Woman created twice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deltared4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deltared4

Guest
Can anyone explain why, during the creation, God created man AND woman,
“… He created them.” And later Genesis tells us that woman was created from Adam’s rib.

I have no issue with the ‘rib’ creation, but why say “He created them” if God had not yet taken the rib?

More food for thought:
God created them in ‘our’ image. The Trinity?

Your thoughts?

D:cool:
 
Deltared4 said:
Can anyone explain why, during the creation, God created man AND woman,
“… He created them.” And later Genesis tells us that woman was created from Adam’s rib.

I have no issue with the ‘rib’ creation, but why say “He created them” if God had not yet taken the rib?

More food for thought:
God created them in ‘our’ image. The Trinity?

Your thoughts?

D:cool:
Click to expand...
It seems that there are two distinct creation accounts in Genesis. One begins with Genesis 1:1 and goes thru Gen 2:4a. The second account, concerning Adam and Eve begins with Gen.2:4b. They are complementary to each other.
 
There are two creation accounts, the Elohist (Genesis 1) and the Yahwist (Genesis 2)

From the UCCB Website…

The Yahwist is concrete, imaginative, using many anthropomorphisms in its theological approach, as seen, e.g., in the narrative of creation in Genesis 2, compared with the Priestly version in Genesis 1.

Regarding being made in “our” image, yes, the Trinity. Many will use the example of God’s git of free will as an example of how we are made in God’s image and that is certainly true. I think an even greather example is human sexuality and our masculinity and femininity.

Pope John Paul II stated that union between husband and wife was the “Primordial Sacrament”. Remember that while it confers grace, a sacrament uses visible means to reveal to man invisible, divine truths about God.

The love between the Father and the Son that takes place within the Trinity, each giving himself totally to the other in self sacrifical love, holding nothing back, is what produces the Holy Spirit. Catholics bear witness to the fact that the Holy Spirit is a product of the interchange of perfect self sacrifical love between God the Father and God the Son in the Creed…

We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceedes from the Father and the Son.

Man and woman are made the same way. The interchange of love between husband and wife, though imperfect, produces a child in the same way in which the perfect interchange of love between God the Father and God the Son produce the Holy Spirit. Consider that the word “Spirit” (in Latin spiritus) means “Breath.” Think of the Holy Spirit as the breath of God - the “Heavy breathing” of God the Father perectly loving God the Son and God the Son perfectly loving God the Father, both holding nothing back from each other, and you will get the idea. In this way, sexual union between husband and wife, who give themselves totally to each other in matrimony, not only reveals to us the innermost working of the Trinity but is a way in which we are supposed to experience Trinitarian love to it’s fullest in our own lives.

I think this brings us back full circle to the original question…

***God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. *(Genesis 1:27)

It’s a sublime statement, and not just an observation about the characteristics of our first parents, as if the author was noting hair color or their hight or weight. Our masculinity and femininity are part of the divine image in which we are created. The bridal theme is then carried through the Old Testament, to the wedding feast at Cana, to the very end of the Bible to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb where the “Bride” of the lamb is mentioned all throughout chapters 18 to 22.

Just some random thoughts of mine, I guess…🤷

-Tim-
 
Two explanations have come down to me. The one is that God first made a pair of humans, one male and one female, the male called “Adam” and the female called “Lilith”, both created independently from the ground. Lilith felt that since they had the same kind of origin, they should be equal in all respects, and so she left him. Then God made another woman, this time out of a piece of Adam’s side. Adam named this one “Eve”. This explanation is given in more detail in *The Legends of the Jews *by Louis Ginzberg, available online. The other is that Genesis 2 is an expansion on Genesis 1:27 that was set apart so that we could appreciate the overall symmetry and order of chapter 1.
 
DianaCC said:
Two explanations have come down to me. The one is that God first made a pair of humans, one male and one female, the male called “Adam” and the female called “Lilith”, both created independently from the ground. Lilith felt that since they had the same kind of origin, they should be equal in all respects, and so she left him. Then God made another woman, this time out of a piece of Adam’s side. Adam named this one “Eve”. This explanation is given in more detail in *The Legends of the Jews *by Louis Ginzberg, available online. The other is that Genesis 2 is an expansion on Genesis 1:27 that was set apart so that we could appreciate the overall symmetry and order of chapter 1.
Click to expand...
Lilith is Babylonian mythology, Jewish folklore and has been taken up and used in modern times by wicca earth religions, satanists and new age religions.

The story of Lilith put forth above is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

When you hear modern “spirtual” references to Lilith, it should be an immediate red flag that you are dealing with satanists or more probably, wicca and new age sprituatlism.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
The story of Lilith put forth above is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Right. But even if it is a made-up story, it is a clever explanation of why Eve was made out of Adam instead of independently, and why from his rib rather than some other part.
 
Google Suzerainty Treaty. This is a covenant between a ruler and the ruled, and took the two-part form seen in the Genesis creation account. This is a common format today in legal and medical literature: a summary; and a detailed account. This isn’t two creation accounts.

As an aside, the Lilith tale comes from adopting the Worlds in Collision astronomical events into some cogent mythical form to explain why the heavenly bodies are careening around, this during a time of catastrophic events in the universe as per Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikkovsky’s works, like Worlds in Collision, are taken from ancient writings from all over the world that harmonize nicely with Genesis.

