Were Adam and Eve created at the same time or not?

Many deceivers claim that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other in the description of the creation of mankind and therefore they think that this way they could debunk the whole bible with the claim of being inconsistent or with the claim of making no sense scientifically (Biology is science, creating a woman from a man’s rib is impossible according to natural laws that any believer in the bible would claim were also created by God, therefore claiming that the discrepancy could be resolved by claiming that with regards to mankind’s creation the story in chapter 2 explains the story in chapter 1 is unacceptable). Therefore, how do we settle the discrepancy without denouncing our faith?


As we (believers) always claim, read the bible carefully and pay attention to the context, let the bible explain itself and don’t believe anyone who cannot support his claims when you ask him to prove them from the bible, while reading the bible, so that you could not be deceived. Don’t believe anyone without checking everything you are told first and verifying every claim, the bible clearly warns us against deceivers (In this article, I put only two warnings out of dozens, I bet that you all are aware of many more):


2 Timothy 4:3-4: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”


Acts 20:28-30: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.


Now, lets look at what the bible says about the creation of mankind:


Genesis 1:26-27: “Then God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky,over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”


Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it”


Does it mean that Eve didn’t exist yet? Lets see:


Genesis 2:18: “The Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”


It seems to be so, but can it be?

Remember, we must assume the bible is consistent because it was inspired by God and God never lies and never changes (read Numbers 23:19), therefore, we must conclude that we misunderstood, but then, what and why?


Lets continue to read and let the bible explain:


Genesis 2:19-20: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.”


As we all know, the word “make” and the word “create” do not mean the same thing.

We all can make things happen, but in the biblical context, only God can create, but in this case God didn’t use the word “create”, why?


The bible answers:


Genesis 2:21: “So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. “

You must ask “Wait a minute, that doesn’t make sense! This is creation as this is supernatural! we cannot do that! What does that mean?” , but don’t worry, keep on reading and it will make things clearer:

Genesis 2:22: “Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.”

This makes less sense than the previous verse, doesn’t it? Lets continue to read and try to understand:

Genesis 2:23: “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.”

Was that why the woman was called “woman”? In order to understand that, please keep in mind that the old testament was originally written in Hebrew, not English, as English didn’t even exist at that time, and each noun in Hebrew (and any other Semitic language) has a gender, therefore, it is not possible to understand the context of the last verse without knowing the Hebrew words for “man” and “woman”, so here they are: “Ish” for “Man” and “Isha” for “Woman”, I have to tell you, that for animals that are not hermaphrodites (such as slugs) or without a gender (such as jellyfish), the feminine form of the Hebrew name of that animal ends with the suffix “a” or “et”, while the masculine form (of the same animal) never does, therefore, simply put, “Isha” is the feminine form of “Ish”, so we have to understand the reasoning at the end of the verse as a metaphor, that we could understand from the next verse:

Genesis 2:24: “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

Do they? As we all know only conjoined twins share their own flesh (one flesh, two people, could you think of any other option?), this is proof that whatever doesn’t make sense literally has to be a metaphor, an allegory or a parable. In this case, one flesh resembles marriage, which is a form of unity between a man and a woman (explained in the first part of the same verse), therefore that verse only makes sense as a metaphor.

Lets try again to understand Genesis 2:22, now that we know that it didn’t literally mean something nonsensical that couldn’t be true, it has to be a metaphor as well, but a metaphor of what?

In order to understand that, we have to go back to Genesis 2:18, that makes clear what the metaphor means, it is not good for the man to be alone! We all know that God never lies, this is a fact!

This is so easy to prove, even to people who want a proof from real life, because they don’t believe in God or that the bible was inspired by him, so lets give an example from real life to show them what happens to people who think they know better than God or refuse to learn from his word.

Look at China, for example: too many men who can’t find women are a social disaster!

The shortage in women causes a social unrest, crime, moral destruction, prostitution, fornication, slavery, violence, abuse of men by women because we all know what happens when one side’s options are way better than the others because of an imbalance created by the worst sin of all, murder! The shortage in women in China wasn’t a given, parents who wanted a son but had a daughter murdered their daughter in order to try to have a son in the next attempt, because they were not allowed to have more than one child. When you disobey God you bear the consequences, sooner or later, and everything happens for a reason, whether we recognize it or not.

