Why Teach and Preach a Word that You Don’t Really Understand and Refuse to also Defend?
There are a number of people (believing themselves to be of higher elevation) biting at the bit to heap coals of fire upon the female regarding her spiritual creation and subsequent exercise of right authority in God according to call. However, they seem to be the same individuals when rightly confronted with higher revelation pertaining to the garden word that simply scatter.
Where are the answers to Genesis 2:23 regarding the unauthorized and illegal actions taken by an already dark Adam? Explain the presence of a silent, deceiving Adam during the fall of the female, please. Explain why a God of Foreknowledge that is pleased by works of righteousness in the earth, yet called the man “Adam” (meaning a hypocrite, man of low-degree and to be made ashamed) and the female, “Eve” (meaning “life-giver”) in a fallen garden giving birth to death.
Explain to me why the confession of Eve in Genesis 3:13 is of no effect, and if of no effect why God would also compel a now punished Adam to call her the “mother of all living” in Genesis 3:20 and not respectively also himself, “the father of all living,” as a fallen yet un-confessed garden man who you say was of a higher elevation. Please consider, Adam alone fathered every child belonging to Eve, why was he not also designated by God in like manner? Explain to me given what you say was a deceiving and lying female, how it is that even God was made to be the fool in compelling such a thing?
Explain to me also the relevance of a bone in the creation of the female given that it was the desire and will of God to use flesh only from Adam, yet as recorded in Genesis 2:21 he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.” Explain to me why the flesh of Adam was rejected even by God? What in fact, was really going on and what does it really say about this dusty man Adam? And by the way, what grows in the dust anyway?
Explain to me also, given the reality of this word, why it is repeatedly taught that the female “came out of” the “side” of the man? Yes, the side was opened but the flesh of that side was rejected by God. Even the Hebrew points primarily to the use of the “rib” alone, yet how do you excuse that even word refers to the use of the rib alone twice (Genesis 2:21 and 2:22) however it is only a dark and rebellious Adam that assumed the use of his now bleeding flesh as well. Why teach such a thing?
Explain also why God spoke future victory over the enemy to a confessed Eve only in Genesis 3:15 if Adam were indeed her spiritual head. But was God now speaking out of order, and why did this same God acknowledge even the spiritual head of the female in so doing? Please explain these things to me, thou who art of such a higher elevation.
Why do things such as this even matter? It matters, because one it is both the inspired and recorded word of God. And two, because such teachings are spoken into the lives particularly of trusting females from a position of authority in word producing chaos and havoc, and in the very least, whether aware or unaware, binding them in spiritual blindness according to the dark mind of Adam. It is as binding upon the female as it serves to feed the flesh and weaken the male. But there should be something separating us from the other major religion in the world pertaining to what we know has to be a reflection of a higher will, design and plan of God. Yet as I read someone say, perhaps Christian women should begin covering themselves from head to toe as well. But is that who you really are? Should we be circumcised too? Really?
Be very careful, God is doing a new thing in the earth. He is now working to fully deliver the accuracy of His word even to the church first. God saw fit to cut the flesh of a rebellious Adam to the bone, how will he in fact find you?
I look forward to receiving your responses according to interpretation of the biblical text only and not mere tradition.
Where are the answers to Genesis 2:23 regarding the unauthorized and illegal actions taken by an already dark Adam? Explain the presence of a silent, deceiving Adam during the fall of the female, please. Explain why a God of Foreknowledge that is pleased by works of righteousness in the earth, yet called the man “Adam” (meaning a hypocrite, man of low-degree and to be made ashamed) and the female, “Eve” (meaning “life-giver”) in a fallen garden giving birth to death.
Explain to me why the confession of Eve in Genesis 3:13 is of no effect, and if of no effect why God would also compel a now punished Adam to call her the “mother of all living” in Genesis 3:20 and not respectively also himself, “the father of all living,” as a fallen yet un-confessed garden man who you say was of a higher elevation. Please consider, Adam alone fathered every child belonging to Eve, why was he not also designated by God in like manner? Explain to me given what you say was a deceiving and lying female, how it is that even God was made to be the fool in compelling such a thing?
