Which “Bone” Was Eve Made From?
So what’s wrong with the rib meaning the rib?
First, the Hebrew word used for rib is tsela (צְלָעֹת), but this word never means ‘rib’ anywhere else in the Bible
It usually means ‘side’. In architecture, it is used of a side-room or cell, or of rafters or ceiling beams. “The common idea in all these different meanings seems to be that of a tangent or branch extending out from a central structure or body. Given this basic sense, Adam’s tsela would seem to refer to a “limb” or “appendage” — something that jutted out from his body.”
Second, the image of a rib does not fit with the etiological agenda of the larger story. This is a narrative chock full of origin-myths — tales explaining how things began: where humans came from, why snakes crawl, why people wear clothes, why women have labor pains, why marriage. But removing a rib from Adam and using it to create Eve explains nothing like this. Men don’t have one less rib than women.
Third, the story is full of allusions to human sexuality (being naked and unashamed; recognizing they are naked; covering their genitals), but the rib detail does not relate to any of the sexual differences between men and women. It stands out as something of an anomaly for this reason, too.
Fourth, the rib story does not leave us with being able to make very much of what is meant by God “closing up” the flesh afterwards. Genesis 2:21:
And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof
“Again, considering the etiological (explanatory) nature of the story, this statement seems intended to explain the existence of some suture- or scar-like mark on the torsos of human males that is not found on females. But there is no such mark on males – at least not near their ribs.” (p.5)
Hebrew Bible scholar, Ziony Zevit, suggests that the Hebrew tsela might really refer to the baculum. From that Wikipedia article:
In another, non scientific, context, it has been speculated that Adam’s “rib” mentioned in the Eden narrative of Creation really refers to the baculum. The Hebrew term translated as “rib” (tsela`) can also mean “side”, “chamber”, as well as any strut-like supporting structure, e.g. a beam or a tree trunk. The existence of the baculum is unlikely to escape the notice of pastoralisthunter-gatherer cultures . . . . , but there is no specific term for it – nor for the penis itself – in Biblical Hebrew.
The benefit of this explanation is that it matches the etiological nature of the Genesis story. We have an explanation for why humans, unlike just about all other male animal, lack a penis bone. It was removed by God in order to make Eve from it.
And the Genesis account says God “built” Eve. “The image seems to be that of piecing together bones and other body parts to create Eve rather than forming her out of clay, as in the creation of the man and the animals.” (p.8)
Further, the penis bone is taken from the generative organ, and thus, unlike the rib, suits the idea of the production of a new being.
If God removed the penis bone from Adam then we also see an explanation for God “closing over” the flesh afterwards. This detail explains the “surgery scar” or raphe, the seam joining the two parts of the organ.
Zevit also thinks that the “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” is another clue.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:23)
There is no single word for penis in biblical Hebrew. Various euphemisms are used instead. Tsela may be one of these; bone another (the bone would have been observed in other animals and its absence in human males noted); and flesh yet another. Elsewhere the Bible uses “flesh” to refer to the penis: Ezekiel 44:7, 9 speaks of “uncircumcised in flesh”; Exodus 28:42, of undergarments required to cover the naked “flesh” of priests; Leviticus 15:2-3 refers to “the running issue” of “flesh”. Ezekiel 16:26 and 23:20 are famous for describing the penises (“flesh”) of Egyptians as very large, as large as those of asses and horses.
Haha - interesting interpretation indeed.
Putting aside that I don't believe in the Christian Myths: it would be illogical for 'God's alteration of Adam's body' to become genetic and therefor passed on - if he had it, and it was removed (whatever it was) that doesn't mean that his offspring would not have it via genetics.
If I was born with 5 fingers on one hand - and one was removed for some reason - that doesn't mean that my children would then be born with 4. Simply removing something from you does not alter your genetics which you pass on.
So it could have been his sternum for all we know - regardless - it explains nothing.
Dammit! It's magic! You don't question magic!
Haha - interesting interpretation indeed.
Putting aside that I don't believe in the Christian Myths: it would be illogical for 'God's alteration of Adam's body' to become genetic and therefor passed on - if he had it, and it was removed (whatever it was) that doesn't mean that his offspring would not have it via genetics.
If I was born with 5 fingers on one hand - and one was removed for some reason - that doesn't mean that my children would then be born with 4. Simply removing something from you does not alter your genetics which you pass on.
So it could have been his sternum for all we know - regardless - it explains nothing.
Aw you're trying to get all scientifical.
It's as Aunt Spiker says. Removing something from Adam would not cause his offspring to lack that trait. If you cut the tails off two mice and let them breed their children will have tails because removing a body part does not change the gamete genetics.
Genesis 2:23-24 KJV said:And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Genesis 3:22-23 KJV said:And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
In Hebrew, the name Adam is closely related to adom (red) and adamah (soil). Thus, one may intuit that red clay is integral to Adam. The Hebrew word for Eve is Chavah, which means Life.
assuming they spoke Hebrew? gotta wonder what they had to talk about..no kids, easy to harvest food,, hardly any work, ....In Hebrew, the name Adam is closely related to adom (red) and adamah (soil). Thus, one may intuit that red clay is integral to Adam. The Hebrew word for Eve is Chavah, which means Life.
Torah is silent on the language of Adam and Eve. Hebrew is considered to be in the Canaanite branch of Semitic languages. The earliest written Hebrew discovered so far dates to the Tenth Century BCE (ten centuries before the birth of Christ). How long Hebrew existed strictly as an oral language (previous to script) is unknown.assuming they spoke Hebrew?
ThankQ Bill :2wave:BTW, nice avatar...
So I ran across this interesting interpretation:
So there you have it, Eve was made from Adam's baculum, which provides an explanation of why humans don't have one. What do you think?