God didn’t command us to get married, but he did tell us that it is not good for the man to be alone! He did command us not to murder in Exodus 20:13, therefore we all should learn from God’s words and obey his commandments. It is okay not to get married, but it can be harmful (unfortunately all of us do some things that are harmful for us, some of them were not prohibited by God because he knew in advance that we have many weaknesses and we could never be as perfect as him, as we are human beings with a sinful nature, and his commandments were given to us in order to prosper us, not to harm us, As written in Jeremiah 29:11, therefore, he didn’t forbid us everything that could harm us, as the harm from disobeying him is way more significant than any harm we could do to ourselves, but allowing us to harm others would not allow mankind to survive and therefore destroy some of the main purposes of the creation, which is why deliberately harming others, assuming they were innocent, is never allowed). Murder is prohibited and the consequences are eternal.

Any (straight) man who is without a woman (alone in that verse’s context) feel like a part of him is missing (metaphorically), God deliberately made men need women, otherwise they could not multiply and they would have extincted very quickly. We have to understand that we were naturally made this way for a reason, and God told us the reason.

We still need to understand the meaning of Genesis 2:21 , that is a metaphor as well, so lets dig into it in order to understand, while we sleep we dream, we tend not to remember most of our dreams, some of the dreams we do remember make no sense at all, from that we understand that sleep resembles a state of unawareness to what happens around us and the way that sometimes our interpretations are based on our imagination and not on facts.

Taking the rib resembles making men understand that something will always be missing for them as long as they don’t have women, men need women whether they recognize this fact or not, we know this is true, God said so. We always miss something that was taken away from us more than something we never had and we usually want something that was taken away from us more than something we never had, but for straight men, wanting (and needing) women is always significant, regardless of whether they just came into puberty or lost a woman they loved, which is why even a (straight) man that never had a woman (in a relationship with commitment to each other) wants and needs a woman just as much as a (straight) man who lost a woman. Closing up the place with flesh resembles “mending” him in a way that would not let him forget what he’s missing when he regains his awareness. Now this verse makes sense.

You may ask, why did God bother to tell us Genesis 2:19-20 ? Would any sane person think that a man could be satisfied with animals only? Of course not! Yet, some try that and say “My dog is enough for me” or “My cat is enough for me”, but this is a lie, no (straight) man can ever be satisfied without a woman, as this is unnatural, God made it so. God wanted to make it clear that men need women and they could not be substituted by animals, it could never work in any other way. God planned it to be this way and made it so.

Lets get back to Genesis 2:15, I asked, did Eve exist at that time or not?

Well, of course she did!

God created her at the same time he created Adam, as described in Genesis 1:26-27, but where was she at that time?

We don’t know, but what we do know is that for the time referred to in Genesis 2:15 only the man was put in the garden of Eden, so he didn’t meet the woman yet. The first time he met her was Genesis 2:23 . Lets not lie to ourselves and say things we don’t know. Jesus told us that some things will only be revealed once he returns again.

Don’t take my word for it, please read John 16:12. It was not time to tell us that secret (among many others) yet.

I know that I made gay people very angry whenever I mentioned that some claims referred to straight people only, not to them and they may say that God made them the way they are, they didn’t choose being the way they are and so on, but as that is not the subject of this article, I will regard that subject in another one. I can assure you that the answers for most (not all, read the previous paragraph, especially John 16:12) of their questions can be found in the bible.

If you want to know more, please read the bible.

Comments

  • JanJan Posts: 247

    Hi @ASN_032

    Thanks for joining our small community.

    Let me give you my thoughts on your contribution.

    Whereas I generally have no problem with metaphorical interpretation of scripture if that interpretation is the most reasonable one, I have an objection here.

    You noted correctly that the English language has two different words, create (Hebrew bara) and make (Hebrew asah).

    bara means creation from nothing, like in Genesis 1:27, God made man in his image from nothing.

