According to Hugh Ross, Eve, but not Adam, was a 'dumb' newbie

[shamayimIsNotHashamayim]

It can seem that Genesis 1 implies that God created Man and Woman at the exact same time. After all, regarding the creation of the male and female animals of sea (Day Five), and of land (Day Six), the account seems to imply that their creation must have been at the same exact time: both male and female animals of the sea, and then both male and female animals of the land.

But it is only of humans that Genesis 1 does not specify any material source. So Genesis 1, by a merely pedestrian reading, seems to withhold any information as two whether Man and Woman are created at the exact same time or not. But, in fact, by looking at the entire account as repeatedly confirming the typology of marriage...

1. the general cosmos and the special Earth.

2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water.

3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle;

4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology;

5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal);

6. Animal biology and its special category, human;

7. The man and his wife (Genesis 2:21-23)

...we can see that its not mentioning the material source only of humans can well suggest that Man and Woman were created at respective times.

So the above seven-fold recursion shows that even Genesis 1:1 is entirely concerned that, since we humans are the creation of the Living God, we not only are not insignificant, we are the central value both of the entire account and the entire cosmos. More so, this recursion fits Genesis 1's conspicuous lack of mention only of humans' material origins. This (A) poses humans as transcending the Earth and (B) anticipates the completion forward of Genesis 1. Per the 7th recursion, this is fulfilled in the ending portion of Genesis 2 (vs. 18-23).

Nevertheless, Day-Ager Hugh Ross thinks Adam must have been awaiting a mate for a prolonged amount of time. Ross even thinks that that time was required for Adam to deeply learn of the Creation. But, this equates mere quantity of learning for quality of knowledge, perception, and initiative of cognition. It also renders the woman as the proverbial 'dumb blonde'. For, if she had been created only moments or hours prior to when she was introduced to this 'long-educated' version of Adam, she would not have yet learned much of anything deep about the Creation, compared to that version of Adam.

 

[Gideon300]

It can seem that Genesis 1 implies that God created Man and Woman at the exact same time. After all, regarding the creation of the male and female animals of sea (Day Five), and of land (Day Six), the account seems to imply that their creation must have been at the same exact time: both male and female animals of the sea, and then both male and female animals of the land.

But it is only of humans that Genesis 1 does not specify any material source. So Genesis 1, by a merely pedestrian reading, seems to withhold any information as two whether Man and Woman are created at the exact same time or not. But, in fact, by looking at the entire account as repeatedly confirming the typology of marriage...

1. the general cosmos and the special Earth.

2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water.

3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle;

4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology;

5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal);

6. Animal biology and its special category, human;

7. The man and his wife (Genesis 2:21-23)

...we can see that its not mentioning the material source only of humans can well suggest that Man and Woman were created at respective times.

So the above seven-fold recursion shows that even Genesis 1:1 is entirely concerned that, since we humans are the creation of the Living God, we not only are not insignificant, we are the central value both of the entire account and the entire cosmos. More so, this recursion fits Genesis 1's conspicuous lack of mention only of humans' material origins. This (A) poses humans as transcending the Earth and (B) anticipates the completion forward of Genesis 1. Per the 7th recursion, this is fulfilled in the ending portion of Genesis 2 (vs. 18-23).

Nevertheless, Day-Ager Hugh Ross thinks Adam must have been awaiting a mate for a prolonged amount of time. Ross even thinks that that time was required for Adam to deeply learn of the Creation. But, this equates mere quantity of learning for quality of knowledge, perception, and initiative of cognition. It also renders the woman as the proverbial 'dumb blonde'. For, if she had been created only moments or hours prior to when she was introduced to this 'long-educated' version of Adam, she would not have yet learned much of anything deep about the Creation, compared to that version of Adam.

We just don't know. Eve was taken out of Adam, so I don't know why you would assume anything inferior about her, even if she was formed a considerable time after Adam. She was to be Adam's helper. "Dumb blonde" is more of a hindrance than a help. Certainly men and women are different, no matter what the PC brigade imagine. However, when the relationship is based on godly principles, men and women are an unbeatable team. That's why Satan does his best to saddle people with unsuitable spouses. An excellent example of how it should be done is Dave and Joyce Meyer.

