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.

[Dawn Davidson]

Moreh,

You said:
WOW!! this is worse than i thouight....

First thing is there is no way you could know what was in the mind of Adam because you were not there to ask or see…you must understand the order of things…Adam/eve could not have lied because that is sin…there was not sin until AFTER THE FALL. there was no fall until they were tempted. Again you cannot get into the mind of Adam with ought actually being there. And even with that said…You cannot “guess” what he was thinking with something that contradicts scripture or is not in there at all…

If I can’t know what was or was not in the mind of Adam then how do you? Yet, the word does not leave me guessing about the actions of Adam as his actions have clearly been recorded in Scripture. Even more, what I know is true is what God even called him by first naming him Adam. Believe me also, you have yet to hear what is actually true about his dust creation. But you are not ready for that because you as yet cannot even digest this meat.

If you take issue with my source, “The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible,” than say that, if not then what? It’s all there don’t take it out on me because I dare to point it out and God gave me what I needed to put it together. Perhaps you have never had a need as a man to search for this word as I as a woman have. I would like to think, whether man or woman, we care enough about the word and certainly before we dare teach it, to know, to understand, and to be willing to be held accountable about what we say it actually says. But many here, lacking great levels of knowledge, throw the garden word around about the female as if not affecting real lives. Even if you prefer to persist in a lack of real knowledge, come out of your vacuums and exercise some compassion. Good grief. You’ve got your foot on the very neck of the female who even God used to portray the church as His Bride. Keep in mind, the office of every Bishop, Pastor, Minister, what have you, first operates within and according to the call of the very entity God calls a Bride. And that the Church is under the authority of God does not make you God in the lives of females. You are not a god. I mean if I hear one more brother apologize on behalf of all black men to sisters because due to the Mind of God we are subjugated to be in obedience beneath minds of “reprobate” men – do you honestly hear yourselves? This is Adam all over again. The garden word is prophetic first and foremost. That God would first subjugate and then turn me over to be under the dominance of the faulty mind belonging to filthy men (I speak in the context that we are all but filthy rags before God, lest you go questioning my context again) is sheer blasphemy and utter nonsense. Instead of seeking to exalt yourself and protect the male dominance of your ministries, exalt the Lord first. Come on.

And you seem to have one of the heaviest minds on this site, but in this your exegesis is coming up pretty light brother. I am not at all impressed by anything I have read. Most of your arguments are smoke screens at best. Some I even find hard to address because by the time you finish switching everything around, I can’t even recognize the word in it anymore and yet I have my King James open right before me. As my 15 year old would say, ‘What the mess?’ What follows is a definite example.

How many stories have you read when they mention the persons name then somewhere in the story they are referred to as “he”, man, his etc….I think with this you are reading to much into something that just simply is not there…Please in a clear way explain how Adam was rejecting his name when he was not the one writing the account of creation it was (most say Moshe)..

You are speaking to me about context yet at the same time even in your answer you are the one proving to distort context.

The Bible is not at least to me a novel and nor is its contents simply “stories.” I do not read it or interpret it as such and nor do I demean its level of authority. I trust the God who deemed it fit as His word and a vehicle to communicate His greater truths to me. I am not sure what page you are on in this. Further, first you say it was not Adam who rejected his name it was the interpreters and now he did not reject his name because of Moses as a dishonest story-teller, settle up Moreh, what’s it going to really be? Remember what I said about being paranoid, these are the types of things that happen when you are not standing on firm ground.

The fact is, the context of the verse (Genesis 2:23) is speaking the mind of the man Adam (which is why it begins as “And Adam said . . .”). To even say that “Woman” and then “Man” were not attempts by Adam to lie about his identity is ridiculous, it wasn’t even veiled. God named him “Adam,” he called himself “Man.” God desired the name of “Eve” for the female yet Adam called her “Woman.” Are you seeing the pattern? This is a problem. Those were his words and that was his lie.

Moreover, the words “Woman” and “Man” were expressed separately as pronouns, not merely to refer to an already known individual as “he” or “she.” This WAS supposed to be our introduction to Eve, remember? The man lied Moreh and the world was yet still standing. Really, if you were hanging out in Genesis 2:19 and first met a man introduced to you by God as Adam, bumped into him again in Genesis 2:23 but now his name is “Man,” other than schizo what would you honestly think? There are only three verses between them, Adam clearly wasted no time.

