Whence cometh Eve?

[Ron Beron]

So Ron......... shall I stir the pot and ask you what your thoughts are even though I already know? I can kinda understand why you are keeping it to yourself......GRIN!

Thanks Kerry....got it.

[BCSpace]

So you think the "rib" has more to do with a description of the actual design of a female? Interesting.

[Ron Beron]

So you think the "rib" has more to do with a description of the actual design of a female? Interesting.

No, not at all. It has to do, at least from the quotes mentioned with the absence of the baculum in the human male. Without being too graphic it is not all that easy to describe. See here...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB381.html

and

http://aboulet.com/2009/08/04/adams-rib-or-adams-baculum/

and finally...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baculum

[Tsjoeva]

A

My hypothesis agrees with that. No death before the Fall. I agree.

So, from the beginning of the creation of the world, there was no death. And all the creations were going dead in all the millions of year? I see some problems again with such thought.

B

My hypothesis agrees with that. though not in the way you'd like it to.

Well, if I understand you correct, you say create and born is the same?

C. homo-sapiens: how is called the parents of Adam and Eve?

I don't understand this question.

Their names, I mean. What were their names.

D

Yes. God used evolution to create physical bodies that resembled Himself. When all was ready, He placed the appropriate spirits in Adam and Eve so that they meet the qualifications of the scriptural definition of "man".

Tell me what is your Biblical evidence?

E

What did Adam thougt when he saw Eve? Because it was the first time that he saw a human.

Don't see any evidence for this though we certainly don't know what age Adam was when he was placed into the garden.

In Genesis is written this: 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

22 And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

I think the whole part of Gen 1 and 2 isn't necessary, it isn't happen like this.

This is the reason, why man and woman got one flesh, because she came out of his body. She is made of bones from him.

F

She would be the mother of the race of man (scriptural definition).

You mean this text? Gen 3:20 JPS And the man called his wife

[Redefined]

I'm just barely remembering now. Taught in seminary the term "woman" directly correlates with this "rib" story. Like "came from man" or something. Anybody hear this?

[Sevenbak]

Tsjoeva, I agree with your take, mostly talking a literal view of what the scriptures say. If the Lord hasn't revealed the allegorical meanings if there are any, then I don't think it's our place to try to interpret them to our limited understanding in our lost and fallen state.

Cheers.

[Tsjoeva]

Tsjoeva, I agree with your take, mostly talking a literal view of what the scriptures say. If the Lord hasn't revealed the allegorical meanings if there are any, then I don't think it's our place to try to interpret them to our limited understanding in our lost and fallen state.

Cheers.

I agree totally with you

[Ron Beron]

Tsjoeva, I agree with your take, mostly talking a literal view of what the scriptures say. If the Lord hasn't revealed the allegorical meanings if there are any, then I don't think it's our place to try to interpret them to our limited understanding in our lost and fallen state.

Cheers.

You bring up some very interesting points, unfortunately, I disagree with most of them. First, it is in our place to seek the allegories of the scriptures because they were placed there through the limited nature of man to convey God's instruction and glory. We are dealing with ancient wisdom not direct revelation from God. Secondly, it is only the 1st century Christian on who felt that man was in a "lost and fallen state". Jewish thought did not include the concept of a universal fall, but believed that all men and women were responsible for their individual sins. It was only with the birth of Jesus and the advent of Pauline Christianity that necessitated a belief in universal sin.

Finally, if we are not the ones to interpret then who?

[Sevenbak]

You bring up some very interesting points, unfortunately, I disagree with most of them. First, it is in our place to seek the allegories of the scriptures because they were placed there through the limited nature of man to convey God's instruction and glory. We are dealing with ancient wisdom not direct revelation from God. Secondly, it is only the 1st century Christian on who felt that man was in a "lost and fallen state". Jewish thought did not include the concept of a universal fall, but believed that all men and women were responsible for their individual sins. It was only with the birth of Jesus and the advent of Pauline Christianity that necessitated a belief in universal sin.

Finally, if we are not the ones to interpret then who?

I don't believe the scriptures are primarily allegorical unless stated so. Those that are allegories and parables are stated as so as such at the beginning of said passages. For us to assume that all scriptures are categorized that way is asking for trouble, IMO.

