Look through your notes from the recent round of Oral Papers.
Engage with ONE of the oral papers in one of the following ways:
1. Present a disagreeing rebuttal to the thesis, providing at least TWO items of textual evidence that support your rebuttal.
2. Present a supportive response to the these, providing at least TWO additional items of textual evidence that bolster your support.
As part of your response, you may draw parallels between two of the oral papers in substantive and interesting ways.
Please note: disagreeing with someone's thesis does not mean you thought their oral paper was weak or insufficient. It simply means you see things another way. So don't be afraid or worried about presenting an opposing view. In truth, a good thesis is one that a rational person can reasonably disagree with. So you needn't fret about hurting anyone's feelings.
If you take an opposing view, do it with respect and clarity.
If you take a bolstering view, do it without being overly "bravo awesome."
Simply state your case - whether you disagree or agree and why (based on strong textual evidence).
Ready: go. DUE by 11:59 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 27th.
The first thing that I discovered was that it is much easier to listen to and enjoy oral presentations when you don’t have to do one. That being said, I would like to discuss Trevor and Emily’s presentation. While they presented their ideas well and made some valid points, I disagree with their overall thesis, specifically about the religious beliefs of the women under the Genesis 3:16 curse. My argument lies in the first part of the curse. Clearly, as any woman who has ever given birth can attest, the “increased pains in childbirth” are not exclusive to married Jewish women. Also, the presenters said something along the lines of non-Jewish people as being “out of Yahweh’s jurisdiction.” Our texts state that God is the creator of and the supreme being of the universe. This would leave nothing out of his jurisdiction. Noah said it best in class when he suggested that although non-religious people might simply dismiss the curse’s effects as “the way life goes,” this does not mean that it doesn’t apply to them. They just don’t recognize it as Yahweh’s curse. Overall, while I disagree with their analysis, Emily and Trevor did a great job on their presentation.
ReplyDeleteThe oral paper presented by Emily and Trevor was very interesting and I had never considered that the curse was only applicable to married Jewish women. As was mentioned in class, the argument would need to hold up for man as well indicating that married Jewish men had difficulty raising crops. In support of that argument is Boaz and his successful harvest while he was unmarried. Additionally, I think it would be good to provide evidence on the first half of Genesis 3:16 on childbirth.
ReplyDeleteBut I disagree with the basis of the thesis. Continuing out the argument that only married individuals are subject to the curse, why is God punishing only married individuals? Wouldn’t it then be logical to avoid marriage to not fall under the terms of the curse? Additionally, wouldn’t it show a shortcoming of God and his reason to suggest that there was a simple loophole to his decree? Returning to the example of childbirth, every woman, whether she is Jewish and married or not has pain which would refute their thesis. The crops of any man, as soon as he married would become more difficult. During the famine mentioned at the end of Genesis, one could gather that there were single farmers that suffered hard work while trying to keep their crop from dying but they do not fall under this curse. It seems that this ordinance set by God applies in all situations and is not a respecter of persons.
First off, great job to all the presenters. They were all great presentation. The one presentation I want to talk about is Trevor and Emily's. It is something that I have been wondering about personally, but not in the aspect that all men and women have to be equally yoked Jewish for the curse to not be active. I think that no matter who they believe in, all women have a the power to in a way overpower men. Whether they want to or not is different. I think since women's worry is always considered a curse whether or not they are able to bare children. That's one of the first main things that we always see in every book that women are thinking about or feel less off if they cannot. We see different women take control in their ways. For example in Esther 5:14, Haman's wife is the one that suggests the idea to build the poles to kill Mordecai. She says, " Let the gallows fifty cubits high be made, and in the morning tell the king to have Mordecai hanged upon it. Then go joyfully with the king to the feast."This idea please Haman, and he had the gallows made." He doesn't hesitate to think twice about the decision even if the idea had came from his wife. That's some type of control. Also, in Ruth we see when Boaz is completely drunk in Chapter 3:7 and went to lie down, Ruth comes to uncover his feet and lay down. You don't see women getting drunk like men do. They have more self-control in a way. And in this instance, Ruth has the control to have done anything to Boaz. He was vulnerable. When he wakes up and sees her there, he sees kindness. Is that a type of control maybe women have and can be a weakness that men surrender to coming from women? So I agree that the curse is not a blanket curse on all women, but I don't agree that they have to be exclusively married and equally yoked Jewish women. Great job!!!
