Why did God carry out modern day surgery on Adam to Create Eve?

a reply to: hopeisasound


So you're telling me an 80+ years old guy fled with his family from King Herod in Bethlehem to Egypt?


Jesus was born in a shed right?

Where did this 80 year old find the energy to live such an adventurous life?

Do you know what the average life expectancy was during this time?

originally posted by: Elvicious1
Of "Adam's Rib" refers to the fact that Eve's mother (a descendant of the previous civilization hence making her the Mother of modern civilization) and Adam's wife, died in childbirth and that Adam was forced to take Eve as his wife to repopulate, hence, Eve "being of Adam's Rib". The original interpretations were based on incorrect translations.

So Eve is Adam's daughter?

a reply to: hopeisasound

I"m not really making up arguement's against the text here Hope, just wondering at the situation from the vantage point of curiosity. I mean, according to the text anyway, Zach had been muted by Gabriel because he did not believe the words of Gabriel do to he and Liz being of elder age. So already by this reading there was tension in the household one might suspect. One might suspect that being as old as they were that he could not believe he might be fertile any longer, or that Liz might be able to have a child.

If we hold to the passage, it's easy to wonder at Zach's faith. I mean here is this angel telling him point blank and he goes'' well, ah, that's preposterous.''

So Mary comes to stay and help and Liz goes something like ''holy bananas Mary, your belly is going to bring forth the Messiah because John jumped in her womb I think it was. So are we to assume here, that Liz knew about what Gabriel had said about the mission of her child? Add to that her revelation that her kinswoman was to birth the messiah, AND NOT TELL HER HUSBAND ABOUT IT?

As I recall Zach a powerful rabbi or something like that. A lot of ego their maybe huh? So anyway, he might have said to himself '' Zachy old boy, you are going to be the father of Elijah AND this trim young sexy virgin, living in your house is going to be the mother of the messiah, why not go for it and be the father of the messiah as well as the father of Elijah?''

To your point about blood and traditions of that time I can say I do not know. The idea that for some blood reason would make it tabu for a kinswoman to be there to help in a pregnancy but then need to leave prior to the delivery makes no sense to me. What kind of screwy taboo could be dreamed up to separate women from the women closest to them when the are most needed for the birth of a child. That makes no sense to me.

So while I am at it, I'll toss in this bit about those two brothers, well, maybe brothers. John was quite famous right? He gathered huge crowds where ever he went. Though he said he was not Elijah, I think I recall that he was highly regarded as being so, even those who wondered if he himself might be the Messiah though he said he was not and that one would come who would be much more than him. Right?

Ok, so finally Jesus comes along at a river or something wasn't it? And John sees him and say, '' Hey, that's him'' and testifies to him. Right? So what would be the logical thing to do here. Here's Jesus with only a smattering of followers at that time and John with large crowds checking him out where ever he goes. Right?

But what does John do. One might suspect that John would bring all his followers to Jesus at that point but does he? Not that I have read. Instead John goes his own way doing his preaching and leaving Jesus to to his own way. I can find no record in the book about the two of them ever meeting again. Can you?

So here we have John, the child of LIz and Zach who recieve the message from angel telling them that their child would go forth in the spirit and power of Elijah. Are we to suppose that neither LIz or Zack mentioned this to him? That in all his life with them they were not preparing him for this ''mission? I mean it would have been a HUGE mission. Ok hold on that for a moment.

We also know that John's mother believed that her kinswoman was to be the mother of the messiah, right? Are we to believe that she believed her son was to be Elijah and her kinswoman was to be the mother of the messiah and then NOT MENTIONED it to her son John? How does this make any sense at all because this was the central dispensation of that who messianic story line. It makes not sense that they would keep this a secret, unless.

Ok, also finally we have John in prison before his head is served up on a platter. What does John do? He sends some emissaries to Jesus to ask, ''Hey guy, are you he who is to come, the Messiah and all, or shall we go and look for another.
I mean, what's with John here asking this after having testified to him earlier at the river and all.