Explain to me also the relevance of a bone in the creation of the female given that it was the desire and will of God to use flesh only from Adam, yet as recorded in Genesis 2:21 he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.” Explain to me why the flesh of Adam was rejected even by God? What in fact, was really going on and what does it really say about this dusty man Adam? And by the way, what grows in the dust anyway?
Explain to me also, given the reality of this word, why it is repeatedly taught that the female “came out of” the “side” of the man? Yes, the side was opened but the flesh of that side was rejected by God. Even the Hebrew points primarily to the use of the “rib” alone, yet how do you excuse that even word refers to the use of the rib alone twice (Genesis 2:21 and 2:22) however it is only a dark and rebellious Adam that assumed the use of his now bleeding flesh as well. Why teach such a thing?
Explain also why God spoke future victory over the enemy to a confessed Eve only in Genesis 3:15 if Adam were indeed her spiritual head. But was God now speaking out of order, and why did this same God acknowledge even the spiritual head of the female in so doing? Please explain these things to me, thou who art of such a higher elevation.
Why do things such as this even matter? It matters, because one it is both the inspired and recorded word of God. And two, because such teachings are spoken into the lives particularly of trusting females from a position of authority in word producing chaos and havoc, and in the very least, whether aware or unaware, binding them in spiritual blindness according to the dark mind of Adam. It is as binding upon the female as it serves to feed the flesh and weaken the male. But there should be something separating us from the other major religion in the world pertaining to what we know has to be a reflection of a higher will, design and plan of God. Yet as I read someone say, perhaps Christian women should begin covering themselves from head to toe as well. But is that who you really are? Should we be circumcised too? Really?
Be very careful, God is doing a new thing in the earth. He is now working to fully deliver the accuracy of His word even to the church first. God saw fit to cut the flesh of a rebellious Adam to the bone, how will he in fact find you?
I look forward to receiving your responses according to interpretation of the biblical text only and not mere tradition.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Scott R. Newman on
-
It always amazes me how some would use anything out of its contextual placement to justify their own agenda, and that was a sho nuff stretch to justify women to be the head over man. And not once did you use the plain language from the only 2 books of the Bible that tells us the role of Bishops and Pastors which are 1Timothy and the book of Titus.
And yes God is doing a new thing in the land, but that "new thing" doesn't contradict nor would go contrary to God's innerant Word of God.
If it ain't written in thus sayeth the Lord, its a sho nuff....LIE!
Really I do agree with you that the main failure is the failure of man, who has turned his back on the truth and refuses to be reconciled back to the Father and become restored. Since man has failed miserably in his relationship or lack thereof in terms of being obedient and submissive to God and His laws, commands and precepts. Its no wonder why God has given us over to our reprobate mind. That in itself is not an excuse or a justification to create another Gospel through the deception of the spirit of Jezebel to mishandle God's authoritive Word to step over man to take on roles that man has been ordained to take. This is not the culture of the Bible but the culture of the world. Doesn't surprise me when woman, especially in our neighborhoods and the hood feel that they are the "Mother and the Father" since 80% of all black babies are born fatherless. Really I believe once again, its not the fault of woman its the fault of MAN. Why Christ tells us plainly to go out to the harvest and to be "Fishers of MEN", the women will naturally follow. What woman wouldn't follow a man of God naturally? Lets do the basic things first and the work of an evangelist that everyone is called to be unless we don't care nor are burdened by so many of God's sons who languish in darkness and debauchery and are perishing in a harvest that God calls us to be workers in, few that we are.
Peace and God Bless
Scott
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Brother I hear you but you are still not dealing with this garden word, and yet, is it not even that which even the Apostles studied? You are taking a New Testament word and in error, positioning it over and above the existing word of God regarding His Creative works even in the garden, is this your intent? This is what I mean by not responding to this post first based upon tradition and not a simple and literal interpretation of the garden word.
But let's talk about the man Adam as referenced in the post and what the reality of his true state actually says about a God who many believe would position a rebellious mind such as that of an un-confessed Adam over and above that of anything, let alone his counter-part the female.
When it comes to having an emotional reaction to this word, believe me I can match you pound for pound, my life was at one time completely devastated due to it. But as I have been growing I am seeking to merely discuss the true issues at hand. Yes I respond to what I believe to be the insidious, but what I desire is to both know and promote the truth of God only. Where am I promoting a personal agenda? In suggesting that we as Christian believers, teachers and preachers ought to rightly give honor to a confession in 3:13 which the very God of our creation did as well? Am I promoting my own agenda by not conforming to a thought which would teach to overlook the blatent rebellious lies, pride and arrogance of a garden Adam? Is that what you would counsel or prefer me to bow down to?