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost
ReplyDeleteI really liked Abbey’s and Micah’s argument about Judith and Esther “breaking the curse” but I disagree with their case because I don’t believe there was a curse was a put on women in Genesis 3:16.
In the book of Genesis, God expels the first Adam AND Eve from the Garden of Eden after they BOTH eat the forbidden fruit. God “curses" both Adam and Eve for their misdeed, using ominous words that seem to doom Eve to live subordinately to Adam. In the phrasing of the King James Version familiar to many Bible readers, God says, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
The “curse” supposedly applies to all women; the translation may lead readers to believe the Bible says God cursed women ALL women through Eve to obey the wishes of their husbands and to have pain during childbirth.
However, as we’ve discussed and discovered in class, this essential text is “hot button” topic that is that one that remains open to theological debate about key words in the Bible. In this case, the stakes of the debate are high: how to read a key biblical passage on what it means to be a woman and how the Bible defines a woman's role to her husband.
In some translations of the Bible, the first half of that sentence formerly read “Your desire shall be for your husband,” in other translations it reads, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband.” It appears to suggest that women naturally oppose their husbands’ desires, and women are responsible for marital conflict. While many major Bible translations are regularly updated, this alteration comes to this fact: Translations like this have the potential to invisibly shape readers’ thinking about women’s role in marriage and life.
Bottomline: Judith and Esther did what they did because they were following the will of God and to help their fellow Israelites, not to “break the curse” placed on women.
I think Kayleigh and Sydney’s oral presentation put a really interesting spin on the common interpretation of Ruth’s motives and actions, but to oppose their argument and support the traditional attest to Ruth’s unwavering loyalty, I considered the importance of Naomi’s concern for her daughters-in-law as well as her age and wisdom. Ruth 1:9 finds Naomi tearfully parting with Orpah and Ruth, and it’s not unreasonable to assume some of her emotion is due to the close relationship she had with the two - she refers to them as her daughters, not daughters-in-law, in 1:11, and they lived together in Moab for 10 years [Ruth 1:4]. It’s likely then that Naomi would be familiar to some extent with the former home lives of her son’s wives, and if she knew Ruth had no home to go back to, or would be hopeless and in danger without her I think it improbable that Naomi would be so adamant about sending her away. Her age (“I am too old to have a husband” [1:12]), and knowledge of the land (she had lived in both Moab and Bethlehem, gave Ruth precise instructions concerning Boaz) allow Naomi to serve as a reliable judge of the young womens’ futures. She pushes them to go because she feels there is better opportunity for them on their own or with their families than with her (despite the famine) [Ruth 1:13], which I feel would provide, if anything, reassurance rather than fear on Ruth’s part. So, though Ruth surely may have been combatting some uncertainty in her decision to stay, it can still easily be interpreted as loyalty when you consider that by Naomi’s judgment, which was surely tainted with motherly concern, she should have been okay without her.
ReplyDeleteI thought Abbey and Micah presented themselves very well with their oral presentation of "breaking the curse". I agree with their proposition of Judith and Esther knowing how to use the right motives. They did provide good evidence, but there are a few more examples that could have been provided. The first example I feel that would help their thesis is Judith 10:16. "When you stand before him, have no fear in your heart; give him the report you have given us, and he will treat you well.” With this statement she believes fully in the Lord and because of this, the army wins the battle. The second piece of evidence that could be provided is in the book of Esther. In Esther 5:3 "Queen Esther replied, 'If I have found favor with the king, and if it pleases the king to grant my request, I ask that my life and the lives of my people will be spared.'" She has the opportunity to get whatever she wants from the king and she chooses to save her people. Each of these characters in the bible are remarkable, selfless women. Therefore, they were both able to "break the curse" from the book of Genesis.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Abbey and Micah’s argument that the “curse” on women from Genesis could be broken by acting for Yahweh’s purposes. In Judges 4:4, it states that Deborah was the wife of Lappidoth and was judging Israel. By fulfilling God’s purpose of judging Israel, she is not ruled by her husband in all aspects of her life. We can’t know if he ruled over her in their private life, but in the public sphere at least, she had complete control and she influenced the nation of Israel without the oversight of her husband.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of women not being under the “curse” by following God’s plan was Abigail. In I Samuel 25, David was in the wilderness of Paran and asked for aid from Nabal, Abigail’s husband. Nabal refused to aid David and his followers (I Samuel 25:11), but Abigail returned with bread, wine, sheep, parched grain, raisins, figs, donkeys (I Samuel 25:18). She aided Yahweh’s anointed, so she was released from her Calebite husband’s rule. She did marry David after that, but she “hurried and rose and mounted a donkey” (I Samuel 25:42) in response to David’s summons. From this, it could be argued that she was excited about marrying David and would not “desire to control [her] husband” (Genesis 3:16).