[katherine the great]

I don't believe the scriptures are primarily allegorical unless stated so. Those that are allegories and parables are stated as so as such at the beginning of said passages. For us to assume that all scriptures are categorized that way is asking for trouble, IMO.

So you believe that God really commanded his prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute?

[BCSpace]

My hypothesis agrees with that. No death before the Fall. I agree.

So, from the beginning of the creation of the world, there was no death. And all the creations were going dead in all the millions of year?

Yes. Life has been evolving on earth for billions of years just as science says. When all was ready, the Lord placed Adam into the garden into a state of no death. The Fall brought death into the world and evolution continues apace. The time in the garden is not long enough to cause any sort of a blip on the evolution map.

I see some problems again with such thought.

I'm interested in these, whatever they are.

My hypothesis agrees with that. though not in the way you'd like it to.

Well, if I understand you correct, you say create and born is the same?

I tend to think of create as the overall process. When God created Adam, it was in His own image through the process of evolution. When Seth was born, birth is simply a sub process of evolution.

homo-sapiens: how is called the parents of Adam and Eve?

I don't understand this question.

Their names, I mean. What were their names.

Don't know. Not necessary to know. They may not have had names in the sense we think of names. Since their spirits were not literal spirit children of God in my hypothesis, I tend to see preAdamite homo sapiens as little more than animals, like monkeys or dolphins. This would explain the reason why big brained homo sapiens never achieved civilization for all those hundreds of thousands of years. They were incapable of it because the their spirits were unable to take full advantage of the brain. Obviously they had a little bit of language, some tools, some art, some sense of the divine (worship of nature etc.), but why did they not develop civilization in all that time?

Yes. God used evolution to create physical bodies that resembled Himself. When all was ready, He placed the appropriate spirits in Adam and Eve so that they meet the qualifications of the scriptural definition of "man".

Tell me what is your Biblical evidence?

James 2:26 for example. A living man is a body and a spirit. What kind of spirit? A spirit child of God (Hebrews 12:9, Acts 17:28)

[BCSpace]

What did Adam thougt when he saw Eve? Because it was the first time that he saw a human.

Don't see any evidence for this though we certainly don't know what age Adam was when he was placed into the garden.

In Genesis is written this:

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a helper meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.

22 And the rib which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.

I don't see how this applies. Adam found himself alone in the garden and there was no one help or be a companion so Eve was brought. Now that their spirits are literal children of God and they can use the higher functions of the brain, they begin to develop the knowledge and systems we have today.

She would be the mother of the race of man (scriptural definition).

You mean this text? Gen 3:20 JPS And the man called his wife

[LeSellers]

So you believe that God really commanded his prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute?

Absolutely.

The account of Hosea and Gomer is one of the most beautiful and powerful in the Bible.

The fact that it is a parallel of God's relationship with Israel is what makes it good.

Lehi

[Sevenbak]

So you believe that God really commanded his prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute?

You believe he didn't, or that he didn't know she would become such? The comparison with Israel's apostasy was apparent, but if it wasn't an actual event, that marriage, why then would the Lord use the example, to what end?

Jesus can trace his mortal parentage back to a prostitute too. Why did God allow that?

[katherine the great]

Absolutely.

The account of Hosea and Gomer is one of the most beautiful and powerful in the Bible.

The fact that it is a parallel of God's relationship with Israel is what makes it good.

Lehi

Oh I absolutely agree that is a stunningly beautiful story that deals very specifically with exactly what would become of Israel down to the names of each of Gomer's children. I also think it is so obviously a prophetic allegory that I'm surprised you consider it history.

[Ron Beron]

I don't believe the scriptures are primarily allegorical unless stated so. Those that are allegories and parables are stated as so as such at the beginning of said passages. For us to assume that all scriptures are categorized that way is asking for trouble, IMO.

Which scriptures do you figure are allegorical. Many are certainly so, but they are not labeled as such, e.g. Balaam's ***.

[Tsjoeva]

Well first I want to make a compliment with the form of discussion.

Second: I know there is a different way to read the Bible.

