EVE! Legendary heroine of Humanity!

[Spirit of Light]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

If Adam and Eve had heavenly wisdom given from God, before they eat from the tree, it would be not good to lose that wisdom and rely on their flesh and sight by their physical eyes. It may have been at that moment human ego come to life. Something humans have struggle with ever since......

Only a thought, maybe its wrong.

 

[blü 2]

Humanists and others often find the tragic view depressing as it is a rejection of the purpose and meaning they have created to replace the religious myths of old.

I guess I'm just not that good at feeling tragic ... (Memo to self: Must try harder.)

Humanists wouldn't see their irreligious worldview as pessimistic though, just 'realistic', and the same applies to those who reject the Humanist view as they don't find its mythos tenable either.

It's rather hard to pin "Humanist" down beyond saying it's the view we get it either right or wrong all by ourselves. For that reason I don't use that label (or any other) for myself though if forced at gunpoint, I'd have to say something like humanist or stoic (both without the initial capital). Morally my mantra is decency, respect and inclusion (so I had not a few moral problems with the previous POTUS) and I think that's because I haven't found anything else that might work as justly, seen from where I sit.

 

[Heyo]

If you are interested in non-religious exposition on the paradox of knowledge and 'human wisdom', I'd highly recommend John Gray's 'the Soul of the Marionette:A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom '

From the 1st chapter:

A puppet may seem the embodiment of a lack of freedom. Whether moved by a hidden hand or pulled about by strings, a puppet has no will of its own. All of its movements are directed by the will of another – a human being who has decided what the puppet will do. Entirely controlled by a mind outside itself, a puppet has no choice in how it lives. This would be an unbearable situation, if it were not for the fact that a puppet is an inanimate object. In order to feel a lack of freedom you must be a self-conscious being. But a puppet is a thing of wood and cloth, a human artefact without feeling or consciousness. A puppet has no soul. As a result, it cannot know it is unfree. For Heinrich von Kleist, on the other hand, puppets represented a kind of freedom that human beings would never achieve.

In his essay ‘The Puppet Theatre’, first published in 1810, the German writer has the narrator, wandering through a city park, meeting ‘Herr C.’, the recently appointed first dancer at the Opera. Noticing him on several occasions at a puppet theatre that had been erected in the town’s market square, the narrator expresses surprise that a dancer should attend such ‘little burlesques’. Replying, Herr C. suggests that a dancer could learn a great deal from these puppet shows.

"Aren’t marionettes – controlled from above by puppeteers – often extremely graceful in their movements as they dance? No human being can match the marionette in effortless grace. The puppet is: incapable of affectation. – For affectation occurs, as you know, whenever the soul … is situated in a place other than a movement’s centre of gravity. Since the puppeteer, handling the wire or the string, can have no point except that one under his control, all the other limbs are what they should be: dead, mere pendula, and simply obey the law of gravity; an excellent attribute that you will look for in vain among the majority of our dancers … these puppets have the advantage of being resistant to gravity. Of the heaviness of matter, the factor that most works against the
dancer, they are entirely ignorant: because the force lifting them into the air is greater than the one attaching them to the earth … Marionettes only glance the ground, like elves, the momentary halt lends the limbs a new impetus; but we use it to rest on, to recover from the exertion of the dance: a moment which clearly is not dance at all in itself and which we can do nothing with except get it over with as quickly as possible."

When the narrator reacts with astonishment to these paradoxical assertions, Herr C., ‘taking a pinch of snuff’, remarks that he should read ‘the third chapter of Genesis attentively’. The narrator grasps the point: he is ‘perfectly well aware of the damage done by consciousness to the natural grace of a human being’.

But still he is sceptical, so Herr C. tells him the story of how he had fenced with a bear. A practised swordsman, he could easily have pierced the heart of a human being; but the animal, seemingly without any effort, avoided any harm:

"Now I tried a thrust, now a feint, the sweat was dripping off me: all in vain! Not only did the bear, like the foremost fencer in the world, parry all my thrusts; when I feinted – no fencer in the world can follow him in this – he did not even react: looking me in the eye, as though he could read my soul in it, he stood with his paw lifted in readiness and when my thrusts were not seriously intended he did not move."

