Riddle me this: Genesis 2:24

[Dennis S.]

So, I was in a heated discussion. Why was the term "father and mother" used in the bible before Adam and Eve even had children or before even the whole concept of childrearing, or even birth or death.

Genesis 2:20-24
But for Adam [h] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [j] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, [k] '
for she was taken out of man."

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

The whole concept of father and mother is only after the fall of man and Adam and Eve bear Abel and Cain. But the bible brings it up before anything is ever mentioned. There's no reason to mention it here.

Of course, bible apologists will say, "It's like you're telling a story -- you've got to have little asides and explanations here and there." Whatever -- in this part of the whole book, you've got no "father" and "mother" -- you've only got God, and there's no way to leave God, because there's Eden and perfect bliss.

 

[Reba]

So, I was in a heated discussion. Why was the term "father and mother" used in the bible before Adam and Eve even had children or before even the whole concept of childrearing, or even birth or death.

When God gave the Genesis events to Moses to record, they were history. Moses wrote them from his timeframe, looking back at past events. God gave the information to Moses from His (God's) viewpoint. God knew what He did and why He did it. I think that it is clear in the verse that God explained that He set up the pattern for all future couples when He states, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Adam and Eve might not have been aware of the concept of child birth at the time of their creation but God certainly knew. That is why He designed them with all the "parts" necessary for reproduction.

I see no problem, no conflict.

 

[VamPyroX]

So, Moses was probably lying.

 

[XBGMER]

So, I was in a heated discussion. Why was the term "father and mother" used in the bible before Adam and Eve even had children or before even the whole concept of childrearing, or even birth or death.



The whole concept of father and mother is only after the fall of man and Adam and Eve bear Abel and Cain. But the bible brings it up before anything is ever mentioned. There's no reason to mention it here.

Of course, bible apologists will say, "It's like you're telling a story -- you've got to have little asides and explanations here and there." Whatever -- in this part of the whole book, you've got no "father" and "mother" -- you've only got God, and there's no way to leave God, because there's Eden and perfect bliss.

thank you for bring issues up here... I alway read through Genesis 1 chapter to Revelation 22 chapter... I like to throw some verses at you from scripture:

Genesis 29:14, Laban said to Jacob, "Surely thou art my bones and my flesh.."

Gen 37:27 "Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content."

2Sa 5:1 "Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spoke, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh."

2Sa 19:12 "Ye are my brethren, ye are my bones and my flesh:wherefore then are ye the last to bring back the king."

2Sa 19:13 "And say ye to Amasa, Art thou not of my bone, and of my flesh?...."

2 Kings 3v7...on and on...

Cain and Abel both were became one flesh and bones from Man [adam] and Woman [eve]. About father and mother, Look at as example of ephesians 5: 22-24, 28, 30 and Colossians 3:18-22.. on and on.... these meaning man and woman became one flesh and bones of the body which is not scattered aboard upon the whole earth..

When God gave the Genesis events to Moses to record, they were history. Moses wrote them from his timeframe, looking back at past events. God gave the information to Moses from His (God's) viewpoint. God knew what He did and why He did it. I think that it is clear in the verse that God explained that He set up the pattern for all future couples when He states, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."

Adam and Eve might not have been aware of the concept of child birth at the time of their creation but God certainly knew. That is why He designed them with all the "parts" necessary for reproduction.

I see no problem, no conflict.

what?? excuse me? adam did not aware of concept of child birth?? wow, i don't believe you always mis-educate those people.. that is ridclious!!!!

My answer is yes Adam knew his wife Eve got pregant as well as Cain knew his wife got pregant..Look at Genesis 4: 1, 17.. they were not stupid like you! ..

 

[Reba]

So, Moses was probably lying.

No, not at all. No lies.

 

[Reba]

...what?? excuse me? adam did not aware of concept of child birth?? wow, i don't believe you always mis-educate those people.. that is ridclious!!!!

My answer is yes Adam knew his wife Eve got pregant as well as Cain knew his wife got pregant..Look at Genesis 4: 1, 17.. they were not stupid like you! ..

