“. . . and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)

[Dawn Davidson]

What does it mean that the husband “shall rule over thee” (the wife) within the context of the garden story?

Yet, even God cannot command “desire.” If He could or was willing to do so, surely as Christians we know he would command full acceptance by all of Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet even in the face of eternal damnation He does not. Further, to desire is an emotion. The word “desire” is defined in the Hebrew as “longing” or even “stretching out” after a thing or person. It is based upon a root word meaning to “overflow” as in water. It is a place of mind which is not (within its inception) achievable based upon command.

In fact to rightly interpret this area of scripture one must first hearken back to Genesis 2:24. It is here where we learn what the God-desired actions of a husband should be toward his wife; that he is to “cleave unto his wife” so that the two may be of one flesh. The word “cleave” is defined in the Hebrew as to “cling,” to “adhere,” to “follow close (hard after), be joined (together).”

Please note, this is expressed as an action word, a verb and is totally and completely obtainable based upon command and obedience. That is, it is God’s desire in marriage that a man should cling to and follow close and even hard after (underline mine) his wife. Of course within the context of the garden story, it was Eve who alone had regard for making right confession before God so it is totally appropriate that Adam was to cleave and to follow hard after her. However, that is an aside to the point I am seeking to make at this time.

So we know right now that “desire” is an emotion not capable of achieving upon command and yet to “cleave” is an action totally capable of achieving upon command. That a husband shall “rule over” a female must be defined within the right context of the garden story. That is, given the unrighteous state of the man Adam, that he denied Eve her God-given name and therefore also identity (as the two are related) and that he lied about his own name to her, and that he saw fit to allow her to even die by not interfering and correcting her knowledge regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve understandably no longer desired to be with Adam. So when God says that the man shall nevertheless “rule over” her it is a prophetic statement by God completely rooted in affairs of the heart within the confines of a marriage. God was in fact telling Eve that she would one day heal and desire to have this man again. Period, nothing more nothing less.

Specifically, as a now punished but changing Adam began to obediently “cleave” to his wife as a “husband” (and please note, according the Hebrew, Adam is never defined in name as acting as a husband to Eve, he is only defined as a “man” in the name of “Adam.”) the very heart of Eve would itself begin to change and instead of now hating or at least not desiring this man, she would begin to forgive and open her heart to receive him once more. Adam had to be obedient unto God first as a husband (that is “cleave”) before the female Eve could allow her emotions (hence “desire”) for this now cleaving man to “rule over” her earlier desire to simply hate or not forgive him. It was a twin deliverance rooted in the heart for both of them.

Therefore it is once again proven that God did not establish and elevate the place of a man even as a husband to “rule over” the place and position of a female even as a wife.

Please respond about how you discern this directly based upon scripture and not tradition and unsupported rhetorical statements. I realize what I have is not familiar but we can still be civil. If you don’t agree then credibly tell me why and what you specifically don’t agree with. I, like Eve, am personally also “longing” to hear your answers. <:

My scripture references to the Hebrew are from the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

[N'ZI Amani Germain]

THE EMERGING GARDEN STORY DOCTRINE IS JUST A FABLE

[N'ZI Amani Germain]

The false teacher Dawn Davidson is back !!!!!

Indeed she wondered:

“Two Spoke Against Moses, and even Against the Ethiopian Woman, but only One was Punished by a Just God, Why?”

To understand very well the false teaching above, one must at first consult the study of sister Dawn Davidson’s “GARDEN STORY DOCTRINE”

Sister Dawn Davidson, remember, one day you’ve said this:

“Yet in Genesis 3:12 what does Adam confess? He confesses nothing worth having. All he really does is lodge accusation in the face of God and says nothing about what was really true in that garden according to his actions. And this why Adam was punished and a fully confessed Eve was not. By the way, God accepted the confession of Eve which means, she was but only deceived in the garden, the lie regarding whether or not the fruit could be both touched and eaten could not have come therefore from her. It originated with a selfish, power-hungry Adam…”

Sister, in your message above you assert that Miriam was a LEADER endowed with an heavier RESPONSIBILITY simply because she has been PUNISHED.

As for Aron , he was WEAK because he has not been punished.

Sister we also notice that ADAM WAS PUNISHED.

So if the PUNISHMENT is the clue of the responsibility bestowed into someone, why do you refuse to admit that ADAM WAS THE LEADER in the Eden Garden?

The Bible declares:

« For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables ».