Humans cannot emulate the grace of such an animal. Neither the beast nor the puppet is cursed with self-reflective thought. That, as Kleist sees it, is why they are free. If humans can ever achieve such a state it will only be after a transmutation in which they become infinitely more conscious: just as two lines intersecting at a point after they have passed through an infinity will suddenly come together again on the other side, or the image in a concave mirror, after travelling away into infinity, suddenly comes close up to us again, so when consciousness has, as we might say, passed through an infinity, grace will return; so that grace will be most purely present in the human frame that has either no consciousness or an infinite amount of it, which is to say either in a marionette or in a god. The dialogue concludes: ‘But,’ I said rather distractedly, ‘should we have to eat again of the Tree of Knowledge to fall back into the state of innocence?’ ‘Indeed,’ he replied; ‘that is the final chapter in the history of the world.’

...

Many people today hold to a Gnostic view of things without realizing the fact. Believing that human beings can be fully understood in the terms of scientific materialism, they reject any idea of free will. But they cannot give up hope of being masters of their destiny. So they have come to believe that science will somehow enable the human mind to escape the limitations that shape its natural condition.

Throughout much of the world, and particularly in western countries, the Gnostic faith that knowledge can give humans a freedom no other creature can possess has become the predominant religion. If one of Kleist’s marionettes were somehow to achieve self-awareness, Gnosticism would be its religion.

In the most ambitious versions of scientific materialism, human beings are marionettes: puppets on genetic strings, which by an accident of evolution have become self-aware. Unknown to those who most ardently profess it, the boldest secular thinkers are possessed by a version of mystical religion. At present, Gnosticism is the faith of people who believe themselves to be machines.

John Gray - The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom

Choose wisely.

 

[blü 2]

If Adam and Eve had heavenly wisdom given from God, before they eat from the tree, it would be not good to lose that wisdom and rely on their flesh and sight by their physical eyes. It may have been at that moment human ego come to life. Something humans have struggle with ever since......

Only a thought, maybe its wrong.

I don't think they're portrayed as having special wisdom (though Eve seems to be the smart one) till after they've eaten the fruit.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't think they're portrayed as having special wisdom (though Eve seems to be the smart one) till after they've eaten the fruit.

You may be right

 

[exchemist]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

This point has not been lost on Christianity. In the carol, "Adam Lay Ybounden", we sing: "Had not the apple taken been, Never Our Lady had been heaven's Queen. Blessed be the time that apple taken was. Therefore we moun singen Deo Gratias". And in the Easter Exsultet we sing of: "O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum,
quod Christi morte delétum est! O felix culpa, quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!"

O truly necessary sin of Adam, which was destroyed by the death of Christ. O happy fault, which gained for us so great a redeemer!

So it has always been double-edged.

I think you have made before your excellent point that a being unaware of right and wrong cannot sin, so the whole story contains faulty circular reasoning. That is obviously true. But it is anyway only an allegory.

I have always had a soft spot for Eve and I'm sure I am not alone in that. She seems more real than Adam, somehow.

 

[blü 2]

This point has not been lost on Christianity. In the carol, "Adam Lay Ybounden", we sing: "Had not the apple taken been, Never Our Lady had been heaven's Queen. Blessed be the time that apple taken was. Therefore we moun singen Deo Gratias". And in the Easter Exsultet we sing of: "O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum,
quod Christi morte delétum est! O felix culpa, quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!"

O truly necessary sin of Adam, which was destroyed by the death of Christ. O happy fault, which gained for us so great a redeemer!

So it has always been double-edged.

I think you have made before your excellent point that a being unaware of right and wrong cannot sin, so the whole story contains faulty circular reasoning. That is obviously true. But it is anyway only an allegory.

I have always had a soft spot for Eve and I'm sure I am not alone in that. She seems more real than Adam, somehow.

O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum. O felix culpa!

A fine catch! And much appreciated.

 

[ChristineM]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

The bible makes Eve l female and hence second class, of course christianity blames her for wanting knowledge.

And in some religious quarters tgat same attitude exists today because of that story

 

[Clara Tea]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

It reminds me of Star Trek, that great Klingon antiquity, the "sword of Kahless." It was pretty Kahless leaving that sword laying around. Similarly, it seems rather careless for God to leave a dangerous thing like "death fruit" laying around from the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:17).

Hmm....a naked woman statue in churches as a symbol of wisdom. Well, you certain could win over converts.

If sin is not inheritable, why are we getting rid of original sin (Ezekiel 18:20)?

I have always believed that I hold a lot of wisdom, since none was ever seen escaping.

 

[exchemist]

It reminds me of Star Trek, that great Klingon antiquity, the "sword of Kahless." It was pretty Kahless leaving that sword laying around. Similarly, it seems rather careless for God to leave a dangerous thing like "death fruit" laying around from the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:17).

Hmm....a naked woman statue in churches as a symbol of wisdom. Well, you certain could win over converts.

