Talk:Eve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bible (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Christianity / Saints (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Tucoxn, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19 April 2013. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Lilith edits[edit]

Revised the 8am EST Lilith edits to be a little better worded and more inline with NPOV. Could use some more work though - possibly its own section. 12.10.219.160 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Lilith in the opening section, I'm afraid Lilith is sharely far too uncredible a source to warrant a place here? It needs it's own sections otherwise we're introducing bias. It's like saying that some sources state Elvis was abducted by aliens in the opening statement of the Elvis article. In the end LIlith isn't a main stream belief and came about as the result of a satirical book of unknown authorship several thousands years after the original. I agree that Lilith had a place, it's our job to report after all, but surely it's too irrelevant (Citation needed?^^) to warrant a place in the introduction? The vast majority of Christians/Jews have never even heard of Lilith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.151.138 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Chawa to Eve[edit]

There needs to be a more coherent explaination of how "Chawa" mutated into "Eve" as of now it seems to be quite an abrupt jump.Lil'dummy 22:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Via Hawwah, to Heva, to Eva to Eve. No worries, John D. Croft 10:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chicken 1st or egg?[edit]

In the intro it is assumed that Chavva/Hawwa is derived from the Hurrian Goddess "Kheba" and goddess Ashera/"Chawat". What proof is there that is wasn't the other way around-- that those two goddesses were inspired by Chavva/Hawwa?Lil'dummy 22:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The recorded archaeological dates say it all
1700 BCE Hebat/Kheba
1300 BCE Chawat/Athirat
850 BCE Hawwah/Asherah
500 BCE Hava/Eva
John D. Croft 10:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lilith and Eve[edit]

Lilith was supposed to have been created at the same time as Adam. As the Bible satates "Male and female He created them". John D. Croft 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Nudity[edit]

Yes yes, I know WP is not censored. However, we generally defend this by saying, you know what you're getting in to when you go to certain articles. One expects a penis on penis, et alia. However, this article is easily within the realm of "material used by schoolkids", and people can reasonably expect not to find a photograph of a nude woman on here. Classical art? A different matter, and we all know in the Anglophone culture that classical photographic depictions of nudity are treated differently. and I question the wisdom of having an artist's photographic interpretation of a nude Eve plucking the apple, in addition to questioning any value it has that transcends its negatives. Any thoughts? --Golbez (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

By "photograph of a nude woman" I guess you are referring to the photograph by Fred Kuhne that is currently in the article. You are in danger of sounding silly if you are sugesting removing this image just because of the nudity it depicts. It is no more revealing than a typical advert for a deodorant spray! A better question would be why this (not particularly creative, imho) photograph is deemed more suitable for inclusion that the countless thousands of other images of Eve, many by artists far more notable than Fred Kuhne. It is good for the article to have a contemporary take on the image of Eve, but not if the only image we can find is just a bland depiction by a fairly unknown artist. In other words, let's keep the current image but be on the lookout for a better one to replace it. Meowy 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a poor work overall and adds nothing to the article; it was merely the unexpected photographic nudity that brought me to the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am deeply offended by this picture. Who knew how Eve looked? this picture should be removed at once § —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.62.205 (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The photo graph is historically accurate in that Eve has not lost her innocence before eating the apple and thus would be nude. If you were to show an image of Eve prior to eating the apple she would have to be nude. As for being offended by the photo, all i see is a tiny nipple. Everything else is discrete, the sistine chapel image at the top of the article, i would fine more offensive, how can a man`s penis be sized like that? , i dont know its not accurate (or is it?). Anyway. The eve image is historically accurate art. learn to live with it.

On second thought i cant tell if the sistine chapel image is a penis or a vagina...thats even worse69.157.56.144 (talk) 01:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Creation of Eve[edit]

There are actually two versions of the story of creation in Genesis, verse 1:27:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

and verse 2:22:

Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

The article only refers to the second version. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither version is contradictory though. They scored two goals. He scored a goal and then went on to set up the second goal. There is no contradiction there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.151.138 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the footnotes in this section are hyperlinked; they're just plain text. I found an alternate version of the story told by Rabbi Joshua, but not sure if I should just add it, substitute it, or append it. For now, I'm going to add it as a footnote to the same quote.Clayfoot (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

African Eve[edit]

If "Eve" is the first woman created by God, then she must have been an African woman. How can this historical scientifically proven fact be ignored? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.102.208 (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is the woman who is believed to have been created from Adam's rib. This is the result of a wrong translation of the Arabic word 'rib' into Persian. In Arabic and Hebrew 'rib' has an additional meaning which is 'nature.' Thus, instead of "Eve was created from Adam's nature," it came to mean "Eve was created from Adam's rib."

