The Creation of Eve

by jws 28 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gentledawn

  XY = male; XX = female. But no such thing as a "YY" super-uber male. Just saying

  ----------

  During Metaphase I of meiosis, the sperm or unfertilized egg can incorrectly separate the duplicated chromosomes and have additional copies of sex chromosomes in one egg or sperm, and then no copies in another egg or sperm. Most of the time it causes a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), or the sperm/egg will not continue with fertilization (undergo apoptosis), but rarely the fertilization will occur with a defective gene count, and fertilized fetus will be viable. Here's a brief but not all-encompassing list of the conditions:
  
  XY male, normal (included as a reference) XX female, normal (included as a reference)
  
  X0 Turner Syndrome: Affected persons are phenotypically female, but smaller and may or may not undergo sexual maturation; even at sexual maturity sterility is common. Cognitive ability and other capabilities usually are normal, but some mental impairment is possible.
  
  XYY: Double Y karyotype, usually taller than normal, may have slight cognitive impairment, but are otherwise normal, sterility is common. Behavior, mood, and criminal tendencies are not higher than others in the population.
  
  XXY: Klinefelter syndrome, pheontypically male, usually tall, but do not undergo sexual maturity, however may have large breasts, nearly always sterile. Also usually have mild-moderate cognitive impairment.
  
  XXXY: Normally not viable, but in extremely rare cases when an individual survives pregnancy they are similar to Kilnefelter syndrome.
  
  XXX: Trisomy X, phenotypically female, symptoms vary from completely normal to moderate behavioral and cognitive dysfunction.
  
  XY (Female): Defective SRY gene, so genetically male but a defective SRY gene in fetal development blocks development of the testes (and male physical features). Otherwise normal.
  
  YY: Not viable, the X chromosome is required. If an ovum were to somehow still survive the mitotic [meiotic] checkpoints and be present for fertilization, the fetus would abort spontaneously.

  ----

  http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1wi4wz/if_men_have_xy_and_women_have_xx_what_would/

  ----

  technically, humans are female by default. Not the other way around.
• 

  Apognophos

  I think this interpretation draws some tenuous conclusions. Just because Adam was created alone doesn't mean God forgot to make him a mate. The intent of the story was probably that Adam had the privilege of coming first and getting to know God better, and naming the animals. A modern Christian interpretation is that God wanted him to really appreciate Eve so he held off on making her until Adam got lonely.

  Secondly, the animals were not supposed to be helpers for Adam; the account doesn't say that. The point was for him to see and name the animals; that was the purpose of that detail in the story, to tell the Hebrew-speaking audience where the names of the animals came from.

  A more interesting question about God's limitations is why he can't find Adam and Eve as he walks through the garden after they've sinned, or why he didn't see them eating the forbidden fruit in the first place. This and other choices in wording, like the forming of Adam from the soil, and God breathing into his nostrils, indicate that YHWH was seen in early Israel as a powerful man-god, who existed in the flesh and had limited knowledge.

  YHWH doesn't stop them from eating the fruit because he simply isn't present to see it. The original account says absolutely nothing about the importance of free will and allowing A&E to demonstrate their obedience; this is simply God's garden and he has set a tree off-limits, probably for the use of himself and the elohim, so he would have enforced the rule if he had been present. This can all be inferred from the account's original Hebrew language and what we know of the primitive theology of that time.
• 

  Perry

  The original account says absolutely nothing about the importance of free will and allowing A&E to demonstrate their obedience

  But certainly free will was offered because choice was offered.

  he would have enforced the rule if he had been present

  Of course he was present because he is omnipresent. Oxford reads:

  omnipresent

  ADJECTIVE

  • 1 (Of God) present everywhere at the same time.

  And, he did enforce the rule just as he said he woud. Had he prohibited the taking of the fruit, he would have prohibited free choice.

  What the Garden of Eden tells us the most is about the consequences of belief. Belief is extremely important to God. Eve must have disbelieved God BEFORE she disobeyed. We act externally in a manner which is consistent with what we believe internally.
• 

  Comatose

  lol the Eve story is ludicrous. Almighty god couldn't make a woman without a rib? Please... And why not create her along with Adam? Why would he create a man all by himself with sex organs. It's so laughable. And to think they base doctrine around the time between Adams creation from dust and Eves creation for a rib.

  Belief in god in the garden of Eden is a stupid concept. God was talking to them daily. God made them. How could they not believe. And if they actually interacted with god and didn't believe him, then how can he judge humans today who don't have interaction with him for their disbelief. Two perfect people who talked to god fell away and god is going to burn people today forever? That's asinine.
• 

  Apognophos

  Perry, you're reading the account with your Christian Glasses on. I wouldn't call it a "choice" that Adam and Eve were offered. But you could argue it is. It depends how you feel about the following analogy. Imagine that a landlord tells his new tenants as they're moving in, "Enjoy the place! Oh, by the way, if you cut down that apple tree in the front yard, I'll kill you."

