• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Was Adam androgynous until Eve

F

For Joy by Faith

New Member
So, I was looking at Genesis in the E-Sword bible the other day and was wondering how it was that God made Adam (man) male and female and told him (them) to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth on the 6th day of the creation week, but it would seem that some length of time passed before God got around to forming Eve. Could Adam multiply without Eve? Also note that the plural "them" is not given a strongs number and is possibly a translation addition for clarity (bias).
Gen 1:27 So GodH430 createdH1254 (H853) manH120 in his own image,H6754 in the imageH6754 of GodH430 createdH1254 he him; maleH2145 and femaleH5347 createdH1254 he them.
Gen 1:28 And GodH430 blessedH1288 them, and GodH430 saidH559 unto them, Be fruitful,H6509 and multiply,H7235 and replenishH4390 (H853) the earth,H776 (KJV w/Strongs con.)
Click to expand...

Now in Gen 2:18 God explains that Adam needs another someone as a help meet.
Gen 2:18 And the LORDH3068 GodH430 said,H559 It is notH3808 goodH2896 that the manH120 should beH1961 alone;H905 I will makeH6213 him an helpH5828 meet for him.H5048 (KJV w/Strongs con.)
Click to expand...


God then took flesh and bone Gen 2:23 out of Adam to form the woman (womb and man - according to Webster). Her very identity was taken out of man in the form of flesh and bone. It would seem that God took the womb and mabey even pelvic bone from Adam to form Eve, so Adam called her woman (womb-man).
WOMAN, n. plu. women. [a compound of womb and man.]... (Webster dictionary)
Gen 2:21 And the LORDH3068 GodH430 caused a deep sleepH8639 to fallH5307 uponH5921 Adam,H121 and he slept:H3462 and he tookH3947 oneH259 of his ribs,H4480 H6763 and closed upH5462 the fleshH1320 insteadH8478 thereof;
Gen 2:22 And(H853) the rib,H6763 whichH834 the LORDH3068 GodH430 had takenH3947 fromH4480 man,H120 madeH1129 he a woman,H802 and broughtH935 her untoH413 the man.H120
Gen 2:23 And AdamH121 said,H559 ThisH2063 is nowH6471 boneH6106 of my bones,H4480 H6106 and fleshH1320 of my flesh:H4480 H1320 sheH2063 shall be calledH7121 Woman,H802 becauseH3588 sheH2063 was takenH3947 out of Man.H4480 H376 (KJV w/Strongs con.)
Click to expand...


Then in Gen 5:2 it's restated that Adam was made male and female in the day that he was (they were) created. Again, no Strong's number for plural they.
Gen 5:2 MaleH2145 and femaleH5347 createdH1254 he them; and blessedH1288 them, and calledH7121 (H853) their nameH8034 Adam,H121 in the dayH3117 when they were created.H1254 (KJV w/Strongs con.)
Click to expand...


This interpritation could be how God shows by example that the woman was in reality a physical part of the man but has been remade in such a way that she can be of greatest value to the man to help meet his needs in multiple ways. Therefore when a man and a woman unite in "one flesh" they are to function as a unit as if the woman is in effect a member of the mans flesh. For her to serve under his headship, and for him to care for her as a most precious part of his own body.

I did a search on the web and found others have seen this as well, and my wife said she read something like this in a magazine "Biblical Archeology Review" a while back.

Does this make any sense or seem important to anyone else, or am I way off base? ;)
 
Brother, this is an interesting idea you have proposed.

I'll offer a partial solution to one of your questions. You asked about the 2 chapters of Genesis where we find God said to "them" to be fruitful and to multiply.

Genesis chapter one is what we call a broad scope focus. Chapter one is where Moses' purpose was to simply provide a broad focus or a general description of where everything had its origins. Thus, when we come to the text where God says "let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule . . . ." Thus, from what I can tell it is a general declaration of intent, which simply means a full scope or long term scope statement. Moses was replaying for his audience the foundational point where all of humankind came from. The verse in 27 provides a broad scope that shows that humankind was divided into male and female and that both genders comes forth from God's creative work.

