Ok, my last post was obviously a joke.

If you want a serious answer to the question I have to honestly say that
I don’t believe the story has anything at all to do with any real god or
how man was created.

I sincerely believe that the whole story of Adam and Eve was an entirely
man-made fantasy created for the explicit purpose of placing men in a
more responsible position and making women out to appear inferior (an
afterthought of god), subservient to men, (by god which can’t be agued
with), AND, as if that isn’t already bad enough, women were made to look
like THEY were the one’s responsible for evil and they had damn well
shut up now and behave since there are obviously GUILTY!

That part of the bible was written by male chauvinistic pigs who
probably couldn’t control women if they didn’t have some way to make
them feel inferior and subservient proclaimed by a higher deity.

What a bunch of wimps!

No, I don’t believe the story of Adam and Eve has anything at all to do
with any real god or how mankind came to be. It’s not even a religious
issue to me. To me it’s just as false as Greek Mythology.

She owes me a rib and the psycho has got to quit listening to
snakes in trees.

"What is your take on Eve?"
____________________________________

I'd do her...again.

Reincarnation's a blast,

who's in the mood for something

original?

Original would be refreshing...

Eve? Eve Who?

Westdeck wrote:
“Eve? Eve Who?”
_________________________

Eve Angelicist

How ya doin Ocee.

I was goin to plagerize your 'Do you think..well of course you do'
thread from a previous incarnation but decided not to.

Was a darn good thread though.

Go ahead give us something original.

I am always so amused at the conceptions that poeple have. There are so
many. First, to think that it was Eve's guilt that gave her the pain
of bearing and caring for children proves the depth to which mind
manipulation or brainwashing can extend. Question: Was not Eve created
in entirety? Was some part of anatomy different and then was changed to
allow her to bear children????

As for God being considered male. The earliest descriptions of God, in
the Genisis or the creation stories identify God as three personalities
in one. There are many refernces, not canonized, to this affect. God as
three persons (hey, those are even words in a hymm!) Only one of which
was male, one was feminine, and one was spirit. Who do you suppose
changed that idea? When was it proper to call God him insead of it.
When was it proper to give God a name to be said out loud at all? These
are questions that even historical facts can not fully answer.

No wonder there is so much to be determined on an individual basis, as
no one can gleen the TRUTH is there even is any related to a creator,
from the bible.

i wonder how many people have read the book of genesis chpt1 verse 26
then god said,let US make man in OUR image.............,chpt2 verse7then
the lord god formed man of dust from the ground,and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life;and man became a liveing being. watt id like
to know is who were gods mates in the 1st chapter and watt happened to
the first man and woman god and US whos US made.i reckon god used
entrapment with the man and woman he created 2nd.i reckon god is a
joker.

Once again "historical Facts" comes up? bullcrap it's not fact
unless you were there to prove it to be fact. History books like
everything else has been rewritten and rewritten, more than likely added
to or subtracted from. We know nothing of history to be fact unless we
lived within that time.

histerryical i reckon more than historical

stevewm, I beg to differ with you. All that is written has a basis in
historical fact. It may be a story of fiction, but it is written within
the allegorical conceptions of the time period. Translating it is
difficult and yes, in fact may change particular references in the
story. It is, however, still history.

While it is difficult for us to translate words that are unknown to us,
or that literally have no comparitive words, due to new conceptual
ideas, does not betray the natual history it presents.

I will take this a bit further by saying, translations may not always be
100 percent accurate. Of course I am taking into consideratin the fact
that many documents are so ancient that the languages have long been
dead and require a bit of creative input. Those documents written in
languages still in existance today can be translated almost 100 percent.
It is the context with which we read and conceptualize the material that
makes it inaccurate. For most of us can not even conceptualize life in
another country, let alone life in an altogether differt time period.

This is why, it is so disconcerting, to see the translation liberties
taken with the Bible.

still sounds a bit doggee to me. alice in wonderland mite be a bit
closer to the truth then again i could be illinformed theres loads of
cowpatter to sift through, an im still sifting.power to any one who
thinks they know the whole truth and nothing butt the truth, about
anything.

hey eve invented fashion with those fig leaf originals..lol
Seriously though i believe in evolution so I think it was just an
explaination for how we got here due to lack of scientific evidence at
the time.