What is our church doing about this?

[there buster]

Quote:

I gave an example of being in perfefct accord where there is headship, which is God and the angels. You have not responded to that.

I did not want to embarrass you. I thought you would retract the example rather than insist on it.

First:

If Adam were the Creator, and Eve his Creation, the God and the angels might be useful.

Second: Eve was not bound to worship Adam, nor are wives bound to worship their husbands.

Together, those reasons demonstrate that there just might be a difference between 'headship,' and God's relationship to His creation.

Quote:

Quote:

I said: neither Man nor Woman has a separate identity until after the Fall.

Incorrect. In Gen. 2:23, Adam said, "She shall be called Woman." She certainly had a separate identity at that point and, in fact, was a separate, living being, with her own body, mind, character and personality. However, she and Adam were also in unity.

She certainly had her own body, mind, character, and personality, although, I would like to point out that the text says nothing about any of those things. Those are inferences.

However, she does not have a name until after the Fall. In fact, she is consistently designated 'the woman' to wit:

Quote:

1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

2 The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

She is not given a name until after the fall.

We call that textual evidence.

The difference between "the woman" and "Eve."

Precisely the difference between "the poster" and "David Koot."

"the woman" and "the poster" indicate classes of things. Names indicate identity.

Quote:

Quote:

Until then, they remain as they were described in Genesis 1: man, male and female.

And they, and their descendants, continued to be described that way after the Fall, and still are to this day.

Except that after they are driven from the garden, they are not ever described that way again in the text.

That's what exegesis is, the study of the text. Here the textual evidence is indisputable: They are both referred to as Adam before the fall, and as male and female.

From Chapter 4 onward, Adam is never referred to as 'the man' and Eve is never referred to as 'the woman' again in Genesis.

In the text, the separate identities come after the fall.

[there buster]

Quote:

three liberals

LOL

Wow. That's a new one.

[David Koot]

Quote:

three liberals

LOL

Wow. That's a new one.

If you please, then, three kindred spirits who seem to enjoy ridiculing others.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Ahh yes, the third party--three liberals...

Ahh yes, charming as always...

Actually despite the feeble attempt at derogation, I am flattered to be placed in such fine company both here and by quite similar characterization leveled against Another...

Quote:

...But the Pharisees refused to receive the divine instruction. They thought that Christ was too liberal. His ways did not agree with theirs... - GW 319,320.

Interesting passage well worth reading...

Tom

[David Koot]

Together, those reasons demonstrate that there just might be a difference between 'headship,' and God's relationship to His creation.

[David Koot]

Interesting passage well worth reading...

Both liberals and conservatives can exhibit levels of nastiness. From my observation, some liberals have been exceptionally mean. It may, however, be a temperament issue. Thus, I modified my earlier characterization . . . three 'kindred spirits' who enjoy ridiculing others. You commented, "I am flattered to be placed in such fine company." In such company you indeed are. Evidently you feel quite at home there. Enjoy.

[there buster]

Quote:

s an example--one of many--of a relationship where there is oneness, as well as headship, it certainly can be helpful

Ignoring the contrary evidence and making some vague statement such as the above appears to be a pattern.

So, back to the actual reasoning:

Quote:

If Adam were the Creator, and Eve his Creation, the God and the angels might be useful.

Second: Eve was not bound to worship Adam, nor are wives bound to worship their husbands.

Is it your position that Adam's relationship to his wife is the same as God's relationship to His creation? You have produced no evidence or logic of any kind to establish that. And it will be difficult to do so.

Quote:

Quote:

However, she does not have a name until after the Fall . . . She is not given a name until after the fall.

Which is immaterial to the question.

Besides being a naked assertion, it is an example of denying but not refuting. Your declarations carry no weight without evidence.

If you were an expert in this field, such an assertion might be of interest.

It is undeniable that the author of Genesis refers to the original pair differently before and after the fall. The evidence is there in the text.