I didn't mean that Adam and Eve didn't understand conception, pregnancy, and childbirth when those events happened. I was referring to Dennis' question about the sequence of events and they way they were recorded.

Even without public school sex ed classes, I think Adam and Eve knew what was happening.

Of course, Adam and Eve were not stupid like me. Their intelligence was far superior to anyone's today.

 

[chirowife03]

It was for future continent. Adam and Eve knew the plan before they came here. THey were told in the Garden what was to be up....to multiply and replenish the earth. But they could not do that until they had tasted sin. They had gotten their eyes opened AFTER they had tasted the forbidden fruit.

 

[Audiofuzzy]

So, I was in a heated discussion. Why was the term "father and mother" used in the bible before Adam and Eve even had children or before even the whole concept of childrearing, or even birth or death.

Technically, there were dinosaurs before Adanm and Eve. that is, at least according to science. perhaps it's in relation to dino mom and dino dad??



Fuzzy

 

[Dennis S.]

It was for future continent. Adam and Eve knew the plan before they came here. THey were told in the Garden what was to be up....to multiply and replenish the earth. But they could not do that until they had tasted sin. They had gotten their eyes opened AFTER they had tasted the forbidden fruit.

There wasn't any "replenishing" of the Earth needed -- there was nothing there in the first place!

So God made one man and one woman. How many of each animal did he make? One of each? Two? Ten? Were the animals there to "replenish" the Earth that hadn't existed 144 hours earlier? Were there carnivores hunting prey before the fall of man from the Garden of Eden? Could those animals have threatened Adam and Eve? After all, Adam and Eve were made of flesh and meat.

 

[dkf747]

There wasn't any "replenishing" of the Earth needed -- there was nothing there in the first place!

So God made one man and one woman. How many of each animal did he make? One of each? Two? Ten? Were the animals there to "replenish" the Earth that hadn't existed 144 hours earlier? Were there carnivores hunting prey before the fall of man from the Garden of Eden? Could those animals have threatened Adam and Eve? After all, Adam and Eve were made of flesh and meat.

Semantics.

 

[Dennis S.]

Semantics would mean that my point is irrelevant. It's not. The words that were chosen in the bible were deliberate. And you didn't address the issue of carnivores needing to eat. How many animals were there? Obviously they ate whatever they also ate for 40 days and 40 nights in Noah's Ark, since there were only 2 of each and every animal on Earth loaded into the ark, and none apparently were eaten on the ship since they're still in existence today.

 

[dkf747]

You are making a big issue of nothing. The story does not give out enough details to answer such unimportant questions. The story was never intended to detail everything. I suppose that is a problem for you, but it isn't for me.

As to the other point, you tried to change the meaning of the sentence by focusing on one word, as opposed to reading the whole passage where it is used. I believe I rightly called that game, "Semantics".

 

[Reba]

...So God made one man and one woman. How many of each animal did he make? One of each? Two? Ten?

He made as many as He wanted. It didn't require any more time or effort for God to make two animals or two million.

Were the animals there to "replenish" the Earth that hadn't existed 144 hours earlier?

No, they were put on Earth to fill the Earth.

Were there carnivores hunting prey before the fall of man from the Garden of Eden?

No. The animals did not kill each other prior to the Fall. Prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve, there was no death in the world.

 

[Dennis S.]

No. The animals did not kill each other prior to the Fall. Prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve, there was no death in the world.

So then how did they get sustenence prior to the fall, and how did they survive in the Ark? And how did you get "no death in the world" from a story that doesn't mention anything of the sort? Man didn't cause animal to sin, so animal had no reason to be ejected from the Garden of Eden. On top of that, if animals changed their ways at any time, that would mean that there was proof of evolution, so watch how you answer my question.

 

[Reba]

So then how did they get sustenence prior to the fall, and how did they survive in the Ark?

They were vegetarian. Yes, even carnivores can survive on vegetarian diets, especially eating plants that were grown in more pure environments than we have now.

