Why Eve? Why not Adam?

[Gordy327]

GOD is in control.

A non answer.

 

[Rumpel]

Are you seriously telling me that you believe the biblical creation story to be factual?

I am afraid she means exactly that.
And that the world was created in 6 days - about 6000 years ago.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I've been asking myself lately - Why did the serpent talk to Eve, and not Adam?

I don't think what transpired between the serpent and Eve was impromptu, or a spur of the moment. It was planned by Satan.
What could be the reason why the serpent had approached Eve and not Adam?

Because the asshole who wrote that story was misogynistic as ****.

 

[tosca1]

Women are evil.

If you're a christian, that is. If you aren't a religious whack-job they're just people.

@Tlrmln
Because the asshole who wrote that story was misogynistic as ****.

EH?

Hahahaha many feminists get so triggered by just about anything. Just shows the irrational mindset by this current feminism.

No - women aren't evil.
But, based on the mindless "logic" of some feminists we read - they promote the idea that women are.................................... half-wit!
And.....they're good at it!

 

[tosca1]

Interesting speculation! But I lean toward the theory that the ancient Hebrews, whether divinely inspired or not, took some influence from other cultures. The Sumerians, for instance, had a goddess named Nin-Ti, whose name can be alternately read as "The Lady of the Rib" or "The Lady Who Makes (Things) Live."

Here's a first page preview, which, though copy-blocked, summarizes this theory of cultural influence.

@Gordy327



Read the source that you gave. Second paragraph: It says:

".....................and the connection to Genesis narrative is tennous."


Furthermore, your source further explains that Lady of the Rib and Lady who makes live, is just a play on word.




Kramer holds that this Sumerian literary background would explain why Eve, “the mother of all living,” was fashioned from the rib of Adam.
In the present myth one of Enki’s sick organs is the rib (Sumerian ti); the goddess created for healing his rib was called in Sumerian Nin-ti “the lady of the rib.”
But the Sumerian ti also means “to make live.” The name Nin-ti may thus mean “the Lady who makes live” as well as “the Lady of the rib.”
Through the wordplay, these two designations were used for the same goddess. It is this “literary pun,” according to Kramer, that explains Eve’s title and her being fashioned from Adam’s rib (1963; 149).6

Genesis & Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation & Flood: Part II - Associates for Biblical Research

Modern biblical scholarship has promoted new interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, especially in the areas of comparative study and literary analysis. Part II

biblearchaeology.org

My assumption about God knowing which part of Adam's anatomy is best to use, is quite different from this Sumerian narrative. Nin-ti was the goddess created for healing his ribs.
My claim is that God knows the REGENERATIVE POWER of the ribs - no goddess or any outside source was created to heal it.
And why wouldn't God know of it - He created it after all.
Of course, He has INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE of His creation!



"The rib regenerates or heals itself" (AS PROVEN BY SCIENCE).

That's a big difference.


It is possible too, that perhaps God was trying to communicate with those Sumerians - or anyone before them - but, they got the story wrong, and ended up creating false gods to boot.
Thus maybe - maybe - that's why God had decided to create an OFFICIAL BOOK called the Bible. To set the record straight, among other things.

 

[Ouroboros]

Read the source that you gave. Second paragraph: It says:

".....................and the connection to Genesis narrative is tennous."


Furthermore, your source further explains that Lady of the Rib and Lady who makes live is a play on word.




Kramer holds that this Sumerian literary background would explain why Eve, “the mother of all living,” was fashioned from the rib of Adam.
In the present myth one of Enki’s sick organs is the rib (Sumerian ti); the goddess created for healing his rib was called in Sumerian Nin-ti “the lady of the rib.”
But the Sumerian ti also means “to make live.” The name Nin-ti may thus mean “the Lady who makes live” as well as “the Lady of the rib.”
Through the wordplay, these two designations were used for the same goddess. It is this “literary pun,” according to Kramer, that explains Eve’s title and her being fashioned from Adam’s rib (1963; 149).6

Genesis & Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation & Flood: Part II - Associates for Biblical Research

Modern biblical scholarship has promoted new interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis, especially in the areas of comparative study and literary analysis. Part II

biblearchaeology.org

My assumption about God knowing which part of Adam's anatomy is best to use, is quite different from this Sumerian narrative. Nin-ti was the goddess created for healing his ribs.
My claim is that God knows the REGENERATIVE POWER of the ribs - no goddess or any outside source was created to heal it.
And why wouldn't God know of it - He created it after all.
Of course, He has INITIMATE KNOWLEDGE of His creation!

