Genesis 2:22-25 ~ How do YOU interpret this?

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok then. What source did draw from to define it?

Praxis (process) - Wikipedia

 

[4x4toy]

Hi there! It has come to my understanding that you're all Biblical Fundamentalists (I'm so very sorry if I am wrong). I'm sorry if this seems rude or abrupt but I'm working on an assessment for my Religion class about how Biblical/Christian Fundamentalists would interpret a piece of scripture. I'm a fundamentalist myself but have come to the understanding that others may interpret it differently to me. I was wondering if I could get your input of you were willing to do so for me. No matter your choice it is greatly appreciated Have a nice day!

The passage is Genesis 2:22-25
"22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

My take is that for Adam ,no suitable helpmate was found so Eve was formed from Adam's rib . She was a female Adam .. Same size but in relation as a female , same intellect , same everything except she was female .. Perfect .. If she had been too dumb , too smart, too beautiful , too ugly too anything then he may have told God "she was too smart, too dumb , too anything , but he couldn't have a reason to sin .. God provided the perfect helpmate and had no excuse, He sinned on his own ..

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Praxis (process) - Wikipedia

Ok. Thanks for providing that, OWG. So, by the basic definition you've cited from this source, we find the following meaning:

Praxis (Ancient Greek: πρᾶξις) is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, embodied, or realized.

Essentially, when I use the term in relation to "interpretation," I am only inferring the idea that there is both a person's THEORY by which they THINK interpretation happens (whether or not it actually does happen that way), and this is combined also with the person's PRACTICE (which is what they actually end up doing when attempting to read and understand a text or message).

With both THEORY and PRACTICE combined, we have was equates essentially to a person's PRAXIS, and this can vary from person to person.

The point of all of this is that, as Jesus and the Apostles themselves imply to us, we all have to be careful when handling the message of the Bible so as to do our best (with the Holy Spirit's help) to interpret and apply the Bible as it was intended.

Praxis is really nothing more than a descriptive term to point out to someone that 'such and such' dynamic is taking place within the interpreting process, and we each need to be careful about our own person PRAXIS. See what I'm getting at? It's really nothing more than an aspect of Hermeneutics and Exegesis (or at least, it should be).

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok. Thanks for providing that, OWG. So, by the basic definition you've cited from this source, we find the following meaning:

Praxis (Ancient Greek: πρᾶξις) is the process by which a theory, lesson, or skill is enacted, embodied, or realized.

Essentially, when I use the term in relation to "interpretation," I am only inferring the idea that there is both a person's THEORY by which they THINK interpretation happens (whether or not it actually does happen that way), and this is combined also with the person's PRACTICE (which is what they actually end up doing when attempting to read and understand a text or message).

With both THEORY and PRACTICE combined, we have was equates essentially to a person's PRAXIS, and this can vary from person to person.

The point of all of this is that, as Jesus and the Apostles themselves imply to us, we all have to be careful when handling the message of the Bible so as to do our best (with the Holy Spirit's help) to interpret and apply the Bible as it was intended.

Praxis is really nothing more than a descriptive term to point out to someone that 'such and such' dynamic is taking place within the interpreting process, and we each need to be careful about our own person PRAXIS. See what I'm getting at? It's really nothing more than an aspect of Hermeneutics and Exegesis (or at least, it should be).

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

Got it, but I think the introduction of such an unfamiliar term can sidetrack or confuse the topic. What you're (simply) saying is that we all interpret scripture differently, for different reasons.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Got it, but I think the introduction of such an unfamiliar term can sidetrack or confuse the topic. What you're (simply) saying is that we all interpret scripture differently, for different reasons.

Well, as a philosopher and a former teacher, I don't think that introducing 'new' terms confuses anyone, other than perhaps those who are too lazy to look up the meanings of said terms. (And it today's technical, internet driven environment, the work of looking up a term or two shouldn't be too difficult a chore. But, that's my opinion. I respect yours, and I do understand what you're getting at.)

Peace,
2Philovoid

 

[4x4toy]

I also entertain the thought that perhaps other mankind male and female may have been created with Adam and Eve on the 6th day but without a law or specific purpose other than populate and subdue the Earth .. Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden with a particular law or command to tend the Garden , fellowship with God and do not eat of the forbidden fruit , right as God placed the herb and plant of the field in the Garden.... I also think maybe none of the other females were found suitable . Maybe the others are where all races originated and the wife of Cain was found after Adam and Eve were kicked out f the Garden .. Later all races and genetic possibilities we have today were represented through Noah, the direct line back to Adam and Eve , his sons and their wives .. Eve is the mother of all the living ..

