the church says, tell us lies

[Preacher]

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
the bible teaches us that those who were beheaded, what does this mean? will Christians in these days be beheaded?, of course not, so what dose this verse mean?
here God is telling us that those who teach the true gospel will be shunned, or in a way made to be quiet, as if they have been beheaded,John the Baptist was beheaded to shut him up,he was beheaded physically, well in this country that won't happen, but they if you are a true child of God, and you tell people the truth about the bible, how God is no longer using the churches to proclaim the word of God, and that he has called us out of the churches, and that women were not allowed to teach or preach or usurp authority over the man in the congregation, you will find yourself being asked to leave a church for telling the truth these last days.

in a sense you will be beheaded,the bible says they will not endure sound doctrine.

2nd Timothy 4:3For the time will come when they will not take the true teaching; but, moved by their desires, they will get for themselves a great number of teachers for the pleasure of hearing them;
here God is telling us that in the last days, now, that people will not want the truth of the gospel, they will ask to have smooth words preached top them, like the Oprah-Ology or the false gospel of Osteen-ism, they don't want to hear about hell and damnation,judgment and such things,the bible tells us here Isaiah 30:10 Who say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Do not give us word of what is true, but say false things to give us pleasure:

you see the prophesy of God here, has come to pass exactly as he said it would.

[T.L. Hawkins]

Can a woman be silent and prophesy?

[Preacher]

The silence I'm speaking of is the silence in the congregation when God was using the churches.

[T.L. Hawkins]

Just wanted to understand. Thanks

[T.L. Hawkins]

Not ALL my brother.

[Angel Greene]

Amen, Tarmeque! The more I see alot of these brothers, I understand why HE does allow, equip, empower, annoint, and mandate us to!

[T.L. Hawkins]

That means just because you're a man (in general) doesn't make what YOU teach sound doctrine EITHER! A lot of these brothers wanting the sisters to be silent are LOST themselves and have no real understanding of the word themselves!

[T.L. Hawkins]

And...for the record: I don't see ANYWHERE in the word where Adam lied to Eve or deceived her. Eve was deceived by the serpent and she chose to disobey her husband and God!

[Angel Greene]

What does this mean? Come on Bro. Moreh, you know exactly what this means. I know YOU do. Look on this site alone. Dont get me wrong, some women yes are coming out with some stuff that I have no clue where it came from because it does not line up with the word and some I still cant find. HOWEVER, when I look at some of the things the men are saying.....thats a whole 'nother story! When I look at how some of the men are being tossed from doctrine to doctrine just to be accepted, need I go on Moreh? How about this, how many men came forth from this last incident one the blog and knew what was going on. The man-The HEAD, FATHERHOOD.

[Preacher]

Many are called but few are chosen, isn't speaking about being chosen to be pastors or to have authority in the churches when God used the church.
many are called ( hear the gospel )
but few are chosen ( chosen from before the foundation of the world for salvation )
God Bless

[Dawn Davidson]

All you have to do is actually study the word, why be so satisfied with tradition? If you actually have a heart for God then make the time and commitment to study this word and exalt Him only. This is not about a female power play. The last thing I would wish or want for myself is to be in what I believe is your spiritual position rooted in pride and arrogance before God. I have already written enough on this blog to answer the questions you ask, discuss the validity of that instead of just casting aspersions. Yet many seem so very insecure about losing what is perceived to be power and yet it is but only ash. You know this word doesn't line up but it serves your purposes to say it does, why else won't you discuss the detail of it? If you were actually a student of this word then you would have been able to reference an intelligent question to what I have posted and not simply seek to lodge insult. But where is your teaching spirit? If you have something to teach me then teach me but yet there is no edification here.

[Preacher]

God Bless.

[Dawn Davidson]

Moreh, first of all, thank you for this, it is greatly appreciated.

