Al Mohler on Adam and Eve vs. The Facts

Phil Plait just linked back to a 2009 post of his that’s a favorite of mine. “I’m skeptical of denialism” discusses the important distinction between a skeptic and a denier.

It’s helpful to understand where Plait is coming from. He’s an astronomer and the veteran of an epic battle with moon-landing deniers. Those are the folks who claim that human beings have never walked on the moon — that the Apollo missions were a giant hoax and that Armstong, Aldrin and the rest were really filmed at a top-secret government sound stage somewhere.

Moon-landing deniers don’t call themselves that. They call themselves moon-landing skeptics — thus laying claim to the mantle of science-y critical thinking.

Plait — who is himself a scientist and therefore, professionally, a skeptic — won’t let them get away with that:

Skepticism is a method that includes the demanding of evidence and critical analysis of it. That’s not what Moon hoax believers do; they make stuff up, they don’t look at all the evidence, they ignore evidence that goes against their claims. So they are not Moon landing skeptics, they are Moon landing deniers. They may start off as skeptics, but real skeptics understand the overwhelming evidence supporting the reality of the Moon landings. If, after examining that evidence, you still think Apollo was faked, then congratulations. You’re a denier.

A skeptic, as Plait says, engages the evidence carefully without imposing or requiring any foregone conclusions about what it may or may not indicate. An especially skeptical skeptic may insist on a very high standard of proof, but is still open to the possibility of such proof. A skeptic, in other words, follows the evidence as far as it leads. Skeptics may refuse to go beyond that evidence, but they will never refuse to accept such evidence if it is credible and honest.

And because of that, skeptics themselves are credible and honest.

Deniers are neither.

Deniers are not open to following credible evidence unless it leads to where they want it to lead. They will accept any evidence — no matter how flimsy — if it seems to support their foregone conclusions, thus displaying a credulity incompatible with skepticism. And more importantly, they reject any evidence — no matter how incontrovertible — that goes against their foregone conclusion. Because deniers adamantly refuse to accept such credible and honest evidence, the deniers themselves cannot be regarded as credible or honest.

Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. The evidence for that is overwhelming and beyond any reasonable doubt. That some people cling to un-reasonable doubts does not earn them the right to be called skeptics, it simply makes them deniers.

Deniers don’t care what the evidence says. They believe what they want to believe, and if that belief is proven false they simply deny that such proof exists. Hence the name.

Most deniers don’t want to acknowledge that this is what they’re doing, so, like the moon-landing deniers, they prefer to call themselves skeptics. That adds another layer of dishonesty and it’s an insult to actual skeptics — an insult to the people who are principled in their care and respect for evidence so that they can be as honest and accurate as possible in their relationship to reality.

All of which is why I’m grateful to Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Seminary. Mohler is the one denier I know of who owns up to his denialism. Heck, he brags about it.

Mohler makes no claims to being a “skeptic” about evolution or the rest of science. He simply, forthrightly rejects it. He denies it as contrary to his preferred interpretation of the Bible. And he doesn’t deny that he’s a denier.

That doesn’t make Mohler’s denialism any more credible or honest than any other form of denialism, but it’s refreshing to encounter one denier who is at least honest about his dishonesty.

Evangelicals Question the Existence of Adam and Eve” NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty reports, citing several devout evangelical scientists who say that the biblical story of the Garden of Eden should not be regarded as a historical account.

Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: “That would be against all the genomic evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all.”

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it’s clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population — long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can’t get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, “You would have to postulate that there’s been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence.”

Al Mohler is having none of that. It’s not that he’s skeptical of “all the genomic evidence that we’ve assembled over the last 20 years,” it’s just that he doesn’t care that it exists and thus prefers to pretend it doesn’t.

“This stuff is unavoidable,” says Dan Harlow at Calvin College. “Evangelicals have to either face up to it or they have to stick their head in the sand. And if they do that, they will lose whatever intellectual currency or respectability they have.”

“If so, that’s simply the price we’ll have to pay,” says Southern Baptist seminary’s Albert Mohler. “The moment you say ‘We have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world,’ you end up with neither biblical orthodoxy nor the respect of the world.”