-Ali Shariati —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talkcontribs) 07:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Eve wasn't a real person, she is a character in fictional books. Humans slowly evolved from apes over a period of millions of years. No human magically appeared; our ancestors gradually became more upright, more intelligent and less hairy. The process was too slow for it to be observed within a single lifetime. What you are referring to is Mitochondrial Eve. Jim Michael (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hinduism[edit]

The article currently contains the following:

Eve is mentioned in Hinduism as Havyavati and is considered to be the consort of Adhama (Adam). In Hinduism, Eve is the child of Vishnu-Kardama and is said to increase the generations of mlecchas. In the time of Kali Yuga, a deity named Kali Purusha worshipped Naryana. After some time, the lord appeared and said to him that there is a man named Adama and his wife Havyavati, and that they will increase the generations of mlecchas. This took place in the city of Pradan, where there was a sacred forest (God-given Forest). The forest was on the east side of Pradan city, and was sixteen square yojanas in size. Adam was staying under the Papa-Vriksha tree and was eager to see his wife Havyavati. The deity Kali purusha transformed herself into a serpent and persuaded them to disobey the Lord. They lived by eating air with the leaves called udumbar. They had a son named Sveta-nama.

I'm not familiar with the sources given as references, but could someone who does please assist in editing this section? My main concerns would be:

1. "Eve is mentioned in Hinduism as Havyavati" - this is given as a simple fact when it seems to be POV interpretation. This in itself is fine with a clearly named source for this interpretation ("Scholars such as X have identified Eve with Havyavati..."), but as it is, it is bewildering to say the least.
2. How widely recognised is the identification of the two?
3. Are they simply similar characters or did this stem from contact between the two cultures involved, and if the latter, what are the details?

At present the article states this identification as unambiguous fact when it strikes me as anything but. ElijahOmega (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

This appears to be inaccurate, but I'll leave it to others to fix if they want to. Some modern sources are [1] [2] Dougweller (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Occurrence[edit]

The article says "Her name occurs only five times in the Bible" but I found only four times using three bible search engines. http://www.biblegateway.com/ http://www.christnotes.org/bible.php http://www.searchgodsword.org/

Genesis 3:20
Genesis 4:1
2 Corinthians 11:3
1 Timothy 2:13
It needs either removing entirely or sourcing, our policy at WP:NOR means that we shouldn't be adding our own counts of something like this. Having said this, your count is backed up by reliable sources, eg [3] and [4]. Do you want to practice adding an inline citation (use the reference that mentions OT and NT usage, and use the drop down templates from 'Cite' above the edit window, make sure you hit the add extra fields button as you need to add the page number). Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of scientific view[edit]

why is there no section for the scientific view of eve? the existence of an "eve" is a claim that is within the realm of science, and has been tested. without some scientific input, this article is very lacking. a good opportunity wasted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volound (talkcontribs) 2011-08-10 17:45:15

I'm not convinced. Would we add to our article on Zeus something about lightning? We all know that science says humans evolved, I don't think it belongs here as a section. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
"Would we add to our article on Zeus something about lightning?"
if there were people that were still convinced that zeus was the best plausible explanation for lightning, then i would STRONGLY be in favour of your suggestion.
"We all know that science says humans evolved"
your statement is inconsistent with reality, that simply is not the case. as much of 2/3 of the american population are unaware that science says humans evolved.
after thinking about this more, im even more convinced that this article is lacking and that a good opportunity to educate the public (which is what wikipedia is for is it not?), has been utterly wasted. every hit to this page while it remains devoid of scientific input is potentially a disservice to science and education.
--Volound (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Evangelicals question the existence of Adam & Eve[edit]

On the other hand, we could discuss the debate illustrated here: [5]. "But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis 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 is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science." Others are quoted, for and against. I'm not sure how much this should be here and how much at Adam and Eve. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Eve in Islam: Original Sin[edit]