Ron Beron

You bring up some very interesting points, unfortunately, I disagree with most of them. First, it is in our place to seek the allegories of the scriptures because they were placed there through the limited nature of man to convey God's instruction and glory. We are dealing with ancient wisdom not direct revelation from God. Secondly, it is only the 1st century Christian on who felt that man was in a "lost and fallen state". Jewish thought did not include the concept of a universal fall, but believed that all men and women were responsible for their individual sins. It was only with the birth of Jesus and the advent of Pauline Christianity that necessitated a belief in universal sin.

Finally, if we are not the ones to interpret then who?

It is I think an other discussion about: How to read the Bible. And I know it is an different view. By the way it isn't that I am totally disagree with you. But like a Jew read the Bible in diverse interpretations: PaRDeS(Hebrew for Garden)

Pshat= the literally meaning of the text

Remez= the deep and hidden relation of the text

Drash= the level of the metaphor

Sod= the hidden part or mystic reading of the text (

But the rule is: we have to look first to the pshat.

(For a better understanding what I mean you can click on this link My link) This link is only for information what I mean.

We are dealing with ancient wisdom not direct revelation from God.

Well I disagree that with you. The Bible is the Word of the Lord. If it isn't true, you can skip the book Hebrew.

Secondly, it is only the 1st century Christian on who felt that man was in a "lost and fallen state". Jewish thought did not include the concept of a universal fall, but believed that all men and women were responsible for their individual sins

Well this is a different discussion. Maybe for an other topic? (It is to much to answer this now, so I made my excuse for this)

katherine

So you believe that God really commanded his prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute?

Yes I believe that too

Yes. Life has been evolving on earth for billions of years just as science says. When all was ready, the Lord placed Adam into the garden into a state of no death. The Fall brought death into the world and evolution continues apace. The time in the garden is not long enough to cause any sort of a blip on the evolution map.

First: I don't believe the Bible is written as a science book, or a book of history. I believe the Bible is the revelation from God for us.

'm interested in these, whatever they are.

Well one of them is: Everybody was a vegetarian. Because death wasn't there.

Yes. God used evolution to create physical bodies that resembled Himself. When all was ready, He placed the appropriate spirits in Adam and Eve so that they meet the qualifications of the scriptural definition of "man".

Quote

Tell me what is your Biblical evidence?

James 2:26 for example. A living man is a body and a spirit. What kind of spirit? A spirit child of God (Hebrews 12:9, Acts 17:28)

James 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Hebrews 12:9 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh who corrected us, and we gave them reverence. Shall we not far rather be in subjection unto the Father of Spirits, and live?

Well Acts 17:28 26 And He hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation,

27 that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.

28 For in Him we live, and move, and have our being; as also certain of your own poets have said,

[LeSellers]

I also think it is so obviously a prophetic allegory that I'm surprised you consider it history.

Surprise!!

God often used such stunning, but real, imagery to drive home His point. Ezekiel's tile and bread, Isaiah's nudity, and Hosea's wife of whoredom were illustrations that made (or at least should have made) a powerful impact on the Jews.

There is absolutely no reason to reject Hosea as history.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

Yes. Life has been evolving on earth for billions of years just as science says. When all was ready, the Lord placed Adam into the garden into a state of no death. The Fall brought death into the world and evolution continues apace. The time in the garden is not long enough to cause any sort of a blip on the evolution map.

First: I don't believe the Bible is written as a science book, or a book of history. I believe the Bible is the revelation from God for us.

I agree.

I'm interested in these, whatever they are.

Well one of them is: Everybody was a vegetarian. Because death wasn't there.

There is no Biblical support for vegetarianism or no death before the garden. With the LDS, there is support (by implication) of death before the garden (2 Nephi 2:22).

First I will begin with Acts 17. Paul taught the Greek people, that the Lord made all nations out one person. Not two, but one. And that is Adam. So this part is the evidence that Paul believed in the creation of Adam and Eve. So in mine opinion, you can't read the verse and forgot the context.

The problem for you is that I also believe this context and note that there is nothing here that conflicts with my hypothesis. It simply does what I needed it to do, show that man is the offspring of God and the conjunction with the other verses defines man as a literal spirit child of God in combination with a physical body. How this physical body came about is the only object of this debate. We both agree that God is the origin of it.

With James 2:26, it proved only that the the human got a spirit. Nothing more. It doesn't gave the evidence that the Lord used evolution for creation.