Then when we move to chapter two Moses' purpose narrows down to the more specific aspects. He then begins to give particulars in a more narrow scope. The focus in chapter two is not on all of creation but primarily about anthropology and the specific manner that the two were created.

Dr. Bill Arnold's work on the Genesis account has provided one of the best treatments of this subject in the discussion under the two accounts of creation Genesis. I'm only summarizing what he has said in numerous pages in these two paragraphs. Some scholars actually noticed some different terms in these two chapters describing God (two different Hebrew terms). They went too far and asserted the idea that there was more than Moses who wrote the chapters because of the shift in terms in chapter one to chapter two. That was really off base and poor scholarship (JEDP theory was the short name of it). They were right that different terms were used but Moses still authored it, but he did so with two different purposes in mind. Thus, his terminology can be different without trying to insert the idea that Moses was not the chief author.

As for your other point. As our good brother Ken Ham would say, let's go back to the very beginning, the answer is in Genesis. I think the text gives to us the key (maybe the only key) when it tells us that "a part of man's side was taken." How much of it we are not told, and we are not even sure exactly what was taken. Something of man was indeed removed but how much or what items would most likely fall to other disciplines such as archaeology to tell us. But then it may not even be able to tell us either.

I am a fan of the Greek language, NT theology, and systematic theology. Exceptional fluency is Hebrew is not my specialty or love. I was glad to get out of Hebrew classes when I did (whew....some long hours and days there). This may come down to a precise understanding of the Hebrew terms used in that phrase. But then therein is the problem. Hebrew is not a pin-point specific language. Terms in Hebrew can be more general in nature and less precise than Greek terms. So, it may not be something we can decide on simply looking at the Hebrew itself.

As for much more than that I would not able to comment any further. Maybe some others will be of great aid to you herein.

If you don't find anything for sure that helps answer this for you then I would urge you to submit that question to Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum (google his name and you'll find him). He is one of the strongest Messianic Jewish theologians in the world today. He is one of the best experts I've ever known in the field of Hebrew and in the area of theological studies. He grew up as an Orthodox Jew, converted to Christ, and then spent 8 yrs in seminary and 14 years in his Ph.D program. He might have run across this before in his studies or in his travels around the globe lecturing. Sorry I can't be any more specific than that.

Dr. Allen
 
some of the jews teach that the "shekinah" of YHWH was His feminine side. that He has both the male and female emotional makeup.
i feel that since adam was made in His image that he also had the feminine in him before it was taken out of him for eve.
physically? i ain't going there, but i do not lean toward androgyny
 
Now I just think that's reading far too much into it and going way off on a tangent. Dr Allen is spot on that Genesis 1 describes an overview, ie everything that occurred in the entire creation week (including the creation of both man and woman), while Genesis 2 goes back and just describes day 6 in more detail. With this understanding there is no reason in the text to read anything unusual like that into it.

If that were so, we'd have to say that man was created in the image of God, but is no longer in the image of God as he's had a key part that made him like God ripped out and made into something else. That causes all sorts of theological complications.
 
It is recorded that God removed a RIB from Adam and turned into a woman, not a v...

As always, others are welcome to disagree. :lol:

Also, there are other possibilities such as the Jewish story about Lilith. *shrug*

Tuth to tell? Dunno, don't care. Got bills to pay and wives to Love like Christ. Perhaps others to seek. Manage to keep pretty occupied with those.
 
CecilW said:
It is recorded that God removed a RIB from Adam and turned into a woman,[highlight=#ffff00]not a v...[/highlight]
Click to expand...

Gen 2:21 ...and closed up the flesh instead thereof;. Why this phrase?????
 
For Joy by Faith said:
CecilW said:
It is recorded that God removed a RIB from Adam and turned into a woman,[highlight=#ffff00]not a v...[/highlight]
Click to expand...
Gen 2:21 ...and closed up the flesh instead thereof;. Why this phrase?????
Click to expand...
EASY!

