Women. God’s afterthought and man’s curse to rule.

[Greatest I am]

And no, preventing somebody from living forever is not murder.

If I do something so that someone does not live, it is murder' Yet you exonerate God for doing the same thing. Hmm.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

So either Eve was a helper, which denotes a subordinate assistant, or a helpmate which is primarily a companion (remember "alone" mentioned as the only explicit reason).

Congratulations. You've managed to quote-mine the dictionary to support your case. Now, can you look at all of the definitions, honestly for a change, and point out how your choice is supported by the story?

Nothing is implied as improvement of the individual man, but you seem more than willing to infer quite a bit.

I'm not suggesting that the creation of the woman changed the man.

And where are you reading that humans having dominion over animals implies anything about the relationship between humans?

Where are you reading that I said that? I said that both the man and the woman were gven dominion over the animals, according to Genesis 1, so there is no suggestion of created inequality there. And I said that the woman became subordinate, according to Genesis 2, as result of eating the fruit - i.e. she was not created subordinate.

 

[sideshowbob]

If I do something so that someone does not live, it is murder'

No. Murder is defined as unlawful homicide. There is no law saying that God must give Adam and Eve eternal life. Letting them die of old age is not murder by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Syne]

Where have I ever rejected free will?
We have it and I have offered people a test to prove it to them.
That is not in any way a rejection of free will.

Don't put false words in my mouth please.

Back up your statement or we will all know that you lied about what I reject.

No, you have never outright rejected free will, but you should realize that it is confusing when you refute free will as a reason not to blame a god you claim you do not believe in. If you do not believe in the god then you should have nothing to blame, hence no argument against free will precluding such blame. If a god does not exist then free will very much does account for all of the evil you continually blame on a god.

Blame your poor reasoning skills and penchant for propaganda for not clearly communicating what you actually believe. You are too busy playing to an audience that does not exist here.

Congratulations. You've managed to quote-mine the dictionary to support your case. Now, can you look at all of the definitions, honestly for a change, and point out how your choice is supported by the story?

Then maybe you now understand my point about you preferring the KJV, except that I chose my reference because it has a history of being accurate, contrary to the KJV. But it is really very simple. A helper is someone who cannot be so defined without someone to provide aid to. Without the target of help, a helper cannot exist, and is therefore subordinate to that which makes its existence as such possible.

Unless you now wish to see my point about being a companion, which is the only explicit reason given.

I'm not suggesting that the creation of the woman changed the man.

You are the one arguing that woman was an "improvement on man". So how exactly?

Where are you reading that I said that? I said that both the man and the woman were gven dominion over the animals, according to Genesis 1, so there is no suggestion of created inequality there. And I said that the woman became subordinate, according to Genesis 2, as result of eating the fruit - i.e. she was not created subordinate.

No, you said:

And it is stated explicitly that the "subordinate" creatures were not suitable company.

You implied that a subordinate human would be equally unsuitable, and this is a false dilemma of subordinate animals and humans being being equivalent.

All of the consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge are just that, knowledge. There was no fundamental change other than to their awareness. Remember, the Bible is written from the perspective of the humans who wrote it.

 

[sideshowbob]

Then maybe you now understand my point about you preferring the KJV, except that I chose my reference because it has a history of being accurate, contrary to the KJV.

The KJV is "less accurate" in some areas than some translations and perhaps more accurate in other areas than some other translations. You seem to be assuming that another translation is always more accurate than the KJV. You haven't given any evidence to show that that particular passage in the KJV is less accurate than your preference.

A helper is someone who cannot be so defined without someone to provide aid to. Without the target of help, a helper cannot exist, and is therefore subordinate to that which makes its existence as such possible.

A helper often enables somebody to do things he couldn't do by himself. A carpenter's helper provides a second pair of hands to hold things like the other end of the tape measure. Maybe you need somebody to help you hold the axe that you're trying to grind. Greatest I am is on your side but he might not be a help meet for you.

While the helper is often thought of as a subordinate in our culture, there is nothing in the word itself that implies subordinacy. In Genesis 2, the context makes it clear that the situation was "not good" without the woman. "You need help," does not imply, "You need a subordinate."

