why a rib?
creating woman from Adam's heart would have been so much more meaningful
Good question. At present I think God chose the bone, the rib perhaps because He knew that when people saw a dead body decompose the BONE took longer.
The longer lasting quality of a BONE perhaps signals something eternal (of course on a comparative scale to soft flesh like the heart).
I said before Paul contrasts the first man Adam with Christ the second man.
I said Paul writes of the positive blessings of Christ the second man, being super-abundantly surpassing in a "much more" way the misfortune stemming from Adam.
If you can follow, In this figure Adam (a type of Christ) is something eternal. This eternal part is taken from Christ to be built into an eternal counterpart and wife TO Christ. God withdraws something eternal and living FROM Christ to farm something to be brought BACK to Christ as His eternal counterpart.
The rib is central. God did not take a bone from the foot. God did not take a bone from the skull. He took a bone from the center of Adam surrounding the heart.
In short the rib bone I think signifies the unbroken eternal life in Christ the Son of God.
God caused Adam to sleep. In his deep sleep the rib was taken out to form his wife.
Christ "slept" on the cross in death. Out from Christ the blood and water came out of His side.
"And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in its place.
And Jehovah God built the rib, which He had taken from the man, into a woman and brought the to the man.
And the man said, This time this is bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called Woman
Because out of Man this one was taken.
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:21-24)
That is the first man. Now the second man "slept" in crucifixion and the redeeming blood and water streamed out of His wounded side by which He builds into the church, the body of Christ, that become New Jerusalem to be His eternal bride.
"Then the Jews . . . requested of Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man and of the other man who had been crucified with Him.
But coming to Jesus, when they saw that He had already died, they did not break His legs; But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately there came out blood and water. " (John 19:31a-35)
Out of the side of Adam came that which was formed to be his wife.
Out of the side of the Son of God came that which produced the eternal Wife of Christ.
Paul used Genesis 2:24-25 as an explanation of Christ and His church being joined as Husband and wife.
"Because we are members of His Body.
For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
This mystery is great, but I speak with regard to Christ and the church." (Ephesians 5:30-33)
The formation of the first couple is a window into the nature of the formation of the eternal union of Christ and His redeemed people who become His corporate Wife.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYes, but, I responded to a post of yours that included my name, so I assumed your comment was directed at me as well.
No I don't think so.
Billions of years of evolution for sonship to arrive on the planet only for him to describe his own origins as dirt and meaningless, betraying all his ancestors, enduring their struggles for him to exist, and replacing it all with a couple of perfectly formed humans in a garden.
I didn't go far enough.
God forbid I should interfere with/in your argument with sonship.
Just please don't lump me in with his method of framing an argument and assuming to apply a stereotypical response to us both.
To be honest I only skim sonship's post unless I see something I want to dig into deeper.
I believe in being concise. BTW, I'm not personally offended.
@secondson saidIt was probably a reply to a reply, but sorry about that. I was responding to sonship's comments.
Yes, but, I responded to a post of yours that included my name, so I assumed your comment was directed at me as well.
God forbid I should interfere with/in your argument with sonship.
Just please don't lump me in with his method of framing an argument and assuming to apply a stereotypical response to us both.
To be honest I only skim sonship's post unless I see something I want to dig into deeper.
I believe in being concise. BTW, I'm not personally offended.
Billions of years of evolution for sonship to arrive on the planet only for him to describe his own origins as dirt and meaningless, betraying all his ancestors, enduring their struggles for him to exist, and replacing it all with a couple of perfectly formed humans in a garden.
Your religion is nicely arranged. But it is not as meaningful to me as a God with a purpose, a plan, love, and a demonstration of what He is after in history - Christ, the second man, the Son of God.
I think your view is based on accidents, and more accidents, over a very long stretch of time. You seem annoyed that I don't take it as obvious orthodoxy.
And I don't mock it as you mock Genesis. I did ask a few things.
You're the only one who can raise tough questions about what I believe?
