Eve's Name

[Mr GLee]

Another poster suggested the same.

I would ask for the evidence proving that speculation but that has nothing to do with the question asked in this op. The premise assumes they thought of redemption and further assumed the first sinner could provide a redeemer. Just because they'd been told the seed of a woman would crush the serpent's head does not mean they grasped redemption or took that violence to be redemptive. I've bashed the heads of many snakes on many rocks, and it hasn't redeemed me from sin once. Any redemption she foresaw would most likely be that of 1 Timothy 2:15, not Calvary.

None of which explains why she was named after the fall and not beforehand.

Named after the fall?

Why after. ?.

Its not what they thought that had any bearing on the father crushing of the head of the serpent .Same promise in Isiah 53 The father bruising the heel .

They understood the spiritual understanding

 

[Josheb]

Not sure what u are trying to say?

Children are a gift form the lord .the breath of spirit life .

As I believe I have told you before.... I stop trading posts with you when the posts stop making sense and that can occur either because care is not taken with complete sentences or proper syntax (which makes a post meaningless or incomprehensible) or the actual content is absurd. So, in the future, when those occasion occur wherein I am suddenly silent now you know. The only reason I'm posting this reply is because of the question about understanding (which a sentence, not a question). The posts contradict themselves and the exegesis is sloppy. All humans have God's breath of life. No dispute there on my part. To somehow equate the God's breath of life with the life Eve is supposedly giving through temporal/physical procreation in an already fallen world, or to think Adam believed such a conflation is true, is irrational. I expect a better case to be made, but that's just me. Lacking it, I ignore the posts. Please feel free to make that case for the sake of others' conversation but I will have to see a better rationale than the one posted before I'll take it up again.

 

[Mr GLee]

As I believe I have told you before.... I stop trading posts with you when the posts stop making sense and that can occur either because care is not taken with complete sentences or proper syntax (which makes a post meaningless or incomprehensible) or the actual content is absurd. So, in the future, when those occasion occur wherein I am suddenly silent now you know. The only reason I'm posting this reply is because of the question about understanding (which a sentence, not a question). The posts contradict themselves and the exegesis is sloppy. All humans have God's breath of life. No dispute there on my part. To somehow equate the God's breath of life with the life Eve is supposedly giving through temporal/physical procreation in an already fallen world, or to think Adam believed such a conflation is true, is irrational. I expect a better case to be made, but that's just me. Lacking it, I ignore the posts. Please feel free to make that case for the sake of others' conversation but I will have to see a better rationale than the one posted before I'll take it up again.

Sorry,
Thanks for the reply

Parables the signified spiritual understanding can be confusing .Especially to the literalist historcalist. They must seek after signs before they believe just as if after prophecy Wonder wonder. wonder. limbo limbo .

Same ones that made Jesus the Son of man into a circus seal. work some magic create a miracle them when we see with our owe eyes we will believe for a half a second

Eve coming from the word "evening," meaning especially the time between darkness and morning, Eve the dawning of life

Eve meaning "a living being," is called that because that is what Christ does best breath in spirit life on dying flesh in jeapordy of his own Spirit life.

The fall "false prophecy" oral traditons of dying mankind four little words... "Neither shall you touch" adding to sola scriptura in violation

(Deuteronomy 4:2) not even one word can be added or subtracted it can change the authroity

Different than the warning at the end in Revelation the the whole perfect. two to protect the integrity of Christ one temporal the other eternal

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Eve's name. ...

—likely wasn't Eve.

We can be fairly confident that Adam and Eve didn't call each other those names. Whatever language they spoke, it wasn't Hebrew because that language did not exist until thousands of years later. Adam was an archetype (representing humanity before God) and assigned an archetypal name. Essentially, he was assigned the name Human and his wife was named Life. This is a big hint that we're dealing with something deeper than mere history. These names indicate their significance in redemptive history. As in Pilgrim's Progress where characters had names like Faithful and Hopeful, so Adam and Eve "by virtue of their assigned names are larger than the historical characters to whom they refer. They represent something beyond themselves. ... More is going on than giving some biographical information about two people in history" (Walton 2015, 58-59).

 

[Mr GLee]

—likely wasn't Eve.

