Who was the First woman?

[sojourner]

I have no idea about these two shown except for what you said in this post. So, sorry if this answer doesn't work.

Couldn't 1:27 be describing the general scenario and 2 describe the actual process? I've seen examples of this in literature.

As in, explaining that God created them and later on explaining the actual, detailed scenario.

No. They're two completely different accounts by different authors, written at different times.

 

[sojourner]

The first two chapters of Genesis are different stories from different places and times. They are mutually contradictory.

What I take away from this is that the redactors of Genesis were giving a heads up to more sophisticated audiences. "These are old stories. Don't take them literally as history."

Tom

Good attempt, but, actually, the editors included all the stories, whether they jibed or not, because the written texts were intended to be a repository of all the oral tradition -- not a single, big story, like the literalists would have you believe.

 

[sojourner]

Doesn't it?

No. When God blew into the human's nostrils at creation, the Hebrew word used means both "wind" and "spirit." When that happened, they became "living beings" -- the only part of creation given that appellation. It indicates that humanity was created with a soul.

 

[sojourner]

There has been an ongoing debate for many, many years if the creation story of mankind in the book of Genesis is the same story told two different ways or two separate creation stories.

The story of Lilith is a little involved. Her story has evolved in different directions.

That debate was settled in academia long ago. It's only debated in circles that eschew more modern scholarship.

 

[sojourner]

you can't which makes the Bible less than useless on its own.

The bible was never intended to stand "on its own."

 

[CMike]

Eve..

 

[sojourner]

And even then it is an enemy of tolerance.

Not intrinsically. It has to be interpreted that way through the communal lens. The bible can also be correctly interpreted as a quite hospitable and inclusive document.

 

[sojourner]

I'll go with Eve from a biblical perspective and with Lucy from an anthropological perspective.

What about Desi?

 

[sojourner]

I can understand that conclusion. I'll do my best to explain my position. How successfully I'll be able to do so is another matter. I believe in evolution and in a very, very old earth. I do not believe that during a six-day period 6000 years ago, God created the earth and dropped two belly-buttonless individuals into a pretty garden and that human life began at that point.

On the other hand, as a theist and as a Mormon, I do believe that God created our universe. I believe He created it is accordance with natural laws. Thus, the entire process started several billion years ago. I believe that human beings (or, more accurately, homo sapiens) first lived on earth (in what is now Africa) somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 years ago. This is why I say that from an archeological or mitochondrial perspective, Lucy was the first woman.

While I believe that all of us are probably Lucy's direct descendants, I don't see her as having one thing that the woman Eve had, and that is a spirit that was in God's image. My feelings are that, at some point, at about the time the events in Genesis were said to have transpired, God instilled a spirit in a man (Adam) and a woman (Eve) that did not exist in their ancestor, Lucy, or in any of her descendants up until that time. Eve, unlike Lucy, was of the same species as God himself. The Bible teaches that God is the father of our spirits and that we are not only his creations but his offspring. Lucy, while having a spirit (all living things, according to LDS doctrine, have a spirit), did not have the same kind of spirit as Eve. She was, therefore, one of God's creations but not His offspring.

I should note that this is my personal belief. It does not represent LDS doctrine but it is not contrary to LDS doctrine either. The LDS Church leaves matters of this sort up to personal interpretation. As evidence of this fact, when I first visited the new Natural History Museum of Utah when it first opened a couple of years ago, I noticed that one of the significant benefactors was the LDS Church. The museum is definitely NOT a creationist museum but is as good a natural history museum as you'll find anywhere.

You know i love and respect ya, but this is an extremely tenuous apologetic that has neither biblical nor traditional underpinning. My opinion is that you are taking a HIGHLY mythic story and trying to squeeze it into a literalistic mold. Why not just say that the creation myth gives us a theological treatment of the creative process, using highly poetic language? It makes more sense and it retains a more honest respect for the literature (IMO).

 

[sojourner]

Hera was "Mitochondrial Eve" I thought everyone knew that.

That sounds like a great name for a steampunk chick band: Mitochondrial Eve.


