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 19 by William]

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.

Eve is the dominant one in the story. She makes the decisions. She drives the narrative forward.

These "teachings" say nothing of hierarchy in the case of Adam and Eve. Adam is simply relating the one rule he was told to abide.

Hardly would I call him "teacher" for it.

If anything, the serpent is the teacher (after God). It has superior wisdom to Adam and Eve and knows that the fruit is good for eating.

[William]

[Replying to post 19 by William]

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.

Eve is the dominant one in the story. She makes the decisions. She drives the narrative forward.

In relation to the actual event of eating the forbidden fruit, Eve is still not the dominant one. The serpent is.

These "teachings" say nothing of hierarchy in the case of Adam and Eve. Adam is simply relating the one rule he was told to abide.

There is nothing in the story which suggests that the GOD had any direct relationship with Eve, like the direct one Adam had.
The story suggests that fundamental knowledge was given by the GOD to Adam and from that Adam was left to his own devices, and avoided the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. The assumption has to be made then that he was ignorant of both good and evil.

Hardly would I call him "teacher" for it.

It is implied within the story-line that Adam learned language from the GOD and then not only made up names for the plants and animals etc, but after the event of Eve, Adam was the one who taught Eve.

The main clue to this is in the fact that had GOD also taught (instructed) Eve about the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil then the instruction would have been the same, but as we can see, when Eve gave her argument to the Serpent, the word 'touch' had been added and thus the Serpent had something in which to use as a leverage in its attempt in convincing Eve to eat the fruit.

If anything, the serpent is the teacher (after God). It has superior wisdom to Adam and Eve and knows that the fruit is good for eating.

Not at all. The story does not inform as to whether the Serpent has partaken of the fruit as it was only forbidden for the humans to eat of it. If you are suggesting that to know good and evil is 'superior knowledge' then, going with that idea, it is not what is known about good and evil which is the problem, but what is DONE with the knowledge, and to suggest that the knowledge was used by the serpent in a superior way is questionable/debatable.

No doubt the Serpents role as a teacher was somewhat different from that of Adams and of the Gods, but 'superior'? I think you would be hard pressed to make a virtuous case out of that.

Eve was simply not educated correctly in the first instance and this is the result of bad tutoring on Adams part. More to the point, his actions were downright despicable in relation to how he treated the gift the GOD had given him.

He used Eve as a guinea pig to test the results before deciding that it was safe to indulge in what he obviously secretly wanted to try out anyway. He may have been ignorant of the results of knowing good from evil, but the desire was still there and cannot in itself be regarded as good or as evil, for that.

Indeed, as the story also narrates, he was with her the whole time Eve was being tempted and not once raised any objections in relation to the Serpents reasoning.

How anyone can thus state as you have, that "Eve is the dominant one in the story" reflects more on someone wanting things to be seen a particular way for whatever reason that might be...just like Adam really.

She made the decisions based on misinformation which she had received from Adam, just like Christians have done re misinformation from the hierarchy of the organised religions of Christendom.

Eve does not 'drive the narrative forward'. She is duped by both the Serpent and Adam.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

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.

Maybe your assumptions about God are wrong. Fix that and things might start making sense...

It's clear God is figuring stuff out as God goes. What more proof do you need?

Wait... let me get this straight... You believe that God, the guy who designed humans needed time to figure out how humans work? The guy who designed the human reproductive system didn't know that you need a womb and ovaries to reproduce and he had to figure this out afterwards? So he designed male reproductive organs, he designed a system to produce sperm... but he had to learn after the fact that he needed eggs to fertilize in order to make a baby? What, did he think sperm would just grow into people in soil like plants?

[marco]

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.

The problem with Gen 1: 27 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He HIM; male and female created he THEM " is that it assigns image status to man only; distinction between them comes next. Adam in Hebrew can of course be man, or human or even Adam. It is inconclusive to quote an ambiguity and deduce certainty.

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

You offered justifications for your point of view. They are insufficient to claim there is a single interpretation.

Let's look at your reasons:

(1) Gen 1 (see above) where the image of God is man AND woman - no hierarchy.


I've pointed out that Gen 1: 27 is ambiguous. It seems to indicate the male was favoured. It depends on what interpretation you give the word adam. Some might take it that Adam alone was made in God's image and Eve was derived from Adam.


(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).

Well you can deduce that Eve had God status from this analysis or you can take the word helper to mean helper. Lord, king, great, merciful, mighty....are applied to God and also to sundry others who are not god-like. You are clutching at straws, I think.


(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).

