What is the Point of the Hebrew in Word, and Specifically the Garden Word in Genesis?

[Dawn Davidson]

Speaking to the glory of God, what do we gain in the absence of the Hebrew when interpreting the garden word of Genesis? And when we fail to employ full use of the Hebrew in the Genesis garden word are we walking, or putting ourselves at risk to walk in, idolatry and even idolatry of our own minds?

I ask with my own answer in mind but would like to poll the issue and find out what you think. I speak with specific reference to the garden word but even as a broader issue, is the authority of the Hebrew in Old Testament of the same critical and decisive nature as is the Greek in the New Testament?

In my opinion, it is critical to proper discernment and understanding to employ full application of the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and specifically to the garden word, in like manner as the Greek to New Testament. In the absence of doing so, whether well intended or not, we are at immediate risk of, or even already walking in, idolatry by preferring those things constructed in our own mind(s) to that which is clearly rooted (as perhaps found in a Strong’s Concordance) in the word and even of God.

The intention of this post is not to specifically speak about Hebrew terms of the garden, but only whether full application of the Hebrew in the garden should have priority in interpretation and what does it mean, if anything, when we fail to do so?

[Dawn Davidson]

With all due respect Brother Watson, what is your point? You talk about the Hebrew, you have told me several times now just how advanced you are, yet you won't address the Hebrew. If you have light to share, then share it and if wanting to know the truth of the garden, even that which is God's word, means I must hate men in your opinion, then so be it. You didn't call me to do this God did. You question my motives, I question why you follow me around from page to page adding nothing constructive. Clearly I differ from you, but as a child of the Light I happen to prefer light and even full light in the garden word. If you have no problem with the truth, even the truth according to the Hebrew, then why does this upset you so much? If you are my brother and think I have a heart that needs to be healed then pray for me, don't seek to persecute me. Would Jesus do that? No I have no formal training, I am simply answering a call. Yet with all of your knowledge about the Hebrew, you should be able to make a quick work of me in it.

Post something with some meat.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

A simple answer would have been well and good enough. I too have seen a bitter side to your studies and addressing of men for the sake of female equality. Before you run to the defense of such, let me state right now that I am fully for women of GOD working in ministry according to the calling on their lives given by GOD, and confirmed by GOD's servants. I however, do not respect the fact that there are females that will rise to the top and bring sisters to the top at the expense of stepping on the men. This is an error that needs to stop right here and now.

Am I attacking you? No, so please don't try to play that card with me, Ma'am. I am addressing attacks from you. If they are, then justify them. If they aren't, then please address them as a saint ought to, for your brothers are starting to get offended here, and offense for the for the sake of your ministry can actually hinder your ministry.


There's your meat.....

[Dawn Davidson]

Well then let's talk about it Brother Greene. Why do you say that making a study of the Hebrew in the garden necessarily also means stepping on men and launching an attack? The irony here is that scores of women, from generation to generation, have felt the same type of an attack from the male tradition of the garden word yet even now, that same tradition is still called good.

It is good that you consider the female to be equal but you and I both know we need recognition of the legal basis in word to prove why and to prevent abuse according to what we actually teach.

And have you ever considered the impact of knowing your creation in God, and even justification of call, is up for grabs, from place to place, from ministry to ministry, and from marriage to marriage (depending not upon what is definitively given in word but only the mind-set of the individual man involved)? My point is, as a matter of integrity in the Church, and even before God, why shun the Hebrew in the garden? There are many who leave God, hate God, and won't come to God because of the plight of the female as it is traditionally taught in the word. If that tradition cannot be proven according to the Hebrew, then how does the Church continue to justify the grief it must surely also bring to the Holy Spirit?

Thank you for responding I look forward to your next reply.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Foolishly, you keep saying someone is "shunning the Hebrew in the garden", when in fact we are asking you plainly "whats your point?" We have never shunned the Hebrew whatsoever. It is apparent hat your idea of shunning the Hebrew is to lifting men up higher than women, us putting them down, or both. It seems to me that you are implying that "Adam" is synonymous with a shameful man. What puzzles me is the fact that both him and Eve were declared "Adam" in Genesis 5. Is this where the name becomes honorable again?

