Freethought & Rationalism Archive

itsallsemantics · 02-17-2004, 10:38 PM

I'm participating in a group study on the role of women in the church and the author of the study we're doing says that in pre-Fall Eden, Adam and Eve were equal and there was no patriarchy. I'm not so sure that's true, wondering if you guys have anything that could back me up.

Does the fact that Eve was only created after Adam decided that none of the animals were good enough helpers for him mean that Eve was an afterthought? Is there any significance to her being created from his rib?

What does the word translated "helper" mean? I've seen quite a few xtian books/sites say that it has a connotation of equality, not subservience, is that true? What exactly is she helping with? Just breeding and working in the garden? How is that not subservience?

Is it just me, or is it completely retarded of God to originally create Adam without Eve if he wants the human race to "go forth and multiply"? Wouldn't you either create both male and female immediately or just create something that could reproduce without assistance?

I did have fun noticing that Gen 2 says humans were created before plants grew, whereas Gen 1 says plants grew on the 3rd day and humans weren't created until the 6th day. The poor literalists in my group, they're sure theologians have some way around it...

(p.s. this is my first OP, please be kind!)

Toto · 02-18-2004, 12:12 AM

{God to Eve, because she ate the apple in disobedience of his command}

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said " I will greatly increase your pain in childbearing: with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This implies that patriarchy is the result of the fall (also women's sexual attraction to men?)

The significance of the rib has to do with the Sumerian word for life, ti that sounds like the Sumerican word for rib.

Quote:

the Sumerians had a myth about a consortium of gods who were busily turning the land of Dilmun into a paradise when one of their number, Enki the water-god, committed a breach of etiquette by nibbling on a newly-created plant. Ninhursag, the earth-goddess, put a curse on Enki, and he fell ill as eight of his vital organs failed. Ninhursag was eventually persuaded to relent, but to cure Enki she had to create eight different new deities to cure each of Enki's ailing organs.

The story bears some resemblance to, and in fact may have been the inspiration for, the Hebrew story of Genesis: the creation, the eating of the forbidden fruit, etc. But here's where it gets really interesting: the Hebrew name "Eve" means, approximately, "she who makes live." In Sumerian, the word for "make live" is ti, which is also the Sumerian word for "rib."

Thus, the name of the goddess created to cure Enki's aching rib, "Nin-Ti," may have been a Sumerian pun, meaning both "The Lady of the Rib" and "The Lady Who Makes Live." The joke was lost when the story--itself much altered--entered the Hebrew tradition, leaving only the enigmatic association of Eve and Adam's rib.

from The Straight Dope

pkurilla · 02-18-2004, 10:08 AM

There are two creation accounts in Genesis, which a lot of people don't realize. You hint at it in the OP when you talk about the order of creation, but there are two different accounts of the creation of man, as well.

The one you're referring to is Genesis 2:15-25, which contains the account that has Eve being created after the animals.

However, in Genesis 1:26-28, God creates Adam and Eve together, which could imply a non-patriarchal equality.

Depending on which creation story is emphasized, I suspect you could argue either way. As usual with things in the bible. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/newreply.php...hreadid=76636#

itsallsemantics · 02-18-2004, 10:29 AM

Pkurilla, yes, I'm referencing the second account... the people in my group are unwilling to consider the fact that Gen 1 and 2 conflict, they take Gen 2 to be a more detailed account of Gen 1.

I can see in the first account how Adam and Eve could be seen as equal, but not so much in the second. If Eve is created as an afterthought, just to help Adam out and carry his children (pain or not), I don't see how they could be equal. She was created for his pleasure, not the other way around. Maybe Adam would see her as an equal, or even superior if she's so gosh-darn perfect, but God didn't intend to create her in the first place. It seems like God created Adam, pronounced the creation "good", let Adam sort through and name all the animals, and then created Eve because Adam didn't find the animals useful enough. So, from God's perspective in Genesis 2, is Eve equal to Adam or subservient to him?

Quote:

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said " I will greatly increase your pain in childbearing: with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

This implies that patriarchy is the result of the fall...

Yeah, that's the point that this study is making -- that patriarchy is a result of the fall, and therefore isn't in God's original plan, and therefore shouldn't have any place in the church. I'm just wondering if a case can be made that patriarchy shows up before the fall, but that the curse just reinforces/strengthens it.

Mageth · 02-18-2004, 10:32 AM

The word translated "him an help meet" (or helper) in Gen. 2:18 and 20 is defined here. I'm not sure you can deduce "equality" or "subservience" from just that word.

