WAS THE RIB FLESH?
Genesis 2:21 “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (KJ)
Word says in two places that God used “rib” only to create the female. In the Hebrew “rib” is defined as (from “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible“):
“a rib (as curved), lit. (of the body) or fig. (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, lit. (of a person) or fig. (of an object or the sky, i.e. quartet); arch. A (espec. Floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collect., I.e. a flooring):- beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
As a further point of reference, this use of the word “flesh,” is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. (rosy (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings." The word ”flesh” itself means: "flesh (from it’s freshness), by extension body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of man:-body, (fat, lean) flesh (-ed), kin, (man -) kind, + nakedness, self, skin.”
Within the whole of the Bible the word “rib” is used a total of five (5) times, and “ribs” a total of two (2) times. In each instance the same Hebrew definition as given above applies whether it be “rib“ or “ribs.” With exception of Genesis 2:22, in every other four (4) instances, the word “rib” is used in direct reference to stabbing a person in the rib, hence even the “side” as defined in the Hebrew. Of the two (2) uses of the word “ribs,” one is in Genesis 2:21 and the other is found in Daniel 7:5. In Daniel 7:5 it says:
“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”
Here reference made to “ribs” also, I believe, may very well include that of flesh. Yet the issues surrounding the use of “ribs” in Genesis 2:21, and then “rib,” in Genesis 2:22 is a different matter.
In Genesis 2:21-22, the word is symbolically speaking within the realm of Creation, about a specific action taken by God, as completed upon a specific person, and within the life of one man. As such, as a Creative action and though while also symbolic, it is literal.
That is, the word states in Genesis 2:21-22, that God used “rib” alone from the man, yet in Genesis 2:24 we learn that it was the actual desire of God to create the male and the female as “one flesh.” But what did God do with the “flesh” of Adam? In Genesis 2:21 word records that he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.”
The word “instead” indicates that God had a will, a will even confirmed in Genesis 2:24, to use the “flesh” of Adam but did not, he made a choice “instead,” against what was his own highest desire, to reject the use of this man’s flesh by closing “up the flesh instead thereof.” And unless we believe now that God is unable to separate the flesh from the bone, what is twice stated in Genesis 2:21-22 is literally what he used, bone alone (and not the “side” and therefore also the “flesh”). If God proved able to create according to his highest desire for the male and female in his use of an Adam as a man exercising free-will, then word would certainly have recorded it and even to the delight and glory of God. Instead we have word in Genesis 2:24 speaking about what was (is) the highest desire of God in marriage for the male and the female but we know this is not inclusive of an Adam, for reasons already stated, but also because Adam had no parents to leave.
God speaks in this manner about a man leaving his father and his mother in Genesis 2:24 (parents which an Adam had not), because due to the flesh his foreknowledge was compelled to reject, he could not use an Adam along with a freshly created Eve as a model in word of marriage for believers. The only action left that He could take was to speak his desire for marriage purposed for future hearers and readers of his word, in the stark absence of the garden model he actually desired to use in an Adam and a freshly created Eve of “one flesh.” But a garden Adam and Eve were never of one flesh, they only shared a bone which God by the way did not otherwise symbolically purpose for anything between this man and woman as husband and wife.
The "flesh" of an Adam and an Eve, even as proven by the foreknowledge of God, were in fact opposite one from another. This act of God, in refusing the use of an Adam’s flesh (and having already called this man an “Adam,” meaning to be ashamed, mean man of low degree, a hypocrite) only further serves to confirm what was the foreknowledge of God about what and who this man would prove to be in the garden. It was a reality for an Adam not so, according to the foreknowledge and proven actions of God, for a fallen but righteously confessed and honored Eve (an “Eve“ with name meaning “life-giver“ and title won from God as “mother of all living” and that even as a virgin, childless female).
Given what is proven about the mind of God, we also cannot allow Adam to interpret Scripture for us when he in error says in Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of “Man.” God rejected his flesh.
But how do you interpret this?
*PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE THOSE ON THE BPN UNABLE TO DIGEST THE LIGHT OF THE HEBREW AND EVEN FEAR THE VERY DISCUSSION OF IT. LIKE THE GESTAPO, THEY FOLLOW ME FROM PAGE TO PAGE SPEAKING NOT TO THE WORD BUT ONLY IN LAUNCHING CHARACTER ASSAULTS DEVOID OF SOUND WORD ITSELF IN AN EFFORT TO EXTINGUISH AND BY-PASS THE THINKING OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND BASED UPON THE TRUTH OF WORD AND NOT TRADITION. YET IF THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING REGARDING AN ADAM IS TRUE, THEN WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR? PROVE THE WORD WITHIN THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE WORD AND EVEN IN RIGHT ALIGNMENT OF THE HEBREW. COMMENTS INCLUSIVE OF PERSONAL ASSAULT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH AND OTHERWISE IGNORED. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO DELETE THEIR COMMENTS BUT HAVE YET TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO SO ON THE EDIT PAGE OF A POST. IF YOU KNOW, PLEASE ADVISE.
If we believe God is Truth and Truth is Word, then why can’t we talk about it? If God is his Truth, then whatever truth we believe we have, if of God, ought to be strong enough to stand up to the test in the absence of finding need to resort to character assault. If what you believe in word cannot be credibly proven in the absence of character assault, then take a second look at what and how you believe. For any part I have ever allowed myself to be dragged into this, again I apologize, yet it has no place.
Word says in two places that God used “rib” only to create the female. In the Hebrew “rib” is defined as (from “The Strong‘s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible“):
“a rib (as curved), lit. (of the body) or fig. (of a door, i.e. leaf); hence, a side, lit. (of a person) or fig. (of an object or the sky, i.e. quartet); arch. A (espec. Floor or ceiling) timber or plank (single or collect., I.e. a flooring):- beam, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).
As a further point of reference, this use of the word “flesh,” is based upon a primary root word meaning “to be fresh, i.e. (rosy (fig.) cheerful); to announce (glad news):- messenger, preach, publish, shew forth, (bear, bring, carry, preach, good, tell good) tidings." The word ”flesh” itself means: "flesh (from it’s freshness), by extension body, person; also (by euphem.) the pudenda of man:-body, (fat, lean) flesh (-ed), kin, (man -) kind, + nakedness, self, skin.”
Within the whole of the Bible the word “rib” is used a total of five (5) times, and “ribs” a total of two (2) times. In each instance the same Hebrew definition as given above applies whether it be “rib“ or “ribs.” With exception of Genesis 2:22, in every other four (4) instances, the word “rib” is used in direct reference to stabbing a person in the rib, hence even the “side” as defined in the Hebrew. Of the two (2) uses of the word “ribs,” one is in Genesis 2:21 and the other is found in Daniel 7:5. In Daniel 7:5 it says:
“And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”
Here reference made to “ribs” also, I believe, may very well include that of flesh. Yet the issues surrounding the use of “ribs” in Genesis 2:21, and then “rib,” in Genesis 2:22 is a different matter.
In Genesis 2:21-22, the word is symbolically speaking within the realm of Creation, about a specific action taken by God, as completed upon a specific person, and within the life of one man. As such, as a Creative action and though while also symbolic, it is literal.
That is, the word states in Genesis 2:21-22, that God used “rib” alone from the man, yet in Genesis 2:24 we learn that it was the actual desire of God to create the male and the female as “one flesh.” But what did God do with the “flesh” of Adam? In Genesis 2:21 word records that he “closed up the flesh instead thereof.”
The word “instead” indicates that God had a will, a will even confirmed in Genesis 2:24, to use the “flesh” of Adam but did not, he made a choice “instead,” against what was his own highest desire, to reject the use of this man’s flesh by closing “up the flesh instead thereof.” And unless we believe now that God is unable to separate the flesh from the bone, what is twice stated in Genesis 2:21-22 is literally what he used, bone alone (and not the “side” and therefore also the “flesh”). If God proved able to create according to his highest desire for the male and female in his use of an Adam as a man exercising free-will, then word would certainly have recorded it and even to the delight and glory of God. Instead we have word in Genesis 2:24 speaking about what was (is) the highest desire of God in marriage for the male and the female but we know this is not inclusive of an Adam, for reasons already stated, but also because Adam had no parents to leave.
God speaks in this manner about a man leaving his father and his mother in Genesis 2:24 (parents which an Adam had not), because due to the flesh his foreknowledge was compelled to reject, he could not use an Adam along with a freshly created Eve as a model in word of marriage for believers. The only action left that He could take was to speak his desire for marriage purposed for future hearers and readers of his word, in the stark absence of the garden model he actually desired to use in an Adam and a freshly created Eve of “one flesh.” But a garden Adam and Eve were never of one flesh, they only shared a bone which God by the way did not otherwise symbolically purpose for anything between this man and woman as husband and wife.
