The Adam and Eve boondoggle

[Zzyzx]

.
The Adam and Eve boondoggle

According to Genesis 2, God created Adam and then later discovered that he had no 'helper' and made Eve from one of Adam's ribs.

Evidently 'God' did not realize that a single male human was not likely to reproduce. That seems a bit short-sighted for a supposedly all-knowing supernatural entity.

How could 'God' overlook such a glaring defect in the original situation?

Could it be that the Genesis tale is a bit wacky?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 10 by Zzyzx]

I make no assumptions about gods – but often refer to the assumptions / claims / tales made by god worshipers. Note the use of the word “supposedly� in my statement.

As far as I am concerned, all 'gods' are equally imaginary along with all their claimed actions and abilities.

Well if you make no assumptions, then you should build your view based on what the text says. And clearly, again, God is figuring some stuff out as things unfold.

So maybe you should tell all those "God worshippers" to fix their assumption. And be clear that it is not the text that is inconsistent or full of contradiction.

[marco]

God could have made Adam to wait for Eve so he would appreciate how vital she was, not only to reproduce but for his emotional and mental well being. That without her he was incomplete, "not good" as God put it. That having lived for so many years (by bible chronology at least 40 ) without a mate, the wonders of the female character and capacities would make a lasting impression on him and help him to treat her with love, respect and appreciation.

This is admirable, inventive extrapolation as is the child's picture of a mythological age. The truth is probably that the writers thought of a first MAN and then, being human and male, thought of a first WOMAN. Being earthlings, they placed them on earth, in a garden. Being sinners, they made them sin. The tale is so simple that it is one step above infantility.
The conversational exchanges between the half-witted humans and a rather dull God might as will come from the pages of a book for five-year olds.

But there may be more to the tale than meets the cynical eye..... of course.

[William]

I find the story to be metaphoric.

It is obvious that the creator being didn't know everything but certainly knew a lot.

I see the GOD in the story as the Earth Entity - a self aware entity within the form of the planet.

Engaging with biological life-forms was nothing new to the entity, but it wanted to create something which it could relate with in the creator/created roles. It is both the creator and the created, and the forms permitted this to be possible, because IT is that which is the consciousness within the forms, but in being able to do this, that part of Itself which was injected into said forms - naturally enough had no prior memory of being the entity from which it derived.

The creator-entity of course, had that knowledge and determined to impart that knowledge to it creation - to that part of itself which in form had forgotten where it derived.

The problems arose through that process. It may have been foreseen by the creator-entity to be a potential problem, but how big of a problem may not have been fully realized. Or if it had been fully realized, a solution might also have been developed to counter the problem.

Matters not really, if indeed an entity within the form of a planet with the potential to create critters upon that planet using particles of its own consciousness to enliven the forms with self consciousness, is doing so because it is capable of doing so and in that, because it has nothing better to do/nothing else it could do apart from that.

We complain because we either do not understand that we and It are the same thing, just in different perspectives, so whatever we are going through, It is also going through in relation to us, because there can be no real separation. Or we accept without complaint because we are afraid to offend what we have been led to believe about it, assuming that we are separate from It and doing what we do independently of It.

So the metaphor is that 'once upon a time' a male was created and placed in the sanctuary of a paradise garden whereby the creator could indirectly teach the male critter what it needed to learn in order to prepare it for the greater reality outside of the garden parameters.

No doubt the male human would have observed the natural goings on of the other critters and how this lead to there being more critters, and no amount of invisible interactions between creator-entity and human man could have compensated for that difference - that lack that the man had in his life which other critters enjoyed.

The creator-entity would of course have foreseen such a thing and had a plan to introduce the female eventually.

However, up to this point the evolution of biological forms has been natural enough, and now somehow 'magic' has been introduced in order to create a female human being.

One way around this inconsistency is to back-track a bit and see that the entity-creator was simply doing what It did being both the creator and the created as explained, but not overly aware of the process to the point of playing 'God' but that something else came along and did this.

This would have to have been ET of origin.

So then we can fit the story in a more literal manner without introducing 'magic'.

With ET involved, we have another type of creator entity which comes from another - far older planetary system and has chosen to interfere with the natural processes of this system in order to speed up the processes of our evolution of knowledge etc by playing 'GOD' and perhaps even creating a hybrid species from the material available on Earth and the materials they brought with them from their older system.