If sin is not inheritable, why are we getting rid of original sin (Ezekiel 18:20)?

I have always believed that I hold a lot of wisdom, since none was ever seen escaping.

You mean, like the blue smoke that makes your laptop work?

 

[Clara Tea]

The bible makes Eve l female and hence second class, of course christianity blames her for wanting knowledge.

And in some religious quarters tgat same attitude exists today because of that story

The bible makes it rather clear that women are not just second class, they are property. "Cleve unto your husband" and husbands have been demanding their cleavage ever since.

Biblically, they are baby-making machines whose duties revolve around the kitchen. When is there fun time? What about the power of the female mind (doctors, architects, lawyers (though they are in hell))? Women deserve to vote, and they fought hard for the opportunity to work (though a vacation would be nice). Anyone who has had to do housework knows that it is difficult and time consuming.

As the economy melts down, traditional roles of women have changed. Now they are not expected to teach their kids right from wrong (which is the whole issue of the apple), but they have to work full time. This causes more criminality (unguided kids are misguided).

 

[blü 2]

The bible makes Eve l female and hence second class, of course christianity blames her for wanting knowledge.

And in some religious quarters that same attitude exists today because of that story

Certainly some Christians do. And certainly there's an ancient line of male attitudes very pleased that the Garden story has Eve made as Adam's "helper", and extremely fond of patriarchy.

In truth the key to liberty was made in the 1950s with the contraceptive pill, giving women easy and effective control of their own fertility for the first time. It's hard to understate the magnitude of the changes this made possible, even if the fight for genuine equality is still not won.

 

[Clara Tea]

You mean, like the blue smoke that makes your laptop work?

I was eating a delicious pizza, thought it would be nice to share, so I slipped a slice in the disk drive for my friend (smoked ever since). Who'd know it not only computed but it cooked.

 

[blü 2]

It reminds me of Star Trek, that great Klingon antiquity, the "sword of Kahless." It was pretty Kahless leaving that sword laying around. Similarly, it seems rather careless for God to leave a dangerous thing like "death fruit" laying around from the tree of knowledge (Gen 2:17).

Was that Shatner 's Kirk? Stewart's Picard?

Hmm....a naked woman statue in churches as a symbol of wisdom. Well, you certain could win over converts.

A discreet leafy branch or two has been used by painters and sculptors for centuries, but I like your idea better.

On the other hand, that other Goddess of Wisdom, Athena, rocks up in full Greek armor, and still looks pretty good.

If sin is not inheritable, why are we getting rid of original sin (Ezekiel 18:20)?

Why are we? Or why aren't we?

I have always believed that I hold a lot of wisdom, since none was ever seen escaping.

Hold that thought!

 

[Colt]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

The Israelites used the remaining fragments of an ancient story to construct their own line of decent.

Obviously there is a bigger story.

Before coming to earth Adam and Eve had been instructed how to proceed on our previously fallen world. They didn’t stick with Gods plan.

 

[Brian2]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to go against what God had told them.
They were innocent, yes, but did not know good and evil in their experience. This is what they started to know after they ate the fruit. They went from innocent to and not having to worry about any evil except not eating that fruit to knowing something about good and evil and having to struggle against evil if they wanted to remain good.
Nothing like forbidden fruit to tempt someone to eat it and justify that.
Nothing like a thousand types of forbidden fruit to tempt people to try them all.
Look around you and see that humans have tried them all many times.
There certainly is more to wisdom than knowing good and evil and especially knowing evil experientially.

 

[firedragon]

In the Garden story, God creates Adam, puts him in the Garden, points to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” [the ‘Tree’], and says to Adam “of the [Tree] you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:17).

A bit later God takes a rib from Adam and “made [it] into a woman and brought her to the man.”

Next, Eve says to the snake, “God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the [Tree] [...] neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ” (3:3).

The snake replies – completely truthfully – “You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good from evil.” (3:5)

“So when the woman saw that [...] the [Tree] was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.” (3:6).

And she gave some to Adam too.

“Then the eyes of both were opened.” (3:7).

And after that they were both able to distinguish good from evil.

Christians blame Eve for the Fall. They say she and Adam sinned. (Nothing of the kind is in the Garden story, and sin's impossible for people who are denied knowledge of good and evil, and Ezekiel 18:20 says unequivocally that sin isn’t inheritable. But leave that aside.)

This is the point.

Isn’t it an extremely good thing that Eve is said to have done? Shouldn't we hold her legend in the highest regard, since we, like Eve, think it’s extremely good to be wise?

