"the Story Of The Rib, Of Course, Is Figurative."

[cinepro]

When discussing the creation of Adam and Eve, President Kimball taught the following:

 

 

 

"And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.] (Ensign, Mar. 1976, 70-73)

 

 

Can anyone explain to me how the following verses from Moses 3 are "figurative"?  I've underlined the parts that seem to really be describing a literal rib being taken from Adam:

 

 

 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but as for Adam, there was not found an help meet for him.

 

 21 And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and I took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;

 

 22 And the rib which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, made I a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

 23 And Adam said: This I know now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.

 

 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

 

 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

 

Moses 3

(emphasis added)

 

In other words, if the phrase "I took one of his ribs" is figurative, then what is the figurative understanding of "and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof."

Edited February 7, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

When discussing the creation of Adam and Eve, President Kimball taught the following:

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone explain to me how the following verses from Moses 3 are "figurative"?  I've underlined the parts that seem to really be describing a literal rib being taken from Adam:

 

 

 

In other words, if the phrase "I took one of his ribs" is figurative, then what is the figurative understanding of "and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof."

 

Because God is omnipotent.

[mfbukowski]

Opposition in all things.

 

Man and woman are both human and therefore in a sense born genetically "one flesh" yet we are quite different and complimentary- we are in many ways separate beings.

 

But we are here to learn from each other, in celestial marriage how to develop Christlike abilities to understand each other and thereby become TRULY "one flesh" with each other in marriage.

 

So though we are genetically one to start with, and all children of God, we are also two genders, separated from each other through gender.

 

We are here to become again celestialized beings of "one flesh".

 

So we are all one flesh of mankind- yet we are separated in genders with the mission to unify again into "one flesh", and must do so to become godlike.

 

Doing so "closes the flesh" which has been separated

Edited February 7, 2014 by mfbukowski

[David T]

When discussing the creation of Adam and Eve, President Kimball taught the following:

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone explain to me how the following verses from Moses 3 are "figurative"?  I've underlined the parts that seem to really be describing a literal rib being taken from Adam:

 

 

 

In other words, if the phrase "I took one of his ribs" is figurative, then what is the figurative understanding of "and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof."

 

The story as a whole is now seen as figurative/mythical. The details are part of the story to make it vivid (a rib was taken? Why, it must have left a gaping wound! Better address that!). There are lots of parables and fables that are intended to take a figurative or moral meaning of which the details are just part of adding color to the tale, to keep it interesting The stories are more than a sum of their parts.

 

Which adds a question - is it just the statement of the rib that is said to be figurative, or the whole story of which the statement of the rib is just a part what is to be understood as figurative/'mythical? (Which comes originally from the J version of creation, which starts in Genesis 2 - which, by the by, it's been suggested the ancients used this as a just-so-story to explain why humans didn't have a baculum, and most animals did. God took the bone fram adam's , umm,  'side' (not a rib as the KJV renders it), and made a woman out of it! A generative bone indeed! And then, to explain why human women shout in pain at childbirth while animals don't, Eve was cursed for taking the fruit. Dangit!)

Edited February 7, 2014 by David T

[mfbukowski]

Because God is omnipotent.

 

The story as a whole is now seen as figurative/mythical. The details are part of the story to make it vivid (a rib was taken? Why, it must have left a gaping wound! Better address that!). There are lots of parables and fables that are intended to take a figurative or moral meaning of which the details are just part of adding color to the tale, to keep it interesting The stories are more than a sum of their parts.

 

Which adds a question - is it just the statement of the rib that is said to be figurative, or the whole story of which the statement of the rib is just a part figurative? (Which comes originally from the J version of creation, which starts in Genesis 2 - which, by the by, it's been suggested the ancients used this as a just-so-story to explain why humans didn't have a baculum, and most animals did. God took the bone fram adam's , umm,  'side' (not a rib as the KJV renders it), and made a woman out of it! A generative bone indeed! And then, to explain why human women shout in pain at childbirth while animals don't, Eve was cursed for taking the fruit. Dangit!)

Uh, an interesting juxtoposition of posts.

[David T]

Uh, an interesting juxtoposition of posts.

HA!

[JLHPROF]

When discussing the creation of Adam and Eve, President Kimball taught the following:

 

Can anyone explain to me how the following verses from Moses 3 are "figurative"?  I've underlined the parts that seem to really be describing a literal rib being taken from Adam:

 

In other words, if the phrase "I took one of his ribs" is figurative, then what is the figurative understanding of "and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof."

 

President Young taught that:

  It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve.