And I present it as a work of God because I have no reason to seek to undermine the Author of the Genesis word. If he said this is what God called him or this is what God did – that’s my word, it becomes my truth, my standard. Without giving me clear detail regarding an error in translation whether aware or not, what you are really telling me is that the whole of the Bible is in question and then perhaps Christianity by extension becomes a false religion because that’s our book. I don’t know. To me your thoughts are scattered and you are grasping at straws.

Now if you are asking or suggesting that I should cease my faith and belief in the word of God as recorded in Scripture, my answer to you is a resounding no. I will however say that there are specific areas of the word which is first predicated upon the male tradition yet the whole of the word makes it clear that God is true and man is a liar. But that is a different subject. What else do you reject about the Bible as it seems that is clearly a major difference between us. And if you don’t reject the Bible then in the very least you are cherry-picking again. You are also taking the standard of something written in the world and then seeking to impose it and use it in a way to define or even redefine what is the authority first of the word. And yet you call me dangerous. This is even worse than I thought it was (your words first, remember?). It is one thing to take a situation or use illustration to make the meaning of the word live, but quite another to suggest that in its inception, it should be interpreted parallel to the secular work of mankind devoid of proper spiritual call and holy inspiration. Not to mention as described above, your analogy doesn’t even work and yet once again you are talking to me about context. That was a pretty big miss.

So since Moses wrote this word, should we now not believe anything that the man said or did? Perhaps we should just take the work of the scoundrel Moses and throw it all out altogether. Rid ourselves of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy?
And what I really find interesting is that your mind-set will yet take this same garden word and use it, the one written by the guy who you say we cannot now trust not to lie, and justify your unfounded belief that a God who is no respecter of persons, that a God who honors confession and that a God who cannot lie, yet elevated a fallen, un-confessed man in position because he just simply was, well, a man.

How short-sighted would a God of Foreknowledge have to be, how hypocritical would the God of the Confession now stand and how false a God must He be to seek to extend His kingdom into the earthly realm predicated first upon the unrighteous works of an un-confessed man? Think about it Moreh, think first about what you are saying about God. If you remove the standing of a rightly confessed and rewarded Eve, that’s all you have. And the un-confessed state of Adam was not enough to keep the Plan of God going, not without total and utter destruction. It’s enough that we got the death pronouncement due to his lack of confession, don’t ya think? Or do you think God would have made the death pronouncement upon a fully confessed population of people, they being a party of two? Adam is the one that let it in. Pride went before the fall and it was Adam’s pride alone that earned him his due, it had nothing to do with his so-called exclusive male authority. That is rubbish.

You keep telling me that Adam and Eve could not have sinned until the fall, and I agree with you this much, Eve did not only Adam did. Genesis 2:23 was a lie by Adam and you know it (which is why you keep trying to make excuses for him) yet you refuse to say it because the tradition which you are so firmly steeped in means more to you than the actual truth of God. I mean no disrespect Moreh, but you are talking about the things of God as if it is here to serve you and you are not here to be humbled by it and the God who is His word and who we serve. Serving Him means operating in truth and fidelity. Where are all of your excuses on behalf of Eve? Perhaps she wasn’t really there having the conversation with the serpent in Genesis 3:1-5 either. To me, that is about as plausible as what you say is true about an Adam recorded in word, speaking words which you yet say he did not however in fact say. Now you see me but now you don’t? Confusion is the word that comes to mind and since you like “stories” so much, remember the one about the emperor with no clothes who yet thought he did? Yeah.

I really thought what you had to say would be meatier than this. Bottom line is, if he were really acting as God’s man in the garden he would have produced a child.

We can agree that we disagree about the location of Adam in Genesis 3:1-4, but I quite frankly don’t believe you have made your case in establishing that he was not there, nor I notice, did you in rebuttal even attempt to. Yet the point is pivotal is it not? If Adam were present and yet chose to remain silent he can’t be the man you claim he was as he would be complicit in the fall. Small wonder why you failed to re-address it. You can’t prove it yet much of your entire argument rests upon it.

You wrote:
Based on the definition of 119 you assume it is a negative…when one is excited blood rushed through the cheeks, when you meet a person for the first time (of the opposite sex) you might have the same affect as the definition shows…

You have to look at the context surrounding 2:23 sister…Adam was just presented with a creature that was unlike ANY OTHER in the kingdom created at the time…(This one however, was presented to him). So it would not be unimaginable that his reaction would be to have a flushed face and a multitude of other emotions at that time…You never had a boyfriend that when you saw him your face became flush? What do they call it??? (Blushing!!!!!!!!!!!)

