A long tie ago (the 80's) I read an alternative version of the "Garden of Eden" story that has stayed with me, but I haven't been able to lock it down it again. I'd be interested to know the origin, if you've heard of it.
It went something like this:
Eve was created first, but she grew lonely, da-da-da-da...
God removed her penis and created Adam from it, so she wouldn't be lonely.
That makes topographic sense.
But then, Eve was the one the serpent appealed to, which makes her the natural leader, and thus also the first to eat of the fruit, which, she was punished for.
The punishment not only increased the sorrow of child birth, but breasts, and is an argument why, Eve, like the serpent, was lowered; so to why Eve (women) was given a lower stature than Adam (man).
Its seems a more consistent story.
A great alternate presentation of Eve (Mature content)
Moderator: Moderators
Re: A great alternate presentation of Eve (Mature content)
Post #3Interesting. I've never heard of it, but it seems like it was a story told by men to belittle women (like so many ancient stories tend to do).Willum wrote: A long tie ago (the 80's) I read an alternative version of the "Garden of Eden" story that has stayed with me, but I haven't been able to lock it down it again. I'd be interested to know the origin, if you've heard of it.
It went something like this:
Eve was created first, but she grew lonely, da-da-da-da...
God removed her penis and created Adam from it, so she wouldn't be lonely.
That makes topographic sense.
But then, Eve was the one the serpent appealed to, which makes her the natural leader, and thus also the first to eat of the fruit, which, she was punished for.
The punishment not only increased the sorrow of child birth, but breasts, and is an argument why, Eve, like the serpent, was lowered; so to why Eve (women) was given a lower stature than Adam (man).
Its seems a more consistent story.
I'd be interested if anyone else has heard of it as well.
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2690
- Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
- Has thanked: 14 times
- Been thanked: 484 times
Re: A great alternate presentation of Eve (Mature content)
Post #4In what I consider an even more consistent story still, a certain goddess (I believe it was the Mesoamerican deity Tonantzin) had a boastful son who fancied himself a great provider for humankind. When the goddess challenged him to produce milk, he couldn't.Willum wrote: A long tie ago (the 80's) I read an alternative version of the "Garden of Eden" story that has stayed with me, but I haven't been able to lock it down it again. I'd be interested to know the origin, if you've heard of it.
It went something like this:
Eve was created first, but she grew lonely, da-da-da-da...
God removed her penis and created Adam from it, so she wouldn't be lonely.
That makes topographic sense.
But then, Eve was the one the serpent appealed to, which makes her the natural leader, and thus also the first to eat of the fruit, which, she was punished for.
The punishment not only increased the sorrow of child birth, but breasts, and is an argument why, Eve, like the serpent, was lowered; so to why Eve (women) was given a lower stature than Adam (man).
Its seems a more consistent story.
This would explain why male nipples don't work----women, who bear the image of the goddess, have the originals while men have only copies.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3247 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Post #5
I hadn't heard that particular take on things, but a few years ago, Ziony Zevit wrote a book entitled What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden, which includes an argument that the "rib" of Genesis 2:21 was actually Adam's baculum, now lacking in humans.
In Biblical Archaeology Review (Sept/Oct 2015, Vol. 41 no. 5 pp. 32-35), he wrote a short article about the book (in response to a letter) that is itself interesting to read. He argues of the Hebrew word normally translated as "rib":
In Biblical Archaeology Review (Sept/Oct 2015, Vol. 41 no. 5 pp. 32-35), he wrote a short article about the book (in response to a letter) that is itself interesting to read. He argues of the Hebrew word normally translated as "rib":
The word in the context of the story should be rendered by a non-specific, general term—“one of his lateral limbs/branches/ appendages�—and understood as referring to limbs lateral to the vertical axis of an erect human body: hands, feet, or, in the case of males, the penis. Of these appendages, the only one lacking a bone is the penis.