2 Timothy 4:3-4

Dear sister, with all due respect, I would like to tell you that you have turned away your ears from the truth, and you have been turned unto fables!

Blessings,

Bro. Germain

[Dawn Davidson]

Bro. Germain,

As I said in the discussion regarding Miriam ("Two spoke Against Moses, and even Against the Ethiopian Woman, but only One was Punished by a Just God, Why?"), you are mistaken about the entire premise of the conversation. You are creating an argument all on your own tailored to suit your needs. Read the actual posts and then make comment.

Also, I stand by what I have said. If you would like to address the actual Hebrew of the garden word then we can do that but I refuse to engage in labeling and name calling with you.

Stay blessed.

[Dawn Davidson]

Hello Minister Warren and much love to you!

First, thank you for responding to this post. My question for you is, can you prove that an Adam longed for God prior to the fall? If so how? (I agree that Eve did). Take into consideration, that the God the Church says he longed for called him a “hypocrite,” saying that he would be made ashamed (due to the man‘s own free-will choices (one of which was not to make a full confession before God therefore not proving to long for God) and having nothing to do with his creation by God), that he would be a mean man of low and not high degree.” But when did God say all of this? God communicates this to us the very second God calls this man by the name of “Adam.” Our compassions for an Adam aside, what I have just listed is what the meaning of his name is, even in the end as the God who named him saw it. So if the man at any point proved to “long” for God, then how is it that even God missed it?

Conversely true also is that God caused Adam in Genesis 3:20, to submit to calling the female by the name of “Eve” and not “Woman,” (a name chosen by an “Adam” now also choosing to call himself “Man” in Genesis 2:23, which as you will note, is the classic definition and work of a hypocrite!). The name “Eve” means that God saw fit to declare her as “life-giver,” Adam was even compelled by God in Genesis 3:20 to recognize her as “mother of all living,” and she being a child-less female in a fallen garden. This was not a title which an Eve as a future mother earned speaking to the physical only. Even an Adam would go on to physically father every one of her children, yet where was his respective like recognition by God? But an Adam not proving to long for God (at least not enough to make full confession) did not earn it. (Somehow a tested but proven righteous “Father Abraham” did, but an Adam as first father in the earth did not yet he even more so than an Abraham should have).

Which brings me back to Genesis 3:16. I don't believe we can theologically say (correctly that is) that a God who honored the work of a fully confessed female (Genesis 3:13) calling her an “Eve” and not in like kind as a hypocrite and an accusing “Adam,” and bestowing upon her title as “mother of all living” and upon Adam none (although if he was not called “father of all living” by God it does not mean that he did not act in cooperation to spiritually “father” something, it only means that even God would not speak it) would then in Genesis 3:16 declare that the man, who did not prove to earn the approval of God, would then rule over the female called "Eve" by God who did. That a man proving to be made ashamed, called a hypocrite and mean man of low degree by God would as even determined by God rule over one earning the approval of God as “life-giver” and “mother of all living.” Saying in full effect that, according even to His mind, the work and (therefore flesh) of one choosing to do the evil should trump the work of one working toward righteousness and even by way of confession - that she, though fully confessed and honored, should be punished, subdued, and subjugated by God and through this same punished man. The idea of this in my opinion, and even more so as a teaching of the Church (whether intended or not) is pleasing to an enemy only who hates both God and us. This makes a God who tells us that he is righteous into an “Adam” as a hypocrite (and a liar) himself! The work of an Eve alone (by way of making right confession in Genesis 3:13) among the humans is what gave a righteous God (who does not and will not further the evil) what he required to even continue life on earth in a now fallen world. This is the problem, and not even the full extent of the problem, that I see when we say that a man proving no regard for making right confession, and even thus punished by God (as this was the only reason why he was punished by God), was approved and given rule over the female.

I believe we have been well conditioned not to fully and rightly consider the significance and application of what God says about Eve (and even what God says about a man that his foresight saw fit to call an “Adam“) by the tradition of the male pulpit. As a Church we even fail to rightly consider that in Genesis 3:15 it was the female only that God was able to use in opposition to the seed of the serpent (we know this because God is speaking to her alone in the presence of the serpent - as God was also speaking to the serpent - but not also an Adam). God acknowledges the authority of her “seed” and her “head” alone (and not an arrogant Adam) in speaking of victory and defeat over the enemy. We cannot discount anything that God does. And if the tradition of the male pulpit could prove that God was speaking to an Adam about victory over the enemy in Genesis 3:15, how many times would we have to endure hearing about it? But they don’t because they can’t. And not considering the full import of Genesis 3:15 in relation to the approved work of the female, and then even the obvious absence of an Adam, is among that which that assures the traditionally distorted teaching we get about Genesis 3:16.

