Paula

Do you think Greg and I should team up? Hmmm…..

And Greg, I think they’ve already had too many prunes… they’re dumping their, um, output all over the internet and making cyberspace unbreathable. Perhaps a spiritual HAZMAT is called for?

Tanx Cheryl!

Greg: Sorry, not doing any visuals for yours. At least not in public. 😉

I’m cookin’ up a little somethin’ in the kitchen…

I have yet to encounter a Calvinist who can grasp the irony in arguing against free will.

Hey Cheryl, can you post this loser’s IP number? That way we can all filter him out of our own blogs too. IPNs are public knowledge and easily obtained from any browser, so this wouldn’t be a violation of anyone’s privacy AFAIK.

But then, even without that, I’m sure we’ll all be able to smell him coming.

Since Eve is part of the original creation of mankind, the “male” from the beginning was the original creation of Adam and the “female” was the original creation of Eve. “From the beginning” cannot be a term that does not include the creation of Adam. This is why I am confident that God created just as he said he did with two genders not one and a half.

This is one possible interpretation, but still an interpretation. It is equally possible to interpret “male and female from the beginning” as from the time both a male and a female existed. To assign meaning to a phrase is to interpret. Many, such as Calvinists, insist that certain things are inescapable logically and that we therefor must accept their conclusions. Likewise, though it looks to you that your conclusion is inescapable, I don’t agree. And that’s okay. And it doesn’t mean I have a low view of scripture or read any more into it than you or anyone else.

When God said “them”, he was referring to both of them – humanity as male and female, not one person as male and female.

Right. But whether this applies to the time there was no female is still not specified by scripture, but is instead a matter of interpretation.

We are told that God’s original creation was male and female.

What about timing? Consider the phrase “slain from the foundation of the world”. If I apply your method I must believe that Jesus was slain when the world was created. Now in this case we know it didn’t actually happen till Jesus came “in the fullness of time”. But with Adam before Eve, there are no statements to clarify. Timing does matter.

I did post a quote from the NET translator notes that show that God is talking to BOTH the male and female in Genesis 1:28 and verse 27 refers to both the original man and both humans.

This same NET also has footnotes that are male supremacist. Point being, they are not infallible, and when experts disagree on a point, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. It’s still an interpretation.

All I’m saying in all this is that we have to be careful not to mistake an interpretation with what is actually stated, nor argue from silence about Adam’s condition before Eve. It all hinges on how one interprets “from the beginning” since that phrase always mentions both male and female, and there was a period of time when no female existed. Again, your interpretation could very well be right; but so could mine.

More importantly, this debate has no bearing on the question of male supremacy. As you pointed out, scripture is silent about whether God breathed into Eve the breath of life, or whether she got that existing breath from Adam. Yet this silence does not force us to conclude that Eve is somehow less than Adam. In the same way, and by the same principle, we have silence about the time when there was Adam but no Eve as to Adam’s physical makeup, yet no matter how we deal with that, it does not force us to conclude that Eve is somehow less than Adam. It’s really irrelevant, and for that reason I will make no more rebuttals about it.

I think Don has a valid point about the fact that “male and female from the beginning” cannot apply to the time before Eve was created. But I also want to clear up one thing:

If God created Adam as a male-female, then we can help God out by putting that into the text. Otherwise it appears God made a mistake. Adam wasn’t exclusively male so then God didn’t create the male, he became male by default. Had God taken out the male part, he would have been female?

We don’t have to help God out at all…

Cheryl, the first paragraph is a quote from your earlier comment, that you made. It was one of the quotes that I didn’t do right. Sorry for the confusion. I replied right after that. So the second paragraph is your rebuttal to your own earlier quote about presuming God would have told us more.

But that is what you appear to be doing. You are saying that Adam was NOT male in the beginning. Please show me a verse that will contradict Jesus’ testimony and then please explain how Jesus was wrong.

Cheryl, I could say you’re doing this too. You’re saying that Adam was male, and at the same time, that he was male and female from the beginning. Both can’t be true. And I’m not insisting on anything except this: that we are not told in scripture the physical makeup of Adam before Eve was created, unless you believe that Adam was “male and female from the beginning” even before Eve was made.

Adam’s testimony has not been impeached. He said that what Eve was made from was his flesh and his bone. The only bone in the side of man is rib.

All I’ll say is that there are experts who disagree on this, and there just isn’t enough to dogmatically state what the word must mean. Again, I’m not saying one way or the other about Adam before Eve, because scripture does not tell us; it is completely silent about Adam’s physical makeup before Eve was made, beyond his being made from dirt.

I see I got my quote tags out of whack there, sorry. Hope you all can figure it out.

1a – So do you agree with me then that the words are not poetic but literal?

But of course!

1b – So then if the organ was a “female” organ and it belonged to Adam, what was Adam in the creation male or female or both?