I do not dispute that all God created was good, of course it was for it was created by a Perfect God. My position is based upon what actually came through the mind of Adam. When you were born as a baby, you were beautiful in spirit even then I am sure, but what continued to determine where you actually are is what and how you decided (and decide) daily to walk in obedience before God. If you or I fall down it is not the fault of God, or how He in His Infinite Wisdom created us, but only due to issues rooted in self only.

It is not my intent to say that something which God created was not good, yet He made us as free-will, thinking individuals capable and even responsible for the choices we make which are not always right. Such was the case of both Adam and Eve, separately according to their individual garden walks (pre-fall), and then together during the time of the fall itself. To say that Adam was good simply because God created him to be good is to also say that God failed because the man fell. I am not saying that Adam was not inherently good as a creation of God, I am speaking about the individual manifested mind of Adam.

Regarding the use of the term “man” we actually don’t disagree. I agree that the use of the term changes. In Genesis 2:23, it speaks well of the man as: “mighty,” a “champion” and yes also a “husband” among other also positive things. However there are two problems.

The first problem is that Adam is seeking to describe himself in Genesis 2:23 and in so doing he rejects the name of “Adam” in exchange for that of “Man.” Clearly there is an issue with something he rejected that was specifically given to him by God (some like myself would even call it rebellion) but more specifically to the point, this man is first defined by the very name he received from God which was “Adam.” This was therefore not something from which he could escape (and this was God’s doing, perhaps He some how just knew).

My source, which is “The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,” lists the following:

120 adam, aw-dawm’: from 119; ruddy, i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):-x another, + hypocrite, + common sort, x low, man (mean. of low degree), person.

119 adam, aw-dam; to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be (dyed, made) red, ruddy).

376 iysh, eesh; contr. For 582 (or perh. Rather from an unused root mean. to be extant); a man as an individual or a male person; often used as an adjunct to a more def. term (an in such cases frequently not expressed in translation):- also, another, any (man), a certain, + champion, consent, each. Every (one), fellow, (foot-, husband-) man, (good, great, mighty) man, he, high (degree), him (that is), husband, man (-kind), + none, one, people, person, + steward, what (man) soever, whoso (-ever), worthy. Comp. 802.

It is from 119 which is where the description of an embarrassed and humiliated Adam is rooted. This is something which Strong’s not only backs up but which I initially learned from a very conservative male preacher in a Baptist church (who could give anyone a good run for their money in his stance against the equal creation of the female. lol). Even he and his Yale divinity degree gave that up so I did not know it was a point to be contested.

Further, the term “man” in the garden story is used consistent with the definition of 120 with the exception of three places. The first exception occurs in Genesis 2:23, the second in Genesis 2:24 and the third in Genesis 4:1. Save Adam’s own inaccurate self-description in Genesis 2:23, in reviewing the Scriptures I think you will agree that in neither of these instances is it ever used to speak of the man Adam.

In Genesis 2:23 Adam disobediently uses the term in an effort to increase his garden standing, he realized what was the true meaning of the name of “Adam” particularly as compared to that of “Eve” as “life-giver.” He knew he needed change he just went about obtaining it in the wrong way.

In Genesis 2:24 we have what was likely directly inserted by Moses as Adam had no parents to leave and as we know from Genesis 2:23 also, it was Adam’s understanding that he and the female were of the same “flesh” and “bone,” and not just “rib” as stated by God himself in both Genesis 2:21 and Genesis 2:22 and not even as stated in Genesis 2:24 as “flesh” only by Moses. However, in Genesis 2:21 and 2:22 God spoke according to what was the actual creation of Eve, and Moses spoke in Genesis 2:24 according to what was the actual desire of God in creating her. Yet even God rejected the “flesh” (despite His own Desire) of an already darkening Adam and used “bone” only instead.

Also, per your statement:

“First, your notion that Adam lied about her name is in error…There are Two reasons why this could not be so..

1. There was no sin prior to the fall; therefore there could be no lie…If it were a lie why did not Yahweh correct him? The world was not then plunged into sin as it would be further in the book.”