Also you speak of him being ashamed and other negative things in 2:23 but yet 2:25 says that they were naked and not ashamed!!! So if they were not ashamed for that, why would there be anything else to be ashamed about????

Here we go again. That Adam received the name of Adam and was made to be embarrassed, humiliated and ashamed refers to his stance before God after the fall as an un-confessed man in Genesis 3:12 specifically. He proved deficient in knowing how to rightly handle the things of God, hence his lack of regard for making right confession. The reason why Adam was not ashamed in Genesis 2:25 was because only the enemy brings us shame and the world had not yet fallen. Do you get it? In order to prove His Foreknowledge to us, God spoke prophetically in naming both Adam and Eve even in the beginning. Adam was made to be ashamed, humiliated, etc., in the face of God after the fall (hence work of the enemy) and the meaning of his name. Adam was not ashamed in Genesis 2:25 because he had yet to fall and remain before God in an un-confessed state. You speak of order, well there is a definite line of order in rightly interpreting this garden word and it cannot be correctly accomplished with a cursory read, you need to make the connections. Eve of course did make right confession which is why her name in meaning is “life-giver” and she earned title/reward of “mother of all living.”

Now, if we follow your line of reasoning, that Adam was red and flushed in Genesis 2:25, because he was so taken by the new creature presented to him by God, then why did it take until after the fall in Genesis 4:1 to produce a child? They were naked, they were married and they were under commandment of God to multiply. God made Adam a witness to the example of the animals. Doesn’t make sense, at least not for this man who you say was obedient. Again, you have to interpret Genesis 2:25 in comparison and in light of Genesis 3:7. One records that they were naked and unashamed before the fall and one records that they were naked but now ashamed after the fall, hence evidence of the enemy’s work. God would not have created them to be ashamed.

You wrote:
Actually sister, the scripture is speaking about Adam, how could it not? I also think what you are doing is going to confuse you on many fronts because out of the definitions for each term you are making your own choice of which definition to use for your understanding…the problem is this…There are a few definitions for each word…not all definitions are to be used every time the word is used…

For example;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.

With all these different possible definitions, which one is accurate would be decided not just on a general term but also THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT IS USED!! To say that “Hypocrite” would be accurate at any point before the fall would be in error because they did not know to be hypercritical did they? Now IF it were to be said AFTER THE FALL I MIGHT be able to agree with that…

In anything I have written I have not sought to use every term in each definition as given, only that which is applicable within the context of the garden word. Adam was a hypocrite because he was a man named by God to be an Adam who yet introduced and paraded himself before one known as his wife as “Man” instead. He was pretending to be man as in a mighty champion and not man as in ashamed and humiliated. And that a person might be hypocritical has nothing to do with whether or not they think or understand themselves to be or not, it is all according to what a person’s actions truly are. You need to get beyond your idea that these things were not present prior to the fall as they truly were. This is beginning to feel a lot like apostasy. What you are actually doing now is rejecting the text and creating a circular argument which would absolve Adam regardless of circumstance and despite reality. But he was punished by God now wasn’t he and yet God rewarded Eve. That is, not only did God not punish her but she was reward also. And please don’t get me started on 3:16.

You wrote pertaining my writing below:
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.

I repeat…ADAM DID NOT WRITE THE STORY!!! So your attempt over and over to place him in this position cannot be true…You said that Adam Disobediently uses a term….

Well now, if he (Adam) was disobedient why did not the fall occur at that point? It was because of disobedience that the fall came to be was it not? Or would the Most High have to have said “thou shall not use these words different from what I say”.

Moreh, again, that you have no equal regard for the female, does not dictate to God who He views and sees as an equal to the man Adam. The world did not fall in 2:23 because Eve was without sin until 3:6. Yes God re-entered the garden after Adam actually ate of the fruit, but that he sinned again was of no regard. This time Adam sinned in seeking to determine if God was in fact a liar, would the female live or would she die? God merely allowed the man to fully eat from the wickedness of his ways. Pretty consistent with my walk, I don’t know about yours. Why should He have stopped Adam from eating the fruit, Adam didn’t stop Eve. It was Adam who stood by and allowed the female to be deceived and eat of it based upon false information fed to her by him. But my God is a just God.

The other thing I think you are missing here, given that you keeping injecting questions like, “then why didn’t God come in and correct the man?” First of all, all things happen according to the Plan of God first and He is a God who first gave command in the garden and created both the man the female with the total ability to freely choose. God then removed His known presence from the garden. We know this because He actually had to return to the garden in Genesis 3:9. He then left the man and the woman alone in the garden (although fully equipped!) to see what they would do. As such, this is what it means to operate in authority and have dominion (I’m a girl who you say isn’t an equal and I have to tell you this?).

