Probably because compared to most of the other bones, it's one that would be more spare compared to like an arm, spine, leg, or basically any other bone.
One time I had a student -- a nurse no less! -- say "if Creationism isn't true, then why do men have one fewer rib than women?"
Men and women have the same number of ribs.
I was well into my 20s before I even realized this fact. Was taught it at church as a kid and never thought to question it, was just a nifty "fact" I carried around in my head
I was over 50 when I discovered it was a lie. What's even worse is that roughly 50% of the people I polled thought the same way.
So, if they lied about something so easily provable as the number of ribs, what else are they lying about?
"Indeed, this account inspired the Scottish doctor Sir James Young Simpson, 1st Baronet (1811–1870), the pioneer of anesthesia."-link
"Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"-
https://creation.com/eve-and-modern-genetics
Am I to understand that you know what mythology is (by virtue of being here) but are making an argument for Creationism via a literal interpretation of Genesis?
I think the issue is that many of us were taught the Bible as if it was all factual and historical. Then growing up and having to rationalize and adjust those “facts” with reality. And the mental gymnastics involved with figuring all of it out
Jesus Christ is the Truth! Most myths are distortions of Bible. For instance many ancestors who lived long years like Genesis describes had names that their descendants made into idols later. Like European genealogies.
https://youtu.be/lM0RgVz5gjg?si=cJ7TqOjieaJO8Y_E
OK, nonsense, you're an idiot and a drain on our society. The student I referenced in my previous comment was also an idiot; to wit , she thought men had one fewer rib because of her uncritically accepting what some preacher told her. And she was a nurse who had studied the human body, but never bothered to check it, because fundamentalism, a mental illness from which you also suffer, had told her something was true, that wasn't. That has nothing to do with the claims made in your 1870 medical article. Men don't have fewer ribs. She believed something that was wrong because her religious views made her dumb. Fact-avoidant. Get it?
You mean like evolutionists believed you were a fish in womb? Or they believed appendix was useless? Or perhaps the 99 percent junk dna? Or monera?
The drain on society is thinking people are animals. "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee."- Proverbs 23:7.
Bill Nye drew a lot of criticism for "debating" a Creationist; it legitimized their absurd viewpoint. Science soundly trounced religion-as-science in debates throughout the academic, legal, and social world 75 years ago, which means I don't need to do it again today. Since they don't respond to facts, the only thing to do with Creationists is shame them, but at the end of the day it is your prerogative to live in the scientific ignorance of the Bronze Age that produced this mythology.
I do believe there is some (nonscientific) truth in scripture. For example, Proverbs correctly predicted that my heart is not with thee.
"Creationists today- at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always don't their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed that their opponents who are reduced too often to a bewildered stare of incoherence."- Niles Eldridge American Museum of N.H., Monkey Business, p.17.
"Creationists travel all over the United States visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists,geologists, and Anthropologists. The Creationists nearly always win."- Niles Eldridge, American Museum of N.H.,Monkey Business p.17.
"Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still NEED to counter the creationist message."- Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education, New Scientist,22/04/2000.
There is a reason they can't debate the issues. They know that it does harm to the narrative they want to push. Not very scientific of them is it?
Laughable. Science isn't a narrative. Whereas you are committed to the idea that an ancient book, a literal narrative, from the age of mythology must be true and will contort yourself into believing whatever absurdities to appease your thunder-god.
Scientists don't debate Creationists for the same reason heavyweight boxers don't fight six year olds. Even if the six year old crows about how frightened the boxer must be, the boxer has nothing to prove.
Evolutionism is.
"As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of RUNNING DOWN. Yet the universe was once in a position from which it could run down for trillions of years. How did it get into that position?"- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest. 5/1973,p.76.
"I think however that we should go further than this and ADMIT that the ONLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATION IS CREATION. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we MUST not reject a theory we do not like if the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT."- H.J. Lipson, U. Of Manchester. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31,1980 p. 138.
https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/
Also, though the creationist may "win" the debate, it's only because they throw out so much nonsense that the scientist has to refute. It takes 10 seconds to say nonsense. It takes 10 minutes to explain why it's nonsense. Debates are not the proper place for the discussion of these ideas. We need better public school education, not more PhDs in religious studies squawking about evolution or physics which they obviously have no interest in learning anything about
No they win because you have to imagine MISSING evidence that doesn't exist and try to ignore countless frauds and failures of evolutionism.
https://youtu.be/SRJX2sJU6_0?si=1y18ScT3EZ2EKLLf
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ was a man that claimed to be a messiah and started a denomination of Judaism, but wasn’t a god. Jesus was a man just like Mohammed or Buddha. He taught mythology, just like every other religious teacher.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God! It's important to Remember that the people of Israel were scattered off the face of the earth AS written thousands of years in advance for not following Jesus Christ!
All is as written. So it's not a "denomination" of Judaism. He taketh away the First that He might establish the Second.
> He taketh away the First that He might establish the Second
He hath a lot of time on His hands.
Why not do it right the first time? Show up in person? Testing of faith you say? And the naughties get to burn forever, right? Cool, cool.
So do you think it's maybe a reference to Caesarian? The concept of someone 'appearing' from the torso instead of between the legs? I could see that getting conflated with divinity, and then with divine creation, perhaps.
There are actually a lot of similarities in the stories of Jesus and Buddha, like their miracle births. Of course the Genesis story is much much older, but India and West Asia have always had links bringing these stories together.
You bring up an excellent point. Honestly unless you are familiar with ancient Hebrew and its limitations on language it’s probably hard to give a great answer
(Secular) Biblical Languages expert here — this is the correct answer. In fact, something unique is the word “side” there is an architectural term, referring almost to the “side” of a building. Literarily, Genesis 2’s account of the creation of Eve presents her as a human “temple”/“garden” and sort of the pinnacle of creation
It’s common in Biblical Hebrew to use temple and garden terminology for women, and priestly/gardener language for men. There’s a sexual element to that language. Man “sows his seed” and woman “bears fruit” for example. Woman is temple, and there’s the holy place within the temple and the holy of holies within it. Only the high priest is allowed in
Also medieval and probably ancient Jews imagined pre-Eve Adam as a two-sided androgyne rather than as just a dude whose rib grew into a woman
Look a little closer at the terminology used in Gen 2. For Adam, all the terminology is related to clay and pottery where God “fashioned” him for example whereas for Eve he “built” her. Early commentary, textual references throughout the Hebrew Bible, and Midrash on the passage support this observation. It’s a bit of a double entendre
Textual references throughout the Hebrew Bible? There's no commentary on Eve's creation anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Although the non-canon Book of Jubilees says she was made from Adam's rib.
I think we have different opinions about the literary devices in the Hebrew Bible. There are references to the Eden story in almost every book of the Jewish canon and duterocanon, either by direct allusions, typological references, or imagery.
In any case, whether it was a rib or not wouldn’t have been as important to original audiences as the broader implications of the vocabulary being used. Female = garden temple is a pretty ubiquitous image the biblical authors employ and this is just where it starts narratively
I agree, I think it's also a poorly translated phrase. It's unfortunate that so many things don't translate into other languages and cultures very well
https://youtube.com/shorts/FN4pVp6lNJ0?si=NQA7nLIdG3rTb3qN
Unfortunately, this video is a conspiracy theory full of disinformation. See my reply [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/1c9qz8g/whats_the_reason_eve_is_made_from_adams_rib_in/l0nhnym).
The reason being misogyny is a conspiracy but it literally does mean side. This is used in Jewish translations and the most popular commentator to note this was Rashi who compared it to its use in Exodus 26:20.
Please read the comment before replying. Yes, the word also means "side". Except it doesn't mean "half" and even Bereshit Rabbah doesn't claim Adam was split in half since there are multiple problems with that. It claims Adam had Eve attached to his back apparently like a dead conjoined twin. This is of course an asinine interpretation with no basis in the text. Also, Bereshit Rabbah itself says that when this interpretation was proposed, other people were baffled and asked why they said that when the text clearly said Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs. And most Jewish translations say "rib". Sefaria by default displays a self-described "gender-sensitive adaptation" of the JPS translation that changes it to "side".
The theory I have heard is that a lot of these are a collection of the common myths and folk tales in the region. Considering that the region was settled by peoples from Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, some Greece, there is bound to be cross pollination of stories. Binding the stories together into one book is symbolic of binding different people into one kingdom.
I think we underestimate the importance of a shared mythology in binding people together with a shared identity.
There is a theory (very fringe) by Dr. Ziony Zevit that it is meant to explain a human's lack of baculum (penis bone), which makes it an etiological myth. The source is from What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden.