"The rib regenerates or heals itself" (AS PROVEN BY SCIENCE).

That's a big difference.

Your apologetics article is too focused upon wanting a one in one comparison in order to prove influence. I don’t think that’s how religious or literary influence works. Often it’s like the game of Telephone, in which the first persons words are distorted through being passed on through many other people repeating elements of the original.

I’d be among the first to credit the notion that archaic people could observe a lot of scientific principles and then rework them into the poetic mode of folklore and religion. They subscribed to a lot of notions that are faulty from the scientific view, though, because they didn’t have scientific method to tell them, say, that bees weren’t generated from the bodies of dead lions. So while the rib regeneration thing is interesting, I’ll stick with the linguistic borrowing angle.

J

 

[tosca1]

Your apologetics article is too focused upon wanting a one in one comparison in order to prove influence. I don’t think that’s how religious or literary influence works. Often it’s like the game of Telephone, in which the first persons words are distorted through being passed on through many other people repeating elements of the original.


J

I quoted from your own source - the preview that you gave.
Second paragraph.


".....................and the connection to Genesis narrative is tennous."

BOOK REVIEWS

J. PHILIP HYATT; BOOK REVIEWS, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XIV, Issue 3, 1 August 1946, Pages 172–a–172, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/

academic.oup.com

I gave an additional source to back it up.

I’d be among the first to credit the notion that archaic people could observe a lot of scientific principles and then rework them into the poetic mode of folklore and religion. They subscribed to a lot of notions that are faulty from the scientific view, though, because they didn’t have scientific method to tell them, say, that bees weren’t generated from the bodies of dead lions. So while the rib regeneration thing is interesting, I’ll stick with the linguistic borrowing angle.

There you go! That makes the Bible quite different from them.

Biblical prophets haven't had any scientific method or instruments to help them either..........and yet, there has been quite a number of claims that have been reaffirmed by science.
Like, the springs in the ocean floor, and water UNDER the ocean floor!
The info could've come only from Someone who knew about those.
Refer to THE BIBLE thread!

The Bible

Do you understand the following? The Gospels / New Testament are not circular logic / reasoning. In fact, they weren't even "the Bible" in the first century. What they were, were some two dozen individual manuscripts, written by mostly different authors at different times in different locales...

debatepolitics.com

And.......God's usage of the ribs could well be relevant and added to something that has been discovered by science.

 

[Arlette]

I quoted from your own source - the preview that you gave.
Second paragraph.


".....................and the connection to Genesis narrative is tennous."

BOOK REVIEWS

J. PHILIP HYATT; BOOK REVIEWS, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XIV, Issue 3, 1 August 1946, Pages 172–a–172, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/

academic.oup.com

I gave an additional source to back it up.






There you go! That makes the Bible quite different from them.

Biblical prophets haven't had any scientific method or instruments to help them either..........and yet, there has been quite a number of claims that have been reaffirmed by science.
Like, the springs in the ocean floor, and water UNDER the ocean floor!
The info could've come only from Someone who knew about those.
Refer to THE BIBLE thread!

The Bible

Do you understand the following? The Gospels / New Testament are not circular logic / reasoning. In fact, they weren't even "the Bible" in the first century. What they were, were some two dozen individual manuscripts, written by mostly different authors at different times in different locales...

debatepolitics.com

And.......God's usage of the ribs could well be relevant and added to something that has been discovered by science.

"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world we live in."

Richard Dawkins

 

[Daisy]

I am afraid she means exactly that.
And that the world was created in 6 days - about 6000 years ago.

To quote another poster here...you don't know diddly squat...