Andora’s argument on the liberation of Judith and Esther also supports Abbey and Micah’s position. Andora postulated that Judith and Ester were liberated because they chose to “fully submit to God’s will.” In doing so, they removed themselves from the curse, following Abbey and Micah’s argument. By using their femininity and talents to free God’s people, Judith and Esther follow God’s plan and were therefore exempt from the curse, leaving them liberated.
I found Kayleigh and Sydney’s oral paper to be particularly interesting. They argued that in the book of Ruth, Ruth stays with Naomi after the death of her husband and two sons not out of loyalty to Naomi, but out of fear of being left alone. Another verse in the book of Ruth that could further support their claim would be chapter 1 verse 21. In this verse Naomi is expressing her grief as she has experienced many hardships in her life up to this point. In this verse Naomi complains that the Lord has left her empty. Even after expressing her grief, Ruth still insists on staying with her. This could be argued that Ruth was in such fear of being left alone that she was willing to stay with this grieving widow who had nothing to offer her.
ReplyDeleteUp to this point in the book, it is obvious that Ruth is so desperate not to be left alone that she willingly follows Naomi into unknown territory to her in search of food and work during the famine. In chapter 2 verse 10, after Boaz tells Ruth she can work in his field, she falls at his feet to thank him for his kindness. Because Ruth had such great fear of being left alone, it makes sense why she was so relieved in this verse.
ReplyDeleteKayleigh and Sydney oral paper presents very an interesting argument that Ruth's decision following Naomi to Bethlehem. I have different viewpoints to the idea that Ruth doesn't stay with Naomi out of loyalty but fear of being left alone. I believe when Ruth married Naomi's son, she also accepted their culture and religion as well. So that she was determined to stick with Naomi to end and to go through any challenges Naomi had passed through. For instance, initially when both Ruth and Oprah refused by saying to Naomi, we will go back with you to your people ( Ruth 1:10) Naomi argued and pushed them to go back to their family, then Orpah gave up and went back while Ruth still insisted to stick to Naomi said, don't urge me to leave you. Where you go I will go and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. She confirmed genuinely her determination that indicates her full converted with faithfulness. She again said, where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me ( Ruth 1:16-17). Therefore, this is Ruth's believe and faith that led her to the infinity blessing she inherited from Naomi. I think this is a secret part of her became the root line of king David then to Jesus. So Ruth 's humblest is very powerful to most Believers that God used her unexpected ways to show his power and reveal his love. In general, the Ruth story is about genuine love and compassion. Finally she gave or passed her love to world through Jesus. Jesus is love.
All of the presenters did a great job! I particularly liked Andora's presentation on the liberation of Judith and Esther and thought that Ruth could also have been added to her thesis. After Naomi's sons and husband die, she tells her daughters-in-law to go back to their families. In doing this, she is freeing them from their obligation to her. Orpah decides to return to her family, however Ruth stays with Naomi. Just like Esther and Judith forfeited their freedoms to save their people, Ruth forfeited her freedom to marry and have a family in order to stay with Naomi. By marrying Boaz, she also redeemed Naomi's family line, as evidenced in Ruth 4:14 on the news of Obed's birth "Then the women of the town said to Naomi, "Praise the Lord, who has now provided a redeemer for your family! May this child be famous in Israel.""
