Originally posted by stellspalfie
"Her name wasn't Eve."
seems to be in most of the translations ive seen. so im pretty sure its no major problem. some might say you are being rather pedantic.
"God created the woman (Isha) to complete man, therefore, it stands to reason that she would be everything he would want.
God didn't create the woman based on Adam's request; He created her surprises Him.
Not even your ignorance[/b]
which makes it all rather pointless.[/b]
seems to be in most of the translations ive seen. so im pretty sure its no major problem. some might say you are being rather pedantic.
In "most of the translations" you've read, eh?
http://bible.cc/genesis/3-20.htm
Genesis 3:20 (post-Fall) is the first time the name Eve is mentioned. All other descriptions prior to this naming by the man have her as "the woman."
This link offers some 17 different translations and the ability to go verse by verse in any direction, so you can test your assertion of her being called Eve in the Garden.
The results are one of the reasons I asked if you even read.
You may consider such details trivial, but such carelessness and lack of concern lead first to slightly misleading generalizations and ultimately (as evidenced in your OP) bone-headed speculations.
do you find yourself thumbing through modern bibles tutting.
Um, yes?
Most translations are--- at best--- deplorable.
Why?
Because they don't start with a clean slate nor do are they informed with adequate disciplined learning.
But, that's the source of a whole other conversation.
Let's get back to you.
if god had created adam 'to want a woman' why did he hesitate to create one?
Why did He do anything in the order He did?
why did adam have to ask?
I know it won't be insulting for me to ask this, since you clearly didn't read it the first time, so...
Do you even read?
The man didn't ask.
God said it wasn't good for man to be alone.
time not known, but it was short?????? how short a week, month, year, million years.
He named the animals.
How long do you think that took?
my understanding is that they were banished from paradise for the whole tree of knowledge fiasco, or fruit-gate, as it became to be known.
Well, I think I see where your problem starts.
You see those first two words at the beginning of the above statement: "my understanding?"
That's the problem.
You don't understand because (just like the crappy translations out there), you come to the book with a slate full of half-cooked ideas and literally zero training in the disciplines which would help you get a clear idea of what is being said.
They ate the fruit of a tree from which they were told not to eat.
The fruit was not magical, it was allegorical.
It's flesh and juice were not the issue; eating of it was the issue.
She ate because she was tricked into thinking God knew something she didn't (obviously, He did!).
He ate it because he didn't want to be alone.
i assumed the sex didnt begin until afterwards as it resulted in eve getting knocked-up. if they were at it before the fall, why didnt adam put one in eves oven?
I see your problem again.
"i assumed."
Do you even read?
They were already one flesh.
which makes it all rather pointless.
I disagree.