Adam's rib.

[OldWiseGuy]

Do any agree that although it seems impossible that Eve was formed from the actual rib and flesh of Adam that is the account that God wants us to believe, study, meditate, contemplate, and eventually understand?

Or should we just dismiss that story and focus on the evolution of the two sexes whose designs fortuitously came together in such a complimentary fashion?

owg

 

[Bushido216]

You're creating a false dichotomy. Not accepting your interpretation of Genesis doesn't mean I dismiss the story, I just dismiss the literal connotations of the story, but that doesn't mean that I completely ignore the spiritual and religious implications.

The evolution of sexual dimorphism isn't "fortuitous", it's a series of adaptations that occured waaaayyyyy back up the hierarchy.

 

[Mallon]

There's significance to the story of Eve being made from Adam's rib. But it isn't biological. It's spiritual. It's metaphysical. It's profound. None of these things are lost on those who don't interpret Genesis literally.

 

[Molal]

You're creating a false dichotomy. Not accepting your interpretation of Genesis doesn't mean I dismiss the story, I just dismiss the literal connotations of the story, but that doesn't mean that I completely ignore the spiritual and religious implications.

The evolution of sexual dimorphism isn't "fortuitous", it's a series of adaptations that occured waaaayyyyy back up the hierarchy.

I agree, the arguement is with the literal interpretation of the bible, not with the bible or God.

We all agree that the bible is inerrant, but being inerrant does NOT mean literal.

 

[Vance]

And for those of us who believe that God used evolutionary development to accomplish His purpose, then that end result is not merely fortuitous, but part of what God intended.

And I am sure glad He did!! It is one of my favorite aspects of God's creative work!

 

[crawfish]

There is nothing "fortuitous" in evolution about the complementary fashion that the two sexes coming together.

 

[juvenissun]

Does any agree that although it seems impossible that Eve was formed from the actual rib and flesh of Adam that is the account that God wants us to believe, study, meditate, contemplate, and eventually understand?

Or should we just dismiss that story and focus on the evolution of the two sexes whose designs fortuitously came together in such a complimentary fashion?

owg

I would still like to believe that this is literal. Which does not hinder any of its spiritual meanings.

How could we disprove that Adam DID have one more rib than we have now? God would not just snap one out. He must re-organized all the ribs and made them look like what we have now.

Do chimps have the same number of ribs as we do?

 

[gluadys]

Does any agree that although it seems impossible that Eve was formed from the actual rib and flesh of Adam that is the account that God wants us to believe, study, meditate, contemplate, and eventually understand?

Most certainly. But that does not require that we take the story literally.

Or should we just dismiss that story and focus on the evolution

We don't have to dismiss the story to focus on evolution.

of the two sexes whose designs fortuitously came together in such a complimentary fashion?

owg

Nothing fortuitous about it. You are indicating that you do not grasp how evolution works. The obstacle you are alluding to does not exist. It is a creative bit of imagination, not science.

 

[gluadys]

How could we disprove that Adam DID have one more rib than we have now?

No need for Adam to have had more ribs than us. If a person has a leg amputated does that mean their children will have only one leg? God removing one of Adam's ribs would have no effect on how many ribs his children would have.

So, yes, God could just snap out one of Adam's ribs and not bother reorganizing anything. Cain and Abel and Seth would be born with the same genes that originally gave Adam a full set of ribs, so they would have a full set too.

 

[juvenissun]

No need for Adam to have had more ribs than us. If a person has a leg amputated does that mean their children will have only one leg? God removing one of Adam's ribs would have no effect on how many ribs his children would have.

So, yes, God could just snap out one of Adam's ribs and not bother reorganizing anything. Cain and Abel and Seth would be born with the same genes that originally gave Adam a full set of ribs, so they would have a full set too.

Fine. I accept every words you said (never happened before).

 

[NathanCGreen]

No need for Adam to have had more ribs than us. If a person has a leg amputated does that mean their children will have only one leg? God removing one of Adam's ribs would have no effect on how many ribs his children would have.

So, yes, God could just snap out one of Adam's ribs and not bother reorganizing anything. Cain and Abel and Seth would be born with the same genes that originally gave Adam a full set of ribs, so they would have a full set too.

Yes, exactly. I was going to respond, but you were in first.
Yeah, I wonder why Lamarckism ever took off at all though? And why Freud wanted to cling to it?

 

[gluadys]

Yes, exactly. I was going to respond, but you were in first.
Yeah, I wonder why Lamarckism ever took off at all though? And why Freud wanted to cling to it?

Lamarck lived and died before anything was known about genetics. Darwin was not familiar with Mendel's work either and had no theory of inheritance. Freud probably didn't know much about it either, as it was not his field and genetics was just getting underway as a scientific discipline then, with not much known about it unless one was a specialist. Probably Lamark's ideas fit better with his psychological theories.

Lamarck's ideas remained fairly respectable until the 1930s when the relationship of genetics and natural selection was worked out.