Shouldn’t we have statues and images of Eve in all our churches and public spaces as a symbol of Human Wisdom?

Something we often seem not to have enough of?

This I think is a groundbreaking question. Though many have already asked this, it seems to not have been answered.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If sin is not inheritable, why are we getting rid of original sin (Ezekiel 18:20)?

Ezekiel forgot: ".. for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, ..)

 

[Vouthon]

The bible makes Eve l female and hence second class, of course christianity blames her for wanting knowledge.

And in some religious quarters tgat same attitude exists today because of that story

Certainly some Christians do. And certainly there's an ancient line of male attitudes very pleased that the Garden story has Eve made as Adam's "helper", and extremely fond of patriarchy.

I think it may be worth noting here that, in the history of Christian exegesis of Genesis, the account of Eve being drawn forth from Adam's side as a 'suitable helper' has not in fact served as any kind of prooftext for patriarchy or female subordination.

Nor was this the meaning imputed in the original Hebraic context. In his commentary on Genesis, John Walton has this to say about the word “helper” (ezer) in the Old Testament:

The word “helper” is common enough as a description of someone who comes to the aid of or provides a service for someone. It carries no implications regarding the relationship or relative status of the individuals involved. In fact, the noun form of the word found in this verse as used elsewhere refers almost exclusively to God as the One who helps his people. If we expand our investigation to verbal forms, we find a continuing predominance of God as the subject, though there are a handful of occurrences where people help people. In this latter category we find people helping their neighbors or relatives (Isa. 41:6), people helping in a political alliance or coalition (Ezra 10:15), and military reinforcements (Josh. 10:4; 2 Sam. 8:5). Nothing suggests a subservient status of the one helping; in fact, the opposite is more likely. Certainly “helper” cannot be understood as the opposite/complement of “leader.​

The Hebrew word employed here, "ezer", is even used to describe an aspect of YHWH's divine nature in relation to human beings in Exodus 18:4, where it says that Moses named one of his sons Eliezer, which in Hebrew means “My God is my helper” (Eli = “my God”; ezer = “helper”).

One could not, obviously, interpret this to mean that God - the sovereign creator deity of the Israelites - is somehow inferior to his creatures because He is their ezer 'helper'. Rather, Elohim is portrayed as a source of vital and irreplaceable strength to those who worship Him and this is the sense in which Eve too is described as Adam's "ezer", his companion and vital source of strength/stability/security, so that he is not 'alone' in the world.

Ezer is a combination of two roots, meaning “to rescue/to save” and “strength”, that is salvific strength. So what it's actually saying, is that adam (man) cannot live without eve (woman). To reinforce this, the Torah qualifies the word ezer with another word, kenegdo in both Genesis 2:18 and 20. Kenegdo: “suitable for him,” which means that Eve was fashioned to be a corresponding and equal partner for Adam.

St. Aelred of Rievaulx (1110–1167), a Catholic Cistercian monk, thus relied upon this verse of Genesis as his justification for the belief that God infused the desire for companionate love and egalitarian friendship / partnership within human nature from the very beginning:


Spiritual Friendship 01

"A friend loves always. And as our Jerome says, “a friendship that can end was never true.”...

When God fashioned the man, to recommend society as a higher blessing, he said, “it is not good that the man should be alone; let us make him a helper like himself.”

Indeed, divine power fashioned this helper not from similar or even from the same material. But as a more specific motivation for charity and friendship, this power created a woman from the very substance of the man. In a beautiful way, then, from the side of the first human a second was produced, so that nature might teach that all are equal or, as it were, collateral, and that among human beings, and this is a property of friendship, there exists neither superior nor inferior.

So, from the very beginning nature impressed on human minds this attachment of charity and friendship, which an inner experience of love soon increased with a delightful sweetness​

When scholars in antiquity or the medieval period looked to scripture to defend patriarchal social norms, they turned to the verses following the 'fall' and the eating of the forbidden fruit, namely Genesis 3:16: "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

However, this is expressly shown in the narrative to be a 'deviation' from the original divine plan of mutuality and equality of status between the sexes, and for that reason not something 'ideal' or necessarily eternal (i.e. it does not arise from natural law).

By contrast, Aristotle infamously wrote: "as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject". In Genesis, this ordering is deemed an aberration as a consequence of the fall.