Technically Adam confessed to eating the fruit before God in Genesis 3:12 although it was also lodged in accusation first in the face of God and then also against the female. So why would God have punished Adam so severely unless he was also guilty of (what I think) are very provable sins. Note, the world did not fall when Adam sinned (lied) because there was yet still one more sinless person standing in the garden and her name, although still now called “Woman” was “Eve.” Yes, I know it is so very easy to overlook the female. Yet Adam lied not only once but twice prior to the actual fall, so it seems to me with that point you just proved the full equality of Eve. But for the continued sake of argument let’s proceed.

When did Adam lie? Again, in Genesis 2:23, to say he did not is like looking at an apple and calling it a pear. In fact, even if you set aside that he rejected the proper name of the female, he still flat out lied to her about his own name. This is why Eve could not have had any idea who God was calling out to in Genesis 3:9 upon God’s return to the garden. She still thought the man was called “Man,” not “Adam.” And you are saying that wasn’t a lie? Apply a like situation between men and women, husbands and wives in our own lives and see what you come up with.

Even God proves to have no respect for this unauthorized work of Adam and I don’t think we should either. In fact, here is where even God informs the female that this man is not who he has presented himself to be. God pulled the rug out from beneath this man who called himself “Man” and not “Adam” (as if God was a liar – but the word says let God be true and every man a liar and God called him Adam) and He exposed the lie. He called him Adam in both the beginning and end of the garden word. Are we to think nothing now of what matters to God?

And why did God not also call out to the female in Genesis 3:9? The answer is not according to issues of greater male authority at all. The female still did not have the name which according to the will and desire of God she was supposed to receive in obedience to God from Adam. God does not further the evil. He did not therefore elect to call her “Woman,” a name which He did not give, use, or show respect for and we should not either.

Now you made the point that if Adam sinned then God would have brought it to his attention, right? Well, using your line of reasoning, if Eve sinned in Genesis 3:3, by saying that the fruit could be neither touched or eaten then surely God would have called her on that as well. Yet instead according to His Foreknowledge, he called her “Eve” as in (“life-giver” in a soon fallen world) and established her as “mother of all living.” Surely God would have opted not to honor her in both name and title if in fact she lied. All she confessed to was eating the fruit, not lying. We must also note here that Adam was not respectively also honored in like manner as a fallen but rightly confessed garden Eve.

Further, pointing to Adam again, even if she did lie (yet she did not) Adam was present in the same moment and said nothing. Adam knew exactly what were the words of God in Genesis 2:17 - now, if Adam were not walking in the like mind of the enemy, then explain his silence. Hurry up now, on this side of time the clock is ticking . . .

The reason why God punishes the man in Genesis 2:17 for hearkening unto the voice of his wife is because God knew exactly what Adam was thinking in Genesis 3:1-6. It was for Adam to be a win/win. If the female ate of the fruit and died he would at least be rid of one for whom he did not care for anyway and if she lived, then he would know that God was surely himself a liar and that he too could safely eat of the fruit which he desired all along. So after Eve ate of the fruit and instead of dying turned to Adam and with voice spoke, it was when she spoke and that she spoke that caused Adam to hearken. He expected that she might surely die before his eyes, yet she lived. He too could now also safely eat of the fruit.

About the Name of the Female as “Woman” and not “Eve”:
So if you as Master told me to name your daughter “Kim” and yet I elect to call her “Girl” instead, what would you have to say to me? “That’s, ok because that is after all her gender and her name as specifically chosen by you (God) was purposed for nothing else?” I don’t think you really believe that one. My point is, to ignore Adam’s name game is as ludicrous as what I have just written above. You would care if someone did this to your daughter, she is an individual, she is a person, she is your child – she deserves a name. So, why again wouldn’t a God of Purpose desire the same, because she was just a female? Yet He is the same God who gave Adam a name as earlier as Genesis 2:19 and yet also He is a God who we say is not a respecter of persons? It can’t all be true. My natural father saw to it that I was properly named the very day I was born, are you telling me that he would do even better by me than the Father? Make it live Moreh, make it live.

