Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election are now open!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Talk:Adam and Eve

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

All[edit]

All this article really needs in order to get to Silver status is some illustrations. Any images provided would be appreciated. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Blue,[edit]

Why don't you think this article deserves bronze? Let's take a look at the criteria needed for a bronze brainstar, copied from the article on article rating.

  • Article must not be a stub or VSA and should not be tagged with any of the "articles requiring attention" categories.

Let's see. Nothing says it's a stub, it's obviously not "very short", and has no "articles requiring attention" tags.

  • Article is formatted correctly according to the manual of style.

Okay, I read through the manual of style. I'm already a grammar freak, so that isn't a problem for me. Sections are arranged in the right order. Sections are properly titled. There are no problems with links. References are properly arranged and written, now that that one bug has been fixed. I've provided good edit comments, and didn't use any mass deletions. So far, there are no images (which is a requirement for silver but not for bronze). Everything seems good with this requirement. If anything, you sort of broke it by performing a mass deletion without putting it in the talk page first.

  • Article contains appropriate internal and external links, categories, and references if appropriate.

Yep, this is all peachy keen. There's a lot of blue text (light and dark), it's in more than a few categories, and several references.

  • Article is coherent and free of needless in-jokes, such as irrelevant references to Conservapedia, and the jokes and snark it does contain are balanced with factual content.

No goat jokes or anything. The only joke was the one with Eve discovering gold and silver, but I put the Template:Lie tag and the rest of the article does not read with a humorous tone (it's not dry or dull, either, but it's not funny).

  • The article content is original, and not largely copied (even under license).

Only parts I copied was the thing from The God Delusion and an excerpt from the 1611 KJV which was modified so much (modernizing grammar and spelling) that it looks more like the NIV with a few word choice changes. This doesn't seem to be "largely copied" to me.

So it meets all of the requirements for the Bronze brainstar. I've added it back in. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It merits bronze in its current state. Seme Blue 03:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

XY chromosomal argument[edit]

The Bible authors had no knowledge of genetics. Why should we assume that Eve was an XY female? Why couldn't God have just created the XX chromosome from the XY? Seme Blue 03:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

She was made from Adam's rib, i.e. she was cloned. Clones = exact genetic copies. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 03:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
No, she was a mythical entity. The rules of genetics don't apply to them so much.
An argument that starts with the premise that a woman was made out of a guy's rib then explores that from a purely genetic standpoint fails basic coherence. Surely there are stronger arguments: like that's it's not possible to make a woman out of a guy's rib. If we assume that God can do it because he can do anything, then why should X/Y chromosome combinations be such a hindrance? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not possible to make a genetic woman from a genetic man's genome - unless you are an all-powerful deity who just created all other life from scratch. The genetic angle of criticism of the creation of Adam and Eve is just unfalsifiable anyway. Seme Blue 04:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I know that they're mythical figures. The point of the argument is to display that by showing how the events of the story are impossible in reality with the knowledge which we now have which we didn't 3000 years ago. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
A fertile XY female is hardly the most implausible aspect of the story, if it can even be regarded as an aspect of the story at all. If there are actual examples of creationists claiming this, it may be worth commenting on. Otherwise it's just playing with a straw man. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Adam was an XX male? Such a thing is possible, for example if the SRY gene is translocated from the Y to the X chromosome. XX males are generally infertile, since there are some other genes needed on the Y chromosome for fertility (SRY is enough for phenotypical maleness, but other genes like AZF and DAZ are needed for spermatogenesis) - maybe Adam was an XX male with all these genes, and when God cloned Adam, he deleted them, thus producing a fertile XX male and a fertile XX female? Maybe somehow XX male mutated into XY male over time? Evolutionism claims that some species change their sex determination systems over time, why couldn't the same happen to humans? Maybe God evolved the XX male into an XY male through a process of guided/accelerated evolution? Actually, I don't believe that the whole "Eve came from Adam's rib" story is meant to be taken so literally, but just playing devil's advocate really. (((Zack Martin))) 06:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Illustrations[edit]

I'm adding some illustrations to the article. Any suggestions on what I should include? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just have a rootle round WP:
for instance
Scream!! (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(you don't need to upload 'em: just link as if they're in RW) Scream!! (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't do that. It's lazy & the results are horrible. + This already has too many pictures. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't do that. It's lazy & the results are horrible. Agreed but better than the sillies there already. Scream!! (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for Silver[edit]

Methinks this article is ready for upgrading to a silver brainstar. Let's look over each of the criteria for silver, taken directly from the guide to article rating:

  • Article topic is directly relevant to and worthy of RW's mission (i.e., potential upgrading to cover story would be uncontroversial).