Quote:

Quote:

The difference between "the woman" and "Eve."

Unsupported conjecture on your part. No Scriptural evidence (including textual evidence)

This particular statement is incoherent.

It is not conjecture that "the woman" identifies an instance of a class of things. It is not conjecture that a name indicates identity. Those are simply the rules of language.

The evidence is the terms used in the Scripture.

I'm beginning to wonder if you just pick these objections at random from a list, since they appear to have no relationship to the text.

Quote:

Except that after they are driven from the garden, they are not ever described that way again in the text.

Quote:

I assume you are referring to an English-language translation, rather than the original text. But regardless of the source, I would tend to disagree.

Yeah? You would tend to disagree that they are not referred to that way again after they left the garden? It should be simple enough to demonstrate, if you can.

And, regardless of that, it is not relevant.

Once again, naked assertion. You adduce niether logic nor evidence for it.

Beyond that, as well, at the referenced time, there was only one representative of each. One man, one woman.

The same was true in Gen 4:1, but there they are 'Adam and Eve,' not 'the man' and 'the woman.' The difference is the point. And that is the way the author referred to them, not dependent upon translation

But all that is quite immaterial, at any rate. Your position is conjecture, pure and simple. You have failed to show Scripturally, from the passage you are relying on, that there is any change regarding headship. None is stated in the passage, and your notion about names is not stated to be a change.

That's why we study to discover such changes.

It is your conjecture, and as such, has value as conjecture.

No, it's not conjecture that it's a change. It is a change. They are referred to one way up to a point, and then they are referred to another way. That's a change, and I have explained what I think it means. Is it really your position that there is no change? If so, you need to explain the difference in terminology. Just denying the obvious isn't refutation. It isn't anything.

Quote:

Separate identities are clear before the Fall.

Assertion is not evidence. So far your technique is just to say "No, you're wrong." If you were a judge in a courtroom, you might have that power. It doesn't do much here.

[John317]

I don't think "meanness" has anything necessarily to do with whether a person is conservative or "liberal." It seems to me that for us to relate it to whether someone is conservative or liberal can itself be mean-spirited. From the Biblical standpoint, it's a characteristic of all people who aren't walking fully in the Holy Spirit. It is something some people may be more prone to than others, just like any other sin. Gal. 5: 16-26 relates it to the works of the flesh and says one of the fruits of the Spirit is longsuffering, kindness, and self-control.

Regards,

"John 3:17"

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I don't think "meanness" has anything necessarily to do with whether a person is conservative or "liberal."

I agree.

[Tom Wetmore]

True enough that meanness has no exclusive among any particular ideology. But...

That is not the problem. The problem is one of perception (among a host of other things...) For the same action or remark, we tend to perceive those with whom we disagree, that we do not like, or that we think different from us as being mean, nasty, etc., while those with whom we agree that we already like, or that we think similar to us as being witty, clever, etc.

OK, And stay there!

Tom

[Neil D]

Quote:

Quote:

However, she does not have a name until after the Fall . . . She is not given a name until after the fall.

Which is immaterial to the question.

Besides being a naked assertion, it is an example of denying but not refuting. Your declarations carry no weight without evidence.

If you were an expert in this field, such an assertion might be of interest.

It is undeniable that the author of Genesis refers to the original pair differently before and after the fall. The evidence is there in the text.

From Gen 3

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

I hate to come into this well defined arguement with all you scholars out there...but I do have this question...Is not this verse a parenthetical thought and if so, is it not possible that Adam named her about the same time he named the animals?

From Gen 2...BEFORE the rebellion....

But for Adam [ no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [h] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called 'woman, [j] '

for she was taken out of man."

It is quite possible that not only did he name this new species, but he also gave a name to her at that time...before the fall...

And gentlemen, if he did all that, isn't your arguements kinda moot???? cker

hs

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The problem is one of perception

This is really where we get to the heart of the matter. We have no control over how others perceive what we say or how we act. We do however have control over what we say and how we act. So when we observe that others are offended by what we say or how we act, it behooves us to explain our intention and if they are still offended, avoid doing or saying the same thing around them again in the future.

