The Creation of Woman

[SalixIncendium]

See

Congenital Human Baculum Deficiency​

While doing more research on this topic, I stumbled across this article which links back here to a thread @Skwim started back in 2011.

"But hold on, not so fast “science,” there’s another theory in town. Professor Ziony Zevit of the American Jewish University in Maryland has been thinking about penis bones for quite some time. According to an essay published by Professor Zevit in the journal of the Biblical Archaeology Society, it’s not evolution (who ever heard of such a thing!) we have to blame for our lack of penis bone, but God. You see, all those stories you’ve heard about God creating Eve out of Adam’s rib bone have been sorely mistranslated. Really, Eve was created out of Adam’s penis bone – really. (Though Professor Zevit’s essay appeared in 2015, this debate has been raging on Religiousforums.com since early 2011)."

Could Eve Have Been Created From Adam’s Penis Bone? It’s a Serious Question!

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you think that God can't put him under general anesthesia, I don't think in Jesus era they used to make operations
and to let the body going into deep sleep.

Since I have seen no other incidence of this, I would say yes, I think He can't.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I am covering my bases, not trying to harass you. You said I didn't explain. In cases like this, it seems I have to ask what part of my answer was insufficient?
God got the x-chromosome from Adam's material, from this he grew a female body with the DNA this requires.

If there are things I can explain but you feel are insufficiently explained, let me know so that I can expand on it if possible. If on the other hand, you have gotten all that I can give, then I guess we go our separate ways.

Females have two X chromosomes. Where did the other one come from?

 

[Grandliseur]

Females have two X chromosomes. Where did the other one come from?

This is where the ability of an individual who created the entire cosmos and all life comes into the picture.

There are all kinds of answers, but you already have yours, as your question demonstrates. The answer is already given, if you think about it, it is only a matter of accepting it.

If you view the DNA as programming, since it already was accepted (in this religious question) that God created Adam with his Y and X chromosomes and everything else in the DNA department that Adam needed for his body and cells to function, isn't the answer to how he got his x-chromosome and y-chromosome the answer to how Eve got her needed chromosomes! God had no problem writing this genetic data, that was not the reason for taking matter from Adam.

The question however that really is answered by God taking genetic material from Adam to use in his creating Eve - is that he wanted them to be related. If God had created an entirely new X-chromosome for Eve, they would not have been related and would not have been one flesh. That is what the whole enchilada is about in this account.

If you then point out that much of the genetic material we posses also is found in nearly same form in other lifeforms, please remember that any good engineer, data, mechanical, etc., always use plug and play, copy paste, so that proven routines, mechanisms, are used in many other units. Thus, in some very different cars where the prices might differ seriously, you might have the same generators, water pumps, hydraulic systems in the basic components, perhaps much of their software may be the same. It is therefore only to be expected that many genes in various species carry similar genes in some things. After all, the cell is the basic component and its machinery must work on the same principles no matter the unit it belongs to.

So, we come down to faith versus unbelief in God's existence and abilities.

 

[Thief]

Inspired by the evolution of tendons and bones thread, and how some have trouble wrapping their heads around the evolution of these, I wish to learn from the aforementioned about something that I've had trouble wrapping my head around since I was a small child. The creation of woman in Genesis 2.

I can accept via some loose interpretation the Biblical explanation for the creation of man:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The dust of the ground is the dust of the stars, and we are composed of stardust. I can interpret this as this dust evolving over time into man and accept that we came about (not instantaneously, of course) from this substance over millions of years.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the creation of woman. Now if a similar notion to the creation of man was offered, I could give it a nod an move on. But...

"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; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

I would appreciate if someone who has read and accepted this as truth would explain the process of removing a rib from a man and growing a woman from it here from a scientific or even rationalist perspective. Did Adam, thereafter, have only 11 pairs of ribs? Or 23 in total, one being unpaired? Did Eve have 13 pairs, or 25 ribs? How does a rib become a woman?

