Geary: >"Why God would choose to make a person out of a rib seems >bizarrely amusing to me." Well, if my theory holds (water), and God (or King James -- at this stage, I'm confused) was thinking of the spare-rib (cf. Robespierre, ribspare), then we should also have to admit that what the Bible has as 'meet' in Gen. I, 2, 18 "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him an help meet for him." and Gen. I, 2, 20: "But for Adam there was not found an help meet for him." should read, perhaps 'meat'? Mind, my Hebrew is very rudimentary, but Adam does say, "Flesh of my flesh" i.e. flesh _off_ my flesh -- i.e. a genitive of _origin_. "They shall be one flesh" -- "Man shall leave his father and his mother" -- but Adam had no mother -- and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh". Literally, they _are_ one flesh, for the rib which God took from Adam was part of Adam's _flesh_. But I agree with Geary that possibly the gall bladder or the appendix (or the [left] little toe) would have been more practical and save Adam from a possible pain or two. Especially the appendix. Why do porks have 'spare ribs', and why was Robespierre, the French revolutionaire, called thus "Rib-spare". I'm still preoccupied that Durer's representation of Adam shows his _navel_. Borges used to quote from I think Donne, "The man without navel lives in me", by which Donne meant Adam. Talking of gall bladder, I once met a Scotswoman whose surname was Gall. I meant to impress her by telling her about the gall bladder, but she disappointed me by telling me that 'gall' in Gaelic, means 'Holy'. R. Paul finds KJV different 'rhythm' than Shakespeare. For one, Shakespeare does not hypercorrect his 'eitches' ('an help meet', meat). I wish D. G. Myers could participate in this forum. He knows a lot about the Old Testament. Cheers, JL ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com