God made women first and not man.

My theory is that God made women first my reason for this is god is a logical thinker and when he made the animals he made them both male and female.

Now when God made man he did'nt make a mate, he saw that man was alone and created women as an after thought, taking a rib from adams side to help him according to the bible.

Now i think God made women first and through immaculate conception Adam was born Just like jesus christ hence no messing around with surgery on adam, and added makes sense that God intended humans to multiply on earth not as an after thought feeling sorry for Adam.


I mean come on, Surely God could not be so short sighted... ??

What do you guys think

Basically, what this thread is asking is "which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

We will never really know the answer and, to tell the truth, it really doesn't matter. After all, we are all here-- both men and women.

If the Bible says that God created man first that's OK with me. If God had created woman first, again, that's cool with me also.

Of course, if we are to discuss this question "intelligently" we have to refer to the source and, in this case it would have to be the Bible. The Bible says that God made man first and so I'll have to go with that (though it probably really doesn't mean a damned thing or make a damned difference).

This question presents something of a paradox.

The idea that the Christian God created the planet, people, and the animals, in six days just as the book of Genesis says, is absolutely miraculous. I would think it would take a tremendous leap of faith to embrace this idea.

The idea that God then took out Adam's rib and made Eve is rather pale in comparision, at least to me.

So, I guess I am saying that it seems to me that if one accepts the part of the story that says God is the creator, then why not accept the part of the story that details the creation of Adam and Eve?

Read Genesis it SPELLS it out ... This is the most Idealogy thread I have ever read. ... My Theory .... LOL ... I love it when people start out with My Theory on this .... is ... I do that with alot of things myself ... I have a rampid imagination .. But as far as what god says ... He spells everything out pretty clearly if you can read and have any kind of Reading Comprehension skills at all ... Anyways ... This Is my last/first posts in this thread this is not even worth the space it is on....

Read Genesis it SPELLS it out ... This is the most Idealogy thread I have ever read. ... My Theory .... LOL ... I love it when people start out with My Theory on this .... is ... I do that with alot of things myself ... I have a rampid imagination .. But as far as what god says ... He spells everything out pretty clearly if you can read and have any kind of Reading Comprehension skills at all ... Anyways ... This Is my last/first posts in this thread this is not even worth the space it is on....

BUT physically, from a scientific standpoint...all babies start out female and then differentiate into male if the Y chromosome is present. Science, IMO, demonstrates divine intention. Or something like that.

But who knows?

Originally posted by wellwhatnow
This question presents something of a paradox.

The idea that the Christian God created the planet, people, and the animals, in six days just as the book of Genesis says, is absolutely miraculous. I would think it would take a tremendous leap of faith to embrace this idea.

The idea that God then took out Adam's rib and made Eve is rather pale in comparision, at least to me.

So, I guess I am saying that it seems to me that if one accepts the part of the story that says God is the creator, then why not accept the part of the story that details the creation of Adam and Eve?

Well the bible actually say the earth was void when god found it so it already existed ( did not create it in six days) i believe god rectified the damaged earth so it was suitable for life.

and i agree the idea god took adams rib does pale into comparison when you consider God created the intire universe.

why not accept the part of the story that details the creation of Adam and Eve ?? Because it don't make sense to me just like in Genesis 1 it say god made the animals before man and then in Genesis 2 it says god made man before the animals, so i assume it's safe to say the story is not entirely accurate and was influenced by the male idea that time that women are lesser than men and could not possobly have been created first.

But as far as what god says ... He spells everything out pretty clearly if you can read and have any kind of Reading Comprehension skills at all ... Anyways ... This Is my last/first posts in this thread this is not even worth the space it is on....

Infact what did god say..? Mosses said and wrote it down and said it was god who told him, but you and i dont know what God said and mosses was subject to error just read genesis and exodus seeing as your so goo at reading and comprehension. And if you find no contridictions please don't feel shy to ask for assistance in finding them.

BUT physically, from a scientific standpoint...all babies start out female and then differentiate into male if the Y chromosome is present. Science, IMO, demonstrates divine intention. Or something like that.

Hi queenannie38 and thanks for that very insightfull input, i personnaly never thought about that.

But i do remember a science experiment were they kept a batch of female lizards and they became pregnant with no male present,
This just goes to strenghen my argument as so far we can get male from female but nothing from males. ?

Since Man Was Created First, Why Did God Give Man Nipples ????