[Woody]

Quote:

avoid doing or saying the same thing around them again in the future.

Around here ... online ... doing this would severely limit what we could say. In fact it would close down this forum. For ... each opinion will offend someone.

[there buster]

Quote:

is it not possible . . . . It is quite possible . . . .

But that is the definition of conjecture and speculation.

Matthew says the Jesus sent out twelve, two by two

Luke says it was seventy.

John puts the driving out of the moneychangers at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the other three Gospels put it during the last week.

In Numbers 13 we learn not only the names of the twelve spies, we learn the names of their fathers and their tribes. In Joshua 2 only two names are listed, they are listed in the first verse, and they are not the names of the spies.

There are many possible explanations for these -- and many other-- differences. Trying to harmonize the accounts, by glossing over differences-- which is essentially what you're doing-- is one way of approaching things.

The problem is, it imposes our desire for closure on the text, at the expense of finding out why the writer told the story the way he did. The selection and arrangement of the words and events are the main tools the writer has (see Walter Kaiser, Toward and Exegetical Theology).

The writer of Genesis puts the naming of Eve after the fall. The careful student can't just ignore that, especially since naming plays such a central part in the rest of the book of Genesis. Coupled with the unusual "in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," it really raises a red flag to the observant interpreter. The writer is trying to tell us something. We may differ about what he's trying to tell us, but to ignore this careful formulation is negligent at least.

[there buster]

Quote:

if they are still offended, avoid doing or saying the same thing around them again in the future.

The problem with this is that 'being offended' is almost entirely under the control of the offended. We live in a culture of grievance today, where people look for opportunities to play the victim by 'being offended.'

So you have the Sudanese demanding the death of a school teacher because children naming their Teddy Bear 'offends them.'

We have the riots over the cartoons. Everywhere we look, people want to control the speech and behavior of others by declaring it offensive.

In some of the most dysfunctional churches I have seen, one or a few members control everything by their 'hurt feelings' -- their ability to be offended.

There are words and approaches that are inherently inflammatory and invidious, and they can be identified with relative ease. But making and enforcing rules to deal with those would 'offend' certain posters.

I'm reminded of an interview thirty years ago, where I was being considered as principal of an Adventist school that had some serious problems. Board members asked me how I would deal with certain situations, and I told them. One parent said, "But if you do those things, the children won't like you."

I replied, "Your're hiring me to be principle, not to be liked." As it happend, I got the job, cleaned up the problems, and many of the students still keep in touch with me. At first they didn't like me, that's true. But after a while they very much liked the new atmosphere, and the opportunity to learn without a lot of garbage distracting them.

[David Koot]

That's a change, and I have explained what I think it means.

[David Koot]

It is quite possible that not only did he name this new species, but he also gave a name to her at that time...before the fall...

That fact is that Adam named her 'woman.' She was his helpmeet. She had not yet had children. He also named her, "Eve, because she was the mother of all living." There is the reason for that name. It is directly related to her motherhood. Incidentally, as Neil pointed out, one cannot establish a time for that event. The Genesis account is not strictly chronological, as may be see by comparing Gen. 2 with Gen. 1. ch. 2 is not a separate creation, but the rabbinical account of Creation. Throughout the OT, the prophetic writers often jump around in time.

But, of greater import is the fact that the naming of woman (out of man) as the mother of all living is directly related, in the Bible verse, to her motherhood. If you like, she has more than one name, in each specified case pertaining to function. Adam may well have given her additional names. We cannot say either way. Certainly, in those early days, and in later centuries, names were often given as descriptive of qualities or function, much more so than today. We should be careful not to apply today's customs to the earliest times.

At any rate, that wraps it up for me. This doesn't seem worth spending more time on. Thanks, Neil, for your observations.

