EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

[blü 2]

You sound like you are doing what many skeptics do when discussing Genesis creation. Your attack is against the young earth creationists and you start saying that the text can only mean what the young earth creationists say it means.

YECs are fond of a literal bible, indeed. But close to all Christian churches teach that Man is fallen, don't they? And why? For eating the fruit, following Paul's remark.

The King was making a judicial decision and judgement about a person.
The judgement and judicial decision of God is the way I see the "same day" and that has support in other parts of the OT as shown.
The 1000 year interpretation by JWs is another and another is that they died spiritually on that day, by losing fellowship with God. The last is also good.

But none of that is in the story. In the story there is no mention of 1000-year days ─ Genesis 3:22-23 directly contradicts any notion that Adam and Eve were intended to live forever ─ and spiritual death is never mentioned or implied. That's a Christian notion from more than a millennium later.

The snake lied when he said that they would not die. Simple as that. The snake mentioned nothing about any particular day.

Come now! The snake was directly answering the proposition that they'd die the day they ate the fruit. And the snake spoke only the truth.

All of which is only incidental to the point, which is:

Is it not a good thing ─ an excellent and necessary thing ─ that Man knows the difference between good and evil? Is not Eve, even in legend, therefore a heroine of mankind?

 

[blü 2]

no, I don't agree.
for two reasons.
She made Adam break the only rule that there was.

She "made" him? The text doesn't say that. She was persuaded ─ her reasoning is set out in Genesis 3:6 ─ by the truthful words of the snake, and she in turn persuaded Adam.

And clearly that's a good thing, even in legend, for us humans to know right from wrong.

Don't you agree?

When you are invited and the host asks you - as the only rule - to park the bike at a particular place... it would be polite to do so.

But neither Adam nor Eve could tell right from wrong at that stage ─ God had prevented them.
The same goes for manners ─ they had no knowledge, no comprehension. of good or bad manners either.

Secondly, if Eve showed that one short and concise conversation with the devil made her change her plans in a way that they broke the rules... God might think what comes next?

Eve was told only the truth, and acted on it, and now (says the legend) humans can tell right from wrong.

Hooray! say I.

I think it is not worthy of praise to have one's plans informed by Satan.

There is no identification of the snake with Satan or with evil at any point in the story. Satan is a distinct character in the Tanakh, one of God's counselors at God's court, as in Job, for instance.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, I always thought that Eve was the more clever ld the two.

By the way, Adam and Eve are considered saints in traditional Christianity: Saint Adam and Saint Eve (First Age of the world)

Thanks for the link ─ good to learn these things.

But as you'll have noticed, the link says they sinned and then repented, none of which is in the Garden story.

 

[blü 2]

See how old Adam was when he died at Genesis 5:5. Genesis 5:27 for mankind after Adam sinned.

He couldn't have sinned. To sin, he'd have to have had prior knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil ─ but that had explicitly been denied to him (and Eve, of course).

Because of Adam No one could live past a thousand years until the Flood of Noah's Day.

Nothing of the kind is found anywhere in the bible. The claim is entirely unsupported.

The Garden story is more than Genesis chapter 2-3 but continues through chapter 5.

The Fall is said by Christians to have happened at the eating of the fruit, which takes place in the Garden.

Am I to take it you don't approve of humans knowing good from evil and thus don't think Eve's legend portrays a heroine of mankind?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

He couldn't have sinned. To sin, he'd have to have had prior knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil ─ but that had explicitly been denied to him (and Eve, of course).
Nothing of the kind is found anywhere in the bible. The claim is entirely unsupported......

Yes, prior knowledge is found at Genesis 2:17. Warned or educated in advance.
Yes in the Bible: a thousand years is as a day in God's eyes - Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8

 

[rational experiences]

If a human man thinker living by natural support says I always knew I thought about evil and destruction.

I made that choice as a human with my brother's.

Said cold space womb holy.
Said irradiating space womb evil.and our abomination. Yet caused it anyway.....our teaching was science satanism a man choice agreed to an attack on life.

We look at human behaviour the claim is yes we are a family. Human. We gave away natural family support human. Human rights family to an evil group.

Science the first cult choice.
Irradiation effect causing brother to hate brother via loss human shared DNA.