It was never my intention to show evolution this way. I was simply showing the definition of what a "man" is. By this definition, any homo sapiens that come before Adam are not men in this sense.

Well the death was announced and yet there was new living. And in that way, she is the mother of all living. (and yes not only from the new adam

So you believe she is the mother of all living because she would be the first woman resurrected? I can certainly agree with that. It doesn't do anything for your claim against evolution though.

don't see how this applies. Adam found himself alone in the garden and there was no one help or be a companion so Eve was brought. Now that their spirits are literal children of God and they can use the higher functions of the brain, they begin to develop the knowledge and systems we have today.

Well you have to read what there is written.

In Gen 2:4 is written: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens

Or the word generations mean literally history. So this is the history.. not the allegory.

I agree with everything written there. The Adam and Eve account itself historical (and MUST be historical) though certain details can certainly be figurative. For example, I agree with LDS doctrine specified by SWK in an official publication of the Church, that the rib part of the account is figurative.

I think that since God has commanded us to educate ourselves and learn science, we are also commanded to fill in the blanks for ourselves.

There is nothing wrong with science and educate. But we have to do it with the Lord. Not without the Lord

I seem to have fit that qualification. Without conflicting with the scriptures or LDS doctrine, I have filled in the blanks of what is not revealed, namely, the physical creation.

[BCSpace]

There is absolutely no reason to reject Hosea as history.

Have to agree. Things that offend the senses (or other women) aren't automatically rendered allegorical.

[katherine the great]

Have to agree. Things that offend the senses (or other women) aren't automatically rendered allegorical.

Are you implying that my reason for considering the story an allegory is that I personally find the idea repellant? I guarantee that I would be much more open to the idea than a pious, observant Israelite man.

[BCSpace]

Are you implying that my reason for considering the story an allegory is that I personally find the idea repellant?

Yes. You and some others sometimes come across that way to me.

I guarantee that I would be much more open to the idea than a pious, observant Israelite man.

Thanks for the explaination.

[Sevenbak]

Which scriptures do you figure are allegorical. Many are certainly so, but they are not labeled as such, e.g. Balaam's ***.

I think most that are allegorical or parable like say so, at the beginning of them.

[Sevenbak]

Surprise!!

God often used such stunning, but real, imagery to drive home His point. Ezekiel's tile and bread, Isaiah's nudity, and Hosea's wife of whoredom were illustrations that made (or at least should have made) a powerful impact on the Jews.

There is absolutely no reason to reject Hosea as history.

Lehi

Well said!

[Tsjoeva]

There is no Biblical support for vegetarianism or no death before the garden. With the LDS, there is support (by implication) of death before the garden (2 Nephi 2:22).

For me, if I am understanding you correct. You said: there is support for death before the garden?

Your text is: And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

I took the Dutch translation for it. To see, if I am correct. But I read that there was no death before the garden (by impication).

The problem for you is that I also believe this context and note that there is nothing here that conflicts with my hypothesis.

Well for me it isn't a problem You said you believe in the context, but actually what you are doing is make eisegese. You are interpretable on your way of thinking and not at the way of the Bible.

It was never my intention to show evolution this way. I was simply showing the definition of what a "man" is. By this definition, any homo sapiens that come before Adam are not men in this sense.

Well in my eye you missed complete the goal. It is showed only that a man got a spirit. But the physical body made the man: Flesh, bones and blood.

Luc 24:3838 And He said unto them, "Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me to have."

40 And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet

In Gen 2:7 there is written: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The Lord formed (jatzar= to mould into a form; especially as a potter) Adam (man or human). There is no Biblical evidence for what you are saying.

So you believe she is the mother of all living because she would be the first woman resurrected? I can certainly agree with that. It doesn't do anything for your claim against evolution though.

No she is the mother of all living because, Adam and Eve are name givers. Because death became through her into the world. The original name of Eve was Isha or translated woman. And not Eve. This name Adam gave her after that death comes into the world.

I seem to have fit that qualification. Without conflicting with the scriptures or LDS doctrine, I have filled in the blanks of what is not revealed, namely, the physical creation.

Well I understand what you mean. For me, it is if it isn't conflicting with the Bible.