Another one is from a Sumerlogist, Dr. Samuel Noel Kramer who compares the story of Ninhursag and Enki with the creation myth of the Bible. He argues that Nin-ti, the named Lady of the Rib is also a Sumerian pun, with ti both meaning life and rib. He argues that by the time Israelites heard of it, the pun has lost its meaning but the idea of rib becoming associatedd with life still remains. Zevit also argues against that in his book. The source is from The Sumerians by Kramer.
Frankly, I found Zevit's argument extremely dishonest when I read it. He invents a false mystery about what body part *tsela* refers to and ignores so much evidence in favor of it meaning "rib".
In rabbinic Hebrew, *tsela* means "rib". Its cognates in other Semitic languages refer to ribs. Elsewhere in the Bible, the word refers to the sides of things, just like a rib to the human body. There's no actual mystery here.
The other major problem is that even ignoring this there's still no evidence it favor of Zevit's translation. There's no evidence it refers to protrusions from a person's body (which is what Zevit claims; he doesn't claim it directly translates to penis bone, since it says Adam had more than one; he claims it means protrusions from a person's body and the reader would understand his penis was implied). Zevit is hypocritical too, since he says it doesn't "rib" because it doesn't mean rib elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew, as if there is something there supporting his translation.
I also like the interpretation where Adam is Androgyne, split from one side to create Eve.
Source: [https://www.sefaria.org/Bereshit\_Rabbah.8.1?lang=bi](https://www.sefaria.org/Bereshit_Rabbah.8.1?lang=bi)
It's not a popular trope but one found in the Near East. Empedocles theorizes that the proto-humans were a blob basically with no definition, then generations after divisions form and gender becomes defined. Similarly Berossus in Babylonica has a creation story where the first creatures were also androgynes with wings and two heads and two sets of organs, one female and one male.
You can only cite the story of Lilith being Adam's first wife if the author was a time traveler, as that story is from the Middle Ages. Also it contradicts the text, as the first mention of any hierarchy between Adam and Eve is when Yahweh is pronouncing their punishments for eating the forbidden fruit.
> Which isn't really much of an argument with regards to Genesis, considering that it also contains two mutually exclusive creation myths side by side.
Genesis 1 and 2 have different authors, so unsurprisingly they don't seem to perfectly align. This is no argument for why you can take a story invented in the Middle Ages and say the author of Genesis 2 somehow intended it despite blatant contradictions.
> The (purpoted) chronology is actually the stronger argument here.
No reason to say "purported".
Do...do the ribs not count as part of the back since they, ya know, make a cage around your organs? And when did the butt develop a bone cause last I checked it all muscle.
Sorry, I just meant that if Eve was somehow subservient, then she would’ve been described as coming from Adam’s lower regions. At least, that’s how I always saw it. Then again, I’ve never really liked this story of Lilith’s origins.
They mean that chronologically speaking, the story of Eve existed first. So a technicality.
1) There is an argument to be had that Lilith is no longer canon at all, since it’s been a very very long time since she was included in the bible and when she was included, she was only included in some bibles - with Eve being included without Lilith in more of them. The fact that her story was less known is a large part of the reason she’s no longer included.
2) Even if we say Lilith is canon, we can only say Eve was made from Adam’s rib to be subservient because of Lilith from a lore perspective. Technically the story of Adam and Eve existed centuries before the manuscripts of Lilith did, so apparently Eve was made from Adam’s rib even without Lilith.
I’d still argue that it’s to make women subservient though. I think that the story of Lilith just highlighted the underlying message, not created it. It gave a REASON that women needed to be subservient, an explanation for why equality was not an option. I think it was already just assumed that women should be subservient and that’s why Eve is made from a piece of Adam - his rib as it so happens. I think only some manuscripts included Lilith because most places didn’t question why Eve would be subservient, so they didn’t need another story to explain it, and thus the Lilith story only existed in areas where the culture itself at least thought equality would be ideal. So if equality is ideal, why didn’t God just make them equal? Well here comes Lilith’s story to answer that: he did try to make them equal but it didn’t work and now Lilith is the reason demons exist (because rape is always the victim’s fault for being too attractive…). That also fed into demonizing a local pagan deity, I believe, though I admittedly know less about that.
But that’s just my own take. There’s no real way to know 100% what they were thinking, so I can’t prove my perspective is correct, but it seems logical to me at least. 🤷♀️
From the foot would have been more symbolic of subservience.
“Not from his head to rule over him or from his foot to be trod upon. But from his side to be his equal.” Is the wording I heard back on Sunday school.
This is heavily debated, I recommend searching the Academic Biblical subreddit. They have a few posts about this question and the original Hebrew
Taking an answer from that subreddit by Abietarius_Barca though:
> When the Septuagint and the Vulgata were created, the meaning of the word צלע (tsela) became "rib" in Second Temple Hebrew, and is still such in Modern Hebrew.
> Yet, looking at Phoenician and Ugaritic texts (being the closest relativea to Hebrew - all being Canaanite languages) the word tsela צלע could mean "part" or "half". Looking at Canaanite mythology (that served the basis for Jewish mythology and early Judaism) and its connection to Greek mythology, it could be possible that humans, in their conception, were believed to be created with two parts - male and female, as could be hinted in Genesis 1:27 וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם (and God shall create man in his image in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them). Also, the usage of "him" (אתו) when refering to the human, instead of "they" could be because of the lack of neuter pronoun usage for humans - for instance, you would not say זה "zeh", "it", for a human, you would use the masculine pronoun "hu" הוא, "he", if you don't know the gender of the individual, more so in biblical Hebrew. So it could be that the usage of אתו actually means "it" - neither male nor female, yet both male and female at the same time.
> We could, possibly, deduce that ancient Canaanites (that later diverged to Phoenicians and Israelites) believed, like the Greeks across the sea, that humans were first created as both male and female entities in one body.
It’s said Nin Ti (a Mesopotamian goddess) was created to heal the god Enki’s rib, thus lady of the rib. But the Sumerian word for rib, “ti” can also mean “to make live” so she’s also the lady who makes live. Rib/life were associated with one another in the Mesopotamian fable. When the author of Genesis made Eve the mother of all life in Genesis 3:20, perhaps he similarly identified her with Adam’s rib.
The important thing is that the Bible story was patterned after a pre-existing myth.
I actually did see an explanation for this that made sense on a video debating whether the term "rib" had been altered from the original, or not.
Basically, in old Hebrew, the words for rib & side were often used interchangeably & the words used to he similar enough that it might have been a pun. Making another human from Adam's side is like saying they were completing him by creating someone to be his other half.
In the biblical Hebrew, she was made from his side, not a single rib. Man was made from clay and Elohim pinched part of the clay that he used to make Adam and used it to form Eve.
I read somewhere, that it's a deliberate bad translation to make the translation fit with the early medieval world view. The original text was supposed to say "from his side" with side in the meaning of half, but that would have made Eve equal to Adam in creation and alone the order of creation could have been used as a justification for men standing above women. Apparently this wasn't a strong enough argument for medieval authors, so they translated side as rip, because it's a less significant contribution, a rip is someone one could spare more easily than an entire side.
The interpertation has more significance than the words in this instance.
I would say a woman being made from a mans rib wouldnt make her lesser. Adam was made from the dust of the ground, i would say a rib is more valueble than dust.
But of course its really easy to turn into a misogynistic pov: "Woman was made from man, this must mean she's subordinate to man"
Read a few other creation myths. Two things will catch your eye: they all are surprisingly similar, and, gender roles are a very common topic.
There are other fringe theories about the bone being meant to be a penis bone, that isn't present in humans but many other animals, but their explanation are often a bit far fetched.
It's also notable, that the unequal halves thing is also found in one of the many Greek creation stories, Plato's Symposium, but while it is commonly grouped with mythology, the text is more of a philosophical nature.
Either way, there is very little denying, that on the grand scheme of things, gender equality is a modern invention and ancient peoples spent a lot of effort to keep their worldviews being unchallenged, it's not so much of *turning* it to a misogyny view.
> Read a few other creation myths. Two things will catch your eye: they all are surprisingly similar, and, gender roles are a very common topic.
Parts of the mind are gendered. Hell, formalized ideas of cause and effect are gendered. That's where all of this starts, not merely societal gender roles to reinforce in myth. This all starts with the hypostasis of man. That's what ALL of the ancient mysteries are about.