They were able to do the 'magic' because they had the science.

What they didn't appear to foresee (although they may well have done but didn't consider it that important) is that interfering with the natural evolution of a far younger planetary system species by injecting more advanced concepts into it, would help create what we refer to as 'history', and that history shows more of a monster being created rather than something far more naturally evolving at its own pace ,might have created.

Be that as it may, the nature of the universe permits monsters being created and is unavoidable for that.

But there is also beauty in the beast, and perhaps this is the thing which allows for the ET to interfere scientifically with natural processes because monsters are inevitable but speeding up the process can potentially get the species through it faster and into the beauty.

Some say though, that the interference and playing GOD by the ET is malevolent and self-serving and they are only using less developed species as slaves and have no intention of allowing them to come into the fullness of knowledge.

I think though, that while this could have been a good enough argument in the past, we - as a species have developed beyond that already and know enough that should another species from the stars make themselves known to us AND try to force us to accept them as our creator GODs, we would unlikely bow to such demand and accept them as such.

Which is to say, if that were the case, we would have been prevented from every having the technology we now possess.

Therefore, either the ET have moved on having failed to accomplish their malevolent plans or they never had malevolent intentions in the first place and are interested in seeing if now we can pull ourselves out of the mire of history and develop something which will ensure our foothold in this universe as a species, or whether we will decide that it is all more than we care to endure.

Perhaps ET is still around? Would they be malevolent to allow us to destroy ourselves and not intervene, since they helped create the mess we are presently in, or would they interfere and put a stop to that?

We know that the Earth entity is quite able to create another species in which to experience through (replacing human forms) and that the process of biological evolution appears to be intelligent enough to create something different based on the lessons of past failures, and experience through that, all the while having the data of past experience in which to learn by...not what to do having done it already and failed...so it is not really and act of malevolence to remain aloof from further interference just to save a species from the self hatred it has developed...but it is also not exactly a moral thing to do either and as said, we are now capable of accepting ET existence and do not have to think of assistance from an advanced species as being GODs whom we must pay homage towards and bow down to...but it may be our collective tendency to do such a thing - we do tend to make 'gods' out of other humans and worship those as our betters and give them gross amounts of rewards and special benefits...so this tendency on our part would be the deciding factor as to whether ET remains aloof or not, and they being malevolent of benevolent is besides the point in from that perspective.

If we are not able to collectively save ourselves, do we deserve to exist anyway, or is it better to wait for the earth to create a better model in which to express conscious intelligence through?

At present some of our scientists, technicians, engineers etc, are attempting to create a better model or improve the model we currently have.

It seems appropriate that we learn to help ourselves rather than to seek help in the hope of outside assistance, whether we call that ET or GOD. We are better off connecting with the planet, but while we are engrossed in purely seeing the planet as nothing more than a dead thing to use and abuse as we will, rather than as the living conscious entity that It is, and treat it (and each other) with the respect that such deserves, we are more likely going to fail than succeed, at least on a mass scale.

Entirely our collective choice of course.

I often ask myself "What would the world be like if only we did what Jesus and others like him where trying to get us to see the good logic in doing" and I see in my minds eye something far different than what we presently have.

I also see that beauty is trying to come through but the ugly is a brute of a thing which hates that this is the case. While we allow brutality to rule the roost and subject ourselves to its agendas, we will undoubtedly fail - and deservedly so.


What Will Be Will Be. One Way or the Other.

[marco]

That is a big leap. The Hebrew has none of that connotation.

Not until after the fall (and because of it) does God declare that there will be a hierarchy - that man will rule over his wife.

Not part of the original plan where humankind is in the image of God as man AND woman (not OVER).

Unfortunately we don't have access to God's "original plan." We can only judge by the narrative we are given. Man was created to live alone. Woman was an afterthought. We may say she became man's co-equal but there is no evidence of this. She let man down by her subversive, silly talk. The story-line makes her dependent on man for her existence. Woman's lower status did not arise after the Flood; it was ever so. The Bible is a man's book, written for warrior men who serve a male God.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Unfortunately we don't have access to God's "original plan." We can only judge by the narrative we are given.

And like I said, the narrative (gen 1) says we are created in the image of God, man AND woman. Not man OVER woman. No hierarchy.

Man was created to live alone. Woman was an afterthought. We may say she became man's co-equal but there is no evidence of this.