This "Woman Lib" stuff is a shame to woman's ministry. I once said to a woman if you want to step up in ministry, you have to be brought up for it, meaning you are liberated by someone GOD-sent. Otherwise, it will be nothing more than a rebellion/up-rising that will be shunned even if its spoken with perfect Greek Hebrew or Aramaic. All three characters in Genesis three were at fault, period. You have yet to state that. You have tried to focus on the cowardly acts of the man, and made the female look like the heroine of Genesis. This couldn't be any further from the truth. Eve was in error from the start, as was Adam. You make the very mistake that Adam made by pointing fingers, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD. Each curse fit the crime:

-the Serpent was doomed for his hateful acts of twisting the Word of GOD, causing it to taste like dirt in the mouths of men and women when in fact it should be sweet for the soul..
-Adam was told that the wages of his sin would be death, and therefore all things died because of it, starting with him.
-Eve served Adam the fruit that would bring future sorrow to Adam, and therefore her child bearing (the fruit of her womb) was going to bring her sorrow. She she also was going to be lorded over by her husband because she did error in leading him to sin. Yes Adam was right in that she did, but he was wrong for using it as an excuse.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Greene,

If it were women’s lib then perhaps I would agree with you, but then again, even women’s lib came into existence for a reason. What, would you deny me the vote too? Equal pay? I don’t follow the feminist movement, nor do I take part in it. In fact, I am sure with the feminist movement there are many things I might find to disagree with, but also too, as here even indicated - not all of it.

Within the garden word, I seek to exalt God. Period. If Adam falls on his face, or if Eve falls on her face, so be it, but the glory be to God. Eve was wrong not to call upon God in Genesis 3:6 before making a tragic decision to eat of the fruit. It is not as if she did not spend her own time alone with the Lord (the male tradition of the pulpit just doesn’t talk about it, so….shhhh.).

She instead made a decision to trust a man who was an “Adam” that she only knew as “Man.” You think the Hebrew in the garden is a small thing, yet in thinking this “Adam” to be “Man” she assumed also he was acting as “husband.” The word “husband” is one of many positive words defining the word “man” but not the “man” in definition that also means an “Adam.” In thinking him to be “husband,” who he was not (in action and deed), and not an “Adam,” she elected to trust him. He was there, fully present and even having received the word on the fruit himself directly from God. Yet he said nothing. Didn’t interfere, didn’t speak up with truth. Just silent. But oh had she known then that she was actually dealing with an “Adam.” A mean man of low degree. When all of eternity for mankind is on the line, it makes a difference.

You say you have not shunned the Hebrew and then you say: “It seems to me that you are implying that "Adam" is synonymous with a shameful man.” Well, yes. Have you ever looked up the Hebrew of his name? To be made ruddy, red (speaks of humiliation, even to be ashamed) a mean man of low degree, a hypocrite. Have you ever looked up this word?

By the way, “Adam” is only used in two ways in the bible. For the actual man we know as “Adam” from the garden and for a town called “Adam.” So when the name of an Adam is defined as a hypocrite, it cannot possibly be pointing to any one, or any other thing than the man called “Adam” from the garden, and specifically as I say, his work in Genesis 2:23.

You wrote: “What puzzles me is the fact that both him and Eve were declared "Adam" in Genesis 5. Is this where the name becomes honorable again?” No. You are forgetting that though confessed, she too first fell, which means, like an Adam who stayed there, she too was made to be ashamed. The difference is, the female got up making right confession.
All three characters in Genesis three were at fault, period. You have yet to state that.
When does the enemy ever prove to do well? Check. I have never denied that Eve fell but only that she proved faithful to God in making right confession. Check. And of course we know Adam’s story. Check. What?

You said: “I once said to a woman if you want to step up in ministry, you have to be brought up for it, meaning you are liberated by someone GOD-sent” Funny, I always thought it was Christ who sets us free, but you say it is a man. Hmm. Therein again lies the problem. I prefer looking to God for my freedom, hence in his word, not the man.