You wrote:
2. The Hebrew word for “woman” is “ishshah,” which is a common name for “woman” and more importantly “WIFE”. This word just as the Hebrew word for Husband/man is used interchangeably depending on context.

I think you are seeking to impose the custom of men upon God and don’t forget we are talking about the very first husband and wife. There was no precedent for tradition. The point I made above speaks to why it did matter, but also the term “woman” as used in the garden, unlike the term of “man” does not have a double-meaning. It always speaks well of her. In fact every name given, applied and bestowed upon the female in the garden speaks well of her. As “Eve” she is “life-giver” as “woman” and even Adam’s “Woman” she is a “mighty champion” and as a “female” according to the Hebrew once again (don’t shoot me) she was “violently puncture(d)” and “libel(ed)” yet both “designated” and “appointed” among other things. (That ought to really set you off but check it out yourself). Notice how God does not address the man as “man” but only “Adam” which is the name He gave him. The name, for both the man and female, does matter. It seems here in your second point you are speaking gender semantics between the Hebrew and the English, but what does this have to do with her proper name as Eve?

You wrote:
NOTICE THIS; Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Notice that the English translators used the word “wife” which would have come from the Hebrew word “ishshah”, one of the hard things about this and many other words used for other things is that there (in some cases) is no consistency, but that can happen when you are translating…no big deal.

I don’t take issue with Genesis 2:25 as this is not where the lie regarding her name actually occurred. The female was the wife of Adam. That simply serves to accurately identity her in relationship with Adam. *But once again, we can also note, that even in this verse Adam is not identified as a “husband” from the Hebrew in 376 but only as “man” as in an “Adam” in 120. So while the verse identifies her in right relationship with Adam as wife it tells us also that Adam was already not walking in right relationship with her as husband. That once again even in this, he is made to be ashamed and humiliated. Wow, now that’s huge. Good catch, I hadn’t noticed that before. (I will add it to the future revised anniversary copy of my book. lol. Get your copy now, “The Real Skinny on Eve!”)

You wrote:
3. The translators are the one who lied about her NAME…

Genesis 2:23And 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 mean no disrespect, but this sounds a bit paranoid. So are you saying that the entire of the church has been deceived by the translators and this has gone unchanged over all of this time? Does anyone else know about this? I believe the translators were accurate simply because the whole of this word proves it and I am certain that such a common yet critical error would have been as corrected as it was found out. How long has the King James been with us? You need to give me more, that is just not enough. Also, why would the translators suppress her real name in Genesis 2:23 but not also in Genesis 3:20, 4:1 and then also 2 Corinthians 11:3 and I Timothy 2:13? And do you realize also that that would change the entire detail of the Scripture even from the God perspective? Next to judging the fall the very next thing He did was to compel Adam to call the female by her God-given name. It seems accurate identity is a really big deal to God. Well, if clearly not for all of us, at least it is to Him, right? What else in the biblical text and the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance is a translated lie? I should contact them.

You wrote:
Eve is a name as is Khawwa and they are in no way close to each other…Khawwa means "life giver " or " mother of living".

I understand that “Eve and “Khawwa” are not the same name but it seems we are still dealing with the same definitions. Strong’s also defines the name of Eve as “life-giver” and the word itself states that she was “mother of all living” through the now punished and compelled mouth of Adam. Give me clarification.

You wrote:
Now the question here is where do you see that Adam abandoned Khawwa? No place in chapter 3 do you see “abandonment” implied…remember this was not a sinful state they were in…remember also that Adam had the job of “tilling the ground” (Gen 2:5). You are assuming this was the case based on ideas that you may have with a 21st century mind (I have encountered this before).

However when you are present and yet don’t speak up for your wife, knowing that she is ill-armed with information (even received from you) at a moment pending her very death, it is abandonment. The end.

