EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

[blü 2]

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

God, you'll recall, was in a foul mood at the time and vindictively sentenced all women to painful childbirth. Humans have no reason to be angry at the snake, any more than they have reason to be angry at Eve. The snake and Eve stood up for wisdom and honesty when God's concern was all about secrecy and [his] personal power. The Garden story is unambiguous on the point.

Jesus was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and was shown approved by God through God raising Him from the dead

That might make him a "Christian messiah" but it would never make him a Jewish ie Tanakh-style messiah.

even though the Jews had cursed Him by hanging Him on a tree.

The Jews had absolutely no reason to think Jesus was a messiah of any kind, nor did they.

Christian antisemites do not know the love of God it seems to me.

They start, as the record plainly shows, with the author of John.

And as I mentioned, the messiah is the savior ─ an earthly title ─ of the Jews, something Jesus never was.

Sin is not doing the will of God.

That can't be right. Sin is wrongdoing, and wrongdoing is doing wrong. It's wrong ─ correct me if you disagree ─ to start invasive wars, to massacre populations, to order mass rapes, and human sacrifices, and murderous religious intolerance, and so on, but God does all of those things in the bible. (And I've never understood what the point of Jesus' death was ─ what could it accomplish that one snap of those omnipotent fingers couldn't?)

The first sin of humanity is called the original sin.

The first sin in the bible ─ by a human, anyway ─ is Cain murdering Abel (Genesis 4:7).

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.

The 'redeemer' and 'savior' of the Tanakh is God [him]self. There's no requirement for Jesus. As I've said, Jesus did the Jews absolutely no favors.

 

[rational experiences]

Reality. When sun converted earth reburnt immaculate spirit on one side it took evolution in space womb away.

Yet sun did not own reason immaculate had pre burnt before becoming immaculate.

God earth owned pre evil action. Science relativity.

Evaporation ground mass flood also went one way. As light its gain spirit from God only went one way.

Water hence saved earth following what light had once achieved.

Yet water fell back to the ground.

Science forced even balanced day to immaculate to change

Why eve was science man human sin that attacked nature garden and caused self life eviction.

Why Adam event was not Jesus. As it happened once only and stopped. Immaculate evening sky returned with UFO records.

Even balanced not yet returned to highest natural history. Yet not eve either as eve was night time sky burning only stopping on seventh day.

What was left however unnatural satanic UFO cause. Gases alight seen burning at night time as daylight now owned fall out conditions.

Fall out is our life destruction. We live by light constant in vacuum as life status support.

Core heart stone seal broken.

2012 maths science human knowledge vacuum would have stopped sacrifice. Life would have finally healed.

Science human wisdom just used by humans. 2012 therefore a known human caused status of science.

Science chose to continue human suffering and not allow natural evolution. Space womb event.

 

[rational experiences]

God, you'll recall, was in a foul mood at the time and vindictively sentenced all women to painful childbirth. Humans have no reason to be angry at the snake, any more than they have reason to be angry at Eve. The snake and Eve stood up for wisdom and honesty when God's concern was all about secrecy and [his] personal power. The Garden story is unambiguous on the point.
That might make him a "Christian messiah" but it would never make him a Jewish ie Tanakh-style messiah.
The Jews had absolutely no reason to think Jesus was a messiah of any kind, nor did they.
They start, as the record plainly shows, with the author of John.

And as I mentioned, the messiah is the savior ─ an earthly title ─ of the Jews, something Jesus never was.
That can't be right. Sin is wrongdoing, and wrongdoing is doing wrong. It's wrong ─ correct me if you disagree ─ to start invasive wars, to massacre populations, to order mass rapes, and human sacrifices, and murderous religious intolerance, and so on, but God does all of those things in the bible. (And I've never understood what the point of Jesus' death was ─ what could it accomplish that one snap of those omnipotent fingers couldn't?)
The first sin in the bible ─ by a human, anyway ─ is Cain murdering Abel (Genesis 4:7).
The 'redeemer' and 'savior' of the Tanakh is God [him]self. There's no requirement for Jesus. As I've said, Jesus did the Jews absolutely no favors.

God O earth.
Heavens existed balanced.
Day light night time even ING.

Nature garden in water oxygenated life existed formed.

So did human egotist theist looking back as highest presence in story. Not a God just thinks he is.

Natural conditions.

Woman of no sexual experience not suffering. Natural reality.

Two humans both spiritual natural reality.

Holy father human. Holy mother human.

Not yet any father.
Not yet any mother. Have to have sex first a baby to baby birth to be a parent.

Information lying about natural life. Natural history.

Writer an angry human thinker proves he does not personally like females due to act chosen human sex. Only one self human thinking to write self thought beliefs.

Why personal human behaviour assessments were applied to state if human theist should read holy documents. By his you express information. Was a known spiritual practice.

Try pushing out a baby. Claiming to a female you should not have had sex. When your penis and body owned pleasure of causing it.

Truly a nasty man human comment.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

I'd like to add James' words as found at James 1:13-15.
Each person is drawn out by one's own desires.

 

[thomas t]

For some reason this post escaped me yesterday.