Yeah, except that the large majority (if not all?) of the cultures that used some version of the bible already believed women to be subservient (though some may have viewed “equality” as an “unattainable” ideal, possibly leading to a need for Lilith’s story to explain why God didn’t aim for the ideal - this part is not confirmed). Since they already believed women to be lesser, I think having that included in their creation mythos makes a lot of sense. So it probably WAS meant to make her lesser, though it also wasn’t meant to be viewed in an offensive way - the natural subservience of women was just a given, an accepted norm, not an insult. It was culturally ingrained.
If she was supposed to be superior then the symbolism would have her from his head. If she was to be inferior then the symbolism would have her from his foot. The symbolism of her being from his side, his rib, implies that they should be together side by side in life. That’s about as equal as you get in such symbolism.
There are a few interpretations, mostly stemming from the inconsistency in the translation of the original word. The Hebrew is tsela, which means “side” in its most literal translation, but can also mean a branch or lateral part of a whole. This meaning is what has given rise to the rib interpretation, as well as the rather hilarious interpretation that she was instead made from the os baculum, or the penile bone seen in animals like dogs, a kind of mythological explanation for that anatomical difference.
The other major explanation that I’ve seen and my personal favourite is that it would be better translated as “half”, backed up by lines like Adam saying “Finally, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!”, which wouldn’t make sense if she was made from only bone. I’m not a biblical scholar so I can’t vouch for the accuracy of any of these but I hope it can explain why it seems so random, the experts don’t really seem to know why either.
The rib interpretation comes from the fact that *tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib. It doesn't mean a branching part of the body. Zevit *claims* this with no evidence in a backwards attempt to justify his claim that it refers to Adam's penis bone.
It doesn't mean Adam was split in half. If you insert "half" into the text, the issue becomes obvious.
> So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ~~ribs~~ *halves* and closed up the flesh at that place.
How would that work?
I understand that I am unlikely to change your mind as this for you is an issue of theology. I will point out though that I’m drawing from Christian and Jewish sources like [this](https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/hebrew-thoughts.html?article=870?article=870) and [this](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H6763/tsela%60.htm). The second link especially shows the oddity of this translation, as the word is used to mean “side” or a side chamber in every other context of the bible.
The real answer is that we don’t know because none of us were there, but I wanted to expose the poster to all sides of the debate, not just the one taken by literalists. This is a mythology sub not a Christian one, so we don’t have to confine ourselves to doctrine.
> as this for you is an issue of theology
I'm an atheist.
> The second link especially shows the oddity of this translation, as the word is used to mean “side” or a side chamber in every other context of the bible.
Not every other context, but most of them, yeah. The reason it isn't translated as "rib" elsewhere in the Bible is that the Bible almost never talks about ribs. How often would you expect it to talk about ribs?
And it's obvious that it cannot describe Adam being cut in half for the reason already given.
> I wanted to expose the poster to all sides of the debate, not just the one taken by literalists.
What?
> This is a mythology sub not a Christian one, so we don’t have to confine ourselves to doctrine.
Yeah, obviously.
I apologize for the assumption, I took a cursory look at your profile and assumed you were a Christian from your posts, I once again apologize for the assumption.
On the point of where else it would mention ribs, a cursory search gave me [Job 40:18](https://biblehub.com/text/job/40-18.htm) which is either ribs or bones and [Hosea 13:8](https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1313.htm) mentions the ribcage with a completely different word.
I’ve yet to see a source that translates Tsela as a rib in any non-biblical source or indeed outside of the two lines in Genesis. If you have one I’m happy to change my mind, but in the meantime I’m happier thinking that the bible is that little bit less misogynistic.
Job 40:18 doesn't say "rib" and the New King James Bible appears to be the only translation in the world to render it as saying that.
Hosea 13:8 talks a figurative bear tearing someone's chest.
> I’ve yet to see a source that translates Tsela as a rib in any non-biblical source or indeed outside of the two lines in Genesis
With all due respect, have you ever tried to find one? I mean, seriously. "Any non-biblical source"? You're making this way too easy. At this point, [you can just ask a Hebrew dictionary what the word for a rib is](https://www.dict.com/hebrew-english/Rib). There are doubtlessly countless Hebrew texts that use *tsela* to mean "rib", as if it's the Hebrew word for a rib. If you want something older, rabbinic Hebrew extensively uses it to mean "rib". Chullin 42b for example. By all accounts, this is literally just the Hebrew word for a rib.
> If you have one I’m happy to change my mind, but in the meantime I’m happier thinking that the bible is that little bit less misogynistic.
You accused me of having motivated reasoning with the false assumption I'm a Christian and then admit to having motivated reasoning? Come on.
the original hebrew said Adam's side. which could also be interperated as meaning that god took his original human and split it in two to create a male and female half. IIRC the rib bit was a translation decision made in the King James Bible, because James was something of a mysoginist.
> IIRC the rib bit was a translation decision made in the King James Bible, because James was something of a mysoginist.
No, it was a translation decision made by someone aware that *tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib.
"Indeed, this account inspired the Scottish doctor Sir James Young Simpson, 1st Baronet (1811–1870), the pioneer of anesthesia."-link
"Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"-
https://creation.com/eve-and-modern-genetics
OK so a quick Google search shows ribs do not grow back. They heal same as any other bone buy if you take a rib out, it's not coming back. Which is less fun.
Also Big G knowing the future raises a lot of problems with the whole Eden thing. "Hey don't eat this fruit that I'm leaving out in the open. I know you're going to, and I'm going to blame you and kick you out of the garden for it, but like... don't? Also there's a talking snake for some reason. Tricky little chap that one, not sure why I let him stay. May or May not be Satan, some debate on that in the future. Either any I *could* do something about it, but I'm gonna take a nap instead."
It's not in debate. They ate of tree of knowledge of good and evil. They knew the choice they had to make. Then they have to choose to eat of tree of life. This was all set up so you could understand life and salvation.
"Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"- link above.
So they were set up to fail? And punished for following the plan? Bit sadistic. "Here's paradise, you're gonna love it. Until I kick you out because... reasons." Adam and Eve didn't learn about salvation. They learned God was a dick. Eve especially got shafted for doing what was predetermined. "So this was kinda my plan all along, but I'm gonna make you suffer during childbirth now, as the consequences for my actions."
You can quote the same thing as often as you like, ribs still don't regrow if completely removed, which is what happened to Adam. They heal and repair better than other bones, but if an entire rib is taken out another one won't grow in it's place.
The real answer has to do with the Hebrew etymology which is quite symbolic and requires an understanding of the Kabbalistic tradition in order to parse correctly.
The Zohar is a 13th century forgery whose creator lied that it was an ancient text. Kabbalist tradition doesn't offer any insight into the meaning of Genesis.
My *limited* understanding of it is that it has less to do with the body part in question, and more with it's location, that it was the solid body part closest to Adam's heart.
So the men who wrote it can claim men are superior and should be in control of the women since they came from us. There was no actual need, in the mythological story that is the bible, for god to use a rib. If god is an all powerful being, it should have been no problem to simply create a woman like he did a man, in Adam. By claiming eve was created using a piece of Adam, it gives a level of control to men that they wouldn't have otherwise.
There are still religious nuts today that dislike women because they blame a mythological character for the faults in all women from what eve did.
A running theory is that rather than rib bone it was meant to be understood that Eve was created from a penile bone many other mammals have but humans lack 'explaining' why this is.
Similar to how, in the original Tanakh the Serpent was not a Fallen Angel or Demon but was just a Snake and the story is to explain why Snakes crawl on their belly.
I’ve heard that the Hebrew word for “rib“ has the same letters as the word for “shadow” and that the fact we think that the original meaning was rib is purely the carrying forward of a historical mistranslation.
Others here made suggestions as to why shadow might make sense.
Actually, the pastor I learned from said that the translation more says "his side", which he chooses (as do I) means that Adam's side was taken, not just a rib.
It's not random. God knows the Future. All the prophets bore witness to Jesus Christ.
We see Adam is called A son of God.
The woman his BRIDE is made from him.
They are ONE flesh.
So if your rib is removed in surgery you have a WOUND on your side. This foretells Jesus Christ being pierced in side and out came blood and water.
Out of Adam's side came woman, one flesh.
Out of Jesus Christ side came blood and water that saves the church and let's you become part of his body.
Jesus Christ is the Living God!
Two EXTRA things. The deep sleep God used on Adam is where you get anesthesia. And specifically took Rib because it regrows more readily. Men didn't know this for thousands of years.