Also, the garden word, along with many other aspects of the Bible is first purposed by God to us as a test. That is, only God is Perfect, Righteous, Good, Omniscient and Omnipotent. So in every thing we do and say in attempting to rightly interpret the word must first meet this standard as a test. Particularly within the garden word, the interpretation of man is such according to tradition, to exalt the position of man first even above and before God. This is why you don’t see what I see, why you struggle so hard to make Adam perfect. Adam was not perfect, only God is and has ever been Perfect. You have to first examine Adam on the basis of his actions but more importantly what were God’s actions and words toward him? Why was he created from the dry dust in 2:7 when the earth was itself moist from misting in 2:6? An earth which was moist but now suddenly dry as dust for the creation of Adam, yet suitable for planting a garden in 2:8? What was going on? Was God trying to tell us something even then about this man Adam? Remember, God symbolizes death to a now punished Adam with the use of dust. I am not trying to change the subject, but there are many other aspects of this word contributing to confirmation of the rebellious mind-set of Adam than what we have merely been discussing.

You wrote:
Sister, Yahweh did not say rib…Moshe used the term rib (or the Hebrew equivalent)…he wrote it not Yahweh, not Adam. The terms used was by the writer…unless he was quoting. Again much assumption on your part…however, Moses being the author may have inserted that part because at least in my scriptures (based on our language) it is not written as a quote.

Once again am I supposed to reject the word? What are you saying Moreh, that the Torah should be my book? Put it out there and be clear. That the Bible is in so much error that I should question the Prophet Moses, in the garden story of Genesis, the very first book? The same prophet God spoke to from a burning bush? The one who God led with a cloud by day and pillar of fire by night? The same Moses that God called Miriam and Aaron into account for speaking against - the reason for which Miriam was struck with leprosy? That Moses?

I am not saying that he was perfect, but what you are alleging (with no plausible basis I might add) equates to a full indictment against his character. In my opinion you are going far beyond just the possibility of inadvertent omission or human error in thought or deed. If it is not right in the King James due to Moses then how do you even know if it is right in the Torah? I could accept examining a credible argument about mistranslation, but this is character assassination directly against Moses, and in my mind, by proxy the written word as well. First your argument was about the interpreters and translators, that makes more sense then what you are now presenting about Moses. That is the basis of your book in this area, he is your prophet too, is he not? Why are you attacking him? I suspect it is to save yourself and your argument but it just sounds desperate.

You wrote with my post:
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.

If this were true why was none of what you imply addressed by Yahweh when He confronted Adam…None of the reasons Yahweh gave for punishing them had to do with lying did it?

He (Yahweh) did not say “because you lied cursed is the ground”
He said Because you “listened to your wife and ate of the fruit that I told you not to” (Genesis 3: 17). Where do you see “prior” acts in that equation?

First, you said them, Eve was not guilty of lying so that was not her confession to make in the first place. Adam only pathetically confessed to eating the fruit but within God’s statement “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife” is every thing Adam did in between. That is, that he set her up with a lie in the first place and then waited to see if she, after being deceived by the enemy right before his eyes, would in fact die from eating the fruit, that he did not interfere and that he was seeking to determine if God was a liar. Within all of that, in addition to the liar and hypocrite he already was from Genesis 2:23, Adam is proven arrogant, again made into a liar and a deceiver and was proven to have a murderous heart. This is what God was waiting for the man to confess, yet he did not. What God did by saying that Adam “hearkened” unto the voice of his wife was to get to the entire heart of the matter. A more appropriate response from Adam should have been, “I wanted the fruit, I didn’t believe you and I wanted to see if the female would die.” That is what Adam did.

You wrote with my post:
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.

This is the problem you are attempting to PROVE equality between the two…I am not doing that. I am disproving your assumptions and misinterpretation of scripture. There is no lie before the fall sister…you are speaking (in my opinion) from a feminist mindset and in an attempt to show “feminist equality”(. . .)