 

[Ouroboros]

I quoted from your own source - the preview that you gave.
Second paragraph.


".....................and the connection to Genesis narrative is tennous."

BOOK REVIEWS

J. PHILIP HYATT; BOOK REVIEWS, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XIV, Issue 3, 1 August 1946, Pages 172–a–172, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/

academic.oup.com

I gave an additional source to back it up.






There you go! That makes the Bible quite different from them.

Biblical prophets haven't had any scientific method or instruments to help them either..........and yet, there has been quite a number of claims that have been reaffirmed by science.
Like, the springs in the ocean floor, and water UNDER the ocean floor!
The info could've come only from Someone who knew about those.
Refer to THE BIBLE thread!

The Bible

Do you understand the following? The Gospels / New Testament are not circular logic / reasoning. In fact, they weren't even "the Bible" in the first century. What they were, were some two dozen individual manuscripts, written by mostly different authors at different times in different locales...

debatepolitics.com

And.......God's usage of the ribs could well be relevant and added to something that has been discovered by science.

The quotes from my link are just scholarly hedging. Obviously if Kramer really believed a connection impossible, he’d not have brought up the topic at all. “Tenuous” is not the same as “impossible.”

We must agree to disagree.

 

[Ouroboros]

"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world we live in."

Richard Dawkins

What worries me about science is that it makes dorks like Richard Dawkins believe that only their sphere of knowledge is worth knowing.

 

[devildavid]

What worries me about science is that it makes dorks like Richard Dawkins believe that only their sphere of knowledge is worth knowing.

Dawkins reads poetry.

https://nautil.us/richard-dawkins-on-poetry-10991/

 

[Ouroboros]

Dawkins reads poetry.

https://nautil.us/richard-dawkins-on-poetry-10991/

Yep, and he makes “Road Not Taken” all about “contingent events.” That’s his privilege. But it’s still seeing poetry through the lens of science. Inevitable for a scientist, but I’m not gonna rush to check out his opinions on the subject.

 

[devildavid]

Yep, and he makes “Road Not Taken” all about “contingent events.” That’s his privilege. But it’s still seeing poetry through the lens of science. Inevitable for a scientist, but I’m not gonna rush to check out his opinions on the subject.

The man enjoys poetry and gets something from it. And all you can do is broad brush him. Everyone interprets poetry form their own viewpoint, that is the beauty of it. He is a human being with emotions and shares the human condition. He is a well rounded individual, but you won't give him credit for it because it goes against you apparent bias against him.

 

[Ouroboros]

The man enjoys poetry and gets something from it. And all you can do is broad brush him. Everyone interprets poetry form their own viewpoint, that is the beauty of it. He is a human being with emotions and shares the human condition. He is a well rounded individual, but you won't give him credit for it because it goes against you apparent bias against him.

The man enjoys poetry and gets something from it. And all you can do is broad brush him. Everyone interprets poetry form their own viewpoint, that is the beauty of it. He is a human being with emotions and shares the human condition. He is a well rounded individual, but you won't give him credit for it because it goes against you apparent bias against him.

The man who authored a book entitled “Outgrowing God” is a man who’s only interested in his view of the human condition.

 

[HK.227]

I've been asking myself lately - Why did the serpent talk to Eve, and not Adam?

What kind of reason are you looking for?

Mythologically, the worm/serpent/dragon was associated with secret and forbidden knowledge long before a certain carpenter's apprentice from Nazareth had a baptismal revelation.
The wyrm was also specifically associated with the female sex and the mother goddess. She of the night, moon, caves and the underground, the ocean and rivers, the dead, wild animals and aquatic monsters, and the color black.
Basically the bottom half of the cosmos if you view it as a sphere, whereas the sky father figure who was associated with bulls, thunder and lightning, rulership, domesticated animals, and the color white ruled the top half.
However, this goddess had to be modified because obviously she couldn't be the head deity if there was a sky father who was the head deity.

