Sor, I suppose, when Adam was writing his eyewitness account of the
earth being created before his very eyes, Eve's "Well, whaddaya want for
supper?" seemed somewhat trivial, by comparison.

I believe that the story of Adam and Eve originated by tribal
spiritualist’s who told their tribes these stories to create a social
order. The story placed portrayed men as being the prime purpose of
God, and in the image of God which was also viewed as being a male God.

Women were portrayed as being man’s helpmate. I don’t believe that this
was originally done with any genuine chauvinistic purpose to place women
in a derogatory role. I believe it may well have been intended simply
as a story that portrayed a social life that these tribal leaders were
trying to instill and maintain in their tribes.

These stories probably started out as word of mouth, and may actually
have taken many differnet forms that we will never even know about, but
the story of Adam and Eve survived to be recorded in the written form.
Once in the written form it had the potential to survive forever. And it
did.

I don’t think anyone back then would have ever even thought to question
why man was created first and woman secondly. I mean, for one thing you
just didn’t question the tribal priest, and if you did, you would
quickly have to settling for the response, “Because that’s the way god
created us?”

I mean, who’s going to question the tribal priest in the first place?
You just didn’t do things like that back then. Or if you did, it
certainly wouldn’t have been in a confrontational way, and if the answer
was given that this is just the way things are, then that was the answer
you had to accept.

So anyway, in answer to your original question, there was simply no need
to tell a story about any dialog between Adam and Eve. The only point
the tribal spiritualist wanted to make was that women are the helpmate
of men and not his equal. And that women were somehow guilty of leading
men into sin, so they damn well better shut up now and just do as their
told. They already caused enough damage. (ha ha)

That was the message that the tribal leaders what to instill in their
tribes to give reason to their social order. Since this was the will
of GOD surely no one would argue with it!

That’s the whole point to it. Who’s going to argue with god?

Ab, you have a vivid imagination...gotta give you that.

well jean i was actually going towards lee's response, i already know my
opinion of it; however, seeing as adam isn't the historical nor the
faith " creator" of genesis it wouldn't matter, the purpose is the
story is a social construct to explain what is already happening in
society thus the reasons for death, drouts, deserts, child pain,
etc... there is no need for sarcasim friend

actually his theory is what many scholars say... i have a BA in
religious studies and am getting ready to go to a masters program for
it, the 'genesis" account supports patriarchy and androcentrism

My sense of humor in general is "sarcastic" in nature and is
well-intended. That's just how I am, my friend.

IOW, all kidding aside, my sarcasm is used to try to make a point, in a
light-hearted way.

The Bible says fruit, not apple. we have no idea if that particular
fruit is even still around. And maybe God didnt want us to focus on the
fruit but on the principal of following his instructions

Just a thought

You are right Trae, it might not have been an apple. It could have been
any fruit. But the fall didn't come from eatting a fruit, it came from
disobeidience. The command to not eat the fruit was a way of giving
Adam and Eve a choice. Without any way of disobeying God, they would
not have been able to express their free will.

Thats the beauty of God, he has the power to make us do what he wants
and still gives us free will. How many of us would not make people do
something that we had the power to make us do

wtf r u 2 talking about lol

There is a wonderful story in the NT. Jesus's diciples were arguing
over who was the better diciple. Jesus got a pot of water and a rag and
washed all of their feet. Jesus then said (I'm paraphrasing) "You are
right to call me Lord, because I am. And in my kingdom, you lead by
serving".

While Eve was Adam's "helpmate", what was she to help him with? Many of
the women in the Bible had servants to do the cooking, cleaning and
other traditional wifely duties. Eve's job was to help Adam lead. She
was second in command. She was his advisor. She was his conscience.
She was his comforter. And he did all the same for her. Someone must
make the decisions. Someone must be held responsible for the decisions
made. God decided that someone would be man. The Bible warns that
every man will be judged for how he leads. A real Christian man
understands that his duty is to serve the Lord, his wife and children.

actually help mate is in reference to procreation...

Trae,

I take both the ‘apple’ and the ‘garden’ as metaphors.

To me the apple simply represents something Eve knew she wasn’t supposed
to do. And ‘eating the apple’ simply means that she did this thing she
wasn’t supposed to do and obviously got Adam to do it with her.

Having their eyes opened to the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ means that
they now have experienced this thing that they wasn’t supposed to do.

It’s not meant to be a ‘literal story about eating a piece of fruit from
an actual tree’. The tree itself was the ‘tree of life’, that’s just a
metaphor for life itself.

It’s all a metaphorical parable.

In fact Adam and Eve didn’t even really need to be individual people.
Adam could have been referring to all men, and Eve could have been
referring to all women. I’m not saying that’s the case, I’m just
saying that it’s not meant to be a literal story about eating a piece of
fruit from a tree.

and please forgive me, but get real... god decided it was going to be
man?? why would god a transcendant being care about gender? i think
there are more important things, and to consider the fact that you're
saying women can only help men but can't lead is a crock to , not ot
mention lets look at all the single mothers who work 2 jobs raise their
children.. i think thats a hell of a good deed and they can make
decisions just fine on their own...

ab the problem is ... far to many take it as a literal story

and trae- thats a paradoxial?? statement.. he has the power to make us
do what he wants but still gives us free will..

if one were to take a c hristian view more than likely one would say
its destiny and that god has no hand in what we choose.. he just already
knows... lol which doesn't make any sense either since how could he
already know what were going to choose, then it becomes do we really get
a choice... then that questions the concept of free will

That reminds me of the kid whose mother told him not to touch the hot
stove. She tries to keep him away from the stove but sure enough he
touches it. Then you hear the crying and she says, "See there, I told
you it was hot." "Yes, mamma." Didn't listen did ya? "No, mamma." "Going
to touch the stove, again?" "No, mamma."

I think it could be literal, or it could be theoretical. What difference
does it make? The meaning is still the same, is it not?

There are many parables in the Bible that are meant to be used as
lessons for how one is supposed to conduct their life. The way one
interprets the Bible varies from one individual to the next. That is
part of the free will that God gave to us...the gift of discernment and
the ability to judge for ourselves.

The issue at hand is that individual perspective and interpretation
doesn't amount to a hill of beans, really. Because, if you believe (like
I do) NOTHING is going to convince me otherwise...and I'd have to laugh
at any mere human being's attempts to disprove that which I know to be
true in my heart.

And, for some of those who do not believe, the same holds true. Some
people are hell bent on trying to prove why/how God can't possibly
exist, why the Bible is a farce, why it's all made up by a bunch of
power-hungry men in an effort to control..yada yada...

To me, all of that is not what's important about my relationship with
God. It goes far beyond what can be argued from a "I'm right and you're
wrong" point of view.

I feel I don't have to defend my belief in God, or whether or not He
exists. He DOES exist...for me.

Anyone who doesn't want to believe that...well, no skin off my
teeth...to each his own.