BTW, in Genesis 2, the taking of Eve from Adam is a refection of a common theme in many creation myths (and in the rest of the Genesis Creation account; e.g. splitting light and darkness, earth and heaven, night and day, land and water, etc.) of the "splitting of the opposites"; the original androgynous Adam is split into masculine and feminine "opposites". In this sense, it does not necessarily imply subservience of the feminine to the masculine. The two are simply different, opposing qualities or "faces" that may exist in one androgynous being (e.g. God, who must possess both for both the feminine and masculine to be created "in His image", though Judeo-Christian belief stresses the masculine in God, which is perhaps to support their patriarchal socieity) or that may be split into two. The rest of the Bible, of course, busies itself with making the feminine subservient to the masculine.

Mageth · 02-18-2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by itsallsemantics
Yeah, that's the point that this study is making -- that patriarchy is a result of the fall, and therefore isn't in God's original plan, and therefore shouldn't have any place in the church. I'm just wondering if a case can be made that patriarchy shows up before the fall, but that the curse just reinforces/strengthens it.

Refer to their God as "she" and see what kind of reaction you get.

chapka · 02-18-2004, 10:35 AM

I once heard an alternative Jewish viewpoint on this that I thought was interesting. In this account, "male and female created he them" is interpreted to mean that the first person ("Adam") was a hermaphrodite, with male and female aspects.

Later, God takes Eve from Adam's "rib", which can apparently also be translated as "side," meaning He's splitting the hermaphrodite human into male and female elements.

Not perhaps totally convincing, but the most interesting reconciliation I've heard of this aspect of the two creation accounts.

Mageth · 02-18-2004, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by chapka
I once heard an alternative Jewish viewpoint on this that I thought was interesting. In this account, "male and female created he them" is interpreted to mean that the first person ("Adam") was a hermaphrodite, with male and female aspects.

Later, God takes Eve from Adam's "rib", which can apparently also be translated as "side," meaning He's splitting the hermaphrodite human into male and female elements.

Not perhaps totally convincing, but the most interesting reconciliation I've heard of this aspect of the two creation accounts.

That's pretty much the point I was making above (and it's supported by comparison to other mythologies, which often have similar splitting of the opposite motifs), except I don't think "hermaphrodite" is the best term - it has too specific a meaning in biology. I don't think the splitting has to do with splitting a being with both sex organs into two beings with different sex organs. I think it has to do with splitting the (psychological?) concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity". Splitting genders rather than sexes, if you will. Is androgyn a word?

Toto · 02-18-2004, 11:06 AM

Uh - this is a myth, a Just So story. If it didn't happen, why do you think you can claim that one particular version of it is true or false? It sounds like these are Christians who are looking for a reason to get rid of patriarchy, and they think they've found it.

If they want to believe that patriarchy came with the fall, along with sin, pain, wearing clothing and eating meat, why do you want to change their minds? (And are they also advocating vegetarianism and nudity for the modern church, since Adam and Eve were nude vegetarians?)

itsallsemantics · 02-18-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Uh - this is a myth, a Just So story. If it didn't happen, why do you think you can claim that one particular version of it is true or false? It sounds like these are Christians who are looking for a reason to get rid of patriarchy, and they think they've found it.

If they want to believe that patriarchy came with the fall, along with sin, pain, wearing clothing and eating meat, why do you want to change their minds? (And are they also advocating vegetarianism and nudity for the modern church, since Adam and Eve were nude vegetarians?)

I'm not claiming either one of them is true, I'm just trying to work with the text. The people in my group DO believe that it's true (both versions, simultaneously).

Why do I want to change their minds? Well, I suspect that they don't believe that patriarchy is the best way for things to go, and if they thought that patriarchy shows up in Eden, maybe that will start them questioning their faith a bit more. Also, I'm questioning the validity of the study by asking why the church doesn't advocate nudity/vegetarianism and why Christians still have pain in childbirth and still die physically, since I think the author is picking and choosing which parts of the curse Christians still live under.

I'm not advocating patriarchy, I suppose I'm just trying to throw some difficult questions into the study. I would like to avoid being an ass about it though, so it would be good if I had something to base my questions on, hence this OP asking for more info.

Quote:

BTW, in Genesis 2, the taking of Eve from Adam is a refection of a common theme in many creation myths (and in the rest of the Genesis Creation account; e.g. splitting light and darkness, earth and heaven, night and day, land and water, etc.) of the "splitting of the opposites"; the original androgynous Adam is split into masculine and feminine "opposites". In this sense, it does not necessarily imply subservience of the feminine to the masculine. The two are simply different, opposing qualities or "faces" that may exist in one androgynous being (e.g. God, who must possess both for both the feminine and masculine to be created "in His image", though Judeo-Christian belief stresses the masculine in God, which is perhaps to support their patriarchal socieity) or that may be split into two.