Mohler likes to focus on “the respect of the world” because that’s easier than talking about his towering disrespect for the world. God so loved the world. Al Mohler doesn’t even like to look at it, let alone study it, learn from it or learn about it.

If I hadn’t been reading Mohler’s writing for years, I might suspect that Bradley Hagerty was unfairly cherry-picking a quote that would make him seem ridiculously self-congratulatory and egomaniacal. But that’s actually a restrained and relatively humble statement there from Mohler, whose central theme whenever discussing his rejection of science is that his denialism is a noble act of great courage — that he is bravely making himself a martyr by boldly preferring unreality to evidence, fact and truth. If a brave defense of his peculiar notion of “biblical orthodoxy” demands that he turn his back on the facts as we know them to be, then very well, Al Mohler, Bold Champion of “Biblical Orthodoxy,” will deny whatever truth needs to be denied. Al Mohler, Brave Protector of Mohlerian Mohlerianity, will happily deny that which is undeniable.

That might make him a self-aggrandizing delusional blowhard, but at least he doesn’t try to pretend that he’s just a “skeptic.”

I want to return to this NPR story on Adam and Eve in another post, but for now let me just highlight Amy Julie Becker’s excellent response, which begins:

I read the Bible literally. Which is why I don’t believe in an historical Adam and Eve. …

We need to get some English majors involved in this debate. Reading Genesis literally does not necessitate an historical Adam and Eve. It does necessitate respect for the text itself. It requires us to let the text tell us how to read it.

Yes. Mohler and the others demanding a historical Adam and Eve aren’t just denying and abusing science, they’re also denying and abusing the Bible. They are rejecting what the text says about itself, imposing on it a reading that it does not readily allow.

  • Anonymous

    off topic, 

    You are posting far more articles than you did before, I feel uneasy knowing that that is because you are jobless right now,
    But I am hoping that you will find a new job soon.

  • U.N. Owen

    Mohler may not care about the respect of the world, but is he the kind of Christian to push for the world to accept Adam and Eve in biology class?

  • Reverend Ref

    Two quips immediately come to mind.

    First, as a friend of mine is fond of saying, “Episcopalians take the Bible far too seriously to take it literally.”  The Bible expresses truths that are not necessarily factual, and there are facts that are not necessarily truth.  The facts would seem to indicate that humans evolved over millions of years.  But the truth is that we are created in the image of God.

    And second, that same friend is also fond of saying, “The opposite of faith isn’t doubt; the absence of faith is certainty.”  Now I don’t know if she made that one up herself or if she pulled it from somewhere else, but I really like it.  Faith isn’t eliminated by doubt.  It may be challenged and pushed, but from doubt comes great faith (see Thomas).  And once you move into the realm of certainty, you’ve lost faith.  Your faith has become nothing more than reciting selected verses designed to squash any argument/discussion while claiming that Jesus said it, Paul wrote it and King James printed it.

    Once you hold to the certainty of the infallibility of the printed word you have allowed fear to control your spiritual life.  You have, in essence, moved from Christianity to Mohlerism.

  • Anonymous

    All right, you want English majors involved?

    Right here:  B.A. (English) in the house!

    ::Ahem:: Adam and Eve are metaphorical objects constructed to embody and explain both the loss of innocence that every child goes through beginning with the recognition of one’s own mortality, and why so many adults are such dicks.

    Sorted.

  • Evilkate

    It’s particularly annoying when certain religious folk (not only fundamentalist) use the old anti-gay spiel of “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” – bleh.

    It shows a staggering lack in their knowledge. Adam, from the Hebrew, is not gendered. Rather, it’s a generic term for humanity. A equivalent of the modern form ‘Mankind.’ It only became associated as being a male name much later, after several translations.

    I’ve read some quite interesting accounts of what Eve might have stood for, as either metaphor or translation and, though none of them has completely convinced me, it’s good to see such scholarl work being undertaken.

