Hey, when was Eve named?

[Keith&Co.]

When she first appeared on screen, she was 'woman.' Adam and woman. The snake spoke to the woman, Adam blamed the woman, the woman blamed the snake, enmity between woman and snake...

When they were kicked out of the garden, Adam named her 'Eve.'
Eve apparently means 'The mother of all living.'

But when they left the garden, there were only two living.

The Woman was a clone of Adam. That would make her the daughter. Adam would be the mother. Adam was the mother of all living on that day. And since everyone descended of the daughter cells off his rib, he would be the Eve.

But even ignoring clone technology vocabulary, Eve was never, quite, the mother of all living. Every generation would increase the percentage, but never above 99.999999_. Not until Adam died, anyway.
And she wouldn't even begin to be the mother of all living until they had at least one son and one daughter, to perpetuate the species.
Or did Adam just call her the woman until they had grandkids and knew for sure there would be 'all living?'

That verse just strikes me as odd, same as the one about Moses being the most humble man, even to this day.

 

[Sarpedon]

And Solomon the wisest man ever to live or who ever will live.

You know, the same guy who interfered with his own military operations in order to get one of his own soldiers killed, so he could have sex with his wife.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And Solomon the wisest man ever to live or who ever will live.

You know, the same guy who interfered with his own military operations in order to get one of his own soldiers killed, so he could have sex with his wife.

That was David, wasn't it?

 

[Sarpedon]

No, David is the one who switched sides to the philistines for a while, and cut a piece of Saul's clothes while the latter was shitting.

I'm named after him.

Solomon was the sex maniac.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Solomon was the sex maniac.

Uriah the Hittite.
Bathsheba Mrs. The Hittite?

 

[Politesse]

Ever hear of rhetoric?

My real name means "the masculine principle", but it doesn't stop people for mistaking me for my mother on the phone.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ever hear of rhetoric?

heard of it, sure.
But to say certain parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally puts you at odds with some of the faithful.

My real name means "the masculine principle", but it doesn't stop people for mistaking me for my mother on the phone.

But your mom did not, i assume, name you "(masculine principle)" because you came out of the womb striking your goatee.

Eve was given that exact name for the exact reason that she WAS the mother of all living... except she was not.

 

[Politesse]

Ever hear of rhetoric?

heard of it, sure.
But to say certain parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally puts you at odds with some of the faithful.

My real name means "the masculine principle", but it doesn't stop people for mistaking me for my mother on the phone.

But your mom did not, i assume, name you "(masculine principle)" because you came out of the womb striking your goatee.

Eve was given that exact name for the exact reason that she WAS the mother of all living... except she was not.

Talked to Adam about this, did you?

In any case, it's obviously meant as a story. You don't expect the hero of a fairy tale to be called, "the third greatest swordsman ever" or "situationally honest Abe".

Yes, I've heard of literalists. I think they are idiots. Next point?

 

[Keith&Co.]

heard of it, sure.
But to say certain parts of the Bible are not to be taken literally puts you at odds with some of the faithful.
But your mom did not, i assume, name you "(masculine principle)" because you came out of the womb striking your goatee.

Eve was given that exact name for the exact reason that she WAS the mother of all living... except she was not.

Talked to Adam about this, did you?

king james version, Genesis 3:20.

In any case, it's obviously meant as a story. You don't expect the hero of a fairy tale to be called, "the third greatest swordsman ever" or "situationally honest Abe".

if the story is held up as an example of perfection, then, yes. Even if it's not perfect, some internal consistency would be expected.

 

[DBT]

The whole narrative of the Fall of Mankind, the need for Redemption, Christ as Saviour, etc, doesn't make sense if the Bible isn't to be taken literally. I think that on that point the Fundamentalists are right.

 

[Politesse]

The whole narrative of the Fall of Mankind, the need for Redemption, Christ as Saviour, etc, doesn't make sense if the Bible isn't to be taken literally. I think that on that point the Fundamentalists are right.

What about a literal reading makes all of that make sense to you?

Is it the apple?

Did you eat a bad apple, and now you think they have magic powers to condemn all of your children to a life of sin and despair?

To me, an allegorical/mythical reading makes perfect sense, and "literal" meaning makes it bizarre. Take everything "literally", and suddenly you have talking snakes (with what vocal cords, I wonder?) a garden nestled between four rivers that are nowhere near each other, and seems to have now gone missing even though the text says it is still there and GPS is really pretty good these days, a woman somehow being "fashioned" from a rib bone (plenty of calcium I suppose but where did the rest come from), and so on.

What part of all that leads you to think "Now Augustinian theology makes sense". Augustine... without the allegory. The man himself would faint.