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.

primitive version of God? Hahaha.
creating a universe in six days is soo primitive.

Eve did not talk things over with God, it seems. She could have negotiated and proposed to not use the newly acquired knowledge for instance. Maybe things would have stayed the same more or less.
She was able to cut her plans after a debate with Satan.
She could have adapted her plans after a debate with God, too I think.

Look, if Eve’s daughter, or any other woman of back then, would have had a problem with the childbirth conditions…. They could have talked to God about it, he was there. Nothing we read of it, instead they built towers.

After the fact you say wait a moment that’s not fair.

Well if the women of back then would have had a problem…. by the time God was present… it’s up to them to decide and go to the Lord asking him for something. You don’t have childbirths anyway like at all.

So God is not vindictive or unjust as I see it.

God sometimes serves own interests. Well yes.

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

Even if it’s an overlay, that does not prove it is wrong or invented.

 

[Brian2]

If you say so

Yes I did.

 

[blü 2]

For some reason this post escaped me yesterday.

primitive version of God? Hahaha.
creating a universe in six days is soo primitive.

Yes, considering what we know of cosmology and evolution these days, primitive. But I dare say it accorded with their understanding back in those days.

Eve did not talk things over with God?

Why should she? She had no knowledge of right and wrong, so she went ahead naively ─ and brought mankind that wisdom.

She was able to cut her plans after a debate with Satan.

There is nothing in the Garden story to identify the snake with Satan. Satan first appears as a courtier in God's court, a bit negative but not a villain as such ─ think of the opening of Job, where God and Satan make the bet,

She could have adapted her plans this time after a debate with God, again I think.

Why, though? She had no knowledge of right and wrong.

Look, if Eve’s daughter, or any other woman of back then, would have had a problem with the childbirth conditions…. They could have talked to God about it, he was there. Nothing we read of it, instead they built towers.

Nothing in the bible supports that view. Nor would it work today, for non-legendary reasons to do with the evolution of the human brain.

So God is not vindictive or unjust as I see it.

You must be reading from a different text. [He]'s downright cranky as can be in that cursing scene, and there's nothing noble about [his] motives, as I said.

 

[thomas t]

ok, then replace devil by snake in my last post. (I personally still believe that it was Satan, though.)

Why should she? She had no knowledge of right and wrong, so she went ahead naively ─ and brought mankind that wisdom.

according to you.
As explained already (I may copy-paste here, post 88):
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.

You replied by saying it was a "primitive" version of God that made the world in six days.
This doesn't negate the fact that, according to Strong's dictionary, the tree did not contain the knowledge for right and wrong, but rather the knowledge concerning good and bad.

Why, though? She had no knowledge of right and wrong.

see above.

You must be reading from a different text. [He]'s downright cranky as can be in that cursing scene, and there's nothing noble about [his] motives, as I said.

no, I read the same text.

I don't understand: you said nothing in the text supports the view that the subsequent women after Eve could have talked birthing issues over with God? He was there at that time... After many generations he went. See 1 Samuel 3:1

EDITED adding last paragraph

 

[blü 2]

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".

I've just looked at 14 different translations of Genesis 2:17 and ALL of them, without exception, translate it as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". A lot of those translators, those translating teams, know a great deal more about biblical Hebrew than I do, and on this point they're unanimous.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes I did.

Doesn't mean much though other than interpretation to suit ones belief

 

[Brian2]

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

The Jewish meaning is found in Jewish theology because they did not listen to the prophet they were to listen to.
The Jewish meaning should say that the snake was doing the wrong thing anyway. That is right there in the text when it shows the snake lying and is confirmed by God punishing the snake.
If you cannot see that the snake lied by saying that Eve would not die then what can I say?

 

[Brian2]

Doesn't mean much though other than interpretation to suit ones belief

At this stage of the discussion I'm lost.

 

[1213]

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

When they rejected what God had said and instead believed the serpent, they rejected God.

Bible doesn’t tell any knowledge was denied from them. They could have asked directly from God it. Also, Bible doesn’t say the fruit gave the knowledge. The serpent said their eyes would be open that day, which is of course what happened, when they saw the betrayal of the serpent. But, there is no Biblical reason to believe the fruit itself gave anything.

It is also interesting that:

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food…
Gen. 3:6

How is that possible, if he would not have known anything about good?

 

[Brian2]

I'd like to add James' words as found at James 1:13-15.
Each person is drawn out by one's own desires.

And it was not even a debate. I imagine she was curious and wanted to try the fruit and Satan's lie did the trick.

 

[ChristineM]

At this stage of the discussion I'm lost.

Fair enough

 

[thomas t]

I've just looked at 14 different translations of Genesis 2:17 and ALL of them, without exception, translate it as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". A lot of those translators, those translating teams, know a great deal more about biblical Hebrew than I do, and on this point they're unanimous.

To get a better impression of the word used:
Take a look at the word itself, and find other occurances of it. There are 600+ of it in the Old Testament. It is used to indicate evil in a sense of "bad" instead of evil in a sense of morally wrong.
It's just you who claims it means (morally) wrong, I suppose.