All of these tings make no sense to me at all, unless. Unless we add in something very human. Sex and secrets. Ego and jealousy. I mean, had John not left Jesus at the river alone and joined him, together they might have made a much bigger splash at that time. John as the warm up act to Jesus as the main event. What a show that would have been. Maybe the two together could have overcome the doubts of the Jewish people who turned on him and sent him off to the cross. Who's to say.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: MPoling

However, virgin Mary went to stay with her kinswoman Elizabeth, wife of Zachariah while Elizabeth was pregnant to be there to help her through the pregnancy. Then, out of the blue, Mary leaves the house of Zachariah just prior to Elizabeth's giving birth. What's that all about? Cutting out when she is most needed.

Easy answer there, old Zachy got himself a taste of that virgin Mary and when cousin Liz found it it was ''outta my house you byatch''.

PS. Oh yeah, I forgot. That would make Jesus and John the Baptist brothers, hence the semi-rivalry between the two.

I'm pretty sure Mary was already pregnant when she went to stay with Liz. Lis's baby leapt in the womb b/c he was in the presence of the Messiah (other fetus.)

originally posted by: Romeopsi
a reply to: neoholographic

Starred & Flagged!

Thanks!

Here's a Cardio Surgeon describing surgery and it sounds just like Genesis 2:21.



Again, why did God CLOSE UP THE FLESH?? He did this for our benefit. He knew we would understand the procedure. This is what happened:

Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

So God made a woman most likely from stem cells that are found in a rib. He made her with just X chromosones. Again, God could have made Eve from the dust of the ground like He did Adam but this procedure is for our benefit. In these days, we can read and recognize the procedure. This is the Word of God.

We see this today with embryonic cloning of animals. Here's a video on cloning and stem cells:



You have to stop and say wow! The Bible is talking about genetics that we're just discovering when it comes to the rib!

What does this mean when it comes to Adam and sin?

This is connected to the Y chromosone. This shows the result of sin entering the world. The Bible says:

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

WHEW!

The Bible says:

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

What does science tell us about the Y chromosone?

Why does the Y chromosome degenerate?

Y chromosomes are genetically degenerate, having lost most of the active genes that were present in their ancestors. The causes of this degeneration have attracted much attention from evolutionary theorists.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The Y chromosome is disappearing – so what will happen to men?

The Y chromosome may be a symbol of masculinity, but it is becoming increasingly clear that it is anything but strong and enduring. Although it carries the “master switch” gene, SRY, that determines whether an embryo will develop as male (XY) or female (XX), it contains very few other genes and is the only chromosome not necessary for life. Women, after all, manage just fine without one.

What’s more, the Y chromosome has degenerated rapidly, leaving females with two perfectly normal X chromosomes, but males with an X and a shrivelled Y. If the same rate of degeneration continues, the Y chromosome has just 4.6m years left before it disappears completely. This may sound like a long time, but it isn’t when you consider that life has existed on Earth for 3.5 billion years.

theconversation.com...

So instead of living in a state of degeneration and death, we can be born of the Spirit and Life through Jesus Christ and at the Resurrection we will be transformed into a new, spiritual body.

a reply to: new_here
That may well be though it was so long ago that I read any of that portion of that book. Seems to me though that it was Mary's presence that the fetus was jumping to. I'll go and read it again to see.

Ok, I just did. In my Bible and others that I looked up, there is no mention of a baby in Mary when John jumped, only the mentioning of him jumping when Liz said here name.

Also, then after that, there is no comment about how long later, Joe went up to be counted and with him was his betrothed, Mary who was with child. So here, betrothed meant engaged as I understand it and not yet married and there she gave birth. So that means that Joe and Mary were not married when one of three things happened. Either Joe and Mary did it out of wedlock and didn't want people to know. Or God did it and there fore, virgin. Or someone else had sex with her, could have been anyone really and she didn't want Joe to know OR, it might have been Zach when she was living in his house. Of those three possibilities, the easiest to rule out because of Occam's razor is God and the virgin. Of the other two, well it's anybodies guess I guess.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

First off, this has nothing to do with this thread. If you want to blaspheme the Holy Spirit with your vain imagination go elswhere. This has nothing to do with anything.

Just because you sit up as a non believer imagining these vile things, doesn't mean they should be said. Do you just sit up and imagine about these things as a non believer? How vile that is.

You claim you don't believe but you spend this much time having these sick thoughts about the Bible? You just prove my point from this thread:

Why are atheist so angry with God?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So like I said, if you want to debate the issue then debate it. You're one response to this thread was devoid of any coherency about the thread so of course you're trying to obfuscate because you can't refute what's being said.