I agree that the male and the female were created equally, and even remained as equal in creation post-fall and that even despite the “head/seed” of an Eve proving better than did the “head/seed“ of an Adam before God. The difficulty I have is when we don’t first apply as our guiding principles of interpretation, what God said was true in the garden. So I ask, in the face of all that God had to say about a man he called an “Adam,” how is it that Adam can be proven to have longed for God in the garden? To love God is to obey God. Adam proved to reject everything God gave according to righteousness in the garden. What Adam (as God even defines this man by his very name) sought were those things which an Adam saw fit to secure for himself.

My second question for you is, given free-will belonging to the humans and even as allowed by God, how is it that her desires would be to her husband by any command of God? I will say, that I do agree that a garden Eve (that is pre-fall) did desire her husband, which is why even as a “woman” according to the Hebrew she also qualified as a “wife” (though an Adam as “man” only meaning to be an “Adam” and not the 2nd definition of “man” as mighty, a champion, great, and even a husband did not qualify as a “husband” before God in the garden). However, post-fall, when learning that the man she considered as “husband” was really an “Adam” (Genesis 3:9) and not the “Man” of 2:23 (meaning mighty, a champion, great and a husband), realizing also all that he by calling her “Woman” and not an “Eve,” and not declaring her in purpose as “mother of all living” stole from her, and too in realizing that Adam knew the fruit could be touched only not eaten (which is how she was tricked), and also realizing that the man knew this without interfering in what was sure to bring about her death, by the time she gets to Genesis 3:16 this woman no longer desires anything else from the work of a man she now knows to be an “Adam.” Which is why I say, God spoke prophetically to her in Genesis 3:16, that her desires would once again, some day, as the man learned to rightly cleave and walk as righteous in God, return.

Think of it this way, if you had two kids would you judge, dictate, and even approve as a model before them, that the one choosing to do well should submit and be in a position of subjugation under the authority of the one choosing not to do well? The Scripture verse in which God says will he give stone if even we know to give bread, is what comes to mind here. Given the truth of an “Adam” (An Adam as an individual and not in speaking against the entire gender of men) would a righteous God give us this man in any capacity as a model of leadership? And as righteous would He too, choose to ignore the leadership of a proven to be just and honored Eve as our model instead? (Again, an Eve as an individual and not speaking for the entire gender of women).

My perspective of the garden is led by this: in reference to obedience, what did the pre-fall condition of the man and the female prove to be based upon their free-will actions and in strict compliance to what was the spoken foreknowledge of God about each (an "Adam" versus an "Eve"), and then post-fall, in light of what they actually confessed (another free-will action), how did God judge it. I believe that before we can rightly interpret Genesis 3:16 we must also prove, know, and apply (even according to the Hebrew) what was in the actual mind of God about these two people regarding character and action (and even their own proven actions), according to his foreknowledge and post-fall judgment.

So it seems we agree on equality as created by God but we differ regarding the actual state of the man versus the female in proving to make a choice for God (that is, you state both proved to long for him) and, as I still question, that God could (or even would given the critical nature of free-will) make command for “desire.” I would add too that we differ most in priority given to first prove what was the righteousness of God in the exercise of his judgment as recorded in Genesis 3:16, that this is what brings us to far different conclusions. Sorry for the length of my answer and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Please, unless inclined don’t feel obligated to address each issue I raised but only that which is at hand and most relevant to how you see it. That is where we should continue to begin. My greatest interest is in an exchange of ideas, knowledge, and information. I felt a need to give greater context and clarity to what I believe is true in word. (Ok, and my kids tell me once I get started in these areas I talk too much - maybe I did here too. Lol!).

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Watson,

I welcome the question and even stand to learn from it but posted my answer as a comment on your page as the question itself does not directly relate to the subject at hand. If I am wrong we can certainly discuss it here, but that is what I have determined from first read. So unless (and until) we determine otherwise, if you don't mind let's keep it in another place so that we might stay on topic here, thanks!

[Dawn Davidson]

Sister Jenine,

I live these issues, and think about them much of the time and I think a good challenge (even a spirited one though only spirited in love!) only makes one better so please no worries - iron sharpens iron. So sorry to have written too much, it’s common error for me. In short, God called the first man an “Adam” for a reason. In the Hebrew all names and terms have meaning so in order to discern what a God of foreknowledge was actually saying to us by calling the man an “Adam” we must first acknowledge one, that he was saying something and therefore “Adam” is not a name inter-changeable with any other for the man as given by God, and two, we must acknowledge and apply what is the specific meaning of the name “Adam” according to the Hebrew.

