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?

[ttruscott]

Then the call went out for the rest of the elect to separate from the sinful elect as goodness must not mingle with evil...and some more of the elect rebelled against YHWH not trusting their elect but newly sinful friends to HIS mercy and by rejecting HIS plan, joined the first elect sinners in their sin.

Your idiosyncratic theology is interesting, Ted. Goodness often mingles with evil, just as the light shines in darkness, whether or not the darkness grasps it. In fact, it is the visitation of goodness on evil that is at the root of missionary work, for how else does redemption come about? Jesus demonstrated this very well.

We are all sinners here, though some more cured than others. The Jews and the Church were both called to not partake of the food of idols, food representing their ideas. This is the mingle I meant, not walking and talking with them. One cannot refer to earthly society to describe the separation of people in Sheol - it doesn't work as we are all sinners here until someone obeys 2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore, "Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you." to get the promise of being received. It is a heart thing, a commitment thing, not a physical thing.

While the secular world is in furor over such things as possibly being expressed in our gender, me, not so much. It is maybe like this, maybe not - I carry on either way. It is speculation about the meaning of verses in an old book, that's all.

Speculation about verses in an old book has moved the world, Ted, and burned many people.

Choosing to be sinful in nature has burned many people, not the book...it is their sinful interpretation of the book that burns.

PS: Thank you for not spelling idiosyncratic with a T in it as some...

[Joe1950]

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?

My point is that Paul was a man who had very specific ideas about male-female relationships. He imposed his own patriarchal ideas about the role of women.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 41 by ttruscott]

I am not a sinner.

[theophile]

[Replying to post 36 by marco]

I accept that good art often involves a beauty even beyond the awareness of the artist, but we are here dealing with a simple numerical fact, word count, and translating it into an artistic design.

(1) It doesn't mean it wasn't by design and (2) it certainly doesn't hurt my case having this "simple numerical fact" on my side, whether it was by design or not.

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by theophile]

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.

I don't know where in nature hierarchy is absent.
In relation to this story though, it is obvious there is heirarchy.

The GOD is at the top. There is no indication in the story that Adam has any say in being created and placed that situation. Thus, the GOD is the one who made that decision to do so.

The story goes further in making it plain that the GOD instructed Adam. It does not say how long in linear time that Adam was alone with the voice of the GOD before Eve was also created. It may well have been years. Adam would most likely have been but a child to begin with, for all that is said in the story, and spent those years, and through adolescence and into early adulthood, being instructed by the voice of the GOD and learning to identify and names things.

The point is though, that Adam was the one who got the data from the GOD and also the one who named all the things in the garden.

I never said God had a direct relationship with Eve.

No. You haven't said anything about that one way or the other. As the story goes though, it can be assumed that once the GOD created a partner for Adam, it was up to Adam to instruct Eve on everything he had learned.
This is an aspect of hierarchy. The one which knows a lot about the situation conveys the information to the one who does not.
The responsibility was thus Adams, to make sure he conveyed the correct information.

In relation to the forbidden fruit, it can be seen in the story that Eve was misinformed, and the only one who could have misinformed her, was Adam.

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.

Yes it is there. Nor is it a question of putting Adam 'above' Eve. It is accepting that Adam knew things Eve did not, and that he had to teach her those things. Just because someone has more knowledge than someone else does not mean that they are superior to them. The idea is to share knowledge and to make sure the knowledge is correct and not distorted in any way which gives an advantage. The idea is to be treated and to treat others equally, regardless of what they know or do not know.

This is where using your position of knowing to advantage yourself and disadvantage another/others become problematic.

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.)

It matters not whether the instructions were verbal or written down. There is nothing in the story which points to anything being written down. Adam is not reported to have got a pencil and paper and written down the names of the plants and animals, so it can be assumed that his capacity to remember was very good.
Since that looks to be the case, there is no excuse for him having misinformed Eve about the forbidden fruit.

As to the serpents knowledge, it was misinformation. In that case, just like Adams misinformation, it cannot be regarded as real knowledge (truth) but only as false knowledge. It was meant to mislead.

The Serpent and Adam were not teaching true knowledge. This is the same with organised religions within Christendom which has had access to true knowledge and used this to gain authoritative position in order to misinform the people, all the while claiming to be giving truthful instruction, but leading followers astray.

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.

Not at all. The story clearly indicates that this is what happened. Well - to be more accurate, when anyone puts on their detective hat, it becomes most apparent in examining the evidence of the story, that this is indeed what occurred. Eve was purposefully misinformed and abused by that. She was betrayed. The Serpent was instrumental in that, but it was Adam who - in his position, allowed that to happen.

It is not a matter of being 'a massive stretch' to reach this conclusion. It is simple a matter of joining all the dots, based on the evidence.

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?