I certainly am not hiding that I believe the word proves the female to be an equal. But I must take you to task for assuming so many things personally about me. You don’t have a clue how I came to seek this word and you don’t have a clue about my mind-set. You talk about making assumptions but you my friend make many. What we are called to do is to judge a tree by its fruit. My interpretation of the Genesis word does not make God into a liar, a hypocrite or a respecter of persons and yet yours does. Check your fruit. What I have consistently noticed from you and everyone else I have thus far dealt with is that you make no attempt to deal with this word from a position of exalting God first, you are far more interested in protecting and exalting self. I mean no offense, but the erred traditional teaching of the garden word plays out in many ways and is life and death to some people.

Furthermore, why would you even desire an interpretation of a word designed to feed into your ego, your pride, your arrogance? You would call that the work of God? You are called to be a mighty champion but I can level you as a female with just one word rubbing your ego the wrong way, this is not God’s intent for the man. That is a position of weakness, not strength. Strength is acknowledging truth even if and when you are wrong and walking in that truth anyway, just as a fallen Adam should have done before God.

You wrote:
To say he did lie is sick and twisted theology (sorry but I have to put it that way).

Yet to say that he did not lie is sick and twisted.

You wrote with my post:
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?

Sister where are you reading all of this? I have to LOL...because I’m cracking up at your saying that Yah spoke or implied any LIE…

You certainly misinterpreted what I said. I in no way implied or stated that God was a liar. What are you reading? Adam changed his name in the garden from “Adam” to “Man” and to accept that Adam is now “Man” and not “Adam” is the equivalent of calling God a liar because it means that He spoke a mistruth about the man Adam (who of course now according to Adam has become “Man”). I did not call God a liar, I said any one who believed this in like mind of an Adam is actually calling God a liar. He cannot be Perfect (as He says he is) and wrong about the name of the man at the same time.

You wrote with my post:
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.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble because according to Gen 3:15 Yahweh SAID “And I put enmity between you and the WOMAN”….. STOP!!!!!!!!!

Moreh, 3:15 was prior to the female receiving her right name as Eve in 3:20. God did not call her “Woman” as did Adam in 2:23 for purposes of a name, He merely referred to her person by gender as He had nothing else appropriate to call her. That once again was Adam’s fault.

You wrote:
Now let me re post your comment; He did not therefore elect to call her “Woman,” a name which He did not give, use, Did he not just “use” the title of “woman?” In vs. 17 does he not call her “wife”. But yet you see that Adam “named” her in vs. 20 BUT he “called her woman” in 2:23. There is a difference in “calling her” and “naming her…

Again, He did not call her “Woman” in name, he said “woman” referring to her person as he had nothing else to refer to her as due to a rebellious garden Adam. You are neglecting to look and consider the different usage of the word, brother. How is it that you can be so excited about making this point while in such obvious error? Smoke screen and confusion all over again.

You wrote:
IN verse 20 does he not name his wife/woman? In chapter 4 vs. 1 does it not say Hawwah his WIFE/WOMAN…the word could have been woman just as easily as it was wife…

That Eve was not named until 3:20, after the fall and after Adam is now punished by God in no way speaks well of the man. Are you kidding?

[Dawn Davidson]

Moreh, I was curious because I knew that if you were anything like me you would post again on this page (although you and I are now together discussing this in a much different fashion on another post) to answer my last fiery post to you! lol. I hear you. At any rate, although I do still vehemently disagree with your positions and reject your characterization of my spiritual walk (I am not a feminist in the ideological sense of the word - the only thing I am is a woman exalting the truth of word as it is actually recorded.) I will not do likewise here again. We have moved on to what I think is higher ground at least between us as two people who while we disagree, very much love the Creator and exalt respect for His Word. I do like however that we can plainly speak our minds and not be so easily wounded yet it is my opinion that accurately scratching out the truth of this word is worth every strike.

I will say in closing given that you mention it above, I approached you privately in this matter, you took the post public. All I merely wanted to do was to have a private discussion between friends. I respect your mind. There was no more to it than that. To me you were my greatest challenge on this site in even proving the word that I have as either really true or false. So you see, regardless of the personal investment I have thus far made (as in my book, "The Real Skinny on Eve" subtitled "A Short but Comprenhensive Guide on the Real Identity of Sisters in the Church of Jesus Christ" ) I would count that for nothing if the truth of the word were contrary to it. I cannot however change my positions when all the male tradition continues to give me is contradiction and a cherry-picked word.

Peace and love to you in Christ.

[Dawn Davidson]

You never answered my message specifically to you Moreh, that was all I was saying. What I personally sent to you is still in my sent box. Also, I don't know how to answer you because instead of actually dealing with the text you just keep speaking against my character and/or mind-set.