The name “Adam” is identical in meaning to that of “man” in the Hebrew but only identical in meaning to one out of the two uses of “man” within the garden word. Both “Adam” and the first (even most common) use of the word “man” are based on a root word meaning to show blood (in the face), to be red even ruddy. It is commonly expressed as to be made ashamed, embarrassed (due to a specific cause). The specific definition of this use of “man” is “ a human being (an individual or the species mankind, etc.), and also “another, hypocrite, common sort, low, man (mean, of low degree), person.”

Now Adam proves as hypocrite in Genesis 2:23 when introducing himself to the female as someone who he is not in either his identity or character given that he is first identified by God as a “man” in the name of an Adam. The use of the word “man” Adam employs in Genesis 2:23, now calling himself “Man” (the 2nd use in definition of the word “man“), is one speaking of a person who is mighty, great, a champion, a person of high and not low degree. This man is even defined as a “husband” which a garden man called an Adam by God is not according to the Hebrew (meaning that a “husband” is not who this man would prove himself to be in the garden).

Even God returns again confirming for us who this person really is in Genesis 3:9 with word saying: “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” Further, in Genesis 3:10 the man who introduced himself to the female in Genesis 2:23 as “Man” and not an “Adam,” now even in her presence and without correction, answers here with word saying: “And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

Adam would have proven to long for God had he instead submitted to the leadership of God, exalted obedience, and then sought the knowledge of God about the identity of his person. But then again, if an Adam were ever to do all of that, in acting as a righteous being, then a God proving his foreknowledge in the garden never would have identified and called him (in character) an “Adam” in the first place.

I will stop here. Let me know your thoughts and if what I have written now (much shorter right? Lol.) helps to clarify my own.

[Dawn Davidson]

Sister Jenine,

This is the Scripture (Genesis 2:23) from the King James: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” I have other issues with an Adam in this statement but let’s stick to what we are talking about at hand. What happened in Genesis 2:22 but that God first presents the female to the man, word records:

“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” Word is the authority we submit to (and even within the first five books as recorded by Moses) and in it the only name the man Adam uses to introduce and identify himself to a newly arrived female is that as “Man” and not “Adam” in Genesis 2:23. It’s like he said, “Hi, my name is Man.” But we know his name is not “Man,” that it is even illogical for him to attempt calling himself “Man” and not “Adam,” first because even God knew he was an “Adam” and not “Man” (as word proves again in Genesis 3:9) but also because (within this context) “man” was purposed by God as a term to denote his creation in gender but not his person in full identity.

In truth, the Amplified says: “Then Adam said, This (creature) is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of a man.”

And the NIV says: “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ’woman’ for she was taken out of man.”

In either case, that is, whether the term “man” is presented as pronoun (as a name like in the King James or in reference to the female even in the Amplified) or not (as in the Amplified), the fact that an “Adam” is presenting himself in Genesis 2:23 as a “man” according to the Hebrew which he (as an Adam) is not still remains and as such so does our hypocrite.

Webster’s defines a hypocrite as: a person who pretends to be what he or she is not; one who pretends to be better than is really so, or to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so. Hence an Adam as a humiliated, mean man of low degree presenting himself as “Man” (or even “man”) as in mighty, of high degree, a husband, and great.

Please explain to me (as I have heard it before and don’t understand) how do we question what Moses wrote in reference to an Adam (you wrote: “I read what Moses said, "And Adam said", and this is what Moses said Adam said,”) when Moses is the author of the book (as inspired by God)? That is, if we cannot except what Moses wrote (as he was even inspired by God) then why do we accept the book, or any of the books, as truth? What is our basis for determining whether and when we question the garden word as recorded in full by the hand of Moses? I could understand this better if this word were preceded by an earlier word in which it failed to line up (proving the embedded pride and hypocrisy of man), but this as a word is where it all started.

[Dawn Davidson]

Sister Jenine,

Love what you wrote about the name of Eve, wow, great insight! Extremely good and practical question which according to the logic demonstrated by an Adam in Genesis 2:23, I don't think there is a credible answer! You might hear me use that one!

