Adam sinned, not Eve. Why did Yahweh punish an innocent Eve?

[jbrownson0831]

Thanks.

Wisdom is better than stupidity.

Did you have a point or are you agreeing that Yahweh is a lousy judge?

Regards
DL

Tell Him that when you see him.

 

[Indeependent]

God had to get them away from the of Life or they would have lived forever in their fallen condition if they ate from the tree of life, with no chance of redemption in the world.

They were created in the Shadow of God...They were without tension and thus not susceptible to deterioration.
Once they violated the Shadow aspect, they became susceptible to deterioration.

 

[ding]

They were created in the Shadow of God...They were without tension and thus not susceptible to deterioration.
Once they violated the Shadow aspect, they became susceptible to deterioration.

Or it's an allegorical account of the evils of failing to be accountable. God didn't lower the boom on them until they made excuses.

 

[Indeependent]

Or it's an allegorical account of the evils of failing to be accountable. God didn't lower the boom on them until they made excuses.

Not allegorical at all.
Confession, regret and modification of behavior are Rambam's definition of complete alignment with God.
The fact that people can't deal with is being a prophet does not guarantee not falling out of alignment with God.

 

[Likkmee]

Hmmmmm."Spilled" the seed ?

 

[ding]

Not allegorical at all.

I'm sure there are rabbis that would disagree with you.

 

[ding]

Confession, regret and modification of behavior are Rambam's definition of complete alignment with God.
The fact that people can't deal with is being a prophet does not guarantee not falling out of alignment with God.

You are describing a process which inherently relies upon a need for modification to exist in the first place. Man was always destined for knowledge of good and evil. Man's fate did not rest upon not eating a forbidden fruit. It rests upon the choice of worshiping the creator or the created. The knowledge of good and evil plays a role in our choice.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm sure there are rabbis that would disagree with you.

Perhaps.000001% of them.

 

[Indeependent]

You are describing a process which inherently relies upon a need for modification to exist in the first place. Man was always destined for knowledge of good and evil. Man's fate did not rest upon not eating a forbidden fruit. It rests upon the choice of worshiping the creator or the created. The knowledge of good and evil plays a role in our choice.

Adam, not Chavah, was given the challenge.
The mistake of not giving it to both was corrected by Mount Sinai when the entire nation received God's direct national revelation.

 

[ding]

Perhaps.000001% of them.

That's doubtful that 99.999999% of rabbi's interpret Genesis literally instead of allegorically.

But hey, mabye you should discuss this with Donald H because he's looking for someone like you.

 

[ding]

Adam, not Chavah, was given the challenge.
The mistake of not giving it to both was corrected by Mount Sinai when the entire nation received God's direct national revelation.

I'm sorry but I can't discuss this with someone who believes the account of creation and the fall of man is intended to be read literally. That's not how I see it.

 

[ding]

Perhaps.000001% of them.

Moses Maimonides on the Literal Meaning of Genesis - Spectrum Magazine

According to some Seventh-day Adventists, the only way to maintain a strong theology of the Sabbath is by way of an unbendingly literalistic account of the creation week in Genesis. Yet Orthodox Judaism has included non-literal readings of the creation, without controversy or schism, for more...