 

[shamayimIsNotHashamayim]

Eve was taken out of Adam, so I don't know why you would assume anything inferior about her, even if she was formed a considerable time after Adam.

I don't assume that there was anything inferior about Eve. Nor, unlike Hugh Ross, do I believe that Adam was mateless-and-learning for weeks, or even for a year or more. My belief is that Adam and Eve each had been alive for only hours prior to when they first met.

Ross, by assuming that Adam had been learning about 'science' for weeks or more prior to when Eve was made from Adam, nearly assumes that Eve met Adam only hours after she was made. And if we assume that, as Ross seems to, then that means either she was 'far more intuitive than Adam for her shortness of time prior to meeting Adam', or she was 'lacking in learning about Nature or science due to the combination of (a) her being quantitatively equal to Adam in rate of learning and (b) her not having had equal time as Adam to learn.

I think she was equal to Adam in rate of learning. If that is right, and if Ross agrees with that, then the only way I can see for Ross to even partly remedy the apparent gross inequality is for him to simply decide that Eve must have been kept apart from Adam until she, too, had attained to the same amount of time-and-learn that Ross thinks had to have been sufficient for Adam.

So the question left is, What would have been sufficient time for Adam to attain to a proper basic amount of learning? It seems to me that Ross grossly underestimates both Adam and Eve in their respective initial hours of perceiving the world around them.

Ross also does not account for the amount of time Adam may have been in deep sleep. So, if Adam and Eve each were far more perceptive than Ross gives them credit for, then, prior to Eve and Adam meeting for first time, Eve could well have spent the same exact amount of in learning as Adam had spent.

 

[Dino246]

It can seem that Genesis 1 implies that God created Man and Woman at the exact same time. After all, regarding the creation of the male and female animals of sea (Day Five), and of land (Day Six), the account seems to imply that their creation must have been at the same exact time: both male and female animals of the sea, and then both male and female animals of the land.

But it is only of humans that Genesis 1 does not specify any material source. So Genesis 1, by a merely pedestrian reading, seems to withhold any information as two whether Man and Woman are created at the exact same time or not. But, in fact, by looking at the entire account as repeatedly confirming the typology of marriage...

1. the general cosmos and the special Earth.

2. The Earth, as its own general subject, implying that which we all intuit is most valuable about the Earth unto itself in all the cosmos: its abiding maximal abundance of open liquid water.

3. that water and its special relation to the Sun's light, hence the water cycle;

4. The water cycle and its special beneficiary and member, biology;

5. biology and its special category, animal biology (plant/animal/mineral = animal);

6. Animal biology and its special category, human;

7. The man and his wife (Genesis 2:21-23)

...we can see that its not mentioning the material source only of humans can well suggest that Man and Woman were created at respective times.

So the above seven-fold recursion shows that even Genesis 1:1 is entirely concerned that, since we humans are the creation of the Living God, we not only are not insignificant, we are the central value both of the entire account and the entire cosmos. More so, this recursion fits Genesis 1's conspicuous lack of mention only of humans' material origins. This (A) poses humans as transcending the Earth and (B) anticipates the completion forward of Genesis 1. Per the 7th recursion, this is fulfilled in the ending portion of Genesis 2 (vs. 18-23).

Nevertheless, Day-Ager Hugh Ross thinks Adam must have been awaiting a mate for a prolonged amount of time. Ross even thinks that that time was required for Adam to deeply learn of the Creation. But, this equates mere quantity of learning for quality of knowledge, perception, and initiative of cognition. It also renders the woman as the proverbial 'dumb blonde'. For, if she had been created only moments or hours prior to when she was introduced to this 'long-educated' version of Adam, she would not have yet learned much of anything deep about the Creation, compared to that version of Adam.