About the rest of your post, God did not create him this way. Yes as God created, the humans were in a perfect state, but it was a perfect state only sustainable in perfect obedience to God. Remember that we must deal with the issue of free-will. God gave, as he gives us, the right to exercise choice. We make good choices, we make bad choices. Had both the man and the female made all good choices, then they would have maintained the perfect state in God in which they were created, but according to choices made by their own free-willed minds, they did not. (By comparison for purposes of a standard, we know Jesus as incarnate man in obedience to the will of the Father only did).

God proves to us in this, that not only is he alone perfect, but even that he is just. He gave the humans a fair shot to be perfect even as is he but as human beings - on a human level and even a glorified one. But along with that state of perfection came free-will also (He is even just in this as we would otherwise not be a reflection of him but only robots). What mankind proved is in inability to function perfectly as humans (though having started in a perfect state) in like manner as does God in his divinity. Our success then is determined based upon our willingness to submit to the leadership and word of God only and not our own minds. This is what Adam should have done. He should have recognized, given the information provided by God all wrapped up in his name, that doing things on his own would not yield good results, and then rightly humbled himself before the Lord. The thought occurs to me too (given that we are talking about the state of Adam pre-fall), we are beings created in the image of a Perfect God. He is Perfect and is always right. Therefore, as beings created in his image, small wonder why we must wrestle so with our minds to humble ourselves and submit, thinking instead that we, as if being our own god, can be in this like manner as God, perfect (which we cannot). This is even more so an issue for the male given the ego (again pointing to “male“ as the more noteworthy sex due to the ego and the greater degree of difficulty involved in humbling one’s self to admit wrong and make confession of sin). This is why obedience to the leadership of God is so critically important. Hope that makes sense, new thought to me.

It helps too, to consider that God knew even before creating humans that they were destined for the fall. Again, only He is Perfect. This is why a God of foreknowledge, as supplier of all of our needs, put the confession in place for our deliverance. Sin, though tragic was not the issue (God already knew they would fall, that they could not sustain the state in which they were justly created), the real issue at hand in terms of God’s continued ability to righteously continue life in the earth was just confession. This again is why Genesis 3:13, while for it’s right reasons (that being, that it is our right model, even the first confession of sin accepted by God) is ignored by the Church, was nevertheless still critical within the Plan of God to keep us here.

So, within the life of Adam, and then even Eve, what they actually did in the garden deserves our comment from the perspective of discernment in God and it’s application in our own lives, yet even their sin was not the real issue. The real issue was, who if not both, would make a choice for God (above all else) and make right confession of that sin before a holy God? Adam and Eve arrived in the same place of sin walking on two separate paths before God which collided in Genesis 3:1-6. God wanted a confession of truth, that is all he wanted and that is all he asked for. He did not say, “And why did you not maintain a state of perfection before Me, the LORD thy God?” He saw the mess and essentially said, “What happened?”

Adam’s answer should have included his abuse of God’s word in Genesis 2:23, even his silence in Genesis 3:1-6, even that he obviously had not been picking up fruit which he before the female (in order to sustain the lie) could not touch else she herself would have known the truth, that the fruit could be touched only not eaten. Adam had a lot of explaining to do. Why didn’t she know that his name was Adam, post-fall? Why did she not even know her own name, post-fall? Where were the children, post-fall? Why was the garden not properly kept, post-fall? Why did you Adam, not speak the truth of God in Genesis 3:1-6, that the fruit could be touched only not eaten in the very face of an enemy determined to destroy the female? Why? Why were you even comfortable in his presence, why? Why did you Adam “hearken unto” her voice, is it because you expected that she would die? Was this a matter of a win/win for you Adam? That you would either get to safely eat the fruit if she lived, or in the very least rid yourself of a female you proved an utter lack of regard for if she died? It certainly wasn’t a matter of obedience. We cannot ignore these matters and are obligated to ask, to even determine if word proves how God saw all of this. Then again, although Adam arrogantly confessed to eating fruit in Genesis 3:12, God punished him didn’t he? But does God punish the righteous, even the righteously confessed? Therein lies our answer.

It cannot be proven that the man had greater authority in God. There is a reason why a man called an “Adam” by God, a man who would go on to incorrectly, even deceitfully name in Genesis 2:23 arrived early into the garden to practice by naming the animals. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but God was proving even in doing this, Adam’s capability to rightly name as desired and given by God prior to Genesis 2:23. Everything was a test, not an indication of authority. Adam did well in naming the animals, so what happened in Genesis 2:23 when challenged by the arrival of a female with name and title speaking better of her than his did of him? We get “Woman” and “Man” instead of “Eve” and “Adam.” Yet in the end, in direct response to the return of God, we are back to an “Adam” and even he now confesses her to be an “Eve.” It was a test purposed for the man to prove his righteousness in God despite his predisposition to satisfy pride and ego.