There is a difference between me referring to you in name as "moreh", or "Moreh". "yahoshua ben yahweh" or properly as "Yahoshua ben Yahweh". Within the biblical text that Adam identifies the female as "Woman" with an upper-case "W" means that he was seeking to simpy call her this as a name. That Yahweh only refers to her as "woman" note the difference with the lower-case "w" means that He was merely referencing her as a person but not pertaining to her individual garden identity. Within the actual mind of God, her individual garden identity was established according to the will of God even in the beginning of the garden (as He is himself Eternal) in the name of "Eve" never that of "Woman." God never changed his mind about the name of either the man or the female. It was the man already called "Adam" by God who rebelliously interpreted it as "Woman" and himself likewise as "Man."

I asked you to specifically give me the scripture where He refers to her as "Woman" which is your repeated position. You once again have not, yet you keep repeating this again and again and again. You postulate the same line of unsupported reasoning regarding the man Adam, that the fact that Adam called himself "Man" and not "Adam" (as given by God as early as Genesis 2:19) in Genesis 2:23 is for some reason of no regard. You are now asking me for scripture which supports my position regarding whether or not Adam was correct in referring to himself as "Man" in Genesis 2:23, my answer as I have already also repeatedly stated to you, is that God (Yahweh) still called the man by the name of "Adam" in Genesis 3:9. Now you tell me who was correct God or Adam? My guess is God. But you see fit to attack my character. I am not making this up, this is just the basics of this word. Where am I mis-quoting the scripture? Please give me scripture this time in your answer Moreh, don't just talk around it. Answer Genesis 2:23 in light of Genesis 3:9 and Genesis 3:20 where the actual name of the female "Eve" is accurately revealed not to mention the establishment of her purpose as "mother of all living." And you have absolutely never addressed why the man Adam did not also respectively earn a likewise title/reward from God.

You can throw hebrew at me all day, I am not even the least bit intimated because even that has to line up with who God really is and he does not reward the evil. I am at the point of saying that you are simply in to attacking my character now because I keep giving you scripture which you repeatedly fail to acknowledge or even address. I know why you won't address it, because it doesn't support your argument. But it does not give God glory when we are satisfied only to cherry-pick His word.

What is the meaning of Genesis 2:23 if Adam was not seeking to re-establish their names against the will of God? If your name is "Moreh" and I choose to call you "Man" instead, not "man" as in a reference to you by gender, but "Man" as in your name, would I be right to do so?

I am sure you know by now that addressing me merely as "Woman" would be treading on dangerous ground indeed. lol. My name is "Dawn" just as the female's name in the garden was "Eve." If my father heard a man especially address me as "Woman" he would waste no time in correcting that man and then promptly put him out of his house.

And please STOP imagining that I have either societal or personal issues with men, I am not that person. I know it is easier for you in this to deal with that person but that is not who I am. I want nothing more than to see you be exactly who you are first called by God to be, a mighty champion and even the more noteworthy sex. But understand first what it actually means and takes to get there. An un-confessed garden Adam did not make it.

Peace and love.

[Dawn Davidson]

Moreh,

I did not get a reply button to my answer below so I am posting this hoping the mechanics work out this time. But while I am at it, you said: "I ask who taught you this so as not to totally blame you for such outlandish claims."

I would really like to know who taught you to have no regard for the confession (especially as honored by God) and where does your idea that even according to the foreknowledge of God, that God would elevate a fallen yet unconfessed garden man come from? On what basis would God do this?

Further, if in fact the received confession of Eve meant nothing to God, then what hope do you or I have?

And that the male tradition represents the height of what even the ancient biblical man was able to grasp, does not in turn dictate to God who he is and even what his very garden word first proves he is and is not. The male tradition equates to casebook idolatry. But I guess you are ok with that.

I personally would rather go on record against it. By the way, I am still waiting for your answers to the post above. The ever-missing answers so very critical to support your arguments. But if you don't come back I understand.

Peace.

[Dawn Davidson]

Dear Brother,

The bible says "Woman" according to the mind and words of a now darkening Adam in Genesis 2:23. I would never refer to another female in such a manner. The bible also calls her "mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20) through the mouth of a now punished and compelled Adam, once again not me, but the word. And if you are refuting that it is a spiritual title, then why was Adam not also respectively acknowledged as the "father of all living?" He alone after all would go on to father every child belonging to Eve. Additionally, by way of making right confession in the garden before God, she alone was the righteous instrument which God was able to then use in order to continue life itself within the earth, hence "mother of all living." It doesn't get any plainer. Had she too neglected confession like a rebellious and stubborn Adam, the world as we know it would have ceased to exist, otherwise we would have a God content to further the work of evil. God had to have a righteously confessed human in the earth post-fall in order not to completely destroy it. It was thus a spiritual title/reward.