ReplyDeleteEveryone did a great job presenting! The presentation I keep coming back to is the one by Trevor and Emily. While they provide great examples to support their argument, the one that states “Naomi rules over Ruth in place of a husband and Ruth obeys”. I think it under recognizes Ruth’s part in the partnership of Ruth and Naomi. It is easy for outsiders to see that Ruth is not entirely dominated, “but I also know about everything you have done for your mother and law since the death of your husband”, Boaz 2:11 (Ruth). Ruth makes her biggest decisions while she is widowed and unmarried to follow Naomi, and while she is embracing the Jewish faith in this movement she is unmarried. How is the thesis supported by saying Naomi is a substitute husband for Ruth. This is where the argument lost me unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to this group of presentations, I found Kayleigh’s and Sydney’s presentation to be interesting. Throughout their presentation, they showcased how they believe that Ruth stayed with Naomi because she was scared and worried about being alone rather than sticking by her side to show loyalty. After thinking on this viewpoint, I can see both sides of the argument. I can agree with Kayleigh and Sydney, but I also believe in a different point as well. To back up their hypothesis, I found that from verse 21 to the end of chapter 1, Naomi is stating how she has nothing left to give and feels lost in life and is feeling sorry for herself. Even after knowing this, Ruth still chooses to stay with her which could help support the hypothesis that even though she will receive nothing from staying with Naomi, it is still better than being left alone. A counter argument to this could be found in the verses leading up to my previous example. Starting around verse 15, there is text that explains how Ruth will be there through thick and thin, and where Naomi ends her life and journey, Ruth will end hers there too. This can be interpreted that she cares for Naomi so much that even if a better opportunity would present itself, such as finding someone and not being alone, she would still stay by Naomi’s side.
ReplyDeleteAfter listening to this round of presentations, I found that Kayleigh and Sydney's thesis was extremely interesting. They looked at the Book of Ruth in a way that I never would have thought to look at it. With that being said, after listening to their oral paper, I agree with their point of there being evidence that Ruth only stays with Naomi out of fear of being alone. I agree with them because Ruth stays with Naomi even when she admits to having completely nothing. This shows that Ruth is okay with having nothing as long as she isn't left by herself. You can see this in Ruth 1:20-21. Naomi says, "I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi when the Lord has caused me to suffer?" Even though Naomi has nothing, this shows that Ruth will stay no matter what, just so she is not on her own. However, Ruth does display some acts of being dedicated, faithful, and loyal to Naomi as well. You can see this in Ruth 2:11-12 when Boaz is talking to Ruth about everything she has done for Naomi. It is evident that Boaz and Ruth both view Ruth as faithful for staying with Naomi. Overall, although I disagree with the point that Ruth stayed solely because she didn't want to be alone, I really liked the viewpoint that Kayleigh and Sydney took from the Book of Ruth.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Trevor and Emily’s argument that the curse is only applicable to married and Jewish women. The presenters are able to give textual evidence in support of their claim although I find the Ruth and Naomi example a bit of stretch. The curse extended to Ruth, due to the lack of continuity of the story in the Bible, prevents us from seeing if the curse negatively impacting Ruth. If anything, I would agree with the curse being extended to Ruth (and possibly Orpah) during their marriage to Naomi’s sons. But it is never stated if they adopted the Jewish God of Naomi’s son, but most likely due to customary practices. Anyways, Ruth, with Naomi’s influence was able to appeal and possibly control Boaz until her eventual marriage to him. I would like to ask if the reason the curse is being applied to the wife because of the male’s presence, or because of Eve’s role of a wife for Adam?
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Kayleigh and Sydney on the topic that Ruth didn't stay with Naomi to be loyal, but because she feared being left alone. I never personally looked into the story that deeply but when you go in depth it makes sense. When you look at the second piece of evidence they gave you really do see Ruth as looking desperate and scared, I don't understand why she wouldn't want to go back with Orpha, but i guess Ruth was much closer with Naomi. Ruth shows so much dedication to Naomi in saying all the stuff that she would do if Naomi did, like whoever her god was she would have that god too, for someone to change their god for someone else back then seems like it would be very extreme and not something that everyone would do. She is willing to sacrifice everything she has in life for one person which really tells me that she has a huge fear of being alone in life. She didn't even hesitate on leaving everything either, she said she would drop everything to stay with her and she did. I feel when Naomi heard that, she agreed to have her come with because she saw how desperate Ruth was and she felt bad for her. Ruth stayed obedient to Naomi the whole time including when she told ruth to go and stay with Boaz, Ruth felt that this was the way that she would pay Naomi back for finally letting her come with. The only time Ruth feels that she doesn't need Naomi anymore is when she marries Boaz so that she isn't alone anymore.
