- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally 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?
Originally posted by stellspalfie/facepalm
why did god create eve? im guessing adam wasnt fully functional downstairs. there would be no point in giving him urges if there was nothing to have urges about. which also begs the questions - was adams penis originally just for urinating? and - did adam have testicles? without the need for erectile tissue, was it just a thin tube? anywhooooooo (enough ...[text shortened]... appealing?!?!? what was he thinking. what was the point, what did he think was going to happen?
Originally posted by stellspalfieHere's a suggestion.
is that to hide your giggling or some sort of opus dei self harm thing?
Take your post and clean it up a bit (just a bit) and mail it to the head priest of your local Episcopalian (Anglican, if you live in Britain) church. They might find it interesting, and may actually be more likely to answer your questions than say, a priest at the local Catholic church.
I'm sure they've heard worse.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suziannewhat do you think needs 'cleaning up'? what is unclean about it? do you talking about body parts is wrong? is it okay to talk about brains, but wrong to talk about doo-daahs (colloquial english for penis). i could talk about the violent action of being nailed to a cross but reference to something 50ish% of humanity has is unclean???
Here's a suggestion.
Take your post and clean it up a bit (just a bit) and mail it to the head priest of your local Episcopalian (Anglican, if you live in Britain) church. They might find it interesting, and may actually be more likely to answer your questions than say, a priest at the local Catholic church.
I'm sure they've heard worse.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suziannemy first run-in with freaky, it came out of nowhere like some sort of ancient hebrew academic gorilla warfare. im okay though, i just keep telling myself im not a victim, it could have happened to any poster, i was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. looking back though maybe it was my fault, maybe it was the way i posted....was i asking for it?
Why would you possibly take the time to disagree if you think the whole question of God is hokum anyways? Just say "Preposterous!" and call it a day.
Oh, never mind. I didn't see that you were responding to FreakyKBH. My bad.
Originally posted by stellspalfieI said "just a bit". After all, you'll be addressing priests, show some respect, lad.
what do you think needs 'cleaning up'? what is unclean about it? do you talking about body parts is wrong? is it okay to talk about brains, but wrong to talk about doo-daahs (colloquial english for penis). i could talk about the violent action of being nailed to a cross but reference to something 50ish% of humanity has is unclean???
Originally posted by stellspalfieRead what Wikipedia says about Eve.
why did god create eve? im guessing adam wasnt fully functional downstairs. there would be no point in giving him urges if there was nothing to have urges about. which also begs the questions - was adams penis originally just for urinating? and - did adam have testicles? without the need for erectile tissue, was it just a thin tube? anywhooooooo (enough ...[text shortened]... appealing?!?!? what was he thinking. what was the point, what did he think was going to happen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve
Originally posted by stellspalfieMy own theory is that God came to the conclusion "it is not good for the man to be alone" after he found out there was a lot of wa nking going on. (And perhaps a bit disturbing that the only females he had to focus on all came from other species).
why did god create eve? im guessing adam wasnt fully functional downstairs. there would be no point in giving him urges if there was nothing to have urges about. which also begs the questions - was adams penis originally just for urinating? and - did adam have testicles? without the need for erectile tissue, was it just a thin tube? anywhooooooo (enough ...[text shortened]... appealing?!?!? what was he thinking. what was the point, what did he think was going to happen?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneJust a note... The Church of England has vicars not priests.
Here's a suggestion.
Take your post and clean it up a bit (just a bit) and mail it to the head priest of your local Episcopalian (Anglican, if you live in Britain) church. They might find it interesting, and may actually be more likely to answer your questions than say, a priest at the local Catholic church.
I'm sure they've heard worse.