Genesis 1:29-30
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

And how did you get "no death in the world" from a story that doesn't mention anything of the sort?

God created Adam and Eve to be eternal, without death. Sin brought death into the world.

Man didn't cause animal to sin, so animal had no reason to be ejected from the Garden of Eden. On top of that, if animals changed their ways at any time, that would mean that there was proof of evolution, so watch how you answer my question.

God didn't "eject" animals for Adam's sin; God put animals outside of Eden to provide for the needs of man outside the garden.

Many animals can adapt to different environments and diets without resorting to evolution. They don't become new species.

Besides, I thought evolution of a species was supposed to take millions of years. If an animal that got "evicted" out of the garden had to wait millions of years to evolve into its new environment, it would be long dead from hunger, and extinct.

 

[Dennis S.]

They were vegetarian. Yes, even carnivores can survive on vegetarian diets, especially eating plants that were grown in more pure environments than we have now.

Unless there was some kind of plant that provided the essential vitamins and minerals that are only available in meat, that would be impossible. "More pure environments" didn't mean that the food would be meeting any of the animal's needs, especially since there are no plants today that can do so. In addition, a carnivore's teeth is ill-suited for eating plants -- they are suited only for the tearing of meat.

Genesis 1:29-30
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

The use of the word "meat" in this is incorrect in today's terms. The old English term is translated to the modern day use of the word "food" not "meat." The plants didn't replace meat in terms of sustenence.

God didn't "eject" animals for Adam's sin; God put animals outside of Eden to provide for the needs of man outside the garden.

What needs? Man already had a helper, Eve. And man was a vegetarian, so these animals weren't supposed to be food.

So, are you a vegetarian? Are you going to get back to God's plan for Adam and Eve and only eat plants?

Many animals can adapt to different environments and diets without resorting to evolution. They don't become new species.

You can't change diets without first changing how you can intake the food. If you don't have the teeth to eat meat, you can't eat meat. If you don't have the teeth to eat plants, you're not going to be eating plants.

Besides, I thought evolution of a species was supposed to take millions of years. If an animal that got "evicted" out of the garden had to wait millions of years to evolve into its new environment, it would be long dead from hunger, and extinct.

That would precisely mean that there WAS NO garden. Animals that "always ate plants, but decided to switch to meat" would have to have adapt to new instincts, new ways of hunting their prey instead of grazing their "plant meal" from the garden.

In any case, I think you need to be educated as to what evolution is. Millions of years to evolve to the environment? You don't get it.

No, it means that the animals that find a way to survive in whatever environment long enough to procreate will pass on their genes, and any changes in those animals that make them better able to survive will have a better chance of passing those genes on. Getting kicked out of the garden and surviving until some freak happenstance of a hunting, meat-eating version of that animal comes into history and then edging out the plant eating version of that animal is EVOLUTION, whether it takes 1 generation or 100 million generations.

 

[Reba]

Unless there was some kind of plant that provided the essential vitamins and minerals that are only available in meat, that would be impossible.

How do you know that there weren't some plants available back then that are extinct now?

In addition, a carnivore's teeth is ill-suited for eating plants -- they are suited only for the tearing of meat.

Maybe more difficult but not impossible. Also, depends on the plant material; it could have a texture like meat.

The use of the word "meat" in this is incorrect in today's terms. The old English term is translated to the modern day use of the word "food" not "meat." The plants didn't replace meat in terms of sustenence.

Yes, I know that it meant "food." That's the point; all their necessary food was provided.

What needs? Man already had a helper, Eve. And man was a vegetarian, so these animals weren't supposed to be food.

Do you think that meat is the only reason for animals? Sheep provide wool, goats and cows provide milk, chickens provide eggs, bats provide fertilizer, horses provide transportation, oxen provide pulling strength, etc. You don't have to kill an animal for it to be useful.

Also, have you never just enjoyed watching animals, or played with them, or snuggled with them? There are some things on earth that we can just enjoy for their beauty.

So, are you a vegetarian?

Nope.