That’s a lot of words. You could have slandered Ross with far fewer. Next time, please quote him and cite the source rather than merely claiming that he said something and assuming what he meant or implied.

 

[NotmebutHim]

That’s a lot of words. You could have slandered Ross with far fewer. Next time, please quote him and cite the source rather than merely claiming that he said something and assuming what he meant or implied.

It's also an attempt to slander God by calling Him a sexist or worse, a misogynist.

 

[Gideon300]

I don't assume that there was anything inferior about Eve. Nor, unlike Hugh Ross, do I believe that Adam was mateless-and-learning for weeks, or even for a year or more. My belief is that Adam and Eve each had been alive for only hours prior to when they first met.

Ross, by assuming that Adam had been learning about 'science' for weeks or more prior to when Eve was made from Adam, nearly assumes that Eve met Adam only hours after she was made. And if we assume that, as Ross seems to, then that means either she was 'far more intuitive than Adam for her shortness of time prior to meeting Adam', or she was 'lacking in learning about Nature or science due to the combination of (a) her being quantitatively equal to Adam in rate of learning and (b) her not having had equal time as Adam to learn.

I think she was equal to Adam in rate of learning. If that is right, and if Ross agrees with that, then the only way I can see for Ross to even partly remedy the apparent gross inequality is for him to simply decide that Eve must have been kept apart from Adam until she, too, had attained to the same amount of time-and-learn that Ross thinks had to have been sufficient for Adam.

So the question left is, What would have been sufficient time for Adam to attain to a proper basic amount of learning? It seems to me that Ross grossly underestimates both Adam and Eve in their respective initial hours of perceiving the world around them.

Ross also does not account for the amount of time Adam may have been in deep sleep. So, if Adam and Eve each were far more perceptive than Ross gives them credit for, then, prior to Eve and Adam meeting for first time, Eve could well have spent the same exact amount of in learning as Adam had spent.

Adam had astounding abilities. Personally, I believe that he could fly like a bird and swim like a fish. I have enough trouble thinking up user names, let alone assigning a unique name to every animal. And remembering what I called them, so as not to repeat them. And what was there to learn? There was just the world around them. All Adam had to do was look after the garden. In time, he and his offspring would occupy the whole earth and bring the creation into submission to his God-given authority.

Eve was formed by God to be Adam's helper. Together, they would be complete. God gave them both authority over His creation. No one can say how that would have worked in practice. It's not a big deal, either. Adam lived for nearly 1,000 years even after he fell. It's sin that kills. If he and Eve had not disobeyed, perhaps they would never have died! That gives plenty of time for Eve to learn.

Science would not have been necessary if Adam had not disobeyed. Man's desperate thirst for knowledge is a consequence of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It is still an attempt to render God irrelevant to human life. And it still fails to fill the void that only the uncreated life of God can fill. I like to know stuff, I enjoy documentaries, history, learning about nature and such. But the world usually presents a view that assumes there is no God, and I find that grates on me. That is especially true in nature documentaries that keep referring to evolution as if it were true. I see God's glory, not a cosmic accident that assumes that there is no God.

 

[Lanolin]

eve was blonde?

I dont think it says in the Bible what colour her hair was.

She was made last of all cos God saved the best for last...IMHO.

Of course when looking at it from our modern viewpoint what they both did was idiotic. But they were human! what do you expect.

 

[Lanolin]

Also, Eve was not dumb at all she could talk.
Actually she talked too much I reckon.

 

[BonnieClaire]

Also, Eve was not dumb at all she could talk.
Actually she talked too much I reckon.

That's good to know...I was beginning to worry about that.

 

[shamayimIsNotHashamayim]

I source my argument against Ross in his short video, How long are the creation "days" in Genesis 1? (

). More specifically, it is his logic beginning halfway through the video. He does not state anything like "Eve was dumb" compared to Adam. But it seems he logically allows it. For, what he does state is all about Adam, namely that Adam spent a prolonged amount of time 'learning about the creation' prior to when Eve was made and brought to Adam.