I would agree.....Eve is a clone
not born of woman.....no navel

and Adam was given his twin sister for a bride

 

[soulsurvivor]

Inspired by the evolution of tendons and bones thread, and how some have trouble wrapping their heads around the evolution of these, I wish to learn from the aforementioned about something that I've had trouble wrapping my head around since I was a small child. The creation of woman in Genesis 2.

I can accept via some loose interpretation the Biblical explanation for the creation of man:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The dust of the ground is the dust of the stars, and we are composed of stardust. I can interpret this as this dust evolving over time into man and accept that we came about (not instantaneously, of course) from this substance over millions of years.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the creation of woman. Now if a similar notion to the creation of man was offered, I could give it a nod an move on. But...

"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; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

I would appreciate if someone who has read and accepted this as truth would explain the process of removing a rib from a man and growing a woman from it here from a scientific or even rationalist perspective. Did Adam, thereafter, have only 11 pairs of ribs? Or 23 in total, one being unpaired? Did Eve have 13 pairs, or 25 ribs? How does a rib become a woman?

He probably used a process like this: Woolly mammoth to be brought back to life from cloned bone marrow 'within five years' | Daily Mail Online . Although I am not sure if a rib has any marrow. Also God would need to edit the genes in the male cell to make it female before cloning.

 

[SalixIncendium]

He probably used a process like this: Woolly mammoth to be brought back to life from cloned bone marrow 'within five years' | Daily Mail Online . Although I am not sure if a rib has any marrow. Also God would need to edit the genes in the male cell to make it female before cloning.

Did you happen to notice that the article was written six years ago?

 

[soulsurvivor]

Did you happen to notice that the article was written six years ago?

But God works much faster than men, probably took him 6 minutes.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Evolution is nothing but your claims and ideas, your belief system, a belief system that makes no sense to those who believe in Creationism.
There can be no bridge between our differences, no agreement except that we agree to disagree.

You are welcome to your beliefs, and if you have questions we can answer we'll assist with what we can about ours. Otherwise, there is no reason for any discussion to take place.

Evolution is the product of the scientific method. The scientific method works, as evidenced by the fact that you are using a device that has harnessed electrons so that you can communicate on this site. Electron theory doesn't care if you believe in it or not... it still functions the same way every time. You can reject the scientific method all you want... but you'll STILL benefit from vaccinations... electricity... the automobile you drive. The list is endless. Science isn't like religion where you can accept the parts you like and simply reject the parts you don't like.

 

[Deeje]

Can't it be both?

LOL...is there hope for improvement in either of these two areas?

Thank you for pointing out the regenerative qualities of the perichondrium. You are correct. There is evidence that the rib, once removed, will regenerate at least partially if the perichondrium is left in place. While this may explain that Adam retained the original value of ribs, it does not explain any generative value of the rib itself that would grow a woman.

Human DNA can be manipulated by man, why not by the one who created DNA?

Which leaves us with the question, how did a rib generate a woman? Why have we not been able to duplicate this process?

As we would expect, the rib itself would not "generate" anything. Human scientists are in their infancy when it comes to knowing all there is to know about biology and the human genome. If they knew more, then genetically transmitted diseases would no longer exist. There are a plethora of such disorders that science has thus far been unable to deal with effectively. It seems that any headway that is made is thwarted in some way and gets buried.

There is no way for infants to duplicate what a genius can do. Would you put a 12 month old baby up against Einstein in a science debate? This is how I see God verses science.

Biblical creation does not accommodate evolution. But creationists often insist on a literal 24 hour "day" in the Genesis account. Science contradicts this but when you examine biblical creation, you soon see that Genesis allows for an old earth and the creative "days" each to be eons of unspecified time.

When I consider creation, I see no "magic poofing" of the Creator 'speaking' things into existence with a wave of his hand. I see a master craftsman personally using all his creative abilities in each and every life form that exists....taking all the time necessary to construct the creature, create its food and water supply, its individual habitat, and its reproductive capacity.....and I see each one 'programmed' for the life it was designed to live. What incredible variety! I see nothing accidental in any of it, but everything to me is incredibly well planned and well constructed. It's an interactive system that demonstrates relationships in an Eco-System that IMO could not have come about by chance.

