Adam & Eve- Who got the story right?

[NeoSeeker]

Maybe this has been discussed here a thousand times before but what the heck. If there is an applicable thread, I'll be happy to move my posts there.

I grew up understanding that not only was Eve secondary to Adam (she was created from Adam's rib) but in the Christian view she was responsible for bringing down the entire human race by seducing Adam into eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Why would God want his children to remain dummies and not gain knowledge? It has always baffled me.

I was handed this link by a friend called the Genesis Factor located at Gnosis Archive. It really is interesting reading. I've always been critical of the Adam and Eve story so it is really nice seeing some examples of alternative views of Genesis.

I've always thought Eve got a bum rap and this like of link reinforces that thought. And I've been told that the original Hebrew interpretation for Genesis is the uplifting of mankind, not it's downfall. Anyone got a good link for that?
Thanks!

Eve was a naughty girl:

From the story of their transgression, orthodox teachers deduced specific moral consequences, chiefly the "fall" of the human race due to original sin. Another consequence was the lowly and morally ambivalent status of women, who were regarded as Eve's co-conspirators in the fateful deed of disobedience in paradise.

The sin of Eve, so the orthodox tell us, was that she listened to the serpent, who persuaded her that the fruit of the tree would make her and Adam wise, without any deleterious side-effects. It was Eve who then seduced the righteously reluctant Adam to join her in this act of disobedience, and thus together they brought about the fall of humanity.

 

[ninerbuff]

This is a man made story. We now know that in the womb we start off as female. If god's intention was to make man first, then why don't we start off as male? Nothing like an alpha male story to keep the women in line back in the day.

 

[Demonic Kitten]

Adam was the test run and Eve was the finished product. ^_^

As for anything else...I don't really know. I don't quite believe that Adam and Eve were real people...just a story that makes up and even bigger story.

 

[waitasec]

in judaism, from what i understand, god placed the seed of curiosity in us for knowledge and we partake (we really don't have a choice, do we?), but for that we pay a price, death; "you will surely die"... just because god said we will die doesn't mean death is something to fear. it is the consequence for gaining knowledge.
now imo, in the christian religion, the genesis story was to instill the fear of god and to forever associate death with sin
there is this image of an all powerful supreme being that created man... with out the knowledge of good and evil and this story is used to explain why we have knowledge and that is because we are fundamentally evil. we are of this world not of heaven. we are physical beings and evil because of our curiosity to KNOW more. for christians, this is a selfish desire;
James 1:13-15 (New International Version)

13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

it's all tied up in a neat little box. plain and simple. we sin, we die.
and how is this death associated with fear, because we have a soul that lives on after our death and according to what we believe we will "go home and dwell with our maker" or be separated from our maker. heaven or hell.

 

[NeoSeeker]

I posted the link to emphasis there are other versions of creation that make more sense from a philosophical standpoint although the concept of the Garden of Eden, Serpent, God's rules is a fantasy. If there is any interest, it is to imagine such a scenario and discuss the philosophical implications of the moral choices made by the participants.

This is a man made story. We now know that in the womb we start off as female. If god's intention was to make man first, then why don't we start off as male? Nothing like an alpha male story to keep the women in line back in the day.

I can see that.

Adam was the test run and Eve was the finished product. ^_^

As for anything else...I don't really know. I don't quite believe that Adam and Eve were real people...just a story that makes up and even bigger story.

Without a doubt you could never look at A&E as real people. The story must be discussed on the analogy/philosophical level.

in judaism, from what i understand, god placed the seed of curiosity in us for knowledge and we partake (we really don't have a choice, do we?), but for that we pay a price, death; "you will surely die"... just because god said we will die doesn't mean death is something to fear. it is the consequence for gaining knowledge.

We are physical beings with a set life span. Is the implication here that God changed our physiology based on the Original Sin or that the implication is supposed to be spiritual? As a logical/philosophical discussion I don't see how the latter conclusion can be reached as God is supposed to be forgiving.

now imo, in the christian religion, the genesis story was to instill the fear of god and to forever associate death with sin

Much of the Christian based dogma is based on control, manipulation using fear.

 

[Smoke]

TWe now know that in the womb we start off as female.

No, we don't.

Under normal circumstances, each zygote starts out with either XX or XY chromosomes, and that influences the future development.

 

[ninerbuff]

No, we don't.

Under normal circumstances, each zygote starts out with either XX or XY chromosomes, and that influences the future development.

The "default" for humans is female.

However, the presence of a Y chromosome means that there will be "Androgens" (hormones signalling for male development) released.
The reason we know this to be the case is because of a syndrome called "Androgen insensitivity", which is where the embryo is genetically male (XY), but lacks the receptors for the androgens, and therefore develops as a female.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nobody should have been punished, as until one ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they wouldn't know that it was wrong to disobey god. The whole story is nonsensical from the start.