Chemical bio imbalanced lived ever since.

God information said don't do conversion or you will get changed.

Natural law.

Reason cold highest law space mother womb.

God O planet already did an evil.sex act. Put hot gases spurted by unbroken seal to have sex to break seal ground mass. So sex was immaculate as a science wisdom.

How heavens formed by sex of God in a virgin state.

Science thinking only.

Said knowledge womb being space. Radiating hot gases evil wisdom.

Science mother O Phi and pi O so Phi A. Evil our abomination chosen by men. Warned minds.

Eve fake sex O Phi thesis caused by its inventor man scientist.

He designed and then built science. Pyramid temple. God never built it. Man did.

Adam eve reasoning his human man woman images plus their baby was placed into heavens as a science caused imaged recording.

Seeing natural cloud formation began with volcano. Not with any man. As a hot smoking rolling effect in natural history.

Why science caused cloud mass to burn and fall out.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, prior knowledge is found at Genesis 2:17. Warned or educated in advance.

What use is a warning to someone who through no fault of their own can't tell wrong from right? Especially a warning that isn't true. Besides, it IS only a warning.

Yes in the Bible: a thousand years is as a day in God's eyes - Psalms 90:4; 2

But it's you being tendentious and selective that leads to your applying that entirely separate usage to the Garden story, not anything present in the story itself.

Peter 3:8

But that's NT, Christian narrative and theology, not relevant to the meaning of the Tanakh, whose meaning is found in Jewish theology.

 

[thomas t]

Eve parsuaded Adam to eat the fruit. As you say.

And clearly that's a good thing, even in legend, for us humans to know right from wrong.

Don't you agree?

I agree it's a good thing to know right from wrong, but that was not the knowledge the tree was about, I think.
Let's have a look at the wording:
Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity
It's evil in a sense of bad... I would go as far as to say: it is the word for "bad".
After they ate from the tree they could know good from bad... as opposed to right from wrong. The latter is what they knew already, I think.
God wouldn't have told them not to eat from the fruit, otherwise.

But neither Adam nor Eve could tell right from wrong at that stage ─ God had prevented them.

see above

The same goes for manners ─ they had no knowledge, no comprehension. of good or bad manners either.

see above

Eve was told only the truth, and acted on it, and now (says the legend) humans can tell right from wrong.

Hooray! say I.

see above

There is no identification of the snake with Satan or with evil at any point in the story. Satan is a distinct character in the Tanakh, one of God's counselors at God's court, as in Job, for instance.

it's mainstream Christian belief though. They equate the snake with the devil.
Also, Bible says so: Revelation 20:2.

 

[thomas t]

I find we don't know if it was just one short conversation with Satan that made her change her plans to break the Law.
I say this because at Genesis 3:6 it says the woman ' saw ' and that is was ' pleasant to the eyes '....( pleasing )

before the debate with Satan, she did plan to not eat the fruit. See Genesis 3:2-3.
After a short debate, she ate the fruit.
So I stay with my opinion. The debate was the decisive factor in changing Eve's mind.

 

[Brian2]

Interesting, god is completely absent you have heard it said that god said

If you say so.

The bible seems to say god made a subordinate

It's not what the Bible says. The subordinate part came later as a result of sin and what it did to the relationship between the man and woman. My wife seems to think that man is the subordinate one.

Yes i do typos, im dyslexic, something you dont understanding about a dyslexics writing then its best to ask rather than try to discredit them

I do typos too. I was not trying to discredit you.

 

[Brian2]

YECs are fond of a literal bible, indeed. But close to all Christian churches teach that Man is fallen, don't they? And why? For eating the fruit, following Paul's remark.

Man is fallen because Adam and Eve were the first to sin and not trust God. All of humanity was kicked out of the garden with Adam and Eve and we all suffer the curses mentioned. Also we all sin.
Mentioning Paul does nothing to turn me against what he said. I'm not the one who has some sort of bias against Paul, as if Paul was the enemy of the truth.

But none of that is in the story. In the story there is no mention of 1000-year days ─ Genesis 3:22-23 directly contradicts any notion that Adam and Eve were intended to live forever ─ and spiritual death is never mentioned or implied. That's a Christian notion from more than a millennium later.