And don't tell me any of that is irrelevant. If there was no talking snake, there was no temptation to sin, if there was no magic apple, no means to sin, if no magic bone grafting, no protagonists to inherit Original Sin from, if no disappearing garden, no reason why we couldn't have just walked back in and fixed everything millenia ago. Taking a hard line on the literal means defending all of it, or none of it follows.

And it doesn't anyway, since I still see no reason why eating a literal, non-symbolic apple would literally result in eternal condemnation, nor in a non-symbolic Christ being accepted as payment for the same.

 

[steve_bank]

The best literary analysis I read is the fall is allegory for the tribal transition from nomads who lived off the land to large extent to fixed settlements and farming. The need for some kind of social structure compared to nomadic patriarchal tribalism would be Mosaic law.

I think it iy is in Ecclesiasticus where the author begins bemoaning his fate. He has to toil in a field to get by while birds live off of of god's provence without laboring.

The author was 'singing the Jewish blues'. You have to see the ancient Jews as emotionally no different than humans today to make sense of it.

 

[steve_bank]

https://www.behindthename.com/name/eve


I believe it is safe to say all English words in the bible are related to latin and Greek interpretations of ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew term used by the author of Genesis would have had some cultural meaning in the day.

 

[DBT]

The whole narrative of the Fall of Mankind, the need for Redemption, Christ as Saviour, etc, doesn't make sense if the Bible isn't to be taken literally. I think that on that point the Fundamentalists are right.

What about a literal reading makes all of that make sense to you?

Is it the apple?

Did you eat a bad apple, and now you think they have magic powers to condemn all of your children to a life of sin and despair?

To me, an allegorical/mythical reading makes perfect sense, and "literal" meaning makes it bizarre. Take everything "literally", and suddenly you have talking snakes (with what vocal cords, I wonder?) a garden nestled between four rivers that are nowhere near each other, and seems to have now gone missing even though the text says it is still there and GPS is really pretty good these days, a woman somehow being "fashioned" from a rib bone (plenty of calcium I suppose but where did the rest come from), and so on.

What part of all that leads you to think "Now Augustinian theology makes sense". Augustine... without the allegory. The man himself would faint.

And don't tell me any of that is irrelevant. If there was no talking snake, there was no temptation to sin, if there was no magic apple, no means to sin, if no magic bone grafting, no protagonists to inherit Original Sin from, if no disappearing garden, no reason why we couldn't have just walked back in and fixed everything millenia ago. Taking a hard line on the literal means defending all of it, or none of it follows.

And it doesn't anyway, since I still see no reason why eating a literal, non-symbolic apple would literally result in eternal condemnation, nor in a non-symbolic Christ being accepted as payment for the same.

I don't mean to suggest the bible makes sense literally, certainly not as objective reality.

I am saying that if the description of the fall is only taken as a metaphor, what need is there for a redeemer? If genesis was intended as a metaphor, a myth, simply a morality story to scare the kids, the story of Jesus must be is as well.... what need is there to believe the story of redemption, the redeemer, Jesus as the prophesied Messiah if it's all just metaphor and allegory, interesting as an ancient fairy tale, but not as a reality, as reality it falls apart like a stack of cards, having no relevance, no need to build churches and temples, no need to praise the Lord, no need to await the return of the redeemer, the promise of eternal life, judgment, heaven, hell, it's is just a part of the metaphor of Christianity, as are all the Christians who ever believed in the bible, the Gospels and its promises.

What part of all that leads you to think "Now Augustinian theology makes sense". Augustine... without the allegory.

Of course it doesn't makes sense. But that didn't stop the first generation of Christians expecting the literal return of Christ, returning in power to judge all mankind. They did not take it as a metaphor. They expected a literal event.


Christianity and the fall

''Original sin is part of the Doctrine of the Fall, which is the belief that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they 'fell' from perfection and brought evil into a perfect world.
Fall goes with redemption

For Christians, the fall is inseparable from redemption - the act by which human souls are washed clean of the stain of original sin.

A tale of two Adams

Christians believe that the story of the fall and redemption is a story of two Adams, and sometimes refer to Christ as the "Second Adam".

The first Adam sins and causes humanity to fall; the second Adam atones for that sin with his death and redeems humanity.
The traditional story of original sin

The story behind original sin is told in the Old Testament book of Genesis''

 

[Tigers!]

And Solomon the wisest man ever to live or who ever will live.

You know, the same guy who interfered with his own military operations in order to get one of his own soldiers killed, so he could have sex with his wife.

See 2 Samuel 11

- - - Updated - - -

Is it the apple?

Why do you say it is an apple? The Bible never states what type it was. Always called the 'fruit'.

 

[Bronzeage]

No, David is the one who switched sides to the philistines for a while, and cut a piece of Saul's clothes while the latter was shitting.

