Paula

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. 😉