We can be fairly confident that Adam and Eve didn't call each other those names. Whatever language they spoke, it wasn't Hebrew because that language did not exist until thousands of years later. Adam was an archetype (representing humanity before God) and assigned an archetypal name. Essentially, he was assigned the name Human and his wife was named Life. This is a big hint that we're dealing with something deeper than mere history. These names indicate their significance in redemptive history. As in Pilgrim's Progress where characters had names like Faithful and Hopeful, so Adam and Eve "by virtue of their assigned names are larger than the historical characters to whom they refer. They represent something beyond themselves. ... More is going on than giving some biographical information about two people in history" (Walton 2015, 58-59).

Really what kind of fairly confidence is that?

Maybe?

No confidence in scripture?

The warning as law is not to add or subtract .

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Really what kind of fairly confidence is that?

The term "fairly confident" suggests a relatively strong belief in the truth of something while admitting that it's open to interpretation. It indicates that while there is sufficient evidence or reasoning to support it there are still some reservations, uncertainties, or alternative possibilities.

Maybe?

With respect to words of estimative probability, "fairly confident" maps more closely to "likely" (75-85%).

No confidence in scripture?

Quite the contrary: I have full confidence in scripture.

However, I'm talking about our confidence in matters pertaining to the human interpretation of a Hebrew text that had been translated into English. Again, the names Adam and Eve belong to the Hebrew language, which did not exist until the middle of the second millennium BC—something like over 3,000 years after them.

The warning as law is not to add or subtract .

And I did neither of those. I noted a reasonable inference from a linguistic fact.

 

[Mr GLee]

However, I'm talking about our confidence in matters pertaining to the human interpretation of a Hebrew text that had been translated into English. Again, the names Adam and Eve belong to the Hebrew language, which did not exist until the middle of the second millennium BC—something like over 3,000 years after them

Almost 2/3 of human history passed by before God the witness who was there moved, Moses to record the name of Adam and Eve.

 

[Josheb]

—likely wasn't Eve.

We can be fairly confident that Adam and Eve didn't call each other those names. Whatever language they spoke, it wasn't Hebrew because that language did not exist until thousands of years later. Adam was an archetype (representing humanity before God) and assigned an archetypal name. Essentially, he was assigned the name Human and his wife was named Life. This is a big hint that we're dealing with something deeper than mere history. These names indicate their significance in redemptive history. As in Pilgrim's Progress where characters had names like Faithful and Hopeful, so Adam and Eve "by virtue of their assigned names are larger than the historical characters to whom they refer. They represent something beyond themselves. ... More is going on than giving some biographical information about two people in history" (Walton 2015, 58-59).

All of which are valid observations from a second-hand source..... that doesn't tell us why she was named, or called "live," only after the fall. Observing the inherent allegorical aspects of the verse in question is commendable, but it doesn't address the chronological matter of her being named, or being called, "Eve" or "hawwah" post-fall.

Adam's name wasn't Adam, either. Nonetheless, the scripture states, "called adam the name of his wife eve because she was she was the mother of all living," and that verse occurs after their individual and collective acts of disobedience even though Eve was the mother of all living humans the moment she was created.

What are we to make of that? Was she nameless prior to Gen. 3:20? Did the man and the woman call each other "man" and "woman" before then?

.




Here's another thought for everyone to consider: God had told Adam (and Eve) that in the day they ate they would die. It seems odd that, having died in accordance with God's previously spoken words, Adam would name his wife "live."

 

[Mr GLee]

All of which are valid observations from a second-hand source..... that doesn't tell us why she was named, or called "live," only after the fall. Observing the inherent allegorical aspects of the verse in question is commendable, but it doesn't address the chronological matter of her being named, or being called, "Eve" or "hawwah" post-fall.

Adam's name wasn't Adam, either. Nonetheless, the scripture states, "called adam the name of his wife eve because she was she was the mother of all living," and that verse occurs after their individual and collective acts of disobedience even though Eve was the mother of all living humans the moment she was created.

.




Here's another thought for everyone to consider: God had told Adam (and Eve) that in the day they ate they would die. It seems odd that, having died in accordance with God's previously spoken words, Adam would name his wife "live."

Why insist after the fall?

Eve "a living being,"

It would be Eve. . "dead".