I suggest you keep your wild fantasies about people in the Bible to yourself.

First, you blaspheme the Holy Spirit which is your choice so your responsibility.

Second, you spending all of these post talking about a fantasy you conjured up in your mind that has nothing to do with scripture. As a non believer, is this really what you spend time thinking about?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neoholographic

Why did God carry out a modern day surgery on Adam to Create Eve when He could have just made Eve from the dust of the ground like He did with Adam?

Because, if HE did that, man and woman would be equals, and we can't have that!

maybe eve was black?

so i guess when during reassignment surgery, they take out a rib too? since they are playing god.

to the op's question. maybe He ran out of magic dust. j/k it does make sense tho to use a piece of adams body and that seems like a good choice.

maybe that's where the marriage/union between a man and a woman started.

sure both sexes have the same number of ribs, now. and since we don't have adam or eves skeleton's, we just don' know.

a pretty good read.

www.discovermagazine.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

So hey there Mr. Graphic, you say my posts have nothing to do with the topic. I beg to differ.

You see, you believe the stories in the book are real representations of reality and all you need to do is interpret them correctly to ascertain their truth. That in a nutshell is your entire OP. And that is the history of your belief system, interpretation..

Book after book was chosen by groups of men to either be included in canon or to be excluded. Yes or no? And how many hundred years was it before the book we generally know today was solidified, one, two three or more? Why? Because of different interpretations.

Then of course was that major split in who was going to be Pope when there were two different Vatican s. Interpretations.

And let's not forget the Protestant Reformation. A major difference in interpretation there don't you think. Then of course the shattering of that reformation into various shards, all with varying interpretations that goes on until today with many interpretations along the way forming offshoots and cults almost to numerous to count.

And why were there all these different interpretations? Because the entire book is vague and open to interpretation throughout by anyone who has,what did you say I have, oh yeah, imagination.

Yet you call me vile because what, I question any and all of those interpretations? And for what, doing the very same thing you did in the OP, speculating.

I could go on but I will cut it short. You placed this thread in the ''Conspiracy in Religion'' forum, not the ''Let's Push Christian Dogma'' forum. Thoughout, I spoke to that topic, that the entirety of the book is a conspiracy of interpretation.
You want me to refute your specific interpretation of the book? Ok I will refute it. I refute it on the basis that the entire book is nothing but fantasy. There. Refuted. Refuted by adding my own thoughts from reading that text. Refuted by demonstrating sound logical questions about that fantasy book that you seem to take as factual.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You said:

And why were there all these different interpretations? Because the entire book is vague and open to interpretation throughout by anyone who has,what did you say I have, oh yeah, imagination.

Vague?

Most Christians believe Jesus came to earth, was born of a virgin, died on the Cross and was Ressurrected 3 days later. We also believe if you accept Christ and repent we will be Ressurected in the end.

What's vague about that?

You have debates on different doctrine like the Rapture or baptism but there's nothing vague about Christianity's central message.

In fact, it's so precise, most scholars who aren't Christian accept that Christ lived and died on the Cross.

Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.[5][6][7][8][9]

Contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians view the theories of his nonexistence as effectively refuted.[6][8][47][48][49]

Michael Grant (a classicist and historian) states that "In recent years, no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus, or at any rate very few have, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

It's so vague, all of these Historians agree with Christianity's central message!

The point is, you couldn't refute what I was saying with an alternative view to the specific scriptures I quoted and the secular material I quoted that supports what I'm saying. You couldn't do that and have a sensible debate so you resorted to crass and vile assertions about Biblical figures that only come from a vain imagination without any scholars or science to support your vile assertions.

This is exactly the point I was making in the other thread:

Why are atheist so angry with God?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Listen to what you said:

As I recall Zach a powerful rabbi or something like that. A lot of ego their maybe huh? So anyway, he might have said to himself '' Zachy old boy, you are going to be the father of Elijah AND this trim young sexy virgin, living in your house is going to be the mother of the messiah, why not go for it and be the father of the messiah as well as the father of Elijah?''

At first, I wasn't even going to quote something so vile and crass but it illustrates my point about some non believers not all. I don't want to paint all non believers with your brush. That would be wrong.

Is this what some non believers do? Do they sit up and imagine these vile scenarios about Biblical figures?

