Kay

gengwall,
How about renumbering and posting the entire list.

What about?:
God defines his own creation when it comes to those who are created in His image.
&
“To assume that the man would be needed to give identity to the woman assumes that the work of God in humanity must be given direction by one human just has no basis in the text.”

“1.5”
LOL

gengwall,
Yes, it’s rather like Mark’s thinking on Gen.3:16 –
he can’t have it both ways – the comp’s “Adam’s authority over” Eve, can’t be both “God’s perfect design” and His “punishment.”

God is not opposed to logic and reasoning. 🙂

“Other than Genesis, can you find even one other instance in the bible where a husband named his wife?”
gengwall,
Another interesting side note is that the first naming we see done in the Bible after Eve’s, is done by Eve, herself, naming her son, Cain. The Scriptures have many examples of women naming their children, a woman changing her own name – Naomi changed her name to Mara (Ruth 1:20), and God changing people’s names – Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah.

“Other than Genesis, can you find even one other instance in the bible where a husband named his wife? The cultural argument is entirely irrelevant because naming (or renaming) one’s wife was not in fact a cultural practice. You can’t claim the culture sees an act as a demonstration of authority if that act is never actually carried out in the culture.”
gengwall,
Yes, the truths of God’s Word transcend culture and time.

pinklight wrote: “Also if Adam had authority over the woman for identifying her as “woman” then he HAD TO OF had authority over every other woman, since THAT became EVERY women’s title. Do you understand?”

pinklight,
Glad you pointed that out again.
A “woman” is what she is, but her name is Eve.

“The proof of this point is quite simple. Naming in Hebrew culture was a mark of authority so the text is saying to the people it was written for that Adam is claiming authority over the animals and over the woman.”

Gazza,
Are you saying that the Hebrew people are the only ones for whom God’s Word was written? It is my understanding that God’s Word is for us as well. Isn’t that why we are discussing it?

Mark: “Regarding 3:16, no i don’t see it as a continuation of the way things were. I deal with this more in my next post with Cheryl, but quickly, essentially the context is punishment, therefore verse 16 is not a positive thing. The womans desire for her husband is not a good thing, nor is the husbands rule- this is a puinishment. Basically it is a corruption of the original perfect relationship. But i expand more on that in another post soon.”
Mark,
You can’t have it both ways – your “Adam’s authority over” Eve, can’t be both “God’s perfect design” and His “punishment.”

Mark wrote:”Its not about Adam being a hebrew, its about the author being a hebrew writing to a hebrew audience in a hebrew culture.”
Mark wrote: “Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective.”

Mark,
So, which is it?

Mark: “Where as man (’adam’) finds it’s identity in the ground from which he was made (ha’adam) and to which he returns after the fall.”

Mark,
Are you saying that Adam observed the ground and concluded “I am ground” and had no idea he was God’s image bearer?

Mark wrote: “5. No i am not arguing that this is myth. I simply believe that historical relevance is all important in understanding the bible. After all if we reject that, how can we possible claim to know

Mark wrote: “Here lies the problem with your view. You are looking at it from a readers perspective.”

Mark:”However how would Eve of known her identity had Adam not said it. If her identity was solely in God’s mind and was never declared by Adam, she would never have known would she?”
“Agreed. Not denial of that. But Adam was also the one who named her. God did not say “here Adam this is woman”, nor did God say to the woman “you are woman”. God gave the identification naming to Adam. Only after he did that does the woman know her identity (i.e where she came from and why she was created)

Mark,
Seriously? How do you propose that Adam knew his own identity?

Mark,
Am I correct in thinking that you see Gen.3:16 “he will rule over you” not as a result of the Fall, but as a continuation of the way things were?
Why would God need to state it again after the Fall? Wouldn’t it have been more accurate for God to say, “he will continue to rule over you”?

Mark,
I see God’s having Adam name the animals as an object lesson for Adam – so the man could understand without a doubt that there was no one for him among the animals and that the woman was going to be made of his flesh.

Mark,
It’s not that egals see no significance at all in what Adam said in verse 23. It’s that we see a completely different thing than “naming means to have authority over something.”
I see verse 23 as Adam’s vocal acknowledgement that he recognizes Eve as his corresponding ezer’ – unlike the animals he gave identifying names to and found no one among them like himself.