Also, Genesis 2:5 speaks to the condition of the man after the fall, not pre. Remember, this is a God of Foreknowledge, He speaks prophecy. The garden was to the glory of God not Adam. Rain did not even fall until after the fall, prior to the fall even the earth was watered from within (Genesis 2:6). God himself planted it and the ground was yet still moist, not resistant. Adam did not have to work to get anything to grow in the garden. That is what it means to till. It is work, especially without plows and hoes which the man certainly did not have. Are you suggesting also that there were weeds chocking the life out of living plants in paradise? What was there for him to do other than pick up fallen fruit, obediently name his wife, deliver an unadulterated word to her regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, impregnate her so that God might have the increase, and then give God the glory?

Further, that you would even purposely allow your wife to operate with misinformation even past the point of what you thought would be her death, that you would even purposely withhold her identity and then lie to her about who you really are, is abandonment within a relationship. Anytime you willingly walk away from the truth with your mate, especially in matters such as this, it equates to abandonment. You abandon fidelity, truth, trust, intimacy and companionship. You are coming down my street now Moreh, the experience is universal and it is abandonment. And please consider, everything Adam did to Eve he first did to God.

You wrote:
Also where do you see that the fruit could be touched but not eaten…does that mean I can look at a naked woman and not touch? NO because both are and can lead to sin. Now, this whole abandonment issue is ludicrous. We do not have a time issue nor a detailed set of information to accurately pinpoint the position of Adam to the temptation…so all of this is a bad assumption…

In Genesis 2:15 Adam was given instruction by God to both “dress” and “keep” the garden. If seed, as planted by God (Genesis 2:8) grew in the garden (and we know it did) then there is no reason to not also say that upon ripening, the same fruit did not also fall from the tree as this is the natural course of nature. In Genesis 1:14 God established seasons. If fallen fruit is now on the ground, including fruit even from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and if Adam is under instruction from God to both dress and keep the garden, then it was Adam’s responsibility to pick the fruit up and move it outside the boundary of the garden or to a designated area.

This is what is ludicrous to me, why would God instruct the man to dress and keep a garden with fruit that he could not touch? What exactly was he dressing and keeping? The herbs of the ground were not going any where, they were growing according to the call of nature and even as God had already planted them. As stated earlier, only a punished Adam had to till the ground for food.

Moreh, where does God say that you can’t touch the fruit? By the way, if Adam was without sin (as you believe) then the implication is that Eve lied about the fact that the fruit could not be touched, that she on her own made something up. Yet now you are even saying that the fruit could be neither touched or eaten. Double speak my friend, which direction are you coming from? And I don’t think at least as Christians we are to add anything to the word. God never said the fruit could not be touched. Further, if God had issue with the touching of the fruit then why did He not say so in Genesis 3:11? Did He forget? All He asked Adam was if he had “eaten” of the tree “whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” Help me here.

Regarding Adam’s position during the time of her fall, first of all Genesis 3:6 says he was with his wife and it does not record any movement on her part at all. Secondly, who else as in a husband or another human being would have been in the garden with her? We already know that Adam was in the garden with Eve as God created and placed them to be. So what purpose would the statement of: “. . . and gave also unto her husband with her” be?

If not speaking specifically to the fact that Adam was with her at the time she ate the fruit then it would as ridiculous as saying, that “while they were both at home (given that we already know they were both in the garden) she gave the fruit also to her husband with her.” Of course he would be with her in the general sense as an occupant of the same house (or garden). But if you were standing in the kitchen and your wife was in the bedroom, would you say she was with you even while in the same house? But of course not! You would only say she was with you in terms of proximity if in fact she was standing right beside you or in the same room or at least vicinity. For example, this in no way indicates that Eve was at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil while Adam was perhaps hanging out at the tree of life. He wasn’t merely just within the garden, he was with her.

By the way, most men don’t have to see the woman naked before they are moved to sin! lol.

