Talk:Adam and Eve

	This Bible related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Interpretations of Eve's creation

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.--Bob^{Spring 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.GodotGrow 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. GodotGrow 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?--Bob^{Spring 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? GodotGrow 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.--Bob^{Spring 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

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.

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

The Rational Credibility of a Literal Adam and Eve Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Naming things

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)