adam and the lonely p**is
01 Feb '13 18:14Originally posted by FreakyKBHGenesis 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."
[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 ...[text shortened]... dy one flesh.
which makes it all rather pointless.
I disagree.[/b]
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.
my daughter didnt have a name for the first few hours of her life. she was called 'the baby' for a while. later, we gave her a name. when we refer to the period before she had a name, we use her name rather than calling her 'the baby'.
im happy and content to use the name 'eve' when referring to the biblical character known to the general populous as 'eve'. it seems like the correct thing to do.
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.
yes, very trivial.
nothing more bone-headed than stubbornly believing in things despite zero evidence.
Why did He do anything in the order He did?
he's god, he doenst have to do things in order. there would be no sense in doing things in stages if you have the ability to make it all appear with the slap of his godly scrotum against his godly thigh (why does god have testicles?).
God said it wasn't good for man to be alone.
why was this even an issue that would need to be highlighted. its not good for man to have ingrown toenails. yet god didnt need to stop and mention it. he just did it. so why did god need to make an exception and specifically mention adams need for company. why even mention it if it was always your intention to create a women anyway? there is no logic to it.
He named the animals.
How long do you think that took?
zero time. he's god, time is irrelevant.
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.
how is any of this contrary to anything i said. i said they were kicked out for the whole 'tree of knowledge fiasco' and you say i know nothing then describe a 'tree of knowledge fiasco'. looks like youve come to the table with a few 'half-cooked' ideas of your own matey boy.
They were already one flesh.
so adam failed to get eve up the duff in paradise yet the minute they get out he becomes a prolific women impregnating machine??? does this also imply that eve had a reproductive cycle while in paradise, that functioned?
I disagree.
what would be the point of god creating a world in which he know that his creations will fail and then have to endure thousands of years of suffering and then be reunited with him. once he's thought it why not just skip to the end where everybody is happy?
YouTube
Back to Top