And yes, I agree. They both fell short, they both sinned. Point is only one got up making right confession, even honored by God, and as reward from the Church, the man subjugated her. So, God honored her, man through the Church subjugated her. Still see no problem? It’s like the sucker punch Eve received from Adam all over again.

Let me ask you this. If in Genesis 3:15 God placed the earned seed of the female in a symbolic position of victory over the Enemy won through the work of a Christ to come, why would you still hold on to the vain notion that in Genesis 3:16 she was then punished by this same God? Is God now schizophrenic? Unholy? A hypocrite? A liar? What? Once again I tell you, you need the Hebrew.

Let me add here. I respect that you are supportive of women in the ministry, my issue here is the continued subjugation of the female. You can preach here but you can’t preach there. And the female still ALWAYS remains subjugated in marriage. All I ask is, where is your truth, prove it. If the female were to be subjugated, then surely God would have given us a clear word on it. This God as Absolute. Without spot or blemish. Pure. Holy. Righteous. In Whom there is no corruption. You should be able to render every concern, doubt, or challenge I have to naught in a nano second. Blow it right up in my face. Humiliate me even in the absence of character assault - employing the word only. But you cannot, and even despite all that you know and have in the word because it isn‘t there.

I respect you Trevor, I just refuse to swallow anything that is not of God. Been there and done that before. It was my training ground and I will never do it again. Put the meat on the table brother.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Watson,

The last time we did this on yet another page I asked if you would like to take one word, just one. I suggested that of an "Adam' to define according to the Hebrew. Is that what you mean by "walking through a maze," that we should examine one word? I also think you forget that I may employ the Hebrew in the garden word, but I had nothing to do with it's existence or the fact that it should be employed. I have never suggested that the Hebrew is the only source, I have asked time and time again for you to share and yet again you don't. I hear you talking around me, even at me, but not talking to me. And if you support women in ministry, and even as a man of the Hebrew, then how much more so should you freely offer specific correction of my error according to the Hebrew? And I am sorry for the treatment you have received by other men, not believing about the female as you do, but how is it that you fault me for seeking the definitive truth of my creation as a female in God? It is good that there are men who support the female in ministry, but why would it still ever be ok that as a female, the true details of our creation, even in and by God, is held in perpetual limbo, swept away by the Church in the Hebrew? Within my own walk, am I to be satisfied by this and even in the face of continued subjugation?

We have offended each other and for my part I am sorry but the issues here pertaining to the female remain the same. And I understand what you are saying, that there will always be different ways of looking at varioius issues, but the Church finds cause to subjugate and to deny full call based upon this one. The Church either needs full clarity in word or the employ of full grace in practice.

I hope we can start here anew.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Sis. Davidson, with all due respect, what exactly are you asking, in plain English please? Unlike Bro. Watson and Bro. Trevor, I have not followed your previous posts so I cannot address or comment on your position on the equality with men.

I am neither a scholar in Hebrew or Greek, but I would like to consider making an attempt to address your question from a novice point of view, if that's ok with you, but first, I need to clearly understand your question in layman terms.

Thanks
Chaplain Harris

[Dawn Davidson]

Chaplain Harris,

In plain English I am looking for the full application of the Hebrew in the garden, pertaining and in full truth to both an Adam and an Eve, and without regard to the self interest of gender (be it male or female) before the righteousness of God.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Watson,

I think accurate identity in word is inherently critical to proper understanding. Yes the name “Adam” is based on a Hebrew word speaking to a show of blood in the face, being flush, rosy, red, even ruddy but the name of “Adam,” (identical to the word “man” in most instances as used in the garden word but particularly not in Genesis 2:23) means: a human being (an individual or the species mankind, etc.), another, hypocrite, common sort, low, man (mean, of low degree) person.

I think the point is salvific due to the exaltation of an Adam (alone) as “head,” (and that despite the full reality of word) and the subsequent leadership of men who then based upon the same, subjugate the female according to call and purpose and in the process lose many to Christ. I think lost souls matters to God and particularly when based upon false truths about Him as even taught by the Church itself. The only solution as I see it, and as I am even led by God, is rooted in righteously espousing truth, whatever that truth might be.