    You also noted correctly that God made (not created) the woman from the man's rib. It can actually mean "tissue" (see here). This is not bara, as tissue or a rib is pre-existing material.

    At the same time, God made the man (male) from the dust in Genesis 2:7, which is also pre-existing material. This is also not bara here, but asah.

    I think it is inconsistent to take the one asah (of the woman) as metaphorical, and the asah of the man not. How to reconcile the "bara" of Genesis 1 with the "asah" of Genesis 2 is a different question. I've not come across this issue before, so here are my initial thoughts.

    We are made of body and soul. Body and soul are distinct items, which therefore have necessarily gone through a distinct creation process. I don't think that Genesis 1:27 is about the creation about the human body at all. Our bodies are not made in the image of God. God doesn't have a body. He is spirit. Genesis 1:27 is about the creation of the human soul, which he created male and female, right from the beginning.

    Genesis 2, however, is about the creation of the human bodies. The male body he created from dust, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life. That's where the soul (that had been created before) enters the body. And later on, the woman was created from "tissue" from Adam's side, and surely she also received the breath of life, and with it her soul.

  • ASN_032ASN_032 Posts: 26

    Hi @Jan,

    As mentioned, I would also like you to prove your claims from the bible, where in the bible does it say that only souls were created in Genesis 1:27 ? Explaining the word "image" metaphorically wouldn't necessarily mean soul, it would also be necessary to explain why should it be soul. I can support my claim that it is unnecessary to interpret "image" as "soul" due to the word "us", which means we should look for God's partner(s), one partner we could agree upon is Jesus, some would also claim angels, therefore, since we know Jesus had an image, that would be enough in order not to need to claim that there was no image to refer, if you debunk that claim from the bible and support your claim from the bible I could accept it, if not I would have to disagree.

    You also need to explain, from the bible, why you interpreted "rib" as "side", the word in Hebrew is "Tzela" or in Hebrew script "צלע" and that means "rib" in Hebrew as well. If you could show me any proof from the bible that it meant "side" rather than "rib" I could accept it, if not, then I choose to stick to the words written in the bible as they are.

    As I always do, I expect every claim made about the bible to be proven from/by the bible. In order to interpret what I claimed to be metaphors I showed examples in the bible within the same context, I expect you (or anyone who makes any claim about any verse in the bible) to do the same.

  • @ASN_032 wrote: Lets get back to Genesis 2:15, I asked, did Eve exist at that time or not?

    Well, of course she did!

    Welcome 😀

    When God breathed life into Adam, God created cells whose chromosomes included X and Y (human male).

    Considering human male and females have the same number of ribs => https://humananatomylibrary.co/s/male-vs-female-rib-count.asp am wondering if "rib" best describes the bone removed from Adam that God used to fashion Eve with cells having two X chromosomes (human female). Possibly Adam was created from dust with an extra bone (that Adam could touch), which was removed for Eve's fashioning while not being in chromosome plans (so humans do not have a baculum while a number of placental mammals have one).

    Keep Smiling 😀

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,324

    Welcome to the forum and thanks @ASN_032 for posting this interesting study.

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,391

    @ASN_032 said:

    Many deceivers claim that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict each other in the description of the creation of mankind and therefore they think that this way they could debunk the whole bible with the claim of being inconsistent or with the claim of making no sense scientifically (Biology is science, creating a woman from a man’s rib is impossible according to natural laws that any believer in the bible would claim were also created by God, therefore claiming that the discrepancy could be resolved by claiming that with regards to mankind’s creation the story in chapter 2 explains the story in chapter 1 is unacceptable). Therefore, how do we settle the discrepancy without denouncing our faith?