 

[Vance]

Lamarck lived and died before anything was known about genetics. Darwin was not familiar with Mendel's work either and had no theory of inheritance. Freud probably didn't know much about it either, as it was not his field and genetics was just getting underway as a scientific discipline then, with not much known about it unless one was a specialist. Probably Lamark's ideas fit better with his psychological theories.

Lamarck's ideas remained fairly respectable until the 1930s when the relationship of genetics and natural selection was worked out.

What is interesting when you look at the history of evolutionary theory is how the two aspects of evolutionary concepts had different roads. On the one hand, even before Darwin, folks were starting to recognize that life developed from earlier common species over a VERY long time. Darwin provided his theory of natural selection to explain the phenomenon.

While the "fact" of evolutionary development has never been doubted since then, Darwin's particular theory regarding the mechanics was nearly abandoned, even by Darwin himself in his last edition of Origin, because they could not see how it would work since they did not know about genetics. There was a resurgence of Lamarkianism and other theories, but then when genetics came along, everyone realized that Darwin had gotten the mechanics right after all! With the additions of some extra factor coming into play, genetics has confirmed the "theory" for how the "fact" of evolution has taken place.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All above answers are fairly predictable. What I really want to know is what is your understanding of/about the creation of woman from the 'rib' of man. And is that understanding of the origin of woman influenced more by the literal story or by your belief in evolution.

owg

 

[Vance]

All above answers are fairly predictable. What I really want to know is what is your understanding of/about the creation of woman from the 'rib' of man. And is that understanding of the origin of woman influenced more by the literal story or by your belief in evolution.

owg

Well, it is not influenced by evolution at all, since the whole account has nothing to do with science or biology, etc, as Gluadys points out. How I read it depends entirely on how I think these early Genesis accounts were meant to be read, which is definitely as NOT literal historic narrative.

I think that the account is meant to be a symbolic and/or typological statement regarding the relationship between man and woman. Further, it is possibly "historic" in the sense that it could reflects (in a symbolic and typological way) something that God purposefully *did* in connection with men and women at some point in our development. That part I have no idea about, but the actual theological point is the same either way.

And that is an important thing to keep in mind. Those who accept evolution and an old earth still think the Bible says all the same things theologically. We hold to the same Christian truths, and do so as strongly as any who read the text literally.

Odd how that happens. It is not literalness of the history, but the power of the true message that comes through either way you read it.

I guess here is a question for you in return: what is the message God is giving us through that part of the account (specifically the rib story), and is the truth of that message absolutely tied to the story's historical literalness? In short, if you found out tomorrow that the story was not strict literal historical narrative would you then disbelieve God's message contained in the story?

 

[juvenissun]

All above answers are fairly predictable. What I really want to know is what is your understanding of/about the creation of woman from the 'rib' of man. And is that understanding of the origin of woman influenced more by the literal story or by your belief in evolution.

owg

Very interesting. Thanks for the excellent idea. Very very good.

If we examined the relationship and dynamics between male and female of all "species", the one for Homo Sapiens certainly stands out as the most complicate one way out of the scale. Why? It is certainly due to the special origin of sex in that "species".

Only a literal understanding on the origin of woman is able to match God's special creation of human being. This also explains the special role of woman in Christian culture.

Thanks again, wise guy. God Bless.

 

[Molal]

Very interesting. Thanks for the excellent idea. Very very good.

If we examined the relationship and dynamics between male and female of all "species", the one for Homo Sapiens certainly stands out as the most complicate one way out of the scale. Why? It is certainly due to the special origin of sex in that "species".

Only a literal understanding on the origin of woman is able to match God's special creation of human being. This also explains the special role of woman in Christian culture.

Thanks again, wise guy. God Bless.

You didn't answer why in your quote above? So, why?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I guess here is a question for you in return: what is the message God is giving us through that part of the account (specifically the rib story), and is the truth of that message absolutely tied to the story's historical literalness? In short, if you found out tomorrow that the story was not strict literal historical narrative would you then disbelieve God's message contained in the story?

Yes, I believe that you have to first study the account as if it were literally true in order to glean the fulness of its meaning.

 

[Molal]

I believe that you have to study the account as if it were literally true in order to glean the fulness of its meaning.

Why? And what fulness of it's meaning can you obtain from a literal reading that you can't from an allegorical reading?

 

[juvenissun]

Why? And what fulness of it's meaning can you obtain from a literal reading that you can't from an allegorical reading?

Not because I do not want to answer your question. It is, in fact, pretty hard to explain. It is not a matter of science. It is related to things like marriage etc.

I really do not know what to say. I guess the only thing I can say is that you probably will understand it better through the aging process. Many divorces happened today and there are many news about spouse abuse or murder. I hope Christians would know better because of this particular verse in the Bible.

For example, I won't vote for Hilary Clinton in this coming election at US (if she made it to there). This verse is one of the major reason.