Why did God call the name of an “Adam” and not that of the female in Genesis 3:9? God was pointing to the cause of the fall, which was the ultimate work of an Adam, and the female as of yet did not have the name which it was the desire of God, as even he identified her according to his foreknowledge to be. She was named in disobedience and God, as even our God, had no desire to further that which was of the evil. He gave the work of an Adam absolutely no validity and we shouldn’t either. Again, none of this is about an Adam in representation of all men (that is ridiculous!), but only in representation of a person called an Adam by God. Just as we are all supposed to learn from the model of a person in an Eve who did make just confession, so are we all supposed to learn from the model of a person in an Adam who did not. God is no respecter of persons.

Also God gave command to Adam prior to the creation and the arrival of the female, but of those commands given, what happened? Post-fall we have an un-kept garden (due to Adam‘s lie to the female, that the fruit could not be touched - yet it surely fell), we have no babies though even a wronged Eve proved obedient to physically submit in Genesis 4:1 (how much more so then to a man she considered as a “husband“ in the garden?), and the eating of forbidden fruit by the ultimate responsibility of both but by the lone devise of Adam among the humans.

Ok Janine, I am writing too much again and shall stop and wait for your reply. (Again, just to what you feel moved to respond to. The problem for me is, this is what I call a “circular“ word, and it is very difficult to speak on one aspect without relating the effect or cause of it, upon that of another).

[Dawn Davidson]

Oh, believe it or not, given the length of my first answer to this post I forgot to say, I am not sure that Moses fully understood what he was writing. I am no expert in these areas, just from what I have learned is actually in this word. That is, it seems to me, although I mean no disrespect to any other area of word, that a word appearing so simple, yet beneath the surface so complex is not even just of a man's inspired mind. I believe (unless and until it is proven to me otherwise, I am no expert here) that the truth of the garden word, as it really is and not according the teaching and preaching tradition of men, is undoubtedly to the full glory of God. The word is as intricate and revelatory of God and human nature as it is inter-twined with motive and opportunity. It is so incredibly filled with teaching and meaning (much of which we as a Church miss), sometimes I think (perhaps in like mind as the Ten Commandments) "Moses, all you did was take dictation!"

[Dawn Davidson]

Sister Jenine,

But Adam’s name was Adam (that was his truth as given even by God) and he should have just said Adam, especially to a woman created by God to be his wife. The garden like our lives was about God first. Consider if Adam rightly identified himself as an Adam before the female (according to the wisdom of God as that is what God named him), what would she have immediately had the means to properly discern? In the very least not to trust him as she later proves to do to a fault. She would have known, a man called an Adam by God can not also be “husband” (according to the Hebrew) and she would have been less inclined, likely even to not at all, perceive him as such. So when put to the test in Genesis 3:1-6 it may very well have been (acknowledging that I am speculating) God that she called upon for truth instead of trusting in the silent lack of objection to the enemy by Adam, thinking that he too, knowing more than she about God (as he arrived earlier), must now doubt and think God to be a liar also.

You said: “I don't see him calling himself anything other than a male…One of the meanings for man/H0120 is male.”

Yet the word “man” of 120 (in Strong’s) is not interchangeable with “man“ of 376 which is inclusive of “male” in the Hebrew. In my Strong’s 120 the term “male” is never mentioned. I tried looking on Crosswalk and will do so again, but can you tell me which reference you specifically looked in on Crosswalk (that “man” of 120 is also “male”) so that I can view the same. According to the Hebrew that I have, an Adam who was a “man” of 120 did not also qualify as a “male” in the garden. In order to qualify as a “male” in the garden he would first also have to qualify as the man of 376 in Genesis 2:23 and not merely “man” of 120 who he really was.

The way Hebrew terms are defined is not limited to the physical or outward appearance. That is, a man named “Adam” did not qualify as “husband” (as defined in the Hebrew) I believe, because although he was designed to be a “husband” to the garden female he did not act as a “husband” to the female to the glory of God (a man who is mighty, great, of high and not low degree). So where we, not thinking on the same level of God, may see a husband, God does not (and that is not because God did not call him to be a “husband” (we know that he did) but I believe due only to what were the man‘s actual actions toward the female in the garden).