Adam withheld the truth of God's word in Genesis 3:3. The fruit could be touched but only not eaten (Genesis 2:17). He was present during the full temptation of Eve yet chose to say nothing (Genesis 3:6). Also as a rewarded female post-fall in the garden she clearly was guilty of no lie as before God she only confessed to eating the fruit. Surely God knew the details, right?. Well, where then did the lie come from but a silent Adam? A silent Adam who also neglected his garden work in keeping and dressing the garden (Genesis 2:15). He was clearly negligent, as a garden Eve (even as his mere help meet) would have not only seen Adam touching the fruit and not dying but she herself also would have been doing the same had Adam been fulfilling his task from God.

And I am not sure if you are trying to say that you have some type of revealed knowledge outside of the word and church? But then again, you are seeking to justify your garden beliefs based upon the very teaching of a church which you reject and upon knowledge which you seemingly have so far been able to merely "glean" from her. With all due respect, nothing which you have posted demontrates your biblical knowledge in this area. I have only heard that which is according to male tradition and biblical cliches. Where is your detailed discernment of this word? I asked a number of questions which you failed to address. Perhaps it has been an over-sight. I look forward to hearing from you again.

Peace and Love

[Pastor Rodrick Sweet,ThM]

This is nothing but Womanist theology! But I also notice that just as she errs on the side of her beliefs we too must make sure that we do not err in that same way as well. Now to you dear lady let us look carefully at the passages that you have so badly isogeted. The Bible nowhere teaches, implies or mentions that Adam lie to Eve. In fact the devil or to be must accurate the serpent communicates the first lie in this story. When he ask “Is it really true that God said, ‘You must not eat from any tree of the orchard.” Notice that the text says nothing about Adam saying a word. But "the real skinny on Eve" is this, she gets it wrong when she talked back to the serpent. She says “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die. Here is the problem with that. God did not said that. Notice first in verse 15 the actions of God “The LORD God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. The next verse is what we must pay attention too. Then the LORD God commanded the man, [Here is were God is speaking] “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” God did not say that they could not touch the or look at the tree. But to turn and blame Adam for the fall is classical view of a feminist. Please by all means rethink your understanding of the Bible and then ask God to forgive you unbiblical view. Brother we must be careful here as well, not all preachers/pastors or pimps! I do agree that many in the church preach out of false motives. "They love money, women, and the power that comes form the title and so on." But for many they preach out of a love of almighty God lets make it clear that we are not talking about them!!!

[Lester Demings Jr]

I understand that but the majority of these men out here now are nothing but pimps, crooks and jacklegs.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Sweet,

It is so easy to discard me as pushing a Womanist theology, so simple but it seems even you need to accurately first address the word.

"The Bible nowhere teaches, implies or mentions that Adam lie to Eve" - you say this yet you still neglect to answer why a God of Foreknowledge yet still called her "Eve" ("life-giver") and "mother of all living" and likewise did not either call or reward Adam in a like way. Explain it please. Why would God do this if she in fact lied in Genesis 3:3? Eve never confessed to lying she only confessed to eating the fruit. How big of a fool and hypocrite would God now have to be to reward her anyway? Please note the dark meaning of Adam name, it does not speak to life (as does Eve) but to humilation and embarrassment. Further please note, that as an unconfessed garden man the title he really earned in that garden is not even spoken.

I never disputed that her words were not accurate as compared to Genesis 2:17, that has never been my position in fact that is the basis of my point regarding a silent Adam. You are repeating things which I am not even contesting. Yes, Adam knew the difference yet said nothing, even on behalf of his own wife. He did not correct, he did not rebuke, he did not seek to stand for the word or to even stand for his wife in any way. Are you discarding what should have been meaningful in their relationship? Their marriage was after all according to the will of God, yet you excuse his behavior. He should have had regard for the life of his wife, he should have had regard for his purpose in the garden, he should have not been complicit in what he knew would be her impending death, yet he was. He chose to go along with the plan of the enemy, for him it was to be a win/win. If the female ate of the fruit and died he would at least be rid of her. If she ate of the fruit and lived then he would then at least know that he too could safely eat of the fruit. Adam was just standing by waiting according to his own plan in the garden. This why God punishes him in Genesis 3:17 for hearkening unto the voice of his wife, not due to obeying her, but due to the fact that a silent Adam held an expectation for her impending death during the moment of her temptation, how evil. God knew this and yet this same Adam withheld the garden confession upon hearing the voice of the Lord demand an account from him in the garden. Upon a lie initiated by him, he obeys the voice of the female to get what he wanted and then refuses to be obedient to the very voice of God according to the things of righteousness. All this, and yet he never thought it best humble himself before God. Even a murderous Cain who actually did take a life humbled himself in the presence of God.

