Cheryl Schatz

Don,

You said:

3. The woman is formed from a side of Adam, this is the same term as used for a side of the tabernacle, it does not need to be a tiny rib.

The Hebrew term can also mean the side of the tabernacle. We do know for sure what it means in Genesis because Adam said she was “bone” and “flesh” of his. So what was taken out was bone (side bone is the rib) and flesh attached to that bone. How much flesh, we are not told.

4. The term ish/man is not used for Adam until the word ishah is also used.

Good point. It is also good to remind us that Adam is the name for human. “The Adam” is Adam specifically, but Adam is the name that is generic for either the man or the woman.

The second lack is that the human by itself is not good, which I understand to mean, not functioning (yet) in the way God intends.

I agree with you that man could not “function” the way the animals could with their mates, but I believe that “not good” means more than just function. The reason I believe this is because women bring more to the “table” than just sexuality and child bearing. We bring insight and a relational quality that is generally lacking in males. We think differently and I believe that when we stifle women and hold women back and not allow them to contribute in teaching and training, we lose an important aspect to our ability to “help”. A “helper” is not an underling that only helps as a “go-for” but is an essential partner who brings balance.

The origins stories in Gen 1 are about God separating things, this idea continues in Gen 2 with 2 more separations, but the last 2 also allows joining. When married, the 2 become 1; when dead, the human becomes dirt.

The problem that I have with this statement is that if God is “separating” the two, then Eve must have existed before she was created or else what was separated? Also was their “intimate” relationship with two in one before the separation? If two intimately together is “not good” and must be separated, then what is the purpose for bringing them back together again as a “one-flesh” union.

In my opinion this is reading into the text. If I am wrong, I welcome anyone to correct me. But I want to see if from the text. Where does the text say there are “two” in “one”. Where is the plural in unity and then plural in separation? I don’t see it from the Hebrew.