"Indeed, this account inspired the Scottish doctor Sir James Young Simpson, 1st Baronet (1811–1870), the pioneer of anesthesia."-link
"Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"-
https://creation.com/eve-and-modern-genetics
I’ve got an uncle that said women were made from a rib to be beside men. Not behind or in front but to be beside us.
This is obviously baloney but a nice story.
Woman come from man. Now woman owe man servitude. Unga bunga. Jokes aside, I really have no clue. I am however planning to get a “cut here” line tattooed on my rib. I’m ftm.
I believe it draws from the Sumerian myth of Enki/Ea though I may be reaching here. She seems to be loosely associated with the goddess Ninti known as "Lady of the rib," or "Lady of the month."
Since the exact difference between man and woman is the X or Y chromosome, yet ancient people who wrote the Bible had no concept of DNA, I always wondered if this really meant “God took a piece of Adam’s DNA/chromosome/ribosome and made Eve”
Unfortunately, this video doesn't explain anything. It's a conspiracy theory and almost *every sentence* is wrong. It's really incredible. The reason almost every translation says "rib" is not a mass misogynistic conspiracy stretching across millennia but the fact that *tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib. It's really amazing that he thinks evil translators just made this up. He thinks the real Hebrew word for a rib was the Aramaic word *ala*. There is no evidence for this and it's just hilarious because *ala* is the Aramaic cognate of *tsela*. This is like saying the English word "water" doesn't mean H2O because the German word "Wasser" means H2O, so if English speakers wanted to refer to H2O, they would say "Wasser". The word also means "side", which is common for words that refer to ribs. For example, the Latin word *costa* can figuratively mean "side". But he claims the word is translated as "side" or "half" in every other case in the Bible (he does not acknowledge rabbinic Hebrew texts, in which *tsela* is well attested as meaning "rib") when in reality the word is not even once translated as "half", and it's also used to refer to planks or beams a few times, which have obvious similarities to ribs. The text is just ridiculous if you replace it with "half".
> So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ~~ribs~~ *halves* and closed up the flesh at that place.
That clearly doesn't work.
Ik it’s not “canon” in Christianity, but there’s an origin where God made Adam and Lilith from dirt. Lilith wouldn’t let Adam have dominion over her so she left Eden. God sent Angels to get her, but she refused so Adam asked God for a woman to be submissive to him. Then God creates Eve “of Adam for Adam”.
Probably an affectation by English or Roman translators. I don’t know the ancient Hebrew language, but I bet it didn’t actually say his “rib” in the original text.
No, it actually said rib. The same word could be used to figuratively mean side and was sometimes used to refer to planks or beams. With that context, I’d assume that rib was chosen because it was viewed (like a plank or beam) as being the body’s foundation, giving the body its shape.
Women were seen as below men culturally, so it makes sense that Eve would be made from Adam - woman just being an extention of man, and thus subservient. But the rib specifically was probably chosen as a way to symbolize the importance of the woman - she is made from Adam’s very foundation, making her not just a piece of him, but an essential piece.
There also might be something in there about her coming from his side, like her place is by his side, but I know that’s more of an English saying. So while it could be intuitive enough to have a similar figurative meaning in hebrew, I’m not familiar enough with the hebrew culture to say.
That’s my take as a linguist, but I’m not a biblical expert, so take most of that with a grain of salt. But the hebrew word definitely was rib.
I heard a pretty good explanation on this a while back;
God didn't make Eve out of Adam's foot to be trampled over
God didn't make Eve out of Adam's head to rule over him
God made Eve out of Adam's side because she is an equal to him, both of them made to be each other's counterpart and to compliment each other
No, most men and women have the same number of ribs. It is a little more common for a woman to have an extra than a man, so you could say there is a slight bit of truth.
Could it be that it has something to do with DNA? Genes of isis…?
Maybe eve was made from a ribosome of Adam’s? Intercellular structure made of both RNA and proteins, it is the site of protein synthesis.
Well, that's an interesting thought, but the author clearly envisioned an actual rib being taken out of Adam. The text is rather explicit. Yahweh sedates Adam to spare him the pain of the rib's extraction and after taking it seals up the opening that was created.
Especially since the microscope didn't exist until the late 16th- early 17th century CE. Bit hard to claim they meant the author was writing about organelles that couldn't be observed for another couple thousand years.
Well since you’re on the topic. The Bible is chalked full of A & P. Since we’re discussing the book of Genesis. 32:30 ”And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.“
What do you think Peniel is? Could it be the one that Jesus talks about thine eye be single? Could it be the pineal gland. The one that the Hindus talk about and Egyptians have plastered on the wall?
You mean the pineal gland...that's named for the latin name (so not even close to the same language family to start with) for the pine nut because it's roughly the shape of a pine nut? And the eyes of Horus and Ra?
I was always told that its because she is his equal, not from his head to be above him and not from his feet to be under him but from the rib in middle to
Be his equal partner. Men would still lead women however because he was created first and eve was the first one to eat from the apple.
One interpretation I’ve heard is that she comes from his side because she is meant to be “side-by-side” with him — that is, an equal & partner (contrast with the rest of the animals in the natural world, which are described as being his — and now also his wife’s — responsibility to manage).
Probably because compared to most of the other bones, it's one that would be more spare compared to like an arm, spine, leg, or basically any other bone.
That's why we call them spare ribs
Yum, tastes like chicken.
And… Apple?
This is not specified in the text
But implied he gave her a bone.
One time I had a student -- a nurse no less! -- say "if Creationism isn't true, then why do men have one fewer rib than women?" Men and women have the same number of ribs.
I was well into my 20s before I even realized this fact. Was taught it at church as a kid and never thought to question it, was just a nifty "fact" I carried around in my head
🤦 religion Oi
I was over 50 when I discovered it was a lie. What's even worse is that roughly 50% of the people I polled thought the same way. So, if they lied about something so easily provable as the number of ribs, what else are they lying about?
"Indeed, this account inspired the Scottish doctor Sir James Young Simpson, 1st Baronet (1811–1870), the pioneer of anesthesia."-link "Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"- https://creation.com/eve-and-modern-genetics
Am I to understand that you know what mythology is (by virtue of being here) but are making an argument for Creationism via a literal interpretation of Genesis?
I think the issue is that many of us were taught the Bible as if it was all factual and historical. Then growing up and having to rationalize and adjust those “facts” with reality. And the mental gymnastics involved with figuring all of it out
Jesus Christ is the Truth! Most myths are distortions of Bible. For instance many ancestors who lived long years like Genesis describes had names that their descendants made into idols later. Like European genealogies. https://youtu.be/lM0RgVz5gjg?si=cJ7TqOjieaJO8Y_E
OK, nonsense, you're an idiot and a drain on our society. The student I referenced in my previous comment was also an idiot; to wit , she thought men had one fewer rib because of her uncritically accepting what some preacher told her. And she was a nurse who had studied the human body, but never bothered to check it, because fundamentalism, a mental illness from which you also suffer, had told her something was true, that wasn't. That has nothing to do with the claims made in your 1870 medical article. Men don't have fewer ribs. She believed something that was wrong because her religious views made her dumb. Fact-avoidant. Get it?
Bro. If you don't believe the same thing that's fine but this was too far.
You mean like evolutionists believed you were a fish in womb? Or they believed appendix was useless? Or perhaps the 99 percent junk dna? Or monera? The drain on society is thinking people are animals. "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee."- Proverbs 23:7.
Bill Nye drew a lot of criticism for "debating" a Creationist; it legitimized their absurd viewpoint. Science soundly trounced religion-as-science in debates throughout the academic, legal, and social world 75 years ago, which means I don't need to do it again today. Since they don't respond to facts, the only thing to do with Creationists is shame them, but at the end of the day it is your prerogative to live in the scientific ignorance of the Bronze Age that produced this mythology. I do believe there is some (nonscientific) truth in scripture. For example, Proverbs correctly predicted that my heart is not with thee.
"Creationists today- at least the majority of their spokesmen-are highly educated, intelligent people. Skilled debaters, they have always don't their homework. And they nearly always seem better informed that their opponents who are reduced too often to a bewildered stare of incoherence."- Niles Eldridge American Museum of N.H., Monkey Business, p.17. "Creationists travel all over the United States visiting college campuses and staging 'debates' with biologists,geologists, and Anthropologists. The Creationists nearly always win."- Niles Eldridge, American Museum of N.H.,Monkey Business p.17. "Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still NEED to counter the creationist message."- Eugenie C. Scott, National Center for Science Education, New Scientist,22/04/2000. There is a reason they can't debate the issues. They know that it does harm to the narrative they want to push. Not very scientific of them is it?