ReplyDeleteI found Kayleigh and Sydney’s oral presentation to be incredibly interesting. Their presentation caused me to think about Ruth in a way that I previously had not. After listening to their evidence, I found that I agree with them that Ruth stayed with Naomi out of fear of being alone rather than out of loyalty. One piece of evidence that they did not mention is that nowhere in the Bible does it mention that Ruth tries to convince Oprah to say with them as well. If Ruth was truly acting out of family loyalty, wouldn’t she try to convince her sister-in-law to come with them as well? However, in Ruth 1:14 we see Oprah kiss Naomi goodbye but Ruth says nothing of Oprah’s departure. I believe that if Ruth’s decision to stay with Naomi had been based upon family loyalty rather than fear of being alone, she would have tried to convince Oprah to stay with them as well. Another piece of evidence is found in Ruth 1: 9, when Naomi says “May the Lord bless you with the security of another marriage”. Since Ruth had not accepted Naomi’s God, Yahweh, as her own at this point, He was likely just another god to her. Therefore, this blessing would have meant nothing to her and it would not have comforted her fear of being alone. This points to why she continued to follow Naomi even after this blessing. In conclusion, these are just two more pieces of evidence that could strengthen the great argument made by Kayleigh and Sydney.
ReplyDeleteWhile everyone made good points in their arguments, there is one group in particular whose thesis I would like to challenge; Trevor and Emily's idea that the curse on women is "exclusive to married, equally yoked Jewish women". In their conclusion, they state that the curse does not effect non-believers of Yahweh because one cannot be affected by a god that they do not believe in. Multiple instances in the Bible show Yahweh having power over those who don't believe in Him which proves that He has power over all people and not just Jewish believers. For example in 1 Samuel 5, after the Ark of God was taken by the Philistines, "the Lord began afflicting its people, young and old, with a plague of tumors" (1 Samuel 5:9). These people were worshipers of Dagon rather than Yahweh but he was still able to affect them even though they didn't believe in him as God. Another instance to support my argument can be found in Pharaoh's dreams which were deciphered by Jacob. These dreams where prophetic ("God has shown you what He's about to do" Genesis 41:28) and would have been impossible for Pharaoh to receive according to the group's thesis as he was not a follower of the Jewish God. However he did have the dreams, proving the reach of Yahweh's powers. Yahweh is constantly proving his abilities over all people in the Bible, which disproves Trevor and Emily's idea that he only has power over believing Jews.
ReplyDelete-Micah Davis
I would like to provide some supporting evidence to Andora’s article about how when Judith and Esther use their unique position, submit to Gods will, and trust in his plans they bring about peace. I think that we see this happen in Judges as well. In the story of Deborah and Barak, Deborah prophesizes that the Lord will give their enemy in the hands of a women (Judges 4:9). Here we establish the Lord’s plans, nevertheless Barak still pursues Sisera and Sisera flees to the tent of Jael. Sisera trusts Jael because there is peace between his King and Jael’s husband’s house. Jael then takes advantage of this unique position she is in to kill Sisera and fulfill the Lord’s plan.
ReplyDeleteAnother example we see of this is in Judah and Tamar’s side story in Genesis. God’s will was that there be offspring for Judah’s eldest as the law dictated. Judah’s firstborn was deemed wicked and struck down (Gen 38:8). Then his second son was also deemed wicked and killed (Gen 38:10) So fearing for his third son, he said Tamar would be a widow until his last son was old enough to marry her. Like Judith, Tamar is also a widow. When she hears that Judah and his son are coming to town, she casts off her widow’s clothing and disguises herself with a veil. Judah then believes that she is a prostitute and she accepts his advances so that an heir may be born. This way the line of the firstborn continues, as God willed it. Tamar knew that as a widow under Jewish law, it was her duty to provide an heir from either Judah or his sons. When the sons failed to provide that heir, that is when she went to Judah.