 

That works for me.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

When discussing the creation of Adam and Eve, President Kimball taught the following:

 

 

 

 

 

Can anyone explain to me how the following verses from Moses 3 are "figurative"?  I've underlined the parts that seem to really be describing a literal rib being taken from Adam:

 

 

 

In other words, if the phrase "I took one of his ribs" is figurative, then what is the figurative understanding of "and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof."

Good point, but something of Adam's DNA was used, if indeed the flesh was closed.

[thesometimesaint]

Uh, an interesting juxtoposition of posts.

 

Mine was posted with tongue firmly planted in cheek.  I really do believe the rib story is figurative poetic license.

[thesometimesaint]

President Young taught that:

 

That works for me.

 

Doesn't for me.

[JLHPROF]

Doesn't for me.

 

Well, maybe it would if a different prophet had said it...perhaps if it came from President Kimball, Benson, or Hinkley...

[Ron Beron]

The story as a whole is now seen as figurative/mythical. The details are part of the story to make it vivid (a rib was taken? Why, it must have left a gaping wound! Better address that!). There are lots of parables and fables that are intended to take a figurative or moral meaning of which the details are just part of adding color to the tale, to keep it interesting The stories are more than a sum of their parts.

 

Which adds a question - is it just the statement of the rib that is said to be figurative, or the whole story of which the statement of the rib is just a part what is to be understood as figurative/'mythical? (Which comes originally from the J version of creation, which starts in Genesis 2 - which, by the by, it's been suggested the ancients used this as a just-so-story to explain why humans didn't have a baculum, and most animals did. God took the bone fram adam's , umm,  'side' (not a rib as the KJV renders it), and made a woman out of it! A generative bone indeed! And then, to explain why human women shout in pain at childbirth while animals don't, Eve was cursed for taking the fruit. Dangit!)

I wrote this a while back.

1. The actual term is that Eve was created from Adam’s tsela or side. The actual passage is, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs (or side), and closed up the flesh in its place.” If one looks at tsela one will find it has many meanings. In each case it means an item that extends out. And before everyone gets excited I am NOT heading in that direction.

Zeony Zevit, an teacher at the American Jewish University of Los Angeles has suggested in a paper published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics in 2001 entitled “Congenital Human Baculum Deficiency” by Scott F. Gilbert and Ziony Zevit that the tsela in question was actually the baculum or literally a bone present in all but male humans and spider monkeys in aiding intercourse. The absence of this bone would certain give rise by obvious observation to the exclusion of this part of the anatomy and the speculation among early peoples in the speculation of how Eve came about, i.e., tsela equates to the baculum. In addition, the passage in Genesis continues with another etiological detail… Zevit writes,

Quote

Genesis 2:21 contains another etiological detail: “The Lord God closed up the flesh.” This detail would explain the peculiar visible sign on the penis and scrotum of human males—the raphé . In the human penis and scrotum, the edges of the urogenital folds come together over the urogenital sinus (urethral groove) to form a seam, the raphé. If this seam does not form, hypospadias of the glans, penis, and scrotum can result. The origin of this seam on the external genitalia was “explained” by the story of the closing of Adam’s flesh. Again, the wound associated with the generation of Eve is connected to Adam’s penis and not his rib.

My intent was not to be indiscreet but informative on how legend sometimes creeps into doctrine to make up our understanding of the scriptures.

2. On a more literary note, the ancient Mesopotamians believe that the rib motif is actually from a much older text in Sumerian that reads…

Quote

Ninhursag: “My brother what hurts thee?”

Enki: “My side hurts me.”

Ninhursag: “To the goddess Dazimua I give birth for thee.”

Ninhursag: “My brother what hurts thee?”

Enki: “My rib hurts me.”

Ninhursag: “To the goddess Ninti I give birth for thee.”

(Kramer, Sumerian Mythology 58)

Samuel Kramer writes,

Quote

Now the Sumerian word for “rib” is ti (pronounced “tee”). The goddess created for the healing of Enki’s rib, therefore was called in Sumerian Nin-ti, “the lady of the rib.” But the very same Sumerian word ti also means “to make live.” The name Nin-ti may thus mean “the lady who makes live,” as well as “the lady of the rib.” In Sumerian literature, therefore, “the lady of the rib” came to be identified with “the lady who makes live” through what might be termed a play on words. (Kramer, Mythologies 103)

Kramer suggests that the passage in Genesis where Eve, “the mother of all living” is taken from Adam’s rib may be an echo of this Sumerian pun. Enki felt a pain in his rib or side which is identical to the word life. To relieve Enki Ninhursag created a new god named Ninti or “Lady of Life or Rib”. Both Ninhursag and Eve are composite creations.