The "flesh" of an Adam and an Eve, even as proven by the foreknowledge of God, were in fact opposite one from another. This act of God, in refusing the use of an Adam’s flesh (and having already called this man an “Adam,” meaning to be ashamed, mean man of low degree, a hypocrite) only further serves to confirm what was the foreknowledge of God about what and who this man would prove to be in the garden. It was a reality for an Adam not so, according to the foreknowledge and proven actions of God, for a fallen but righteously confessed and honored Eve (an “Eve“ with name meaning “life-giver“ and title won from God as “mother of all living” and that even as a virgin, childless female).
Given what is proven about the mind of God, we also cannot allow Adam to interpret Scripture for us when he in error says in Genesis 2:23: “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of “Man.” God rejected his flesh.
But how do you interpret this?
*PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE THOSE ON THE BPN UNABLE TO DIGEST THE LIGHT OF THE HEBREW AND EVEN FEAR THE VERY DISCUSSION OF IT. LIKE THE GESTAPO, THEY FOLLOW ME FROM PAGE TO PAGE SPEAKING NOT TO THE WORD BUT ONLY IN LAUNCHING CHARACTER ASSAULTS DEVOID OF SOUND WORD ITSELF IN AN EFFORT TO EXTINGUISH AND BY-PASS THE THINKING OF THE INDIVIDUAL MIND BASED UPON THE TRUTH OF WORD AND NOT TRADITION. YET IF THE TRADITIONAL TEACHING REGARDING AN ADAM IS TRUE, THEN WHAT IS THERE TO FEAR? PROVE THE WORD WITHIN THE FULL CONTEXT OF THE WORD AND EVEN IN RIGHT ALIGNMENT OF THE HEBREW. COMMENTS INCLUSIVE OF PERSONAL ASSAULT WILL BE IDENTIFIED AS SUCH AND OTHERWISE IGNORED. I HAVE BEEN ADVISED TO DELETE THEIR COMMENTS BUT HAVE YET TO DETERMINE HOW TO DO SO ON THE EDIT PAGE OF A POST. IF YOU KNOW, PLEASE ADVISE.
If we believe God is Truth and Truth is Word, then why can’t we talk about it? If God is his Truth, then whatever truth we believe we have, if of God, ought to be strong enough to stand up to the test in the absence of finding need to resort to character assault. If what you believe in word cannot be credibly proven in the absence of character assault, then take a second look at what and how you believe. For any part I have ever allowed myself to be dragged into this, again I apologize, yet it has no place.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dawn Davidson on
-
Tracy,
I understand that there are mysteries to God, I have experienced them. But I don’t understand gray, shaded areas of His Character or Integrity. In some instances, even black-outs. What the tradition teaches about God in this word is diametrically opposed to what and who our God really is.
You cannot be holy and righteous by first honoring a female (as word proves) and within the exact same set of circumstances present, punish her as well. That’s a hypocrite, that’s a cruel God, that’s a manipulator, and that’s a tormentor. You likewise cannot be holy and righteous by purposing and sanctioning the subjugation of a female who you as God just honored, even just positioned in victory, beneath the rule of a man punished for lack of making right confession and just given the death pronouncement. I will never say those things of God, although that is what I believe we as a Church do. Forget about gender, in the garden and based upon the tradition of the garden, we have concluded that it is right to subjugate the proven righteousness of God in the earth beneath that of fallen, punished flesh.
In re-reading this I want to ask you, why do you think God used Eve alone and not also Adam in Genesis 3:15 in the face of the serpent? I believe that in order to use her in Genesis 3:15 as He did, also means that he accepted as truth what was her confession in Genesis 3:13. She had to be judged as a righteous instrument of God to qualify for this in God, did she not? Adam didn’t.
In her confession of Genesis 3:13 she only admits to being tricked by the serpent. I don’t take this to mean that she was absolutely without lust for the fruit but only that until whatever took place which is what actually tricked her happened, it was not her intention to eat the fruit. Yes, she eventually allowed herself to be lead by the serpent into eating the fruit, but we also cannot discount the effect of having a husband who she trusted, a man even there longer than she, even himself hearing directly from the mouth of God about this tree, saying absolutely nothing.