One example is the rain of fiery hailstones from heaven, a plague Moses prophesied for Egypt. Velikovsky thinks hydrocarbon-rich matter fell on earth, and this could have been frozen naptha. Great stuff from a guy who correctly predicted, based on ancient writings, that Venus was a hot planet, wildly scoffed at during the fifties…but correct. “Nothing new under the Sun.”
 
Deltared4 said:
Can anyone explain why, during the creation, God created man AND woman,
“… He created them.” And later Genesis tells us that woman was created from Adam’s rib.

I have no issue with the ‘rib’ creation, but why say “He created them” if God had not yet taken the rib?

More food for thought:
God created them in ‘our’ image. The Trinity?

Your thoughts?

D:cool:
Click to expand...
I’ve never picked up on the implications of the Holy Trinity and humanity being made in God’s image. Perhaps Plato was correct when he formulated his theory of the tripartite nature of the soul 🤷
 
The Lilith ‘tale’ is one of the reasons I posed the original question.

I think I can digest the Suzerainty Treaty explanation. I am not trying to refute the Bible,
merely understand. When certain things ‘pop out’ at you, it raises questions.
This forum seems the perfect venue to discuss them.

So, Thank you all for your speculation.

I will add that the notion that if you listen to or read anything not officially approved by the Church is evil or satanist sounds a little paranoid. (And medieval)

Even if we eventually find all of the answers from the Church, it does not mean that we cannot seek other pieces of the puzzle from other sources. Consider the Jews, Buddhists, Hindi and yes, Muslims all of whom have contributions from their respective writings that do not contradict the Church.

D :cool:

“The strength of the seeing lies with you.” - Tales from Topographic Oceans
 
Oh, that’s an easy question to answer.

Well, the first version of woman was always beautiful, was always sweet, kind, never argued, always put her husband first, never burned food, never put on weight, could drive, no hangups when it came to bedtime games. Basically she was so awesome Adam had not complaints about her. Then God looked at Adam and said, “It’s not good for man to always be happy with his spouse. He’ll die fast of boredom without the head and stress of woman.” So then God destroyed the first Eve and made a second version. This Eve was a handful - she went around eating things she didn’t have any business eating, only wanted three kids, and Adam knew she was going to be a pain from the very beginning because God had to remove one of his ribs to make her. So, that’s the version we are stuck with now - she is a handful, does cause gray hair, but at least she keeps us on our toes.

David
 
The “two” creation accounts are really about ONE creation event described from different viewpoints.

BOTH take pains to make clear that BOTH man AND woman are made in the image and likeness of God, even 5,000+ years before “inclusive language” became the trend. How about that…

The first account focuses directly on how both are created in God’s image. The second account (with the rib) seems to imply that God divided the original Adam (made in God’s image and likeness) into Adam and Eve such that neither Adam (the rib was removed) nor Eve constitute as full an image and likeness of God as Adam and Eve do TOGETHER. Not coincidentally, it is only together that Adam and Eve possess the God-given power to bring forth new life on this earth. And people wonder why the Church objects to people mucking around with sexual perversions…
 
It is written that way otherwise after say first day, second day etc. it would have to say all about man being lonely so woman was created from him before saying about God resting on the seventh day.
  1. God made Adam.
  2. God made Eve from Adam.
End.

There is no lillith.
 
DianaCC said:
Right. But even if it is a made-up story, it is a clever explanation of why Eve was made out of Adam instead of independently, and why from his rib rather than some other part.
Click to expand...
Close to his heart 😃
 
If you track the good guys and bad guys in the ancient world, the good guys, relying on divine revelation, had great science. No surprise that the western world, relying on a cogent Creator, fostered rapidly-developing scientific achievement. The bad guys took up the pieces of high tech, high math and high chemistry and turned it into occult practice that never evolved as they had no roots in the divine, like a cargo cult ape-ing high tech stuff in bamboo. May the Lord grant us holy wisdom and knowledge.

Genesis shows the principle that good science is good religion. “God science” shows man created from the stuff of the earth. Hiding in plain sight, we take it for granted now that our bodies are formed of constituents from earth, yet that is good science. Woman was created, cloned one may say, from Man, who was put to sleep, anesthesia, a medical practice today. A further refinement is suggested by the literal Genesis language per the Focus on the Family program featuring a doctor who dissected Genesis. So it may be said Woman was gene tweaked, this refinement based on Adam, and Woman does indeed show greater genetic material than Man, God’s genetic engineering.

Genesis is so consonant with science it is hard to play this off as a legend or myth. Noah’s Ark is another example. Compared to other Deluge accounts, Genesis is a technical manual. For example, a close literal reading of “kpr” translated as “gopher” with “wood” emended or added, shows a fine technique for waterproofing still used today. Kpr is kephra, or tephra, white volcanic ash. Noah’s Ark was tarred and resined to waterproof it and coated with volcanic ash. Mineralized tar is used as a roofing material, either coated with rocky granules or with aluminum particles migrating to the surface to provide a reflective coating. Ancient depictions of the Egg of Life held by the hand of God, seen in Turkish meerschaum pipes made from light, white volcanic stone, actually depict Noah’s Ark, which would have had a white mineral coating. Poor translations suggest the Ark was made out of “gopher (wood).”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top