In God's first plan, Eve is a companion (not a 'subject') and the account emphasizes the mutual dependence of the sexes produced from the very same substance. This seems to be where St. Paul derived his own belief in his authentic epistles, that husband and wife have equal authority over each others' bodies (whereas Graeco-Roman thought restricted authority to male over female, the paterfamilias over his subordinate household):

"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time" (1 Corinthians 7:4-5).​

 

[ChristineM]

I think it may be worth noting here that, in the history of Christian exegesis of Genesis, the account of Eve being drawn forth from Adam's side as a 'suitable helper' has not in fact served as any kind of prooftext for patriarchy or female subordination.

Nor was this the meaning imputed in the original Hebraic context. In his commentary on Genesis, John Walton has this to say about the word “helper” (ezer) in the Old Testament:

The word “helper” is common enough as a description of someone who comes to the aid of or provides a service for someone. It carries no implications regarding the relationship or relative status of the individuals involved. In fact, the noun form of the word found in this verse as used elsewhere refers almost exclusively to God as the One who helps his people. If we expand our investigation to verbal forms, we find a continuing predominance of God as the subject, though there are a handful of occurrences where people help people. In this latter category we find people helping their neighbors or relatives (Isa. 41:6), people helping in a political alliance or coalition (Ezra 10:15), and military reinforcements (Josh. 10:4; 2 Sam. 8:5). Nothing suggests a subservient status of the one helping; in fact, the opposite is more likely. Certainly “helper” cannot be understood as the opposite/complement of “leader.​

The Hebrew word employed here, "ezer", is even used to describe an aspect of YHWH's divine nature in relation to human beings in Exodus 18:4, where it says that Moses named one of his sons Eliezer, which in Hebrew means “My God is my helper” (Eli = “my God”; ezer = “helper”).

One could not, obviously, interpret this to mean that God - the sovereign creator deity of the Israelites - is somehow inferior to his creatures because He is their ezer 'helpe'. Rather, Elohim is portrayed as a source of vital and irreplaceable strength to those who worship Him and this is the sense in which Eve too is described as Adam's "ezer", his companion and vital source of strength/stability/security, so that he is not 'alone' in the world.

Ezer is a combination of two roots, meaning “to rescue/to save” and “strength”, that is salvific strength. So what it's actually saying, is that adam (man) cannot live without eve (woman). To reinforce this, the Torah qualifies the word ezer with another word, kenegdo in both Genesis 2:18 and 20. Kenegdo: “suitable for him,” which means that Eve was fashioned to be a corresponding and equal partner for Adam.

St. Aelred of Rievaulx (1110–1167), a Catholic Cistercian monk, thus relied upon this verse of Genesis as his justification for the belief that God infused the desire for companionate love and egalitarian friendship / partnership within human nature from the very beginning:


Spiritual Friendship 01

"A friend loves always. And as our Jerome says, “a friendship that can end was never true.”...

When God fashioned the man, to recommend society as a higher blessing, he said, “it is not good that the man should be alone; let us make him a helper like himself.”

Indeed, divine power fashioned this helper not from similar or even from the same material. But as a more specific motivation for charity and friendship, this power created a woman from the very substance of the man. In a beautiful way, then, from the side of the first human a second was produced, so that nature might teach that all are equal or, as it were, collateral, and that among human beings, and this is a property of friendship, there exists neither superior nor inferior.

So, from the very beginning nature impressed on human minds this attachment of charity and friendship, which an inner experience of love soon increased with a delightful sweetness​

When scholars in antiquity or the medieval period looked to scripture to defend patriarchal social norms, they turned to the verses following the 'fall' and the eating of the forbidden fruit, namely Genesis 3:16: "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

However, this is expressly shown in the narrative to be a 'deviation' from the original divine plan of mutuality and equality of status between the sexes, and for that reason not something 'ideal' or necessarily eternal (i.e. it does not arise from natural law).

By contrast, Aristotle infamously wrote: "as regards the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject". In Genesis, this ordering is deemed an aberration as a consequence of the fall.

In God's first plan, Eve is a companion (not a 'subject') and the account emphasizes the mutual dependence of the sexes produced from the very same substance. This seems to be where St. Paul derived his own belief in his authentic epistles, that husband and wife have equal authority over each others' bodies (whereas Graeco-Roman thought restricted authority to male over female, the paterfamilias over his subordinate household):

"The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time" (1 Corinthians 7:4-5).​

To much, i only read the first paragraph, can you provide a summery?

From the first para
a/ eve is made second, not first, not at the same time so subordinate
b/ eve eas made from a rib belonging to adam thus making eve belong to adam.

And i read the bible, several of them, not after the fact apologetics

Edit c/ it is the start of a long line throughout the bible if identifying women as second class, property, to be used as sex slaves and little else