3. An old story of the rib is told by Rabbi Joshua:

Quote

“God deliberated from what member He would create woman, and He

reasoned with Himself thus: I must not create her from Adam’s head, for

she would be a proud person, and hold her head high. If I create her

from the eye, then she will wish to pry into all things; if from the

ear, she will wish to hear all things; if from the mouth, she will talk

much; if from the heart, she will envy people; if from the hand, she

will desire to take all things; if from the feet, she will be a

gadabout. Therefore I will create her from the member which is hid,

that is the rib, which is not even seen when man is naked.” translated from the Ethiopic (1882) by Malan. This was first translated by Dillmann (Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes, 1853), and the Ethiopic book first edited by Trump (Abh. d. Münch. Akad. xv., 1870-1881)

[Palerider]

Well, maybe it would if a different prophet had said it...perhaps if it came from President Kimball, Benson, or Hinkley...

 

Nah....same stipulation applies. Doesn't work no matter who said it.......

[Freedom]

The record was written thousands or years ago in a language that has long been lost in a cultural milieu that we know nothing about answering a question we do not know. It can be interpreted however you like. 

[Robert F. Smith]

When discussing the creation of Adam and Eve, President Kimball taught the following:

.............................................   

Can anyone explain to me how the following verses from Moses 3 are "figurative"?  I've underlined the parts that seem to really be describing a literal rib being taken from Adam:

......................................................

In other words, if the phrase "I took one of his ribs" is figurative, then what is the figurative understanding of "and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof."

These are typically Jewish midrashic expansions on the text, i.e., etiological explanations, or just-so stories -- as DavidT explains so well.  They are found throughout Scripture in a variety of ways, especially in application of names at birth (or even before birth).  The frequent word-play is part of Hebrew literary art.  Why do we have it in Holy Writ?  For the same reason that we have many genres of literature there, including poetry and song.  The Lord himself undoubtedly has good taste and likes to have his temple texts interlarded with wonderful, poetic symbolism.

[Robert F. Smith]

Doesn't for me.

How about this from Brigham Young—

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.

“He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”      Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

[JLHPROF]

 

How about this from Brigham Young—

“Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.

“He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”      Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

 

 

Yes.  Exactly.

[K-2]

http://vridar.org/2010/06/20/which-bone-was-eve-made-from/

2010-06-20 Which “Bone” Was Eve Made From? by Neil Godfrey

Filed under: OT Archaeology & Literature

Tags: Adam, Adam and Eve, Book of Genesis

The creation and Adam and Eve narratives are often said to be nice moral tales that convey spiritual truths. Being myth does not disqualify them from containing meaningful messages for modern readers.

So at wedding ceremonies and in sunday school classes bible-believers are regaled with the “beautiful story” of the God practising a bit of psychic surgery as his hand penetrates Adam’s side to pull out a rib which he used to create Eve. And since this story is not something that has been uncovered in modern times among cuneiform tablets alongside myths of sea-monsters and sky-gods, but is one we have been as familiar with as our soft pillows and teddy bear toys since childhood, we call it a “beautiful metaphor” of the marriage relationship.

And I suspect many theologians would prefer to keep it that way. Meaningful myth or symbol is sophisticated. Literal images of God taking the penis bone from Adam and using it to create Eve, thus explaining both marriage and the reason males of humans alone (almost) lack this bit of anatomy would probably go a long way to discrediting not only a “beautiful and meaningful story”, but opening up a few more people’s minds to the irrelevance of the Bible in an enlightened age.

I’m probably the last to know this little tidbit of trivia, but thanks to chance I recently discovere in a bookshop The Uncensored Bible: The Bawdy and Naughty Bits of the Good Book by John Kaltner, Stephen L. McKenzie and Joel Kilpatrick. John Shelby Spong calls it “a terrific book!”; Jonathan Kirsch, “smart, savvy, scholarly, and funny, all at once”; and Jonathan Reed, “Based on the best contemporary scholarship of the Bible — but funny as hell!” How could I resist it?

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.

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.

So, the advantages of translating tsela as baculum instead of as rib are:

• it conforms to the basic meaning of the word (“side”)
• it is based on obvious differences between men and women
• and between human males and those of other species

Zevit’s interpretation therefore fits both the sexual content and the etiological nature of the story perfectly. Moreover, it explains the “place closed up with flesh,” which other interpretations ignore. And it affords a fuller and more practical sense to the reference to the woman as “bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh.

