after actually hearing God ask Adam if he had in fact eaten (and eaten only) of the tree which he told him not to? Did she like Adam elect to accuse the brethren? No she did not.
Regarding the actual text of the garden word, we still are left to prove why Adam was judged. He confessed to eating the fruit, so why then was he judged? Why did God move to do it? -
-
-
Sis, I wrote a looong response to what you had to say and realized it would not be fruitful to post it.
It is going to take a lot more than someone debating with you for you to see the error that you are wallowing in.
Why, because sometimes people just don't want to obey God. period
They'd rather be warring and rationalize ad nauseum until all they have is their own understanding.
Genesis chapters 2 & 3 coupled with Ephesians 5:21-33
Is the church subjugated because it is subject or should be submitted to Christ?
Do you believe Christ to be head of the Church?
Do you believe that we are members of his flesh and his bones?
Do you NOT see the mystery revealed from the Garden to Christ?
Or are you so stuck on your agenda to liberate the subjugated woman that you are on an adventure in missing the point of the Gospel?
Did Christ abuse and misuse the Church?
Do ALL men abuse and misuse women or is it just some?
Is your doctrine, your garden theology based more on your negative experiences so you can only see what you want to see because of how you feel which has shaped your thoughts to be contrary to God’s Word which does not conflict itself on this issue.
Dawn, dear Dawn, I leave you with Proverbs 3:5-7 -
-
-
Brother Watson,
I owe you an apology. I attributed something to you which you did not say and it seems did not even agree with. Many apologies. Tracy corrected me. -
-
Permalink Reply by newview on
-
...."Sometimes one can get caught up in the paralysis of analysis" (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)...
Did King say that too? I am digging him more and more. :-) -
-
-
Brother Watson,
If Adam proved to have an "unbridled desire" toward Eve then where were the babies? Was he not under command of God to multiiply? Where did what you say come from Scripturally? -
-
Permalink Reply by Chaplain Pat Harris on
-
The problem with my statement is that we don't have any text to go by. Sure, we can talk about various reasons why Adam was there and there is no dialogue listed of him engaging in the convo between Eve and Satan... but because we have no text about it, anything we speculate will be just that.... speculation alone...not proof of his intentions. Even if Adam did participate in the conversation, it is not written. And that is the only thing we have to go by. His silence doesn't prove his weakness nor his strength...it only shows that he was either silent or that the Holy Spirit saw fit not to impress upon the writers heart to write the dialogue.
In either case, that secret thing...belongs to God...not for us to analyze nor quarrel over.
The above statement reveals the true intended meaning of the passage of scripture in question. . . the commandment was given by God to not eat the fruit off the tree of knowledge of good and evil; the commandment was broken by both Adam and Eve and as a result, sin entered in for all of mankind and they died (separated) spiritually. Because of their disobedience, the scripture reminds us that we were born in sin and shapen in iniquity (Psalm 51:5). -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