Finally, I promise you that most of the time my brain is more orderly than what my writing sometimes seem to be in my answers. Reason being, is because this garden word is so intertwined it is very difficult to discuss and isolate one aspect of the word without also dealing with all those which also serve to make up the whole. I think confusion reigns when you try to maintain tradition in the face of what the word is actually saying, yet tradition is what we have always been taught. We have been trained to think a certain way, which as Christians is not a bad thing, it is good, just as long as what we are first dealing with is in fact devoid of man and is of God first alone. You need to free-style for a moment, forget what you know and read this word in a fresh, virgin state. The scales will come off and God will open eyes.

The enemy was able to introduce confusion through the mind of a willing Adam. Just think. Had Adam elected to believe and obey God by way of making right and full confession, we wouldn’t even know him as an “Adam.” But what instead would be his name? We don’t even know. But we do know it would have been comparable to a name speaking of life as does the name of “Eve” and that he too respectively speaking, would have earned the title as “father of all living.” Spiritually speaking, “Father Abraham,” a man who did believe God and was the great recipient of God’s promise, got in title what Adam should have first likewise and similarly had.

You say what I teach is dangerous, but tell me what is lacking in truth, particularly about this man Adam? You have asked me for my source I have given it to you. Yet it seems to me that in applying your definition regarding the name of “Adam” you also fail to consider what is the primary root of the word “Adam.” That is cherry-picking at the word and I am sure you know that is a foul. Given that this has now become a public conversation I hope to hear how you answer these matters soon.

Yet another point given that I have listed all of the names pertaining to a garden Eve, least there be unnecessary lingering confusion. We know the meaning of Adam’s name, and we know both uses of the gender term of “man” or as Adam prefers “Man,” yet likewise to “female,” the term “male” also of course has meaning in the Hebrew.

The Hebrew defines the word “male” (used twice in the garden sage, Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2) as:

2145 Zakar, zawkawr’; from 2142; prop. Remembered, i.e. a male (of man or animals, as being the most noteworthy sex):- x him, male, man (child, - kind).

2142 zakar, zaw-kar’; a prim. Root; prop. To mark (so as to be recognized), i.e. to remember; by impl. To mention; also (as denom. From 2145) to be male:- x burn (incense), x earnestly, be male, (make) mention (of), be mindful, recount, record (-er), remember, make to be remembered, bring (call, come, keep, put) to (in) remembrance, x still, think on, x well.

Now Adam was a man as defined only in 120 and not 376 according to the Hebrew use. As such, by choosing to remain in an un-confessed and therefore still humiliated state of embarrassment before God post-fall, Adam did not earn the status of “man” as in a “mighty champion” (376) (as Eve likewise and respectively did as “woman”).

Due to this, Adam as a “man” (120) did not also qualify spiritually according to the Hebrew, as a garden “male.” This is not speaking to the physical appearance, but to the spiritual state only. Please note, had Adam humbled himself before God and made right confession, particularly given the greater level of evil the enemy was able to perpetrate within the garden through a complacent Adam, he would have always been remembered as the “most noteworthy” between the two sexes given the humbled nature such an act of piety would have required from the masculinity of the male. Yet Adam had no regard for the confession.

I am sure the attacks will be coming soon but that is fine because I know I am speaking the word. Tough to hear I know, as a female the church did not hesitate to cut my teeth on all things devastating to the female as well. But at least what you are now needing to deal with is first rooted in truth, and you must also know that because this was true for the garden man Adam, does not make it true for the entire gender of men. You see, things are better for you than they ever were for me already.

But the entire point is that it is according to individual choices we make as either righteous or unrighteous beings before God first. This has nothing to do with gender. As a female, I could very well be an “Adam” if I elected to remain in an un-confessed state. In fact prior to any confession after the fall God called the man and the female an “Adam” in Genesis 5:2. A male is likewise walking as a garden Eve if he elects to make the garden confession in his life.