Can't I examine your beliefs too?
Ghost,
Now I also believe man was made of the dust of the earth. But I hold that life was derived from life. An eternal and uncreated Person created among millions of other kinds of lives ONE unique one on this planet made in His image and according to His likeness.
Let me ask you this about your belief. If the clock could be rolled back and these lucky accidents were to occur in a completely different way, would the same kind of human being be produced?
Or if the clock were re-wound back a billion years and a completely different set of accidents occur, would the entire biosphere contain entirely different millions of species?
If so do you think AGAIN among this new great variety there would be a one single most advanced one (non-human) but singularly occupying the most advanced place?
That is not a mock. That is a legitimate question about the system you propose.
@sonship
"Now I also believe man was made of the dust of the earth."
Where have I ever said I believe that? Why are you saying 'also'?
@sonship saidThe story of creation in Genesis was clearly intended as an analogy. It is a story destroyed a thousand times over by modern understanding and scientific discoveries. It is impossible to take anyone seriously who views it as a literal account and creates a thread entitled 'Why Adam's Rib Became Eve.'
@Ghost-of-a-DukeBillions of years of evolution for sonship to arrive on the planet only for him to describe his own origins as dirt and meaningless, betraying all his ancestors, enduring their struggles for him to exist, and replacing it all with a couple of perfectly formed humans in a garden.
Your religion is nicely arranged. But it is not as meani ...[text shortened]... e only one who can raise tough questions about what I believe?
Can't I examine your beliefs too?
@sonship said'Lucky accidents' are your words. if you care about my beliefs why are you inventing them?
Let me ask you this about your belief. If the clock could be rolled back and these lucky accidents were to occur in a completely different way, would the same kind of human being be produced?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYou did write:
@sonship
"Now I also believe man was made of the dust of the earth."
Where have I ever said I believe that? Why are you saying 'also'?
Actually, we evolved as a species. I'm sure I sent you the memo.
Everything I have ever heard about this described dirt, dust, or soil (either dry or watery) being the pre-curser to a living organism.
How does your view of life deriving from non-living matter by natural selection differ?
@sonship saidHumans are fortunate indeed to be the dominant species. In 1000 years, it's quite possible we might not be. (And yes, could quite easily never have been).
Ghost,
Now I also believe man was made of the dust of the earth. But I hold that life was derived from life. An eternal and uncreated Person created among millions of other kinds of lives ONE unique one on this planet made in His image and according to His likeness.
Let me ask you this about your belief. If the clock could be rolled back and these lucky accidents w ...[text shortened]... dvanced place?
That is not a mock. That is a legitimate question about the system you propose.
@sonship saidI do 'not' believe we evolved from dirt/mud or as kelly liked to say, from scum.
You did write:Actually, we evolved as a species. I'm sure I sent you the memo.
Everything I have ever heard about this described dirt, dust, or soil (either dry or watery) being the pre-curser to a living organism.
How does your view of life deriving from non-living matter by natural selection differ?
And if I knew the precise recipe for life, I'd create it.
I do 'not' believe we evolved from dirt/mud or as kelly liked to say, from scum.
You've told us what you do not believe.
You've reminded us of what kelly "liked to say" . . . "scum".
Now that you've dispensed with that unpleasant memory, what DO you believe we evolved from?
If not soil, not dirt, not mud, not clay, not watery " prebiotic soup" perhaps . . . but WHAT ?
This is not a mock. This is an invitation for you to explain your system of we evolved as a species.
And if I knew the precise recipe for life, I'd create it.
" I don't know." [paraphrased] I take as a legitimate answer when these things about mankind are involved.
So, we evolved as a species but the precise recipe for life getting started you do not know. It is a mystery. It is mysterious.
While I consider that, let me ask:
If I say that God works in mysterious ways I get scoffs and mocks from atheists like you. But if you say evolution works in mysterious ways, that's quite alright.
Shall we just leave this at "we evolved as a species" worked in mysterious ways?