    As a follower of Jesus who claims the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 do in fact conflict with each other, I feel the need to point out that said conflict does not relate to Eve's place in the sequence of humanity's creation - i.e. was she created after or at the same time as Adam? - but rather with the sequence of creation writ large as reported in the two accounts. Here are the two sequences:

    Genesis 1:

    • Light - separation of day and night (Gen 1.3-5)
    • Sky/Heaven (Gen 1.6-8)
    • Land and sea; vegetation (Gen 1.9-10)
    • Vegetation (Gen 1.11-13)
    • Sun/Stars/Moon (Gen 1.14-19)
    • Birds and sea creatures (Gen 1.20-23)
    • Land creatures (Gen 1.24-25)
    • Humanity (Gen 1.26-31)

    Genesis 2:

    • The ground of the earth, but no vegetation (Gen 2.5)
    • Humanity (male) (Gen 2.6-7)
    • Garden of Eden (Gen 2.8-9)
    • Rivers (Gen 2.10-14)
    • Birds and land animals (Gen 2.18-20)
    • Humanity (female) (Gen 2.21-23)

    The proposed conflict between those two accounts relates to the position of humanity's creation in each sequence. In the Genesis 1 account, God creates humanity AFTER vegetation, birds, and land/sea creatures. In the Genesis 2 account, God creates humanity BEFORE vegetation, birds, and land animals.

    You may well disagree with my contention those two sequences conflict - I will respect your point of view, and would love to receive it in your reply - but my point is simply that the conflict does not relate to Eve's creation.


    That said, I must also note that at least for myself and the people I know who accept the existence of a conflict between the Genesis 1 and 2 creation accounts, the result is NOT the debunking of "the whole Bible" as you contend, but rather an acknowledgement of the existence of a conflict, one that most sensibly is explained by the presence of different original sources for the two stories, and the assertion that neither Genesis account is or intends to be a report of the science of creation. Both, in their own ways, are faith accounts, not historical or scientific reports. I recognize that you may well dispute those conclusions, too! If that's the case, I will welcome your reply.

  • MitchellMitchell Posts: 463

    Question/Request from user ASN_032

    If you could show me any proof from the bible that it meant "side" rather than "rib" I could accept it,

    My answer: I would like to answer this one or at least provide some little extra information. In the תַּנַ״ךְTanakh or Miqra מִקְרָא otherwise know as the Hebrew Bible the lexeme צלע appears about 41(or 40) times in the following verses:

    Gen. 2:21, Gen 2:22, Gen. 32:32, Exod. 25:12, 14, Exod. 26:20, 26-27, 35, Exod. 27:7, Exod. 30:4, Exod. 36:25, 31-32, Exod. 37:3, 5, 27, Exod. 38:7 2 Sam. 16:13, 2 Sam. 21:14, 1 Ki. 6:5, 8, 15-16, 34, 1 Ki. 7:3, Job 18:12, Ps. 35:15, Ps. 38:18, Jer. 20:10, Ezek. 41:5-9, 11, 26, Mic. 4:6-7, and Zeph. 3:19. (verses were checked in the Mordechai Breuer Tanach published by Mossad HaRav Kook, the Keter Yerushalayim and the biblia hebraica stuttgartensia)

    In the KJV, ESV, and most other common English translations that I could find the lexeme צלע is only translated as ribs 2 times ( Gen. 2:21 and Gen 2:22) out of the 40 occurrences found in the Hebrew Bible. So ASN_032 you are in great company to translate צלע as ribs in Genesis chapter 2 because most English translations including Jewish ones (like the JPS TANAKH) do so. However 'Some' newer versions like the NET version never render צלע as ribs in fact it renders the two occurrences in Genesis passage under consideration as:

    2:21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was asleep, he took part of the man’s side and closed up the place with flesh. 2:22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the part he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

    Biblical Studies Press. The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press, 2005.