“You want to support your view with the idea about prophetic naming and the like, yet you try and ignore the Hebrew culture in which naming was authoritative, but apparently this is a nuance.”

Mark,
I don’t think the Bible supports Adam being a Hebrew.

Even though the Hebrews may have used naming to declare authority over others, they also practiced polygamy, but that doesn’t make doing either one ordained by God.

“She wasn’t woman because Adam said so.”

Exactly, pinklight!

“You know what I think? I think it’s a matter of receiving a “safe religious feeling” that one is doing the right thing. So fear is behind it, but fear is behind it because of what false religion does to people.
People try to be righteous and in the process fall for “false religion.”

pinklight,
I agree, it all goes together. It’s always sad to me the number of people seeing the Bible as “God’s Rule Book” rather than “God’s Love Book.” You’re precisely right – it’s a false religion. Righteousness and justification do not come through the Law. Loving your neighbor as yourself is done by walking in the Spirit.

“Is it a fear based thing?”
Greg,
I see being partly fear based. If a woman challenges their assessment, then clearly, she is deceived. The pastor wields a lot of power in their paradigm and, to whom is the comp/patrio. pastor accountable? He isn’t submitting to his wife, who must submit to him. He isn’t submitting to his congregation, who must submit to him. Then, who is that “one another” to whom the pastor submits? It’s a big power play.

Sadly, fear works well for controlling humans (note the many times God has to tell us, “Fear not” in Scripture).

Their set up is like a stroke of genius, because to even question it, automatically puts one in the catagory of “unsubmissive” to their “authority.”

“Adam identifying the woman’s source and identifying her as “woman” when God brought her to Adam was not an act of authority. It was an act of willing acceptance and happy fulfillment. “At last” Adam said, this one was just right for him.”

Yes, God is the woman’s source and Creator, just as He is the man’s. God is sovereign over all things. Yes, since when does being able to identify the things God created put us in authority over them? It was not the naming of things that imparted authority.
Clearly God gave both the man and the woman the mandate:
“So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created THEM.
God blessed them and said to THEM, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

From where comes the whole idea that “because I can identify something and give it word name identifier, therefore I now have authority over it”??

“And if we were to believe that Adam had to identify her as woman and God wanted the man to create her identity, then we would also have to believe that God bringing the animals before Adam to find a mate for him was God’s plan to mate Adam with an animal if Adam found one he liked.”

pinklight,
Any thoughts on this one?

“Without blushing, Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men.”

I wonder if Driscoll has been reading the Talmud.

“The sacred books should be burned rather than made available to women.”
– Talmud, Sotah 3:4

I think CBMW might be reading Plato:

“Women are accustomed to creep into dark places, and when dragged out into the light they will exert their utmost powers of resistance, and be far too much for the legislator. And therefore, as I said before, in most places they will not endure to have the truth spoken without raising a tremendous outcry.” -Plato, LAWS VI

“What more can be said in her praise than that she was able to accomplish what even the gods did not believe themselves able to do; and what more can be said in her praise than that she did accomplish it! But how marvelous a creation must be hers to have accomplished it. It was a ruse of the gods. Cunningly the enchantress was fashioned, for no sooner had she bewitched man than she changed and caught him in all the circumstantialities of existence. It was that the gods had desired. But what, pray, can be more delicious, or more entrancing and bewitching, than what the gods themselves contrived, when battling for their supremacy, as the only means of luring man? And most assuredly it is so, for woman is the only, and the most seductive, power in heaven and on earth. When compared with her, in this sense, man will indeed be found to be exceedingly imperfect.”

CBMW: “Women are prohibited from the teaching office not only because of the order of creation but also because they are less likely to preserve the apostolic tradition in inhabiting the teaching office”

It’s like they are trying to build a court case by implying, “If you don’t buy into the claim that women are all prone to deception by design, remember they can’t teach in the first place because of the order of creation.”

Are they afraid that neither one stands up very well? If creation order is the primary reason, why does it need this backing that all women deceived by design? I mean, if creation order really settles it, what need is there for all the extra reasons?