  • Al Mohler

    My, but isn’t it fortunate that the abstract reasoning skills I happen to lack have been proclaimed illegitimate by God himself. 

  • Evilkate

    Fred said you had a certain arrogance but I, having not read you (I have since) had little evidence to either agree or disagree.

    However, I have come to a point where I must disagree with him on teh claim that you are arrogant. You sir, are not arrogant at all, you are beyond that – deep into the realm of hubris.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1573898041 Thad Harroun

    “The moment you say ‘We have to abandon this theology in order to have the respect of the world,…”

    How twisted. WHY did you lose the respect of the world?

    Science says: ‘We have to abandon this theology because there’s a mountain of evidence against it.’
    Al Mohler would say: ‘I refuse to abandon this theology despite the mountain of evidence against it.’
    And for THAT you have lost respect of the world.

    No one argues that you should abandon the theology for the purpose of the world’s respect; stop hiding behind that straw-man argument. You abandon it because it’s the reasonable conclusion of the evidence. Not abandoning it in light of the evidence is unreasonable.

    I know Al don’t care about the respect of the world (noble him), but to get to that point, he must be truly honest and admit that he’s denied all science, evidence, observation and reason.

  • Al Mohler

    No, no, no, you’ve got it all wrong.  Real men are filled with Olympic self-regard, everyone knows that.  And it’s not arrogance as long that self-regard is projected on your nation, religion, ethnic group, or ideology instead of directly on yourself. 

  • Evilkate

    By that reasoning, I can list any number of men who projected such ‘self-regard’ onto their respective nations – leading, in each case, to terrible crimes or wars or horrors, such as massive genocides, or varied combinations of such.

    Not merely limited to the obvious one, indirectly referenced by the very World War II posters that Fred is so fond of.

  • Panda Rosa

    Well, ironically Darwin would be on the side of the fundies; technically an “Adam and Steve” would not get anywhere genetically. I seriously doubt anyone’s going to play up the father of evolution as an ally. 

  • Evilkate

    Oh but I never argued we decended from Adam and Steve – merely that the pointbeing made by those that use that argument is inherently flawed, since there is no gender reference implicit in ‘Adam’.

    On the matter of Darwin – just because he came up with the theory of evolution does not mean it got everything right. The theory, while still attached to the original theoretic framework, has come some distance since. That’s what science does – where it finds inconsistencies or inadequate elements, it looks for alternatives and, if none are found after exhaustive examination, the theory itself is abandoned. However, if such alternatives are found, then the theory evolves. Kind of cool in the recursive aspect there ;)

  • picklefactory

    The Bible expresses truths that are not necessarily factual, and there are facts that are not necessarily truth.  The facts would seem to indicate that humans evolved over millions of years.  But the truth is that we are created in the image of God.

    Wait, what?
    If something is true, isn’t it then a fact that it’s true? Is there such a thing as an untrue fact?

    And since we’re being skeptical today: if we’re created in the image of God, what evidence do you have in support of that truth?

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Something tells me you’re not the real Al Mohler.

    Did someone buy Monoblade a new hat?

  • Anonymous

    Becker is exactly right here – a literal, fundamentalist reading of the Bible does not mean a blind acceptance of the Scofield Reference Bible Commentary. I managed to sneak an entire semester on Genesis while doing my BA in English and it is fascinating, but clearly not a history book.

    Mohler has always been very forthright about his reasoning: he is a Christian, and for him the literal Adam and Eve and all the rest is a package deal with the death and resurrection of Christ. No amount of empirical evidence is relevant in any way, because God has decreed it and that’s the final word. Obstinate, yes; malicious, no.

  • Flying Squid with Goggles

    In a way, the Mohler comment about the respect of the world is correct. Respect doesn’t come from simply accepting facts, so merely changing one’s position into open consistent with the data is not enough to earn respect. What might instead earn more respect would be a willingness to use a modern understanding of behavior and medicine to reduce the rate of teen pregnancy and suicide, to stop trying to convert gay people into straight people through generous application of guilt and pressure, and to be honest about the evidence they would teach their own children (and others’ children through influence on school boards).