Okay, it's in the "high importance to this wiki" section, so this should be good.

  • Article should not contain repetitive content or contain repetitive content or repetitive content.

Nothing is copy-pasted and appears twice in the article like that. The "family" section is intended to provide a shorthand access to see Eve's family without having to sift through the biography.

  • Article is almost fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.

Article is littered with links, some internal, some external. This is good.

  • Article is illustrated appropriately.

Yep, I've added several relevant illustrations and even put in a gallery.

  • Article is free of blatant speling and grammar error's.

This is good. I can get really strict when it comes to grammar, so this is never a problem.

So, it meets all of the criteria for silver. I'll implement this in six hours unless I see any valid objections. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not impressed. It's cluttered with pictures & trivia but says very little relevant our missions - e.g. what creationists believe about how God created her, how the doctrine of original sin relates to her, what is the symbolism in the story, how it relates to other ancient mythologies, how this story has influenced perceptions of women throughout history, etc. WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Could use a mention of "Mitochondrial Eve" too. Scream!! (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Read the biography. It mentions that Eve was made from Adam's rib and original sin. I'll do a little homework on those last two: when we talk about what the story "symbolizes", we can run into problems as different people make different interpretations. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
But those different interpretations are the stuff that religions are made of. We shouldn't be avoiding the intelligent analysis in favour of "LOL a talking snake" & Powerpuff Girls references. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Touché. I'll delete the joking references. Although I never said "LOL a talking snake", although frankly, that is very funny and a good example of how the story is bullshit. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it really isn't. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Fact: Snakes cannot talk. Fact: The Bible says that snakes could talk. Conclusion: The Bible is wrong (at least in that one aspect0, and is not inerrant. Seems valid to me! (If not, please tell me how.) The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Got to say the the text doesn't really flow that well. (But I'm not up for a rewrite.)--BobSpring is sprung! 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of a part of the article that could've been phrased better? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The first two paragraphs for example. And perhaps you could sign comments?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I forgot to sign by accident. I signed it now. I also redid the intro, moving most parts of it into different sections. I feel that it's a little small, though, so if anyone (including me) could remake the introduction so it's a little longer (a paragraph or two would be good), that would be highly appreciated. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've read through the article and looked at the requirements for a silver brainstar, and I think that it's good. I'm changing the tag to silver. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Since you authored most of it, can you please leave it up to others to rate? I still think it sucks. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I put it back to bronze. Reasons are in the editorial comments.--ADtalkModerator 06:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree that this is not silver quality. while it might "match the standards as written", if you look at other silvers, this one doesn't come close. Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 16:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to reinforce the sentiment that it's not up to the main author to assign ratings of their own work because they cannot be impartial. If an article is worthy enough then it will catch the attention of independent editors, especially if it keeps cropping up in RC. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD memberModerator 10:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Why it's not ready for silver[edit]

Personally, I see silver brains as articles I'd be proud to link to in semi-serious spaces, which means we really need to have our topic covered well and accuretly, if not yet gold level. Some of the seroius problems with the Eve artcile as currently written - if you really want it to be silver.

  1. No real discussion of the biblical notions of eve. And at the same time, no clear indication of what non-biblical stuff is really non biblical. (For example, the lines about eve being related to ashira.
  2. No real discussion of Eve in literature. a very very short "eve is resposible for sin", but nothing about what that means.
  3. No discussion of Eve/Mary M, vs. Mary the Mother on the role of women, and how women are viewed *only* as either pure or temptress. This is pretty basic stuff you can find on the Eve/Mary dicotomy. (pure good vs. temptress).
  4. How did Eve arise? What is her historical connection to other religions? What is her role in other religions? Why no discussion of her role as a goddess and then the (all too typical) demonization of her role as female god, to become (like so many other goddesses) just a consort or in this case, worse.
  5. It reads like a light, easy article. Sligh, without research, and just the kinds of every day facts we all know. Yes, it's sorta factual, but it's not got anything challenging for the reader, or novel. As you read this article, you should be asking yourself how a religion decides to demonize a woman. Or asking yourself if there was a time she was revered, and why that might have changed. Or found quotes from fundies that link her to various points of view. (see the artcile on Mary Mag for some of those kinds of ideas).