While ultimately at fault for any and all of her actions, she trusted in Adam’s silent agreement. Now, where she placed her trust was wrong, no doubt, but at this point she did not know not to trust a man she regarded as her husband. She made a wrong decision because she allowed an Adam to lead (and that has nothing to do with all men) and failed to herself walk in her personal relationship with the Lord and call upon him. (Yes, Eve spent time alone with the Lord as well after her creation and before God presented her to Adam. We don’t talk about it, we teach nothing on it, but it happened.)
But how did she begin in this area of Scripture but in an attempt to speak what she knew was the will of God? What if Adam had acted as her help meet then, rightly hearkening unto her need (as the two were designed by God to act as one) telling her the fruit could be touched only not eaten? Why is that important? Because, if she but only touched the fruit and realized that she did not die (as she erroneously due to an Adam thought she would) then the serpent is now given a wide gate to fully trick her into actually eating the fruit. Note, Adam was there, yet Adam was not tricked, Adam doesn’t even say that he was tricked. And why would the serpent have to approach a man already identified and called an “Adam” by God? He was clearly not thinking in right alignment with God to begin with, his name said that, but even a female identified simply as “Woman” in the Hebrew (I know there it is again) means that she was. In fact, every term/name speaking to the female in the garden spoke well of her.
It occurs to me too that the serpent clearly believed that the man was an “Adam” (as even called by God) and not the “man” of Genesis 2:23 (mighty and even a champion) that he identified himself as to the female, why else would he take it for granted that this man would say nothing during his attempt to beguile the female? The serpent was “subtil,” not stupid.
Let me know what you think. Peace and love. -
-
Permalink Reply by Ms. Elaine Johnson on
-
"Chasing dandelions" very well put Min. Tracy, very well put. On the on hand, very, very, good admonition amidst this fascinating discussion you all are having. Yet, on the other hand, there are so many truths concerning the garden incident that has never been clarified and as so, is worth discussing.
As your analytical mind knows, there are so, so, so, many hidden treasures within the Word of God. For instance, your well thought out explanation with regard to the woman and her doings in the garden is enlightening and shows great insight.
What I have always noticed about the 'Eden' incident is that the woman was tripped up by her own words. She misquoted 'God's' command she said to the serpent whom she shouldn't have even conversed with in the first place. Nonetheless, she said, 'God said we shouldn't 'touch' or 'eat' of the fruit.' Whereas, truth is, God did not say 'don't TOUCH' rather, He said, 'don't EAT of the fruit.' (Gen. 2:16-17).
Ergo, she had filled her head with deception that cost her. That is, when she 'touched' the fruit and saw that nothing happened she figured the serpent may be right. Then she went ahead and 'ate' the fruit thinking to get the 'knowledge.' If she had not believed the lie that God said, 'don't touch' which He didn't say, she would not have been tempted to go on and 'eat' of the fruit.
Lesson learned, 'speak little, LISTEN much. Listen to the indepth truth of God's word of which the 'woman' as she was called at this time did not, and it cost her. it cost her and humanity BIG TIME, Amen?
Besides all that, the fact is, she already had the true spiritual knowledge. What's worse, the Bible tells us that 'God used to come down in the cool of the day and walk with Adam' (Gen. 3:8 PP).
She could have asked God Himself for any knowledge as God is knowledge. She had it ALL right there in her midst and yet, was drawn away from truth to a lie.
Final analysis, it's the old adage, 'the grass looks greener on the other side' but that is NOT often the case. She had a good thing, a real good thing and blew it.
We believers are often that way. We walk in righteousness and sometimes think our own lives boring and dull while the world's temptation seems exciting, electrifying and many yield to the temptations presented by the world only to find themselves miserable in the end.
What I mean is, the world entices one to seek carnal pleasures, fornication, adultery, drugs, drinks, wild carousing. When believers yield they lose the purity of what they had when they walked in righteousness and can never get it back. Oh, they can come back into the fold but things are forever changed for them.
For instance, let's say one in a marriage is tempted to commit adultery and yields to that temptation. Oh, what damage has he/she committed. Now, there could be forgiveness and reconciliation but the 'purity', 'love', 'trust', of what they once had is forever gone. They must start again with hurt wounds taking time to mend. With a lack of trust, purity and love because of the evil of adultery. It causes destruction.
Yield NOT to temptation is right for yielding is a sin.
Oh well, just wanted to put forth a few truths I gleaned from the truths the Holy Spirit used you to put forth. Again, this is a great conversation with much treasures of truth that can come forth.