And if you disagree regarding the interpretation of Adam as posted then do so specific to the garden word itself and not by propping up to me, yet again, what is evident in the mental construct of a garden word discerned and propagated according to the mind of a first century man.
Even in your reference to Genesis 3:15 regarding what I believe is God's acknowledgement of the female head given even in the absence of a still un-confessed, stubborn, defiant, arrogant and soon to be punished garden man Adam, you fail to discuss the actual word itself. I did not write the word but reference to a female head is there all the same, yet you are coming at me because of it? What do you believe is true about 3:15? Discern the word itself. All you have given me is tradition based upon the misinterpretation of this word in the first place.
You say God's word would not contradict itself, and I wholeheartedly agree, but I would add, where a departure is proved obvious than we should allow a greater wisdom to guide us in understanding that the problem, even where recorded by man in the bible, is the fault yet of man as well. The word is alive, and I believe that the whole of God's word is a test in and of itself in righteousness and that in so doing, God even uses it to record the unrighteous beliefs, statements, and actions of man as a part of word itself, and yes even those held by otherwise good and called men of God in error. Only God is Perfect and even the bible proves this by not withholding what are our own human realities and frailties. Yes we are to honor those who came before us as teachers, apostles and preachers, etc., but where what they taught and preached departed from that which we know is true of God first is where we too are called to depart with them as well.
We are to exalt God first and only in all things. I have high regard for Peter, Paul and Timothy but I do not exalt even one tittle of a word spoken even by them if that same word is not also first in alignment with what I know is true of God. Now are you telling me that the exaltation of God first and foremost even in the face men, is the spirit of Jezebel?
Yes my parents are divorced (since I was four) but they were once married, I have a great relationship with my father, I have protective brothers, and I am a married woman with two daughters. My heart bleeds regarding the social ills affecting our communities, but don't attempt to write me off by suggesting that my discourse regarding this word is a reaction to a failure ill-affecting me due to a man or men in my life who have come up short in who they too have been called to be. That is not who you are dealing with.
And I commend you for wanting to bear the brunt of the responsibility, you sound like a good brother, but even as recorded in the garden word, it ain't all about you. The sister was equally called as well.
Thank you for your response Scott, hope we can be friends, but please come again.
-
-
Brother I do agree with you, it has been extremely challenging to me and if I did not feel called of God to do so, I know that I would not be able to function in this capacity. Being used of God in the deliverance of this word immediately sets one at odds with many of the brethen and complicates matters of corporate worship and receiving spiritual counsel as it pertains to the female.
Also, that the acceptance or rejection of a particular interpretation is not also an acceptance or rejection of the person is right on point. And that it is received in such a way tells us much more about the spirit that brought it.
Honestly, from what I know of the Jewish faith and admire, is that according to the rabbinic tradition, they are not afraid to debate the scripture in an effort to discover its greatest truths. I understand that we have to protect the sheep from division and demonic spirits, but might we be having such a difficult time with this in the first place because many of us are not first operating with the truth?
In addition to my own experiences, what troubled me the most is that most women don't believe one word a pastor says pertaining to this tradition, whether they are publicly smiling at him and clapping or not. I would like pastors of this tradition to remember that the next time they preach it while looking into the smiling faces of these women. I have myself been a party to too many back room church conversations among women. Many of us, both young and old, don't accept such teachings as a part of our faith life. So what does a pastor prove by teaching and preaching such a thing and not seeking to discern the true garden word? Can God be fooled? Failing to do so is not pleasing to God. It is difficult to lay the charge as many may be well intended, but idolatry is what comes to mind. But as the Body of Christ, we don't have time for such things.
Another short note, is that often this teaching is preceded by one of either two things. Either the pastor makes an apology for what is about to be said, even if only in jest (an apology, really? About what is from God?), or a pastor outright condemns the female, even while she is sitting in the pew, saying what equates to a word even from God in rebuke of her within the context of her very creation. That is deep. No love, no apologies. The end. I am not sure which I regard as worse, to be patronized and condemned yet loved or to be outright hated in gender instead. Either way, it puts me in bondage and produces separation in me from God. But keep in mind, I am a good church woman, so I am still smiling.