  Now suppose this landlord, who is strangely fixated on this one tree, is actually standing around when one of the tenants goes out front and prepares to cut down the tree. Is he going to do anything or say anything to the tenant? Of course he is; he wants that tree left alone. He's not going to just silently watch the tenant cut it down, and then grab his gun from his truck. His goal is to protect the tree, not to idly watch what his tenants do.

  So, was that a choice the landlord offered his renters? Most people would call it a crazed threat, not a choice, but it could meet the definition of the word "choice" if you wish it to. In any case, the account doesn't paint a picture of a god who wants to offer his creation free will. Rather, we're told that he is only in the garden during the breezy part of the day. When he shows up after Adam and Eve's sin, he only knows that something is wrong because they're hiding. When they come out, they are wearing fig leaves, and he recognizes that they have attained godly knowledge because they are ashamed of being naked like the animals.

  I don't expect you to accept any of this, Perry, because you worship a god who is omniscient and omnipresent; that kind of god is a fairly new invention that hadn't been thought of when this story was devised. I say this for other people's benefit, to get them thinking about the text on its own terms, leaving out what was written much much later to interpret this simple story.

  Also, Eve was right to disbelieve God, wasn't she? The serpent told her that she would not die. This was in reference to God's statement that they would die on the day they ate from the fruit. Since God didn't in fact kill Adam and Eve, the serpent was proven right. He also said that their eyes would be opened, and this happened as well. The serpent knew what he was talking about; he wasn't a liar, just a troublemaker.
• 

  Shanagirl

  Just as Adam and Eve are regarded as central characters in the Christian creation myth, they are equally as important in that of the Gnostics. The creation of the world according to Gnostic tradition is an account of the world created not by the True God, but by a false god. As Adam and Eve were created and placed in the Garden of Eden in Genesis, the same has been done in Gnostic scripture. However, the false god, known as the "demiurge" is responsible for the placement of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The demiurge has created the material fleshly bodies to entrap the divine sparks of Adam and Eve. Adam is placed under a spell of ignorance and put to sleep by the false god. Eve is placed next to him, and she commands Adam to awaken. When Adam sees Eve, he believes that she is his creator. The demiurge wanted to keep Adam and Eve ignorant; forever worshipping him. The Gnostics believe that the demiurge was posing as the only true god, thus keeping Adam and Eve under his spell of ignorance. As long as Adam and Eve believed that he was the only god, they would worship him forever.
  
  The serpent is regarded as an evil figure in traditional Christian stories, but to the Gnostics, the serpent is the hero! The Gnostic text teaches that as the demiurge tells Adam and Eve that they may help themselves to anything in the Garden, they are to stay away from the Tree of Knowledge. As Adam and Eve listen to the serpent, their eyes are opened, and the spell of ignorance is broken forever. Because they chose to listen to the serpent, who enlightened them with true knowledge of who they were and who this false god was, Adam and Eve no longer worship the demiurge, but recognize that there is the True God, and he was not the creator of the evil, imperfect, material world which the demiurge and other deities with him formed Adam and Eve out of the organic material matter from which these lower dieties created.

  Shana
• 

  jws

  Apognoghos wrote:

  Secondly, the animals were not supposed to be helpers for Adam; the account doesn't say that. The point was for him to see and name the animals; that was the purpose of that detail in the story, to tell the Hebrew-speaking audience where the names of the animals came from.

  I disagree.

  God says I will create a helper for Adam. He brings forth life. He parades it in front of Adam to be named. He declares "But for Adam no suitable helper was found".

  To be found, there must have been a search. Between stating Adam needs a helper and declaring no suitable helper was found, the animals are paraded before Adam.

  Do some deductive reasoning.
• 

  jws

  Perry wrote:

  Of course he was present because he is omnipresent.

  Then explain these verses in Genesis 11 regading the tower of Babel:

  Genesis 11: 5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. 6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

  Why did god have to "come down" to see the city if he is omnipresent? He should already be there. Why did he have to "go down" to confuse their languages?
• 

  cultBgone

  The whole "removed a rib" thing was just another one of those...."just be patient, you'll understand it later" issues...

  Nope, never made any sense at all.
• 

  Apognophos

  God says I will create a helper for Adam. He brings forth life. He parades it in front of Adam to be named. He declares "But for Adam no suitable helper was found".

  To be found, there must have been a search. Between stating Adam needs a helper and declaring no suitable helper was found, the animals are paraded before Adam.

  Hmm. You know, it didn't sink for me when I first read your post. I wasn't paying careful attention to the fact that God says he will make a helper and then he makes the animals and then no helper is found. This is food for thought, thanks for pointing it out.

  By the way, you might be interested to know that the word translated "had formed" in vs. 19 is most often translated as simply "formed", which means that there is no clear indication that the action was performed before that point in time when he was bringing them to Adam. I suspect most translators who chose the pluperfect "had formed" were conscious of the contradiction with the fact that animals were supposed to be formed before this, and were trying to smooth it over. Whereas the form of the verb "to form" that is used in vs. 19 is the same as in vs. 7 when God "formed" Adam, so there's no reason to translate it differently unless the translator is sure of 'what the writer meant'.