    But the Southern Baptists are not famed or respected for any of these things and do not have the courage to try them in opposition to the traditional elements of their culture.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matthew-McDonald/610556997 Matthew McDonald

    I’m almost certain that isn’t Al Mohler, but a regular’s sock puppet trying/failing to be funny. Not because it’s offensive, mind you, just not funny yet.

    Love. Peace. Metallica.

  • SeniorMom

    Ref to Marcus Borg’s book “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time”.

  • Evilkate

    Your “image of god mention” reminded me of a favourite quote of Voltaires’,
    Si Dieu nous a faits à son image, nous le lui avons bien rendu.

    Or, in the English,

    If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor.

    Though these days I don’t think it applies to all believers, just far too many.

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

    An especially skeptical skeptic may insist on a very high standard of proof, but is still open to the possibility of such proof.

    I suspect that deniers — moon-landing deniers, to take the forgoing example — consider themselves “skeptics insisting on a very high standard of proof.” If asked what that high standard involves, they would probably smarm, “high enough to convince me!”

    Alternately, they have a very high standard of proof: they have to see it to believe it. If they’d been there, maybe they’d accept the evidence of their own eyes. But having missed the train, they’re free to insist the destination doesn’t exist.

    “We need to get some English majors involved in this debate.”

    You rang?

  • SeniorMom

    Perfect!

  • Steven T Abell

    “Adam and Steve” aren’t a problem to a Darwinian outlook. All that matters for that outlook is a lot of successful generation, not universal generation. If one looks at secondary effects, such as a statistical preoccupation with cultural issues, a certain amount of homosexual population may actually be helpful to organisms like ourselves that are capable of deep culture.

    The fear presented in many anti-homosexual arguments is that, if we allow this at all, then it will take over our generative capacity. What bunk! I don’t know about you, but for me, homosexual sex is simply not an option. No amount of choice is any kind of inducement. The only homosexuals I have reason to fear are those very few who won’t accept No. Personally, I’ve never run into one of those. So I have to wonder at the people who use this argument: rather than making a useful case, they seem to be indirectly telling us something about themselves.

  • Evilkate

    Now onto the more relevant topic of deniers in general, I think the argument presented above explains a lot about many climate change ‘skeptics’ – or a least the many I’ve had robust engagements with.

    So often, after politely arguing the details back and forth, it comes – that glint in their eye, a nervous twitch and a slight pause as they physically place a few more steps between themselves and the heretic (aka, moi) and then announce something akin to “No amount of evidence you can argue or offer will sway my resolve on this matter.” True, they generally say it a little less haughtily than that, but the message remains consistent.

    That they call themselves skeptics and yet refuse to engage in the slightest modicum of critical thought has often bewildered me.

    Now, of course, I understand – the ‘know’ the right answer so have no need to ponder the question further. Classic.

  • Evilkate

    “What bunk! I don’t know about you, but for me, homosexual sex is simply not an option.”

    *lol*

    As is perfectly reasonable for a heterosexual personness :P

    I feel exactly the same way just inverted – hetero sex is just simply not an option for me. I just really glad my girlfriend feels the same way ;) – oops, I mean my fiancee. She only proposed in February and I’m still getting used to the change in terminology :P

  • http://twitter.com/shay_guy Shay Guy

    That doesn’t make Mohler’s denialism any more credible or honest than any other form of denialism, but it’s refreshing to encounter one denier who is at least honest about his dishonesty.

    “Have you got a plan yet?”
    “Yes, I do.”
    “Are you lying?”
    “Yes, I am.”

  • Kish

    I don’t really see Monoblade making fun of himself like that.

  • Steven T Abell

    Congratulations! I hope you have a long and wonderful life together. <}:-)

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    If something is true, isn’t it then a fact that it’s true?
    Not necessarily.
    Facts tend to belong to the realm of the objective, meaning all persons are able to percieve them equally and identically. (roughly speaking)

    Truths can be objective (the sun is shining on a cloudless day) or subjective. (I find today’s weather very nice) Objective truths are factually-based. (“it’s a fact that it’s true that the sun is shining on this cloudless day”) Subjective truths may contain objective facts, but can only be stated as subjective principles. (“Because the sun is shining, I feel today’s weather is nice.”)