There is no 1000 years mentioned. I don't go along with that one.
Spiritual death is not mentioned in the story and even though it is true I think that physical death is probably what is meant.
Genesis 3:22,23 contradicts the idea that Adam and Eve would live forever, true, and because of their sin and being kicked out of the garden they, and us, were not able to eat from the tree of life and live forever. So they died due to their sin.
God's statement about them dying if they ate the fruit is in the story and if it did mean the same as what Solomon meant at 1Kings 2:37, something like "the day you eat the fruit you can will surely die", then it could be said that it was the certainty of their death which God was telling them and not the day of their death.
As I said it would be a big blunder for the Jews or Moses to write that, knowing that Adam and Eve lived on for nearly 1000 years. This sort of thinking is like the thinking of those who say that the Gospels were written after the death of the apostles and then go on to say that the gospels say Jesus would return before the apostles died. It does not make sense to write stuff you know is logically not true and claim it to be true.

Come now! The snake was directly answering the proposition that they'd die the day they ate the fruit. And the snake spoke only the truth.

The snake lied by saying that Eve would not die if she ate the fruit, but her actions and those of Adam meant that they did die.

All of which is only incidental to the point, which is:

Is it not a good thing ─ an excellent and necessary thing ─ that Man knows the difference between good and evil? Is not Eve, even in legend, therefore a heroine of mankind?

Who said that Adam and Eve would not get to learn more about good and evil without actually experiencing it? By learning about evil through experience they brought God's judgement on them and through them onto us, their children who went off with them and are now outside the garden where we all sin and there is weeping and gnashing of teeth and other horrible things, just as there will be for those who are kept out of the Kingdom when Jesus returns.

 

[blü 2]

Eve parsuaded Adam to eat the fruit. As you say.

I agree it's a good thing to know right from wrong, but that was not the knowledge the tree was about, I think.
Let's have a look at the wording:
Strong's Hebrew: 7451. רָע (ra') -- adversity
It's evil in a sense of bad... I would go as far as to say: it is the word for "bad".
After they ate from the tree they could know good from bad... as opposed to right from wrong. The latter is what they knew already, I think.
God wouldn't have told them not to eat from the fruit, otherwise.

We're in Genesis and we're dealing with a primitive version of God, one who is unjust, self-serving and vindictive eg [his] displeasure with Eve expressed as condemning all women thereafter to suffer painful childbirth; expelling Adam and Eve lest they threaten [his] power; destroying all mankind in a flood because [he] was in a bad mood;or [his] reasons for preventing the Tower of Babel ─ "this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing they propose to do will now be impossible for them". So [he] scattered them to protect [him]self. None of these things is done for a benevolent reason; they're all about God protecting [his] own interests.

it's mainstream Christian belief though. They equate the snake with the devil.
Also, Bible says so: Revelation 20:2.

But it's not what the Tanakh actually says. Instead it's an overlay invented a millennium or so later.

 

[blü 2]

Man is fallen because Adam and Eve were the first to sin and not trust God.

My point is that the Garden story says nothing of the kind ─ never once mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or ANY of the Christian overlays on the tale.

Mentioning Paul does nothing to turn me against what he said. I'm not the one who has some sort of bias against Paul, as if Paul was the enemy of the truth.

Paul is what he is. And in this case he's wrong, since what he says is not just totally unsupported by the Garden story but directly contradicted by it.Why should anyone agree with Paul on this when he's missed the target by so gross a margin?

There is no 1000 years mentioned. I don't go along with that one.
Spiritual death is not mentioned in the story and even though it is true I think that physical death is probably what is meant.
Genesis 3:22,23 contradicts the idea that Adam and Eve would live forever, true, and because of their sin and being kicked out of the garden they, and us, were not able to eat from the tree of life and live forever. So they died due to their sin.

Nothing different was ever offered to them, no promise of any kind ─ instead, God's terror lest they succeed in becoming like [him].


But this is far from the point of this thread,

Is it not a good thing that Eve did, even in a story? Should she not be praised as the gal who made wisdom, the knowledge of right and wrong, available to us humans?

And I don't see how any answer but the affirmative is available to that question.