Or neither.

Okay, but since God said that he created male and female and I think we can agree the Eve was female, what was Adam? Creation means creation for Adam. God created male and female.

Timing is the key here. The statement “male and female he created them” is in the first, less detailed overview of creation week. Chapter two goes into detail absent from chapter one. After Eve, we have no doubt that Adam was male and Eve female. Before that, we just don’t know. The important thing of course is that Eve and Adam were made of the same flesh and bone, making them absolutely equal.

If God created Adam as a male-female, then we can help God out by putting that into the text. Otherwise it appears God made a mistake. Adam wasn’t exclusively male so then God didn’t create the male, he became male by default. Had God taken out the male part, he would have been female?

There’s a lot God left out of the text, on a gazillion topics. I mean, come on… “there was light”. Little help, eh?

There isn’t any other kind of creation but male and female.

How about “human”?

If Adam wasn’t exclusively male, then God would have told us.

How do you know?

I prefer to just take what God said.

Me too! And I don’t try to supply what God didn’t say either.

Gen. 2:23 doesn’t argue against my position at all. Adam’s rib belonged to his body. It was taken out of him and formed into a woman. She then became a woman but from his flesh and his bone. This preserves the unity and equality of both and ribs aren’t
“male”. It wasn’t a “male” part that was taken out. It was a “part” of a male.

Sounds like the same thing I was saying…

I don’t know how you can say that the Hebrew word is not the one used for “rib” since other than these verses in Genesis, the word rib doesn’t appear in the Hebrew bible. I am saying that it must mean rib because there is no other bone in one’s side. Can you point to another bone?

Which puts us both in the same boat. If there’s no mention of ribs anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible, then how do you know it means rib and not just “side”? I considered the LXX too. And you still haven’t told me what “flesh” came out of Adam.

Well, I normally don’t have people telling me that I am making up a meaning for a biblical word, but I am happy to prove that I am not. The Brown-Drive-Briggs definition is as follows:

BDB Definition:
1) side, rib, beam
1a) rib (of man)
1b) rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
1c) side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
1d) rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
1e) leaves (of door)
1f) side (of ark)

Again, if the word for rib is only found here in Genesis, then nobody can say for sure what it must mean in this context. Side is the meaning in the LXX which predates (AFAIK) any Hebrew text available by several hundred years. It’s at least something to go on. If we say it must mean rib because we think the context supports it, that would be circular reasoning since there is no other context to compare it to.

As far as how much flesh went along with the rib, I don’t know, but for sure some was on the rib. I enjoy ribs once in awhile and the ribs I eat are not just bone. They all have some tasty flesh with them.

So it wasn’t only a bone after all? Just a little muscle attached to it? Can we arbitrarily decide that’s what “flesh” means here, and not anything else?

I am not claiming that the bones are “male”. I am claiming that they are Adam’s bones not bones belonging to anyone else including Eve.

Same thing I’m saying.

The text does rule it out.

I disagree.

It appears to me that those who see another option have something that they would like to see in the text.

Cheryl, I’ve been biting my tongue all this time so I wouldn’t accuse you of this, even though I could. Let’s not judge motives now, okay? That’s what male supremacists do to us all the time.

I think that inference can be made if there is two or three witnesses. I haven’t seen any witness either in Genesis or anywhere else that would imply in any way that Adam was not a regular male (with all his ducks in order) at his creation.

And I haven’t seen any witness to say he was a male as we know them. The text just calls the pre-Eve Adam “human”. Only this, and nothing more.

I do not think that this issue will be a dividing point in fellowship nor will it send someone to hell. However I strongly believe that making Eve come from a female part inside Adam …

I don’t argue that the part taken from Adam was necessarily a “female part”. It was an Adam part. Maybe it was something we associate now with the exclusively female now, maybe not.

You bet. I just don’t want them to reject me because they see me embracing a Greek mythology. I don’t see that as helpful or needed.

Are you saying I’m embracing a Greek myth, just because I won’t close a door I don’t see closed in scripture?

Thanks for jousting with me, Paula. These issues can be very important to many people reading my blog and it was my desire to give a thorough answer… I have learned a lot from you Paula that has been a tremendous help to me. I very much value the interaction.

You’re welcome, Cheryl. I know I’ve learned a lot from you too.

Cheryl,

This is one of those things we just disagree on, and I don’t want to add to your stress by getting into a long argument about it. I’ll just very briefly make a few comments and leave it at that.

1a – I don’t agree that Adam’s words contradict the idea of Eve being made from a “female” organ taken from Adam. After all, she wasn’t made from only bone, but also from flesh.

1b – It is not logically required for Adam to say “this is her flesh taken from me” in order for the part taken to be “female”. It started out as his part; there was no her until she was made. All the parts were his to begin with, whether they performed a “male” or “female” function.