Now when the “truth” doesn’t speak well of the female, the Church still finds itself fit to advance and even without apology preaches the same, but when “discovery” that the actual truth of the Hebrew speaks well of the female and yet not of the man, accusations fly against one simply asking the question: “Why do we put a choke hold on truth if we sincerely want a genuine experience in and with God?” We are blocking ourselves, we should be exploring every authoritative avenue embedded in word regardless of how humbling the experience may be. We can’t have what God has purposed for us to have without first acknowledging and living what is the actual truth. That is where our power is. Given what is not really true (as proved in the Hebrew), women have already taken it “in the gut” so to speak and by and large, have done so still fully committed and submitted to God, husbands, and the Church. But in acknowledgement of the actual truth (as rooted in word and not tradition), and based upon our love of God, I ask my male counterparts this, regardless of what actual truth might cost you, where is the sacrifice you are now required to put on the table in honor of it?

I think what I am seeking to convey here regarding right interpretation in the garden amounts to a “maze” as you say, because we have first been programmed to think according to tradition and not truth. But what if we were always taught, in application to the garden word also, that God is no respecter of persons, that no weapon formed against us shall prosper, and that an honored confession before God always means something? Then we would be less likely to have missed the straight line in the garden proving that relevant actions of the two individuals in the garden spoke not about their gender (and therefore should never have been put upon generations of those like in gender to come), but only to approved acts (or not) by humans walking in the righteousness of God. We would not have missed the significance of an honored confession in Genesis 3:13 by the female, and if all else failed by way of our own minds, that no weapon formed against a child of God shall prosper, should too have always been enough to stop the enemy in his tracks. The garden is a now word in God!

We are living in end times, God weaves the end even into the very beginning and it is here right now. The mind of an Adam pertaining to an Eve is identical to the mind of the male tradition about the creation, full call, and purpose of the female, even the net effect of their actions upon the life of the female are the same - denied identity, denied full call, and denied purpose. The details of the garden matter. A garden man called an “Adam” by God was alone punished and not for eating fruit, he confessed to that. We completely ignore the net effect of confession in the garden. Whether it as given earned punishment or reward for either the man or the female before God. He is even an Eternal God of foreknowledge who gave specific names and specific word to be spoken by an obedient Adam in the garden. Is it right for the Church to ignore this?

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

OK Sis. Davidson, after reading your profile, I have to admit, it sounds a bit like a "Woman's Lib" movement.

The intention of this post is not to specifically speak about Hebrew terms of the garden, but only whether full application of the Hebrew in the garden should have priority in interpretation and what does it mean, if anything, when we fail to do so?

Since, you stated that this post is not to specifically speak about Hebrew terms but whether full application of the Hebrew in the garden should have priority in interpretation . . .(paraphrasing a bit). . .I cannot see how you can apply scripture, be it Hebrew or Greek with interpretation first, which to me is where the "priority" comes into play. Once we get a clear understanding of the scripture, then we can determine whether or not it's applicable for us today.

Now, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but what took place in the Garden is still taking place today. Therefore, I haven't found anything confusing about it that would cause me to question what is or is not applicable today.

Nevertheless, if I am missing your point, please enlighten me. I am always willing to listen and learn from those who are far more knowledgeable than I am.

In His Grace,
Chaplain Harris

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Whew! Thank you Bro. Watson, I was considering the 2 dispensations you just addressed but I'm not much for a lot of writing. I'm a little more of an orator than a scribe. :-) And, besides I couldn't have explained it any better than the way you have articulated here.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Watson,

Adam confessed to eating the fruit in Genesis 3:12 with word saying: "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

Proverbs 28:13 says, “He that covers his sins shall not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.” I John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” In my Bible (the KJ), Proverbs 28:13 is even a linked verse to Genesis 3:12.

So for eating the fruit he was forgiven. If forgiven for eating the fruit, which as you say was the only expectation for obedience as given by God, why then was Adam punished?