Im sure theres some biolegy students who might have the answer and i would love to hear from you if you could shed a little light on the subject.

in the bible we have 2 seperate accounts of how men and women were created

account 1: everything else on the planet is made, then both man and woman are created simulatneously

account 2: man made, animals made, woman made

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
in the bible we have 2 seperate accounts of how men and women were created

account 1: everything else on the planet is made, then both man and woman are created simulatneously

account 2: man made, animals made, woman made

A Most excellent point madnessinmysoul,

TRUE but then how are the two to be reconciled if at all.??

Maybe we should take the whole story with a pinch of salt ? but i do believe there is something to the story.

i believe there is something to the story, too...but far deeper than superficial literal interpretation. I believe in God - i know God - but God is not contrary to science in any way. IOW, what we find in science is fact regarding physical existence (as much as we can have 'fact', that is) and the bible is spiritual instruction - using the 'seen' to guide us toward understanding and awareness of the 'unseen.'

Yes - females can reproduce females without males present.

So actually it would make more sense to say Mary was immaculately conceived, not Jesus.

When it is translated Adam's 'rib' it is more correctly understood as a 'side' of Adam. Which could mean a lot of things if taken out of the literal physical perspective. Perhaps it was the side of Adam that was a 'living soul' that became Eve?

Originally posted by reaper2
Maybe we should take the whole story with a pinch of salt ?

My feelings exactly.

The Christian Bible was written down by people and translated many times by other people.

Even if no person involved ever made a mistake, some words simply do not have suitable equivalents in other languages and the connotative meanings of words change over time.

With this in mind, I think we make a huge error if we take an ancient written document too literally. Since there are contradictions in the Christian Bible this makes me suspect the whole thing. Any part of it could be in error in my opinion.

edited for clarity

[edit on 2/21/07 by wellwhatnow]

Originally posted by queenannie38
When it is translated Adam's 'rib' it is more correctly understood as a 'side' of Adam. Which could mean a lot of things if taken out of the literal physical perspective. Perhaps it was the side of Adam that was a 'living soul' that became Eve?

Thanks for that QA...I have always wondered about the significance of the rib especially the description of the ?bear? in the book of Dan having one side raised up with a rib in his mouth I think it says??

Anyway, I think it is talking of half or side like you said. Could this mean talking of duality? In otherwords the rib/side account just means what it means, God took the female characteristics and seperated from the male characteristics.. That makes a lot of sense to call it 'side' because we are symetrical.

The the Men's movement would have just happened....

There would be men who were stoned to death for not covering their faces.

:bash::bnghd::shk:

The Christian Bible actually has two different stories of how man/woman was created. The first story, the one about Adam's rib, is the one that most people believe and not many people even realize that the other story exist. In 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." In this version we are all created equal. Men and women were created at the same time. Not one before the other.

If we believe science in that all life began as single-celled bacteria, then changed into multi-celled life (Adam's rib could be realized here), then branched off into more complex biological forms (man created in God's image), then perhaps both genders were created at the same time in that single-celled bacteria. Through this evolution theory and through the creation theory, all life is connected.

a reply to: wellwhatnow

No paradox at all…but an example of mistaking one level—or type—of reality for another. The O.T. “Creation Story” you refer to (one of two in that book) is part of the Christian (and Jewish) myth. It is metaphorical. Not necessarily WRONG, but of a different kind of reality…or meaning…than what you typically find in your morning newspaper ..or in the research paper you are currently writing. Metaphorically, my vote would go for the “woman first” theory, as he Mother Principle is something from which everything derives (like you—as a physical being—came out of your mother).

Now, why do we see the opposite stance in this story? Not so very difficult to answer. In very early days in the Holy Land, matriarchal culture and religion held sway, but…but with a gradual switch to patriarchy (and with the development of the agricultural life)--the religious leaders insisted that the MALE archetype stand as primary, rather than the FEMALE. Besides, the word which is usually translated as “rib” also means “side.” A pretty good interpretation of the tale is that “Woman” came out of the male, which is a very strange inversion of the…much more logical “Man” came out of the WOMAN. It’s a matter of power politics.

a reply to: queenannie38

NICELY SAID!!!! Yep, in a sense, the male is a variant of the female!!! Ha ha!!

a reply to: madnessinmysoul

Yep, two distinct (and contradictory!) Creation Stories. Exactamundo!!!!

a reply to: wellwhatnow

With this in mind, I think we make a huge error if we take an ancient written document too literally. Since there are contradictions in the Christian Bible this makes me suspect the whole thing. Any part of it could be in error in my opinion.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!