    Here is how two of the standard Classical Hebrew lexicon define צלע

    THE BDB's definition

     צֵלָע S6762, 6763 TWOT1924a GK7521, 752241 n.f.(m. 1 K 6:34, and appar. Ex 26:26) rib, side;—abs. צ׳ Gn 2:22 +, cstr. צֶ֫לַע Ex 26:26 +, also צֵ֫לַע 2 S 16:13; sf. צַלְעוֹ Ex 25:12 +; pl. צְלָעִים 1 K 6:34, צְלָעוֹת v 3 +; cstr. צַלְעֹת Ez 41:26 +; sf. צַלְעֹתָיו Gn 2:21 +;— 1. rib of man Gn 2:21, 22 (J). 2. rib of hill, i.e. ridge, or terrace 2 S 16:13. 3. side-chambers or cells (enclosing temple like ribs) 1 K 6:5, 6 (read הַצּ׳ for היצוע, v. [יָצִיעַ]), 7:3, so of Ezek.’s temple Ez 41:5 + 10 times 41 (on text v. Co Toy Krae). 4. ribs of cedar and fir, i.e. planks, boards (pl.), of temple wall 1 K 6:15, 16, floor v 15. 5. leaves of door v 34. 6. (in P) side, of ark (אֲרוֹן) Ex 25:12(), 14 = 37:3(), 5; of tabern. (מִשְׁכָּן) 26:20 (|| פֵּאָה v 18), v 26, 27() = 36:25 (|| פ׳ v 23), v 31, 32, 26:35(); of altar 27:7 = 38:7, 30:4 = 37:27.—Je 20:10; Jb 18:12 v. צֶלַע sub II. צלע.

    Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon 1977 : 854. Print.


    The HALOT Lexicon's definintion:

     I צֵלָע: II *צלץ, Bauer-L. Heb. 552q, 554z or a primary noun; MHeb. צֵלָע, צַלְעָה rib, side-chamber; JArm. עִלְעָא rib; Sam. עלה (Ben-H. Lit. Or. 2:570) < *עלע, and עלתה < עלעתה; EgArm. cs. pl. עלעי (Aḥiqar: Cowley Arm. Pap. 216, line 106), BArm. → *עֲלַע; Ug. ṣlʿ (Gordon Textbook §19:2165; Aistleitner 2320: spare ribs); Akk. ṣē/īlu rib, side (AHw. 1090a; CAD Ṣ: 124); Syr. ʾelʿā; CPArm. ʿlʿʾ (ʿelʾā) (Schulthess Lex. 147b; Gramm. §49:2a); Arb. ḍilʿ, ḍilaʿ rib, side; > Eg. ḏrʿt plank or similar (of cedar, Erman-G. 5:603; see M. Görg BN 3 (1977) 14-16): cs. צֶלַע and צֵלַע, sf. צַלְעוֹ; pl. צְלָעֹ(וֹ)ת and צְלָעִים 1K 634 (Michel Grundlegung 1:56 and see below), cs. צַלְעֹ(וֹ)ת, sf. צַלְעֹתָיו.

     —1. rib Gn 221f.

     —2. side: —a. צֵלַע הָהָר 2S 1613; —b. the longer side (cf. יָרֵךְ 2) of the Ark Ex 2512.14 373.5, of the tabernacle Ex 2620.26f.35 3625.31f, of the altar Ex 277 387; gloss 304 3727.

     —3. צֵלָע and pl. as a component; exact meaning disputed, for suggestions see Rupprecht ZDPV 88 (1972) 4126; see further Noth Könige 113-115, esp. 114f; Mulder ZAW 88 (1976) 103-105: —a. extra storey to a building 1K 65.8, cj. v. 6 for הַיָּצִועַ (Q יָצִיעַ, K יָצוּעַ) rd. הַצֵּלָע, cf. Ouellette JNES 31 (1972) 187-191; —b. sg. side-building Ezk 415.9a.11; sg. and pl. side-chamber 416-8.9b.26; —c. plank, wainscot 1K 615f; cj. v. 34a for צְלָעִים prp. with 34b קְלָעִים (Noth Könige 102); —d. supporting beams (upon the pillars) 1K 73, cf. Weidhaas ZA 45 (1939) 49f; Noth Könige 135; Mulder ZAW 88 (1976) 104f. †

    Koehler, Ludwig et al. The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament 1994–2000 : 1030. Print.


    I personally think that strong arguments could be made for both translations ribs or side.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    @CM said:

    Welcome! @ASN_032

    I, personally, would like to welcome you to Christian Debate. As you can see, there are plenty of categories to choose from. I notice you have taken the liberty to start a new thread. One that is stimulating. It provokes thought and study. From your initial post, you seem to be a deep thinker and have great respect for the Word. You are off to a good start.

