by VorJack
Marriage in the Bible, Part 2
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”
How many times have we heard that line? I know of several ways to respond to this statement.
The first is a gentle correction from David Rakhoff, who reminds us that homosexuals in this culture prefer full names, “Of course not Adam and Steve, never Adam and Steve! It’s Adam and Stephen!”
The second comes from our friend Fred Clark — ecstatic wonder:
Thus again we come to mystery. Steve was neither made nor begotten; yet Steve is. What can we do in the face of such mystery? It is beyond our ken. We cannot hope to understand, we can only drop to our knees to sing a bewildered hymn of praise to the Creator of all things except Steve.
The third response is somewhat more lengthy examination of the story itself. I think that everyone is now aware that there are two creation accounts in Genesis: the earlier “J” source (Gen. 2:4 – 3:24), and the later priestly account (Gen. 1:1 – Gen. 2:3). Let’s set aside the more philosophical priestly account and focus on the more mythical “J” account.
Someone Has To Rake The Leaves
Pullquote: The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.
In Genesis chapter 2, Eden is pictured as a sort of pleasure garden. It’s full of fruiting trees, which were a rare luxury in semi-arid climates. But such a garden requires maintenance, and so the Gods created a gardener:
The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. (Gen 2:15, RSV)
Soon after, God realizes that his new helper will soon get lonely. In order to prevent this, God creates every living creature on earth:
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. (Gen. 2:19-20)
Since none of the animals made a fit companion for man, God decided to create something more akin to man himself. And thus woman was created from a piece of the man. Some scholars argue that the word rib should be translated as side, implying that the first human was split in half to form male and female. It’s hard to resist this translation, since it makes the story so similar to a Greek creation myth.
Regardless, the newly formed humans feel no shame at their nudity. This emotion doesn’t arrive until after the fruit is eaten and the pair “know good and evil.” What exactly does this imply? It seems to me, and to most scholars of the classics that I’ve read, that the post-apple pair now knows the process of sex and reproduction. Since they cannot be allowed to have both immortality and reproduce, the two are hastily removed from the garden before the place is crawling with undying humanity.
Myth Laid Bare
Pullquote: To use the Genesis story as a proof text in the battle over gay marriage is to entirely miss the point of the story and to do a disservice to its authors.
Let’s recap: Man was created simply to be a gardener. Woman was created as an afterthought, after all the animals had been created, in order to help and keep Adam company. They were not meant to reproduce, but stumbled on this ability by accident. There is nothing in the story that implies that they represent the ideal family. In fact, it seems that God set out to avoid the normal outcome of a sexually active couple.
If this seems like too cynical an interpretation, consider the regional context. In one Sumerian creation myth, humanity was created specifically to do the jobs that the Gods didn’t want to do. The Gods were so pleased with their new laborers that they threw a party, and some defective humans were created during a drunken party game. But the humans got too noisy, and the Gods decided to shut them up with a world-wide flood. In comparison, Genesis is almost dignified.
I think it’s important to get down to the mythic base of this story. There is always a temptation to use the Bible as a proof text while ignoring the actual purpose of the stories it tells. There is nothing in this story to make us think that it is prescriptive rather than descriptive.
The story of Adam and Eve is a mythic account that seeks to explain the human condition. To use this story as a proof text in the battle over gay marriage is to entirely miss the point of the story and to do a disservice to its authors.
« Part 1
Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.
Vorjack,
I think it’s important to get down to the mythic base of this story. There is always a temptation to use the Bible as a proof text while ignoring the actual purpose of the stories it tells. There is nothing in this story to make us think that it is prescriptive rather than descriptive.
The story of Adam and Eve is a mythic account that seeks to explain the human condition. To use this story as a proof text in the battle over gay marriage is to entirely miss the point of the story and to do a disservice to its authors.
I wouldn’t have thought this when I read the title of the post in my feedreader, but you and I have very similar hermeneutics when it comes to this Genesis story. I’ve used the very same arguments in my conversations with fellow Christians with respect to marriage/family and creation vs. evolution debates.
Good post.