1c – Similar point here to 1b. And the text never says Adam was created male. He did not have to become male when the parts were removed from him to form Eve; he was simply missing some parts. And his post-sleep body was then exclusively male, while Eve’s was exclusively female.

2a – Again, the text never says Adam was exclusively male before Eve was created.

2b – Gen. 2:23 actually argues against your position. Adam said Eve was “taken out of man”, therefore the part was (1) originally part of Adam, and (2) taken out of him and formed into Eve. Yes, they were his parts to begin with; taking them out didn’t make them any less his parts. This preserves the unity and equality of both of them, without requiring that the parts taken from Adam had to be “male”.

3 – Agree that context rules, but the Hebrew word is still not the one used for “rib”. To say it must mean “rib” anyway is to ignore the normal meaning of the word and make up a new one, while also ignoring the “flesh” part. What “flesh” is included in “bone”? Why ignore the “flesh” factor?

4 – Again, there is no logical necessity for making the parts taken from Adam exclusively “male” in order for Eve to be his flesh and bones.

Conclusion: You may be right– or maybe not. But the argument that Adam could have had both “male” and “female” parts originally cannot be labeled myth, because the text does not rule it out, explicitly or implicitly or logically. It is simply a valid difference of opinion, one we will have to wait for heaven to answer. I cannot be dogmatic about that on which scripture is silent, and I won’t call other views myths. The issue here is not whether the Word of God can correct anyone, but what inferences can be made from the text by fallible people. There are many other such issues on which strong, Bible-honoring believers disagree, as you know. I believe this is one of them, and that there is room for both views on this matter.

At any rate, I think we can produce arguments from Genesis till the cows come home and it won’t budge those who insist upon male privilege. I still await the male supremacist answer to the question of pride in the flesh: how can male supremacy be compatible with “not so among you” and all the “one anothers” of scripture? How can any believer even wish to lord over another? Until and unless they answer those questions from clear scriptural teachings, everything else is going to be endless mud wrestling. I dunno, maybe we should scrape up some cash and offer a reward to the first male supremacist to explain away the most basic quality of the believer being to serve and be humble as Jesus gave the example. 😉

If God didn’t tell us, then we can’t rule anything out. All we know is that Adam was missing some part of his body after Eve was made. And if we can engage in speculation, then we must include the burning question about why men have nipples. 😉

Rib is of course taken for granted as the correct meaning, but after about an hour of searching both the ancient and modern Greek and Hebrew, the meaning is never given as rib but as side. The Hebrew word is never translated rib anywhere but Genesis 2.

But most people aren’t aware that the KJV is still given tremendous weight in most translation efforts, even though translators are well aware of its shortcomings. Given the wealth of ancient documents in original languages we enjoy compared to the 1600s, this is both curious and unfortunate.

But… but… the writer of the words was a guy! (ewww…)

Maybe you’re on to something, Cheryl. Yeah, that must be it… boys cry louder. But– shouldn’t only girls cry, and boys just pout and take it like a man? I can just hear the doctor’s rebuke of a crying baby boy: “So you just got rammed through a tube the diameter of a straw. Kwit cher belly achin’, ya sissy! I’ll give you a reason to cry!!”

When I was pregnant the other ladies told me I must be carrying a girl because I wasn’t suffering all the usual things, but it was a boy. Go figure.

Don’t have one from kids, but has any male supremacist ever wondered how on earth doctors and nurses can tell a newborn baby boy from a girl before it has learned to act out roles? They must have to go to school a LONG time to learn how to tell! After all, babies aren’t born with either a blue or pink ribbon on their little wrists.

I always like to point out that 1 Timothy 2:14 says “the woman” he’s talking about is STILL in error. The Greek indicates a past event with continuing effect in the present, i.e. “has fallen” instead of “fell” or “had fallen”. Therefore Paul is not referring to Eve but to the woman in the passage who is in transgression.

And although I’d use different arguments for why God did what and when in creation week, we’d all agree that there’s nothing about authority of one person over another there at all.

And yet again, the burning question: Why would any believer even want such authority, especially after reading Phil. 2:5-11 and Jesus’ “not so among you”? Will any of the male supremacists ever face that?

int3grity,

Surely you’re also aware of what anti-egals call us: lost, Jezebel, rebellious, not respecting scripture, liberal, man-hating, slippery slope to approving homosexuality, etc. etc. etc. Nothing I’ve ever seen from an egal comes close. If you are truly undecided, then be consistent and aim your rebuke equally at those who “dismember” the Body in such vicious ways because they feel men are favored by God over women. Have you gone to CBMW to rebuke them?

If God is truly a Trinity and not three gods as the cults declare, then it follows that it is utterly impossible to pray to one Person of the Trinity without praying to them all, because all Three compose one God. To think otherwise would be as absurd as the popular sarcastic phrase, “Talk to the hand!”

