My whole life it seems I’ve had this unconscious question that I’ve just within the last five years been able to verbalize. If the woman gives birth to children, then how come God made man first? The story of the Garden of Eden seems to me very misogynist and one-sided. The story is always told from the man’s point of view, that God made Eve from taking one of Adam’s rib. After that Eve brought evil on the world by eating the forbidden fruit. If you followed the story, it emphasizes a draconian master, servant relationship, where the woman has to know her place, make babies and feed her man. I know this type of talk coming from a man, I must be some feminist….right? I’m really interested in the possibility that religion and mankind got it all wrong. What if Adam was really the name of the woman and she was the first human to walk the earth. Booooooom!!!! my mind was blown just thinking about that. My next task is to gather my argument and I found a decent amount of research to back my claim.
First, we have to look at the Bible/Torah and see what it actually says. In a video one examination gives insight that God never made Eve from Adam’s rib, the first human was made with both a female and male half. This is important, because it goes along with the theme that everything in the universe consists of male/female energy. This has nothing to do with sexuality of male and female organs. On the contrary, In science even the left brain is said to be male and the right brain is said to be female. The male side is said to control logical thinking, analytics, aggression, impatience and other emotions. The female side is supposed to control patience, nurturing, calm, receptiveness and etc. It doesn’t take a genuis to see what side has taken over the in today’s society. That’s one reason why I believe woman should be noted as the first human and males were the ones to bring the species down.
I know so far this has been pretty blasphemous, but I’m not the only one who thinks I’m right. Dr. Joy Elasky Fleming a telecommunications consultant made a bold statement to falls in line with my first point. She stated during a lecture that Adam was the name for the man and woman and that the name Eve came later on down the line. “Turn in your Bibles to Genesis 5:2… At creation God called the name of the man and the woman Adam; if you said, Eve, she was given that name later by the man in Genesis 3:20, after he had sinned……….” Dr. Fleming takes it a step further and even says, that the man was the one who cursed society as a whole, not the woman. “it says in the New Testament that the woman was deceived, and we saw that, God confirms that she was deceived…and so God curses because of the deliberate nature of the actions of the serpent and the man, but not on the woman, and um, that’s clear in the text.” To add to her argument she quotes this passage. “…and He (God) says it to the woman, and He says it as an alert: Be careful, you have a desire for your husband as before, but he’s not the same man you used to know in Eden, where everything is harmonious, because he will attempt to rule over you. And that is what he proceeds to do, as soon as God leaves, in 3:20…he gives her a different name, and it’s his way of saying we’re not going to have the same name; we won’t be related, I’m separating myself from you. And um God had spoken of life and children to her; He had spoken of him (Adam) returning to the dust and death, and so he names her (Eve) the mother of all living, and he’s kind of the father of death. My husband thinks that he (Adam) was kind of upset at this point, and he was saying, ‘Well you’re the mother of all living, and I’m the father of all death.’”
According to her it’s the male species that endangers us all. This makes sense since, men tend to be more violent than women and the world control’s is usually in the hands of a man. Is it possible man went against God’s specific word and that’s why we’re such a violent, uncaring world right now. Men were the ones who brought evil and destruction, not women. This will not be a popular point of view, but I’m sticking to my guns and will probably be the few that will.
If we look at this from a historical and scientific standpoint, ya’ll find my arguments make more sense. The oldest human bones were of a woman in Ethiopia, it’s not a coincidence that there was not a man around that time. The theory is that woman were once asexual, if you ask then that leads me to this discovery. Back in 2007, a discovery was made that shattered old conceptions that women needed men to reproduce. British scientist’s have found a way to turn a woman’s own bone marrow into sperm cells that can fertilize a female egg to have a child. With this discovery, it makes the argument that women won’t need a men in the near future for reproduction. Also another way a woman can reproduce asexually is monozygotic twinning is a type of asexual reproduction in which is the result of the separation of the blastomeres in various stages of development.
My last argument is far fetch, but some would say this whole blog page is too. There is a disease called Guevedoces in which is translated roughly into “penis at 12“. According to BBC magazine there was one example of when a child was born and raised as a girl around age 12 their testicles descended and grew a penis. This my seem strange to some, but if you read the above about women being able to make a baby from bone marrow then this doesn’t seem like a stretch.
Check out this article that further proves my point