Attitude towards myth is what distinguishes moderate religionists from fundamentalists. The fundamentalist takes the myth for empirical truth. The moderate posits an alternative to empirical truth known as “mythological truth.” Aware that much of what the Bible says cannot reasonably be taken literally, the moderate acknowledges that it is myth but insists that the truth about the condition of man and his relationship to God is somehow encapsulated in the myth and moreover is best explained through myth rather than straightforward portrayal of the historical events.
…implying that the first human was split in half to form male and female. It’s hard to resist this translation, since it makes the story so similar to a Greek creation myth.
Which greek creation myth? If it’s the one I’m thinking of (Aristophanes contribution to Plato’s Symposium) then it was deliberately satirical. Or was that the point?
There are two separate stories being told in the accounts. The first being man’s creation in spiritual constitution prior to the fall when man(mind) was both male and female (ironically like God though He is spirit, speaking of attributes of character) enjoying unhindered fellowship, union and the second after the division, the fall when man is re-made (formed) from the lower elements (dust of the ground) man taking on a creaturely, beastly, even animal form (as a consequence of the eating from, living from that lower life form, tree of knowledge resulting in spiritual death/separation).
Literal? yes, allegorical? yes ha, ha…can we hear it? Now David asks the question, what is man(kind) that thou art mindful of him?
The great restoration, the beauty, the wonder of it all…would you…Be? again?
Genesis might be more dignified, but the Sumerian version implies closer examination of actual human foibles…
I know a lot of people who are exactly the kind that would be created as part of a drunken party game.
Just so everyone knows, VorJack is away for a couple weeks so won’t be able to respond to questions about this article for a little while.
Actually, “Adam and Eve” is pronounced exactly like “Adam and Ives”.
Maybe the Garden of Eden was situated in France?
“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”
Surely the correct response is “God didn’t make anybody. There is no God. You base your life on a prevailing moral zeitgeist of two thousand years ago. That’s just weak. Move on.”
From where should one…move one as you advise? From a position of surrender (wherein is victory in the paradoxical paternity) to one of Self exaltation, the prideful end? Father is…Father as He was, is and is to come…not millenia ago for in Him is the power of an endless life with no beginning and no end, the whirlwind…come, let us meet up in Galilee (the circuit) after the resurrection. What does this mean? If you knew…then you would surely….know.
It always makes me laugh that people of faith say they “know” when the reality is they “believe” or “have a strong feeling about”.
The believing is in the mind, the feeling in the emotions but the knowing, that is a deeper element still, yes the spirit of a man.
No, John. It’s really not. You might really, really, really believe a thing, but with no evidence whatsoever other than “what ma and pa told me when I was little”, you don’t know it.
I agree with your epistemic critique, Custador, but with one important exception.
I know the love of Jesus because I have experienced being loved in his name. I know that love as deeply and as truly as I know my wife’s love for me because I have experienced it.
I don’t need to appeal to the supernatural or faith or belief. I have that subjective experience of love, and because I’ve had that experience, I know that to be true.
Everyone should have to take LSD at least once, really drive home the idea that you can see and hear and taste and touch and smell things that aren’t real.
In the words of Radiohead: “Just ’cause you feel it, doesn’t mean it’s there”.
That was supposed to be a reply to brgulker.
Actually, it does. Both you and rodney misunderstood what I was trying to make.
At funerals, it’s common practice to say, “The loved one lives on in our memories…”
Literally, that’s not true. The loved one is dead.
But symbolically, it’s absolutely true. The life and love that was passed on by the loved one absolutely lives in those who are still living.
So it is with Jesus’ love when people act and love in his name.
Catch the symbolism, not the literalism.
Well, I’m not denying your experience, on the contrary, but I am asserting that there’s nothing divine behind it all. You yourself are ultimately the sole source of your feelings and your behavior and your motivations to lead a good life and do good things. Which is why I personally prefer to do those things without wrapping them in superstition.
So you have symbolic love, not literal love. Jesus exists symbolically, but not literally. No problem.
trj: you’re free to deny the reality of my experience. I wouldn’t deny the reality of yours, but we may just differ about that point.
rodney: I didn’t say anything about Jesus existing symbolically not literally. You know you’re stretching my words. I only post this because I don’t want to be misunderstood based on your comments.
Yes, this is the very basis of our inner constitution. That man may know truth (Himself) in his inner being, even as a dwelling place is a high privalege and intimacy. Man however, due to the pervasice darkness no longer see’s himself in the light of his intended glory and full capacity. There is truly more.