The apostle John wrote that whoever has the Son has the Father as well, and that whoever rejects the Son rejects the Father. Paul wrote that Jesus is the exact representation of the invisible God– not merely of the invisible Father. And note that it took both the Spirit and “the power of the Most High” to conceive Jesus in Mary. Jesus Himself said on various occasions that He would raise himself from the dead, and also that God would raise him. The Persons do various things, but they sometimes overlap, such that it is not scriptural to claim the Father only ever does this while the Son only ever does that, and the Spirit never does either of those things.

Last, it is logically impossible for there to be “roles” among persons of equal being and essence on a permanent basis. Phil. 2:5-11 clearly shows Jesus voluntarily laying his equality aside for a time, then taking it back up again. Hebrews shows God becoming “Father” to the “Son” at a point in time, not from eternity past. Please also see These Articles on a Trinity debate held this past year.

Rest assured as well that none of this talk of “roles” within the Trinity would be heard at all without one goal in mind: justifying permanent, intrinsic male authority over female by arguing for the possibility of equality of being but inequality of permanent role. The ones who wish male preeminence are the ones causing this division.

As my sister-in-law would say, “Cool beans!”

Cindy,

Excellent point about it not being a sin to question as applying to Eve. And from our perspective we tend to forget that Eve had absolutely no experience with temptation or dishonesty. Would we have done any better? We all know how gullible people can be today, so we can hardly sit in judgment of Eve for it, since there had been no precedent. And we should also note that Adam went down without a fight, but Eve was not so easily vanquished. 😉

On Eve’s quote, we should note that the scriptures never, ever call it inaccurate, mistaken, attributed to Adam, or anything else: it is simply reported. Those people like Ortlund who may call their assertions of why she said what she did the absolute truth, are stepping out of the bounds of scripture and claiming to speak for God. I would think such people will be charged as false prophets! Instead, as you have done, we should always be humble and know where the line is drawn between what God has actually written and what we might deduce from it.

However, I wouldn’t be so kind to the teachers of male supremacy. I think they do know better, and as self-proclaimed teachers, they MUST know better or they should step down. They have been shown the errors in their arguments but instead of acknowledging them, they attack and scatter the flock, hoping to neutralize half the Body just when we’re needed the most. And I think the reason is exactly what you said: they have too much to lose.

Good stuff, Cindy.

Try http://www.dailyblogtips.com/wp-print-wordpress-plugin/

Cheryl,

What I do for “print this page” is make it a link to the article with a minimal style sheet. It would have to be custom coded, but I’d be willing to bet eighteen cheesecloth umbrellas that there’s a WordPress plugin for this. I’ll go look.

A factor to consider is that God had only said “when you eat you die”. He never said anything about additional penalties like cursing the earth. Both Adam and Eve became mortal when they ate, but God added to Adam’s penalty by cursing the ground. So the curse on the ground must be tied to Adam’s unique rebellion.

Or from another angle: God expressly stated that “Because you listened (perhaps meaning he “only listened and did not act”?)… and ate, the ground is cursed”. Adam both ate and “listened”, the ground he was taken from was cursed because of him, and sin was attributed to him alone according to Paul (Rom. 5:12).

You… all are… tempting me… must resist… must not create an internet storefront where you can buy all sorts of magical coverings…

(uh-oh! the security word is “toast”!)

Pink: Yeah, you know me… always beating around the bush. 😉

Greg: Sorry about the keyboard, bro. One should always read my ravings with caution (or from behind the safety of a plastic sheet, which works a lot better than cheesecloth). (But if you need tech assistance, I’m typing on a keyboard I once spilled a strawberry milkshake on… such a waste of a perfectly good milkshake! But I got most of the keys to work, albeit a little sticky.)

Nicole, I’ve posed that same question in my articles:

“To turn completely around and curse her with servitude to the man who had blamed her and God for his sin and failed to step in while she was being tempted, would be to say God rewards poor leadership and passing blame, even to the point of blaming God. Adam had proven himself disqualified to lead and unworthy of God’s blessing with rulership over the one he failed to lead and protect.”

I strongly believe that the reason God showed Adam the animals before creating Eve was to emphasize Eve’s superiority to them. When Adam exclaimed about Eve that she was “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”, he was saying that she was his equal, not inferior like the animals.

I kept waiting for someone to ask that! I just couldn’t believe the male supremacists would actually argue for a woman’s spiritual authority!

Ah, but Cheryl, it’s a magical umbrella! They just call it a “covering” now. 🙂

Tanx Jennifer. 🙂

I found a term since then that’s even better, one that someone coined for being thrown out of a church: dismembered. I think that sums up better than anything what’s being done to the Body via the oppression of women.