From the book of Genesis:
Gen 2:18-24
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam 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 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,' 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.
(NIV)
The scientific basis for this passage is interesting.
Humans [as well as other life forms] are made from carbon molecules. The field of Organic Chemistry is the study mainly of the Carbon atom as well as other atoms that bind to Carbon [such as Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen].
But what is Adam's Rib?
Is there a scientific basis for this?
The answer is that what makes a man a man is testerone. What makes a woman a woman is the family of hormones known as estrogens.
The estrogens have one less carbon rib than testerone has.
The chemical formula of testerone is C19H28O2.
The chemical formula of the estrogens is C18H24O2.
Thus estrogens has one less carbon rib than testerone.
Is this the scientific basis of this passage of Genesis?
Possibly. It makes sense.
Carbon compose the bones of living organisms.
Maybe God showed us how we were made in a way we could understand thousands of years ago.
And now we can understand the scientific explanation of the difference between man and woman -- the missing rib, or Adam's rib.
Was this part of Genesis just a symbolic explanation, or was it an explanation that people could understand both thousands of years ago.
Today the human race has a better understanding of science.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2611620/posts
I've found the study of the Hebraic Roots of "Rib" one of the more illuminating portions of Biblical study. As the writer points out, estrogen is the difference between a asexual child in the womb undergoing the process of sexual determination.
-
-
That's nuts. Interesting indeed. Funny wording, that Bible. So God is some sort of Bill Nye?
-
Sexual differentiation is based upon the action of the SRY gene in the DNA of humans (http://goo.gl/dPgI). Those individuals with an XY pairing in their 23rd chromosome pairing must have both functional SRY genes plus receptors for the proteins codes by that gene. In terms of phenotype, people with XY chromosome pairs yet do not have a properly functioning SRY system, will have a female, not male, phenotype.
Genetically speaking, all human beings are first genetically female. It is the action of the SRY apparatus that determines male primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Genesis has it backwards. (http://goo.gl/YrTy)Pagan, SICK, MikeHoncho and 1 other person like this. -
-
MikeHoncho likes this.
-
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
Interesting story, thanks!
-
-
The conversion of testosterone to estrogen is not a basis for proving that Genesis is an allegory for modern genetics.
Fin D likes this. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
It is a feature of the Christian faith to see the hand of God in lots of secular thinbgs around us. St. Augustine would look at the masts and yardarms of a harbor ands see a forest of crosses. People see the story of the crucifixtion in the blossoms of a dogwood. The marks on and the structures inside a sand dollar talk to Christians about the wounds of Christ and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I see what Padre is talking about in this light. I would not read it as some kind of empirical "truth" of science but instead a glimpse of the hand of God involved in all creation. I don't know Padre intentions nor am I speaking for him but I do resonate with the perspectives he writes from.
padre31 likes this. -
Exactly OhioP, that is why the OP is entitled "Food for Thought" the individual should review the evidence and draw their own conclusion not attempt to draw the human genome.
Augustine, for my tastes, was a bit too zealous, when everytime the winds blows it comes as a Revelation, one has to wonder about attachment to fundamental things of this life.Ohiophinphan likes this. -
Ohiophinphan likes this.
-
-
-
Sometimes a gene is just a gene, and a mast is just a mast.
My perspective, people want to thing that God is involved in everything at all times, but he's not. I think he's actually quite aloof and doesn't get involved in much of anything. Its all genetics, mathematical chaos and crossing over effects. He is the center of the concept of creation, the Unified Field Theory personified. That doesn't mean we should look or draw conclusions about his nature. Science is science. He is the source of science, but like the first domino in a chain, he has little to do directly with the last domino falling.
God is not trying to communicate with us through the organic chemistry of hormones. -
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
-
Ohiophinphan Chaplain Staff Member Luxury Box
-
-
I also think that one of the greatest disservices of people of faith is trying to interject the Creator into science.
The Creator does not belong there. All science stops when the answer is, "God did it." -
Even if you do not believe, I do not understand how it can make no sense. -
My life isn't perfect, but I wouldn't trade it, and I feel that way because I don't need "another" purpose for it to have meaning.Pagan likes this. -
I do not understand your statement, "My life isn't perfect, but I wouldn't trade it and I feel that way because I don't "need" another purpose for it to have meaning." Does this mean you enjoy your life at all?
The answers to all your questions is because life ends.
Everything we experience means nothing unless there's a bigger reason?
Because it ends and when it ends then it is forgotten
Why isn't the life we lead here enough, for it to have meaning?
Because it ends and the life we lead here is a tiny speck of what exists in the universe.
Why do people feel like there has to be some grand purpose?
Because it ends and we as humans know that it ends -
I find plenty of happiness in my life, and that makes life worth it, not some unprovable purpose past death. And really, living life for some nebulous and by human design, an unknowable purpose, is no purpose at all. It makes one powerless and incapable of living towards that "purpose".
Of course it ends and that's why there's questions. What I'm asking is what happens in this life not enough? I mean we as humans don't experience anything that is forever, why then for life to have meaning, do we need to feel we live on forever somehow? -
To answer your first question is easy, religion. Some believe we come down here to gain a higher consciousness and let go of our ego, others believe that we come down to be apart of Gods and the Devil's battle over souls.
It is such a big part of the human condition that neuro science believe that they may have found the spiritual area of the brain. That the need for a belief in God is part of our evolution.
What you believe works for you. I can see why it works for you. I do not understand how you cannot look outside yourself and see why people would think different than you. -
-
There are a lot of things that I do not believe at all, that I can understand. Take smoking, it is a vile disgusting habit that does not have many benefits. Smoking is so outside my reality that I can never even imagine me to start smoking, however listening to why people do it, I can understand. It is not that hard.
Maybe I take that ability for granted. People have different experiences than me and it has always been easy for me to imagine why they would think that way.
The current one is very easy for me since when I was a kid I had a fear of being forgotten. I realized that I would be and everything I know would be forgotten. I tried to imagine a world without me and it was so hard. Especially since I was the one imagining a world without me so there was always an observer.
I still do that today. Think about my death and how I am going to be gone. Now I smile though. Sometimes I feel fear, sometimes I feel joy. It is always interesting.
Another reason I do not understand why you find it so hard to grasp is that you always talk about logic and it is very logical for people to look for something bigger than what they are because they are so small. Mathematically when considering the amount of time that since the big bang and the size of universe, you do not exist. With the knowledge that people are a tiny speck in the entire grand scheme of things you have no ability to understand the need for something that allows them to make some sense of it?
I can understand your point of view, even though I think an life that doesn't have the search to be stagnate. Earlier in my life the idea of giving up the search would be worse than death. However still, I can understand it. -
in a way it is the same thing. I do not understand your inability to understand. In that case I do find it hard to go outside of myself.
it is hard for me to go outside of myself to understand a person who does not understand outside of themselves. Ha ha, interesting. Well probably only to me. :)Fin D likes this.