It is in the story. And Adam was indeed inserting his will, firstly by setting Eve up through false instruction, and secondly by being at hand to observe the interactions between Eve and the Serpent and her being convinced to touch the fruit. Adam would have known that the fruit could be touched, Eve did not.

Thus, when Eve did touch the fruit, nothing untoward happened, and that, along Adam being present and offering no protest, it was enough to convince her that no harm would come to her if she ate the fruit, because no harm had come to her when she touched the fruit.

From Adams perspective, the test came when she took a bite and nothing untoward happened to her. This was all the persuasion he needed to do what he secretly wanted to do all along. It was no hard thing which Eve needed to persuade Adam to do as he was willing now to eat of the fruit. She simply passed it to him.

As to the citation...Genesis 3v6

New International Version
When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

American King James Version
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her; and he did eat.

KJV + Strong's
And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

English Standard Version
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

English Revised Version
And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

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

No. Eve was the hapless guinea pig. Used and abused by someone who would have known better, but chose to turn a blind eye.

She had Adam present the whole time, she had the wily serpent spouting misinformation and she had the disadvantage of not being as informed as Adam.

These things influenced her decision making. None there, were more or less dominant in making their independent decisions. They were equal in their individual capacity to make decisions, but they were not equally informed.

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.

I have shown clearly where this claim by you is untrue. The hierarchy is naturally enough present, as I have shown. HOW those in their positions USED their hierarchy is really what is under question.

[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?

My point is that Paul was a man who had very specific ideas about male-female relationships. He imposed his own patriarchal ideas about the role of women.

The start of Colossians reads "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse:" This tells us that Colossians is supposedly the will of God. It is meant to be God's will. Now if you just brush Colossians off as "just Paul's opinion" then why not apply this to the other books of the Bible? If it's just "Paul's opinion" that women be subservient, is the rest of Colossians, Romans, etc. also "just Paul's opinion"?

[Joe1950]

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?

My point is that Paul was a man who had very specific ideas about male-female relationships. He imposed his own patriarchal ideas about the role of women.

The start of Colossians reads "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ who are in Colosse:" This tells us that Colossians is supposedly the will of God. It is meant to be God's will. Now if you just brush Colossians off as "just Paul's opinion" then why not apply this to the other books of the Bible? If it's just "Paul's opinion" that women be subservient, is the rest of Colossians, Romans, etc. also "just Paul's opinion"?

Short answer: YES
Long answer. In the quote you refer to Paul does not claim his words are god's words. He claims that HE is an apostle (follower) by the will of god. Two separate things. Like Paul, I am an atheist by the "will of god". Does that mean I speak for the lord?

[Justin108]

In the quote you refer to Paul does not claim his words are god's words.

So unless something in the Bible is immediately preceded by "God says", it can be thrown out as nothing but the author's opinion? The introduction to the entire Colossians states that it is God's will implying that the entire Colossians is God's will.

Like Paul, I am an atheist by the "will of god".

When starting a letter with "this is the will of God" it implies that the content of the letter is the will of God, not merely the fact that the letter exists. It implies that Paul saying "be subservient to men" is God's will.

[Joe1950]

In the quote you refer to Paul does not claim his words are god's words.

So unless something in the Bible is immediately preceded by "God says", it can be thrown out as nothing but the author's opinion? The introduction to the entire Colossians states that it is God's will implying that the entire Colossians is God's will.

Like Paul, I am an atheist by the "will of god".

When starting a letter with "this is the will of God" it implies that the content of the letter is the will of God, not merely the fact that the letter exists. It implies that Paul saying "be subservient to men" is God's will.

I did not say that one should throw out the bible unless the statement is preceded by "god says". Nor did I imply that. I simply pointed out the FACT that the opening line of Colossians says that Paul does not claim he is channeling god. He says, quite explicitly that he (Paul) is an apostle (follower) of Jesus "by the will of god". Are you suggesting that anyone who claims to be an apostle by the will of god is automatically channeling the words of god?
Read the first sentence of Colossians again. Paul specifically states that the letter is from Paul, (himself), not from god. He is writing a letter, from Paul, about his (Paul's) beliefs. Writing about something is not the same as claiming to be someone. It is Paul's opinion about what god wants.

[Justin108]

Are you suggesting that anyone who claims to be an apostle by the will of god is automatically channeling the words of god?

I don't think anyone is channeling the words of God, but if the Bible is indeed the Word of God then one would expect the books and opinions therein to be the will of God

Read the first sentence of Colossians again. Paul specifically states that the letter is from Paul, (himself), not from god. He is writing a letter, from Paul, about his (Paul's) beliefs. Writing about something is not the same as claiming to be someone. It is Paul's opinion about what god wants.

Then what is it doing in the Bible? How do we know everything in the Bible isn't just the opinions of the respective authors?