spectrummagazine.org

According to some Seventh-day Adventists, the only way to maintain a strong theology of the Sabbath is by way of an unbendingly literalistic account of the creation week in Genesis. Yet Orthodox Judaism has included non-literal readings of the creation, without controversy or schism, for more than a millennium. Although the Jewish faith includes provisions for anathematizing and excommunicating heretics (as in the famous trial of Spinoza on charges of pantheism or atheism), no Jew has ever been declared herem for failing to be a strict young earth creationist or literalist on the days of creation in Genesis 1. Abraham Joshua Heschel—a Hasidic Jew and the preeminent twentieth century interpreter of the Sabbath—did not subscribe to a literalistic creation week. Neither did perhaps the most highly revered and authoritative rabbinical interpreter of the Torah from the 12th century up to the present. According to a medieval Jewish saying still repeated by orthodox Jews today, “From Moses [in the Torah] to Moses [Maimonides] there was none like Moses.” Yet Rabbi Moses Maimonides taught that the six days recorded in Genesis should not be understood as literal 24-hour time periods.
Maimonides major concern in his writings on questions of origins was to demonstrate, contra both Plato and Aristotle, that the creation occurred as the Bible records it. In Plato’s Timaeus, the world is created by a Demiurge de novo (that is, at a moment in time) but not ex nihilo (that is, out of nothing). Plato imagines, in other words, a creation from pre-existing matter in the cosmos. For Aristotle, according to Maimonides’ reading, the world was meanwhile created neither de novo nor ex nihilo but is an eternal emanation of the Unmoved Mover. Although Maimonides confessed that he could not disprove the Aristotelian view through either rigorous logical or empirical proofs, he maintained that the creation occurred both de novo and ex nihilo as the language of Genesis clearly suggests.
Even as Maimonides argued for the superiority of Scripture to Greek philosophy on important questions of origins, however, he also insisted that it was a mistake to read the six days of the Genesis narrative as literal 24-hour periods. The creation in Genesis, Maimonides taught, is not primarily intended as a cosmogony (that is, as a scientific description of the way the world came to be in every particular detail) but rather as a cosmology, i.e., a description of the structure and order of God’s creation. Strictly speaking, the question of how the world first came into being is undiscoverable by scientific means and remains veiled in mystery, even within the biblical narrative itself. This means we must decide what we will believe about the most important questions of origins on non-scientific grounds, including the authority of divine revelation. But the theological meaning of Genesis is not tied, Maimonides maintained, to any kind of unbending or chronological literalism (in the modern sense of the word). The days of Genesis 1 are essentially metaphorical.
“We Should Accept the Truth From Whatever Source it Proceeds”
Maimonides arrived at this reading of Genesis, it is important to note, under no pressure to fit his theology to new scientific discoveries or evolutionary theories. But in cases where the weight of scientific evidence is overwhelmingly clear, Maimonides declared, believers should not hesitate to modify their readings of Scripture as reason and new empirical findings might demand. The rabbi’s guiding principle was that “we should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds.” There can be no conflict between truly scientific reasoning and correct interpretations of revelation, Maimonides maintained. Yet this does not mean scientific evidence should be bent every which way to bring it into conformity with literalistic readings of Scripture. Believers should rather investigate all questions without fear or reservations and follow the evidence where ever it might lead. And if they find that something can be truly proven by scientific methods but that it seems to conflict with Scripture, this means they have misinterpreted Scripture. If, on the other hand, a statement is made that is rationally plausible but is in principle un-provable by science, and if this statement conflicts with the teachings of Scripture (as in Aristotle’s conception of the world as an eternally existing emanation), the believer should reject the statement as both theologically and scientifically unsound.
For Maimonides, then, the slogan of sola scriptura might be true insofar as it goes as a statement of Scripture’s absolute authority in theological matters. But those who abandon their reason and senses when interpreting the Bible—the position of fundamentalism or verbalistic fideism—are in fact not showing any great honor to the Bible’s authority. They are actually distorting Scripture’s authentic meaning and sealing themselves off to the living Word by refusing to use their God-given faculties of mind. The correct and faithful way of reading Scripture includes scientific reasoning, which is also a tool of spiritual discernment. “One can easily fall prey to the illusion that one understands Scripture by virtue of being able to read Hebrew,” Gad Freudenthal notes in his analysis of Maimonides philosophy of science. “In point of fact, many words and phrases are, as it were, encoded—they have a particular, philosophic sense, so that understanding them on their ordinary meaning inevitably leads to error, even heresy. For the naïve reader, the revealed text is therefore full of pitfalls.”

 

[BreezeWood]

Not allegorical at all.
Confession, regret and modification of behavior are Rambam's definition of complete alignment with God.
The fact that people can't deal with is being a prophet does not guarantee not falling out of alignment with God.

your religion is the true example of what were not prophets at all instead jealous murderers - jesus. the reflection of who they were, and for the present -

that crime infested manifestation known as - israel.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Adam sinned, not Eve. Why did Yahweh punish an innocent Eve?

Be you a believer or not, your life has been affected by the mainstream religions and the myth of Adam and Eve. It is the source of Christian homophobia and misogyny.

There are many strange things in the myth of Adam and Eve.
Was Adam born alone or first?
If Adam was created in God’s image and likeness, who is woman modeled after?
Satan is depicted in part as a woman.

Who was she modeled on and why female? Likely because of evolution and women being men’s biological prize.