The word Eve comes from "evening" the sense of "the moment right before any event,. light before darkness. Not after darkness morning .

Second hand is what some are offering maybe 80-85 % true

We have first hand information from the Holy Spirit who was there . He moved Moses thousands of years later to record the names he hand picked.
.

 

[Josheb]

Why insist after the fall?

Is the text of Genesis 3 written in chronological order? If so, then the calling of the first woman "eve," or hawwah," in verse 20 occurs after the disobedient acts of verse 6. The word "then" indicates some sequence of events. Eve ate and gave the fruit to Adam who also ate and then their eyes were opened and then God called the man and then God asked the woman what she'd done and spoke to the serpent and the woman. Then God spoke to Adam. At which time verse 20 states Adam called the woman Eve or "hawwah." The text most certainly does not indicate that calling or naming occurred at any time prior to the events of chapter 3.

Eve "a living being,"

Yep

It would be Eve. "dead".

Eve was dead. She was dead in sin. According to Romans 5, death had come to all their human progeny. All would sin.

The word Eve comes from "evening" the sense of "the moment right before any event,. light before darkness. Not after darkness morning .

No, it does not. When you make statements like that some evidence of that claim shoould be provided so the readers can verify the claim. Absent such evidence that claim is baseless. The Hebrew word for evening is "ereb" (H6153) and the first evening occurred well before Eve was made.

Second hand is what some are offering maybe 80-85 % true

We have first hand information from the Holy Spirit who was there. He moved Moses thousands of years later to record the names he hand picked.

Digressive.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

All of which are valid observations from a second-hand source. That doesn't tell us why she was named or called "live" only after the fall. Observing the inherent allegorical aspects of the verse in question is commendable, but it doesn't address the chronological matter of her being named or called Eve ("hawwah") post-fall.

Adam's name wasn't Adam, either. Nonetheless, the scripture states, "called adam the name of his wife eve because she was she was the mother of all living"—and that verse occurs after their individual and collective acts of disobedience, ...

True. It does, indeed, take place after the fall.

However, it also takes place after the very first mention of God's promise of redemption (Gen 3:15), foreshadowing the full revelation of the gospel in the New Testament. Given that the explanation of her name forms a sound play (paronomasia)—חַוָּה (khavvah) and חָיָה (khayah)—it seems to me that she is the mother of all the living insofar as her seed, Jesus, is the life of all men. These are covenant issues, which is theological, not biological. This is redemptive history, which seems to tie her archetypal significance to the protooevanglium of Genesis 3:15.

... even though Eve was the mother of all living humans the moment she was created.

You are assuming, here, that "living" refers to progenitive biology. My first response is to question that assumption. I would need to see the exegesis supporting that view.

 

[Josheb]

True. It does, indeed, take place after the fall.

Yep.

However, it also takes place after the very first mention of God's promise of redemption (Gen 3:15), foreshadowing the full revelation of the gospel in the New Testament. Given that the explanation of her name forms a sound play (paronomasia)—חַוָּה (khavvah) and חָיָה (khayah)—it seems to me that she is the mother of all the living insofar as her seed, Jesus, is the life of all men. These are covenant issues, which is theological, not biological. This is redemptive history, which seems to tie her archetypal significance to the protooevanglium of Genesis 3:15.

Yes, but unless the reader is a Universalist Eve would not be the mother of ALL. Therefore, verse 20 is not soteriological, not protoevangelium. This runs the risk of creating a Roman Catholic-like doctrine wherein in Eve, like Mary is the mother of God . Eve as the mother of all-those-living-in-Christ interpretation would preclude her from being the mother of any other human. Fundamentally, it was God who spoke verse 15, but it was the fallen, already-sinful Adam who spoke verse 20. We'd have to additionally assume Adam was making a soteriologically prophetic statement consistent with verse 15, and that assumption would have to be made amidst the silence of scripture to that effect (the sound play withstanding). That pov will also conflict with the fact Eve was the mother of Cain (whose soteriological disposition is questionable at best).

The answer to the question(s) asked in this op are necessarily going to be speculative but I find Post 31 too speculative in content.

You are assuming, here, that "living" refers to progenitive biology.