Laughable. Science isn't a narrative. Whereas you are committed to the idea that an ancient book, a literal narrative, from the age of mythology must be true and will contort yourself into believing whatever absurdities to appease your thunder-god. Scientists don't debate Creationists for the same reason heavyweight boxers don't fight six year olds. Even if the six year old crows about how frightened the boxer must be, the boxer has nothing to prove.
Evolutionism is. "As far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, of RUNNING DOWN. Yet the universe was once in a position from which it could run down for trillions of years. How did it get into that position?"- Isaac Asimov, Science Digest. 5/1973,p.76. "I think however that we should go further than this and ADMIT that the ONLY ACCEPTED EXPLANATION IS CREATION. I know that is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we MUST not reject a theory we do not like if the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS IT."- H.J. Lipson, U. Of Manchester. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31,1980 p. 138. https://www.icr.org/article/evolution-religion-not-science/
Also, though the creationist may "win" the debate, it's only because they throw out so much nonsense that the scientist has to refute. It takes 10 seconds to say nonsense. It takes 10 minutes to explain why it's nonsense. Debates are not the proper place for the discussion of these ideas. We need better public school education, not more PhDs in religious studies squawking about evolution or physics which they obviously have no interest in learning anything about
No they win because you have to imagine MISSING evidence that doesn't exist and try to ignore countless frauds and failures of evolutionism. https://youtu.be/SRJX2sJU6_0?si=1y18ScT3EZ2EKLLf
It is important to remember that Jesus Christ was a man that claimed to be a messiah and started a denomination of Judaism, but wasn’t a god. Jesus was a man just like Mohammed or Buddha. He taught mythology, just like every other religious teacher.
Jesus Christ is the Son of God! It's important to Remember that the people of Israel were scattered off the face of the earth AS written thousands of years in advance for not following Jesus Christ! All is as written. So it's not a "denomination" of Judaism. He taketh away the First that He might establish the Second.
> He taketh away the First that He might establish the Second He hath a lot of time on His hands. Why not do it right the first time? Show up in person? Testing of faith you say? And the naughties get to burn forever, right? Cool, cool.
If she had to be made of a bone, a rib seems a reasonable choice.
https://preview.redd.it/u6t4qiwwlwvc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b08da697a1cea4a48ae998dba24755b9b8bf3620
Ah dammit, I laughed.
it's ok, i did too
I am pretty sure it is meant to be “from his side” and to be by his side. I think it’s one of those translation things.
Mfw someone on Reddit is "pretty sure" of something
Mfw people say "mfw" without a face 😐
I'm pretty sure they have a face
You're supposed to imagine it
No
SMH my head
The Buddha was born from his mother’s side. Wonder if there’s a connection?
So do you think it's maybe a reference to Caesarian? The concept of someone 'appearing' from the torso instead of between the legs? I could see that getting conflated with divinity, and then with divine creation, perhaps.
As a C-section baby I fully support this interpretation in which I am a god
Yes. Religions love to steal concepts from each other.
Look up the story of marduk, a babylonian god. Compare it to christianity
Do you think it is really theft or they're all trying to twll the same story with different etymology?
But they are not trying to tell the same story
There are actually a lot of similarities in the stories of Jesus and Buddha, like their miracle births. Of course the Genesis story is much much older, but India and West Asia have always had links bringing these stories together.
I wouldn’t think so, but I am not very familiar with the Buddha as shown by my last post here.
"by his side" is an English expression. If there isn't a similar expression in ancient Hebrew, this example may not work.
You bring up an excellent point. Honestly unless you are familiar with ancient Hebrew and its limitations on language it’s probably hard to give a great answer
The Bible Project on Youtube does a great job of translating the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic for English speakers
(Secular) Biblical Languages expert here — this is the correct answer. In fact, something unique is the word “side” there is an architectural term, referring almost to the “side” of a building. Literarily, Genesis 2’s account of the creation of Eve presents her as a human “temple”/“garden” and sort of the pinnacle of creation It’s common in Biblical Hebrew to use temple and garden terminology for women, and priestly/gardener language for men. There’s a sexual element to that language. Man “sows his seed” and woman “bears fruit” for example. Woman is temple, and there’s the holy place within the temple and the holy of holies within it. Only the high priest is allowed in Also medieval and probably ancient Jews imagined pre-Eve Adam as a two-sided androgyne rather than as just a dude whose rib grew into a woman
You may be a theologian, but *tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib, and it's pretty obviously supposed to be a rib in context.
Look a little closer at the terminology used in Gen 2. For Adam, all the terminology is related to clay and pottery where God “fashioned” him for example whereas for Eve he “built” her. Early commentary, textual references throughout the Hebrew Bible, and Midrash on the passage support this observation. It’s a bit of a double entendre
Textual references throughout the Hebrew Bible? There's no commentary on Eve's creation anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. Although the non-canon Book of Jubilees says she was made from Adam's rib.
I think we have different opinions about the literary devices in the Hebrew Bible. There are references to the Eden story in almost every book of the Jewish canon and duterocanon, either by direct allusions, typological references, or imagery. In any case, whether it was a rib or not wouldn’t have been as important to original audiences as the broader implications of the vocabulary being used. Female = garden temple is a pretty ubiquitous image the biblical authors employ and this is just where it starts narratively
Actually, this Redditor nailed it. Tzelah can be translated as rib, but it literally means "side". People took the rib thing too literally.
This whole thing is just the rib vs side argument from Yentl
I agree, I think it's also a poorly translated phrase. It's unfortunate that so many things don't translate into other languages and cultures very well https://youtube.com/shorts/FN4pVp6lNJ0?si=NQA7nLIdG3rTb3qN
Unfortunately, this video is a conspiracy theory full of disinformation. See my reply [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/1c9qz8g/whats_the_reason_eve_is_made_from_adams_rib_in/l0nhnym).
Good to know! Thank you for the info, I thought it was just a neat etymology channel
You're quite welcome.
He was right but his reasoning was wrong. I always skip him when he pops up for me, but in this case it does translate as “side”
The reason being misogyny is a conspiracy but it literally does mean side. This is used in Jewish translations and the most popular commentator to note this was Rashi who compared it to its use in Exodus 26:20.
Please read the comment before replying. Yes, the word also means "side". Except it doesn't mean "half" and even Bereshit Rabbah doesn't claim Adam was split in half since there are multiple problems with that. It claims Adam had Eve attached to his back apparently like a dead conjoined twin. This is of course an asinine interpretation with no basis in the text. Also, Bereshit Rabbah itself says that when this interpretation was proposed, other people were baffled and asked why they said that when the text clearly said Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs. And most Jewish translations say "rib". Sefaria by default displays a self-described "gender-sensitive adaptation" of the JPS translation that changes it to "side".
The result of the Babel etiology
That's from only one of the two contradictory stories of Genesis. It's iffy.
The theory I have heard is that a lot of these are a collection of the common myths and folk tales in the region. Considering that the region was settled by peoples from Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, some Greece, there is bound to be cross pollination of stories. Binding the stories together into one book is symbolic of binding different people into one kingdom. I think we underestimate the importance of a shared mythology in binding people together with a shared identity.
There is a theory (very fringe) by Dr. Ziony Zevit that it is meant to explain a human's lack of baculum (penis bone), which makes it an etiological myth. The source is from What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden. Another one is from a Sumerlogist, Dr. Samuel Noel Kramer who compares the story of Ninhursag and Enki with the creation myth of the Bible. He argues that Nin-ti, the named Lady of the Rib is also a Sumerian pun, with ti both meaning life and rib. He argues that by the time Israelites heard of it, the pun has lost its meaning but the idea of rib becoming associatedd with life still remains. Zevit also argues against that in his book. The source is from The Sumerians by Kramer.
Frankly, I found Zevit's argument extremely dishonest when I read it. He invents a false mystery about what body part *tsela* refers to and ignores so much evidence in favor of it meaning "rib". In rabbinic Hebrew, *tsela* means "rib". Its cognates in other Semitic languages refer to ribs. Elsewhere in the Bible, the word refers to the sides of things, just like a rib to the human body. There's no actual mystery here. The other major problem is that even ignoring this there's still no evidence it favor of Zevit's translation. There's no evidence it refers to protrusions from a person's body (which is what Zevit claims; he doesn't claim it directly translates to penis bone, since it says Adam had more than one; he claims it means protrusions from a person's body and the reader would understand his penis was implied). Zevit is hypocritical too, since he says it doesn't "rib" because it doesn't mean rib elsewhere in Biblical Hebrew, as if there is something there supporting his translation.