I just gave some evidence. Gen 1. More evidence: the language used of her (Adam's "helper") is language used only of God elsewhere in the bible. So what does that tell you about her relationship to man?

She let man down by her subversive, silly talk. The story-line makes her dependent on man for her existence. Woman's lower status did not arise after the Flood; it was ever so. The Bible is a man's book, written for warrior men who serve a male God.

I think that is all selective interpretation.

Her lower status arose, not after the flood, but after the fall. In gen 3. When God declares: Your husband will rule over you.

God didn't say that in the beginning. But as consequence of the fall.

In other words, this hierarchy is part of the fallen world and not part of the original plan. That is, if we read the narrative closely.

[marco]

And like I said, the narrative (gen 1) says we are created in the image of God, man AND woman. Not man OVER woman. No hierarchy.

This is a particular interpretation, as good or as flawed as mine. The fact is that God created Adam, and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. After a time, Eve arrived, created not directly from God, but from Adam. What does this say? The curious term "help meet" does not conjure up images of equality, but rather servility. But I agree it depends on how you want to read Genesis. It is probably best read as metaphor.

In other words, this hierarchy is part of the fallen world and not part of the original plan. That is, if we read the narrative closely.

Putting aside the details of Adam and Eve's creation, this later instruction, that man will rule woman, is utterly bad. A book that so instructs is not worthy of our attention, surely.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

This is a particular interpretation, as good or as flawed as mine.

No, it is the only interpretation. To read hierarchy between man and woman in gen 1 would be adding to the text what simply is not there. If that was an important aspect of the relationship, it would have been indicated, no?

The fact is that God created Adam, and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. After a time, Eve arrived, created not directly from God, but from Adam. What does this say?

It says nothing about hierarchy. Look who God also picks to rule later in scripture: it is not the first but the latter. Able over Cain. Jacob over Esau. Joseph over the other 11 sons...

Jesus over them all, right? Even though he comes from a long line?

So please tell me how Eve coming from or after Adam is ANY indication of hierarchy. It isn't.

The curious term "help meet" does not conjure up images of equality, but rather servility. But I agree it depends on how you want to read Genesis. It is probably best read as metaphor.

"Help" can mean subvervient, but again, that's Jesus right? The servant of good for others? Are we to see Jesus at the bottom of the hierarchy?

Also, "help" can mean superior. How does a teacher, who is superior, not "help"? Or any other expert? Or one of greater strength or position?

Again, the word is used mostly of God elsewhere. Please, think this through. Stop insisting on such a narrow, inconsistent-with-the-narrative view.

(The word ezer is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament. Twice in the context of Eve. Three times of people helping (or failing to help) in life-threatening situations. Sixteen times of God as a helper. Without exception, these biblical texts are talking about a vital, powerful kind of help... Not a rung down on the hierarchy...)

Putting aside the details of Adam and Eve's creation, this later instruction, that man will rule woman, is utterly bad. A book that so instructs is not worthy of our attention, surely.

If it was an instruction. But I don't think there is any evidence that God was giving "instruction" in gen 3.

I would say consequence. It is part of the curse. A curse is not an instruction. It is a consequence of wrong-doing, i.e., the fall. As I said.

[marco]

[Replying to marco]

This is a particular interpretation, as good or as flawed as mine.

No, it is the only interpretation.

Well, since I've given you another interpretation it is not the only one. I have given reasons why Eve would be considered inferior to Adam. You have simply declared there is no hierarchy because you don't want to accept signs of Eve's inferiority. Fine.

It says nothing about hierarchy. Look who God also picks to rule later in scripture: it is not the first but the latter. Able over Cain. Jacob over Esau. Joseph over the other 11 sons...

Bad parallel. Abel may well have been preferred to Cain but they were born of the same father by the same means. The primal act of creation doesn't apply here. Incidentally do you see that every name you named is male. That surely adds some credence to my argument. You contend that Eve was punished and placed second to Adam because she was FIRST to sin. Interesting. Sometimes first matters not and sometimes it does - when a woman is involved.

If it was an instruction. But I don't think there is any evidence that God was giving "instruction" in gen 3.

I would say consequence. It is part of the curse. A curse is not an instruction. It is a consequence of wrong-doing, i.e., the fall. As I said.