It's a really good start of an article, for sure. But it needs lots of work if we want to highlight it.Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I tried to improve the flow but it's hard. Also statements like this:
  • "Her mother-in-law was Asherah."
  • "punished Eve by making "pushing 7-pound infants through your vagina...an actually PAINFUL experience"
  • "She was then kicked out of the Garden, but unlike Adam, was not required to work for food (unless Adam said she must).
Need a bit more explanation. Repeatedly sending the reader to footnotes to figure out what the article is talking about is not good form.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I also think, instead of being "cute" with "biography" we might as well just go into 1) The Biblical Mythology, then 2) Other myths/religions, and 3) Historian's views or something. Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 17:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Now I think about it though the biblical mythology side is already covered in Creation Week and in even greater detail in Original sin - so if anything this one should concentrate on Eve follow the writing plan you outline above.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree with comments above. This is a lightweight trivia piece, written largely as is if it was about a real person. There's lots of pointless trivia lists, hyperbole, family tree, empty gallery, etc. but no discussion of what the story/persona is really about, how it originates & what makes it so important.
Ideally, I reckon the Adam&Eve story should be best covered in one article, e.g. the Fall of Man, which should be given priority & the separate articles on Adam & Eve should be shorter articles linked to it without duplicating content too much. At present the story is mostly covered in original sin, which I think should be more about the doctrine of original sin (i.e. the theology that humanity was cursed because of the Fall & saved because of JC) rather than the details of Fall itself. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
We could certainly rationalise things a bit. Garden of Eden duplicates stuff as well. --BobSpring is sprung! 18:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What can we do to make this article as good as possible?[edit]

I've been getting a few complaints on the article, that it is too "cute", doesn't flow very well, could use "rationalization", phrases could be re-made, et cetera. Of these, the two most confusing phrases are "cute" and "rationalization". Let's just sit down and talk about what we want from this article. Let's try:

  1. Provide an in-depth description of Eve's "life" as covered in the Bible.
  2. Explain how the mythology of Eve relates to other mythologies.
  3. Provide commentary on how Eve has been thought of and depicted throughout history, including influence on treatment of women and comparison with Mary (mother of Jesus) and Mary Magdalene.
  4. Provide links to articles on other related topics, e.g. original sin and Mitochondrial Eve.
  5. Try to make the text in the article flow well between sentences and try to phrase things as best as possible.
  6. Make sure that the reader knows early on (in the intro?) that Eve is mythological, not real.

If we can all agree on what we want from this article, we can begin working on it constructively. Can we all agree on these goals for the article? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you've put time & effort into this, but I don't think the directions you've been taking it in makes for good quality content, or that the by-the-numbers approach to content/ratings/goals works well at this site.
Let's just sit down and talk about what we want from this article. See the section above. Or the one above that. What do you think we've been doing?
Cute. Why are you confused that people find the article overly "cute" when you stuff it with cartoons, Lego, video games, YouTube, etc.? This is just filler. It's OK to use a funny picture or snarky tangent maybe once or twice in an article, but it shouldn't be at the expense of meaningful content. Tone it down a little.
Make sure that the reader knows early on (in the intro?) that Eve is mythological, not real. We could also point out that the Pope is Catholic and that bears shit in the woods. I think we can safely assume that the reader is aware that this isn't a real person. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The article prior to editing[edit]

As was pointed out, this article was (and still is) very incomplete, and had lots of usless trivia, incorrect statements, unclear attributs about who players were (like a mother, a father in law, etc). And while that might be funny, if done right... it was poorly executed. If you want to carefully explain comments like "her father in law" and add them individually, that's fine. But not wholesale statements that are really unjustified.--Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 21:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out where each of those problems are? I also don't know how things like a person's position in a family is unclear. All you need to know is what the different family positions (parent, child, in-law, etc.) are, which can be assumed from most people. I want you to please give me examples of what parts are trivial and incorrect, so we can talk about it and work things out. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I also don't know how things like a person's position in a family is unclear. Can you see how describing Asherah, who doesn't even appear in the Adam/Eve mythology, as "paternal grandmother-in-law, mother-in-law" to Eve might be unclear? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that part will be removed. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It already has been. Several times. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm tackling the "myth"/biography part for a whole rewrite.--ADtalkModerator 23:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You can't do that. that might actually make it sound well written and grammatically correct! how dare you.  ;-) (and "kid", if you didn't get that, that's a tosser on ME, not you. I can put facts together and write decently enough to get A's on papers, but i have NO style, and no sense of grammar. )Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 23:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay done. All the info was there, it just needed assembly.
Don't sell yourself short, WfG. You just usually need a touch of copyediting - but then, so do we all!--ADtalkModerator 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Azura is one of Eve's children, along with Rocail according to Lives of the Necromancers; do you believe me or do you assume things stop existing when you aren't looking at them? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Temptation point[edit]