Are you going to get back to God's plan for Adam and Eve and only eat plants?

As you stated, that was God's plan for Adam and Eve; that is not His plan for me.

You can't change diets without first changing how you can intake the food. If you don't have the teeth to eat meat, you can't eat meat. If you don't have the teeth to eat plants, you're not going to be eating plants.

Like I stated, it depends on the plant.

When Moses and the Israelites were wandering the wilderness, God provided them manna to eat. It was a miraculous food, specifically designed for their needs and time. It was a simple basic food that provided for all their nutritional needs. If God could do that for the Israelites, I'm sure He could have done something similar for the animals.

That would precisely mean that there WAS NO garden. Animals that "always ate plants, but decided to switch to meat" would have to have adapt to new instincts, new ways of hunting their prey instead of grazing their "plant meal" from the garden.

How does that prove no garden? The garden of Eden was off limits but that doesn't mean the rest of the world was a barren desert with no vegetation. And why couldn't the animals learn new ways? They do that now, in the wild and domestication. Do you ever watch Animal Planet?

In any case, I think you need to be educated as to what evolution is. Millions of years to evolve to the environment? You don't get it.

I'm glad that you brought that up. I have been thinking about starting a thread about evolution. We all use that term loosely around here. I don't think every one is using the same definition. Would you like to start that one? I would appreciate that.

No, it means that the animals that find a way to survive in whatever environment long enough to procreate will pass on their genes, and any changes in those animals that make them better able to survive will have a better chance of passing those genes on. Getting kicked out of the garden and surviving until some freak happenstance of a hunting, meat-eating version of that animal comes into history and then edging out the plant eating version of that animal is EVOLUTION, whether it takes 1 generation or 100 million generations.

That is presupposing that that was the scenario. I don't believe that "freak happenstance" controls our universe; I believe God rules, and that He has it all worked out.

 

[Dennis S.]

How do you know that there weren't some plants available back then that are extinct now?

You assert that there were plants back then that did so. There's no proof of it, no fossils or evidence found that would show that there were plants back then that would have any sort of "meat-like" properties for carnivores to eat. You've got to show proof that there were ever any if you wish to assert it. You still only have the bible's word that this was possible, there's no corroborating evidence otherwise.

Maybe more difficult but not impossible. Also, depends on the plant material; it could have a texture like meat.

That goes back to there being no evidence there ever was any plant material that made that possible. We have historical evidence of insects, eggs, dinosaurs, and PLANTS. MANY MANY plants, and nothing that ever shows that they would have provided any kind of sustenence to meet a meat-eater's diet.

Do you think that meat is the only reason for animals? Sheep provide wool, goats and cows provide milk, chickens provide eggs, bats provide fertilizer, horses provide transportation, oxen provide pulling strength, etc. You don't have to kill an animal for it to be useful.

None of these things were needed before being cast out of the garden. God had to have known that Man would be kicked out of the garden if He planned to have Man take advantage of these creatures in that way. After all, Man was only going to eat plants. Those poor, poor plants. Won't someone please think of the plants?!

Also, have you never just enjoyed watching animals, or played with them, or snuggled with them? There are some things on earth that we can just enjoy for their beauty.

Sure, that must have been God's original plan before those evil humans or animals started slaying them left and right.

As you stated, that was God's plan for Adam and Eve; that is not His plan for me.

Sounds like you've got God figured out. How is it that you know that's not His plan for you?

Like I stated, it depends on the plant.

When Moses and the Israelites were wandering the wilderness, God provided them manna to eat. It was a miraculous food, specifically designed for their needs and time. It was a simple basic food that provided for all their nutritional needs. If God could do that for the Israelites, I'm sure He could have done something similar for the animals.

The whole concept of manna is absurd. Some days it was only good for the day, eat what you can catch and then the rest will spoil. Some other days it'll be good for as long as you need, but no more will come. You just have to listen to God and be a good follower and you'll get enough food. Uh huh.