Unless you now wish to see my point about being a companion, which is the only explicit reason given.

It seems inconsistent to belabour the definition of "helper" and then suggest that Adam might not have needed help after all, just company.

You are the one arguing that woman was an "improvement on man". So how exactly?

Do you understand the difference between an improvement "on" and an improvement "of"? A calculator is an improvement on a pencil and paper but it is not an improvement of a pencil and paper. The invention of a calculator doesn't change the pencil and paper but the pencil and paper are more powerful with the addition of the calculator. The calculator helps without being subordinate.

I don't have to explain how the woman was an improvement because the story says quite plainly that she was. The situation was "not good" without her and presumably more good with her.

You implied that a subordinate human would be equally unsuitable, and this is a false dilemma of subordinate animals and humans being being equivalent.

Genesis 1 says that the animals were subordinate and Genesis 2 says that they were unsuitable helpers/compnions. There is no other indication as to why they were unsuitable, unless you say they were unsuitable for reproduction, which is just silly. What option is there other than that a subordinate was not suitable?

All of the consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge are just that, knowledge. There was no fundamental change other than to their awareness.

Not true.

Gen 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.​

The consequences were physical and social. As I mentioned to Greatest I am in another post, the consequences may have been directly from eating the fruit or indirectly as a punishment for disbedience. The story doesn't specify. However, the knowledge itself is more-or-less incidental.

Of course, the snake also had consequences, and he didn't gain any knowledge at all:

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.​

Remember, the Bible is written from the perspective of the humans who wrote it.

Yes, the creation story in Genesis 2 is a Just So story which explains why men have to work hard, how people came to wear clothes and hate snakes and how women came to be subordinate. If it wasn't describing a change from the original creation, there wouldn't be any point to the story.

 

[Greatest I am]

No, you have never outright rejected free will, but you should realize that it is confusing when you refute free will as a reason not to blame a god you claim you do not believe in. If you do not believe in the god then you should have nothing to blame, hence no argument against free will precluding such blame. If a god does not exist then free will very much does account for all of the evil you continually blame on a god.

Blame your poor reasoning skills and penchant for propaganda for not clearly communicating what you actually believe. You are too busy playing to an audience that does not exist here.

.

Yet everytime, almost, that I post a clear communication you jump on it for yout cheap points.

Do try to be consistent good fellow.

I went and found this just for you. Read slowwwwwly and you will see that I do not blame God for anything. Although I do disrespect theists who foollow his immoral ass.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

The KJV is "less accurate" in some areas than some translations and perhaps more accurate in other areas than some other translations. You seem to be assuming that another translation is always more accurate than the KJV. You haven't given any evidence to show that that particular passage in the KJV is less accurate than your preference.

No need to. There is an obvious and ubiquitous gothic bias to the KJV. For example:

Only at that time was there such a preoccupation with things like dragons. But I really should not need to tell you any of this, as I have already given you plenty of solid reasons.

1. The previous chapter gives clear indication of chronology, both in the count of days, order of creation, and even granting dominion to man.

2. Genesis 2 does not give any clear chronology.

You seem to not only be claiming that the KJV is more accurate but that Genesis 2 is even more accurate than Genesis 1. This is generally called cherry-picking, and you have not even attempted to justify it.

A helper often enables somebody to do things he couldn't do by himself. A carpenter's helper provides a second pair of hands to hold things like the other end of the tape measure. Maybe you need somebody to help you hold the axe that you're trying to grind. Greatest I am is on your side but he might not be a help meet for you.

While the helper is often thought of as a subordinate in our culture, there is nothing in the word itself that implies subordinacy. In Genesis 2, the context makes it clear that the situation was "not good" without the woman. "You need help," does not imply, "You need a subordinate."

"Often" is a unjustified generalization. As I already told you, a helper cannot be defined as such with a target to help.

Woman as created after man, presumably an improvement on man.

What was "not good" was the condition of being alone, not anything inherent to the man, hence not "an improvement on man". You could say that it was an improvement of the conditions, but the presence of a woman cannot be said to have fundamentally changed anything about the man.

