1

And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man. Genesis 2:23 KJV.

I am new at this so please be patient. I wondered for a while and I tried to look this up but I was wondering if the translation for bone, rib(tsela) is actually cell(tah) as in blood cell? In my quaint study I see that tsela also means cell as in a structure cell. I see how important blood is to the Father . Maybe my naivety is just trying to connect too much?

4
  • I have edited to bring the question into line with site requirements and also so that you can see how quotations are presented. Please feel free to roll back the edit if you wish. Welcome to BH.
    – Nigel J
    Aug 2 '19 at 16:25
  • There are two problems with your question: 1) In Hebrew rib and bone do not share the same term. Bone in Hebrew is "etzem" and not "tsela" (although it means rib). In fact "etzem" is the Hebrew term in Gen. 2:23, not "tsela". 2) there is no word for cell in Biblical Hebrew, The word "tha" has been invented by Modern Hebraists. So it has no bearing on the meaning of Gen. 2:23.
    – Bach
    Aug 2 '19 at 21:31
  • In general, in BH we can't change one letter in a triliteral word and expect it to have the same meaning. In fact, most of the time this is not the case. Aug 3 '19 at 9:55
  • Animal bones, along with wood and stone, are some of the most primitive materials used by early man for creating various tools, hence the biblical imagery.
    – Lucian
    Aug 3 '19 at 14:15
-2

The most convincing identification of the part of Adam's body used to form Eve is this answer that I found on Quora:

Baculum*The probability is that God did not use Adam’s rib to create Eve, but rather, used Adam’s baculum , or penis bone. No kidding.

OK. It’s just a story, I know. Not real. Never happened. But we should at least get the story right, don’t you think?

The Hebrew word “tsela” was used in the bible 42 times and only twice translated as “rib”. Both times in the Genesis creation story. And both times it is footnoted down to “part”.

It was generally translated as “side”, but also as “appendage” and “limb”. Now what ‘appendage’ or ‘limb’ on man does not have a bone? Only one I can think of.

The use of “rib” is conflicting to the story, rather than in concordance. Either God made Adam with one additional rib, or Adam had to live with one less rib. Either way, it is never addressed, and actually provides a problem rather than an etiological explanation.

Genesis is the etiological chapter of the bible. That is, it provides explanations for things, reasons for beginnings of things.

There is no particular symbolic meaning for the rib. And besides, both men and women have 24 ribs, 12 on each side. It explains nothing.

The baculum, however, would fit right in with the etiological nature of the story, explaining why man, unlike many if not most mammals, does not have a penis bone.

And taking the bone from the generative organ adds to the symbolism.

Supporting evidence for this theory is found in Genesis 2: 21 concerning God “closing up with flesh” the site where the “tsela” was removed.

Here is another opportunity for etiology. Yet there is no scar or evidence of any kind near the male rib cage.

There is, however, what looks very much like a scar right in the area where the penis bone would have been located- the perineal raphe.

It is a solid case that can be made for the baculum to have been meant as the “bone of Adam” which God removed and out of which God made Eve.

And all this time a meaningful part of the creation story was hidden from us because of a simple mistranslation.

4
  • "Yet there is no scar or evidence of any kind near the male rib cage" And scars are passed on genetically? Aug 4 '19 at 14:08
  • Yes, not the most compelling part of the article.
    – Ruminator
    Aug 4 '19 at 14:16
  • It ain't "many or most mammals." In particular, ungulates lack a baculum too, and those would have been the most common type of mammal encountered on a regular basis. If your sheep and cattle and horses and donkeys and camels don't have a baculum, why would you even think that you, a human male, should have one, and have to come up with an etiological explanation for its absence?
    – Meir
    Aug 14 '20 at 15:38
  • Objection noted. Thanks Meir. I find the fact that men have no missing rib compelling, don't you?
    – Ruminator
    Aug 14 '20 at 15:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.