Dave

[John317]

I'm not "offended" at the expression of any idea or belief. I see that as totally different from personal attacks, which of course can be very offensive to most people, and for that reason shouldn't happen. I can't think of any "idea" or even a belief that I would object to because I am "offended" by it or feel it makes me a victim. But I realize that many people probably wouldn't agree with me. I approach ideas from the standpoint of analysis and deciding whether I believe it is true and why, not whether it offends me.

[there buster]

Quote:

That fact is that Adam named her 'woman.' She was his helpmeet.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of a hermeneutic is in application. So let's try the hermeneutic DK has suggested.

The man got married to the woman. He called the woman 'wife' because she was his helpmeet.

She protested. "I want a name," she said, "a personal identity."

"You have a name," he replied. "Actually, you have two: 'the woman' and 'wife.'"

"Those aren't names," she protested, "they're classes of things."

Quote:

Quite incorrect, particularly where a specific poster is indicated, or where there is, for example, only one of a kind, as in one woman.

"You are my 'one woman,' and my 'one wife,' the only one of your kind," he said, smiling beatifically.

The woman sighed. Eventually, the woman conceived, and gave birth. The man looked upon her and her offspring, and declared,"I grant you another name. I call you 'mother,' for you are the mother of this offspring."

"And what shall we name the offspring?" she inquired.

"We shall call it 'the child.'"

"That's not a name!."

"Of course it is. That is what we call it, and, being the only one of its kind in our family, that will be enough." He said, secure in the knowledge he was applying careful scholarship.

"'The child' doesn't indicate whether it's male or female," the mother protested. "Even Tarzan had the wit to call his son, 'Boy.'"

"Tarzan is a fictional character, and not worthy of our consideration," he said.

"And I still want a name," she said.

"You can have many names, one for each function," he declared grandly. "Cook, housekeeper, consort--how many names do you want? "

The child grew and there came a time when he was to be entered into school.

"Name?" the secretary asked.

"'Child,'" said the man.

"Yes, I know it's a child. But what is his name?"

"His name is child. I have it on good authority that, since he is the only one of his kind in our family, 'child' is in fact a name," he said.

"Look, mister, I have to put your child's name in this blank or we can't register him for school," the secretary said.

"I've told you his name," he said, becoming frustrated. "His name is 'child.'"

------

The hermeneutic doesn't make sense.

[there buster]

Speculation: I think Melchizidech was Shem

Scholarship:

statement:

both man and woman were considered one before the fall

evidence: the literary structure indicates they were one.

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

evidence:

they do not have separate names until after the fall:they are both Adam.

evidence: the first time 'the woman' is given name--as opposed to a generic designation--is after the fall.

evidence: In the text, Eve receives her name immediately after the curse/promis of Gen 3:14-19.

conclusion: This name indicates a change in status.

As to Genesis 2, there are two problems with that.

1. If you claim that 'woman' is a name that Adam gave to his wife as a personal name, then 'bear' and 'lion' and 'platypus' must also have been individual names rather than designations of types when he 'named all the animals.'

2. Even granting the risible notion that 'woman' is a personal name, the fact that her name is changed in ch. 3 would have to be significant, because when names are changed in the book of Genesis, it is significant. Abram-Abraham; Jacob-Israel.

Making grand declarations about "speculation" is not contributing to the process, it's acting as judge and jury,to which no one has appointed you. And it's an easy way to avoid dealing with the real issues.

[there buster]

Quote:

This doesn't seem worth spending more time on.

As long as you just avoid the issues, I agree.

[aldona]

So how is reaching God's ideal for the relationship between man and woman now somehow an exception to the striving for perfect obedience to God's law that has been argued for so long in these parts?

What I find mystifying is that those firmly in the man/headship camp seem most frequently using the curse of sin that reordered the natural order as justification to keep man at the head and women subservient, which is acknowledged as not being God's ideal original plan, while typically also arguing most strenuously for a striving to reach for God's ideal in all other areas so that we can have that final perfected generation so that Jesus can return to take them home.