The advent of a wife in one's life was NOT intended to create a gaping wound!
 
CecilW said:
The advent of a wife in one's life was NOT intended to create a gaping wound
Click to expand...
you jest :?

FollowingHim said:
Now I just think that's reading far too much into it and going way off on a tangent.
Click to expand...
In think I'm not reading into it, just reading what it says, and letting it speak for itself without limiting it to the traditional view or making it fit any theological system, or method of interpretation.
 
Not at all! God took out a rib and closed up the wound. What's the deal?

Or are you implying that the correct translation should be: "God took out a rib and closed up the vagina"? Ok, I'll admit that is a novel approach.

But in that case, there musta been more than one of these androgynous people around, for it says, "Male and female created He THEM."

Seems more likely that the simple sense of the story is more likely the correct one.
 
Brother Cecil,

CecilW said:
Tuth to tell? Dunno, don't care.
Click to expand...
Well it's good to see this was jesting then, since you're still hear.

You need to reread the original post.

CecilW said:
Not at all! God took out a rib and closed up the wound.
Click to expand...
What would be the point of telling us He closed up the wound? For that matter, would he even have had to make a wound? He didn't bother to tell us he cut Adam open. It would seem more likely the closing up of the flesh was part of explanation of the change that he made to Adam. If you can bend over far enough and look down under you'll see you still got the scar right down there where the opening would have been. Is this a coincidence, or God's confirmation of His word and the patriarchal relationship between man and wife?

Also, the word translated as "rib" deserves a close look. Since my OP almost 2 years ago, I've come across some scholarly work that supports my view on this matter but I'd need to go back and dig that up to can make any quotes or references to it.

Anyway it was good to see an email notification that someone had remarked on this old post.
I don't get on here to often. About once a month or so I'll check the active posts and occasionally log in to check the men's only posts. I'm sort of keyboard challenged so don't post much and frankly I probably don't have a lot to contribute, but this particular line of thought intrigued enough to bring it up to hear what others might think about it.

Love in Christ Jesus!
 
It is good to bring up issues like this, because we should always be challenging our presuppositions. You have pointed out already that "they" does not appear in the Hebrew, so Cecil's line of reasoning is able to be argued against. However I still believe you are wrong, and that scripture is very clear on this. So here's my more detailed analysis.

Genesis 1 and 2 are not in continuous chronological order, rather Genesis 2 goes into more detail on day 6 of the creation week. This is evident in the text.

Genesis 1:1-2:4 is a clear description of one week of creation, each day is described similarly so it all flows together logically, and the passage finishes with "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth..." as a closing.

Genesis 2:4-2:25 is a description of day 6. This is clear because it restates a number of things that occurred on day 6 in Genesis 1. It does NOT just talk about the creation of Eve, but actually talks about the creation of Adam (2:7), the animals (2:19), and finally Eve (2:22). We cannot shift this to a later time without causing all sorts of problems, as that would mean that neither Adam or the animals had actually been created on Day 6.

There is no scriptural reason to believe that a long period of time passed between Adam's creation and Eve's. Eve's creation follows directly on from the creation of the animals, which we know happened on day 6 (1:25). There is nothing in the text to suggest that Eve was not also created this day, on the same day as Adam.

God doesn't do things for no reason. If his intention were for Adam to reproduce asexually, he would have done so before Eve's creation - if not you have to start arguing that God made a mistake, which is a shaky path to start down. Even if there were time for this, the text is very clear that it did not occur, as Eve is clearly said to be the mother of all living (3:20).

Furthermore Genesis 2:2 states that on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and rested. If he had not created Eve yet, he would not have been finished.

Finally, 1 Cor 11:7 is clear that the man IS the image of God - not was just created in His image but was then changed, but actually still is. If he was only created in the image of God when he was androgynous, he would no longer be in God's image, but rather it would be the man and woman together who would be the image of God collectively. Therefore to try to say it is only an androgynous man who was in the image of God starts to cause serious issues all the way through to New Testament theology, and particularly messes up the clear Biblical teaching on patriarchy which is essential for us to understand why God allows polygyny. If only a pair of one man and one woman are the image of God, one man and two women is an abomination. But if man is the image and glory of God, and the woman is the glory of the man, as scripture clearly teaches, then polygyny is completely acceptable.