    Allegories are a good example of non-factual truths. There has never been a race between a talking fox and a talking turtle, but the underlying meaning is not rendered invalid because of this.

    “Is there such a thing as an untrue fact?”
    Depends on how you define fact. The skeptical, scientific standard for facts is that they are objective, verifiable observations, from which conclusions (true or untrue) can be drawn.

    “I washed my car yesterday” would be an example of a fact, “it rained today” would be another, but “washing my car made it rain” is a false conclusion based on two true facts.

    If an observation cannot be verified, or if it’s nature is subjective, then it’s no longer a fact, but an opinion or a matter of perspective. Stating a matter of opinion or perspective as fact would be an “untrue fact”, in that it is not a fact.
    So the Bible can express subjective truths (truths that are not necessarily factual, such as “God is Love”), it can express conclusions based on facts that are not necessarily truthful, (‘the sun and moon move across the sky’ is a fact, but ‘the earth is stationary’ is an untrue conclusion) and it can make subjective observations that appear to be facts except that they cannot be verified and/or are subjective. (“Jesus is the physical avatar of God” is not a fact, but it is stated as though it were)

  • Anonymous

    Well, ironically Darwin would be on the side of the fundies; technically an “Adam and Steve” would not get anywhere genetically. I seriously doubt anyone’s going to play up the father of evolution as an ally.

    *Sigh…*Admittedly, I don’t know about Charles Darwin in particular, but the common theory, when last I check, is that a certain subset of homosexuality is useful for communal species, specifically because they do not breed.  This means that they contribute to the group offspring without adding to the ‘expenses’.Either that or it’s simply the result of hormonal imbalances.

  • Evilkate

    Hey! – My hormones are so well balanced they ran off to join the circus … My hormones are so well balanced I nicknamed them “Chequebook” … My …

    Okay … I stop nows ;)

    >.>

  • Anonymous

    Dear Evilkate,
    Please receive this well-balanced performing internet, for that made me chuckle into my drink.

  • http://profiles.google.com/anoncollie Anon Collie

    “Me, I’m dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be
    dishonest. Honestly. It’s the honest ones you want to watch out for.
    Because you can never predict when they’re going to do something
    incredibly… stupid.”  – Captain Jack Sparrow.

    People like Al Mohler are dishonest. And like the good captain said, you can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest. It’s the rest of honest folk who are constantly rethinking ourselves that have the capacity to do something incredibly brilliant or stupid.

  • Anonymous

     I’m not religious so I don’t have a dog in this fight. But I always feel sad how people like this make God in their image, and it’s such a small, cramped, petty image of God.

    I’ll never forget seeing a huge spread of the Lascaux cave paintings in Time Magazine as a kid. It’s the closest thing I’ve had to what I’d call a religious experience, it was like I was filled with light seeping through the cracks in my mind and the world got so much bigger and amazing and older than anything I could understand. It was glorious, here were paintings done by my ancestors. It was more moving and profound than anything that had ever happened to me in a Kingdom Hall.

    I think one of my favorite things Fred ever wrote was “To create is to love” and that’s the stone cold truth. One of Bachmann’s latest bits of hatefulness is supporting the view that the filthy humanist Renaissance spoiled the Godly and devout Dark Ages, for serious. Of course she would hate art, art makes me you, art is how to declare to the universe “I was here and this is what I saw”, art is immortality, and it’s an immortality free from God. Of course fundamentalists can’t stand it.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes, “Evidence is easy, proof is hard.”  

    That said, “Boom-de-ada, boom-de-ada, boom-de-ada, bood-de-ada!”  

  • Anonymous

    Steven T Abell: The only homosexuals I have reason to fear are those very few who won’t accept No. Personally, I’ve never run into one of those.

    And ironically, heterosexual men who won’t accept ‘No’ seem to be in altogether excessive abundance.

  • Alex

    I believe, and Revered Ref may certainly correct me if I’m wrong, that he’s separating transcendent Truth from empirical Fact.