WfG and I have gone back and forth a bit on the point made in the article about how Eve arguably did no real tempting. I personally don't think that point needs so much hammering, and doesn't belong in the lede. While it's interesting, it's not definitive (since God does blame her and the account is very sparse) or concrete: Eve is a figure of culture just as much as a strictly Biblical character, and that cultural figure has always been seen as a temptress. While there should be some push-back on that, and we shouldn't help feed that mistake, it's best in the coherent section devoted to that push-back. That's my feeling, anyway. Thoughts?--ADtalkModerator 01:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to speculate on whether or not Eve did any "real tempting" in a wildly fantastical creation myth. Infinitely more important is how her interpretation as temptress has influenced history and culture. Seme Blue 03:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't really get this. It was specifically Eve who was persuaded to eat the fruit by the Serpent & who gave it to Adam. The point of the story, as it appears in Genesis and not just later interpretations, is that she yielded to temptation then corrupted him as well. To say that she didn't seems like revisionism for its own sake. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Which sort of leaves us with "Is this thing which never happened being correctly interpreted?" Presumably, as it's a complete fabrication what it "really means" could be anybody's guess.
However looking at the actual text is says: (NIV) She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Which sounds pretty neutral. So has the fairy story been incorrectly interpreted? And how come Little Red Riding Hood was tricked by the wolf? What underlying assumption about grandmothers and their teeth can we assume from the story?--BobSpring is sprung! 11:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
See, this is what I don't get. Go into any church and ask about eve, and you will find she is a great temptress. We all grew up with it. Look at 18th centry art of eve (when not with Adam) and you will see the temptress. yet "giving" is not tempting. It's what leads directly to blaming the victim. "you showed me your kness and I was overcome i *had* to touch you, you tempted me so". To tempt, in the way its drawn in western culture, is to lure, to wile, to coax. "come little girl, try a peice of candy". Here husband is an apple. Those are very different sounds. You turn woman into the cause of the fall, and specifically into temptress on teh verb "give". Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 12:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, WfG, but, quite simply put You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account of your desert----that is, death----even the Son of God had to die. See this link. If only you women would realise that it's all your fault.
As to whether the original writers intended this interpretation is another matter. Bad Faith (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
And from this link - God then formed Lilith, the first woman, just as He had formed Adam, except that He used filth and sediment instead of pure dust. I think I detect a trace of mysogonism there. Bad Faith (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, i know we are. wrote a whole damn paper once on the demonization of female divinity into sinners. pandora and her box, damned persephony going against everyone's rules, tisk tisk tisk. such women. the Lilth quote is great. Not sure if it's on Lilith's page, but it needs to be!--Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 13:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice link, by the way. sighs. What else can we blame on eve.  ;-) Pink mowse.pngGodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 13:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't hinge on the word "give". True, Gen 3:6 is relatively neutral ("She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."), but look at 3:17, where God curses Adam "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’". Whether we interpret the portrayal of Eve as a deliberate deceiver or just naive, it seems pretty clear that her role in the Genesis account of the Fall is to be tempted and subsequently to tempt. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