So why is it only with regard to male/female relationships that we feel obliged to live down to the level of the curse and not to reach for God's ideal for men and women? And while I am asking questions, why is only that one aspect of the curse honored as if it is what God commanded and expects of us, but we diligently and without any qualms feel no need whatsoever to live according to the rest of the curse and invent numerous ways to circumvent or overcome all other aspects of the curse?

What I am referring to is painful childbirth, weeds, earning bread by the sweat of our brow, etc. If everyone reveled in and relished accepting and living according to the whole curse, we would welcome weeds in our garden. Christians would prohibit weed killers or even using mulch to thwart weeds and thorns. We would do away with air conditioning in our workplace, because to not literally earn our bread with great sweating and toil would be against the natural God ordained order of things for men that we must accept and cherish. And let's face it, unless you are actually a farmer getting dirt under your fingernails, struggling against the onslot of thistles and thorns, you are not really doing as God said. And our dear wonderful women should not be allowed to use anything to relieve the pain of childbirth, because that is what God said was to be and to do otherwise is to go against the will of God. (Come to think of it, since only desiring after her man and bearing children, painfully, are mentioned for women, bearing babies and serving your husband is all women are to do....)

If we were truly committed to the whole of God's word on this and not selectively picking and choosing that which we think supports our own ideas we would strive after these curse ideals just as earnestly as we believe women should be subservient instead of the rulers of the world alongside of men as God said when he created them - both of them, together as one. And read literally as some are so want to do would mean that by God's outline the ultimate end objective for us is to return to dust to be snake food. And that must be the God ordained cycle of life!

Hmmm...

Tom

cker

Amen, amen and amen!

[Woody]

In the middle of this fight to determine if Women are equal partners in the Great Commission call .... let me share with you that the effort to support equality in the ministry of the Gospel has had a set back.

Elder Lynn Mallery who was on the board of the Women's Resource Center has died. This Center is the only one of its kind in the church world-wide. It serves to educate and to advocate for women world-wide. It seeks to expand the horizons for women in the church. And it also is a respository of Adventist women's history. And Mallery's presence and support will be missed.

Enough for the advertisement. But Lynn will be missed by many. He was such a good supporter and promoter of women's causes in the church today.

Surely ... He Had to be one who was "inspired" of God.

[Neil D]

Quote:

is it not possible . . . . It is quite possible . . . .

But that is the definition of conjecture and speculation.

[snip]

The writer of Genesis puts the naming of Eve after the fall. The careful student can't just ignore that, especially since naming plays such a central part in the rest of the book of Genesis. Coupled with the unusual "in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them," it really raises a red flag to the observant interpreter. The writer is trying to tell us something. We may differ about what he's trying to tell us, but to ignore this careful formulation is negligent at least.

I agree that the writer was attempting to tell us SOMEthing...and yes, it is an educated guess...[also since we love EGW, it has been backed up by her writings...but I am not going to go there, as it tends to stop all thinking] and a thoughtful and seemingly logical one...as you have pointed out in your little skit with "the woman" wanting a name for her and her child.... LOL

And Dave, I must warn you...I have argued against headship..so please, do not put me in that camp...I dont believe that the bible is attempting to establish that man is the head of woman...Actually, what I tend to believe is that God made 2 people made for each other, so that the marriage was a miniture taste of heaven to be...I also believe that the problem of the sexes/genders will be circumvented with NO genders in heaven or EVERYONE having sex with all...[to which a lot of Adventist have problems with both concepts]

[David Koot]

So far, I have not felt a burden to take a position on the issue of headship before the Fall. My concerns have been with accuracy and faithfulness to the Word as it reads. If one is going to take a position, and claim Scriptural authority for it, then it needs to be well-documented. I did appreciate your observation about the name. To me, it is neither here nor there as far as headship goes.

Dave