Post #6
Baculum in Latin is a rod, so that would seem an appropriate place to find material for procreation. But the word tsela is translated as rib, and since God took "one of Adam's ribs" we deduce he had a few to spare, not just one in his membrum virile.Difflugia wrote:
which includes an argument that the "rib" of Genesis 2:21 was actually Adam's baculum, now lacking in humans.
Interesting too is God's use of anaesthetics on Adam. Apparently the rib is a good source on which to build. Perhaps God used chloroform long before my compatriot Simpson.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3017
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3247 times
- Been thanked: 1997 times
Post #7
That's exactly the argument from the letter he was arguing against.marco wrote:But the word tsela is translated as rib, and since God took "one of Adam's ribs" we deduce he had a few to spare, not just one in his membrum virile.
The crux of his rebuttal is that tsela nowhere else means rib. "One of Adam's ribs" should instead be translated as "one of Adam's lateral appendages," in which arms and legs or hands and feet serve to fill out the plural.Subsequently, BAR received a letter in response to this review calling attention to a fact that may appear to make my argument difficult to accept. Genesis 2:21 reads, “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh� (NRSV). If Adam had more than one of these from which God could choose, it could not refer to his baculum.
I agree with the letter writer who pointed to a highly unlikely implication of my analysis, and yet I still maintain the correctness of my argument. Here’s why.
- JehovahsWitness
- Savant
- Posts: 21073
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
- Has thanked: 790 times
- Been thanked: 1114 times
- Contact:
Re: A great alternate presentation of Eve (Mature content)
Post #8Willum wrote: A long tie ago (the 80's) I read an alternative version of the "Garden of Eden" story that has stayed with me, but I haven't been able to lock it down it again. I'd be interested to know the origin, if you've heard of it.
It went something like this:
Eve was created first, but she grew lonely, da-da-da-da...
God removed her penis and created Adam from it, so she wouldn't be lonely.
That makes topographic sense.
But then, Eve was the one the serpent appealed to, which makes her the natural leader, and thus also the first to eat of the fruit, which, she was punished for.
The punishment not only increased the sorrow of child birth, but breasts, and is an argument why, Eve, like the serpent, was lowered; so to why Eve (women) was given a lower stature than Adam (man).
Its seems a more consistent story.
I dont see how this is "more consistent" it simply reverses the roles (Eve plays the biblical role of Adam, Adam that of Eve) and then more or less follows the biblical narrative. Since it tells the same story but changes the sex if the lead characters, how is one "more consistent" than the other?
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681
"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" - Romans 14:8
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Post #9
[Replying to post 7 by Difflugia]
[Replying to marco]
I think you are both neglecting the fact that "rod" in any language, means 'male member.'
I'd not known about "baculum," but it is more consistent, than rib (although a rib is a phallic shape... easily lent to you know.).
It is looking very consistent that Eve, or a female named Adam was the original story.
[Replying to marco]
I think you are both neglecting the fact that "rod" in any language, means 'male member.'
I'd not known about "baculum," but it is more consistent, than rib (although a rib is a phallic shape... easily lent to you know.).
It is looking very consistent that Eve, or a female named Adam was the original story.
I will never understand how someone who claims to know the ultimate truth, of God, believes they deserve respect, when they cannot distinguish it from a fairy-tale.
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
You know, science and logic are hard: Religion and fairy tales might be more your speed.
To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight
- Willum
- Savant
- Posts: 9017
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
- Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
- Has thanked: 35 times
- Been thanked: 82 times
Re: A great alternate presentation of Eve (Mature content)
Post #10[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]
If you were to remove a rib from a man, you'd create a man without a rib.
If you remove a penis from a man, you'd create a female.
-- At least to a magical and non-scientific mind.
It is also consistent with the misogyny of the religion.
But this was explained in the topic.
If you were to remove a rib from a man, you'd create a man without a rib.
If you remove a penis from a man, you'd create a female.
-- At least to a magical and non-scientific mind.
It is also consistent with the misogyny of the religion.
But this was explained in the topic.