 

[DeaconDean]

As do I but I was hoping for a deeper explanation I guess? What do each of the lines mean to you e.g Do you legitimately believe that God took a rib from Adam and created Eve? I apologise if this sounds interrogative

Yes!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Man, in his DNA and his makeup, now longs for his missing half - God made it so that there is a form of bonding between man and woman and a longing for that bonding. It's related to the missing rib man has.

I don't think most men are that sentimental about marriage. Also, men aren't missing a rib as many erroneously believe.

Regenerating ribs: Adam and that missing rib - creation.com

While the article doesn't state it I think the rib is the only bone that will regrow completely. I think the doctors take bone from the lowest ribs (called the 'floating ribs' because they aren't connected to either the spine or the sternum and can be removed without seriously affecting the function of the rib cage).

It is the perfect metaphor in regard to the 'need' to have a women in your life. If you do you will have to give up something but will gain a lot, including the legacy of children. Or, you don't have to and can have a very good life as a single man.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think a lot of people also forget that this portion is a parenthesis.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[EmmaCat]

I'm sorry, I don't take part in religious classes' assignments. But I'll pray for you!

 

[Greg Merrill]

As do I but I was hoping for a deeper explanation I guess? What do each of the lines mean to you e.g Do you legitimately believe that God took a rib from Adam and created Eve? I apologise if this sounds interrogative

I believe it literally that God took a rib with flesh on it.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I think a lot of people also forget that this portion is a parenthesis.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Till all are one. Oh what a glorious day that will be.

 

[Jaxxi]

Hi there! It has come to my understanding that you're all Biblical Fundamentalists (I'm so very sorry if I am wrong). I'm sorry if this seems rude or abrupt but I'm working on an assessment for my Religion class about how Biblical/Christian Fundamentalists would interpret a piece of scripture. I'm a fundamentalist myself but have come to the understanding that others may interpret it differently to me. I was wondering if I could get your input of you were willing to do so for me. No matter your choice it is greatly appreciated Have a nice day!

The passage is Genesis 2:22-25
"22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame."

I am just a Christian, and I take that passage quite literally. That is the natural order that God created, and they were naked, innocent and beautiful. They were supposed to live forever. How sad that they fell from His favor.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I take this literally, though I use to think of the rib as a clean bone. I know understand that the rib had some flesh attached to it as well when taken from Adam, thus the words "bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh". V. 24 also is foundational for the "one man, one woman" aspect of marriage, along with Mark 10:6-9. V.25 "naked" or without physical clothing, though some teach they were clothed with the shekinah glory of God until they sinned, and then the glory departed "and the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked:" V.7. Unless it is obvious, the Bible was meant to be taken literally. When Jesus said "I am the door" in John 10:9, it is obvious that He is not speaking of a literally door of wood or metal, but spiritually of the entryway to Heaven. The same is true of eating his flesh and blood in John 6, where he explains that in John 6:63.

 

[Susan Swanger Zipf]

I have often wondered if Adam had ribs protecting all his internal organs - including kidneys and intestines. Perhaps God took the bottom half of them to make the woman.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have often wondered if Adam had ribs protecting all his internal organs - including kidneys and intestines. Perhaps God took the bottom half of them to make the woman.

God created the angels ex nihilo - out of nothing.
God created Lucifer ex materia - out of his own spirit substance to be his 'loved one'.
God so made Eve ex materia, out of the substance of Adam, to reflect the way he created Lucifer.

The story of Eve was not only a physical reenactment of the creation of Lucifer, but a physical reenactment of the rebellion of Lucifer.

 

[Jaxxi]

It is literal correct? Men have one less rib than women...correct? if they do, it’s literal. If not it is figurtive!

 

[JackRT]

Men have one less rib than women...correct?

No, they do not.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is literal correct? Men have one less rib than women...correct? if they do, it’s literal. If not it is figurtive!

People who have lost a limb still have kids with all their limbs. Losing a finger doesn't change your genetic code from ten fingers to nine. Lol.

 

[JackRT]

People who have lost a limb still have kids with all their limbs. Losing a finger doesn't change your genetic code from ten fingers to nine. Lol.

True. My father lost a leg and my mother was missing five fingers and I am normal --- well as far as anyone can tell from a block away.