In law, to be punished, one must be shown to have evil intent or an evil mind. Latin, Men’s Rea.

This is what human justice is based on.

Was Eve innocent, given that she had no evil intent?

Regards
DL

You're assuming any of it makes sense. The whole Bible is riddled with contradictions. Once they've got you believing, it's very difficult to admit that you are wrong.

 

[Indeependent]

Moses Maimonides on the Literal Meaning of Genesis - Spectrum Magazine

According to some Seventh-day Adventists, the only way to maintain a strong theology of the Sabbath is by way of an unbendingly literalistic account of the creation week in Genesis. Yet Orthodox Judaism has included non-literal readings of the creation, without controversy or schism, for more...

spectrummagazine.org

According to some Seventh-day Adventists, the only way to maintain a strong theology of the Sabbath is by way of an unbendingly literalistic account of the creation week in Genesis. Yet Orthodox Judaism has included non-literal readings of the creation, without controversy or schism, for more than a millennium. Although the Jewish faith includes provisions for anathematizing and excommunicating heretics (as in the famous trial of Spinoza on charges of pantheism or atheism), no Jew has ever been declared herem for failing to be a strict young earth creationist or literalist on the days of creation in Genesis 1. Abraham Joshua Heschel—a Hasidic Jew and the preeminent twentieth century interpreter of the Sabbath—did not subscribe to a literalistic creation week. Neither did perhaps the most highly revered and authoritative rabbinical interpreter of the Torah from the 12th century up to the present. According to a medieval Jewish saying still repeated by orthodox Jews today, “From Moses [in the Torah] to Moses [Maimonides] there was none like Moses.” Yet Rabbi Moses Maimonides taught that the six days recorded in Genesis should not be understood as literal 24-hour time periods.
Maimonides major concern in his writings on questions of origins was to demonstrate, contra both Plato and Aristotle, that the creation occurred as the Bible records it. In Plato’s Timaeus, the world is created by a Demiurge de novo (that is, at a moment in time) but not ex nihilo (that is, out of nothing). Plato imagines, in other words, a creation from pre-existing matter in the cosmos. For Aristotle, according to Maimonides’ reading, the world was meanwhile created neither de novo nor ex nihilo but is an eternal emanation of the Unmoved Mover. Although Maimonides confessed that he could not disprove the Aristotelian view through either rigorous logical or empirical proofs, he maintained that the creation occurred both de novo and ex nihilo as the language of Genesis clearly suggests.
Even as Maimonides argued for the superiority of Scripture to Greek philosophy on important questions of origins, however, he also insisted that it was a mistake to read the six days of the Genesis narrative as literal 24-hour periods. The creation in Genesis, Maimonides taught, is not primarily intended as a cosmogony (that is, as a scientific description of the way the world came to be in every particular detail) but rather as a cosmology, i.e., a description of the structure and order of God’s creation. Strictly speaking, the question of how the world first came into being is undiscoverable by scientific means and remains veiled in mystery, even within the biblical narrative itself. This means we must decide what we will believe about the most important questions of origins on non-scientific grounds, including the authority of divine revelation. But the theological meaning of Genesis is not tied, Maimonides maintained, to any kind of unbending or chronological literalism (in the modern sense of the word). The days of Genesis 1 are essentially metaphorical.
“We Should Accept the Truth From Whatever Source it Proceeds”
Maimonides arrived at this reading of Genesis, it is important to note, under no pressure to fit his theology to new scientific discoveries or evolutionary theories. But in cases where the weight of scientific evidence is overwhelmingly clear, Maimonides declared, believers should not hesitate to modify their readings of Scripture as reason and new empirical findings might demand. The rabbi’s guiding principle was that “we should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds.” There can be no conflict between truly scientific reasoning and correct interpretations of revelation, Maimonides maintained. Yet this does not mean scientific evidence should be bent every which way to bring it into conformity with literalistic readings of Scripture. Believers should rather investigate all questions without fear or reservations and follow the evidence where ever it might lead. And if they find that something can be truly proven by scientific methods but that it seems to conflict with Scripture, this means they have misinterpreted Scripture. If, on the other hand, a statement is made that is rationally plausible but is in principle un-provable by science, and if this statement conflicts with the teachings of Scripture (as in Aristotle’s conception of the world as an eternally existing emanation), the believer should reject the statement as both theologically and scientifically unsound.
For Maimonides, then, the slogan of sola scriptura might be true insofar as it goes as a statement of Scripture’s absolute authority in theological matters. But those who abandon their reason and senses when interpreting the Bible—the position of fundamentalism or verbalistic fideism—are in fact not showing any great honor to the Bible’s authority. They are actually distorting Scripture’s authentic meaning and sealing themselves off to the living Word by refusing to use their God-given faculties of mind. The correct and faithful way of reading Scripture includes scientific reasoning, which is also a tool of spiritual discernment. “One can easily fall prey to the illusion that one understands Scripture by virtue of being able to read Hebrew,” Gad Freudenthal notes in his analysis of Maimonides philosophy of science. “In point of fact, many words and phrases are, as it were, encoded—they have a particular, philosophic sense, so that understanding them on their ordinary meaning inevitably leads to error, even heresy. For the naïve reader, the revealed text is therefore full of pitfalls.”

