Wow. Dad is even less informed than I thought:
1) Adam, the first divine-image-bearing creature, came on the scene FIRST----before Eve, the first divine-image-bearing female.
Congrats you got my point.
2) The Genesis text uses a Hebrew word that the KJV and other early English Bible translators rendered as "rib". But "inard" or even a more modern term like "tissue sample" or even "biopsy" would be more appropriate.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]
- side, rib, beam
- rib (of man)
[/FONT]http://classic.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+2:22&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1&l=en
3) While I would never say that this interpretation I'm about to describe is DEMANDED by the Hebrew text, I will say that it is entirely COMPATIBLE with it: The text describes a scenario which sounds like Adam being put under anesthesia ("deep sleep") so that God removes a biopsy from Adam. Or perhaps it was even a male gamete, a spermatozoon. Or perhaps it was a somatic cell from which a nucleus was extracted. I don't claim to know. I'm just suggesting that it MIGHT refer to Adam's DNA.
Who cares? From the man God made the woman.
And suppose God took Adam's DNA and used it to produce a "female clone" of Adam, whereby the XY chromosome had its Y component removed and the X component doubled.
No thanks. No need to
suppose like a bangie.
The resulting genetic code would be a female version of the human one. [HADAM was not necessarily a first name as we think of it. HADAM is Hebrew for "the human one", or "the red-soiled person". In Genesis 2:7 it says that God formed HADAM from the dust of the HADAMAH." So "Adam" (HADAM stripped of the definite article "the") was a play on words so that he could have said truthfully "My name is dirt around here!" LOL. Adam was described by the very dirt he came from. The Bible says ALL of life comes from the soil. We are all made from non-living ingredients, the basic chemical elements of the earth's crust.]
Blather. Get serious.
Now if Eve was a female clone of Adam, it would have made sense that he would have looked at her as "Flesh of my flesh and bones of my bones!" He must have been startled that she looked so much like him! She could have had his facial shape and eyes, the same color of hair, and many other similarities----except she grew up and matured as a female with all of the hormone changes in body shape, jawline, vocal cords, and all. Yes, there is NOTHING in the Hebrew text to preclude the events described taking place over many years.
Except man (male and female) were made the same day. Go figure.
(Indeed, this also solves the classic question of how Adam could have named all of the animals in a single YOM/day.) And of course, if Genesis 1 is the 3+3+1=7 poetic story structure which many scholars have pointed out, there's all the more reason to allow for the well known fact that YOM in Hebrew has many definitions besides "24 hour day."
Useless mental gymnastics do not make faith.
So I don't how dad runs off the rails and thinks Adam reproduced with a monkey. The Bible clearly states that he KNEW Eve and just three of their many children are named in the Genesis text.
I don't. But I was wondering how Adam got there by evolving when woman was made
Later!
But remember: There is nothing in the Bible which states that there were no other hominids on the planet. But because Adam was somehow endowed by God with the IMAGO DEI, he knew that he could not find a suitable mate among the various NEPHESH animals in the garden God had planted as a special reserve for him in the region called Eden. And the Genesis text doesn't say how many and what kinds of species of animals from the "outside world" were allowed to come into the garden preserve. If other hominids of the time were larger and very dangerous (as paleontological evidence suggests),
Nonsense. The so called hominids could not fossilize in the former state. Notice we do not see any till late in the record? Man was EARLY in the record of creation.
it would make sense for the garden reserve area of land to have an even more restricted selection of animals for Adam to observe. Whatever the case, Adam knew that nobody else was like him----EVEN IF others of his Homo sapien species were known to him.
Bordering on insane speculation.
And who knows, perhaps Adam was of the new Homo sapien sapien version of hominid.] Adam would naturally have wanted companionship with someone who possessed the IMAGO DEI and could related emotionally, spiritually, and in conversation with him on a sophisticated level---and join him in his communion with God his creator.
Congrats...you crossed the line...insane speculation.
I could develop this interpretation/speculation far more fully and use it to make sense of the preface to the Noah account in Genesis 6, where it appears that "Noah was pure in all his generations". That is, perhaps Noah was the only descendent of the Adamic Imago-Dei-lineage at that time which had not mixed with other hominids so as to carry non-image-of-God "blood" in him.
More insanity. The pureness had to do with obeying God.
Perhaps the mixed hybrid Adamic+non-Adamic population was all the more violent and ruthless because of the great size and stature as well as rapacious tendencies of the non-Adamic hominids. (And the "giants in the land" and the "sons of God" and "daughters of men" produced "men of renown" because the hybrids had the high brain power of the Adamic line merged with the superior braun of the non-Adamic DNA!)
Lay off the late late shows.
If this was the case, how would the writer of Genesis explain of this MIND-BLOWING information to the ancient Hebrews of Moses' day? Was it NECESSARY for God to explain all of the scientific/genetic details of the origins of Adam and Eve. Or would it make more sense to just cut-to-the-chase and say that HADAM was made from the non-living ingredients in the dust of the ground (soil.) And nobody had any reason for needing to know about the other hominids and how Adam differed from them. In fact, even today there are THREE principal interpretations of what being made in the image of God means! But Christians DO agree that Adam and Eve were UNIQUE among all creatures and the Image of God was the term the Bible uses.
Twilight zone dreaming.
It has been a while since I read the original article of VerySincere, when I was a subscriber to his old Bible.and.Science.Forum email newsletter. The professor's exposition of Genesis 2:7, Genesis 7:20, and everything he wrote about Genesis 1 & 2 revitalized my Bible study and my relationship with God because I realized that I didn't have to look at the Bible as conflicting with the reality of the world around me. And I especially appreciated what he said was his change in his Bible study goals over the course of his life and scholarship. To paraphrase what he said (as best as I can):
You need to go back and work on the
reality....not the bible.
And I adopted one of the Professor's quotable-quotes for my CF signature (see below) and I encourage others to incorporate it into their study if not also into their CF testimony.
I've got to wrap this up and work on other things but I get excited about these topics and want other Christ-followers to experience what I did in having my eyes upon by the Bible.
Disbelief?
I used to be a "half-informed" Christian because I focused on God's Scripture (as his people should)
Now you focus on other things...therein lies the problem.
but I was denigrating God's Book of Creation.
False. Man's present state based constructs of the past are not reality.
Now I praise God for the wondrous evolutionary processes which adapt and diversify life on earth AND I can truly understand the vast scope of the billions of years of history of the universe and of the earth itself.
Sold out real believer. Nice.
God would have us remove our Pharisee blinders of tradition
Belief in His word you mean.
