Cheryl

Truthseeker and Paula,

While I am very impressed with Katherine Bushnell, I do not accept the explanation that God created an androgynous creature. If he did, then why didn’t God say that he took the woman out of the man? Instead God says that he took a rib (literally a beam, plank, side chamber) out of the man and made that into a woman.

Gen 2:22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

So God “fashioned” it into a woman, not that he took the woman out and “fashioned” her with the rest of her body. This of course doesn’t mean that the woman is any less than the man because she was made from his body part.

Also if we say that the man and woman were together in one body, the picture is broken of a complete one flesh union. What we would have is man and woman together in one body but not united. When God made the woman he took what belonged to the man (the rib) and made it into a woman. She then remains a part of him (she has his DNA and she is his rib 🙂 ) and is therefore one flesh with him. If man and woman were together in one body and God took the woman out (which is never said in scripture) then the woman is not part of the man, but rather she is separated from the man. I personally think that we do and injustice to the biblical account by making the first man not a male but an androgynous creature. That is my opinion and while I am not infallible, I don’t think that idea meshes with scripture. I could be proven wrong, but I would have to see it from scripture, so there is the challenge.