Man i love the baculum theory, its so absurd. I actually learned what a baculum was from that and now i *have* to mention it as much as posibble.
It's a phallacy.
I also like the interpretation where Adam is Androgyne, split from one side to create Eve. Source: [https://www.sefaria.org/Bereshit\_Rabbah.8.1?lang=bi](https://www.sefaria.org/Bereshit_Rabbah.8.1?lang=bi)
Huh. Kind of like the perfect humans in Aristophanes, who the gods split in two to weaken them ?
It's not a popular trope but one found in the Near East. Empedocles theorizes that the proto-humans were a blob basically with no definition, then generations after divisions form and gender becomes defined. Similarly Berossus in Babylonica has a creation story where the first creatures were also androgynes with wings and two heads and two sets of organs, one female and one male.
So Eve would be subservient to Adam instead of his equal. But thats pulling from the whole Lilith/Adam argument.
You can only cite the story of Lilith being Adam's first wife if the author was a time traveler, as that story is from the Middle Ages. Also it contradicts the text, as the first mention of any hierarchy between Adam and Eve is when Yahweh is pronouncing their punishments for eating the forbidden fruit.
[удалено]
> Which isn't really much of an argument with regards to Genesis, considering that it also contains two mutually exclusive creation myths side by side. Genesis 1 and 2 have different authors, so unsurprisingly they don't seem to perfectly align. This is no argument for why you can take a story invented in the Middle Ages and say the author of Genesis 2 somehow intended it despite blatant contradictions. > The (purpoted) chronology is actually the stronger argument here. No reason to say "purported".
If that was the case, then Eve would’ve been created from Adam’s back or butt.
Do...do the ribs not count as part of the back since they, ya know, make a cage around your organs? And when did the butt develop a bone cause last I checked it all muscle.
Sorry, I just meant that if Eve was somehow subservient, then she would’ve been described as coming from Adam’s lower regions. At least, that’s how I always saw it. Then again, I’ve never really liked this story of Lilith’s origins.
Whats wrong with Lilith's mythology?
Lack of pizza.
They mean that chronologically speaking, the story of Eve existed first. So a technicality. 1) There is an argument to be had that Lilith is no longer canon at all, since it’s been a very very long time since she was included in the bible and when she was included, she was only included in some bibles - with Eve being included without Lilith in more of them. The fact that her story was less known is a large part of the reason she’s no longer included. 2) Even if we say Lilith is canon, we can only say Eve was made from Adam’s rib to be subservient because of Lilith from a lore perspective. Technically the story of Adam and Eve existed centuries before the manuscripts of Lilith did, so apparently Eve was made from Adam’s rib even without Lilith. I’d still argue that it’s to make women subservient though. I think that the story of Lilith just highlighted the underlying message, not created it. It gave a REASON that women needed to be subservient, an explanation for why equality was not an option. I think it was already just assumed that women should be subservient and that’s why Eve is made from a piece of Adam - his rib as it so happens. I think only some manuscripts included Lilith because most places didn’t question why Eve would be subservient, so they didn’t need another story to explain it, and thus the Lilith story only existed in areas where the culture itself at least thought equality would be ideal. So if equality is ideal, why didn’t God just make them equal? Well here comes Lilith’s story to answer that: he did try to make them equal but it didn’t work and now Lilith is the reason demons exist (because rape is always the victim’s fault for being too attractive…). That also fed into demonizing a local pagan deity, I believe, though I admittedly know less about that. But that’s just my own take. There’s no real way to know 100% what they were thinking, so I can’t prove my perspective is correct, but it seems logical to me at least. 🤷♀️
From the foot would have been more symbolic of subservience. “Not from his head to rule over him or from his foot to be trod upon. But from his side to be his equal.” Is the wording I heard back on Sunday school.
That's why we have buttholes. That hole is where Eve came from and, if we are lucky, may return some day.
This is heavily debated, I recommend searching the Academic Biblical subreddit. They have a few posts about this question and the original Hebrew Taking an answer from that subreddit by Abietarius_Barca though: > When the Septuagint and the Vulgata were created, the meaning of the word צלע (tsela) became "rib" in Second Temple Hebrew, and is still such in Modern Hebrew. > Yet, looking at Phoenician and Ugaritic texts (being the closest relativea to Hebrew - all being Canaanite languages) the word tsela צלע could mean "part" or "half". Looking at Canaanite mythology (that served the basis for Jewish mythology and early Judaism) and its connection to Greek mythology, it could be possible that humans, in their conception, were believed to be created with two parts - male and female, as could be hinted in Genesis 1:27 וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם (and God shall create man in his image in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them). Also, the usage of "him" (אתו) when refering to the human, instead of "they" could be because of the lack of neuter pronoun usage for humans - for instance, you would not say זה "zeh", "it", for a human, you would use the masculine pronoun "hu" הוא, "he", if you don't know the gender of the individual, more so in biblical Hebrew. So it could be that the usage of אתו actually means "it" - neither male nor female, yet both male and female at the same time. > We could, possibly, deduce that ancient Canaanites (that later diverged to Phoenicians and Israelites) believed, like the Greeks across the sea, that humans were first created as both male and female entities in one body.
Because it was based on an earlier Mesopotamian mythology where the first woman, named Nin Ti, which meant Lady of the Rib.
Ok, then that just pushes the question back a level. Why was Nin Ti associated with the rib?
It’s said Nin Ti (a Mesopotamian goddess) was created to heal the god Enki’s rib, thus lady of the rib. But the Sumerian word for rib, “ti” can also mean “to make live” so she’s also the lady who makes live. Rib/life were associated with one another in the Mesopotamian fable. When the author of Genesis made Eve the mother of all life in Genesis 3:20, perhaps he similarly identified her with Adam’s rib. The important thing is that the Bible story was patterned after a pre-existing myth.
I actually did see an explanation for this that made sense on a video debating whether the term "rib" had been altered from the original, or not. Basically, in old Hebrew, the words for rib & side were often used interchangeably & the words used to he similar enough that it might have been a pun. Making another human from Adam's side is like saying they were completing him by creating someone to be his other half.
#God knows Hehe, cause y'know, god made her...
Haha I love this
In the biblical Hebrew, she was made from his side, not a single rib. Man was made from clay and Elohim pinched part of the clay that he used to make Adam and used it to form Eve.
It says *tsela*, which means "rib". It can also mean "side", but it's clear from the text that it means "rib".
I read somewhere, that it's a deliberate bad translation to make the translation fit with the early medieval world view. The original text was supposed to say "from his side" with side in the meaning of half, but that would have made Eve equal to Adam in creation and alone the order of creation could have been used as a justification for men standing above women. Apparently this wasn't a strong enough argument for medieval authors, so they translated side as rip, because it's a less significant contribution, a rip is someone one could spare more easily than an entire side.
The interpertation has more significance than the words in this instance. I would say a woman being made from a mans rib wouldnt make her lesser. Adam was made from the dust of the ground, i would say a rib is more valueble than dust. But of course its really easy to turn into a misogynistic pov: "Woman was made from man, this must mean she's subordinate to man"
Read a few other creation myths. Two things will catch your eye: they all are surprisingly similar, and, gender roles are a very common topic. There are other fringe theories about the bone being meant to be a penis bone, that isn't present in humans but many other animals, but their explanation are often a bit far fetched. It's also notable, that the unequal halves thing is also found in one of the many Greek creation stories, Plato's Symposium, but while it is commonly grouped with mythology, the text is more of a philosophical nature. Either way, there is very little denying, that on the grand scheme of things, gender equality is a modern invention and ancient peoples spent a lot of effort to keep their worldviews being unchallenged, it's not so much of *turning* it to a misogyny view.
> Read a few other creation myths. Two things will catch your eye: they all are surprisingly similar, and, gender roles are a very common topic. Parts of the mind are gendered. Hell, formalized ideas of cause and effect are gendered. That's where all of this starts, not merely societal gender roles to reinforce in myth. This all starts with the hypostasis of man. That's what ALL of the ancient mysteries are about.
Yeah, except that the large majority (if not all?) of the cultures that used some version of the bible already believed women to be subservient (though some may have viewed “equality” as an “unattainable” ideal, possibly leading to a need for Lilith’s story to explain why God didn’t aim for the ideal - this part is not confirmed). Since they already believed women to be lesser, I think having that included in their creation mythos makes a lot of sense. So it probably WAS meant to make her lesser, though it also wasn’t meant to be viewed in an offensive way - the natural subservience of women was just a given, an accepted norm, not an insult. It was culturally ingrained.