Prove that, please. Prove I made such an assumption. Prove it was not a reasonable, rational, conclusion based on the whole of scripture and one that necessarily excluded any and all other figurative viewpoints.


Otherwise, please refrain from telling me what I do or do not assume. Ask instead. I can and will gladly post my assumptions and thereby preclude the need for anyone else to assume my assumptions.

 

[David Lamb]

Yep.

Yes, but unless the reader is a Universalist Eve would not be the mother of ALL. Therefore, verse 20 is not soteriological, not protoevangelium. This runs the risk of creating a Roman Catholic-like doctrine wherein in Eve, like Mary is the mother of God . Eve as the mother of all-those-living-in-Christ interpretation would preclude her from being the mother of any other human. Fundamentally, it was God who spoke verse 15, but it was the fallen, already-sinful Adam who spoke verse 20. We'd have to additionally assume Adam was making a soteriologically prophetic statement consistent with verse 15, and that assumption would have to be made amidst the silence of scripture to that effect (the sound play withstanding). That pov will also conflict with the fact Eve was the mother of Cain (whose soteriological disposition is questionable at best).

The answer to the question(s) asked in this op are necessarily going to be speculative but I find Post 31 too speculative in content.

Prove that, please. Prove I made such an assumption. Prove it was not a reasonable, rational, conclusion based on the whole of scripture and one that necessarily excluded any and all other figurative viewpoints.


Otherwise, please refrain from telling me what I do or do not assume. Ask instead. I can and will gladly post my assumptions and thereby preclude the need for anyone else to assume my assumptions.

Why do you have to be a Universalist to believe that Eve was the mother of all? Universalists believe that God will save everybody. Eve being the mother of all living simply points to her being the first woman, from whom we are all descended.

 

[Josheb]

Why do you have to be a Universalist to believe that Eve was the mother of all? Universalists believe that God will save everybody. Eve being the mother of all living simply points to her being the first woman, from whom we are all descended.

Please read through the conversation(s) so that informed and intelligent inquiries may be made. The CONTEXT of that statement was the premise Eve was the mother of all that are saved. That might be a possibility, but that would be an addition to the text since the verse in question does not stipulate salvation. Subsequent verses report her being the mother of at least three men, and presumably many others since all humanity came from the first two humans, Adam and Eve. Cain, for example, has Eve as his mother. Does he have Eve as his soteriological mother? The answer to that question is unstated, but since Cain's sacrifice was rejected by God and Cain disobeyed God and became a murderer, we have reason to believe he was not saved (soteriologically speaking). Abel and Seth, alternatively did call rightly upon God. Eve was the biological mother of all three but if the verse in question is to be solely as a soteriological assertion, then Eve is the (soteriological) mother of only Abel and Seth.

Unless one is a Universalist.

 

[David Lamb]

Please read through the conversation(s) so that informed and intelligent inquiries may be made. The CONTEXT of that statement was the premise Eve was the mother of all that are saved. That might be a possibility, but that would be an addition to the text since the verse in question does not stipulate salvation. Subsequent verses report her being the mother of at least three men, and presumably many others since all humanity came from the first two humans, Adam and Eve. Cain, for example, has Eve as his mother. Does he have Eve as his soteriological mother? The answer to that question is unstated, but since Cain's sacrifice was rejected by God and Cain disobeyed God and became a murderer, we have reason to believe he was not saved (soteriologically speaking). Abel and Seth, alternatively did call rightly upon God. Eve was the biological mother of all three but if the verse in question is to be solely as a soteriological assertion, then Eve is the (soteriological) mother of only Abel and Seth.

Unless one is a Universalist.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

 

[Mr GLee]

Is the text of Genesis 3 written in chronological order? If so, then the calling of the first woman "eve," or hawwah," in verse 20 occurs after the disobedient acts of verse 6. The word "then" indicates some sequence of events. Eve ate and gave the fruit to Adam who also ate and then their eyes were opened and then God called the man and then God asked the woman what she'd done and spoke to the serpent and the woman. Then God spoke to Adam. At which time verse 20 states Adam called the woman Eve or "hawwah." The text most certainly does not indicate that calling or naming occurred at any time prior to the events of chapter 3.

