I agree that Adam and Eve are mythological, but I don't think it is meant to be taken literally. I believe It is a metaphor or allegory for
something, but what? In my opinion it is about how man became self-aware, which is the forbidden fruit. Self-awareness leads to separation and bigotry
and hate, and all of that leads to war. Quote 3NL1GHT3N3D1
At some point the ultra-condensed, and oversimplified nature of the Gen and A&E story is fairly apparent...extracting significant detail from it is a
fools pursuit, but the obvious inconsistences are there - enough to render it open to question, even now.
The G of E story is laced with the metaphoric and allegorical (but which is which?)...and how do they relate to the earlier Gen story...when
resolution of who the 'Our' refers to in...'in OUR image'...?
Clearly, there are disconnected threads in the 'account', but they are not resolvable within the framework of what has generally been handed down to
be believed as consistent, in any sense of the word. That is a problem, as the story might take on a far grander and vast aspect, that makes much more
sense in real world machinations.
edit on 23-11-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-11-2013 by akushla99 because: i before e
No they weren't. The story of Genesis is not about an actual couple. It is an allegorical story to explain why humanity gave up being a hunting and
gathering society to one based around agriculture. Because once you have discovered agriculture you can not go back to the idealistic and less
strenuous life "in the garden".
Adam is not a proper name of the man, Adam is simply the word for "Man", which Eve is not the proper name either, it is "Life", the correct Hebrew
proper name is now Chava.
What the Hebrew was telling us is that Man and Life (motherhood) were created and that Man and his wife were raised from the dust to have progeny.
Akra, that isn't a fairy tale, that's what your evolution teachers say also, isn't it? That a male and female came after something crawled out of
the goo onto the ground and then stood upright. I would then say yours is a fairy tale also.
The Bible plainly tells us that male and female stood up from the ground to have progeny. How did those ancient writers know that man didn't become
man until he was on the dust, and not in the goo?
It seems then the Bible writers knew something all along, but since someone cleverly attached names to the people, then evolutionary teachers have a
lot of catching up to do with the Bible, because the Bible is the first to say man stood upright from the earth...how interesting.
Adam is really adamu, man.
Eve is really Chava, mother of life.
The only difference, we believe God did it while you believe natural processes did it. Since you only look at natural processes, which you can only
see after the crawling out of the goo, you can't explain WHY it crawled out of the goo. And since the Bible is accurate in a man and a woman coming
from the dust, which is what evolution teaches, then the Bible is no longer a fairy tale. Wouldn't you think so?
Were Adam and Eve the first humans? No. It's not scientifically possible. The Adam and Eve story is a creation myth 'borrowed' by the Hebrews
from the ancient Summerians and then 'adapted' by them to fit their own culture.
As Akragon said ... concentrate on the gospels. THAT is the important message of the bible.
In addition to what I said previously I would like to point something out. Not only is it explaining the cultural shift to agriculture. But it is also
with the development of agriculture that humanity also discovers its ability to transform the earth to suit our needs. To an ancient human that
knowledge would be harnessing the power of God.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.