Corr: shoud read “pervasive”
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth.
Christians don’t realised that the bible clearly says they have no business to judge unbelievers.
What unbelievers do or how they live their lives are none of christians’ business. If they believe their god exist, they should obey their god and not follow false teachings contrary to their bible.
But, they, time and time again proof christianity is a false religion by their faith.
I agree with you with respect to 1 Cor. It’s a passage I point out to Christians over and over again in concert with the words of Jesus about “removing the plank from your own eye…”
However, Christian hypocrisy doesn’t disprove Christianity, per se. Christian hypocrisy only shows that some Christians are hypocritical.
If it is as you say this is part of the church teaching, then I might agree with you on christian hypocrisy, but it is not the case. But I respect you for knowing this although you use the wrong verse “removing the plank from your own eye”, that verse has nothing to do with unbelievers.
The bible clearly says christians can only judge unbelievers if they make it to heaven in their next life and only few will make it according to the bible.
The plank in the eye passage is related insofar as it has to do with judging others. Yes, it’s not explicitly related to judging ‘nonbelievers,’ but it is directly related to the issue of judging others generally. And by general, I mean that Jesus uses this analogy to tell his own disciples that before you judge someone else, you had better be perfect yourself. Since none of us are ever perfect, we are precluded from judging others.
That’s why I included the verse.
“Since none of us are ever perfect, we are precluded from judging others.”
Other – limited to “your brother”.
Others – limited to “your brother”.
Yes, DM, you’re correct. However, the context of the 1 Cor. passage that you cited is about one specific type of judgment, namely, judging with whom we as believers should include in our koinonia fellowship. There is nothing here about Christians “judging” in the eschatological sense, i.e., who’s “saved” and who’s not.
Isn’t the statement ‘it is wrong to judge others’ in itself a judgement of others, namely that they are in the wrong for judging others? Oh, the semantics of it all.
There’s a clear and obvious distinction between claiming:
1) I morally object to X, where X is a specific action.
And,
2) You as a person are damned for all eternity.
…unless you add 3) persons who commit morally objectionable acts are damned for all eternity, in which case 1) and 2) are the same.
Unless you add 3)… I won’t do that because I refuse to do #2.
Almost all of us do #1 — theists, atheists, agnostics, etc.
A lot of Christians do #2, even though it contradicts Jesus.
But some Christians opt for a different understanding altogether.
Here is what Christian Hypocrisy DOES prove, though.
It proves that the people who wrote the Bible, and Founded the Church(es), were flawed, fallible humans, just like the people who write Tracts and Bible Study guides and Sunday School leaflets today.
Every Christian I have ever met, freely concedes that crooked, decietful, misinformed, power-hungry churches and clergy exist today, but for some reason, many can’t imagine that the Church Fathers and Biblical Authors were writing for their own purposes.
The Churches that WROTE the bible were operating in the same, “Fallen” world we are in now. The Bible, then, is just as much a product of the “sinful”, imperfect, human world as Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff, Todd Bentley, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Mohammed, David Koresh, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum…..
It’s interesting to me that your list is comprised of only scandalous characters. You’ve entirely left out any of the positive contributions of faith leaders throughout history… I realize that’s kinda your point, though.
No one can accuse you of not getting the point!
There are some positive effects of religion, to be sure, just as there are positive effects of Santa Claus belief (Clausism?).
But to those who claim that the biblical writers were Divinely Inspired to write a book which should apply to people of all cultures for all time, I say “When and why did God STOP inspiring people like that?”
I am pretty sure most believers will categorically state that we should not unflinchingly accept the human, mortal teachings or recollections of Billy Graham, or Rick Warren, or T.D. Jakes, or Joel Osteen, so WHY then are the human, mortal teachings of Paul of Tarsus in a different category?
(And yes, scholars, I know that Paul may or may not have been from Tarsus, but it’s the closest approximation of a last name I have to call him by.)
There are some positive effects of religion, to be sure, just as there are positive effects of Santa Claus belief (Clausism?).
Santa Claus is hardly the inspiration for nation-wide, year-round non-profit organizations that are devoted to helping at-risk children, to be fair.