It seems inconsistent to belabour the definition of "helper" and then suggest that Adam might not have needed help after all, just company.

I had already told you that the only explicit reason given was companionship. Since you chose to ignore that fact, I examined what your take may imply. Nothing inconsistent, just the nature of a conversation.

Do you understand the difference between an improvement "on" and an improvement "of"? A calculator is an improvement on a pencil and paper but it is not an improvement of a pencil and paper. The invention of a calculator doesn't change the pencil and paper but the pencil and paper are more powerful with the addition of the calculator. The calculator helps without being subordinate.

I don't have to explain how the woman was an improvement because the story says quite plainly that she was. The situation was "not good" without her and presumably more good with her.

Yes, and you conveniently left this out when you quoted me earlier:

If the latter, this does not imply any improvement of anything but perhaps general quality of life, which is not an inherent deficiency.

It seems odd that you should wait until I have already said before attempting to clarify yourself so.

A calculator very much is subordinate to pencil and paper, as it could not exist without a prior ability to form numerals and calculate with them. It is a device which aids the exact same tasks the pencil and paper are already capable of.

Genesis 1 says that the animals were subordinate and Genesis 2 says that they were unsuitable helpers/compnions. There is no other indication as to why they were unsuitable, unless you say they were unsuitable for reproduction, which is just silly. What option is there other than that a subordinate was not suitable?

Actually Genesis 2 says:

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​

You are literally hung up on the word "help" when "help meet" means helpmate. Just like loneliness is the only explicit, "not good", reason given, companionship (specifically, someone to relate to) is what a human cannot fully find among animals. The other, obvious option is that animals were not suitable because they are animals. It is only you who insists on inferring that animals were unsuitable for being subordinate when the only explicit reason given (I do not know how many times I have to say this) is that they were not sufficient companions.

Note that God granted man dominion over animals, implying that they may not even have been created subordinate.

All of the consequences of eating from the tree of knowledge are just that, knowledge. There was no fundamental change other than to their awareness.

Not true.

Gen 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.​

The consequences were physical and social. As I mentioned to Greatest I am in another post, the consequences may have been directly from eating the fruit or indirectly as a punishment for disbedience. The story doesn't specify. However, the knowledge itself is more-or-less incidental.

"That's just an excuse that literalists use..."​

Odd that you should seem to spurn literalists only to take the account as literal as possible.

Remember, the Bible is written from the perspective of the humans who wrote it.

Yes, the creation story in Genesis 2 is a Just So story which explains why men have to work hard, how people came to wear clothes and hate snakes and how women came to be subordinate. If it wasn't describing a change from the original creation, there wouldn't be any point to the story.

As I have stated elsewhere, knowledge of good and evil (bad) is the ability to form value judgments. Prior to this ability man would not have been aware of some condition being "bad". It would just be. From the man's viewpoint it could very well seem as if a very homogeneous existence suddenly became dangerous and fraught with evil. Nothing necessarily changed other than man's awareness. That is the point of the story, but children must be taught simple, literal stories. Man simply became aware of the dire facts of life.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Ah, there is the usual rote response, and I have already responded to it before.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, ...

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

So evil is a good thing and where Christians blame evil you blame a god you do not believe in? :bugeye:

 

[Greatest I am]

"Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility."

Does this sound like I am blaming God?

Or is it that English eludes you?

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

"Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility."

Does this sound like I am blaming God?

Do these?

Like it or not, God is immoral.

Does the award for the greatest evil go to Satan or God?

Where you seem to want us to believe you are just ridiculing the existence of such a god, I am not the only one who is confused over why you continuously assert that this nonexistent god is evil. Why not address the belief in such a god, instead of treating the god like an actuality?

 

[Greatest I am]

Like it or not, God is immoral.

Does the award for the greatest evil go to Satan or God?


I am not the only one who has taken your propaganda at face value. As I have said before, either you believe a god is responsible for evil or you are intentionally trolling for an audience that does not exist here. Make up your mind.

Now if you stand behind your above statement then all of these "god is immoral" threads are completely moot. I am not the only one who wonders why you harp on this so.