And I agree with you regarding the studying of word. After a time of hearing and learning of the word, and even greatly being encouraged to study deeply, when I did and began to realize and vocalize the many inconsistencies according to the actual teachings I was encouraged to just accept what was being taught without real understanding. This is why, what anyone would say to me now doesn't hurt me, I have already been there and yet God keeps pushing me and moving me forward in this word. Even when I have not wanted to keep pushing and moving forward in this word. The cost has been great. Ironically however, the same pastor that I formerly sat under unknowingly placed me upon the path that I am now upon. He said, if it was true in the garden then it is true in the mind of God. He had no way of knowing what God would give me when I came knocking. But I had just been through so much, for me this word, as given by God, is now my healing. God gave me the increase, and I praise and give Him the glory for it.
I respect someone who differs, all I ask (as you have well stated) is that they do so according to the word and not the tradition. Thank you for this post brother, it is deeply appreciated. I will stop in and visit your discussion as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Anna on
-
Sister:
I looked up the word Adam in my Strong's concordance and go the following results for the definition, which was not as you stated above:
Lexicon Results Strong's H120 - 'adam אדם
Transliteration
'adam
Pronunciation
ä·däm' (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
from H119
TWOT Reference
25a
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley
~~~~~~~~~~~
From where did you get your understanding that Adam meant the following:
You stated: Explain why a God .....called the man “Adam” (meaning a hypocrite, man of low-degree and to be made ashamed)
-
-
Sister Anna,
My definition is found in The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: 120, 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 = to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:- be (dyed, made) red (ruddy). In this same source the name of Adam is defined also as: (book entry 121) "the same as 120; Adam the name of the first man, also of a a place in Pal.:-Adam."
However 121 is not what is listed as it's general use in the garden story. This is where and why I state that specific to the garden life of Adam (even as I believe the word itself bears out) he was a man who was a hypocrite, a man of low-degree and who was made to be ashamed (red/ruddy).
Now unlike how women have been traditionally interpreted from the garden, I do not think it right to apply such within the life of every man, this was specific to a garden Adam only as determined by his unrighteous and un-confessed garden acts. According to what I believe, gender has nothing to do with it, we are only judged based upon whether or not we make obedient choices according to righteousness.
-
-
Sis Dawn:
Please explain what you mean by your statement about "God being made a fool":
You inquired
"Explain to me given what you say was a deceiving and lying female,
***how it is that even God was made to be the fool in compelling such a thing***?"
How can God/YHWH be made a fool when He knows the "end from the beginning"?
Nothing that happened in the Garden or since then ever took Him by surprise....
-
-
Sister Ana,
I could not agree with you more, how can God possibly EVER be made the fool? When I speak of this I am refering to what many say about the female Eve. That she was responsible for deceiving Adam into sin and that her words to the serpent in 3:3, as I have heard it taught (by a very large, well-known ministry I must say), was in fact a lie she just made up given that she was functioning as a spawn of the devil.
"But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." Genesis 3:3
The female spoke these words in the presence of a still silent Adam. He was an Adam who was also under commandment of God to both dress and keep the garden (Genesis 2:15), but how can you possibly dress and keep what you cannot now even touch? Eve would only have received and believed such a thing if in fact it was first stated and then supported by an Adam who made a decision not to fulfill the command of God in keeping the garden.
That God would be made a fool is what I believe the traditional interpretation in fact does teach when one considers that He is the same God who, through a now punished and compelled Adam, caused the man to call her in both name and title that which spoke to the living ("Eve" life-giver/"mother of all living").
I believe that this is a reward/title speaking to the spiritual and not the physical. If not the spiritual then where was the likewise recognition of an Adam supposebly created to be on a higher level? He physically fathered every one of Eve's children yet God did not speak of the living regarding him, not even in name. God would have to be a fool (perhaps even a hypocrite) in order to honor a female who the traditional interpretation teaches was deceived and then punished due to her garden works. She was either walking in righteousness or she was not, and if she was not then why would a holy God give this female a reward? He would have to be a fool.
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
