A Demonstration of Disdain Does Not Equate to an Intelligent Response

[Dawn Davidson]

That is, that one vehemently disagrees that the female was in fact created as equal to the male, is not enough for one to stand upon. How are you supporting a position such as this as determined by the garden word itself? There are many things I can seek to say about the word, the slavery of our own people was justified upon it, but can I prove it to be true according to the word of God?

We are called to “study to show thy self approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

Among the many misinterpreted verses within the garden word, take one verse and rightly divide it. Genesis 2:23, what does it mean that Adam rejected the name of "Eve" for the female, calling her “Woman” instead and additionally rejected his own name of "Adam" and called himself “Man” instead?

Do you count this to be of no regard? Where is the teaching on this Preachers?

[Dawn Davidson]

Hello Brother,

I must apologize also, I posted again last night (you know one of those long ones again) some where around 1 am this morning (no I don't have much of a life) before seeing this from you. Thank you for meeting me on this page.

Certainly no disagreement about the creation of man in Genesis 2:7 but what I think you miss is that the man was already operating under the name of “Adam” as early as Genesis 2:19. “. . . and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” This I am sure you agree happens well before Genesis 3:8. The reference here is that his name was given to him by God, I don’t know how you argue otherwise. Adam knew his name and he knew that he uniquely had one.

You wrote:
Why did it take so long? Who knows…but we do know that before 3:20, “the woman” did not have a name...Just as none of the “animals, beasts of the fields, birds of the heavens” etc…did not have “a name” until Yahweh brought them to him (Adam) in order to be named by him (Adam) in chapter 2 verses 19 - 20.

Yet the beasts of the field all received a name in Genesis 2:19. Per the mind of Adam, even the female received a name in Genesis 2:23. My point is, not that Adam did not name her, but he defiantly improperly named her and this is proven due to the (what to me is) obvious rejection of his own name (Adam) for that of “Man” as in a mighty champion. If Adam were merely referring to both himself and the female by gender, then why is the word written in the form of a pronoun, as in a name (capital “M” and “W”)? God absolutely never refers to the female in such a manner.

Given the lack of her legitimate God-given name, (a name which Adam was on assignment by God to rightly give) God refers to her person, as “the woman”, but never by using the so-called unique name of “Woman” as in an individual. God had respect for both of the individuals whom he created, which is why he provided them both with a name designed in meaning and purpose uniquely for them. So when Adam denies Eve her name in Genesis 2:23, it was a blatant attempt to steal her true identity master-minded first by the enemy. In coming to recognize his own lack (acccording to the true meaning of "Adam"), Adam received those thoughts, turned his back on the true will of God and went along.

As an aside, I would never equate the naming of the female to be in tandem, on the level of, or in like manner with that of naming animals. I am sure that was not the spirit of your intent but that does seem to be the picture painted.

And the order of time really does matter, especially given that she did not properly receive the name of Eve from Adam until after the fall, after the man is punished by God. We know this is one of the reasons for which he is punished because this correction of the man by God is only second in line to God’s judgment of the fall itself. God was bringing both the man and the female to be in alignment with his will the moment he returns into the garden.

I have to correct myself here, He actually first addressed the name change of the man by once again confirming his name in Genesis 3:9 as “Adam” and not “Man.” We now know also that He could not call out to the female as from the God Perspective, she still had no name, at least not one acceptable to him. Secondly, He addressed the disobedient eating of the fruit. The evidence of what we have next in Genesis 3:20 is that God compelled a now punished Adam to not only rightly call the female by the name of Eve but to speak her title and reward as earned from God due to making right confession as well. She was the “mother of all living.” This was/is a spiritual state, not speaking to the physical mother she would one day become. If speaking to the physical, then where also was the like title of Adam? He fathered every one of Eve’s children.

You wrote:
Also, in 3:22 Yahweh said “See the man has become”, He already Called him by name in 3:9 but yet he goes back to using “man”.

However, in Genesis 3:22 we must remember, Adam was still an un-confessed man which is why he was barred from the garden. Had he eaten from the tree of life in this state and become eternal as such, he would have been lost forever to God.

Given her right confession, Eve did not have the same issue. She could have eaten from the tree of life and therefore was not the person who God was specifically barring from the garden. She left given her desire to continue to fulfill purpose and the will of God in her life with the man Adam who was created by God to be her husband. Had Adam also made right confession they would have been in the same state we are all seeking to be in before God even now. Confessed, saved and eternal. This is why God hates pride so very much. Consider the cost.

I hear you about the slavery. Lol. We still have our issues right? Moreh, I really like it better between us on this page. <: Thanks for hanging with me in this.

By the way, I realize the difference in using Hebrew names (“Yahweh” and my source gives me “Chavvah” for Eve) but I am still growing and seeking to study it more. It is not quite as natural to me yet.

Peace and love. I will wait to hear from you again.

[Dawn Davidson]

This is my point. I am using the KJV yes, but please consider, so do millions of other believers and it is within this that many are both taught and experience this word, not the according to the hebrew. I am not saying that the hebrew is not critical, (we know that it is) but how we experience the application of religion in our lives is what is most relevant. Millions of women are being taught who they are in Christ based upon the KJV. Therefore, I say, prove it. The word does not bear it out.

I am giving you exact scripture and I am being very clear about it's interpretation so I am not sure what you mean in saying that it is not there. I guess I am expecting you to argue your case especially regarding Genesis 2:19, Genesis 3:8 and Genesis 2:23. That Adam did surely receive his name prior to Genesis 3:8 from God (contrary to your entire argument above).