If you need a disclamer or statement of belief over every post I make, too damned bad.

Don't waste my time with your bitching.

If you are not bright enopugh to surmise that someone attacking God is not likely to be a believer then just remember my name and know that I am a Gnotic Christian.
Tell all those you say are confused. They likely know because they are not crying the way you do all over the place.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Do these?

Like it or not, God is immoral.

Does the award for the greatest evil go to Satan or God?

Where you seem to want us to believe you are just ridiculing the existence of such a god, I am not the only one who is confused over why you continuously assert that this nonexistent god is evil. Why not address the belief in such a god, instead of treating the god like an actuality?

If you need a disclaimer or statement of belief over every post I make, too damned bad. Don't waste my time with your bitching.

If you are not bright enough to surmise that someone attacking nand or blaming God is not likely a believer then just remember my name and know that I am a Gnostic Christian.
Tell all those you say are confused. They likely know because they are not crying the way you do all over the place.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

If you need a disclaimer or statement of belief over every post I make, too damned bad. Don't waste my time with your bitching.

If you are not bright enough to surmise that someone attacking God is not likely a believer then just remember my name and know that I am a Gnostic Christian.
Tell all those you say are confused. They likely know because they are not crying the way you do all over the place.

I target literalists and fundamentals and to play in their park I have to use their ball.
If you don't like what I do or how I do it, ignore. Don't just bitch like a spoiled baby.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

I target literalists and fundamentals and to play in their park I have to use their ball.
If you don't like what I do or how I do it, ignore. Don't just bitch like a spoiled baby.

As I have asked you before, where are these fundamentalists on this forum? Propaganda very often cannot manage to tailor its message to suit a variety of audiences addressed.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

And which of these are the Christians you "target"? I am sure you will say you are targeting the idea of a god, but contrary to Hitchens' meme, ideas have no more power that those who propagate them.

Like I said, irrational ideas are impervious to reason.

 

[Syne]

Oh, and do not get worked up about the multiple posts. There was an issue with the forum this morning (I do not know if it is fixed yet) where posts with links were requiring mod approval. I have deleted the duplicates.

 

[sideshowbob]

No need to. There is an obvious and ubiquitous gothic bias to the KJV.

That's a very unscientific approach. Of course you need to back up the actual assertion that you made, not just make vague generalizations. Your examples are the equivalent of saying that most species are smaller than humans, therefore elephants must be smaller than humans. Back up the specific claim that you made, if you can.

1. The previous chapter gives clear indication of chronology, both in the count of days, order of creation, and even granting dominion to man.

2. Genesis 2 does not give any clear chronology.

You seem to have lost the plot. The specific chronology isn't that important to any point that I've made. If the KJV is right in suggesting that some of the animals were created after man, that actually weakens my case. On the other hand, if your favourite is right and the order of creation was definitely animals-man-woman, then there is an implication of progress.

You seem to not only be claiming that the KJV is more accurate but that Genesis 2 is even more accurate than Genesis 1.

On the contrary, I use the KJV because I'm used to it and it doesn't even matter if it's less accurate because your version supports my case better anyway.

A calculator very much is subordinate to pencil and paper, as it could not exist without a prior ability to form numerals and calculate with them. It is a device which aids the exact same tasks the pencil and paper are already capable of.

That's nonsesne. Numbers are not dependent on pencil and paper. Kids today can go straight from learning to count to using a calculator. That pencil and paper also happened to exist historically is purely coincidental.

You are literally hung up on the word "help" when "help meet" means helpmate.

Before you blather on about what the word "help" means, maybe you should look at some other uses of the Hebrew word ezer (help). Hint: It frequently refers to God.

 

[Syne]

That's a very unscientific approach. Of course you need to back up the actual assertion that you made, not just make vague generalizations. Your examples are the equivalent of saying that most species are smaller than humans, therefore elephants must be smaller than humans. Back up the specific claim that you made, if you can.

Maybe you did not notice that I have already made my point using the KJV alone. You are the one who disputed the inaccuracy of the KJV in general, and I responded, in general. It is a red herring at this point to demand that I specifically show the inaccuracy of a specific verse.

