The naming of Eve?

[shernren]

(Finally, a non-crevo topic!)

What is the significance that in the Genesis account, Eve is only named after she has sinned? Any idea?

 

[FreezBee]

(Finally, a non-crevo topic!)

What is the significance that in the Genesis account, Eve is only named after she has sinned? Any idea?

In Genesis 3 we have this:

20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

But also note that in Genesis 2 it's Adam that calls her "Woman":

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman',
for she was taken out of man."

It all starts with God trying to find a suitable helper for Adam, and then leading all the animals to Adam for him to name them and see, if one of them could be a suitable helper.


- FreezBee

 

[WAB]

In Genesis 3 we have this:

20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

But also note that in Genesis 2 it's Adam that calls her "Woman":

23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman',
for she was taken out of man."

It all starts with God trying to find a suitable helper for Adam, and then leading all the animals to Adam for him to name them and see, if one of them could be a suitable helper.


- FreezBee

Wow.. it didn't take long for the "non-crevo topic' to evolve (revolve?) back into a crevo topic.

Of course for God to lead all of the animals it took milleniums of time to evolve into the state where He could lead them, there had to be a gap of an extremely long period of time between verses 1 & 2 of Genesis 1. Yet as stated by many scholars of the Hebrew language (posted earlier) the "days" of Genesis (yowm, or yom if you prefer) are 24 hr. periods; i.e. no gap!

And...of course the One who created/formed all of those animals, and man, certainly would have no idea as to whether a suitable mate might be found among all the animals? Rather, God often presents mankind with evidence of His work... and then allows us a choice.
"...what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." (Rom. 1:19,20; NKJV).

 

[FreezBee]

Wow.. it didn't take long for the "non-crevo topic' to evolve (revolve?) back into a crevo topic.

Well, the question in the OP was if there was any significance in Eve receiving her name first after she had sinned. And my answer was that she had already been given a name by Adam, and it was actually a name change, not caused by the sin, but by the curse that God put on her.

Of course for God to lead all of the animals it took milleniums of time to evolve into the state where He could lead them, there had to be a gap of an extremely long period of time between verses 1 & 2 of Genesis 1. Yet as stated by many scholars of the Hebrew language (posted earlier) the "days" of Genesis (yowm, or yom if you prefer) are 24 hr. periods; i.e. no gap!

I don't see a gap either Genesis 2:7-3 take place in the 6th and 7th day of creation week. But that is within the mythological (for lack of a better word) world of Genesis 1-3. It's not natural science, not for me, at least

And...of course the One who created/formed all of those animals, and man, certainly would have no idea as to whether a suitable mate might be found among all the animals? Rather, God often presents mankind with evidence of His work... and then allows us a choice.
"...what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." (Rom. 1:19,20; NKJV).

Ok, I see your point here, and let's take a closer look at Romans 1:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

It gets even worse after that, and since this is a rated site, I will not quote any of the following.

There is in my mind no clear indication in Genesis 18-20 that a "mate" was meant, the text states a "helper" - but that may be the translation, of course.

And as Paul has it, it all starts with idolatry, so it's not a matter of scientific truth, but of religious practises.

What about people who can't find someone of the opposite gender to live with? Are thwy sinning, if they have a dog or a cat? Unfortunately the real world is such that we can't necessarily live an ideal life.

I agree with Paul that we should not succumb to idolatry - I don't even listen to Elvis records! - but I fail to see that there is any necessary connection between not accepting creationism and "deviant" sexual practises. And don't forget that Paul was umarried!


- FreezBee

 

[shernren]

Sigh.

From what I know when Adam named her "woman" in Gen 2 it was a generic naming, and when Adam named her "Eve" in Gen 3 it was a specific naming. Sort of like the difference between saying "That's a lion" and "That's Simba" ... is there any significance in the latter happening only after the fall?

Or am I being silly to ask a question nobody can start fights over?

