Fine. No, it isn't patriarchy. If God had created a hierarchy, setting the male half of the earth's population over the female half, that would be a momentous event affecting the entire population of the earth. He would have stated it plainly, which he clearly did not.
The simple fact of the matter is that
you need it to be there in Genesis 1-2 because your narrative is severely damaged without it.
Exactly. Adam didn't "rule over" Eve prior to Genesis 3:16. So what is it that you "see" in Genesis 1-2 that is somehow authority without ruling? That doesn't make any sense.
Absolutely. It is
clearly stated in Genesis 2 that man had work to do. And
clearly stated in Genesis 3 that the earth was cursed and man's work would become drudgery.
Not so with male rule. It is
nowhere stated in Genesis 1-2. It is introduced as something brand new when it is
clearly stated in Genesis 3:16.
Eve didn't exist. You're making a big deal out of Adam getting more mentions in a scene that took place when he was the only person on earth.
From Marg's article:
BDB goes on to give the definition of kenegdo as “to what is in front of = according to,” and it translates Genesis 2:18 as “I will make him a help corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself.” (My underline.)[5] The Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon notes that while kenegdô is not used elsewhere in the Bible, it is used a few times in Rabbinic texts (with or without a pronominal suffix) where it “is often used of things which are like one another.”[6] So, in Rabbinic texts, the word means “similar.”
and
Thus in the LXX we have boēthon kat’ auton (“a help corresponding/according to him”) in verse 18 and boēthos homoios autō (“a help similar to him”) in verse 20.
and
CONCLUSION
There is nothing whatsoever in the expression ezer kenegdô that implies a subordination of women. Instead, it has the meanings of strength and similarity. Each of the creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1, 2 and 5, highlight the similarity, unity and equality of men and women, and tell us that their joint task involves being God’s regents of the world he created; this includes ruling the animals (Gen. 1: 26-30).
We must stop trying to place women in a different sphere or lower rank than men. And we must stop using a faulty interpretation of Scripture to support faulty, hierarchical ideologies of gender. Men and women have some differences, but we are also very similar. “Similar to him” and “corresponding with him” are the meanings of kenegdô, the word God used when making the first woman.
The meaning of kenegdo is well established as the whole of Marg's article aptly shows. But you are attempting to neutralize the word so that it has no impact at all on the text so you can go around looking for clues to show a hierarchy that isn't there.
I've already answered this. The "man" in Genesis 1:27 is both of them. this is abundantly clear in the parallel reference that I provided, Genesis 5:2, which uses the same words.
A better translation:
So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27 (NRSV)
So you don't know what it is.
No. Since one human being was literally made from the other, logically one of them had to be first. Then there had to be a scenario that showed the need of the first one for the second. That's all that's happening in Genesis 2. You want to find "something" in it to establish your patriarchy prior to the fall, but it isn't there. No "different roles" are stated, despite how badly you want them to be there.
God talked directly to Eve too. (Genesis 1:28-30) So yes, at that level.
That isn't obvious at all.
Right? When I set out your argument in a logical way, it doesn't make sense.
What? Genesis 2:24 or 3:8-11? I didn't think I had to answer them. You're counting male nouns and pronouns (In English) and marking them pink and blue and seeing who gets the most mentions and that, you say, determines which one is the most important? That's really poor hermeneutics.
Then it was
a Straw Man.
Again, counting English nouns and pronouns what what you think is more references to Adam than to Eve and marking them in pink and blue is a cute concept, and it may very well be that Adam was mentioned more often in the creation account than Eve was. But that doesn't prove a thing. God may have had other reasons for telling the story as he did. You're inference that more mentions equates to God establishing a hierarchy is pure speculation.