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?

[Joe1950]

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?

Excellent point. How do we know that the Bible is not just the opinions and stories of mortal men? What is a test we could devise to determine if the Bible is the word of god or a creation of a tribal culture dominated by males?

[marco]

[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.

The point at issue is whether the clever authors intended this, not whether you observed it. We can marshal as many interesting bits of info as we want, but we were discussing the intentions of the biblical writers in challenging our thought processes. I imagine that most people who have read the Bible through the ages have taken a simple interpretation, and been content with that.

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by Justin108]

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?

One is best to think of the bible in that way. I understand the bible as a political tool rather than a religious one. The religious inflections are orientated toward accepting the establishment without question. The informed, misinforming.

Is the bible really the 'Word of GOD'?

[William]

What appears to be a war of the sexes is really a war of the alphas against everyone else who are not alphas.

In relation to Paul's opinions, and my thoughts on females being kept in line by patriarchal systems is that if women were to somehow separate from men and have their own independent society, what would happen is that female alphas will still rule the roost.

Many relationships are like this, and it is not necessarily always the male who is the alpha in the male/female relationship and in gay and lesbian relationships it is often the case that one will take on a dominating role and the other a submissive one.

It may be that Paul's opinion was geared around 'men of GOD' not being dominated my ungodly women.
Otherwise they won't stay 'men of GOD' for long. They will be 'men of women' or more accurately, 'men of alphas'.

From memory, (so I may be incorrect here) Paul is not suggesting being in a domineering role, but (as he says) like Jesus, being in a loving and supportive role, and in the case of the women, she is to submit to the husbands guidance, reciprocating that love and support. Equals, in a partnership.

This hearkens back to the Garden of Eden story, where it was Adams role to guide Eve, and as I have shown, Adam failed in that, because he used his role as do other alphas, inappropriately, keeping certain information to himself in order to have an advantage over the non alphas...what is commonly seen and referred to as 'Patriarchal' which in itself is misleading.

In the political world this can also be observed, but what is not observable so much is how the women in the lives of the men in those powerful positions are in relation to those men, and it may well be that they have exceptional influence over those males. This stems from culture. Women prefer to rule from behind the scenes and allow their husbands and sons to be seen to be in control and ruling the roost.

[Clownboat]

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.

Hey Joe, in your opinion, are there any parts of the Bible that I should not be able to throw out?

I love the idea of throwing Paul's words and teachings out specifically. Personally, I think Jesus would roll over in his grave if he knew what Paul created.

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 55 by Clownboat]

Since you asked for my opinion. You can throw out the entire Bible if you are searching for actual answers to important questions. (And throw in the Qu'ran for good measure). You can keep John 13:34 as a memento .
However, if you want to understand the history of western "civilization" you may read it for that purpose. As a scientific or historic document it has all the validity of the collected works of Marx. Not Karl. Groucho.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 55 by Clownboat]

Since you asked for my opinion. You can throw out the entire Bible if you are searching for actual answers to important questions. (And throw in the Qu'ran for good measure).

Thanks for the clarification.
Nothing more at this time.

[marco]

Perhaps such subtleties as A&E being naked but not ashamed before they ate yet when they had their eyes opened to their sin they saw their nakedness, not their eating, a nakedness that is referred to by the same word used to describe the cunning sinfulness of the serpent... a subtlety lost for a long long time, eh?

Nakedness seems a biblical obsession. There is no subtlety in Genesis 9, where we have:

"Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."


This comes across as imbecilic prudery but of course there may be deeper, subtler meanings regarding Ham's actions. When poor Canaan was cursed we know what that led to.

[ttruscott]

When you uncover one absurdity, you uncover many. Why would God, who managed to conjure Jupiter and its attendant satellites out of nothing, bother to go into surgery and get Eve? Of course the meaning is to show that women are subservient to men, as the Bible constantly reminds us, but does the creator of the Andromeda Nebula and the duck billed platypus really want to instruct us so?

I'm not convinced that she was made from his rib to show her inferiority which you seem to accept as obvious since she did not in fact become 'inferior' (if that is the correct word which I also do not necessarily accept) until she was seduced by the serpent into rebellion to GOD...

unless of course she had already chosen to be a sinner by idolatry of those condemned already as shown by her acceptance of the serpent as a mentor, while Adam's sin was his idolatry of her (shown by his following her into sin) which is expressed in the manner and order of their creation.

This would make them types for the two kinds of sin the fallen elect chose when they rebelled against their GOD's command to come out from among the reprobate and touch not the unclean thing given before the creation of the physical universe, ie, before they came to the garden.

The creation of the physical universe in all its glory was secondary to the separation of all people made in HIS image who wanted what HE had to offer from those who did not want it even in the face of the curse of hell and the redemption of those elect who sinned in rebellion against the judgement of the reprobate by HIS instruction and careful predetermination of our experiences.

[marco]

I'm not convinced that she was made from his rib to show her inferiority

Eve was an afterthought.

The creation of the physical universe in all its glory was secondary to the separation of all people made in HIS image who wanted what HE had to offer from those who did not want it

There is no glory in the vast silences of our universe except in man's poetic interpretation. This population of loyalists and rebels, predating Genesis, is an interesting speculation. If it were so, the simplistic narrative of Neanderthal Adam ugging in some pleasant Middle Eastern garden and having a divine introduction to his rough mate who chews an apple the deity has made arbitrarily verboten, would seem - perish the thought - a silly absurdity. After all a bigger drama occurred in non-time so what's the apple fuss about?

The kindest judgment on Adam and his mate is that he is figurative, a primitive way of introducing God and his playthings, men.