Genesis 1-3

[wolfpurplemoon]

Only thought I've had so far (beyond the whole literal creationism=crazy thing) is that Adam just suddenly has that name after being known as 'Man' for much of Chapter 1 and 2, although it depends on the version you read, as my book doesn't mention the name until 3:17 but the SAB starts using Adam at 2:19. Adam then bestows his 'Woman' with the name Eve (3:20), wasn't that nice of him.

Not sure that this is the sort of thing to be noticing, but it's what jumped out at me as I already know the creation story and the fact that chapter 2 starts all over again with God creating everything in a different order from chapter 1!

Actually in a way the first version is better as Man and Woman are created at the same time rather than Woman being created as an after-thought to provide companionship to Adam.

Comments

So much to say, if you care to read... (pt 3 of 4)

[(Anonymous)]

“It is bad that women be helpers for men, or at least wives helpers for their husbands, because it is part of a primitive culture that sees women as less than men. A healthy relationship should be between two people who treat each other as equals and who respect and love each other...Actually in a way the first version is better as Man and Woman are created at the same time rather than Woman being created as an after-thought to provide companionship to Adam.”

Do you realize that you must possess some sort of worldview to even state the above notated comments? Who are you to say what is better? What is your basis for morality? Why do you decided what is the best way for a relationship between a man and a woman to function? Also, I would like to point out that it is a presupposition that you possess that makes you think that, according to the Bible, women are to be treated as less than men and are to only be used by men. What God has done in the Sphere of Relationship is created man and woman with roles in a relationship, not status. There is just as much weight on the man (more actually) as there is on the woman. Also, the Bible is very clear that husbands are to respect and love and protect and provide for and care for their wives just like it addresses women to do the same.


“…the Old Testament appears to have been formed at a time when the dominant societies in the region were matriarchal and Judaism was rebelling against this aspect amongst other things.”

The OT was written between 1400 BC and 400 BC. This is quite a large span of time to make a statement such as this. Anyway, how would this be relevant? Also, there is a lot more that happened in this 1000 years than this one mention.

“There was definitely an effort to subjugate women that has continued on through to this day in all the Abrahamic religions.”

Again, the Bible, even the OT, does not attempt to subjugate women in any way. Also, the statement you make afterward is certainly bias with your disbelief in the Judeo Christian God and it brings other religions into the discussion that have no relevance in this thread.
unw0rthys3rv4nt “I applaud you for even attempting this (as most "Christians" don't) and having an open mind..”
I’m sorry, pal, but you have no basis in saying that most “Christians” don’t have an open mind or read the Bible (which you didn’t say, but that is your implication). There are many Christians who read the Bible and who have an open mind just as there are many who don’t. Do you read, study, or have an open mind? You didn’t even attempt to answer anything that moon is dealing with in his reading. Also, not to sound angry or combative, but moon does not have an open mind (look at the version of the Bible he is reading [the Skeptics Annotated Bible]). Which leads me to my closing.