    From a cursory look, you will see there are many more threads for you to leave comments. Some are with many comments and others with none. I am sure these forums, with its varieties, are enough to accommodate your interests, satisfy your curiosity, challenge your intellect, and stimulate greater insights.

    When you have the time, read, widely, the previous threads, if you haven't already. I encourage you to read the entire thread of your interest to make a contribution that would enrich all. You may respond to as many or as few threads as you like. I look forward to our exchanges. Don't worry, you don't have to agree with everybody. When you disagree, if it's all possible, share a reference or two, or why you disagree and others who share your position (point of view). No, it's not required, but it helps enrich the conversation.

    We can all learn from one another and together. We respect and appreciates divergent views. Opinions, quotes, scholars, and references are welcome in your exchanges. Needless to say, the Bible is the final authority. It is true for all followers of Jesus, the Christ. The Christians in these forums are as diverse as Jesus' original disciples -- real world people.

    Feel free to ask any one of us or Chairman Jan, Christian Debate's Lead Administrator, questions on the usage in the opened forum or by PM (Personal Messages). You are going to enjoy yourself and be enriched. If you're inclined to do so, share a bit about yourself or how you found us. It would be greatly appreciated. However, you're not under any obligation or compulsion to do so. We just glad to have you on board. Be blessed and a blessing! CM


    PS. Invite a friend, to come, look around, and share a few thoughts. CM

  • ASN_032ASN_032 Posts: 26

    @Bill_Coley, thank you for pointing out the different sequences of creation in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, this is something pointed out often as a discrepancy that is very easy for me to settle. The only sequence we can count on is the one in Genesis 1 because the sequence in Genesis 2 could only be chronological with regards to each creation on its own, not to the creation as a whole because only Genesis 1 mentions the exact day in which each entity was created. With regards to the entities created, the order in Genesis 2 is meaningless because it starts with:

    Genesis 2:1-3 : "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done."

    The above means that the creation was already completed by the time the creation "sequences" were detailed in Genesis 2, therefore this chapter does not tell us the order, but something else, by reading further we may understand the reasoning:

    Genesis 2:4 : "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."

    We all wish to go to heaven after we die and we all wish we could live in heaven eternally, but we also know that we could not get there before we die because in order to be able to live our whole lives without sin we have to reverse the process that caused us to be born with a sinful nature, which is Adam's and Eve's sin, so, one option we may suggest is that it shows the order of importance (not chronology), but, we have to ask (as always), does it make sense? so lets see:

    Our lives on earth are temporary, heaven is eternal, what is more important, eternity (in case we reach it) or an earthly human lifetime (or any period of time that is less than eternal, taking into account that living in heaven for eternity is our goal), so far it does, but lets not jump into conclusions too early, before finally answering this question we have to read until the end of the chapter, therefore, since you already mentioned the order accurately, I'll take it from you:

    Genesis 2:

