Thinking about Adam and Eve. (x-posted from religon)

[guillaumeb]

Thinking about Adam and Eve.
Genesis 2:4-3:24
Adam and Eve
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens…….
Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being……
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.



The above is an abbreviated version of the story. It can be read as a narrative wherein the Creator fashioned the first 2 humans, but on a deeper level it can be read as science.

Consider the very names Adam and Eve. In Hebrew, the name Adam is derived from the Hebrew word for earth. The name Eve is derived from the Hebrew word for life, or to live. So reading it in that sense, from the earth comes life.

Now, consider the taking of a rib from Adam's side and fashioning a woman from that rib. Consider too that in 5800 BCE humans were presumably aware that man and woman have an equal number of ribs. So any claim that this verse must be only read literally presumes that early man was unaware that male and female have the same number of ribs.

But, if we consider that males are XY and females are XX, that missing rib is the bottom of the X. And I feel that this metaphorical interpretation is deliberate.

So in Genesis, we have the Big Bang, basic earth science, and biology all disguised as a simple creation story.

[ret5hd]

1. Ahhh...Ancient molecular biologists!!!

Of course! Why didn’t we think of that before!

CSI: Prehistory Unit

[guillaumeb]

2. Or the Creator leaving a sign.

[msongs]

3. oops wrong group - nt

[guillaumeb]

4. Not an issue for me.

But it is in religion also.

[bobbieinok]

5. A 20th century psychologist (I think) said the story is v weird -woman born from man reverses nature

IIRC he stated this reversal was to replace female deities of ancient times with a male one.

And I think he tied it to the idea that men are jealous of women because women give birth and men can't. This idea seems odd to me, but it was a concept discussed by women in the 60s.

[Tobin S.]

6. I've heard the idea expressed that

pretty much any religion with a male deity as the supreme god is bad for women. That would probably be most of them. But what they are talking about isn't the reality of God, but a demiurge- a false concept of a supreme being formed by a culture. Those kinds of concepts are easily knocked down and that's what most non-believers see through, and rightly so. Religious fundamentalism is a relatively new development, and I think it is a symptom of a lost culture.

My wife, a Christian, thinks that God is ultimately beyond gender. I share that view. I think God can be found in everyone, male or female...and believer or non-believer.

I think it is just as appropriate for a person to speak of God as a female as well as a male.