I am not convinced that science interprets its evidence for evolution in a totally honest way. Fossils, e.g. have no voice except the one that scientists give them....and they always seem to agre with what scientists want them to say. Any articles I have ever read on evolution is so full of supposition and suggestion that it makes them more incredible that the idea that creation is the product of Intelligent Design. That is how I see things.

 

[Grandliseur]

electricity... the automobile you drive

My bad!

I didn't realize physics, chemistry, and the making of technology was part of the atheistic evolutionary system. I have got to be more careful in the future. A guess a is a Christian atheist then.

When I see a post like yours with the avatar moniker you have, I am flat on the ground laughing at a hundred miles an hour.

 

[Polymath257]

My bad!

I didn't realize physics, chemistry, and the making of technology was part of the atheistic evolutionary system. I have got to be more careful in the future. A guess a is a Christian atheist then.

No, evolution is part of the scientific system. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

 

[Grandliseur]

No, evolution is part of the scientific system. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

Anyone who equals the normal scientific process with what is going on in the evolutionary belief system does not know what they are talking about.
There is no equaling the two. You may believe so, and that is your prerogative.

To me there is science and then there is pseudo science. Evolution is pseudo science in my book. There is no need to try to argue this point. I have often heard how Creationist professors are 'liars for Christ.' Then, the question is - who are atheists liars for? The answer is obvious.

This Q. was a religious question which I answered. I have no desire for it to turn into a debate about evolution. Evolution is pure insanity to me. Somehow, it always is brought back to evolution.

I know you are smarter than I am - and more highly educated, but, I wonder what you will do when the things in the Bible begin to happen in our time.

You are probably young enough to be around when some of these things begin. What will you do when the attack on religion foretold in the Bible happens? The Catholic church is going to get axed for sure, and how many other churches also perhaps, unknown. This is the first sign of the end. Then the Great Tribulation, and after that the sun-like object, sign of Christ in heaven that shall nearly tear the earth apart with earthquakes. At this moment, all you think of is how delusional I am, but if this begins, where will your assurances of evolution be? Of God not having created things!

And, congratulations with your promotion on this website.

 

[Polymath257]

Anyone who equals the normal scientific process with what is going on in the evolutionary belief system does not know what they are talking about.
There is no equaling the two. You may believe so, and that is your prerogative.

Not just mine. it is the viewpoint of the major scientific journals. And it cannot be said they don't know what they are talking about.

To me there is science and then there is pseudo science. Evolution is pseudo science in my book. There is no need to try to argue this point. I have often heard how Creationist professors are 'liars for Christ.' Then, the question is - who are atheists liars for? The answer is obvious.

You are right. There is no argument here. Creationism is pseudoscience and evolution is science. Go to any well-respected science journal. Say, Nature. Or Science. Go to any science department at any university in the country. Or for that matter, the world. The position is clear.

This Q. was a religious question which I answered. I have no desire for it to turn into a debate about evolution. Evolution is pure insanity to me. Somehow, it always is brought back to evolution.

I know you are smarter than I am - and more highly educated, but, I wonder what you will do when the things in the Bible begin to happen in our time.

You are probably young enough to be around when some of these things begin. What will you do when the attack on religion foretold in the Bible happens? The Catholic church is going to get axed for sure, and how many other churches also perhaps, unknown. This is the first sign of the end. Then the Great Tribulation, and after that the sun-like object, sign of Christ in heaven that shall nearly tear the earth apart with earthquakes. At this moment, all you think of is how delusional I am, but if this begins, where will your assurances of evolution be? Of God not having created things!

I'm not holding my breath.

And, congratulations with your promotion on this website.

Thank you.

 

[Enoch07]

Inspired by the evolution of tendons and bones thread, and how some have trouble wrapping their heads around the evolution of these, I wish to learn from the aforementioned about something that I've had trouble wrapping my head around since I was a small child. The creation of woman in Genesis 2.