The oral presentation that I would like to focus on today was presented by Kayleigh Krieger and Sydney Luk. Both of these women focused on the story of Ruth, and it is a theory that is really well thought out, especially as the evidence comes together. The theory focus’s on the motives of Ruth’s behavior. While many attribute Ruth’s actions to her steadfast loyalty, deeper textual analysis done by these ladies suggests that Ruth is determined to stay with Naomi, out of fear of being left alone. A lot of the analysis provided by the oral paper reflects this point if you are able to see the perspective that Ruth is in. A lot of the analysis reflects acts of desperation rather than loyalty. As one continues to think with this mindset and really get Ruth’s perspective, the more the evidence reflects the proper thesis. To help enhance the argument brought on by Kayleigh and Sydney, I first start out with Ruth 1:19, “So the two of them continued on their journey. When they came to Bethlehem, the entire town was excited by their arrival. “Is it really Naomi?” the women asked”. When Ruth comes back to Israel, people are excited. It reflects her status and respect within the town. Let’s compare this to likely what Ruth would go back to. Ruth married Killion, a non-Moabite, she gave up her own God and continued to live in her own country. She married someone who refused to assimilate to Moabite culture and that is something that likely did not sit well with the people of Moab. This suggests that her options were to go back to a place where she may not be the safest for a lone widow who abandoned her culture, or to stay with Ruth, a women of great respect within her community. This example, continues to reflects the desperate situation Ruth was in to stay with Naomi. The next example comes from Ruth 2:2 “One day Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go out into the harvest fields to pick up the stalks of grain left behind by anyone who is kind enough to let me do it.” This is a verse that reflects Ruth’s personality. Ruth is looking to establish herself in this town and is willing to do whatever to meet people and make a name for herself. Someone who is willing to pick grain in order to start her own life doesn’t necessarily reflect loyalty but desperation to start new. If Ruth was absolutely loyal to Naomi, she would stay at home and care for her, yet willing to work all day to meet people to help Ruth gets established again reflects her desperation to start in a new area, because she was not welcome in her home. This was a great argument and hopefully this demonstrates that there is plenty of evidence for this argument.
ReplyDeleteI thought all of the presentations were fantastic but the presentation I would like to focus on is Kayleigh and Sydney's. Their way of looking at Ruth's story as one run by fear was very interesting. After listening to their argument I think I definitely agree that Ruth stayed with Naomi because she was afraid of returning home and being alone. I think to add to their argument they could have mentioned that Ruth may not have been afraid of living alone but more so the fact of living alone in her home, where she may not be accepted anymore. Assuming that Ruth had already converted going back to the Moabites may have been a dangerous act. I think in chapter two verse two when Ruth begs Naomi to let her go and work in the fields, makes a case that Ruth isn't afraid of doing things on her own, as long as she knows she is safe. I think Ruth is afraid of being alone and in danger, rather than being scared to be alone in general.
ReplyDeleteAbbey and Micah's argument that Judith and Esther "break the Genesis 3:16" curse, I would argue, is never broken, but rather inapplicable to their situations because the men in their lives are not following the will of God. I believe that was the intention behind their argument, but the wording "break the curse" makes it appear that everything the women do afterwords is free from the control/influence of any men in their lives. Because we do not see the ways in which Judith and Esther's lives turn out in the long run in their relationships (or lack of in Judith's case), the idea that the curse is ~broken~ cannot be assumed. Rather, as Esther's King/partner and Judith's male comrades were not following the proper will of God and the two women knew that so they took over and ensured that God's will reigned ~in the moment~. Whatever happens outside of their stories is unknown to us, so to say that they specifically broke the curse cannot be proven. Rather, the women did what they had to do because the men weren't doing it. If anything, they were just being responsible and loyal followers to God.
ReplyDelete-Emily Geary
While Emily and Trevor's argument was incredibly thought provoking, I dispute their argument and say that the curse is not strictly for Jewish people. Although it would be easy to consider this because the Hebrew Bible's main characters are Jewish, if you look a little closer you can find evidence that the curse in Genesis 3 applies to all people. The first point being that Adam and Eve represent all humans. we know this because Adam's name in the original language means "man" and Eve's name in Hebrew means "living or life". With this perspective, it becomes pretty clear that Adam represents ALL of men and Eve ALL of women, despite their religious practices. The second piece of evidence would be in Genesis 6: 5 with the flood. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the EARTH." He did not notice it with just the Jewish people, but with all of creation despite their religion. We know that the curse only was put in place because of the unorder that Adam and Eve, or as previously argued, men and women, aka all of humanity created. Since the curse was for those who created unorder, we can infer that the curse was for everyone.
ReplyDelete