 

[Smoke]

The "default" for humans is female.

However, the presence of a Y chromosome means that there will be "Androgens" (hormones signalling for male development) released.
The reason we know this to be the case is because of a syndrome called "Androgen insensitivity", which is where the embryo is genetically male (XY), but lacks the receptors for the androgens, and therefore develops as a female.

Genitalia are undifferentiated in the earliest stages of development, and various factors may cause the genitalia to develop in different ways. It is possible for an XY individual to develop genitalia that are apparently female, and it is also possible for an XX individual to develop genitalia that are apparently male. However, an XY "female" doesn't have ovaries, but internal testes. Such an individual is not a female in the usual sense.

What you are doing is insisting on dividing all humans into "male" and "female" -- effectively denying the existence of intersex individuals. You are defining a "male" as an XY individual with visibly male genitalia, and a "female" as everyone outside that classification. In other words, your "male" is an individual with certain special and defining characteristics, but your "female" has no particular defining characteristics, and is defined solely in terms of lacking the defining male characteristics.

It's a strikingly androcentric view to be held by someone who appears to object to "alpha male stories."

 

[Willamena]

You have to be pretty biased against womanhood to find "seduction" in this:

Eve: Hey, Adam. Want an apple?
Adam: I'm hungry. Sure.

6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

[ninerbuff]

Genitalia are undifferentiated in the earliest stages of development, and various factors may cause the genitalia to develop in different ways. It is possible for an XY individual to develop genitalia that are apparently female, and it is also possible for an XX individual to develop genitalia that are apparently male. However, an XY "female" doesn't have ovaries, but internal testes. Such an individual is not a female in the usual sense.

What you are doing is insisting on dividing all humans into "male" and "female" -- effectively denying the existence of intersex individuals. You are defining a "male" as an XY individual with visibly male genitalia, and a "female" as everyone outside that classification. In other words, your "male" is an individual with certain special and defining characteristics, but your "female" has no particular defining characteristics, and is defined solely in terms of lacking the defining male characteristics.

It's a strikingly androcentric view to be held by someone who appears to object to "alpha male stories."

Think you got it wrong there. I am claiming that "woman" came first not man based on scientific data about conception.

 

[ChristineES]

If the story were literal, which it couldn't be (in my opinion), I would point out that the translation [other than rib] was a "side" was taken out of Adam. That would make woman equal to man (the way I see it).
But since it is a symbolic story, the point is moot anyway.

 

[Smoke]

Think you got it wrong there. I am claiming that "woman" came first not man based on scientific data about conception.

And yet your view (a) is not scientific and (b) defines maleness as special and femaleness as merely the default.

And it's absurd to talk about woman coming before man, when male and female both came before human.

 

[Smoke]

If the story were literal, which it couldn't be (in my opinion), I would point out that the translation [other than rib] was a "side" was taken out of Adam. That would make woman equal to man (the way I see it).
But since it is a symbolic story, the point is moot anyway.

Well, the legend (not in the Bible) is that Lilith, Adam's first partner, was created from the dust just like Adam was, but she was uppity and talked back and didn't want to be on the bottom, so God banished her and created a woman from a rib so she would know her place and be properly submissive.

That's why they call it Lilith Fair.

 

[ChristineES]

Well, the legend (not in the Bible) is that Lilith, Adam's first partner, was created from the dust just like Adam was, but she was uppity and talked back and didn't want to be on the bottom, so God banished her and created a woman from a rib so she would know her place and be properly submissive.

That's why they call it Lilith Fair.

In the Gnostic version, Eve gave birth to Adam and they both came from Chaos (which I think is nothingness). It was more complicated than that. It was incredibly interesting.

 

[michel]

The sin was really Adam's God specifically told him not to eat of the one tree; he never told Eve directly. The Serpent was used because snakes are coy, and avoid humans; Eve would probably have never encountered a snake, and therefore didn't realise that snakes could speak (as she thought).
She offered the apple to Adam after the snake had talked her into having it; Adam, at that stage, defied God's commandment in respect of the tree of knowledge.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You have to be pretty biased against womanhood to find "seduction" in this:

Eve: Hey, Adam. Want an apple?
Adam: I'm hungry. Sure.

Then when God gets all ticked off about their discovery.....

Adam (points to Eve) - "Don't get mad at ME. She started it!"

.

.

.

And men have been blaming us for everything ever since.

The end.

 

[waitasec]

We are physical beings with a set life span. Is the implication here that God changed our physiology based on the Original Sin or that the implication is supposed to be spiritual? As a logical/philosophical discussion I don't see how the latter conclusion can be reached as God is supposed to be forgiving.

i think the implication would be our "knowing" or "realizing" that death is what moves us forward into another form of energy...