Thanks


Eve "a living being," chronological order. Eve comes from the word evening . "time from sunset to bedtime," the beginning of time

Genesis 1: 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The break of dawning of a new creation

Eve was dead. She was dead in sin. According to Romans 5, death had come to all their human progeny. All would sin.

Violating's the law of death (the letter) Thou shall not add or subtract from the letter or you are dead dying, sufferings coming to end .

Even changing the meaning of one word can change all the commandments having another author as oral traditons of dying mankind .
Another simular do not add or subtract at the end . Two warnings, one in respect to one word and the other the whole. Both working as one to protect the integrity of Christ in us.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word (singular) which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, (singular) that ye may keep the commandments (many)of the Lord your God which I command you.

Christ did not cause sin

The father of lies does . Just by adding four words of false prophecy ."Neither shall you touch".

Satan choosing the weaker vessel Eve to represent the bride of Christ . Adam used to represent Christ .

Christ prophesied to Adam not Eve .Adam failed to protect her from false prophecy. . She was deceived and he followed her head over heels. Like Samson .

Satan the father of lies through his lying wonders using the two building blocks of false pride. Lust of the flesh with the lust of the eye.

Through the flesh of both the anxiety drew them to the center of the garden hidden from those outside in a parable. The lust of the eye took over touching it they did not die both ate and began the process of deader than a door nail

Most of the time its about the false prophecy .Satan trying to add ..with his lying signs to wonder after as if True Prophecy (sola scriptura)

 

[David Lamb]

Thanks


Eve "a living being," chronological order. Eve comes from the word evening . "time from sunset to bedtime," the beginning of time

Genesis 1: 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

The break of dawning of a new creation

In English, the name "Eve" sounds as if it is connected with "evening", but of course the Old Testament was written first in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "evening" is ערב ‘ereb. The Hebrew name for Eve is completely different: חוה Chavvah.

 

[Mr GLee]

In English, the name "Eve" sounds as if it is connected with "evening", but of course the Old Testament was written first in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for "evening" is ערב ‘ereb. The Hebrew name for Eve is completely different: חוה Chavvah.

Hi thanks
Interesting Chavvah. Eve, meaning "living one" or "source of life": coming from the word “evening” Hebrew Erev
The word eve "evening," the time between sunset and darkness,

I think a person could say the living one that came between life and death, or day and night. "Let there be Light" . . the moment of transition "It was good"

 

[David Lamb]

Hi thanks
Interesting Chavvah. Eve, meaning "living one" or "source of life": coming from the word “evening” Hebrew Erev
The word eve "evening," the time between sunset and darkness,

I think a person could say the living one that came between life and death, or day and night. "Let there be Light" . . the moment of transition "It was good"

I don't know whether the Hebrew word Chavvah comes from the Hebrew word Erev. Perhaps somebody who knows Hebrew could tell us.

 

[Josheb]

Hi everyone,

I wrote this recent spate of inquiries for everyone's delight. Because scripture is silent on these matters the answers are, necessarily, going to be ones of speculation. The inquiries were intended to provoke a little thought, some consideration of scripture, some enjoyable conversation among us, and the opportunity to discuss some things in light-hearted manner (as opposed to the more serious and sometimes rancorous topics of salvation, end times, or the Trinity).

I do not think there is an answer to this op's inquiry.

Were I to venture an answer I, personally, suggest Adam's words serve as an example of sin's effect, not something God is stating as truth about Eve. The words are found in God's Word, but the words aren't God's words. God's Word is telling us what Adam said and, presumably, what Adam thought after he had disobeyed God, and sin and death had come upon him. One of the reasons I do not think Adam's words are Christologically soteriological (have to do with salvation in Christ) is because of Paul's comment in 1 Tim. 2:15, women will be saved through childbearing...... if they continue in the faith, love and holiness with self-restraint. In other words, those women are all already saved Christologically. They already have faith in Christ, they already know the love of God found therein and they are already holy = separated for sacred purpose. Paul is not saying a non-believing female can have salvation from sin by having babies. That would be salvation by works. However, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps there is an answer found in the whole of God's Word and we need to continue investigating.


As far as this op goes, however, the op has served its purpose, and I appreciate everyone's participation. I hope the opportunity to have a little light-hearted speculation and fun was realized.