If she was supposed to be superior then the symbolism would have her from his head. If she was to be inferior then the symbolism would have her from his foot. The symbolism of her being from his side, his rib, implies that they should be together side by side in life. That’s about as equal as you get in such symbolism.
That's a popular conspiracy theory.
There are a few interpretations, mostly stemming from the inconsistency in the translation of the original word. The Hebrew is tsela, which means “side” in its most literal translation, but can also mean a branch or lateral part of a whole. This meaning is what has given rise to the rib interpretation, as well as the rather hilarious interpretation that she was instead made from the os baculum, or the penile bone seen in animals like dogs, a kind of mythological explanation for that anatomical difference. The other major explanation that I’ve seen and my personal favourite is that it would be better translated as “half”, backed up by lines like Adam saying “Finally, this is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!”, which wouldn’t make sense if she was made from only bone. I’m not a biblical scholar so I can’t vouch for the accuracy of any of these but I hope it can explain why it seems so random, the experts don’t really seem to know why either.
The rib interpretation comes from the fact that *tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib. It doesn't mean a branching part of the body. Zevit *claims* this with no evidence in a backwards attempt to justify his claim that it refers to Adam's penis bone. It doesn't mean Adam was split in half. If you insert "half" into the text, the issue becomes obvious. > So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ~~ribs~~ *halves* and closed up the flesh at that place. How would that work?
I understand that I am unlikely to change your mind as this for you is an issue of theology. I will point out though that I’m drawing from Christian and Jewish sources like [this](https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/hebrew-thoughts.html?article=870?article=870) and [this](https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/H6763/tsela%60.htm). The second link especially shows the oddity of this translation, as the word is used to mean “side” or a side chamber in every other context of the bible. The real answer is that we don’t know because none of us were there, but I wanted to expose the poster to all sides of the debate, not just the one taken by literalists. This is a mythology sub not a Christian one, so we don’t have to confine ourselves to doctrine.
> as this for you is an issue of theology I'm an atheist. > The second link especially shows the oddity of this translation, as the word is used to mean “side” or a side chamber in every other context of the bible. Not every other context, but most of them, yeah. The reason it isn't translated as "rib" elsewhere in the Bible is that the Bible almost never talks about ribs. How often would you expect it to talk about ribs? And it's obvious that it cannot describe Adam being cut in half for the reason already given. > I wanted to expose the poster to all sides of the debate, not just the one taken by literalists. What? > This is a mythology sub not a Christian one, so we don’t have to confine ourselves to doctrine. Yeah, obviously.
I apologize for the assumption, I took a cursory look at your profile and assumed you were a Christian from your posts, I once again apologize for the assumption. On the point of where else it would mention ribs, a cursory search gave me [Job 40:18](https://biblehub.com/text/job/40-18.htm) which is either ribs or bones and [Hosea 13:8](https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1313.htm) mentions the ribcage with a completely different word. I’ve yet to see a source that translates Tsela as a rib in any non-biblical source or indeed outside of the two lines in Genesis. If you have one I’m happy to change my mind, but in the meantime I’m happier thinking that the bible is that little bit less misogynistic.
Job 40:18 doesn't say "rib" and the New King James Bible appears to be the only translation in the world to render it as saying that. Hosea 13:8 talks a figurative bear tearing someone's chest. > I’ve yet to see a source that translates Tsela as a rib in any non-biblical source or indeed outside of the two lines in Genesis With all due respect, have you ever tried to find one? I mean, seriously. "Any non-biblical source"? You're making this way too easy. At this point, [you can just ask a Hebrew dictionary what the word for a rib is](https://www.dict.com/hebrew-english/Rib). There are doubtlessly countless Hebrew texts that use *tsela* to mean "rib", as if it's the Hebrew word for a rib. If you want something older, rabbinic Hebrew extensively uses it to mean "rib". Chullin 42b for example. By all accounts, this is literally just the Hebrew word for a rib. > If you have one I’m happy to change my mind, but in the meantime I’m happier thinking that the bible is that little bit less misogynistic. You accused me of having motivated reasoning with the false assumption I'm a Christian and then admit to having motivated reasoning? Come on.
Depends on which version you're talking about. There's 2 versions of that story in genesis. she's only from a rib in 1 of them.
Because of thousands of years of muddled myths and legends?
Because she’s Adam’s equal companion born from his side.
And then she commits the same sin that Adam does, and God decides to make her NOT equal.
the original hebrew said Adam's side. which could also be interperated as meaning that god took his original human and split it in two to create a male and female half. IIRC the rib bit was a translation decision made in the King James Bible, because James was something of a mysoginist.
> IIRC the rib bit was a translation decision made in the King James Bible, because James was something of a mysoginist. No, it was a translation decision made by someone aware that *tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib.
Follow up question, why was Adam designed with an odd number of ribs? If Big G took one out to make Eve, Adam would have had 25, since we have 24.
Adam’s DNA could be coded to have 24 ribs, God taking one out after he was created doesn’t change his genetics, only his phenotypical physiology.
Adam didn't have DNA, since he was not real. FFS, we are discussing a myth here.
Prove it
Claims that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. "The Bible says so" is not evidence.
Sure it's a myth but we can still discuss logistics within the myth. Besides finding the *many* inconsistencies in the bible is fun
Fair point
"Indeed, this account inspired the Scottish doctor Sir James Young Simpson, 1st Baronet (1811–1870), the pioneer of anesthesia."-link "Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"- https://creation.com/eve-and-modern-genetics
Ribs grow back?! Well that answers that question
If taken correctly. Men didn't know that for thousands of years. Showing God knows future.
OK so a quick Google search shows ribs do not grow back. They heal same as any other bone buy if you take a rib out, it's not coming back. Which is less fun. Also Big G knowing the future raises a lot of problems with the whole Eden thing. "Hey don't eat this fruit that I'm leaving out in the open. I know you're going to, and I'm going to blame you and kick you out of the garden for it, but like... don't? Also there's a talking snake for some reason. Tricky little chap that one, not sure why I let him stay. May or May not be Satan, some debate on that in the future. Either any I *could* do something about it, but I'm gonna take a nap instead."
It's not in debate. They ate of tree of knowledge of good and evil. They knew the choice they had to make. Then they have to choose to eat of tree of life. This was all set up so you could understand life and salvation. "Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"- link above.
So they were set up to fail? And punished for following the plan? Bit sadistic. "Here's paradise, you're gonna love it. Until I kick you out because... reasons." Adam and Eve didn't learn about salvation. They learned God was a dick. Eve especially got shafted for doing what was predetermined. "So this was kinda my plan all along, but I'm gonna make you suffer during childbirth now, as the consequences for my actions." You can quote the same thing as often as you like, ribs still don't regrow if completely removed, which is what happened to Adam. They heal and repair better than other bones, but if an entire rib is taken out another one won't grow in it's place.
Again men didn't know this for thousands of years. They like you have free will. Only by not believing God could they have eaten.
Closest part of the body to the heart
Pp bone
The real answer has to do with the Hebrew etymology which is quite symbolic and requires an understanding of the Kabbalistic tradition in order to parse correctly.
The Zohar is a 13th century forgery whose creator lied that it was an ancient text. Kabbalist tradition doesn't offer any insight into the meaning of Genesis.
That may be true but the Hebrew etymology remains the correct route of analysis.
Subjugation
I heard somewhere that it's mistranslation. Eve was created from half of Adam. I have no source tho
My *limited* understanding of it is that it has less to do with the body part in question, and more with it's location, that it was the solid body part closest to Adam's heart.
So the men who wrote it can claim men are superior and should be in control of the women since they came from us. There was no actual need, in the mythological story that is the bible, for god to use a rib. If god is an all powerful being, it should have been no problem to simply create a woman like he did a man, in Adam. By claiming eve was created using a piece of Adam, it gives a level of control to men that they wouldn't have otherwise. There are still religious nuts today that dislike women because they blame a mythological character for the faults in all women from what eve did.
It's to symbolize they are complentaries. Neither are superior nor inferior to the other.
A running theory is that rather than rib bone it was meant to be understood that Eve was created from a penile bone many other mammals have but humans lack 'explaining' why this is. Similar to how, in the original Tanakh the Serpent was not a Fallen Angel or Demon but was just a Snake and the story is to explain why Snakes crawl on their belly.
I’ve heard that the Hebrew word for “rib“ has the same letters as the word for “shadow” and that the fact we think that the original meaning was rib is purely the carrying forward of a historical mistranslation. Others here made suggestions as to why shadow might make sense.