I'm named after him.

Solomon was the sex maniac.

David saw Bathsheba bathing on her roof top and decided to grab her pussy. This was easy because her husband Uriah was fighting in David's army. Bathsheba gets pregnant, so David calls Uriah home with the hope he will have sex with his wife and obscure the baby's paternity. Uriah has this strange thing about not having sex while his men are fighting in the field and denied such pleasures. David gets desperate and sends a secret message to his general to send Uriah out in front of the battle line and then withdraw, insuring Uriah is killed in battle. David then marries the war hero's wife.

Seriously, it happened just like that.

 

[Bronzeage]

https://www.behindthename.com/name/eve


I believe it is safe to say all English words in the bible are related to latin and Greek interpretations of ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew term used by the author of Genesis would have had some cultural meaning in the day.

Bible College joke:
Why did Adam call his wife Eve?
Because she always came the night before.

 

[Politesse]

I am saying that if the description of the fall is only taken as a metaphor, what need is there for a redeemer? If genesis was intended as a metaphor, a myth, simply a morality story to scare the kids, the story of Jesus must be is as well.... what need is there to believe the story of redemption, the redeemer, Jesus as the prophesied Messiah if it's all just metaphor and allegory, interesting as an ancient fairy tale, but not as a reality, as reality it falls apart like a stack of cards, having no relevance, no need to build churches and temples, no need to praise the Lord, no need to await the return of the redeemer, the promise of eternal life, judgment, heaven, hell, it's is just a part of the metaphor of Christianity, as are all the Christians who ever believed in the bible, the Gospels and its promises.

I don't see how taking everything literally helps in the slightest. If the act of reaching for the tree of knowledge is a literal event with a literal tree, not a metaphor for reaching out after forbidden knowledge, why would it result in all this blood guilt? Literal trees don't do that to you. Symbolic ones do. Similarly, I don't see how a strictly literal Jesus could redeem anything. He is important, in the Augustinian theology, as a figure of Adam. Ie, a symbolic offering in expiation of our sins. IF he isn't a symbol, he's just a guy, and I fail to see how just a guy could somehow cure us all from a 5000 year old case of fruit poisoning.

My point: Christianity is inherently symbolic, as are most religions, and indeed symbols are what give it power. Literalism is an affectation people put on, not a rule that could be consistently used in interpreting the Bible or any other book. You are taught to believe that the interpretation of your elders is "literal", but it employs just as rich a set of symbolic assumptions as any other perspective, when looked at with a clear eye.

Of course it doesn't makes sense. But that didn't stop the first generation of Christians expecting the literal return of Christ, returning in power to judge all mankind. They did not take it as a metaphor. They expected a literal event.

Sure they did. It's not actually either/or. I can compare you to a rose in the first line of a poem, and then request a kiss in the second line, and the fact that you aren't literally a rose has no bearing on whether or not I want or receive the kiss in stanza 2.

Christianity and the fall

''Original sin is part of the Doctrine of the Fall, which is the belief that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they 'fell' from perfection and brought evil into a perfect world.
Fall goes with redemption

For Christians, the fall is inseparable from redemption - the act by which human souls are washed clean of the stain of original sin.

A tale of two Adams

Christians believe that the story of the fall and redemption is a story of two Adams, and sometimes refer to Christ as the "Second Adam".

The first Adam sins and causes humanity to fall; the second Adam atones for that sin with his death and redeems humanity.
The traditional story of original sin

The story behind original sin is told in the Old Testament book of Genesis''

I am well familiar with the story. What I don't get is why you could say that there are "two Adams" without there being figurative language at play. Do you think that Jesus was a literal clone of the original Adam? Or a ressurrected Adam? How is that not a metaphor, in other words? It sounds like a pretty obvious allegory to me. Explain this to me.

If I were to write a political hit piece called "The Two Hitlers" in which I compared Mr Trump to the Big H, would you read that and think: "clearly he means that Trump is literally Hitler come back from the dead, and his argument about why Trump is wrong makes no sense unless that is literally true"? Or would you more sensibly conclude that I am trying to draw a metaphorical connection to two separate people with a similar ethos and methodology?

 

[Sarpedon]

Wow, I'm sorry about that guys, I completely got the two confused.

Though in my defense, Solomon was also a sex maniac who did unwise things despite being called wise.

 

[steve_bank]

https://www.behindthename.com/name/eve


I believe it is safe to say all English words in the bible are related to latin and Greek interpretations of ancient Hebrew. The Hebrew term used by the author of Genesis would have had some cultural meaning in the day.

Bible College joke:
Why did Adam call his wife Eve?
Because she always came the night before.

How do we know Jesus was Irish?

He was over 30and unmarried, hung around with 12 men drinking, and his mother thought he was god.