Or it is a statement of confirmation of what was fact; Eve overstepped herself and God puts her back in her place. Note that it is weakness to sin and Eve is described as the weaker, since Adam had resisted, being made in God's image, while Eve, from the rib of Adam, was more susceptible.

I don't see that you have a case at all, and it is absolutely wrong to declare there's only one interpretation.

Incidentally the "curse" stuff has given some men an excuse to treat women as slaves. Such are the problems of taking poetry literally.

[Justin108]

This is a common misunderstanding of Genesis and god's plan for man and woman. The idea that god wanted women to be "subservient" to men is a common misconception.

Colossians 3:18
"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

Who wrote Collosians?

Paul. What's your point?

[theophile]

[Replying to post 22 by William]

In relation to the actual event of eating the forbidden fruit, Eve is still not the dominant one. The serpent is.

The serpent shares knowledge. EVE makes the decision. She is the dominant one. Her actions drive the narrative forward.

Very unlike the traditional hierarchy where the man rules the house.

There is nothing in the story which suggests that the GOD had any direct relationship with Eve, like the direct one Adam had.

I never said God had a direct relationship with Eve.

It is implied within the story-line that Adam learned language from the GOD and then not only made up names for the plants and animals etc, but after the event of Eve, Adam was the one who taught Eve.

The main clue to this is in the fact that had GOD also taught (instructed) Eve about the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil then the instruction would have been the same, but as we can see, when Eve gave her argument to the Serpent, the word 'touch' had been added and thus the Serpent had something in which to use as a leverage in its attempt in convincing Eve to eat the fruit.

I still find it a huge stretch to call Adam "teacher" or to put him above Eve (in the garden's hierarchy) because of any of this.

It's just not there.

No doubt the Serpents role as a teacher was somewhat different from that of Adams and of the Gods, but 'superior'? I think you would be hard pressed to make a virtuous case out of that.

Note that I said "if anything, the serpent..."

It's not a case I really care to make. But my case remains: if anyone was a teacher (after God) in the garden, it is not Adam but the serpent. It shares knowledge with Eve. Precisely as a teacher would. Even if that knowledge is inferior to God's.

(Any "teaching" Adam did was not even written down, suggesting not an important attribute of him.)

He used Eve as a guinea pig to test the results before deciding that it was safe to indulge in what he obviously secretly wanted to try out anyway. He may have been ignorant of the results of knowing good from evil, but the desire was still there and cannot in itself be regarded as good or as evil, for that.

That is a massive stretch.

Indeed, as the story also narrates, he was with her the whole time Eve was being tempted and not once raised any objections in relation to the Serpents reasoning.

Citations please. I don't recall Adam being there in the conversation with the serpent or the eating of the fruit. And if he was, why didn't he speak up and assert his rule?

How anyone can thus state as you have, that "Eve is the dominant one in the story" reflects more on someone wanting things to be seen a particular way for whatever reason that might be...just like Adam really.

If he was there, and remained silent, then Eve is clearly the dominant decision-maker.

If he wasn't there, then Eve is clearly in a role that allows for her own decisions and self-determined actions.

In both cases, my case is strengthened. There is no hierarchy at this point in time between man and woman.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

Wait... let me get this straight... You believe that God, the guy who designed humans needed time to figure out how humans work? The guy who designed the human reproductive system didn't know that you need a womb and ovaries to reproduce and he had to figure this out afterwards? So he designed male reproductive organs, he designed a system to produce sperm... but he had to learn after the fact that he needed eggs to fertilize in order to make a baby? What, did he think sperm would just grow into people in soil like plants?

I don't recall God doing such a detailed design of every system in the human anatomy in gen 1, do you?

If I recall correctly, God called for humankind to be shaped in the image of God, as man and woman.

Gen 1:26: "Let us make humankind in our image..."

Who is the "us" that are doing the making and shaping? (Note plural, not singular...) What are they starting from? These questions are unclear. You seem to be assuming one single architect and executioner who has a clear idea in mind and makes it so from absolute scratch.

I get that's the traditional view ("old man with a big bushy white beard in the clouds" working by divine fiat kind of thing). But it doesn't fit the text of a plural godhead as per gen 1.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 24 by marco]

The problem with Gen 1: 27 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God created He HIM; male and female created he THEM " is that it assigns image status to man only; distinction between them comes next. Adam in Hebrew can of course be man, or human or even Adam. It is inconclusive to quote an ambiguity and deduce certainty.

Gendered difference clearly follows "man" here, which is a more general or collective term.

When gendered differences are clearly articulated, no hierarchy is indicated.

But anyways, we don't need to beat this to death. I agree neither of us can be conclusive.