This even applies for the term “male.” To be a “male” in the garden is first defined as a matter of character, it means to be the most noteworthy sex and based upon another root word in the Hebrew, it speaks to even being worthy of remembrance. Within the context of the garden, I interpret it to mean, that had a clearly challenged arrogant Adam conquered his flesh and made full confession in Genesis 3:12 he would indeed have been recognized as the most noteworthy sex given the extent of the issues, and the nature of the male ego. That he as a man of 376 would have proven himself as great and mighty, and as a male, the most noteworthy. If Adam had even only confessed truth about the fruit (knowing that it could be touched only not eaten) in Genesis 3:1-6 (as I believe he was fully present the entire time) he would have proven himself to be the most noteworthy sex (even averting the fall) given all that he, as a man challenged by pride, had to overcome to choose God and not what he otherwise saw to be in his own best interest.

You said "But I do not believe you can apply all of the meanings to this one in this scripture." I agree with that, but it seems to me that the work of Adam in Genesis 2:23 was manipulation and that of a hypocrite. He was either faced with character issues in Genesis 2:23 or he is proving (in even his first act) an inept ability to operate in and among the things of God. His name was Adam, and he was given charge by God to correctly, even obediently name all things in the garden. He did so when it was about the animals but on the level of the humans he failed to speak what God said to him as a name which was “Adam” and he also proved not to properly call the female by name. Names speak to identity (and even of character), identity speaks to purpose, and properly acknowledged and then known purpose speaks to the exercise of your truth. Adam at least had the option to know and then to reject, but the female, not knowing her name (or even his) until post-fall had none of that. Also too, in the garden, names and commands as they were given was God’s word to the humans even as our Bibles represent God’s word to us. Look at how much we are going through right now to speak what God actually said and not what we say. As an act of obedience, Adam was supposed to employ the same like standard.

I believe, given that he knew to answer to the name of Adam in Genesis 3:9 and that he also did not refer to the female as “Woman” in name before God in Genesis 3:12 (he said, “the woman” and not “Woman“) Adam knew the difference. It is difficult also to accept that he did not know the difference when the particular term of “man” he did use was not the term of “man” synonymous with the name of “Adam.” I believe we have an Adam who rejected the will of God in rightly naming the humans. If God had to explain to him post-fall that his name was actually “Adam” and not “Man” then I would agree but God speaks to the man as an “Adam” (Genesis 3:9) in a way which leaves no question about who even, in God’s own opinion, this man knew himself to truly be.

Either way, I think we have a problem with Adam. Either a rebellious Adam was a hypocrite, as I believe his actions and even God’s own direction to him in Genesis 3:9 proves (and that he knew to answer to the name of Adam), or he failed to exercise right ability to properly identify anything above the level of an animal in the garden. But even I give Adam more credit than that! Lol.

You said: “And though I completely believe in the foreknowledge of God, I can't see God naming Adam a hypocrite because that would doom Adam from the start.”

Or was the garden a continual test to prove righteousness in God? Why do we not also consider that a man called an “Adam” by God should not have let God depart from the garden without asking the question, why give me such a name? Cain spoke up regarding his punishment, Abraham spoke up regarding the people God was purposed to destroy, Jacob refused to let go until he got his blessing, the woman with the issue of blood held on too, so why didn’t Adam? God was the sole source of his knowledge, or at least should have been, so why did Adam instead elect to launch out on his own in a name game (as I see it). When God speaks a word to us about a flaw (or many lol) in our character, don’t we ask questions in order that we might learn how to do better before him, that is if we care to do better before him? We say things like, “show me Lord what you see.” That is an act of humbling ourselves before the Lord, even to his knowledge and even in acknowledgement of his power. Yet Adam, as the first person, seeing the earth and having witnessed first-hand the creative powers of God, did not elect to do this. That says something.

God did not name “Adam” a hypocrite, he named him “Adam” and Adam was a man who proved to the foreknowledge of God that he would be a hypocrite. What would be the proven character of Adam according to his own free-will actions, is what defined even his name. I do see why you would say “that would doom Adam from the start” but really it would not. I have written above, giving examples in word, what I think would have been a better response for Adam. In effect only (as it was God who called the man Adam), it’s almost like, as a female being taught that you were not created to be equal as the man in God. Then what is the point? Beyond issues of salvation, why should more and even just as much be expected of me in terms of sacrifice, commitment, and sheer pain (and if subjugated I would suggest even more pain) if in the end, due to the uncontrollable issue of my gender, I cannot have opportunity according to call to draw as near, to receive as much as does the man, having the opportunity according to call simply because he is physically male? Now there are those who would say a female is justified to have such a response, but is it right before God? The answer is no. We are to be and remain in hard pursuit of God and his truths, regardless of our present standing, leaning not unto our own understanding but his, looking to him for our increase. The choice is always there to like Adam leave God, but it wasn’t the right answer for an Adam just as it would not be the right answer for the female. Sadly however, many do.