In Greece she was made into the mother of titans who weren't real gods. Gaia, from whom we get the names for Geo-logy and Geo-graphy. In various other iterations she was also Nyx, Artemis, and possibly a female version of Oceanos at one point. There is even some archaeological evidence that suggests an entire religious war may have taken place concerning male or female overgods sometime prior to the coming of the Phrygians into Asia Minor.
(Possibly also why Zeus had sexual relations with the female divinities of every nook and cranny of Greece. To establish his dominance as the overgod.)

In Nordic mythology the goddess became simultaneously a fair maiden, undead monster and ancient crone, connected with magic, love, and immortality. Hel. Frauja. Frigg. Freya. But also the waters and magic of specific places; the Nixie. An earlier version, Nerthus seems to have been reimagined as the male god Njord. The Norse seems to have had the same problems with sex changes as the Greeks. There are even some indications that Thor may have been female at one point (long before Marvel thought of the idea).

In Semitic mythology the Hebrews eventually had to make the goddess disappear entirely, because the religion became monotheistic, but we know that she has been there from older texts that mention the wife of God. She is also there in the Sumerian creation myths, where she is called Tiamat or Leviathan (serpent/dragon monsters). Also, take note of how prominent a place the the virgin Mary has in Christian (and Moslem!) scripture. She is often depicted with baby Jesus in a cave, and her name "Mary" is also related to "Mare" (Ocean). I'm tempted to enter a tangent about stereotypes on Jewish men and their relationship with their mothers, but that is a bit too anecdotal and may possibly also get me a warning. The point being that culture is as real as anything else, and sometimes truly ancient customs survive in contemporary culture in forms we do not immediately recognize. Someone always did it first for reasons that may not have been passed down. All we are left with are the customs, and so we reinvent the reasons for them.

Want proof? Do you know that you quite possibly may have performed worship of the great mother several times in your life without even being aware of it?
Ever throw a coin in a wishing well? You know, sacrificed treasure to the waters and hoped for your heart's desire.
Ever leave cookies and milk out for Santa? Did you know that the goddess' place spirits who enter human dwellings at night via the smoke hole are appeased by a sacrifice of food and drink? (and that the Romans depicted them as... wait for it... snakes.)
Did you ever tell your kids that the stork brings babies? Actually, they bring them from the nearest bog, because life springs from the waters, courtesy of the goddess. (That's how an empty pond can suddenly have tadpoles swimming in it, donchaknow?)


And that is what happens when religions die. They survive as fairy tales, cultural customs, and are adopted into the new religion as odd phenomena that seem to make little sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

What kind of reason are you looking for?

Mythologically, the worm/serpent/dragon was associated with secret and forbidden knowledge long before a certain carpenter's apprentice from Nazareth had a baptismal revelation.
The wyrm was also specifically associated with the female sex and the mother goddess. She of the night, moon, caves and the underground, the ocean and rivers, the dead, wild animals and aquatic monsters, and the color black.
Basically the bottom half of the cosmos if you view it as a sphere, whereas the sky father figure who was associated with bulls, thunder and lightning, rulership, domesticated animals, and the color white ruled the top half.
However, this goddess had to be modified because obviously she couldn't be the head deity if there was a sky father who was the head deity.

In Greece she was made into the mother of titans who weren't real gods. Gaia, from whom we get the names for Geo-logy and Geo-graphy. In various other iterations she was also Nyx, Artemis, and possibly a female version of Oceanos at one point. There is even some archaeological evidence that suggests an entire religious war may have taken place concerning male or female overgods sometime prior to the coming of the Phrygians into Asia Minor.
(Possibly also why Zeus had sexual relations with the female divinities of every nook and cranny of Greece. To establish his dominance as the overgod.)

In Nordic mythology the goddess became simultaneously a fair maiden, undead monster and ancient crone, connected with magic, love, and immortality. Hel. Frauja. Frigg. Freya. But also the waters and magic of specific places; the Nixie. An earlier version, Nerthus seems to have been reimagined as the male god Njord. The Norse seems to have had the same problems with sex changes as the Greeks. There are even some indications that Thor may have been female at one point (long before Marvel thought of the idea).