But to those who claim that the biblical writers were Divinely Inspired to write a book which should apply to people of all cultures for all time, I say “When and why did God STOP inspiring people like that?”
I am pretty sure most believers will categorically state that we should not unflinchingly accept the human, mortal teachings or recollections of Billy Graham, or Rick Warren, or T.D. Jakes, or Joel Osteen, so WHY then are the human, mortal teachings of Paul of Tarsus in a different category?
(And yes, scholars, I know that Paul may or may not have been from Tarsus, but it’s the closest approximation of a last name I have to call him by.)
It’s confusing to me as well. If God did inspire Scripture, why did it stop there?
You know, maybe he called it a day. Maybe he threw in the towel, chalked it up to experience, and cut his losses. Could be back to the old drawing board, maybe he’s in the kitchen with Dinah, or he took a long walk off a short pier. I think it’s all funny, if there was a god, and he’s not there anymore and nobody noticed! He didn’t call, he didn’t write, he just packed up his bags, and hit the road.
Maybe god was a racist bigot. That would explain why he only gave his magical words to one race of people. I mean, if this god really cared about the souls of human beings, then not giving his word to other peoples on other continents would be a failure.. either an admission that this god did not have the power to do so, or did not care to. The fact that this special magical knowledge of right and wrong and all the moral guidance etc was not shared with all peoples implies that this god is either limited in power or only cares about his ‘chosen people.’ Which do you prefer? Non-omnipotent, or bigotted?
Its because of what I call the Ur-myth. The myth of the Golden Age, when everything was perfect. In the Christian version this perfection was created by God and has been devolving since the fall. The further away from the Golden Age we get, the further away from the original perfect knowledge we get. The consequence is that ancient wisdom is thought of as closer to the original truth than modern wisdom. Paul’s hallucinations are therefore more revered than Augustine’s, Augustine’s mo9re than Jesse Duplantis. It is essentially ancestor worship.
Yes. The world has been “going to Hell” for a very, very long time. As far as I can tell, every generation has people who think that.
I understand Hamas provides social services in Gaza, and Louis Farrakhan’s organization has gotten kids off drugs.
Are you always this cynical, rodney? :)
That’s not cynicism. Helping a million ladies cross the street does not absolve me of one murder. Saving a million lives might not absolve me of one murder. Saying religion also does good is not a very strong defense against the charge that religion does evil.
(I think of myself as a realist, but I have observed that most pessimists claim to be realists, so maybe not.)
You are correct. But, that wasn’t my intent.
My conversation was about hypocrisy. Yes, there are hypocrites. I’m sure that I’ve been hypocritical in the past, and I imagine I will be in the future.
My point is this and only this: there are those of us who strive to not be hypocrites. We genuinely try to live lives in correspondence with Jesus’ command to love our neighbors as ourselves. And in a blog post about hypocrites, that’s worth saying, at least to me.
If I were an overly sensitive person, though, your comments could be construed to be extremely, extremely offensive. If I were overly sensitive, I might infer that you think my religion is comparable to Hamas. And that would be a gross misunderstanding of me and my faith.
But, I’m not overly sensitive.
I do think Christianity is comparable to Islam, and Calvary Chapel is comparable to Hamas. Not identical, but eminently comparable.
I agree Wholeheartedly, Rodney. Christianity is comparable to Islam and Mormonism. All have many great redeeming qualities, all also have crazies, criminals, and violent nuts. And all are based on writings by people who are supposed to have been inspired by God.
Most importantly, they all make claims that are either untestable, or proven false.
rodney, I’ll wait until Calvary Chapel takes up arms against infidel nations before I agree with you. If they do, I’ll be happy to post kudos to you for being that perceptive about them.
I agree Wholeheartedly, Rodney. Christianity is comparable to Islam and Mormonism. All have many great redeeming qualities, all also have crazies, criminals, and violent nuts. And all are based on writings by people who are supposed to have been inspired by God.
Most importantly, they all make claims that are either untestable, or proven false.
That’s pretty fair. I appreciate that you mentioned the redeeming qualities. That’s a rarity around here.
The results are different, but the basis is the same. Eating a cracker believed to be the body of Christ and blowing up a bus full of schoolchildren share a foundation of similarly untestable claims based on no evidence.
It’s the way of thinking that is the problem, and moderate religion encourages it; moderates create the context in which extremists can never be adequately opposed.