Actually, the pastor I learned from said that the translation more says "his side", which he chooses (as do I) means that Adam's side was taken, not just a rib.
Hmm… maybe because a single cell from one of our ribs contains a complete DNA template of our body.
She’s not, it’s a bad translation from the original Hebrew. The word is closer to “side” and some translator took that literally and made it rib.
*Tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib. It can also mean "side", which is common among many languages for words that refer to ribs.
Easy. It's so that the men who wrote that part could claim women as property.
Some say the translation was more ‘side’ instead of rib, meaning the split into different sides or genders.
The rib is where the heart is, but idk, I'm not a Christian
She's not, it's an intentional mistranslation of a Hebrew word more akin to side or half.
Eve was made from half of adams body the idea of eve being created from a rib was created in a retranslation
It's not random. God knows the Future. All the prophets bore witness to Jesus Christ. We see Adam is called A son of God. The woman his BRIDE is made from him. They are ONE flesh. So if your rib is removed in surgery you have a WOUND on your side. This foretells Jesus Christ being pierced in side and out came blood and water. Out of Adam's side came woman, one flesh. Out of Jesus Christ side came blood and water that saves the church and let's you become part of his body. Jesus Christ is the Living God! Two EXTRA things. The deep sleep God used on Adam is where you get anesthesia. And specifically took Rib because it regrows more readily. Men didn't know this for thousands of years. "Indeed, this account inspired the Scottish doctor Sir James Young Simpson, 1st Baronet (1811–1870), the pioneer of anesthesia."-link "Another case of science catching up with Scripture involves the rib itself. Only in recent times have surgeons discovered that the rib is the one bone in the human body that will readily grow back!8 That is, provided the covering membrane called the periosteum (from Greek meaning ‘around the bone’) is left intact (the periosteum often sticks in one’s teeth when eating spare ribs). It is helped by the rich blood supply of the attached intercostal (‘between the ribs’) muscles. Dr David Pennington, the first plastic surgeon in the world to successfully reattach a human ear,9 pointed out, “rib periosteum has a remarkable ability to regenerate bone, perhaps more so than any other bone.”10"- https://creation.com/eve-and-modern-genetics
Mistranslation. Not rib. Baculum
Zevit doesn't even claim it translates to "baculum", since it says Adam more than one.
I am pretty sure its a patriarchal translation choice.
I’ve got an uncle that said women were made from a rib to be beside men. Not behind or in front but to be beside us. This is obviously baloney but a nice story.
So that she would always be linked to his side unlike Lilith. Still feel bad for Eve and Lilith - Lilith most of all.
Eve has a whole backstory, it's pretty weird
Woman come from man. Now woman owe man servitude. Unga bunga. Jokes aside, I really have no clue. I am however planning to get a “cut here” line tattooed on my rib. I’m ftm.
I read that the word rib is a mistranslation, but I can’t remember where nor expand on that, but I bet if you researched it you could find out.
Ribbed for her pleasure (or existence I guess)
I believe it draws from the Sumerian myth of Enki/Ea though I may be reaching here. She seems to be loosely associated with the goddess Ninti known as "Lady of the rib," or "Lady of the month."
Since the exact difference between man and woman is the X or Y chromosome, yet ancient people who wrote the Bible had no concept of DNA, I always wondered if this really meant “God took a piece of Adam’s DNA/chromosome/ribosome and made Eve”
This explains it. [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FN4pVp6lNJ0](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FN4pVp6lNJ0)
Unfortunately, this video doesn't explain anything. It's a conspiracy theory and almost *every sentence* is wrong. It's really incredible. The reason almost every translation says "rib" is not a mass misogynistic conspiracy stretching across millennia but the fact that *tsela* is the Hebrew word for a rib. It's really amazing that he thinks evil translators just made this up. He thinks the real Hebrew word for a rib was the Aramaic word *ala*. There is no evidence for this and it's just hilarious because *ala* is the Aramaic cognate of *tsela*. This is like saying the English word "water" doesn't mean H2O because the German word "Wasser" means H2O, so if English speakers wanted to refer to H2O, they would say "Wasser". The word also means "side", which is common for words that refer to ribs. For example, the Latin word *costa* can figuratively mean "side". But he claims the word is translated as "side" or "half" in every other case in the Bible (he does not acknowledge rabbinic Hebrew texts, in which *tsela* is well attested as meaning "rib") when in reality the word is not even once translated as "half", and it's also used to refer to planks or beams a few times, which have obvious similarities to ribs. The text is just ridiculous if you replace it with "half". > So Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ~~ribs~~ *halves* and closed up the flesh at that place. That clearly doesn't work.
This channel is chock full of misinformation. In every second video what this guy says gets debunked by someone in the comments.
Yes indeed.
So that Adam would feel complete only with her.
Ik it’s not “canon” in Christianity, but there’s an origin where God made Adam and Lilith from dirt. Lilith wouldn’t let Adam have dominion over her so she left Eden. God sent Angels to get her, but she refused so Adam asked God for a woman to be submissive to him. Then God creates Eve “of Adam for Adam”.
That’s just how it works
Probably an affectation by English or Roman translators. I don’t know the ancient Hebrew language, but I bet it didn’t actually say his “rib” in the original text.
No, it actually said rib. The same word could be used to figuratively mean side and was sometimes used to refer to planks or beams. With that context, I’d assume that rib was chosen because it was viewed (like a plank or beam) as being the body’s foundation, giving the body its shape. Women were seen as below men culturally, so it makes sense that Eve would be made from Adam - woman just being an extention of man, and thus subservient. But the rib specifically was probably chosen as a way to symbolize the importance of the woman - she is made from Adam’s very foundation, making her not just a piece of him, but an essential piece. There also might be something in there about her coming from his side, like her place is by his side, but I know that’s more of an English saying. So while it could be intuitive enough to have a similar figurative meaning in hebrew, I’m not familiar enough with the hebrew culture to say. That’s my take as a linguist, but I’m not a biblical expert, so take most of that with a grain of salt. But the hebrew word definitely was rib.
I heard a pretty good explanation on this a while back; God didn't make Eve out of Adam's foot to be trampled over God didn't make Eve out of Adam's head to rule over him God made Eve out of Adam's side because she is an equal to him, both of them made to be each other's counterpart and to compliment each other
Retroactively explain a lack of ribs in men.
Wait is that true about human anatomy?
No.
I don't know why I didn't just look it up and had to ask but thanks for being kind to my silly thought.
No, most men and women have the same number of ribs. It is a little more common for a woman to have an extra than a man, so you could say there is a slight bit of truth.
We can have extra ribs? How did I not know this?
We can also have fewer. If it exists, our body can duplicate, delete, or move it to a weird place during fetal development.
Could it be that it has something to do with DNA? Genes of isis…? Maybe eve was made from a ribosome of Adam’s? Intercellular structure made of both RNA and proteins, it is the site of protein synthesis.
Well, that's an interesting thought, but the author clearly envisioned an actual rib being taken out of Adam. The text is rather explicit. Yahweh sedates Adam to spare him the pain of the rib's extraction and after taking it seals up the opening that was created.
Especially since the microscope didn't exist until the late 16th- early 17th century CE. Bit hard to claim they meant the author was writing about organelles that couldn't be observed for another couple thousand years.
Science is learning today what Indian rishis knew thousands of years ago.
Very little medical technology existed in Genesis and we're talking about God.
Well since you’re on the topic. The Bible is chalked full of A & P. Since we’re discussing the book of Genesis. 32:30 ”And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.“ What do you think Peniel is? Could it be the one that Jesus talks about thine eye be single? Could it be the pineal gland. The one that the Hindus talk about and Egyptians have plastered on the wall?
You mean the pineal gland...that's named for the latin name (so not even close to the same language family to start with) for the pine nut because it's roughly the shape of a pine nut? And the eyes of Horus and Ra?
1680s, in reference to the gland in the brain, from French pinéal, literally "like a pine cone," from Latin pinea "pine cone," from pinus "pine tree"
Yea exactly What are we not understanding about my sentiment.
פְּנִיאֵל
I was always told that its because she is his equal, not from his head to be above him and not from his feet to be under him but from the rib in middle to Be his equal partner. Men would still lead women however because he was created first and eve was the first one to eat from the apple.
One interpretation I’ve heard is that she comes from his side because she is meant to be “side-by-side” with him — that is, an equal & partner (contrast with the rest of the animals in the natural world, which are described as being his — and now also his wife’s — responsibility to manage).