 

[Brian2]

My point is that the Garden story says nothing of the kind ─ never once mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or ANY of the Christian overlays on the tale.

The first promise of the Messiah was made at Gen 3:15.
The Bible is a book where God does not reveal everything in the first couple of pages however. We interpret earlier scriptures from what Jesus and His followers said. They filled in the detail that was given so that all the scriptures fitted together like a jigsaw puzzle. The Jews could not work it out completely without Jesus.

Paul is what he is. And in this case he's wrong, since what he says is not just totally unsupported by the Garden story but directly contradicted by it.Why should anyone agree with Paul on this when he's missed the target by so gross a margin?

Paul was right about death entering the world for us by the sin of Adam. That is what the A@E story tells us.

Nothing different was ever offered to them, no promise of any kind ─ instead, God's terror lest they succeed in becoming like [him].

God did not have to plant that tree in the Garden. If He was terrified He would not have planted it.
imo it was there to test and train A@E about good and evil..
There was no prohibition of the tree of Life, so they could eat of that fruit as much as they wanted while in the garden.
They had all they needed but wanted more.

But this is far from the point of this thread,

Is it not a good thing that Eve did, even in a story? Should she not be praised as the gal who made wisdom, the knowledge of right and wrong, available to us humans?

And I don't see how any answer but the affirmative is available to that question.

The experiential knowledge of evil is the opposite of true wisdom and what God wants us to learn is to repent of our sins and to trust in what He says.

 

[ChristineM]

If you say so.



It's not what the Bible says. The subordinate part came later as a result of sin and what it did to the relationship between the man and woman. My wife seems to think that man is the subordinate one.



I do typos too. I was not trying to discredit you.

If you say so

 

[1213]

Eve, like Adam, was an innocent, denied awareness of right and wrong, and therefore incapable of sin, which requires such an awareness.

Sin basically means one rejects God and as the story tells, they were capable to reject God.

No, in the story, the snake spoke only the truth. God (1) had never intended they live forever (Genesis 3:22-23) and (2) had threatened them with premature death if they ate the fruit.

Genesis 3:22-23 doesn’t say God didn’t intend them to live forever.

But, maybe that death part is not so simple. After all, this “life” can be called the first death. Adam and Eve were expelled to this first death to die, which I think is more clear in literal translation that says:

…dying thou dost die.
Gen. 2:17

Most assuredly I tell you, he who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, and doesn't come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
John 5:24

It still seems extremely obvious to me that knowledge of good and evil is a seriously good thing, and that Eve (in her legend) had done something we should all applaud, bringing the knowledge of right and wrong to mankind, which is called wisdom (Genesis 3:6).

How can anyone disagree?

I think the problem is in, by what way the knowledge comes. There would have been less painful way to get it also.

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 of it, and ate; and she gave some to her husband with her, and he ate.
Genesis 3:6

There is no Biblical reason to believe the fruit would have given any wisdom, it was only a belief of Eve.

 

[blü 2]

The first promise of the Messiah was made at Gen 3:15.

That's simply untrue. Genesis 3:15 says nothing of the kind. It's God taking revenge on the snake.

The Bible is a book where God does not reveal everything in the first couple of pages however. We interpret earlier scriptures from what Jesus and His followers said.

Unfortunately Christianity has a long history of perverting the plain meanings of the Tanakh. One example is calling Jesus the Messiah ─ Jesus was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jesus, never anointed by the Jewish priesthood, was never savior of the Jews but instead the source of two millennia of Christian antisemitism ... the entire notion is historically and theologically untenable. The same goes for countless other examples, such as the assertion that Isaiah 7:14 is a 'prophecy' of Jesus.

Paul was right about death entering the world for us by the sin of Adam. That is what the A@E story tells us.

No. That's exactly what it doesn't say. There is no mention in the story of sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or anything of the kind. Nothing.

 

[blü 2]

Sin basically means one rejects God and as the story tells, they were capable to reject God.

First, they were incapable of sin, since knowledge of good and evil was denied to them. Second, they never rejected God.

Genesis 3:22-23 doesn’t say God didn’t intend them to live forever.

It doesn't say they're not to become Buddhists, it doesn't say "Carry an umbrella when it rains", it doesn't recite the Ancient Mariner ─ the number of things it doesn't say is really impressive.