:band:

 

[sincerly]

Good attempt, but, actually, the editors included all the stories, whether they jibed or not, because the written texts were intended to be a repository of all the oral tradition -- not a single, big story, like the literalists would have you believe.

sojourner, The Scriptures say you are wrong in your conclusion. Yes, up to the time of Moses and GOD'S instructions to Moses, the previous history of mankind had been passed on from one generation to the next orally.
With the writing of the Decalogue by the Creator GOD, there was acknowledgement/verification that all things were created as stated in the oral re-telling---and those "stories"/events in the lives of the patriarchs were actually lived.
Ex.20:8-11, 14, 17, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. [color]"
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

 

[sojourner]

sojourner, The Scriptures say you are wrong in your conclusion. Yes, up to the time of Moses and GOD'S instructions to Moses, the previous history of mankind had been passed on from one generation to the next orally.
With the writing of the Decalogue by the Creator GOD, there was acknowledgement/verification that all things were created as stated in the oral re-telling---and those "stories"/events in the lives of the patriarchs were actually lived.
Ex.20:8-11, 14, 17, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. [color]"
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

OK. So you're a literalist. Bully for you, and good luck with that. :sleep:

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[sincerly]

No. When God blew into the human's nostrils at creation, the Hebrew word used means both "wind" and "spirit." When that happened, they became "living beings"(nephesh) (soul) -- the only part of creation given that appellation. It indicates that humanity was created with a soul.

Sojourner, "soul" means "living beings". "Life" having as opposed to dead/without breath.
Lev.21:11, "Neither shall he go in to any dead body(nephesh), nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;"

"Ruwach" wasn't used in Gen.2:7 Ezek. 18:4, "Behold, all souls(nephesh) are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die."

Eccl.3:19, "For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath(Ruwach); so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity."

 

[roger1440]

That debate was settled in academia long ago. It's only debated in circles that eschew more modern scholarship.

Can you explain please?

 

[sojourner]

Can you explain please?

Scholars theorized a long time ago that genesis 1 was written in one style at one time, and Genesis 2 in another style, at an earlier time. For academia, the matter of whether the two chapters are two separate accounts isn't up for debate. Only folks who don't take under consideration the methods of modern literary criticism continue the argument.

 

[sojourner]

"soul" means "living beings". "Life" having as opposed to dead/without breath.

Right. Yet, using that logic, how is it that animals are not nephesh? Answer: they breathe, but not with God's breath (spirit). In other words, we are who we are by virtue of being living souls.

 

[Estro Felino]

that's what happens when Christians take the Genesis seriously.

 

[sojourner]

that's what happens when Christians take the Genesis seriously.

Or, more often, when they don't.

 

[Katzpur]

You know i love and respect ya, but this is an extremely tenuous apologetic that has neither biblical nor traditional underpinning. My opinion is that you are taking a HIGHLY mythic story and trying to squeeze it into a literalistic mold. Why not just say that the creation myth gives us a theological treatment of the creative process, using highly poetic language? It makes more sense and it retains a more honest respect for the literature (IMO).

Once again, we must agree to disagree. My perspective, as I already said, is just that -- my perspective. It may not make sense to you, but it does to me.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
sojourner, The Scriptures say you are wrong in your conclusion. Yes, up to the time of Moses and GOD'S instructions to Moses, the previous history of mankind had been passed on from one generation to the next orally.
With the writing of the Decalogue by the Creator GOD, there was acknowledgement/verification that all things were created as stated in the oral re-telling---and those "stories"/events in the lives of the patriarchs were actually lived.
Ex.20:8-11, 14, 17, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. [color]"
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ***(donkey), nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."

OK. So you're a literalist. Bully for you, and good luck with that. :sleep:

Thanks for proving my point.

Sojourner, if being a believer in the truths/principles of the Scriptures(inspired words of the Creator GOD) make me a "literalist", then I gladly embrace that description. Obedience to truth isn't depending on "luck", but Love for ONE who created all things.

The point I acknowledged is that "oral history" was at the proper time converted to the written recordings of the events in the history of mankind in association to the Creator GOD and to others of the human race.

It is high time to "awake"--The "way marks" are fastly being passed. Journey's end is nearing.