You seem to have lost the plot. The specific chronology isn't that important to any point that I've made. If the KJV is right in suggesting that some of the animals were created after man, that actually weakens my case.

And you seem to have missed where I have already shown that even the KJV does not imply any animals were created after man. You seem to insist that I tediously reiterate, even while protesting that it "isn't that important".

1. Genesis 2 does not state any explicit chronology.
2. If you assume it does then Genesis 2 grants dominion of man over animals that do not yet exist (at the same time as animals that do clearly already exist with no distinction whatsoever).

You keep making paltry arguments about the tense of a verb and inferences that are nowhere explicitly supported.

On the other hand, if your favourite is right and the order of creation was definitely animals-man-woman, then there is an implication of progress.

Again with the unwarranted inferences.

That's nonsesne. Numbers are not dependent on pencil and paper. Kids today can go straight from learning to count to using a calculator. That pencil and paper also happened to exist historically is purely coincidental.

Sure, now they can, but a calculator could not have been made without some previous means of symbolizing and computing with numbers. Writing numerals is no more "historically coincidental" to the existence of a calculator than the invention of the wheel is to the automobile.

Before you blather on about what the word "help" means, maybe you should look at some other uses of the Hebrew word ezer (help). Hint: It frequently refers to God.

Maybe you should provide me with your favored citation on the word, as "ezer" seems to have a wider variety of interpretations than "help". Hanging your argument on a single word is also rather paltry, and at this point more than somewhat equivocal.

 

[sideshowbob]

You are the one who disputed the inaccuracy of the KJV in general, and I responded, in general.

I haven't even expressed an opinion on the accuracy of the KJV.

It is a red herring at this point to demand that I specifically show the inaccuracy of a specific verse.

On the contrary, if you claim that a specific verse is inaccurate in the KJV, it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to show that that specific verse is inaccurate.

You seem to insist that I tediously reiterate, even while protesting that it "isn't that important".

Actually, I wish you'd stop reiterating the same nonsense and say something that makes sense.

You keep making paltry arguments about the tense of a verb and inferences that are nowhere explicitly supported.

The only one who has refered to the tense of a verb is you. You insist on the tense but refuse to provide any evidence for your claim.

Sure, now they can, but a calculator could not have been made without some previous means of symbolizing and computing with numbers.

So you could say that a calcuator is "subordinate" to that means of symbolizing and computing with numbers - but you can not say that the calculator is subordinate to the pencil and paper, which is subordinate to the same system of symbolizing and computing with numbers.

Writing numerals is no more "historically coincidental" to the existence of a calculator than the invention of the wheel is to the automobile.

I said that the pencil and paper are historically incidental. Seriously, literacy is a good thing. You should try it.

Maybe you should provide me with your favored citation on the word, as "ezer" seems to have a wider variety of interpretations than "help". Hanging your argument on a single word is also rather paltry, and at this point more than somewhat equivocal.

Well, you're the one who's hanging an argument on the word "help". You're insisting that it means only one possible thing, without even considering what it meant in Hebrew. Here's an example:

Psa 70:5 But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying.​

Same word. Eve was a help and so was God - not a subordinate.

 

[Syne]

I haven't even expressed an opinion on the accuracy of the KJV.


On the contrary, if you claim that a specific verse is inaccurate in the KJV, it's perfectly reasonable to ask you to show that that specific verse is inaccurate.

Then it is very odd that you continue to argue about it when you have already seemed to have conceded the point several times and even said it was unimportant. Since I have discontinued to argue against the KJV and made my point expressly with that version alone, continuing to harp on it is a red herring. It does not much matter if the KJV is inaccurate or not, since I can make my point either way.

Actually, I wish you'd stop reiterating the same nonsense and say something that makes sense.

Nonsense? I have quoted the text for you, and you have yet to provide any reasonable alternative implications.

You insist on the tense but refuse to provide any evidence for your claim.

Where have I insisted on the tense? I mentioned it once and then moved on, as you obviously did not wish to bother with anything but the KJV.