All I'm saying is debate the thread and if you can't why resort to such nonsense? I know why, you want to be crass for shock value. You wrote a few sentences actually responding to the thread and a whole short story about your vain imagination of Biblical characters.

If you have these twisted fantasies about Biblical characters maybe you should go to your other non believer friends or a Therapist and talk about it.

There, you got your few seconds of attention by making vile remarks, can we debate the thread and the information presented?

a reply to: neoholographic

Twisted fantasies about Biblical characters? What is so twisted about suggesting the possibility, as allowed by the vaguenss of scripture that Zach was Jesus biological father. I made the case sticking to scripture and trying to understand some questions that it allows to arise, questions that I have never heard addressed or even asked before. Didn't you yourself ask questions about Adam and Eve and the rib, linking them to stem cells and mitochondrial DNA? Where in that book were either of those mentioned. What book and what chapter. They weren't. But look what you have come up with, a lot of supposition. You sure spend a lot of time speculating, far more I think that I put in on what I speculated upon.

And yes, I did respond to the OP in which I said that none of that which you posited was enough to make or even help me think about God in the manner with which you hold the topic. I was polite I thought.

I then commented to another poster about something that they said and then replied to another who replied to me, giving them my thoughts on the topics they brought up in their posts.

None of it was attacking or demeaning prior comments but rather and merely adding other thoughts to think about. You know, again ''conspiracy in religion.'' But somehow, you took offense and began to ridicule those thoughts and defame me because apparently those thoughts brought to a conspiracy forum offend you. Did I walk into your church and say those things? Nope. Into your place of worship? Nope? I voiced them in a ''conspiracy in religion'' forum on a conspiracy website, well within the scope of discussion allowed by the site.

So if you want to post a ''Bible, believe it or shut up'' sermon, maybe it's you who needs to take it somewhere else.

So God offered himself up as a sacrifice to himself because a woman made from a mans rib,who in turn was made from dirt,ate an apple given to her by a talking snake

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

This here is your problem. You said:

Didn't you yourself ask questions about Adam and Eve and the rib, linking them to stem cells and mitochondrial DNA? Where in that book were either of those mentioned. What book and what chapter.

Yes and everything I said was supported by secular sources. Everything you said was a product of vain imaginations about Biblical figures. I quoted this:

In the first book of the Bible, God fashions a woman from one of Adam's ribs: “while Adam was sleeping, … [he] took one of the ribs… and the rib taken from man… made a woman” (Genesis 2:21–22). Were stem cells present at this ancient origin point, in Adam's rib?

The recent discovery of stem cells in bone marrow and their therapeutic application in stem cells regenerative medicine would support the hypothesis that the development of science represents a quite predictable phenomenon proceeding from the potency of Adam's rib. Likewise, the biomedical research appears to represent a continuous discovery of historical and prehistorical milestones.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

These aren't my words. I just didn't say these things out of the blue. I backed up everything I said with scripture and secular sources.

You on the other hand didn't back up anything you said. It all came from your imagination about biblical figures. You couldn't debate the issue so you devolved into crass and vile assertions without anything that supports it but your imagination.

You said:

So if you want to post a ''Bible, believe it or shut up'' sermon, maybe it's you who needs to take it somewhere else.

It only feels this way because you can't refute what's being said. I never said shut up. I posted this for open debate and everyone managed to respond without resorting to crass and vile language about Biblical people.

Why do you have to resort to that to debate? I have debated non believers who don't have to resort to that. What's the purpose? You just wanted to be shocking to make up for your lack of any coherent response.

You keep talking about the Conspiracies in Religion forum. So that means you can't debate these issues without resorting to vile talk about people in the Bible? You can't have non belief without resorting to denegrating Mary and Elizabeth?

You don't have to believe or agree but if you have to say such vile things about them because you can't debate the issue, maybe you should rethink your stance. Why are you the only one that sank this low out of all of the responses?

originally posted by: neoholographic
First of all, these series of threads from you seem so needy. Like you just can't be happy in your beliefs but have to tie in bits and pieces to feel some other sort of comfort.

These aren't my words. I just didn't say these things out of the blue. I backed up everything I said with scripture and secular sources.

