Yep. Female is the primary sex and probably had to be "made" first since everybody -- everybody -- in the world has the female X chromosome. You can't live without it. So, Eve was either first, or she was the rollout, after fixing Adam's vulnerabilities.
It is interesting that the pun from the tale of Ninti didn't quite work in Genesis 2. You may know, however, that a new pun was created in Genesis 2:23 when Adam says, "She shall be called 'woman' (isha) for she was taken out of 'man' (ish)." I wonder if this is supposed to represent some kind of separation from or polemical reinvention of the Sumerian story.
Good catch. The Ninti pun only works in Sumerian because "ti" means both "rib" and "to make live," so it just dies in translation. Whoever wrote Genesis 2 clearly noticed that and built a whole new pun from scratch in Hebrew instead of just losing the wordplay.
Genesis 1 never says the man and woman were created at the exact same moment. It says God created humanity male and female. Genesis 2 gives the sequence. Calling that a “flat contradiction” inserts a claim into Genesis 1 that the verse does not make.
The Sumerian material is also being presented far beyond what the evidence permits. Enki and Ninhursag is a possible parallel, not “the original.” A rib motif and a Sumerian wordplay do not prove Genesis borrowed the story, especially when the supposed wordplay does not exist in Hebrew. The missing link cannot become proof of borrowing.
The biological point is simply wrong. Male embryos do not begin with developed female reproductive organs that later recede. Early embryos have undifferentiated structures. Nipples form before sexual differentiation. None of this establishes that Eve should have been created first.
Tsela usually means “side,” and Genesis does not present the woman as a leftover piece of man. She is his own flesh, his corresponding partner, and the narrative ends with the two becoming one. That corrects shallow Christian teaching without manufacturing a contradiction, declaring an unproven Sumerian source, or using bad embryology to finish the case.
I've never heard of the tale of Ninti before—that's a really fascinating parallel. It's also interesting (and unfortunate) that some have concluded, as you noted, that because Eve was created second, she must therefore be inferior. That interpretation seems to assume that what is derivative or secondary is necessarily lesser, but I'm not sure I see much support for that assumption in the story itself. In fact, I think we can point to other factors that would support a more "save the best for last" kind of assumption.
The patriarchal background of the narrative is undeniable, but from a literary point of view, the woman is the culmination of Adam's search for a suitable partner. She's the only being who truly corresponds to him, and the narrative immediately moves toward the theme of the two becoming "one flesh." If anything, the emphasis seems to be on shared humanity, kinship, and companionship rather than inferiority. Also, Eve is described as a "helper" ('ezer), a word used to describe when God helps Israel; hardly a term for describing inferiority.
Eve was formed from Adam’s body to make her human, as Adam had previously known other, animal-like women while he was naming the animals Yahweh had created. Verify this.
What specifically concerns you? Is it the fact that the Bible states we are hybrids—half human, half furries? Or is it that this confirmation isn't explicit or straightforward?
As I understand it 1 Timothy is not a credible Paul letter but one probably written somewhat later when the women thing started appearing in Christianity. The rest happened because of it.
Yeah, you know, it really doesn't matter because it is all kind of not gospel anyway, really. People should live like they want. Polygamy, female subservient, male subservient, in a marriage or in a coven. The important thing is freedom from cant.
Sure, but that is because the word you are using has the meaning you are giving it. A tautology. Which gospel are you preaching: Paul or "Mark" or "Matthew" or "Luke and Acts" or "John"?
Loved this and I am a male.
Yep. Female is the primary sex and probably had to be "made" first since everybody -- everybody -- in the world has the female X chromosome. You can't live without it. So, Eve was either first, or she was the rollout, after fixing Adam's vulnerabilities.
True. That's why the X chromosome gets called the chromosome of life. A human can survive with just one X, but with no X at all, there's no life.
It is interesting that the pun from the tale of Ninti didn't quite work in Genesis 2. You may know, however, that a new pun was created in Genesis 2:23 when Adam says, "She shall be called 'woman' (isha) for she was taken out of 'man' (ish)." I wonder if this is supposed to represent some kind of separation from or polemical reinvention of the Sumerian story.
Good catch. The Ninti pun only works in Sumerian because "ti" means both "rib" and "to make live," so it just dies in translation. Whoever wrote Genesis 2 clearly noticed that and built a whole new pun from scratch in Hebrew instead of just losing the wordplay.
Genesis 1 never says the man and woman were created at the exact same moment. It says God created humanity male and female. Genesis 2 gives the sequence. Calling that a “flat contradiction” inserts a claim into Genesis 1 that the verse does not make.
The Sumerian material is also being presented far beyond what the evidence permits. Enki and Ninhursag is a possible parallel, not “the original.” A rib motif and a Sumerian wordplay do not prove Genesis borrowed the story, especially when the supposed wordplay does not exist in Hebrew. The missing link cannot become proof of borrowing.
The biological point is simply wrong. Male embryos do not begin with developed female reproductive organs that later recede. Early embryos have undifferentiated structures. Nipples form before sexual differentiation. None of this establishes that Eve should have been created first.
Tsela usually means “side,” and Genesis does not present the woman as a leftover piece of man. She is his own flesh, his corresponding partner, and the narrative ends with the two becoming one. That corrects shallow Christian teaching without manufacturing a contradiction, declaring an unproven Sumerian source, or using bad embryology to finish the case.
I've never heard of the tale of Ninti before—that's a really fascinating parallel. It's also interesting (and unfortunate) that some have concluded, as you noted, that because Eve was created second, she must therefore be inferior. That interpretation seems to assume that what is derivative or secondary is necessarily lesser, but I'm not sure I see much support for that assumption in the story itself. In fact, I think we can point to other factors that would support a more "save the best for last" kind of assumption.
The patriarchal background of the narrative is undeniable, but from a literary point of view, the woman is the culmination of Adam's search for a suitable partner. She's the only being who truly corresponds to him, and the narrative immediately moves toward the theme of the two becoming "one flesh." If anything, the emphasis seems to be on shared humanity, kinship, and companionship rather than inferiority. Also, Eve is described as a "helper" ('ezer), a word used to describe when God helps Israel; hardly a term for describing inferiority.
Ezerkenegdo—Lover and chief adversary.
How about baculum? This is the penis bone that many animals have. If God made Eve from Adam’s baculum, it explains why humans have no baculum.
Hi Tanner,
Eve was formed from Adam’s body to make her human, as Adam had previously known other, animal-like women while he was naming the animals Yahweh had created. Verify this.
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/1*A619BnTeoOyRM96ChgICcg.jpeg
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1100/format:webp/1*KY_nsGSj5iUtZveY_AaLgQ.jpeg
Let’s not bring furries into this.
What specifically concerns you? Is it the fact that the Bible states we are hybrids—half human, half furries? Or is it that this confirmation isn't explicit or straightforward?
As I understand it 1 Timothy is not a credible Paul letter but one probably written somewhat later when the women thing started appearing in Christianity. The rest happened because of it.
Yeah, you know, it really doesn't matter because it is all kind of not gospel anyway, really. People should live like they want. Polygamy, female subservient, male subservient, in a marriage or in a coven. The important thing is freedom from cant.
That is antinomianism, which is contrary to the Gospel.
Sure, but that is because the word you are using has the meaning you are giving it. A tautology. Which gospel are you preaching: Paul or "Mark" or "Matthew" or "Luke and Acts" or "John"?