So you could say that a calcuator is "subordinate" to that means of symbolizing and computing with numbers - but you can not say that the calculator is subordinate to the pencil and paper, which is subordinate to the same system of symbolizing and computing with numbers.

Your word processor is set to puree. It is ridiculous to assert that pencil and paper are subordinate to symbolizing and computing. Did cavemen marking on cave walls require symbolism and computation for their literal depictions of the hunt? No.

Writing numerals is no more "historically coincidental" to the existence of a calculator than the invention of the wheel is to the automobile.

I said that the pencil and paper are historically incidental. Seriously, literacy is a good thing. You should try it.

Yes, literacy is good. Perhaps you should exercise it on what you actually wrote:

That pencil and paper also happened to exist historically is purely coincidental.

Now you should feel extremely foolish for failing so miserably at an ad hominem. Pencil and paper (writing) are obviously on the direct evolution of the calculator.

"The earliest written records indicate the Egyptians and Babylonians used all the elementary arithmetic operations as early as 2000 BC. These artifacts do not always reveal the specific process used for solving problems, but the characteristics of the particular numeral system strongly influence the complexity of the methods. The hieroglyphic system for Egyptian numerals, like the later Roman numerals, descended from tally marks used for counting. In both cases, this origin resulted in values that used a decimal base but did not include positional notation. Complex calculations with Roman numerals required the assistance of a counting board or the Roman abacus to obtain the results." -wiki/Arithmetic#History​

Well, you're the one who's hanging an argument on the word "help". You're insisting that it means only one possible thing, without even considering what it meant in Hebrew. Here's an example:

Psa 70:5 But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying.​

Same word. Eve was a help and so was God - not a subordinate.

One who provides aid is necessarily subordinate to the one who makes providing that aid possible. Instead of provide me with any citation for the word "ezer" you have made an unsupported conflation of two disparate contexts of a single word.


Maybe you need to give up on the chronology you seemed to have conceded so you can focus your attention on your main argument, which you are not making too well.

 

[sideshowbob]

One who provides aid is necessarily subordinate to the one who makes providing that aid possible. Instead of provide me with any citation for the word "ezer" you have made an unsupported conflation of two disparate contexts of a single word.

I showed you one example where the context is decidedly NOT subordinate. God is not subordinate to the people He helps. You have not shown any example of the word "ezer" where the context is subordinate. The word "ezer" only appears 21 times in the Old Testament, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding an example to support your case, if there is one. If you can't provide a counter-example, we can only conclude that the word translated "help" does NOT imply subordination.

 

[Syne]

I showed you one example where the context is decidedly NOT subordinate. God is not subordinate to the people He helps. You have not shown any example of the word "ezer" where the context is subordinate. The word "ezer" only appears 21 times in the Old Testament, so you shouldn't have any trouble finding an example to support your case, if there is one. If you can't provide a counter-example, we can only conclude that the word translated "help" does NOT imply subordination.

First, you have not provided a single reference. Second, you must have completely missed where my point is all about woman being primarily a companion (nothing to do with subordination). You have fixated on "ezer" (helper), when the actual phrase used is "ezer kenegdo".

"Ezer kenagdo" means "helper corresponding to or fit for", and you have not shown that this phrase has been applied to god, so any out-of-content references to "ezer" are red herrings. If you simply quit refusing to acknowledge the ONLY explicit reason given for the creation of woman (in Genesis 2 and in the KJV, mind you), i.e. companionship, you could easily see that your fixation with "helper" is nonsense to justify your cognitive bias.

God, as ezer, is help from above (just due to context), but woman, as ezer kenagdo, is help from an equal, at best. As such, you cannot use any implication of higher station to support that helper, in this specific context, is anything other than ancillary, as man was created first.



Now I have given you ample opportunity to give up this useless argument. I have shown you that the Bible, specifically the chapter and version you seem to prefer, ONLY explicitly give ONE reason for the creation of woman. This reason does not imply whether there is any subordination or not. That woman may be subordinate only hinge on you insisting on making this "helper" argument, and barring that, is a discussion entirely about the nature of "the fall".

If you wish to accept that, and discuss the fall (Genesis 3), great. If not, find some new arguments.