 

[FreezBee]

From what I know when Adam named her "woman" in Gen 2 it was a generic naming, and when Adam named her "Eve" in Gen 3 it was a specific naming. Sort of like the difference between saying "That's a lion" and "That's Simba" ... is there any significance in the latter happening only after the fall?

As in you mean that only fallen people are individuals? After all, how many women were around, when Adam called Eve "Woman"?

The meaning appears to be connected with that Eve is to become the mother of all living - the only woman that (according to the Bible) has that position.

I'm not sure, what you are after

Some interpret the fall as sexual awareness, but there is in my mind nothing much to support that.

Or am I being silly to ask a question nobody can start fights over?

Yes


- FreezBee

 

[shernren]

I'm not sure what I'm after either, just curious.

 

[gluadys]

(Finally, a non-crevo topic!)

What is the significance that in the Genesis account, Eve is only named after she has sinned? Any idea?

And the first clear use of Adam as a name does not occur until the genealogy in chapter 5. At every point before that, it is a translator's choice whether to use the generic "man" or the specific "Adam".

In fact, except for that genealogy, Adam is not specifically referenced by name anywhere in the OT.

 

[gluadys]

As in you mean that only fallen people are individuals? After all, how many women were around, when Adam called Eve "Woman"?

The meaning appears to be connected with that Eve is to become the mother of all living - the only woman that (according to the Bible) has that position.

Both of the names of our first parents are highly symbolic. I remember one poster who had traced the names back to "dirt, earth" and "hearth". So the story of Adam and Eve is really a story of Dirt and Hearth.

Not good logic for etymology is not definition. But it does suggest that you need a woman to make a home.

 

[FreezBee]

Both of the names of our first parents are highly symbolic. I remember one poster who had traced the names back to "dirt, earth" and "hearth". So the story of Adam and Eve is really a story of Dirt and Hearth.

True, the names are symbolic, and while "adam" is derived from the Hebrew word for "earth", there is more uncertainty about the etymology of "hawwa".

The Hebrew word for man (= male human) is "ish", and the word for "woman" is "ishah", which simply is femininum of "ish" - so the words in Genesis 2:23, "she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man" is simply a play on words.

Not good logic for etymology is not definition. But it does suggest that you need a woman to make a home.

Well, I do refer to my room as my "home", although there is no woman there, so your suggestion is disproved


- FreezBee

 

[FreezBee]

Ok, let's look at it from a different angle, shall we?

Elsewhere in the OT references are made to the god Baal and the goddess Asherah. In Phoenician texts Asherah is known as "the Nother of all Living". The word "baal" literally means "lord" and "husbond". So we might conjecture that what it's all about is that Baal and Asherah are replaced with Adam and Eve.


- FreezBee

 

[shernren]

How would we know whether "adam" is a specific or a general name? To be succinct and use English grammar, is there a difference in Hebrew between "adam" and "Adam"?

 

[FreezBee]

How would we know whether "adam" is a specific or a general name? To be succinct and use English grammar, is there a difference in Hebrew between "adam" and "Adam"?

There might be, though it's a guess. When used as a proper name, it would be without the definite article, but when used as a common noun it would have the definite article, as in "ben ha'adam", which does not mean "son of Adam", but "son of the human". In English this last is by the way translated to "Son of Man", that is without the article, and I suppose that the article might occasionally be dropped in Hebrew as well.


- FreezBee

 

[gluadys]

There might be, though it's a guess. When used as a proper name, it would be without the definite article, but when used as a common noun it would have the definite article, as in "ben ha'adam", which does not mean "son of Adam", but "son of the human". In English this last is by the way translated to "Son of Man", that is without the article, and I suppose that the article might occasionally be dropped in Hebrew as well.


- FreezBee

Different languages have different rules and I don't know what the Hebrew rule is. I do know that the definite article is used in every occurrence refering to the man in Genesis 1-4. Only in the genealogy in chapter 5 does the article disappear.

In English one would never use the article in the title "Son of Man" as putting in the article "Son of the man" would imply the person is the son of a particular man that one has been speaking of. That is not the implication of the title.