More to the point, Moreh, if the man had not yet received his name from God, then how would he even know who God was calling out to in Genesis 3:9? I guess I also just vehemently disagree that God would have allowed them to remain nameless in a garden in which the enemy (as serpent) was present especially. It speaks to identity. On a spiritual level as Christians it is critical to know who you are, that you are firmly rooted in God. Are you a child of God or not? Well, parents name and lay claim to their children and so does God.

Now as to the hebrew, so it seems our scripture verses are not in the same like numerical order, however, the terms as we have discussed them are the same, that is, the true meaning of "man" both as in being an "Adam" (humilated, ashamed) and as in achieving the status of a mighty champion which the man Adam did not. In like manner is the meaning of the name of "Eve" the same as the hebrew "Chavvah" as "life-giver" - not a name denoting shame and embarrassment. As a confessed female she most surely did received the status from God as a mighty champion in the garden. This is all simply based upon the hebrew regardless of the form it is presented in. So perhaps the argument you are making is a greater argument against the entire of the Christian church and the very existance, accuracy and relevance of the biblical word as a whole, but that is not the point of what I am seeking.

As for the scripture itself. In my opinion you are either willing to believe scripture or you are not. And if you do believe scripture than inherent in its interpretation one must always exalt God first, not man. This may be what is the actual difference between us from what I have gathered from your writings as you reallly seem to question the motives or writings of Moses (most likely author) in the Genesis garden word. I do not. I find it to be a most fascinating word incapable of coming from the simple mind of a man. I sincerely believe that God down-loaded that word directly into the mind of an inspired Moses who merely recorded it. On the surface it appears to be the most simple of stories with a most elementary plot. It is very easy to be fooled by what I call a cursory read (whether seeking to apply hebrew or not) if one does not first critically question, in its interpretation, "what am I now really saying about God in believing this?", that is for purposes of our discussion, the traditional garden word. Yes the word is purposed by God to edify us as the body of believers and to steady and make firm our faith, but the word itself is also presented to us even by God as a test, and he is not wrong to do so. Will you exalt Him first in all things or won't you? Yes, if you want to you can prove the man to be of greater authority than the female, but the only way you can establish this is by first removing God from the equation. Well, as a Christian what would then be the point? I am surrounded by worldly men every day in life, don't leave me to experience a controlling state such as this in "right" interpretation of the word itself.

I don't know how you can possibly line the traditional garden interpretation up with the whole of the word, even with what we know is true of God himself. That He is not a respecter of persons, that He does not reward the evil, that He is a God with respect for the confession, that He is a God with complete and total foreknowledge. In my opinion what you believe, dismisses the reality of God and completely nullies the effect of His word of Salvation particularly in the lives of believers. If Eve could not be forgiven (yet was rewarded), having made a full confession of sin, and if Adam also fallen could yet still obtain an elevated position in and from God despite his lack of confession, then even we as Christians have a major dilemma. Because what this does is denegrate the effective work, purpose and power of the confession and thus also putting all of our salvation at risk. If a confessed Eve could not get free, then how can we? Yet according even to the Foreknowledge of God, he was bound to create her in a way to symbolize her eventual confessed state. And He did just that by sanctifing her in her creation in the first place (Eve was not created in the presence of Adam, a man already judged as unrighteous by God - hence his name. But God removed her and then brought her back to the presence of the man Adam), he symbolized this as well in establishing both her name as "Eve" and her purpose as "mother of all living." And to your brilliant point as well, only Eve is acknowledged by God within the garden story as walking in right relationship with her spouse, hence she is referred to as "wife." Yet Adam is never referred to as a "husband" to Eve as he was not walking in right relationship with her. Remember, Genesis 2:23 is spoken from the already darkening mind of Adam. Only he refers to himself as a mighty champion and a husband.

And if a fallen, unconfessed man is yet still allowed to reign in an elevated position by the very Hand of God, then what hope do any of us really have? What kind of God is this? You see, in ignoring the true state of Adam, you are dismissing His Foreknowledge - you have to, otherwise what you are saying won't stand. The female is rendered irrelevant because no one, as a proponent of the traditional interpretation wants to deal with what it really means that God rewarded her in both name and title. But it is a dangerous thing not to first consider God. That's all I'm saying.

Perhaps we should agree at this point to disagree. I am not moving and you don't sound like you are either. But as you know, I can talk about this forever.

Peace and love to you my friend.

Dawn

[Dawn Davidson]

In your last writing addressing this, you said that the name of "Adam" was not used at all until Genesis 3:8, which is why I said it was actually first used pertaining directly to the man in Genesis 2:19, well before Genesis 3:8. We were seeking to prove whether or not the man knew his name prior to Genesis 3:8. I am further stating that if God did not name Adam prior to Genesis 3:8 then how would God then expect the man Adam to even know who He was calling out to in Genesis 3:9 upon his return into the garden? I will keep this short, but why would God even name animals in Genesis 2:19 without having first named the human man? You keep suggesting that the text is referring to Adam as such as if the text is not reliable in communicating what was the actual mind of God in the garden. My other point is, if you find this biblical scripture to be that unreliable and lacking that much in character, then why rely upon it for anything at all? I have never heard of any major discrepancies between the biblical story of the garden and that in the Jewish word. Help.

And when did Yahweh use the term "Man" ever? He referred to him only as in "man." There is a BIG difference, you know the hebrew difference in the definitions. The term "Woman" is likewise only used by Adam in Genesis 2:23, God refers to her as "woman" as a reference to her person (given that she lacked a name in most cases) but never as a name as in her personal identity. And if so, then again where?

Dawn