    • The ground of the earth, but no vegetation (Gen 2.5) - the heaven and the earth were mentioned before that, it makes sense that they are more important than the ground, there could be no ground (of the earth) without an earth, the same is true even if we acknowledge that the whole earth with its ground (but without its vegetation or any creations that depended on it) were created at once.
    • Humanity (male) (Gen 2.6-7) - I claim that humanity as a whole is less important to God (not to us necessarily, but this chapter is from his point of view, not ours) than the heaven and the earth, because our timely lives matter, even to him, much less than our eternal lives and the restoration of our sinless nature and the creation as he meant for it to be before we sinned and harmed the creation and ourselves, you may ask, why did God allow this to happen, my simple answer would be - he has given us free choice, otherwise we couldn't ever deserve any reward or any punishment. Even if you reject my answer (and surprisingly, in this case I think you should, because I didn't prove that the reason was to make us deserve any reward or punishment), we should still accept the fact that God allowed it to happen, so even if we don't know the reason, we have to stick to the facts.
    • Garden of Eden (Gen 2.8-9) - At first, the garden of Eden was on earth, as described, but as a mean, it has to be less important than the goal it serves and also less important than its purpose (that's my logic, but even if you disagree, since I didn't prove, it still didn't disprove the logic of the order of importance, as I mentioned before quoting you, so for this part, it could be neutral, not a proof, but also not a discrepancy with my claim.
    • Rivers (Gen 2.10-14) - It makes sense to assume that the rivers that bordered the garden of Eden were less important than the garden itself, after all, for any land, isn't its useful resources more important than what marks its borders? Lets not forget that they were also part of the garden, but in these verses they were described as the borders, and that supports my claim for order of importance (both for us and for God in this case).
    • Birds and land animals (Gen 2.18-20) - Rivers may exist much longer than animals, we can (up to a certain limit) live without birds and land animals, but we cannot survive without water, and neither could them, therefore, it makes sense to assume that the rivers were more important than the animals.
    • Humanity (female) (Gen 2.21-23) - now we have a problem , if we assume that women are less important than animals, than why couldn't they be substituted by things "more important" than them? As we can see, it does not make any sense to claim that women are less important than animals, even God himself told us that it is not good for the man to be alone, so, how do we resolve that? Only if we assume that the order of importance ended at Genesis 2:20 and Genesis 2:21-23 tells a new story, (and therefore not subject to the order of importance of the previous story) it could make sense. The new story, as we can read, is about "Why do men need women?", not about "How was the first woman created", as there is no verse in the bible that was written for no reason, and Genesis 1:26-27 already explained how the man and the woman were created, we have to assume that the bible would not tell us the same story twice without a very good reason, but, we don't have that issue, because it's not the same story, it's a different one, and the story in Genesis 2:21-23 is there to tell us why we need women and not how they were created, and the why is well explained in the metaphors once we understand them and they all are explained by the context of the following verse, themselves, and the previous ones. Genesis 2:24 seals the story of "Why do men need women" and Genesis 2:25 does not tell us a story, but a simple fact, at that time, they were naked. Genesis 3 tells us what happened after Adam met Eve.

    In conclusion:

    Genesis 2:4-20 tells us about an order of importance (not the order of creation).

    Genesis 2:21-24 tells us about the reasons why men need women.

    Genesis 25 gives us a hint about what happened next, but in order to know what happened, we need to read Genesis 3, for that we could have a new discussion.

    Thanks,

    ASN_032

  • ASN_032ASN_032 Posts: 26

    @Keep_Smiling_4_Jesus, thank you for your knowledgeable comment, as much as I would like to discuss it from a biblical point of view, the facts you mentioned are not written in the bible, therefore they do not weaken or strengthen my arguments, but, I totally agree with the notion that knowledge is power and that our knowledge should help us understand the bible better and also learn from it. Without knowledge we can be easily deceived, therefore every piece of knowledge is useful and important, therefore your comment is very much appreciated.

    Thanks,

    ASN_032

  • ASN_032ASN_032 Posts: 26

    @Mitchell , after checking the references you gave me, it appears that some of them are out of context, for example:

    In  Gen. 32:32 - צלע is a verb, not a noun, also, it is not pronounced the same way, the correct pronunciation is "Tzole'a"

    In Exod. 25:12,14 , the context is the ark, not the human body, how is this relevant?

    In Exod. 26:20,26-27,35 , the context is the tabernacle, not the human body , as usual, the same word with a different context may have a different meaning.

    In Exod. 27:7 , the context is the altar.

    In  Exod. 30:4 , the context is still the altar.

    In Exod. 36:25,31-32 , the context is the tabernacle again.

    As I went through your long list, I couldn't find even one example of the word צלע as a noun with the context of the human body that could weaken the argument that it meant "rib" rather than anything else, therefore, as all of your examples are out of context, I still disagree with your interpretation. In the context of geometry the same word (only as a noun) could only mean "side", as in geometry, interpreting the word צלע as "rib" would not make sense.

    When reading the bible, I think that the context is very important in order to understand the true meaning of any verse, moreover, I couldn't think of any example where context is not important to understand a meaning of a controversial word in any sentence.