Again, nothing ever like it before or after, and no historical record of it anywhere else in the world. Sounds more like a made up story that no one can refute or verify. God, I can't WAIT for a time machine to be made and someone to prove that any one of these events never happened.

How does that prove no garden? The garden of Eden was off limits but that doesn't mean the rest of the world was a barren desert with no vegetation. And why couldn't the animals learn new ways? They do that now, in the wild and domestication. Do you ever watch Animal Planet?

Learning new ways is not possible when you can't eat what you claim they ate in the first place. You have not shown that "plant meat" is possible. You continue to fall back to "God made it possible" which you cannot prove nor can you show anything more than 1 line in a verse in the bible.

I'm glad that you brought that up. I have been thinking about starting a thread about evolution. We all use that term loosely around here. I don't think every one is using the same definition. Would you like to start that one? I would appreciate that.

Fine. I'm not the best debater on the topic of evolution, but I could certainly give it a shot. The THEORY of evolution does not claim to be the end all, be all magical solution, and there are gaps in the theory that cannot yet explain certain things, but it has been scientifically proven on a micro scale and fits all the macro level scale evidence. Something that the Bible can't claim to do beyond, "God did it that way on purpose." Something for small-minded people to fall back on.

That is presupposing that that was the scenario. I don't believe that "freak happenstance" controls our universe; I believe God rules, and that He has it all worked out.

I'm sorry, did I just say small-minded? Sorry, didn't see that coming. You believe in a book that tells you not to question faith. I believe in a method that says question everything. Your knowledge would stop at, "Whatever it is, God did it" or "Whatever it is, God said no."

Some extremist Christians think that any science it tantamount to the kind of curiousity that caused the fall of Man from the garden, and so ALL curiousity is sinful, because if we hadn't been curious in the first place, we would still be in the bliss of Eden. Yeah, whatever.

 

[Reba]

You assert that there were plants back then that did so. There's no proof of it, no fossils or evidence found that would show that there were plants back then that would have any sort of "meat-like" properties for carnivores to eat.

There are no fossils of transitional creatures and yet you accept evolution. It seems you have faith in what you cannot see, too.

You've got to show proof that there were ever any if you wish to assert it.

Why? Evolutionists aren't required to show proof of all their "assertions".

We have historical evidence of insects, eggs, dinosaurs, and PLANTS. MANY MANY plants, and nothing that ever shows that they would have provided any kind of sustenence to meet a meat-eater's diet.

"Many" is not the same as "all."

None of these things were needed before being cast out of the garden.

Maybe not "needed" but useful or desirable. God's grace provides beyond basic needs. I think too many people visualize the lives of Adam and Eve as an episode of "Survivor".

Sure, that must have been God's original plan before those evil humans or animals started slaying them left and right.

Who said animals are evil?

Sounds like you've got God figured out. How is it that you know that's not His plan for you?

God has three kinds of plans.
1. A plan for all people--to be saved.
2. A plan for all Christians--to live holy.
3. A plan for each Christian--individual service to God.

The whole concept of manna is absurd. Some days it was only good for the day, eat what you can catch and then the rest will spoil. Some other days it'll be good for as long as you need, but no more will come.

The whole concept of manna is also the concept of grace. If you don't believe in God's grace, you aren't going to believe in His manna either. God gives just enough grace for each day and situation, and it is always enough.

Again, nothing ever like it before or after, and no historical record of it anywhere else in the world.

Exactly! That's why it's called a miracle. It wouldn't be miraculous if anyone could do it at any time or any place.

I'm sorry, did I just say small-minded?

You are making a value judgment about people.

... I believe in a method that says question everything.

There is nothing wrong with sincerely questioning as long as you don't reject the answers when you get them.

Some extremist Christians think that any science it tantamount to the kind of curiousity that caused the fall of Man from the garden, and so ALL curiousity is sinful, because if we hadn't been curious in the first place, we would still be in the bliss of Eden. Yeah, whatever.

I personally do not know any of those "Christians". Maybe they are people that you know?

 

[VamPyroX]

No, not at all. No lies.

How do you know?