I can accept via some loose interpretation the Biblical explanation for the creation of man:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The dust of the ground is the dust of the stars, and we are composed of stardust. I can interpret this as this dust evolving over time into man and accept that we came about (not instantaneously, of course) from this substance over millions of years.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the creation of woman. Now if a similar notion to the creation of man was offered, I could give it a nod an move on. But...

"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; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

I would appreciate if someone who has read and accepted this as truth would explain the process of removing a rib from a man and growing a woman from it here from a scientific or even rationalist perspective. Did Adam, thereafter, have only 11 pairs of ribs? Or 23 in total, one being unpaired? Did Eve have 13 pairs, or 25 ribs? How does a rib become a woman?

I present:

And:

Notice any similarities at all?

And that is your answer my friend.

 

[Enoch07]

Although it must be said. This was not the creation of women. This was the creation of Eve.

Men and Women were around for thousands of years procreating outside of Eden before Adam and then Eve were even created inside of Eden.

We call these humans the 6th day creations.

Adam and Eve if you trace the geneology were created to bring Jesus into the world, eventually many generations later when the time was right. And they was not made until after the 7th day in which God rested.

 

[columbus]

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the creation of woman.

You what I have trouble wrapping my head around? The creation of man. Males. That's what is bizarrely inefficient, to the point of being irrational.
The primitive people who wrote Scripture didn't really know where babies come from. They thought a person (male) planted his seed in a vessel (female) where it grew. Rather like planting seed in a field hoping for a crop. But it is not like that at all.

Women have everything necessary to reproduce. But sexual reproduction has a huge advantage over asexual reproduction. Sharing genetic code between females results in spreading advantageous mutations and variations. But there is no particular reason women couldn't do it directly among themselves. Things just didn't happen to evolve that way. So we are stuck with half the population being effectively barren and useless for procreation except to carry DNA from their mother to baby momma. Just like their dads did for a billion years.

I honestly think that the essentially disposable and inconsequential nature of the male of our species is why men are inclined to so much irrationally risky and self aggrandizing behavior. Because, as individuals, men simply aren't inherently important.

Now, I can understand that an undirected process like evolution wouldn't have a reason to do any better. But an Intelligent Designer failing so hugely? No, I just can't believe that an Intelligent Designer would create men, instead of just putting a penis in place of women's pinky fingers.
Tom

 

[dad1]

No, evolution is part of the scientific system. Atheism has nothing to do with it.

Not where evolution is taken to mean or defined as having to do with the origin of life on earth, or any common ancestor to man. That is belief based.

 

[dad1]

Although it must be said. This was not the creation of women. This was the creation of Eve.

Men and Women were around for thousands of years procreating outside of Eden before Adam and then Eve were even created inside of Eden..

Says you. So when Adam is called the first man, that really means..'absolutely not the first man'?

 

[dad1]

Inspired by the evolution of tendons and bones thread, and how some have trouble wrapping their heads around the evolution of these, I wish to learn from the aforementioned about something that I've had trouble wrapping my head around since I was a small child. The creation of woman in Genesis 2.

I can accept via some loose interpretation the Biblical explanation for the creation of man:

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The dust of the ground is the dust of the stars, and we are composed of stardust. I can interpret this as this dust evolving over time into man and accept that we came about (not instantaneously, of course) from this substance over millions of years.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is the creation of woman. Now if a similar notion to the creation of man was offered, I could give it a nod an move on. But...

"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; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

I would appreciate if someone who has read and accepted this as truth would explain the process of removing a rib from a man and growing a woman from it here from a scientific or even rationalist perspective. Did Adam, thereafter, have only 11 pairs of ribs? Or 23 in total, one being unpaired? Did Eve have 13 pairs, or 25 ribs? How does a rib become a woman?

Since He made stars and the sun after the earth we are not stardust. Your premise was wrong, so the conclusions about woman built on that premise were wrong.