Whether you find Zevit’s proposal convincing or merely provocative, it is hard to deny its interpretive advantages . . . . His explanation is not bizarre, outrageous, or unreasonable. To the contrary, it solves  long-standing problems with the text and its interpretations and fits the etiological context.

(pp.10-11)

[Ahab]

A lot of good information here but nobody has explained the meaning of the word "stead" yet or pointed out Eve's connection to Adam as one of his sisters, with both of them being created in the flesh by the same Father.

[David T]

Ahab, "stead" means in the place thereof, and the explanations of the 'scar-like' element on the organ that the stories explain to be the replacement for the Baculum is the explanation in that original context.

Bringing in the idea of siblings only applies to a later re-telling or version of the Adam story, not present in the scriptural account. In Genesis 2, mankind is created literally from the dust, and the woman is literally taken and formed from one of his bones. The name Adam is explained as a wordplay on the word for red-like-mud. It's the same root as the name Edom (same consononts - also explained as meaning red, or ruddy). This is part of a long tradition of stories mortal man being created from the earth. In the older Mesopotamian creation stories, mankind is created as a mixture of clay and the blood of a slain god, so as to be from the earth, but with a divine spark within him. In Genesis 2, man is created just from the clay to be a gardener, but when he partakes of the Tree of Knowledge, he becomes capable of knowledge like the Gods (It is Genesis 1, written generations later, that responds with the assertion that Adam was initially intended to be created in the image of the gods).

When giving explanations, its important to express what version/worldview of the tale is being considered. It wasn't initially an allegory of the Plan of Salvation, but now a new version of the story and characters has taken on that valid sacred meaning. The story was translated, you might say, as were the people of Enoch's city in the story. Changed from something mortal and natural to something with a higher divine purpose.

The just-so-story explanations of the origins of woman had then to be translated to BY's understanding of the world.

I might even go far to say that BY's versions of the Garden Story are just as valid as versions of the story as the original, adapted for the worldview and progression of understanding of his day (IE, If Genesis is Detective Comics, and Brigham Young's version is Tim Burton's story, and another one being told today is the Christopher Nolan reboot, with another reinterpretation on the way) - just not to be equated with accurate history, or as the definitive 'original' intended version of the story.

Edited February 8, 2014 by David T

[thesometimesaint]

Well, maybe it would if a different prophet had said it...perhaps if it came from President Kimball, Benson, or Hinkley...

 

I have nothing against any of our Prophets. I still believe its figurative poetic license.

[Ahab]

What I understand is that our Father, and the Father of Adam, took a part of what was in Adam, which was also in our Father, and from that part of our Father which was also in Adam our Father created a body of flesh for Eve in the place where Adam was then.

And what seems strange to me is to hear people talk as if Adam is the Father of Eve, which he isn't, although a part of what was in Adam was also a part of our Father, or had also been from the same place.

Edited February 8, 2014 by Ahab

[David T]

What I understand is that our Father, and the Father of Adam, took a part of what was in Adam, which was also in our Father, and from that part of our Father which was also in Adam our Father created a body of flesh for Eve in the place where Adam was then.

And what seems strange to me is to hear people talk as if Adam is the Father of Eve, which he isn't, although a part of what was in Adam was also a part of our Father, or had also been from the same place.

 

Ahab, is that a round-about euphamism-filled way of saying you think the Genesis story is saying Eve's body was made from Heavenly Father's sperm?

Edited February 8, 2014 by David T

[mfbukowski]

.......Dodging lightning strikes....

 

Some of this stuff is just not our business.

Edited February 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[David T]

.......Dodging lightning strikes....

 

Some of this stuff is just not our business.

 

If one believes human bodies are the sexual offspring of God, why would that be "not our business"? We're not speculating about positions or asking for pictures. Our kids knowing the facts of how they got here is "their business".

 

I just don't think the stories about God procreating immortal physical children who are then changed into mortals makes any sense today when everything is taken into consideration. It especially doesn't make any sense in context with the intent of the original Genesis story.

 

If talking about, umm, the divine importance of 'procreative power' is lightning worthy, then our GAs are in big trouble.

 

I do think the bodies of humans are the result of sexual reproduction, and that any "first" modern humans to have had an eternal divine spirit as part of their essential identity came into the world the same way as I did - wet, yucky, and crying. I think Ahab and I disagree on who they got their homo-sapien DNA from, tho.

Edited February 8, 2014 by David T