Muslims do not believe in Original Sin. Thus any mentioning of Original Sin in this section of the article is misleading to what Islam says about Eve. The referenced Hadiths should be left, with as accurate translations as possible, without flavouring it from a Christian perspective. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayez00 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

inaccurate[edit]

"Some hold [8] that" You only have one source; "some" implies more than one. Instead of "some", put his name and then cite the name of the myth he discusses and his source. You should also be able to provide a link to this source on an academic site or reference a peer-reviewed work. Anybody can publish a book saying anything they want but if it's not peer-reviewed, it's not adopted by the community of subject matter experts. Note that your reference for the end of the section is a "Forgotten Books" publication. Some books deserve to be forgotten; I've reviewed some of them for Amazon. You need more citations to back up this opinion or you need to make clear that only one person holds it. 4.249.72.228 (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

"Islamic tradition refers to her by an etymologically similar name - حواء (Hawwāʾ)"[edit]

The impression given off by the current line is that Hawwa is a variant of Eve, when the opposite is true. Shouldn't the line then say that the name Hawwa is closer to the original Hebrew? Rather than describing it as "an etymologically similar name"? Drsmoo (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

creation to creation myth[edit]

I un-piped creation myth this brings Eve closer in line with the wording in other similar articles namely Adam--Adam in MO Talk 15:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you didn't "un-pipe" it. You made a redundant piped link. Secondly, the difference in Adam is that its lead also has a link to Genesis creation narrative. If there's only going to be a link to one of the two, I think it should be to Genesis creation narrative, because the wording in the Creation myth article is too biased toward symbolism and mythology. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the redundency and add phrasing linking to genesis creation narrative. What do you think?--Adam in MO Talk 22:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not quite how I would have done it, but it's better. I won't dispute it. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
How would you have done it?--Adam in MO Talk 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Creation myth (let's try this again)[edit]

The "creation myth" phrase was re-added to the article introductory sentence and the editor commented that it had been repeatedly discussed and that consensus had been reached that it was correct per sources. First, no sources are provided in the article introduction (which is standard on wikipedia). So the "per sources" comment is not valid. Second, sources don't make it "correct." They just make it sourced. Third, I read the discussions--no consensus was ever reached. The debated ended by attrition. The concept of the creation story/creation myth is addressed further down in the article and a link is provided to the main article on that subject. Since treatment of the topic and direction to further sources is given in its appropriate place, then I see no reason why the article introduction should not be rendered more neutral by omitting the phrase "creation myth." Interested readers will be able to find all that they need for further analysis of the 'creation myths' concept by reading the pertinent portions of the body of the article. Furthermore, the phrase "creation myth" is merely iterative to those who don't believe in the Abrahamic religions anyway. Those who oppose the concept of a 'myth' are appeased by omitting the phrase from the introductory sentence while those who feel that it is a myth gain nothing by its presence and lose nothing by its removal. I am in the camp that feels that wikipedia should be as neutral as is possible without compromising validity. Leaving the discussion of (and links to) the creation story as written in the body of the article, while omitting it from the introduction is the best compromise. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The main discussion is taking place at Talk:Adam. These two articles need to be treated the same, so let's stay there please. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Name and origin[edit]

The Name and origin section is very messy with all name varieties in different languages, and improper markup has resulted in a formatting fiasco. It'd be great if somebody with working knowledge about her various names could do something about that, preferably using the proper lang- templates. ✎ HannesP · talk 04:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


Isha=Hebrew word meaning "woman".

Bereshis 2:21-23

Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)

21 And Hashem Elohim caused a tardemah (deep sleep) to fall upon the adam, and he slept; and He took from one of his tzalelot (sides, ribs), and closed up the basar in the place thereof;

22 And the tzela (rib), which Hashem Elohim had taken from the adam, made He an isha, and brought her unto the adam.

23 And the adam said, This is now etzem of my etzem, and basar of my basar; she shall be called Isha, because she was taken out of Ish.johncheverly 04:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm in the middle of a copyedit of the entire article and tried to use Template:Lang and its variants where appropriate. In some places I used {{lang-xx}} where "xx" is the two letter ISO 639 language code for a certain language (examples: "he" for Hebrew, "el" for Greek). Many of the languages used in this article don't seem to have an already constructed {{lang-xx}} template. I will also go through the article and add {{transl}} templates indicating transliterations, where appropriate. - tucoxn\talk 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The copy edit was completed on 19 April 2013. - tucoxn\talk 10:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)