 

[Brian2]

That can't be right. Sin is wrongdoing, and wrongdoing is doing wrong. It's wrong ─ correct me if you disagree ─ to start invasive wars, to massacre populations, to order mass rapes, and human sacrifices, and murderous religious intolerance, and so on, but God does all of those things in the bible. (And I've never understood what the point of Jesus' death was ─ what could it accomplish that one snap of those omnipotent fingers couldn't?)

I think you must be, for the sake of a good argument, refusing to see the God of the Bible for what the Bible says that He is. You talk of Him as if He is a man and not the judge of the whole earth.
God judged the nations in Canaan and gave the land to Israel instead and it involved war.
The truth is that Israel escaped slavery and war was inevitable for them anyway.
God was killing 2 birds with the one stone and also wanted to get rid of the nations in Canaan completely because He knew that they would cause Israel to sin with the same sins they had been doing and God would have to get rid of Israel from the land, just as He did more than once.
These things you ignore. The least you could do is read the Bible and discuss the story as written as if it were a novel and make intelligent comments about it as if it is a fictional novel.
It's easy to do. Just look at the context and who God is said to be and comment about it. Did God do appropriate things considering His aims and who He is etc. I'm sure you wrote many essays at school about novels that you have read. Maybe back then all you could say was that you thought that a certain character was a twop, but really what they wanted was probably an analysis of the books based on the books.
I know I was never good at essay writing, but I think I can see what they wanted now after all these years.
BTW God never ordered mass rapes.
God never wanted anyone sacrificed but Jesus and He would not have done that unless it was the only way to bring salvation to us humans, whether we understand the whole reason or not.

The 'redeemer' and 'savior' of the Tanakh is God [him]self. There's no requirement for Jesus. As I've said, Jesus did the Jews absolutely no favors.

For the Jews it is God who kicked them out of the promised land. I'm sure they have thought about it and come up with reasons, none of which include the killing of God's Son.
Jesus certainly was the Messiah to many Jews back then and is so for many now.
The anti-Semitic Christians have not had God's love in them and went against the teachings of Jesus.
Jesus will come back and the Jews will see they have been wrong and Jesus will be the political messiah to them then and I think He is going to offer them again the same salvation and New Covenant that has gone around the world. The Tanakh does tell us that God has blinded them to the truth and and they are a people that cannot see and cannot hear.
When they turn to Jesus their blindness will be lifted.

 

[blü 2]

The Jewish meaning is found in Jewish theology because they did not listen to the prophet they were to listen to.

What prophet is that? Jesus?

A Jewish messiah is specifically a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews who is anointed by the Jewish priesthood and who will give the Jewish nation its independence. (The title is also found as an honorific bestowed by the Jewish leadership.)

Jesus was none of those things. So on what basis should the Jews have thought him a Jewish "prophet"?

Instead Christianity led directly to two millennia of Christian antisemitism.

The Jewish meaning should say that the snake was doing the wrong thing anyway. That is right there in the text when it shows the snake lying

No, the snake tells no lies at all. He speaks only the truth.

and is confirmed by God punishing the snake.

But not for any noble motive, as God makes clear ─ God is all about protecting [his] own power (Genesis 3:22-23), not about doing right by [his] creatures.

If you cannot see that the snake lied by saying that Eve would not die then what can I say?

She did not die the same day. She died in the ordinary course. That was always the lot of the humans and of the other animals ─ nothing in the text says otherwise. God's motive (Genesis 3:22-23 again) for expelling them from the Garden is to make sure they DO NOT live forever.


Meanwhile back at the point of this thread, is it a good thing or a bad thing that humans can tell right from wrong?

If it's a good thing then Eve is a heroine of mankind, albeit a legendary one.

 

[blü 2]

When they rejected what God had said and instead believed the serpent, they rejected God.

That's simply not in the text. You're imposing your own version on what's written in the Garden story.

Bible doesn’t tell any knowledge was denied from them.

Come now! What was the point of having a tree called "the knowledge of good and evil"? Why were their eyes "opened" when they ate the fruit? Because they had acquired the knowledge of good and evil. Why did God chuck them out of the Garden? [He] plainly states his reasons in Genesis 3:22-23: to stop them becoming like [him], and living forever.

They could have asked directly from God it.

Having no sense of good or evil at the time, why would they do that?

Also, Bible doesn’t say the fruit gave the knowledge.

Yes it explicitly does ─ see above.

The serpent said their eyes would be open that day, which is of course what happened, when they saw the betrayal of the serpent.

What betrayal? The snake spoke only the truth.

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food… Gen. 3:6. How is that possible, if he would not have known anything about good?

I read that as "desirable", not as "morally beneficial".

 

[blü 2]

To get a better impression of the word used:
Take a look at the word itself, and find other occurances of it. There are 600+ of it in the Old Testament. It is used to indicate evil in a sense of "bad" instead of evil in a sense of morally wrong.
It's just you who claims it means (morally) wrong, I suppose.

I see no reason to disagree with the 14 sets of translators who say it means "good and evil".