So that Adam knew that God did not speak well of him does not justify a departure from God, in fact, I perceive it, as are all things from God, to be a good thing. The man now had (given God even as supplier of all of his needs) what he needed to think with a sober and fully informed mind even about himself in the presence of a holy God, to even recognize that he needed a change.

Again, let me know exactly what you are looking under on Crosswalk!

[Dawn Davidson]

Sister Janine,

Thanks for hanging with me and I receive you girl and you are absolutely right about the length of my writings. I understand what you are saying and you are right to say it. I will keep it tight.

You wrote: “Odedience to God would mean do what God tells you to do and don't do what He tells you not to do? Was he not found in disobedience until he did the thing God told him not to do?”

I believe Adam was in disobedience, as was Eve, the moment either elected to exercise the will not of God but according to their own minds (God judges the heart). In the case of Eve this happened when she made a decision to taste the fruit. In the case of Adam (in my opinion) this happened when he decided in Genesis 2:23 to reject the will of God in calling himself an Adam before the female and she an Eve. Speaking to the foreknowledge of God, all that the humans would do was already and always known in the mind of God (regardless of when individual moments of sin may actually have occurred).

You wrote: “When did Adam's nature change, before the fall or after the fall? If his nature changed before the fall, then answer this question: How could Adam's nature change before he ate the fruit that would change his nature? I mean wouldn't Adam continue to have the nature he was created with until he did the only thing that would change it?”

Not sure what you mean by his nature. Are you asking why is it that Adam was the way he was in the first place (perhaps even versus an Eve)? The only thing I think I can add to this is that the evil one (Satan) had already fallen within the earthly realm, the fall of mankind was yet to happen but given the presence of the serpent, and what is in word itself, we know evil was present. Given it’s presence, and even more the magnitude of God’s own Presence, the matter becomes simple choice, will you as an individual choose God or not regardless of nature, even ego. I don’t think God (as righteous) created the man in anyway to give pre-disposition for this man to reject God (and neither was an Eve created by God pre-disposed to be deceived), that is simply not just, not within the desires of God and therefore not God and secondly, everything God gave even in the garden to the man and the female was good.

I think what you are asking scratches the surface of something much deeper. Where did the personality traits (or nature) of Adam challenging him the most come from? Did it have more to do with him as a man or was it due to his individual personality, and in either case, where did it originate if not in his creation by God? We could ask the same questions about an Eve. I don’t know the answer to that.

You wrote: “How did mankind prove his inability to function perfectly as humans? Was it because he disobeyed? If so, then wouldn't Adam's imperfection have existed before he actually disobeyed? And if so, wouldn't that mean that God created him with imperfection?”

Mankind proved their imperfection because mankind proved an ability to sin. God according to his own thoughts and ways (which are higher than ours) cannot - only God is God, how can we ever say what keeps him perfect with any expectation that we can have the same, as does God, for ourselves? So yes, it was because he disobeyed. I don’t think that because Adam made a free-will choice to disobey it means it was the fault of God according to his design. Remember God did not create robots, even God could make a choice to do the evil he only perfectly does not, he is pure in his state. That Adam did not view his original state as good given that he had God (that is, that he instead felt need to seek answers/solutions outside of God to meet his needs) is not the fault of God, but God gave the answer to sin even before laying the foundations of the earth, which is why even in the garden we have confession.

Hope I did better!

[Pastor valentine]

I am of the mind that you have a serious problem with male leadership. I took the time to read many of your replies and they have a common thread. To reduce the maleship in some form or fashion. God has placed man and woman in there place in and of life. God does not love or value one over another. you qoute often the man was weak so the woman had to step in . . the man was a hypocrite, so God made him , to apolgise to woman etc. .I must add that the bible says that the word of God. This word is not left up to privite interpertation. We all have and entitled to his or her opinion about scripture. I feel in my spririt that what you are doing is not led of the Holy Ghost. I admit they are many m,any men not doing what they should be doing. Yet in spiritual fairness many many women wear the same shoe