Blessings remain upon you, Dawn and all the great and including, HUMOROUS Watson!, responses from everybody. God bless, and keep it up.
. -
-
Permalink Reply by Pastor valentine on
-
IN all honesty a person or person's who don't know God's word. They can/ will teach /preach another Gosperl. That has not been laid by Jesus the Christ. I know that you are very GOOD at takeing a Speck of truth and mix it with Bible Distoration. Qoute;" adam and eve were not one flesh... God could not use the flesh of adam so he could use only the rib,adam a man of low degree to be ashamed. I'm BOLD enough to come out and say you teach a false Doctrine ,that is Not of God. The bible says to lean not on your own understaning. I feel in my spirit that you have an ISSUE with every man in the bible Adam,Paul, even our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ. If you trully Loved Christ Jesus you would not Spite this venom
-
-
Permalink Reply by newview on
-
Pastor it is rather frightening.
As you were bold, Sister Hope was a bit more diplomatic.
But both were needed.
Dawn, I will be praying for you.
Call on the Lord Sister. -
-
Permalink Reply by Chaplain Pat Harris on
-
I have compassion for Sis. Dawn even though we stand on opposite sides of the Word. Yet, I can understand why some will speak boldly as Pastor Valentine has done because they are actually speaking to the spirit who is behind the teaching of the false doctrine.
And like you, newview, I will continue to pray for Sis. Dawn and all others who are believing and teaching other doctrines that do not line up with the Word. -
-
-
To all,
While my site has been up, I have been out most of the day and still don’t have time to post in detail right now but just wanted to say, from what I have read, almost all things posted were done so in love and that is how I receive it. For my friend posting as HOPE - Psalm 43:5 much love coming back to you always, and the gift God gave you is again showing in the brilliant content of your writings and even illustrations. I will likely not be able to return to post here until late tonight or even tomorrow.
Peace and love. -
-
-
Pastor Valenine, no she's not. That's wrong of you to say. This woman has great insight into the distortions that were wrought and taught against women. Now, granted, you are entitled to disagree with her. However, show respect to her honest, what I KNOW is God/Revering belief with regard to this issue of correcting the true role with regard to "God and women" so to speak.
Let's face it, the truth is, 'For Centuries males have distorted Scripture to violate women.' Let's at least HEAR a WOMAN who believes God has used her to correct some of the distortion.
Oh brother, many of the things she speaks are in-depth, deep things of God. If you disagree then use Scriptue to point out that disagreement but do be respectful, and courteous in all your doings as any thing less is displeasing to Christ who has moved on the hearts of women to correct many of the lies and deceits unleashed by 'demented males'. God's blessings remain upon you. -
-
-
Sister Johnson,
Finally I am able to address more of these posts! I love you and thank you for the spirit of your support. I strongly believe that word fully supports the equal creation and call of the female, however in discussing the same we have to be careful not to launch attack and allow the enemy use of us to diminish each other. I understand your passion but the word “demented” is a very harsh word. I believe what we have are disagreements in word but we can do so based upon the content of the word and without speaking to issues of personal character and judgments about mental capacities. We are all God’s children. Having said that, it doesn’t mean that you yourself won’t be attacked (though you should not) but that we should always strive not to respond in kind. We have to maintain a state for God to use us in.
Peace and love, hope you stay with the conversation. -
-
-
Hi again Dawn, so good to hear from you. 'Demented' is too strong? lol Compared to that Tertullian twisted African who proclaimed, 'women you are the devil's gateway and should hang your head in shame because because of you we dear wonderful males have fallen?"
LOL, Come on....it's high time women spoke on a scholarly level with regard to these matters and that is all you are doing. The scholars speak like this all the time on all aspects of the Bible.
Check out some of the powerful, deep insight provided by Rabbi Aviyah on various areas of the Bible. How much more would she give insight on the whole Garden affair one way or the other?
http://www.blackpreachingnetwork.com/group/o/forum/topics/numbers-1...
decree-of-2
http://www.blackpreachingnetwork.com/group/o/forum/topics/numbers-1...
http://www.blackpreachingnetwork.com/group/o/forum/topics/behaalotc...
Anyway, this is not conversation called for the 'judgment' of anyone simply because they bring it up. Rather, it is a very interesting conversation worth discussing.
The Bible says, 'It is the Glory of God to conceal a matter but the glory of kings/queens is to search out a matter' (Prov. 25:1).