I think this is an interesting line of thought, but one that places too much weight on the absence of the odd word in scripture (it didn't say "them", it didn't say God cut Adam open etc). It is an argument from absence, not from something the Bible actually says. And it actually contradicts other things the Bible does clearly state.
 
Someday I hope to meet you all as friends and brothers and sisters.
I don't feel compelled to engage in a fruitless debate. I believe my point has been made and appreciate the interest.

One day each of us will stand alone before our Lord when He will set us all straight. After that we'll stand with each other with knowing and loving smiles on our faces enjoying pure sweet fellowship. I eagerly anticipate that day! Hopefully I'll get to actually meet some of you before that.
 
Cow fam said:
For what it's worth, barring any injuries you didn't mention, you don't have a scar there. That is skin.
Click to expand...

You know, you are RIGHT! Hadn't thought of that. Got a mirror and checked carefully where I normally can't, um, see. Yup. No scar. Don't think He made ME androgynous.

What IS that big word, anyway? Is it a combo word for "anonymous droids"?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Y'all are too much fun!
 
It's called the Perineal raphe.

You guys are incredible. I love you to!

Oh, that's right. Only real men have it. HA!

Sorry. Couldn't resist.
 
At LAST! An excuse to get in touch with my feminine side! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Seriously though, now that I've thrown the pack of hyenas off the scent;

Thank you Dr. Allen for your measure of respect when you replied back in June of 2012.
Might I suggest a teaching article about holding oneself accountable to the principles of eldership in 1Tim. for the sake of the self appointed "masters of the universe" who can't seem to handle anything more than talking about the weather without getting all upset.

Ok now, bend over boys. Its time for the strap. (I've called Jesus my Lord longer than most of you guys have been alive.)

Does the "iron sharpens iron" principle of fellowship mean to sharpen each others spiritual insight or to grind the edge off altogether and destroy anybody who comes along with what appears, at least to him, to be a nugget of truth.

I have enjoyed visiting this site and hope it would continue, but I'm not the first old man to be attacked by 8th graders trying to show of their newly developing theology muscles. I'm betting this "ministry" drives away a majority of its casual viewers with this type of behavior. Show a little humility especially when you "know your right".

Hope that didn't hurt to much.
 
No offense meant to anyone here or the poster of the OP. I liken this question to so many that I have myself, and have discussed back an forth with several brothers, all in a joking manner, concerning several things from the book of Genenis... for we all knew that there was no real answer that would provide the " I see it now". As we all would say to one another......it was fun discussing this but what does it really have to do with our salvation or our faith in the Lord......and the answer was always...nothing..........then I would say to them....these are the questions that i want to sit down with God and ask HIM to please explain what, when where and why......but then i always say...but I doubt i will, for I will be jumping for joy :lol: to be in heaven and be so happy to be home with my Lord that i will forget all about them questions :D .........y'all have a blessed day from me out here in the Gulf to you at home
 
For Joy by Faith said:
Hope that didn't hurt to much.
Click to expand...
Didn't hurt at all, I don't offend that easily.
Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound a teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:2-5)
Click to expand...
I just obey and teach what I see the Word says. If you disagree, you're welcome. I EXPECT people to disagree, because I know I'm learning more every day and I'm always keen to learn something new. So if you have something solid to teach us, back it up with scripture, answer the scriptural objections that have been raised, and have a sensible brotherly discussion. If you can't back it up with scripture, have the humility to accept that you also are learning more every day (however old you are) and might actually need to take heed of the teaching of others on this particular matter.

I'd say most casual viewers of this site are here to learn scriptural truths. I'd be put off more if someone suggested something questionable and it was NOT either corrected or justified firmly, because that would make me question the theological understanding of the people behind the site, and therefore question their basis for accepting polygyny and patriarchy also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top