Adam and Eve Have a Date

[Berzerker]

Eve wasn't the first woman in Genesis, male and female were made on the 6th Day... At some point afterward the (a) man was taken eastward to the Garden where Eve was formed from his "rib" or life force

This interpretation is in accordance with Sumerian myth, the first peoples were made by the gods to work as primitive laborers - and thats what Adam's job was in the Garden. Over time these humans were given more intelligence until "Adapa" was made by the serpent deity as perfected man. Adapa missed out on the opportunity for long life though, the serpent told him not to eat and drink when meeting Anu (the #1 god) lest he be poisoned. Adapa was instead offered the tree of life which he refused.

 

[Kyriakos]

Eve wasn't the first woman in Genesis, male and female were made on the 6th Day... At some point afterward the (a) man was taken eastward to the Garden where Eve was formed from his "rib" or life force

This interpretation is in accordance with Sumerian myth, the first peoples were made by the gods to work as primitive laborers - and thats what Adam's job was in the Garden. Over time these humans were given more intelligence until "Adapa" was made by the serpent deity as perfected man. Adapa missed out on the opportunity for long life though, the serpent told him not to eat and drink when meeting Anu (the #1 god) lest he be poisoned. Adapa was instead offered the tree of life which he refused.

"Life force"?

 

[timtofly]

But not planned allegory. Much like the soil is not a planned ground level of human life

What do you mean by planned allegory? Are you saying some ancient human planned all of the allegory in advance?

 

[Kyriakos]

What do you mean by planned allegory? Are you saying some ancient human planned all of the allegory in advance?

In literature one plans (at least a level of) the allegory, so why not elsewhere in human thinking systems?

The allegory is never meant to be identified in exactly the same way by all. Nor to be deciphered in all possible ways and their depths.

But the case of math warrants at least a "not planned" description of the "allegory", cause there the fundamental stuff serve as a basis, and not really meant to be dug up (unless you want other axioms replacing them, which in turn will be basis and not utterly dug up).

 

[timtofly]

In literature one plans (at least a level of) the allegory, so why not elsewhere in human thinking systems?

The allegory is never meant to be identified in exactly the same way by all. Nor to be deciphered in all possible ways and their depths.

But the case of math warrants at least a "not planned" description of the "allegory", cause there the fundamental stuff serve as a basis, and not really meant to be dug up (unless you want other axioms replacing them, which in turn will be basis and not utterly dug up).

That is true if humans write down what they develop from their own imaginations. What happens when humans write about what they experience outside of their imaginations?

If you accept that reality only comes from human thought, then it is all allegory. If you accept that humans can grasp things outside of their imaginations, then not everything is an allegory, but an attempt at understanding the unknown. What we learn does not necessarily come from what we have imagined, but what we have learned from that which exists outside of ourselves.

 

[Kyriakos]

That is true if humans write down what they develop from their own imaginations. What happens when humans write about what they experience outside of their imaginations?

If you accept that reality only comes from human thought, then it is all allegory. If you accept that humans can grasp things outside of their imaginations, then not everything is an allegory, but an attempt at understanding the unknown. What we learn does not necessarily come from what we have imagined, but what we have learned from that which exists outside of ourselves.

I agree. In my view it is more likely that the first is 'true'. The latter is mostly what theories of so-called eternal 'archetypes' allude to, namely that we have some (even imperfect, or rather even infinitesimal) link or tie to something eternally real, which itself is not part of human thinking/sense.

The latter is attributed to Plato. The former to many presocratics (eg Protagoras, Heraklitos and Embedocles). There is another position, that of Parmenides, according to which the Eternal truth does exist, but is also forever outside of any human experience. So you cannot have any tie to a truth, but that truth still exists (for the Eleatics).