    Fact: Humanity evolved over millions of years from primate ancestors, who in turn etc. etc.  This is a conclusion from empirical evidence that is not up for debate, only analysis.
    Truth: Regardless of how it physically came to pass, we are created in the image of God.  This is an article of faith that cannot be confirmed or denied by evidence.

    That’s how I would reason this out if I were still inclined to accept the concept of transcendental truths in the first place, at least.

  • Steven T Abell

    Yes, there’s this fearsomely frail and splintery fence between Being A Man and Being a Jerk.

  • http://timothy.green.name/ Timothy (TRiG)

    Yes, the fundies seem to be scared of a big world. They want their God to be a small god, one they can easily understand.

    TRiG.

  • http://timothy.green.name/ Timothy (TRiG)

    Seconding Stephen’s congratulations to Evilkate & fiancée.

    TRiG.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    I’ve always liked the idea of “Justice” as a truth that is not a fact.

    (From Terry Prachett’s Hogfather)

    ‘All right,’ said Susan. ‘I’m not stupid. You’re saying humans need… fantasies to make life bearable.”

    “REALLY?
    AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE
    HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE”
    ‘Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little- ”

    “YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES”

    ‘So we can believe the big ones?”

    “YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING”

    ‘They’re not the same at all!”

    “YOU
    THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER
    AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF
    JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET– ” Death waved a hand. “AND
    YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS
    SOME… SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED”

    ‘Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what’s the point—”

    “MY POINT EXACTLY”

    ———————————————–

    That bit has always struck me as so very, very true.  There is nothing in the universe by itself that is suggestive of justice.  In spite of that – it remains a truth.  Inescapably, inexplicably, and devoid of factual evidence one can point to there is, nevertheless, such a thing as justice.

  • Hawker Hurricane

    “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”

    Proving that Steve wasn’t created, and is either the common name for the Holy Spirit (Yahweh the Father, Jesus the Son, and Steve the Holy Spirit), OR Steve is the fourth member of the Trinity.

  • Anonymous

    Hey guys,

    There’s a petition out now calling on the Montreal police and the RCMP to take Dennis Markuze seriously.

    I’m not sure how effective an internet petition can be, but I thought I’d point it out since he used to harass the old site.

  • Anonymous

    “Adam and Steve” can absolutely succeed genetically, if you have an actual understanding of natural selection that goes far beyond the straw-man that others have set up.  It’s a complicated process with many factors, and homosexuality could be genetically beneficial in many ways.

  • Anonymous

    “Adam and Steve” can absolutely succeed genetically, if you have an actual understanding of natural selection that goes far beyond the straw-man that others have set up.  It’s a complicated process with many factors, and homosexuality could be genetically beneficial in many ways.

  • Conscience

    In my experience, homosexual men who won’t accept no, loudly proclaim that they’re not homosexual, homosexuality is wrong and perverse, and you need to learn to take a joke.

  • Conscience

    In my experience, homosexual men who won’t accept no, loudly proclaim that they’re not homosexual, homosexuality is wrong and perverse, and you need to learn to take a joke.

  • http://twitter.com/Rhysdux Rhysdux

    Evilkate:

    I believe that Eve comes either from Hebrew word חוה (chawah) “to breathe” or the related word חיה (chayah) “to live.” (Then again, I’m copying this from Behindthename and am not a Hebrew scholar, so I may well be wrong.)

  • Evilkate

    I’ve seen that among the several “translation” theories and it’s prolly, at that basic, got something going for it. Most take it from there into a morass of speculation which is inconclusive.

    But yeah …. Adam => Humanity and Eve => Life/To Breath – kind of adds some interesting dimensions to the truth within the metaphor.

  • http://mistformsquirrel.deviantart.com/ JJohnson

    Now you’ve done it… he’ll be here in the next 24 hours ><

  • http://twitter.com/Rhysdux Rhysdux

    To Evilkate and her fiancée:

    Congratulations and felicitations! I hope you have a long, happy life together!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X