Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Yogurt]

Why do women and men have the same amount of ribs, when Adams rib was taken and given to eve. So why do we have the same amount?

[jimwalton]

The term for "rib" in Gn. 2.21 is not an anatomical term, but more of an architectural one (like the wing of a building or the side of a building or room). The ancients knew nothing about surgery; they are not claiming that God sedated Adam and removed a rib to generate Eve. Instead, what the text is saying is that Eve is made of the same "stuff" as Adam (bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh). She is made of the same basic materials as he is; she is a genetic and biological human being as he is (though they knew nothing about biology or genetics). In other words, she is completely and distinctly human, as he is. She is his counter-partner, his equal. The emphasis is on their relatedness and the unity of humanity.

So we are not to think that God is taking a chunk of Adam and making a woman. Instead, it is telling us they are separate, unique beings, but she is not inferior. Instead, she is just as much in the image of God (1.26), just as much human (2.23), and just as much his equal (2.18).

[Sweet Pair]

"Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. ..."

"... Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.' " ...

"...So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man."
Genesis 2:7‭, ‬18‭, ‬21‭-‬22 ESV

https://bible.com/bible/59/gen.2.7-22.ESV

The Bible here explicitly states several details, linking them with the words "then" & "and":

1 - the man is made from the dust. 2 - time and events transpire with no woman, only God and a man. 3 - "Then" God notes "it is not good for man to be alone" and at this point begins the creation of the woman. 4 - explicitly God causes man to sleep "and" while he slept took one rib, "and" closed up the place with flesh "and" used the rib taken to create the woman

But you claim:

"So we are not to think that God is taking a chunk of Adam and making a woman."

When the text says God "closed up its place with flesh".

What you say does not match or harmonize with the details provided in Genesis 2.

I am willing to go with the translation of "rib" for "side" and have read others say this is not the actual rib, but could be his hip ; but again Genesis 2 mentions bones.

It mentions sleep.

The woman is not created from dust, but from flesh.

[jimwalton]

> the man is made from the dust.

The text (Gn. 2.7) is talking about all humanity (ha adam), not an individual. It is a category, not a personal name. "Formed from the dust of the ground" means that humans are mortal (Gn. 3.19; Ps. 103.14; 1 Cor. 15.47-48), born by natural processes, and we will die by natural processes.

> time and events transpire with no woman, only God and a man

When the text says "adam," it is talking about an individual. When it says "the adam" (ha adam), it is talking about all humanity.

• Gn. 1.27: Humankind; all humanity. Verses 28-30 refer and apply to all humans.
• Gn. 2.5: Not a single individual human. Gn. 1 is about God bringing order and functionality to what was disordered and nonfunctional—not about material manufacture. Gn. 2.5 is about how one might achieve order—the value they seek to achieve. Order is not automatic; the default situation is non-order. Order has to be gained. The text is addressing the different aspects of order. It does it by starting with a deficiency, which is non-order (Gn. 2.5-6).
• Gn. 2.7: Humankind; all humanity. Humankind was created with mortal bodies. Dust is equated with mortality in the text (Gn. 3.19), in the canon (Ps. 103.14), and by logic (a tree of life would otherwise be unnecessary). In Adam we are all created mortal.

> God notes "it is not good for man to be alone"

Note the definite article in 2.15. This is Adam, the archetypal human (an individual representing all humankind). It is showing us that humans have responsibility to "fill the earth and subdue it"; to "rule over it." We (all) are like priests, caring for sacred space, fulfilling our function, and given a place to be in relationship with God and for Him to reveal Himself to us.

2.18: Again it is ha adam, with the definite article. It is a category, not a name. Here, again, the term is used of the individual human serving as a human representative. It is about order, and how one might achieve or envision order. "It is not good for man to be alone" is order terminology. It's neither talking about an individual male, nor is it talking about all the males of the species. It’s talking about humanity. Humans need community, which is a function of order.

Why does the text split up male and female if we’re talking about humanity? Because humanity experiences community at the male/female level. It leads to family, which is the other issue in community. It's not speaking in metaphors—it's a reality of how community order is founded in male and female.

> God causes man to sleep

2.21: The word is ha adam: All humanity. Again the individual represents all; it's an archetype.

The term for "deep sleep" (tardema) is often used with the implication of a supernaturally-imposed trance (Job 33.15; Isa. 29.10). The Human is not sedated for surgery (the ancients would have no understanding of such a thing); he is given a vision of something going on in the spiritual realm (Gn. 15:12; Job 4:13; Dan. 8:18; 10:9).

God gives the archetypal man a vision of something important about the nature and identity of the woman to whom He is about to introduce him. When the vision stops, Adam declares she is "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh," indicating that the text is not referring simply to a rib. John Walton writes: The vision has shown the archetypal man that woman is essentially related to him. She is "of the same stuff" as he is. These verses need not be understood as recounting the material origins of the first woman. Communication through a vision underlines this, and the idea that up to half of Adam is involved fairly requires it. God is showing the man how he should think about the helper that He is about to provide and then brings this woman to him (just as the man had been taken and brought to the garden).

When Adam sees the woman, his first outburst shows that he sees her as his equal, that he is in kinship relationship to her, and that they each, as well as the two together, share the image of God. It's about order, not manufacture.

> closed up the place with flesh

This is not talking about material manufacture or surgery, but about order. There is order in relationship, in family, and in community. Their bond with each other is more than physical. She is a help-meet—a counter-partner—his equal, his kinship, his community. They were equal in being and worth.

[Sweet Pair]

then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. Genesis 2:7 ESV https://bible.com/bible/59/gen.2.7.ESV

The context of your entire reply is false, rendering your interpretation of the text, false.

"The man" , "His nostrils" , "the man" , "a living creature"

ALL SINGULAR.

So this is "the man" , "a living creature" not 'humanity' , 'men' or 'creatures'

Stop twisting the Word of God. Stop twisting the text.

It is singular, it is one man.

Besides Jesus Christ confirmed it as does the rest of the Bible such as Paul in Romans 5 condemning "the man" Adam.

[jimwalton]

You misunderstand me. Of course "the man," "his nostrils," "the man," "a living creature" are singular. "Humanity" is a singular noun, as in "Humanity is in trouble," or "humanity is in decline," or "humankind is overpopulating the world."

But that's just an aside. What I said was that the man, Adam, a human individual, was an archetype (representative) for the whole entity of humanity. What Adam did, we all would do. The individual represents the whole. So of course the text speaks of "his nostrils" and "the man."

And as far as Romans 5 is concerned, hopefully you can clearly see that even there "Adam" is representing all of humanity, just as Jesus represents all those who are redeemed. They are both there presented as archetypes representative of all of us (Romans 5.15-19). All humanity is under the condemnation of sin, but in Christ all humanity is invited to grace and redemption. Adam is the one who sinned, and because of him death reigns through all of humanity (5.17). Christ is the firstfruits of the resurrection. He rises and those who are in Christ rise with Him. Adam was the first Adam; Christ is the second Adam (an archetype).

As John Walton writes, "The archetypal nature of Adam is evident in two ways here: first, he is seen as a pattern of Christ; second, Adam represents all people in Paul’s treatment (through him all sinned). Adam and Christ are related as archetypal representatives. ... This important section of Scripture then, affirms the reality of sin and death entering human experience in an event and thereby implies a historical Adam [just as Christ and what He did on the cross are historical]."

I am neither twisting the sacred Word of God nor twisting the text.