In Semitic mythology the Hebrews eventually had to make the goddess disappear entirely, because the religion became monotheistic, but we know that she has been there from older texts that mention the wife of God. She is also there in the Sumerian creation myths, where she is called Tiamat or Leviathan (serpent/dragon monsters). Also, take note of how prominent a place the the virgin Mary has in Christian (and Moslem!) scripture. She is often depicted with baby Jesus in a cave, and her name "Mary" is also related to "Mare" (Ocean). I'm tempted to enter a tangent about stereotypes on Jewish men and their relationship with their mothers, but that is a bit too anecdotal and may possibly also get me a warning. The point being that culture is as real as anything else, and sometimes truly ancient customs survive in contemporary culture in forms we do not immediately recognize. Someone always did it first for reasons that may not have been passed down. All we are left with are the customs, and so we reinvent the reasons for them.

Want proof? Do you know that you quite possibly may have performed worship of the great mother several times in your life without even being aware of it?
Ever throw a coin in a wishing well? You know, sacrificed treasure to the waters and hoped for your heart's desire.
Ever leave cookies and milk out for Santa? Did you know that the goddess' place spirits who enter human dwellings at night via the smoke hole are appeased by a sacrifice of food and drink? (and that the Romans depicted them as... wait for it... snakes.)
Did you ever tell your kids that the stork brings babies? Actually, they bring them from the nearest bog, because life springs from the waters, courtesy of the goddess. (That's how an empty pond can suddenly have tadpoles swimming in it, donchaknow?)


And that is what happens when religions die. They survive as fairy tales, cultural customs, and are adopted into the new religion as odd phenomena that seem to make little sense.

Wish I’d said that.

Addendum: I should note that Robert Graves cited a myth associating the All Mother and the Serpent, which I think he tied to the Pelasgians.

 

[devildavid]

The man who authored a book entitled “Outgrowing God” is a man who’s only interested in his view of the human condition.

No, he is interested as a human being just like the rest of us. We all have our own points of view. He just happens to like to write about god and religion because he has seen how atheists get treated by the religious.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, he is interested as a human being just like the rest of us. We all have our own points of view. He just happens to like to write about god and religion because he has seen how atheists get treated by the religious.

And his solution to bigotry is— a different bigotry.

What great insight into the human condition.

 

[devildavid]

And his solution to bigotry is— a different bigotry.

What great insight into the human condition.

He is not bigoted at all. His criticism is of religious beliefs, not religious people.

 

[Ouroboros]

He is not bigoted at all. His criticism is of religious beliefs, not religious people.

If you claim that people are “deluded” with that old God Delusion, you are indeed criticizing their mental acuity.

 

[tosca1]

He didn't tell them what was "right and wrong" regarding 'good and evil'. That info was off limits.

They did not have knowledge of right or wrong and could not know or understand if what they would do is ok or not. That still doesn't negate the fact that God, in a monument display of poor planning, put the tree there to begin with. Maybe if he didn't want them to eat from the tree, he shouldn't have put it there in the first place?

They might not know what they did as "wrong," but they both knew they went against God's specific instruction.
God had even told them of the dire consequence, and yet they'd chosen to believe Satan instead!
They alone were responsible for what they'd done.

It's not about the DEFINITION! It's about their ACTION!

I suppose, it's after they ate the fruit - when their eyes were opened - that's the moment they knew exactly what right and wrong is. (good and evil)
Thus, they were struck with guilt (hiding from God).

 

[tosca1]

What kind of reason are you looking for?

It's for the sake of discussion.

Mythologically, the worm/serpent/dragon was associated with secret and forbidden knowledge long before a certain carpenter's apprentice from Nazareth had a baptismal revelation.
The wyrm was also specifically associated with the female sex and the mother goddess. She of the night, moon, caves and the underground, the ocean and rivers, the dead, wild animals and aquatic monsters, and the color black.
Basically the bottom half of the cosmos if you view it as a sphere, whereas the sky father figure who was associated with bulls, thunder and lightning, rulership, domesticated animals, and the color white ruled the top half.
However, this goddess had to be modified because obviously she couldn't be the head deity if there was a sky father who was the head deity.