The point is that, although it's only legend, Eve is a great heroine of Mankind, and without her we'd all still (in that legend) be running around like our first day in kindergarten.

And it's time we acknowledged and praised her contribution.

 

[Brian2]

That's simply untrue. Genesis 3:15 says nothing of the kind. It's God taking revenge on the snake.

God punished the snake and God promised someone, a man, the seed of the woman, who would kill the snake.

Unfortunately Christianity has a long history of perverting the plain meanings of the Tanakh. One example is calling Jesus the Messiah ─ Jesus was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jesus, never anointed by the Jewish priesthood, was never savior of the Jews but instead the source of two millennia of Christian antisemitism ... the entire notion is historically and theologically untenable. The same goes for countless other examples, such as the assertion that Isaiah 7:14 is a 'prophecy' of Jesus.

Jesus was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and was shown approved by God through God raising Him from the dead, even though the Jews had cursed Him by hanging Him on a tree.
Christian antisemites do not know the love of God it seems to me. They pervert the clear message of the gospel with hate.
Isa 7:14 agrees with Gen 3:15. The one who would kill the snake is one who comes from the woman and not the man. He is God's Son and God is His Father.

No. That's exactly what it doesn't say. There is no mention in the story of sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or anything of the kind. Nothing.

Sin is not doing the will of God.
The first sin of humanity is called the original sin.
From an everlasting life of innocence in a paradise to a short life of perversions in something that is less than a paradise is to me a fall, and it was also a fall from God's grace.
The need for a redeemer is evidence when all we can do as humans is live and sin and die and cannot even save ourselves from death let alone anyone else.
God sent the saviour to save humans from death, which comes to us all, and bring peace and perfection to His creation.

 

[rational experiences]

Rational thinking.

A nature garden existing first. No humans.

Who is the storyteller?

A human looking back theorising.

Science first just humans thinking.

Anyone can infer science status as a thinker. Meaning inferred references as a status I am a higher presence than the garden nature.

What most humans ignore today your ego status telling lies.

O God earth ejecting its evil origin sex act. Entity stone that altered but did not alter its body. Stone remained sealed yet immaculate sex released evil into space. Fake female womb space.

Straight away the theist a man is proven lying. It is just space and not any sex act. Misappropriating words. By holy meaning. One natural description for one only natural.body.

What sophism cunning word contrivance meant. A human teaching against false human thinkers.

Fake sex claiming breaking of seal occurred but also did not occur to whole O God body earth.

As rationality.

God owned first evil attack back against holy cold space. The teaching.

Immaculate space sucking on evil mass formed presence holy gas spirit.

Volcano did not rationally first own gas.

Space formed spirits presence gases.

Gases first burning gods O own sacrifice. Gases cooled going one way only. From O God earth into space became immaculate.

Known by even balanced sky even ING.

Day light the dies. Even ING.

Sun blasted converted earth. Just an attack.

Earth self owned. Removed evolution immaculate.

Always earth owned historic.

Sun only removed spatial evolution.

Hence should not be reasoned. The teaching status. Yet Satanists did.

Earth owned natural history.

An attack was just an attack.

Earth survived lost evolution the teaching.

Only lost it by half of its natural mass.

Spirit gases.

Light only went one way. Out from burning mass into space vacuum.

Radiation mass transmitters is all that came back. Not natural.

Vacuum can only hold cooling then the UFO mass is flung back in at speed.

As it is a heated mass it too releases body form.

Science proved that it changed natural spirit light gas constant in the vacuum. Burnt gases that fell out to the ground state

Going the wrong way.

How even the higher whole word became Eve. Once only.

Science thinking telling stories is no different to anyone thinking.

Yet you design machine that owns no conscious volition.

As consciousness you own control machine as a human. Claiming a human is now part machine as the owner controller. Your own human sin.

Science a man human confession said his fake female thesis science took even and forced it to become eve.

Is only a science confession claim I did it myself as man the scientists sin.

Yet it was natural that changed.

You then preached natural did it to me. But blame is human.

Exactly how it was taught eve was a human choice science caused by man.

You confessed it delighted you that you noticed all creation was changing form. As it was voice thought recorded.