You offered justifications for your point of view. They are insufficient to claim there is a single interpretation.

A step forward! I am happy to revel in the ambiguity. What I am unhappy to do is close the door on viable interpretations and assume that a hierarchy is operative between man and woman from the beginning. That simply does not follow from what we have. Not conclusively anyways - and I think there is a tonne of evidence to the contrary - whether conclusive or not.

Let's look at your reasons:

(1) Gen 1 (see above) where the image of God is man AND woman - no hierarchy.

I've pointed out that Gen 1: 27 is ambiguous. It seems to indicate the male was favoured. It depends on what interpretation you give the word adam. Some might take it that Adam alone was made in God's image and Eve was derived from Adam.

"Seems to indicate"? There's lots of "depends" in there, which to me means you're stretching the text... Again, as I said, no hierarchy is indicated unless we read one in.

That's my argument... Let's open our minds from the traditional reading and consider what other interpretations may be viable given the text.

(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).

Well you can deduce that Eve had God status from this analysis or you can take the word helper to mean helper. Lord, king, great, merciful, mighty....are applied to God and also to sundry others who are not god-like. You are clutching at straws, I think.

Not clutching at straws. Biblical writers were extremely mindful of language and the words used. A word used of Eve that is used 16 times of God out of 22 total times is not insignificant at all. That means something.

But again, you are clearly admitting an opening here in my favor. The argument for male-female hierarchy simply isn't there... Or just as good an argument can be made for the opposite view.

(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).

Or it is a statement of confirmation of what was fact; Eve overstepped herself and God puts her back in her place. Note that it is weakness to sin and Eve is described as the weaker, since Adam had resisted, being made in God's image, while Eve, from the rib of Adam, was more susceptible.

I don't see that you have a case at all, and it is absolutely wrong to declare there's only one interpretation.

But do you have a case? That's the question. You must admit that from all of this, and all you've said in this post, that we can't possibly assume a male-female hierarchy from the beginning. That it simply is not there in the text and that the opposite interpretation (mine) is just as viable unless someone raises a new point that we both are missing.

I just want to note that this post of yours is a big step forward from when you initially said in post 4:

"Of course the meaning is to show that women are subservient to men, as the Bible constantly reminds us..."

You are now saying that we cannot conclusively say one way or another, which means you are recognizing an alternative view is possible. And perhaps all the female-subservience in the bible is as I said: a result of the fall, and not at all part of the original plan OR our intended end...

Incidentally the "curse" stuff has given some men an excuse to treat women as slaves. Such are the problems of taking poetry literally.

I fully agree that the bible, in its subtleties / approach, plays an extremely dangerous game. What makes it brilliant also makes it a huge risk for reasons such as this.

[marco]

I agree neither of us can be conclusive.

Thank you. That's much better than saying yours is the only possible interpretation.

Not clutching at straws. Biblical writers were extremely mindful of language and the words used.

Or so we suppose. But I, in any event, am reading an English rendition of their supposed carefulness. Counting the number of times a word is used, and making deductions is a good guideline but not a proof of anything.

I fully agree that the bible, in its subtleties / approach, plays an extremely dangerous game. What makes it brilliant also makes it a huge risk for reasons such as this.

I'm not sure Holy Books should be in the business of playing dangerous games. We need only look at the Koran to see what damage such playfulness brings about.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

Wait... let me get this straight... You believe that God, the guy who designed humans needed time to figure out how humans work? The guy who designed the human reproductive system didn't know that you need a womb and ovaries to reproduce and he had to figure this out afterwards? So he designed male reproductive organs, he designed a system to produce sperm... but he had to learn after the fact that he needed eggs to fertilize in order to make a baby? What, did he think sperm would just grow into people in soil like plants?

I don't recall God doing such a detailed design of every system in the human anatomy in gen 1, do you?

If I recall correctly, God called for humankind to be shaped in the image of God, as man and woman.

Gen 1:26: "Let us make humankind in our image..."

Who is the "us" that are doing the making and shaping? (Note plural, not singular...) What are they starting from? These questions are unclear. You seem to be assuming one single architect and executioner who has a clear idea in mind and makes it so from absolute scratch.

I get that's the traditional view ("old man with a big bushy white beard in the clouds" working by divine fiat kind of thing). But it doesn't fit the text of a plural godhead as per gen 1.

So you believe Christianity is polytheistic then? I just want to confirm before I dig up the dozens of verses that explicitly state there is just one God. Granted, as an atheist I agree that there is a good chance that the author of Genesis 1 believed in polytheism before that religion evolved into monotheism, but the accepted Christian narrative is that there is just a single God throughout the Bible.