It is argued by some people that men are superior to women. They present the following verses in support of their view: الرِّجَالُ قَوَّامُونَ عَلَى النِّسَاءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَى بَعْضٍ وَبِمَا أَنفَقُوا مِنْ أَمْوَالِهِم (34:4) Men are the guardians of women, because God has given the one more preference over the other, and because they support them. (4:34) وَ لِلِّرجَالِ عَلَيْهِنَّ دَرَجَه (228:2) And the husbands hold a degree of superiority over them. (2:228) It needs to be appreciated that as per the Qur’ān (see, for example: 3:195 and 4:1), men and women as human beings are equal and deserve equal respect. However, they have been entrusted with different responsibilities in a family set-up which make them superior to one another in various respects. According to the Qur’ān (4:34), as far as a husband is concerned, one sphere of his superiority is his status as the head of the family alluded to in 2:228 with the words “husbands are one degree superior to their wives”. There are certain spheres in which women by nature – physical, physiological as well as psychological – are superior to men and much more suitable to do certain tasks. Thus 4:34 speaks of the relative superiority of a husband to his wife – that too in responsibility and status – in just one sphere and cannot be generalized to men and women. Two reasons have been given in 4:34 for granting the husband this status: Firstly, because generally they are physically and temperamentally more suited to this task and secondly, because they have been entrusted with the responsibility of earning for the family. It also needs to be appreciated in this regard that Islam does not forbid women to earn a living. It has only relieved them of the responsibility of earning, which lies upon their husbands. It also needs to be understood that the verse does not say that the one among the husband or wife who supports the family should become the head; husbands, whether their wives earn or not, are liable for this responsibility. A woman may earn if she likes or if some need arises, but since she has not been entrusted with this duty, she has not been given the governing position in the family. Here it would be appropriate to analyze another concept which has also contributed to the notion that men are superior to women. As per a Hadīth, a woman is created from the rib of man referring to the fact that Eve was created from Adam’s rib and thus was a secondary being. The text of the Hadīth is: عن أبي هُرَيْرَةَ رضي الله عنه قال قال رسول اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم اسْتَوْصُوا بِالنِّسَاءِ فإن الْمَرْأَةَ خُلِقَتْ من ضِلَعٍ وَإِنَّ أَعْوَجَ شَيْءٍ في الضِّلَعِ أَعْلَاهُ فَإِنْ ذَهَبْتَ تُقِيمُهُ كَسَرْتَهُ وَإِنْ تَرَكْتَهُ لم يَزَلْ أَعْوَجَ فَاسْتَوْصُوا بِالنِّسَاءِ Abū Hurayrah reports that Allah’s Prophet said: “Treat women nicely for a woman is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion; so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely.” It needs to be appreciated that according to the Qur’ān, Eve was not created from Adam’s rib. The first verse of Sūah Nisā’ explicitly states that the first man and woman (Adam and Eve) were created directly by the Almighty: يَاأَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُوا رَبَّكُمْ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُمْ مِنْ نَفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالًا كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاءً وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءَلُونَ بِهِ وَالْأَرْحَامَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا (1:4) Mankind! Fear your Lord, Who created you from a single person and created, of like species his mate, and from these two scattered countless men and women [in this world], and fear Allah through whom you seek mutual help and fear breaking blood relationships. Indeed God is watching over you. (4:1) Some people translate this verse as: “It is He Who has created you from a single person (Adam) and then He created from him his wife (Eve).” They explain this verse by saying that Eve was created from the rib of Adam. This misleading translation has probably arisen because of a literal translation of the Arabic words: “وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا viz. and created from it [–the initial soul–] his wife.” Actually, the word مِنْهَا (from the soul) does not imply that “Eve was made from Adam”; it rather implies that Eve was made from the same species as Adam. A similar verse points to this interpretation: وَاللّهُ جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا (72:16) And it is God who has made from your species your mates. (16:72) A literal translation of the words جَعَلَ لَكُم مِّنْ أَنفُسِكُمْ أَزْوَاجًا of the above quoted verse (which are similar to وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا) would mean “it is God Who has created your mates from you,” implying that every wife is made from her husband as Eve was. This of course is incorrect; the word anfus (plural of nafs) in this verse means “genre”, “species” and not “physical being”. As far as the actual H~adīth quoted above is concerned, it needs to be appreciated that in Arabic the words “created from” do not necessarily refer to the substance of creation; they can also refer to the nature of something. For example, the Qur’ān says: “Man has been created from hastiness,” (21:37). This does not of course mean that man’s substance is hastiness; it only refers to his nature. Secondly, if all the textual variants of this Hadīth are collected and analyzed, it becomes evident that the Prophet (sws) has compared the nature of a woman with a rib. The comparison subtly alludes to the fact that a woman’s nature is very delicate and tender as well as a bit adamant. The Prophet (sws) has advised men to treat them tactfully keeping in view this nature. Instead of forcing them to accept a particular point of view, men should try to convince and persuade them.
Dammit! It's magic! You don't question magic!
Haha - interesting interpretation indeed.
Putting aside that I don't believe in the Christian Myths: it would be illogical for 'God's alteration of Adam's body' to become genetic and therefor passed on - if he had it, and it was removed (whatever it was) that doesn't mean that his offspring would not have it via genetics.
If I was born with 5 fingers on one hand - and one was removed for some reason - that doesn't mean that my children would then be born with 4. Simply removing something from you does not alter your genetics which you pass on.
So it could have been his sternum for all we know - regardless - it explains nothing.
Haha - prestidigitation, Sheldon Cooper style . . .
Aw you're trying to get all scientifical.
Who created you from a single person
this verse means that evolution is a fact...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?