(The simplest way to oppose someone who says “Allah wants me to murder infidels” is to reply “Allah is imaginary”… but We can’t say that, can We?)
Why all the fuss about why the 9/11 hijackers did it? Economic? Nope, they were all middle-class or better. Political? Nope, they’d never been significantly oppressed. Education? Nope, they were architects and engineers. Why? They said why: because they really believed what they said they believed. They believed their act was holy and just and that they’d be rewarded. Perhaps those beliefs should be examined more closely. It’s hard to throw stones at Allah from a Yahweh-shaped glass house, though.
. Perhaps those beliefs should be examined more closely. It’s hard to throw stones at Allah from a Yahweh-shaped glass house, though.
Yes, the task is difficult. But no more so for me than for you.
You make it difficult for me. Metaphorically.
(Otherwise, it’s not difficult at all: Islam is a cult of death that must be significantly reformed or destroyed. If Osama bin Laden were a head of state, the events of 9/11 would have been an act of war instead of an act of terrorism; would the US have subsequently declared war on war? But nobody wants to declare war on Islam, even though Islam has repeatedly and explicitly declared war on the west.)
Islam, as a whole, has not declared war on the West. You’re dead wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Spend 3 weeks in Egypt living with the Muslims there. Learn how they think about Bin Laden and the like. And then get back to me. Or more appropriately, have that conversation with my wife, who spent a month doing just that. Or my co-worker, who spent six months there doing just that.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25185
It’s the way of thinking that is the problem, and moderate religion encourages it; moderates create the context in which extremists can never be adequately opposed.
Yeah, I guess I can see that. Believing that all people are God’s creation and should be loved and respected does have a lot in common with the idea that infidels should be killed.
Some atheists are nihilists, and they arrive at their nihilism via their naturalism, i.e., a way of thinking.
Maybe you think nihilism is a good thing. Maybe you don’t. I know that I don’t. But, I’m not going to try to convince a nihilist the adopt a different way of thinking via eradicating his naturalism. First, because I don’t want to. Second, because I wouldn’t need to, because naturalism doesn’t necessitate nihilism.
Analogously, neither you nor I need to eradicate religious thinking or religion in general to counter the claims of extremism.
Realistically, I don’t think either of us is going to have much success in a conversation with a convinced extremist — by that point, I think we’d agree the person is too far gone, with the unusual exception.
Not only that. Sharia law apparently prohibits charging interest. I have always thought that love of money, the root of all evil, was precisely that – interest. Look how we are enslaved to it.
Like who?
nomad, forgive the skeptical tone I’m about to take in this question.
If I were to post a list of positive contributions that religious people and religious groups have made to society through history, would it make one bit of difference?
Given my brief interactions with UF, I would suspect not. Most people here have made their minds up against religions as I have made my mind up for religion.
Why would I bother taking the time to create such a list?
left out any of the positive contributions of faith leaders throughout history…
In the second creation story how is it that so many animals had to be made before the all knowing god figured out he should make a female human? I know it must be tough to figure out most animals prefer their own kind when it comes to companionship.
Well, Genesis 1 and 2 don’t agree on whether Adam and Eve (especially Eve) were created before or after the animals were created.
Actually, it’s kind of interesting that Gen. 1 simply states that God created a man and a woman (no names given), while in Gen. 2 this part has a rather different character. Gen. 2 seems much more like a traditional mythical creation fable, where God creates Adam, then after a while finds out that he ought to also create a woman for him. This is a strange behavior from a supposedly omnipotent god who ought to know in advance that Adam requires a wife. It seems more in character with a god that is not omnipotent or omniscient, which would fit nicely with the consensus among historians and archaeologist (I think) that Gen. 2 is based on some older, probably polytheistic creation myth.
Keen observation. Genesis 1 and 2 are different creation myths. Are you aware of source theory for the OT? If so, it makes even more sense, as P as credited with the material of 1 and Y/J is credited with the material of 2. It’s interesting stuff.
Here’s the revelation about early Genesis text. The two accounts are about man’s constition being designed and then re-designed (formed) before and after the fall. We can explore further if interested…
Correction: should read “constitution”
So who received this revelation, John? You? Did you write it down, or were you out of finger paints at the time?