“But why should Eve’s being beguiled in the Garden of Eden cause Paul to say that women should be silent in church? The answer must be that women in general have a tendency to be more easily duped than men. Because of this tendency, they are not to be teachers, or preachers, or hold an”

Cheryl,
“The answer must be” – Peter Ditzel seems so certain… I haven’t heard it preached quite so blatantly lately. It seems that some hierarchialists have changed their tack to say that women are the “nurturers by design” and “men are leaders by design”…they weren’t having as much success trying to sell the CBMW type – “the Bible suggests females are inherently more susceptible to spiritual deception than males.”
The soft comp. sugar coated version goes down easier.

CBMW:”Does this susceptibility presuppose some original imperfection in the female makeup? Hardly. Rather, it illustrates God never intended one size to fit all.”
Seriously?? So, God’s perfect original design makeup of the female is to make her subject to a constant unchangeable state of deception?

CBMW: “Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth. Appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are less likely to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables…. This is not to say women are intellectually deficient or inferior to men… their gentler and kinder nature inhibits them from excluding people for doctrinal error….”
sm,
Talk about “double-speak” – “not to say women are intellectually deficient” but they are unable in rationally “making a stand for the truth especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy”

Here’s a little southern logic for them, “You either is or you ain’t – no two ways about it!”

I agree with gengwall – no rational analysis. No God given logic, no other scriptural backing, either. Lots of double talk and conjecture.

Lin,
I’m all too familiar with Doug Phillips of Vision Forum in San Antonio. Are you familiar with Jonathan Lindvall? He is very influential among my homeschooling friends also. His betrothal/courtship teaching is very popular and his teaching is somewhat like Bill Gothard on steroids.

gengwall,
Rereading what you wrote and what I just wrote and realizing it came out sounding as though I thought you(personally) didn’t care or think it was a big enough problem to be a concern – that’s not the way I intended it to sound. Sorry about that. 🙁

gengwall,
I’m glad you’ve never encountered this – it’s painful to witness. Is it a really big problem? I would imagine if this was happening to people you knew personally, it would be. I’m sure you would agree that every single life is important. It is big to me and all those personally envolved. In my view, one life lost was one too many. And, although there is no association at all with the Eldorado group you mentioned, the people I refer to do live in my home state, Texas. (Living in another state at the moment) Perhaps things are just different where you have lived or are living.

Let me add that besides the teenagers being bowled over and infatuated with whole idea and have been indoctrinated/brainwashed/choose your term into believing it’s God’s best way, if a young woman was to resist the “spiritual” leadership of her father then she is told she is being “unsubmissive” – it’s a no win situation.
That is why I’m so passionate about mutual submission for all with no “male trump card.”

gengwall,
I’m basically right there with you on that. And that is how we counseled our children.
However, what I was referring to is the practice of fathers making the choice for their children and walking them down the aisle as soon as legally possible. The teenagers are bowled over and infatuated with whole idea and have been indoctrinated/brainwashed/choose your term into believing it’s God’s best way.
The terrible ramifications I was referring to, aside from the divorces, was the suicide of our daughter’s good friend at the age of 27. Because she had been taught that divorce for any reason other than adultery was a sin, after 10 years in her desperation saw no other way out. To describe the devastation of that on her father and mother would take me all day here. As well, on my daughter and all we who loved her. Tears come to my eyes at the thought and it’s been almost five years now.
What I am talking about are well intentioned fathers and mothers, by default, who really believed it was their God given place of authority to make these choices – the problem is that such a paradigm, where the males/fathers have the “tie breaker” ulimate decision maker setup is that in reality males can be wrong and there is no one else with equal authority to counter balance that.

Nicole,
Another thing most troubling to us is the practice in that comp/patrio church (as well as many others) of the fathers choosing spouses for their adult children. We’ve seen some terribly sad ramifications among our friend’s. I don’t think even Mark our Aussie comp. brother would want his father choosing his wife for him. (?)
When asked, my husband and I were willing to give frank opinions about people our children dated, but in no way would want to bear the responsibility of making a lifetime commitment for our children. No way!