Consider also, for Adam to have fulfilled his duties in the garden, that is to dress and keep it as it was stated by God in Genesis 2:15 he would have had to touch fallen fruit in the garden, even from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eve as his help mate would have participated in doing the same. As a rewarded Eve, that she thought the fruit of this tree could be neither touched or eaten confirms that not only did Adam lie to her, he was also negligant in his garden duties.

Feel free to attack me all you want, I am a big girl in Christ Jesus, I can take it. But first try rightly examining the word. You biggest offense in failing to do so (and yet preaching otherwise) is not to me but to God first and foremost.

The problem I keep encountering is a complete and utter failure to actually and then accurately address the word as it has been written. I did not write it, yet it is there. You want me to turn a blind eye, as it seems you do, to what and who God elected to reward in the garden. You want me to turn a blind eye to an unconfessed and punished man Adam. You want me to turn a blind eye to a confessed female and receive that a God who rewarded her in both name and title yet determined also that she was cause of the evil and created her to be beneath. In order to believe this, then what also are you really saying to me about God? You need to check yourself here. This is not about me and it is not about gender preference (one over the other) but the word only.

For those so inclined, they keep seeking to defend Adam but do so according to tradition and not accurately in word. Be careful how you cherry pick at the word to confirm what you desire to be true. That's all I am saying. I am sure we both love God so let's show our greatest regard for maintaining the fidelity of His word. I love you in Christ brother but the teaching of this garden word is a mess.

[Pastor Rodrick Sweet,ThM]

Sister Davidson, I have looked at the this in the Heberw text and the Greek LXX and there is NO mention of the word reward in Gen 3. In fact the Hebrew word sawkawr Strongs 7939 and the Greek Misthos Strongs 3408 or not used till chapter 15:1. Please show me what reward did Eve get for her sin! I'm not attacking you but I will address false teaching when it comes. So please take the time to point this out to me. Thank you...

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Sweet,

I never said that the word "reward" was used in the biblical text. My point is, in receiving both name as "Eve" ("life-giver") and title/reward as "mother of all living," (Genesis 3:20) the female in her confessed state (which she was and Adam was not) was alone determined to be walking in the righteousness of God. Meaning that as a faulty human being (regardless of who did what in the garden) she alone proved knowledgeable in how to rightly handle the things of God, specifically here in humbly making a garden confession, when such matters became due before God.

I reference "mother of all living" as a title/reward because it is a state speaking to the living which the man Adam did not also likewise earn from God. It is a spiritual title/reward confirmed also by the fact that physically Adam alone would father every child belonging to Eve yet he too was not also respectively recognized as "the father of all living." However, had he made a like garden confession as did Eve he would have been. God was speaking (even through a compelled Adam in Genesis 3:20) about Eve and the true spiritual state she achieved which Adam did not. As a woman, Eve was a mighty champion (as defined in the Hebrew) in the garden, Adam, as defined as a "man" by the very name of "Adam," (a name which he received from God) was not. He was a man made to be ashamed and humiliated (and he earned even this name from the foreknowledge of God because a future Adam would electively withhold from the very face of God the garden confession in Genesis 3:12. All Adam really does is lodge accusation and God proves to have no respect for it).

I hope I have answered your questions but if not comment back.

Peace and love.

[Preacher]

YOU SAID:(regardless of who did what in the garden) she alone proved knowledgeable in how to rightly handle the things of God, specifically here in humbly making a garden confession, when such matters became due before God.

The fact is Eve proved to be weak, and the weaker vessel.
1 Peter,3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

the woman was deceived not the man, so the woman Eve in fact did not know how to handle the word of God,its because of her weakness that God did not allow women to be pastors or be in authority in the congregations.
Timothy
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

God Bless

[Dawn Davidson]

Once again brother, you are not dealing with the garden text. You are taking the words of one with a traditional view of this text himself and speaking within that mindset in order to prove your own traditional view. Deal with the word. What does confession mean to you?