    Thanks,

    ASN_032

  • JanJan Posts: 247

    @ASN_032 said:

    As mentioned, I would also like you to prove your claims from the bible, where in the bible does it say that only souls were created in Genesis 1:27 ?

    I never made the claim that this interpretation can be argued from the Bible. It is my fallible explanation on how to reconcile the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts, and at the same time stay internally and externally consistent.

    If you can show me where it is not consistent, I'd be very open to accepting other interpretations as superior.

    As for your interpretation, I already explained that I don't see it as consistent, because it takes Adam's creation from dust as literal, and Eve's creation from Adam's rib as metaphorical.

    Explaining the word "image" metaphorically wouldn't necessarily mean soul, it would also be necessary to explain why should it be soul. I can support my claim that it is unnecessary to interpret "image" as "soul" due to the word "us", which means we should look for God's partner(s), one partner we could agree upon is Jesus, some would also claim angels, therefore, since we know Jesus had an image, that would be enough in order not to need to claim that there was no image to refer, if you debunk that claim from the bible and support your claim from the bible I could accept it, if not I would have to disagree.

    Your argument would work if the pre-incarnate Jesus had a human form before creation of humans. In that case Jesus could have created the human body in the image of his own body.

    To that interpretation I would also object. I don't think it is what the passage means at all. First, when I make a 3D print of myself, for example, that printout is physically in my image. The shape looks like my body. But it is nothing like me. Second, the writer of Genesis 1 didn't have a New Testament trinitarian view, and therefore must have meant with "our image" something different than the physical image of one person of the Godhead, but not the physical image of the other two persons of the Godhead.

  • MitchellMitchell Posts: 463

    ASN_032,

    Thanks for your reply!

    However, I think you may have misunderstood the reason for the verse list/references:

    at least provide some little extra information. In the תַּנַ״ךְTanakh or Miqra מִקְרָא otherwise know as the Hebrew Bible the lexeme צלע appears about 41(or 40) times in the following verses

    In other words my purpose was to provide references (the list) for the occurrences of the lexeme (not the lemma) in the Hebrew Bible. Of course you have made a very strong point that the study of semantic domains is important for hermeneutics, exegesis, and philology in general. And, now that list has been provided one like yourself can do Ad Fontes and come to conclusions on your own. Which by the way you did!עשית עבודה נהדרת כל הכבוד

    But regardless.......................

    חפשו בתורה היטב ואל תסמכו על דברי

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 2,989

    Getting to back to the OP "Were Adam and Eve created at the same time or not?"

    Brethren,

    Take a step back with me. When did the creation week began? When did the absolute beginning of "the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1) occur?

    • Is Gen. 1:1-2 as a chronological unity separated by a gap in time from the first day of creation as described in Gen. 1:3? Is the present earth (Gen 1:2) was created before the seven days of creation week. Some call the Passive Gap interpretation. It is the creation of the material substance of the heaven and the earth may have been ages prior to the six day's work.
    • The question remains to as when did the absolute beginning of "the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1:1) occur. Gen 1:1-2 as part of the first day of the seven-day creation. It belongs to the first day of the creation week. This called by some as the no-gap interpretation.

    My position: In view of the two main interpretations of Genesis 1, I believe in a Fiat Creationism (24-Hour-Days). This is the world was brought into being in six 24-hour days with an appearance of age (i.e., all the trees would have been created fully formed, and would have had rings showing annual growth, even though only a week old; Adam would have appeared 25 or 30 years old).

    I reject: A Gradual Creation over Eons (Days are a Literary Framework) - - God used natural processes to create the world and life, supernaturally intervening on occasion; the days in the Genesis account are a literary framework for declaring that God created, not how God created.

    Now, "Were Adam and Eve created at the same time or not?" In my view, they were created at the same time, in creation week and on the sixth day, but not simultaneously ("at one and the same time, at the same instant/moment, at once"). CM

    PS. Wolfgang, I approve this post. Is my position clear in starting this discussion (non-debate)?

Sign In or Register to comment.