As I inferred; a tiny percentage of interpretations.
In fact, there is no work more voluminous than Tanach interpretations.
I’m sure that you are aware of the 4 methods of interpretation.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Adam sinned, not Eve. Why did Yahweh punish an innocent Eve?

Be you a believer or not, your life has been affected by the mainstream religions and the myth of Adam and Eve. It is the source of Christian homophobia and misogyny.

There are many strange things in the myth of Adam and Eve.
Was Adam born alone or first?
If Adam was created in God’s image and likeness, who is woman modeled after?
Satan is depicted in part as a woman.

Who was she modeled on and why female? Likely because of evolution and women being men’s biological prize.

In law, to be punished, one must be shown to have evil intent or an evil mind. Latin, Men’s Rea.

This is what human justice is based on.

Was Eve innocent, given that she had no evil intent?

Regards
DL

The first #BelieveAllWomen #ToxicMasculinity

 

[Indeependent]

Adam sinned, not Eve. Why did Yahweh punish an innocent Eve?

Be you a believer or not, your life has been affected by the mainstream religions and the myth of Adam and Eve. It is the source of Christian homophobia and misogyny.

There are many strange things in the myth of Adam and Eve.
Was Adam born alone or first?
If Adam was created in God’s image and likeness, who is woman modeled after?
Satan is depicted in part as a woman.

Who was she modeled on and why female? Likely because of evolution and women being men’s biological prize.

In law, to be punished, one must be shown to have evil intent or an evil mind. Latin, Men’s Rea.

This is what human justice is based on.

Was Eve innocent, given that she had no evil intent?

Regards
DL

It’s obvious you don’t know Hebrew.

 

[ding]

As I inferred; a tiny percentage of interpretations.
In fact, there is no work more voluminous than Tanach interpretations.
I’m sure that you are aware of the 4 methods of interpretation.

Maimonides doesn't sound like a tiny percentage.

But please feel free to prove your claim. If what you say is true post a link to a rabbi who states that Genesis is to be read literally.

Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning

Genesis as Allegory. Creationism and Evolution in Judaism. Science and Judaism. Jewish Science. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs

www.myjewishlearning.com

How Literally Do Jews Take the Hebrew Bible? » Mosaic

A major tenet of rabbinic Judaism is that the Bible is <em>not </em>to be taken literally. But of course that's not the whole story.

mosaicmagazine.com

 

[Indeependent]

Maimonides doesn't sound like a tiny percentage.

But please feel free to prove your claim. If what you say is true post a link to a rabbi who states that Genesis is to be read literally.

Genesis As Allegory | My Jewish Learning

Genesis as Allegory. Creationism and Evolution in Judaism. Science and Judaism. Jewish Science. Jewish Ideas and Beliefs

www.myjewishlearning.com

How Literally Do Jews Take the Hebrew Bible? » Mosaic

A major tenet of rabbinic Judaism is that the Bible is <em>not </em>to be taken literally. But of course that's not the whole story.

mosaicmagazine.com

Are you star struck by the Rambam?
The Rambam did not write a commentary on the Torah, he was addressing atheists who held no interest in Torah.

 

[ding]

Are you star struck by the Rambam?
The Rambam did not write a commentary on the Torah, he was addressing atheists who held no interest in Torah.

No. I'm star struck by truth. God is truth.