We are 'kings/queen' before God proclaims Scripture (Rev. 1:6).
You are simply searching out a matter just as they do in any scholarly religious school in the world. These are daily ongoing discussions that are worth discussing.
There is sooo much information out there that we who were reared under 'Western Christianity' do not know. Those in the Hebraic understanding do know a lot more than we. This is the last hour and truth crushed to the ground is rising again. Let's let it for it is the will of God.
Okay, look forward to discussing these matters without judgment of you or anyone else's take on the matter. Just discussion folks that's all.
Hey, we could be talking about potato chips, would that then entitle someone to judge 'why we do or don't like potato chips?' No!
In like manner, we are just discussing male injustice and if the word, 'demented, sexist, sicko, psycho, stupid' etc...etc.. lol comes up because of the cruelty they have exacted against women throughout the ages then, hey, it's par for the course to show disdain at disdainful conduct of those such males.
Same could be said with regard to racists, child abusers, wife beaters, fire starters, gang violence. It's just a subject matter that doesn't mean we have to judge the person who is repelled by anyone of these diseased evils. All should be repelled by it and express their disdain anyway they feel without being judged as having a problem or being a victim of any said issue we choose to talk upon.
I daily watch Whoopi on The View. They speak on a variety of issues going on. Just because they give their views on any given issue doesn't mean they have personally experienced a issue. They are just commenting and so are we rightly commenting on male injustice. We are not demeaning every male rather this is about the sexist hierarchies and the sexist evil they unleashed that has wreaked havoc on women throughout the centuries. Plain and simple. -
-
-
Oh my Dawn, I didn't even know you were on the board again speaking these deep words worth discussing. Yahshua bless you for coming back. I am sorry you have been under attack. That is so wrong. Hey, but forget about them. Let's get to the 'meat' of what you are saying.
Okay, you are saying, 'the woman' as she was called prior to the fall, received 'flesh' apart from Adam but she received 'bone' from Adam and Adam just erroneously, perhaps arrogantly, assumed that the 'flesh' was of him as well?
You are also saying that in pre-destination God foresaw the fall of Adam and the woman? In your findings, the fault lay with Adam for a variety of reasons you well pointed out on the old post you nd I spoke upon, of which I never FORGOT.
The post, 'women are ordained to preach the gospel.' Okay, so, we know God told the serpent, 'the woman would be the one He would use to bring about redemption' (Gen. 3:15). We also know God told the woman that one of the deadly consequences of the fall would be that 'man would take UNJUST RULE OVER HER' (Gen. 3:12).
That Scripture has been taught as if it were the 'will of God' when in reality God was saying, 'now that this demented male has fallen satan will use him to wreak havoc upon womankind' and so satan has.
We can look at all the world over to see the disasterous state of affairs of women. Beaten down, raped, murdered, violated in unspeakable ways in all the nations of the world.
Are you then saying this has something to do with the corrupt flesh of Adam versus what? The different 'flesh' of the woman? Do tell? -
-
-
Bro. Watson, I can always count on you for a little humor (chuckle, chuckle) even though some may not see it as such.
-
-
-
Hi Waton, In times past, I've discussed many of these issues with Dawn and quite frankly, have been greatly enightened on many points she highlights
Remember, Scripture speaks of the 'woman who watered Yahshua's feet as understanding the spiritual hour upon Him more than the men?'
Well, as these are the last days, God is raising up women to once again correct the erroneous, blasphemous teachings with regard to 'God and Women's true role.' As so, I enjoy Dawn's teachings. I examine Dawn's teachings and feel if nothing else, they are worth RESPECTFULLY discussing.
Now, the Bible says, 'be ready to give a defense to the truth'. The truth was written in Hebrew so that's why Dawn pulls out the Concordance. I do too. In fact, my Concordance sits beside me at all times. It's just the spiritual 'meat' one can get out of the 'root' word. It's exhilirating as well as 'liberating' to the captive of false knowledge.
Anyway, do be understanding and courteous for although, I don't have a link to Dawn's site. DO POST IT ANYONE, I do enjoy enlightenment on all levels. Okay, love ya in Christ my brother and do admonish you to understand that this woman is speaking the 'deep truths of God' worth discussing for if nothing else, it will take you back to the original Hebraic understanding of which the Word was presented. Amidst the Hebraic is 'liberty' on any given issue of which you wouldn't believe. Try it, you'll like it. -
© 2024 Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..
Powered by