And there's no disagreement between translations. I checked between the original Hebrew, the Clementine Latin Vulgate, and the King James Version, and it's always along the lines of "she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Always "gave." We can safely assume that when Eve "gave" Adam the fruit, it's implied he accepted it freely. This has been a post. Sorry. Seme Blue 23:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
So - how can we properly interpret this thing that never happened? Tough.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
For me, "how can we interpret" is pretty straight forward, from a scholar's point of view. You look at what we do know (for example, there is ample evidence that the proto-hebrew religion had a strong goddess figure, if not a goddess centric figure who was then mated to the warrior god YHWH, and then pushed to the side as the "shekena", and then pretty much dumped entirely), that Lilith was demonized in a similar way and connect it to what we know about the shifting patriarchial/patrifocal trend in the ancient hebrew religion, as well as a study of the myths of simialr religions and say "well, it's likely the Eve was once a goddess, probably of birth or life, though not the Mother Goddess of Eshera or the Shekina, and she lost her divinity and her purity." That is the legacy men have left us women, until the 1900's or so when there was a move to make things far more superfically equal, if not truly equal. But it's probably worth an Essay, since putting that into Eve, cited or not, would get me revereted. And I'm fine with that. - well, mostly-  ;-) There's still a lot to add about what we do know of eve, about her role in literature, etc.
But how do we do handle it here. loath as I am to say it, you probably do stick it in one (feminist rant esque) section, and pull it from the rest. BUT, you have to let that section really have it's say, and not add things like "women had a choice of pure vs. evil", nor remove the references to women being equated to Eve throughout history for justification of not veiling, "victim blaming". That would be probably the best. allows the facts that are more "rant" like, and keeps the rest a bit less petulant. Pink mowse.pngGodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 13:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, your last edit changing the choice bit was a good one, I thought. I am unhappy that you seem to think that I am trying to oppress you into a little section. My point is just that Eve is a complex cultural figure, and there are several aspects to consider, not just your point about the injustice of the temptress label. There is also the basic information about her story and the parallels to other cultural figures. To cram each of those sections, and the lede, with the same point about how she was unjustly castigated seems less like an article about Eve and more an article about that single point. I would actually argue it's less effective at making your point, because it seems so partisan to that one view.
I certainly haven't been trying to whitewash - I've just been trying to make it readable, accurate, and interesting.--ADtalkModerator 21:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh, AD, it's probably just me being moody. There's always a side effect to being in too many feminist classes - you start to see boogie men everywhere.  :-) Just trust me, that i'm not frustrated or mad or anything. I want to see it differently, but different is not better (or necessarily worse - it just is). Pink mowse.pngGodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations of Eve's creation[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if it would make sense to put some religious interpretations of Eve's creation in the article. For instance: Heinrich Bullinger (swiss rfeormer) saw Eve being formed from Adams rib as a sign of equality. The woman was not formed from the mans footbone thus was not his servant. She was though also not formed from his head, thus was not formed to be his master. But since she was formed from the rib she was on equal grounds. Not quite sure where to put this, nor if it actually fits the article...--Th. Bernhard (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the rest of the context, Eve was formed to help Adam name the animals and tend the garden. It was only after the Fall that God mandated that she be subservient to him. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course the fact that she never existed could make it moot.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's veyr worth putting in. Reference it, and make sure you say these are not mainstream ideas, but they are ways people try to make sense of the whole eve story.Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Grins - bob, it helps if you "get over" the whole "she didn't exist" stuff. Ok, she didn't exist, but she DID exist, and that's the point. 100's of millions of people world wide think she existed, therefore, she exists. And should be addressed / dealth with, accordingly. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, this whole idea of trying to retrofit some profound modern social meaning into these ancient stories simply strikes me as shoehorning. And I've got to "get over" her non-existence? How so?--BobSpring is sprung! 21:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Eh, you say to everything "but it didn't exist so what is the point". The point is, it does exist. not literally, but since when is literal existance necessary? something exists in the mind of those who believe. and you have to start there, not at teh "you can't prove it, so you are just stupid" place. you know? Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 21:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
"Well, this whole idea of trying to retrofit some profound modern social meaning into these ancient stories simply strikes me as shoehorning." Well, it is, but that doesn't mean that said interpretation/shoehorning isn't part of social "knowledge." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
@Godot. I don't believe that I do say about "everything" "but it didn't exist so what is the point". Though I'm sure that I may have said similar things about non-existent entities upon occasion. I also doubt that I use the word "stupid" very often. I certainly didn't use it above.
@Nebuchadnezzar. Sure. I'd have no great problem with "modern re-interpretations of the story" or something along that line. Although it could become something like this as people are obviously free to put whatever personal politico-religious spin they like on the idea.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you guys misunderstood me. Heirnich Bullinger wrote this sometime in 1540. It's not a modern idea. I would argue though, that it is somewhat mainstream in the reformed (Swiss) churches, since Bullinger along with Zwingli was one of it's most important thinkers, comparable to Luther. Historians argue that it had somewhat of an impact on the standing of women in Reformation society, although i personally tend to disagree.
Btw: Sorry I didn't put it in there yet, but I'm kind of busy (several deadlines) and have to get the book for references. I probably won't be able to do it till the end of next week.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Steve[edit]

Where's his article? :P AngryDalek (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I see two human women but only one human man, where's Kaworu Steve? Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning Lilith and the omphalious hypothesis.[edit]

How is this next paragraph plagarism? How many words match the Wikipedia article that could be changed to something else? Proper names can't be changed. Are you telling me all sources used by Wikipedia are off limits now, even if I'm the one who added them? Telling me I can't cite a book as Wikipedia already did it is something I'd expect from Butters Scotch on South Park. — Unsigned, by: Exiled Encyclopedist / talk / contribs 17:03, 24 October 2014

Rational[edit]

The Rational Credibility of a Literal Adam and Eve Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Naming things[edit]

As someone said on the radio today - why did God delegate the naming process to Adam?

As with other myths - there are many interpretations that can be made of the narrative (humans 'coming to awareness and interpreting the world' rather than merely existing in it' etc). Anna Livia (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)