If that's the case, then yeah, this isn't subservience at all. Does anyone know of any christian scholarship that's been done on this aspect of creation? I would love to bring in other creation stories, but they won't accept anything that isn't christian.

Quote:

The rest of the Bible, of course, busies itself with making the feminine subservient to the masculine.

Are there other IIDB threads on this? Other sites I should check out on biblical patriarchy? Thanks for the help so far, guys.

02-17-2004, 10:38 PM	#1
itsallsemantics Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 106	patriarchy in eden? I'm participating in a group study on the role of women in the church and the author of the study we're doing says that in pre-Fall Eden, Adam and Eve were equal and there was no patriarchy. I'm not so sure that's true, wondering if you guys have anything that could back me up. Does the fact that Eve was only created after Adam decided that none of the animals were good enough helpers for him mean that Eve was an afterthought? Is there any significance to her being created from his rib? What does the word translated "helper" mean? I've seen quite a few xtian books/sites say that it has a connotation of equality, not subservience, is that true? What exactly is she helping with? Just breeding and working in the garden? How is that not subservience? Is it just me, or is it completely retarded of God to originally create Adam without Eve if he wants the human race to "go forth and multiply"? Wouldn't you either create both male and female immediately or just create something that could reproduce without assistance? I did have fun noticing that Gen 2 says humans were created before plants grew, whereas Gen 1 says plants grew on the 3rd day and humans weren't created until the 6th day. The poor literalists in my group, they're sure theologians have some way around it... (p.s. this is my first OP, please be kind!)

02-18-2004, 10:08 AM	#3
pkurilla Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 122	Which creation? There are two creation accounts in Genesis, which a lot of people don't realize. You hint at it in the OP when you talk about the order of creation, but there are two different accounts of the creation of man, as well. The one you're referring to is Genesis 2:15-25, which contains the account that has Eve being created after the animals. However, in Genesis 1:26-28, God creates Adam and Eve together, which could imply a non-patriarchal equality. Depending on which creation story is emphasized, I suspect you could argue either way. As usual with things in the bible. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/newreply.php...hreadid=76636#

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-18-2004, 10:32 AM	#5
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The word translated "him an help meet" (or helper) in Gen. 2:18 and 20 is defined here. I'm not sure you can deduce "equality" or "subservience" from just that word. BTW, in Genesis 2, the taking of Eve from Adam is a refection of a common theme in many creation myths (and in the rest of the Genesis Creation account; e.g. splitting light and darkness, earth and heaven, night and day, land and water, etc.) of the "splitting of the opposites"; the original androgynous Adam is split into masculine and feminine "opposites". In this sense, it does not necessarily imply subservience of the feminine to the masculine. The two are simply different, opposing qualities or "faces" that may exist in one androgynous being (e.g. God, who must possess both for both the feminine and masculine to be created "in His image", though Judeo-Christian belief stresses the masculine in God, which is perhaps to support their patriarchal socieity) or that may be split into two. The rest of the Bible, of course, busies itself with making the feminine subservient to the masculine.

02-18-2004, 10:35 AM	#6
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by itsallsemantics Yeah, that's the point that this study is making -- that patriarchy is a result of the fall, and therefore isn't in God's original plan, and therefore shouldn't have any place in the church. I'm just wondering if a case can be made that patriarchy shows up before the fall, but that the curse just reinforces/strengthens it. Refer to their God as "she" and see what kind of reaction you get.

02-18-2004, 10:35 AM	#7
chapka Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 6,290	I once heard an alternative Jewish viewpoint on this that I thought was interesting. In this account, "male and female created he them" is interpreted to mean that the first person ("Adam") was a hermaphrodite, with male and female aspects. Later, God takes Eve from Adam's "rib", which can apparently also be translated as "side," meaning He's splitting the hermaphrodite human into male and female elements. Not perhaps totally convincing, but the most interesting reconciliation I've heard of this aspect of the two creation accounts.

02-18-2004, 11:06 AM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Uh - this is a myth, a Just So story. If it didn't happen, why do you think you can claim that one particular version of it is true or false? It sounds like these are Christians who are looking for a reason to get rid of patriarchy, and they think they've found it. If they want to believe that patriarchy came with the fall, along with sin, pain, wearing clothing and eating meat, why do you want to change their minds? (And are they also advocating vegetarianism and nudity for the modern church, since Adam and Eve were nude vegetarians?)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.