So why pick on Eve when they are equal in every way? I think you've sufficiently illustrated that there is a preference. It may be inconvenient to admit it.

[William]

[Replying to post 17 by theophile]

To read hierarchy between man and woman in gen 1 would be adding to the text what simply is not there.

There is indeed hierarchy as far as the story goes.

GOD taught Adam - Adam taught Eve.
GOD said 'Do not eat of the fruit' Adam added to the word of GOD "Do not touch or eat of the fruit."
There is clear indication that the hierarchy used their positions in order to test the taught and that things unraveled to the detriment of all involved.

No one involved got what they wanted.

No one involved treated the others as equals, but as superiors/inferiors.

The war between the sexes is an ancient one and all subsequent wars could very likely be traced back to this one. The War Of The Sexes.

Most of the time the common complaint is that women are treated less than equal but there is a far less obvious cultural compliance where the women actually have the final say and allow their menfolk to appear publicly to be the ones ruling the roost, but they are not really. They do as the are told by their women.

The story of Genesis is a reflection of self defining/other defining malarkey. It speaks more plainly of the tactics of those do not love one another, who blame rather than accept responsibility for the actions of the self, and puts the idea of all involved in an extremely bad light and has nothing useful to advise on strategy for improvement regarding the relationship between Humans and GODs, or between males and females.

It is a travesty of ancient thinking processes largely devoid of the knowledge of truth.

[theophile]

[Replying to marco]

Well, since I've given you another interpretation it is not the only one.

My reference was to gen 1. When we are created in the image of God as man and woman. No hierarchy indicated. To interpret any would be to add what is not there.

I have given reasons why Eve would be considered inferior to Adam. You have simply declared there is no hierarchy because you don't want to accept signs of Eve's inferiority. Fine.

Pretty sure I gave reasons. Let me restate in case you missed them:

(1) Gen 1 (see above) where the image of God is man AND woman - no hierarchy.
(2) The word used to describe Eve's relationship to Adam as "helper" or ezer, and its usage elsewhere predominately of God (no small thing). -- This description of Eve puts her more on the level of God, which if anything puts her above Adam.
(3) God's statement that Adam will rule over her (i.e., the first real statement of hierarchy) is clearly part of the curse, i.e., it is a consequence of the fall in gen 3 and not part of the original plan, i.e., gen 1, when it is man AND woman (not man OVER woman).

Those are my reasons. All you have is the fact that she came from Adam, which says nothing whatsoever of hierarchy. Note my refutation of this with Jesus as the clear example. Jesus came from Adam too, did he not? Are we to assume Adam is Jesus' superior? Absolutely not. Otherwise please tell me how Eve is so different. Without, of course, adding to the narrative what is not there.

Bad parallel. Abel may well have been preferred to Cain but they were born of the same father by the same means. The primal act of creation doesn't apply here. Incidentally do you see that every name you named is male. That surely adds some credence to my argument.

My argument was simply that in coming later, or in coming from, one is not necessarily on a lower rung of the hierarchy. i.e., Adam, in coming first, or in being the source of Eve, is in no way, as you argued, in a higher position than her. It simply does not follow.

That is all I argued. And it holds. Nothing you say here refutes it.

You contend that Eve was punished and placed second to Adam because she was FIRST to sin. Interesting. Sometimes first matters not and sometimes it does - when a woman is involved.

I never said that Eve was punished and placed second to Adam because she was the first to sin.

If you want to get into this, my precise position would be that Adam, because of sin, now thinks more of himself and his own interests than he does of Eve. (That is the nature of sin, isn't it? To put one's own interests above others?). As a result, because Adam is now living in sin, he will seek to rule over his wife as God declares in gen 3. Not as "punishment" but as consequence. It is the logical result of sin that God is declaring here. "Now your husband will rule over you..."

So why pick on Eve when they are equal in every way? I think you've sufficiently illustrated that there is a preference. It may be inconvenient to admit it.

Pick on Eve? Sin affects everyone. That is its nature. Eve is caught up in it as much as the serpent is, and the serpent's offspring, and the earth and its plants (that will now resist producing).

It's like chaos theory. Or like paying it forward, but in a negative way. If I start thinking of myself above others, and treat others accordingly, they are likely going to do the same in return.

As a result, everything gets caught up in it.

There is no "picking on" Eve going on. It's just the nature of sin to have this cosmic effect.