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
-
I can appreciate your humor here Brother Watson, I even smiled. My weekend has turned into one unexpectantly busy. I have addressed a few posts, and will address more in yet another short while. Many things are being said, which is the point of a discussion, but all should always remember to keep it respectful at all times. Sister Johnson, I will get back to you when I am able to return to the post. Sorry for the message from you it seems I missed.
-
-
Permalink Reply by HOPE - Psalm 43:5 on
-
This one thing is true... the spirit of error is present when we think that the way to correct men who use scripture to demean women is to in turn use scripture to demeaning men.
I Thessalonians 5:14-15
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
15 See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
It is unruly to demean men just because some men have demeaned you or other women. It will breed a bitterness in you that you will NOT be aware of. You will think more highly of yourself and convince yourself that you are the champion of the cause for women and women in ministry when in fact you will be no better those men who have demeaned women. In fact you will be the gender parallel...a woman who demeans men and uses scripture to do it.
Adam was NOT a demented male. If he was, then so are all other men and women because we are the fruit of his loins. With that said, I again warn you to be careful with your thoughts and words. You are sounding like a bitter female with a very large chip on your shoulders against men.
Don't return an eye for an eye.
Sin is sin no matter which gender is committing it. Women rape and molest young boys. I've known many men who are emotionally and pyschologically messed up adults because of some woman who was an authority figure molested them as they were boys. I'm not discounting the injustices committed against women around the world... but there MUST BE BALANCED teaching.
ALL men aren't bad, womanizing gender bigots.
If you want to talk about what happened in the garden, it is still happening today...the constant finger pointing that originated in the Garden of Eden. The man said that woman you gave me, the woman said the serpent....
Adam and Eve were suppose to have dominion and be fruitful and multiply. Instead, they started chasing dandelions and playing the blame game when they disobeyed God instead of just confessing that they disobeyed and moved on.
You can't change the scriptures just because you don't like what it said.
Tread lightly on how your interpret God's word.
To say that man would take UNJUST rule over woman would imply that God was unjust. After all, it was God who came up with the punishment for their sin. Why is Eve's punishment is considered unjust but man having to work by the sweat of his brow and the serpent crawling on its belly not considered unjust?
Genesis 3:14 - 19
14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
There are multiple punishments listed here. But the only one that is despised by women is "and he shall have rule over the". There is no bitterness to those horrible labor pains we experience. There is no bitterness in woman's desire being towards her husband.
Don't you see this crazy merry go round?
A "deadly" consequence of the fall is not men having rule over women. A "deadly" consequence is losing that beautiful fellowship and connection they had with God in the garden. A "deadly" consequence is that they would not die physically. A "deadly" consequence is that there sin would be IN every man and woman that would be born from that point on.
Sisters, I HATED the thought of a man ruling over me in ANY fashion. I was one of those bitter women who did not want to admit she was bitter. I was angry because of my experiences with men and especially men in the ministry. My thoughts were how in the world could "they" rule over me and be as jacked up as they were. But I was no less "jacked up".
Don't you see that this attempt to prove Adam to be "demented" is nothing more than a romp in the field of dandelions?
Your words betray you sisters.... your words prove your bitterness whether you want to admit it or not.
Read this sisters....it may help you see something...
A Defiant Woman's Apology to Men in the Ministry -
-
Permalink Reply by Chaplain Pat Harris on
-
Thank you Sis. HOPE. It is so easy to demean men when you have been hurt and/or rejected by one (or more, if that was the case). It's a typical carnal reaction. Been there, done that! It took a wilderness experience for God to work out the bitterness and pain that was festering in me while healing me all at the same time. And, for that I say THANK YOU GOD!
-
-
-
I read your blog and I was so moved by your testimony because I could relate to a lot of what you were sharing. Thank you for being transparent. I pray that those who need to read it will read it and take heed.
-
-
-
I had a typo in my deadly sins paragraph.... a deadly sin is that Adam and Eve (and all mankind) WOULD die physically....death entered as a result of sin.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ms. Elaine Johnson on
-
Tracy - HOPE this is PT. 2 of my reply. I want to reitierate that I am not personally bitter. However, on behalf of the daily raped, beaten, murdered, subjugated, jailed, imprisoned, violated in unspeakable manner women the world over, I speak PASSIONATELY, ZEALOUSLY, WITH RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION that they might KNOW the LIBERATION that WOMEN IN THE U.S KNOW because of the FIGHTBACK OF VALIANT WOMEN including, HARRIET TUBMAN AND SOJOURNER TRUTH who were BOTH INVOLVED IN THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN THE U.S.
As for the PUNISHMENT versus the CONSEQUENCE that you spoke upon.
ADAM - Sweat by his brow
EVE- In childbirth she shall suffer
SERPENT - Crawl upon one's belly
Now, the CONSEQUENCE OF SIN
TO ADAM SAID GOD - DEATH has entered the Planet
TO EVE SAID GOD - You shall REACH OR EXPECT to have the same PRE-GARDEN 'EQUALITY' FALL RELATIONSHIP but NOT SO!
HE SHALL TAKE RULE OVER YOU and things i.e. EQUALITY as you HAD known it, and as the ALMIGHTY had designed it shall NO LONGER EXIST!
Check out this link to see how THINGS were NEVER the same:
http://www.multiline.com.au/%7Ejohnm/religion/gateway.htm -
-
-
Tracy,
Did death enter as a result of sin, or as a result of false confession after sin? -
-
-
Death entered in as a result of sin (disobedience); there was no confession - false or otherwise.
-
-
-
Dawn, you are asking me a question because you want to make a statement. What's your statement? -
-
-
Sis Dawn,
Read Romans 6:23a
then go back and read Romans chapter 5
(in particular vss 12-15..but please continue to read to the end of chapter 5. It takes you from Adam to Christ - who should always be our underlying focus for asking questions about scriptures.)
then return to finish reading Romans 6:23b
Remember, He is the Alpha of your questionnings and the Omega....always. -
-
-
My underlying question is this, what would we have gotten if God approved of both confessions made by the man and the female? I am only asking to prove that Eve did well in the garden given that it is she who tradition subjugates. So how much of what we have as Christians, did they, being the first man and woman have in the garden? Wouldn't a just confession by both have kept them in the garden and certainly avoided the death pronouncement?
-
-
-
Sis. Dawn, I'm not sure who you are addressing this reply to since you did not mention a name, but I would like to ask for clarification of the question you are asking:
So how much of what we have as Christians, did they, being the first man and woman have in the garden?
What specifically do we have as Christians that Adam and Eve did not have in the Garden? Because before the Fall, everything they had was perfect.
Wouldn't a just confession by both have kept them in the garden and certainly avoided the death pronouncement?
I have asked this question previously and I am still waiting on a reply. How is Eve's statement of truth considered a "just confession" that is not stated so in scripture, and Adam's statement of truth is not considered a "just confession" that is not stated so in scripture? Please show in scripture where God specifically acknowledged Eve's statement of truth as a confession. Because I have not found this word "confession" anywhere in the scriptures pertaining to what you call the "garden word."
When God told Adam that if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will surely die, He will not go back on His word. What He will do and what He has already done, was provide a ram in the bush - which was His Son, Jesus who paid the penalty we could not pay by giving up his life on the Cross. So, when Adam and Eve sinned through disobedience, they died a spiritual death which was separation from God and manifested by being cast out of the Garden of Eden. -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