Your secular source also says, which you conveniently didn't cite:

We are now in an era of post-modern regenerative medicine. However, regeneration of tissue and organs has been a well-known phenomenon since ancient times. The story of Prometheus, the super hero chained to a rock for defying Zeus by stealing fire from Mount Olympus for the benefit of human beings, subjected to daily tearing at his liver by an eagle, attests to the early recognition of the extraordinary regenerative capacity of the human liver., This process has remained an intriguing mystery over the millennia.

So does this same secular source also prove the greek pantheon is also real?


ETA: Oh yeah and if god had used adam's stem cells he would have created another adam, not an eve.

a reply to: neoholographic

You don't have to believe or agree but if you have to say such vile things about them because you can't debate the issue, maybe you should rethink your stance. Why are you the only one that sank this low out of all of the responses?

You keep saying vile. Asking questions and offering thoughts about questionable sexual acts is vile? You ''good book'' and it's devout readers are the ones who bring up questionable sexual acts, like, God putting a baby in Mary.

I see you have judged me so from now on I will call you Mr. Judge. Didn't your Jesus suggest that you were not to do this? But then I suppose that you have your own interpretation on that one as well. Good night Mr. Judge.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
It is odd that people don't put things into context.

I saw a vid of a couple who were stoned to death for having a premarital relationship in the middle east and that was a couple years ago.

One can only imagine that it probably was stricter 2022 years ago in that area. Thinking that a "pregnant virgin" was a fabrication to avoid the consequences isn't that far fetched.

Heck, even elizabeth saying her baby jumped because the deed was holy could have been all made up by elizabeth to save her cousin.

Nobody knows how much of the bible is true but what is true is that some people will perform great mental gymnastics to prove it is true, to themselves.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Yes it's vile because it has nothing to do with the thread. The thread is titled:

Why did God carry out modern day surgery on Adam to Create Eve?

You can't debate the evidence presented so you would rather talk about your made up imagination. There's not a shred of evidence to support what you said but this is typical of some. You can't debate the subject of the thread so you obfuscate. You just strengthen the thread.

The medical procedure is clear. Let's look at it step by step:

Genesis 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

First, God caused Adam to go into a DEEP SLEEP. Why a deep sleep which in Hebrew also means a trance like state? Why not just put Adam to sleep, why a DEEP SLEEP?

This is the first step of any surgery. We're all familiar with:

Anesthesia is a medical treatment that prevents patients from feeling pain during procedures like surgery, certain screening and diagnostic tests, tissue sample removal (e.g., skin biopsies), and dental work. It allows people to have procedures that lead to healthier and longer lives.

What does your vain imaginations about Mary have to do with the thread?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Why did God carry out modern day surgery on Adam to Create Eve?

But he didn't, he was not in an OR with all the sterilized instruments that doctors knew they had to have for an operation way before know, with a team that included an anesthesiologist, a scrub nurse or someone to close up, which you made a big deal about.

According to you he is all mighty, he could have just made eve from whatever.

All you are doing is trying to fit things into texts "written and authorized" by people who had no idea what was coming.

Sounds as dumb as the future proves past shtick in the Q thread.

Eta: In case you missed it, making someone from another person's rib makes that same person again, not someone else who has a different gender.

a reply to: daskakik

Your post proves my point and also shows you didn't even read the OP. You said:

According to you he is all mighty, he could have just made eve from whatever.

You're supporting my conclusion. If you would have read the thread before commenting you would know this. I said in the OP:

Why did God carry out a modern day surgery on Adam to Create Eve when He could have just made Eve from the dust of the ground like He did with Adam?

It's the first line of the OP!!

I then said:

Secondly, he took out one of his ribs. Now, why did God have to cause Adam to go into a deep sleep to take out one of Adam's ribs? The answer is He didn't. He did this for our benefit. This is important for the end times. We live in a period where we know what this procedure is. The Bible is the Word of God.

Again, if you read the thread you would know that what you're saying supports what I said in the OP.

Thanks!

a reply to: neoholographic
No because you contradicted yourself in the op:

Now, why did God have to cause Adam to go into a deep sleep to take out one of Adam's ribs? The answer is He didn't. He did this for our benefit.

Did he or didn't he?

Honestly, there is no evidence either way, except the words of men you choose to believe.

Your secular source says Francesco Callea:

Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Children's Hospital Bambino Gesù, Vatican City, Italy

Really secular?

Maybe, maybe not, but I see you didn't comment on what else they wrote about the greek pantheon.