In Greece she was made into the mother of titans who weren't real gods. Gaia, from whom we get the names for Geo-logy and Geo-graphy. In various other iterations she was also Nyx, Artemis, and possibly a female version of Oceanos at one point. There is even some archaeological evidence that suggests an entire religious war may have taken place concerning male or female overgods sometime prior to the coming of the Phrygians into Asia Minor.
(Possibly also why Zeus had sexual relations with the female divinities of every nook and cranny of Greece. To establish his dominance as the overgod.)

In Nordic mythology the goddess became simultaneously a fair maiden, undead monster and ancient crone, connected with magic, love, and immortality. Hel. Frauja. Frigg. Freya. But also the waters and magic of specific places; the Nixie. An earlier version, Nerthus seems to have been reimagined as the male god Njord. The Norse seems to have had the same problems with sex changes as the Greeks. There are even some indications that Thor may have been female at one point (long before Marvel thought of the idea).

In Semitic mythology the Hebrews eventually had to make the goddess disappear entirely, because the religion became monotheistic, but we know that she has been there from older texts that mention the wife of God. She is also there in the Sumerian creation myths, where she is called Tiamat or Leviathan (serpent/dragon monsters). Also, take note of how prominent a place the the virgin Mary has in Christian (and Moslem!) scripture. She is often depicted with baby Jesus in a cave, and her name "Mary" is also related to "Mare" (Ocean). I'm tempted to enter a tangent about stereotypes on Jewish men and their relationship with their mothers, but that is a bit too anecdotal and may possibly also get me a warning. The point being that culture is as real as anything else, and sometimes truly ancient customs survive in contemporary culture in forms we do not immediately recognize. Someone always did it first for reasons that may not have been passed down. All we are left with are the customs, and so we reinvent the reasons for them.

Want proof? Do you know that you quite possibly may have performed worship of the great mother several times in your life without even being aware of it?
Ever throw a coin in a wishing well? You know, sacrificed treasure to the waters and hoped for your heart's desire.
Ever leave cookies and milk out for Santa? Did you know that the goddess' place spirits who enter human dwellings at night via the smoke hole are appeased by a sacrifice of food and drink? (and that the Romans depicted them as... wait for it... snakes.)
Did you ever tell your kids that the stork brings babies? Actually, they bring them from the nearest bog, because life springs from the waters, courtesy of the goddess. (That's how an empty pond can suddenly have tadpoles swimming in it, donchaknow?)

What a convoluted narrative!

F O C U S.

We're talking about GENESIS 3 - from the BIBLE!
That doesn't address the OP.

And that is what happens when religions die.

When religions................................................ die?

Abrahamic religion never did die

They survive as fairy tales, cultural customs, and are adopted into the new religion as odd phenomena that seem to make little sense.

Then, why do philosophers discuss them? Why do scientists get inspiration from it, or try to debunk it?

Even scoffers waste so much of their time trying to negate or debunk something they don't believe exists, instead of spending what limited time they have in existence doing something that give them pleasures or purpose,
instead of.........................angst.

 

[tosca1]

The quotes from my link are just scholarly hedging. Obviously if Kramer really believed a connection impossible, he’d not have brought up the topic at all. “Tenuous” is not the same as “impossible.”

We must agree to disagree.

Nothing is impossible...........................if we're determined to connect something........................ by hook or by crook.

 

[tosca1]

"What worries me about religion is that it teaches people to be satisfied with not understanding the world we live in."

Richard Dawkins

Irrelevant!


furthermore, it's a close-minded statement by Richard Dawkins!

Lol - he of all people should know better after he wrote that infamous GOD DELUSION - he surely was satisfied to have written what was called a "sophomoric book" by many critics -
writing about a subject without really understanding it!




Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.

Terry Eagleton · Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching: Richard Dawkins

www.lrb.co.uk

Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means.
Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them.
Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery.
There are a lot of very bright and well informed Christian theologians. We atheists should demand no less.

Michael RUSE: "Dawkins et al.

Michael RUSE: "Dawkins et al. bring us into disrepute" "As a professional philosopher my first question naturally is: "What or who is an atheist?" If you mean someone who absolutely and utterly ...

agnostic.com

See?