Don
Active 2007–2011
Tag Cloud
It says God formed the woman from the part he took from the human. This is akin to taking some clay and forming a pot. Forming is something God and humans do. They is no need to think a pot exists before it is formed and there is no need to think a woman existed before she was formed.
Adam/human – part formed into woman = man.
This is another reason both are named Adam in Gen 5:2.
As far as I know, Scripture does not say.
I am not saying Adam was a male-female before the split. All I am saying is that AFTER the split it was a he and a she.
That is AFTER splitting the Adam.
Created is only done by God, formed is something humans do also, like form a pot.
One way to see the point I am making is that many translations and interpreters simply assume Adam is male from the get go, but the Bible does not say that Adam, it simply says Adam is human.
Rib is a KJV-ism.
I see “bone of bone and flesh of flesh” as a poetic way for the man to say he is made of the same stuff as woman.
The Adam/human is formed from dirt and returns to dirt in death.
The woman is formed from a portion/side of the human, leaving the man as what remains and returns to the man to become one flesh which can form new humans and does in Gen 4.
There are a few pieces of the puzzle from Gen 1-5.
- The God-given name of both the man and the woman was Adam, which means human.
- God nowhere tells the man to have dominion over the woman.
- The woman is formed from a side of Adam, this is the same term as used for a side of the tabernacle, it does not need to be a tiny rib.
- The term ish/man is not used for Adam until the word ishah is also used.
We are so used to reading the story of Adam being the man and Eve the woman but this is not what the story actually says.
Because of English use of exclusive man and inclusive man in many translations in a mishmosh in Gen 1-5, it can be challenging to see what is going on. So I translate Adam as human, ish as man and ishah as woman.
Gen 2 is a story of 2 lacks and how God solved them. The first lack is the land does not have a human to tend it. God solves that by forming the human from dirt. The second lack is that the human by itself is not good, which I understand to mean, not functioning (yet) in the way God intends. God solves this second lack by forming the woman/ishah from the human/Adam, what was left was the man/ish.
There is also a play on words going on. A suffix of “ah” is a normal Hebrew way of making a word feminine.
Adam is formed from adamah. The human is formed from (mother) earth.
Ishah is formed from Adam, leaving ish. Ishah is a female form of ish.
The origins stories in Gen 1 are about God separating things, this idea continues in Gen 2 with 2 more separations, but the last 2 also allows joining. When married, the 2 become 1; when dead, the human becomes dirt.
Background: we taught our kids the correct terms for their plumbing.
When my kids were young, we were in a home church group and the time came to pray. A friend of my daughter’s had diaper rash. My precocious daughter piped up with, “Pray for Becky’s ‘gina.” A mother sitting next to her could not figure out what she meant and asked for clarification, only to turn beet red as the realization dawned on her about what was being requested.
To be fair, I think it is valid to present a possible scenario, but it should be explained as that and critiqued.
What?
A woman is human!!???
FWIIW, there is a difference between Arius, who can be considered the first arian, and arians in general. Some of the (general) arian arguments look very similar to the arguments of those who hold to the eternal subordination of the Son.
The Jewish Shema (Hear O Israel, YHWH is one….) at the most presents God as a unified plurality, so as one makes some possible differences, the unified plurality can no longer be the case and it becomes tri-theism or something that is not monotheism.
Yes, if you had used a cartoon of a man, people would be wondering which non-egal teacher it most looked like! 😉
In addition to those books above and Cheryl’s blog and DVD, I recommend Bruce Fleming’s “Familiar Leadership Heresies Uncovered” which is a quirky name but has lots of insight.
Thank goodness the emperor you decided to illustrate this discussion with is a fish! 🙂
As I see it, there are 3 origins stories in Gen, starting at Gen 1, Gen 2:4 and Gen 5. It is not a single chronological story and does not claim to be.
Trying printing the pdf file.
My understanding of the 1st sin was the man just standing there and not saying anything when the serpent tempted the woman, as he knew better and was charged with guarding the garden. This is why God tells him a reason the ground is cursed is “You listened to the voice of your wife…”
On the “not good” I understand that in the sense of “non-functional”. The human alone could not function in all ways God intended. Gen 2 is about 2 lacks, the lack of a human to irrigate the land, which God addresses with the human, and the lack of the human to be fully functional like the rest of creation, which God addresses by splitting the Adam/human into male and female.
I could sign that affirmation as I am a Biblical egal.
If the other side “cheats” that means you win, right?
“not deceived” means “not approached by the deceiver”?
I do not think these 2 were approached by the deceiver but I think they are deceiving themselves.
We KNOW from other Scripture that Adam dealt treacherously with the covenant, this is a deliberate act.
What EVERYONE does is fill in the gaps of a story with the defaults from their worldview, this is what a worldview does and allows communication between people that share similar worldviews.
One thing the Bible is intended to do is to help us develop a Biblical and Godly worldview, this is a transformational process, step by step over time.
However, there is a temptation to fill in more than the gaps in a story, but actually to see what is not there, this is a temptation for all of us and is one reason we need trusted others to help us see when we might be doing that. It is clear in the case of Mouser that her trusted others did not help her in this, by publishing it, they endorsed her deceiving of herself. Pray for her that the scales be lifted from her eyes and she can see clearly.
I find myself guffawing sometimes when I read some things in non-egal writings, they are just so preposterous in some cases. But for some people they are not preposterous, they are serious and scholarly. Yes, in some cases, but the laugh/cry effect is quite profound in reading their works, I need to limit myself or I go into a funk.
Perhaps because it is just irresistable to them to be non-egal?
Widows and girls did not need to cover their heads in public, altho they might; but a wife had to do it or could be accused of adultery. Go figure, but it was a different culture. Even today a woman is to cover more than a man when in public or semi-public settings in the West; just not to the extent expected back then.
1Co 11:7
For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man.
I had an insight, so want to put it here. I think Paul is discussing a conflict a woman has in this verse that a man does not have. Here Paul confirms that a man should not cover his head, this argument should also apply to a woman, except there is 1 more factor. All women are made in the image of God and all believing women reveal the glory of God (2 Cor). So she should not cover her head, just like a man.
However, a woman is ALSO the glory of the man, or a wife is the glory of her husband. A wife is supposed to cover her head to indicate she is married, at least she is supposed to cover in public, with strange men around. So she has a conflict, she should be cover and not cover in church, which was a semi-public gathering.
So my take is this is why Paul give her the choice, she can decide what is best, knowing the specific circumstances at any specific time.
People in prevous moves of God can persecute those in the current move of God.
I am glad you are feeling better.
The article said he has people come to Christ that would not normally go to church, and for that I am thankful.
Driscoll is sowing seeds that is clear to me will result in a harvest he will not want.
I am honored and appreciate all y’all.