To me, that is still incoherent. When do you think the supposed fall was? Not only would man have to be re-designed, *everything* would have to be redesigned…venomous creatures of all sorts which existed long before humanity was on the scene.
The only proper recourse for the believer is not to take Genesis literally. Anything else is folly.
Genesis 1 is a creation myth that shares a lot in common with other creation myths of its time, culture, and ANE context. There’s a ton of scholarship about that.
The same is true for Genesis 2, which is a separate creation myth.
I realize you’re doing the interpretive thing. But I’m doing the literary criticism thing. We end up talking past each other…
But that’s not to say I’m not interested in hearing your creation, recreation stuff.
“Keen observation. Genesis 1 and 2 are different creation myths.”
Are you sure this is what the article is saying?
I don’t think that’s what the article is saying.
But, that doesn’t make it any less true.
Genesis 1 and 2 are different stories, attributed to different redactors, P and Y/J.
You don’t have to take my word for it. The internet abounds with source theory, and some of it is credible. In fact, I think wiki has a good article about it.
The theory merely imply that there might be two accounts on genesis creation myth, not two genesis creation myths. You need to provide more facts to your argument.
For starters, wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_according_to_Genesis
Particularly, the “first account” and “second account” portions.
If you’re really interested, I would recommend this: http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Accounts-Catholic-Quarterly-Monograph/dp/0915170256
If you want to learn more about source theory/documentary hypothesis (P and J/Y as I referenced earlier), you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Genesis 1-2 are simply presented in Scripture. There’s not an intro that says, “Genesis 1 is a separate story that resembles myth X, Y, and Z from Babylon, Egypt, and Sumeria, and Genesis 2 is a separate myth that tells the story from a different perspective.”
But the lack of that intro doesn’t mean that the sources for the two myths are different. They are from different sources. When it comes to biblical scholarship, only the most thick-headed fundamentalist OT scholar would tell you differently.
You don’t have to repeat what I am saying.
I don’t think I understood what you’re saying, so if I’m repeating you, then I’m going to take your word for it and stop.
“But the lack of that intro doesn’t mean that the sources for the two myths are different. They are from different sources.”
The theory merely imply that there might be two accounts on genesis creation myth, not two genesis creation myths.
Have the literal Christians spoken on this topic? Were all the female animals at the same time as Eve? Pretty incongruous to say there were alreaady male and female elephants, giraffes, and cougars at the time Eve was created but only male humans.
What would happen if Adam chose a hamster or a mouse?
Or a chimpanzee?
> There is nothing in this story to make us think that it is prescriptive rather than descriptive.
And, for reasons I don’t understand, most Christians seem to get this with respect to Gen. 3:16 (…in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children…). I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone advocating constitutional amendments that would prohibit efforts to relieve the pain of childbirth.
I get way too much entertainment out of the fact that I actually know a gay couple named Adam and Steve…
Isn’t it strange that “You know who” creates a gardener with sexual organs, forgets a companion, creates one after the non-sexual gardener gets lonely and then creates a sexual counterpart to the first created human? What were the sexual organs for if not to reproduce? The gardener could well pee without a P…
Why give his own creation organs that are not meant to be used? Seems as if “You know who” lacks some foresight.
The word “rib” is used as a euphemism for a baculum. The priestly dialect the bible was written in doesn’t have words for sex or things related to sex. Thus euphemisms like “lay with” and “knew” are used in place of sex. In the same way, the word “rib” was used to described the baculum, which humans lack, and other mammalian species the ancient Hebrews would have been familiar with did not.
It’s Cain and Abel, not Cain and Mabel!
“My brother, Cain; I am called Abel.”
“No–you are called ‘Suck’!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMgGnhPnSF4
I came across a very interesting theory regarding the mythical “rib” of man that was taken from him and from which Eve was formed. Most male mammals have a supporting bone for the penis, called a “baculum.” Male humans, however, do not have this supporting bone. And “rib” can also mean “a supporting structure,” so it doesn’t have to be “a bone from the human ribcage.”
Perhaps this is an ancient subliminal mythical explanation for the fear that so many men seem to have of being symbolically or metaphysically castrated by women, especially strong women or women with any sort of power or authority? Even Freud went on and on about “castration anxiety” in the development of the male psyche….