For theistic evolutionists, question about Eve's creation

[cubeus19]

What I would love to know from theistic evolutionists is how do they interpret the verses where God has Adam fall into a deep sleep and then takes his rib and creates Eve from that rib?

Do theistic evolutionists just omit that verse out of their Bible or do they try to interpret it in some allegorical way?

I'm assuming they do the latter, which if I was a theistic evolutionist, I would do just that, I was just curious in what allegorical way though?

Do you interpret that it just means that this is how all male and female genders of every species came to be? A possible scenario is this: that when there was nothing but simple amoebas for instance on the early earth and they reproduced asexually, one day one decided to split into a pair one that happened to be male and the other female and either at that moment or over time, they evolved their respective reproductive organs, and evolved their different personalities and so on.

Does that sound about right? Or, do you interpret it in another way, if so how?

I look forward to seeing how you all handle this difficult area. Thanks.

[CeT-To]

The same word for rib is also "side", so God could have splitted Adam in 2 and Eve was created. I know it doesn't answer your question but i thought should throw it out there

[neo-x]

Theistic evolution says that God intervened at critical moments with miraculous nature to procure the outcome while the process was natural, but God triggered it or came in to do certain changes while keeping rest of the process as it was originally designed by himself.

[PaulSacramento]

It's an interesting question.
Did God NEED to create Eve from Adam's rib? Of course not, but he choose to do that, so what is the significance of that?
That Man and Woman are one in more ways than one.
It can be viewed as a statement of "common decent"- Eve coming from Adam the first "fully evolved human", or it can be viewed as a metaphore for Eve being of Adam ( Man).
God could have created Eve from the earth as he did Adam, but he choose to create her FROM Adam, perhaps the writer of Genesis want to convey a sense of "begetting" at the human level from the very beginning.

[rainagain]

Or..
God "removed" a rib "form, curve, pattern, helix" from Adam to make eve.

I know it sounds stupid, but I can't help but think He took the 24th chromosome, the xx, from Adam, to make Eve. There is no "Mrs. God".

We are incomplete, with 23 chromosomes. We long for completion.

Find the missing Hebrew letter/sound/concept and win the prize. There are 23 of them now also. And we're to be given another language if we make it home.

[DRDS]

Or..
God "removed" a rib "form, curve, pattern, helix" from Adam to make eve.

I know it sounds stupid, but I can't help but think He took the 24th chromosome, the xx, from Adam, to make Eve. There is no "Mrs. God".

We are incomplete, with 23 chromosomes. We long for completion.

Find the missing Hebrew letter/sound/concept and win the prize. There are 23 of them now also. And we're to be given another language if we make it home.

?????

[CeT-To]

^ Hahahaha

[rainagain]

I kid you not you guys, google a little, the 24th chromosome, and so forth. Check out http://www.thechronicleproject.org/ and learn of the fundamental language that our brains were meant to function on.
Google the "24th Hebrew letter".
Check this place: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/index.html
You laugh, but the answers are right there.

You can also google "D.C. pentagram pyramid". and see how deep we're in it already.

[Canuckster1127]

Theistic Evolution doesn't necessarily deny that God can intervene, it just states that in terms of creation and the process of evolution he never has or rarely does. I'm not a theistic evolutionist so I can't speak for them collectively, but I imagine there's a spectrum of belief in this issue ranging from interpretting the creation account metaphorically to acknowledging it as a miraculous intevervention.

[rainagain]

I read an article the other day about anthropologists tracking the y chromosome from apes to man. Supposedly we branched from the apes in the order of 50 million years ago, but the change in the chromosome would have taken much longer than that to occur. Now they have to change their model in some way to make things fit.
Anyways, it left them scratching their heads.
It's kind of ironic also, their belief that there was no tinkering with the gene pool, when they are the exact ones trying to do it now.

[SnowDrops]

I like to think that God creates laws and tries to follow them as much as He can, but sometimes He has to break them because He couldn't reach His desired goal then - like say, creating humans with a spirit. I'm an OEC, but I think God had a somewhat passive role in the development of nature. Not in creation of species though.

Also, I read some pages from The Chronicle Project, I'm still a bit confused though. Is there, say, a (at least partial) translation of the Bible using this method? Also, since there are two "concepts" they combine together, isn't there at least some uncertainty as to what people thought putting them together would mean? Looking at the way they put together words, it doesn't seem all that clear to me.

[CeT-To]

Why say break laws? Nature cant produce such effects so God does it himself or gives nature a momentary higher effect to attain his will.

I think its a mistake saying "breaking natural laws" it already gives the wrong impression.

[Byblos]

Why say break laws? Nature cant produce such effects so God does it himself or gives nature a momentary higher effect to attain his will.

I think its a mistake saying "breaking natural laws" it already gives the wrong impression.

Totally agree. It's only breaking the laws we know of. If at some point in the future we discover a way to bring people back from the dead, does this again invalidate God? Of course not, it only means God had used a law a few thousand years before we discovered it.

[SnowDrops]

Why say break laws? Nature cant produce such effects so God does it himself or gives nature a momentary higher effect to attain his will.

I think its a mistake saying "breaking natural laws" it already gives the wrong impression.

Totally agree. It's only breaking the laws we know of. If at some point in the future we discover a way to bring people back from the dead, does this again invalidate God? Of course not, it only means God had used a law a few thousand years before we discovered it.

Yeah, I guess that's a bad way to say it. What I meant was that God tends to accomplish things working within the laws of our universe (that actually affect only us) as long as He can, perhaps to preserve Order and not make it too confusing for us. He is under no obligation to though, so in that sense He is not breaking anything.

[CeT-To]

That would be a better answer but yeah im just saying, saying " breaking natural laws" just gives another chance for athiests to ridicule God. God doesn't break anything, nature produces certain effects and God produces greater effects- that i think is the right way to view it.