pinklight
Active 2007–2012
Tag Cloud
My reference of Acts 25 was never meant to be exegetic,
I think the point is that conceptualy it doesn’t matter what one believes if it’s not bound by the text itself. So in this sense your “conceptual argument” is not valid. There are boundaries to the word or it wouldn’t have been written.
Your first ministry isyour marriage. If you don’t get that, you are not qualified for ministry.
Wow.
I see this as abuse. It is certainly not loving, encouraging, edifying and lifting others up!
Being real – it’s opposite Christlikeness, period.
Dave, #30, spot on! I hold the same view as you and I cannot ever see it another way. And I’ve always held this view.
97 – My point is that it’s always about Adam’s glorious leadership in comp doctrine rather than the reality of his disgrace which contradicts “glorious leadership”.
Isn’t it. According to hierarchists, because the man was not deceived and sinned rebelliously he is given the leadership of humanity/woman. Crazy thinking! In the end it’s just all about power and the manipulations one must go through to get it and keep it.
Seems to me that Adam’s rebellion is replaced with a glorious leadership and responsibility. How often in comp doctrine when it is taught that the man is the leader and woman the follower, is it ever brought up that Adam was a traitor, a failed watchman, kicked out of Eden and passes on down his sin nature to us, and that he failed his wife before he ate? Never. Why? Because leaders can’t be put in that kind of light because if they are then it is made known that they are not truly leaders of God.
Now everyone makes mistakes, but treachery and continued rebellion?? He conintued in his rebellion when he blames God and Eve, rather than acting responsibly. And hear I thought responsibility of him and his wife was his number one strength? And then he proceeds to rule over his wife as God predicts?? That’s not a leader in the slightest.
Genesis 4:7…from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
1 Co 15 makes Gen 3:22-24 undisputable as to who is being refered to.
Eve was created from a living being, Adam was not created from something that was living. There is something to that having to do with the breath of life that God gave Adam, the same breath of life through the blood which was part of the substance (“human life”) used to form Eve… And Eve is also unique in that she did not have the sin nature that is passed down to all through Adam.
Also relevant to Gen 3:22-24, the man alone being made from the ground:
1 Corinthians 15
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
Looks like both Adam and the serpent became something neither were created to be. Help ;P
Cheryl, any ideas on the serpent getting it’s name and the Hebrew?
Comparing Genesis 3:22 with 3:1, “he became” makes it appear that the serpent “became” crafty just as Adam became unlike God. However that works out, humm…
That can’t be right since God brought the animals to Adam to see what he would call them, which means he would have brought the serpent to Adam, inside the garden, the garden he was suppose to watch and keep. Humm… gotta go back and look at the text where Adam names the animals!
Did Adam name the serpent like he named all the other animals? This would also show that he understood the nature of the serpent. He either named all the animals or he did not.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.
Paul applies Adam’s education to the singular female in 1 Tim 2 just as he applies Eve’s deception to the male and female corinthians in 2 Co 11:3.
Whoops, that was meant to read Genesis 3:
Paul’s words “and Adam was not deceived” in 1 Tim 2 supports the Gen 3 text saying “who was with her”…
Paul’s words “and Adam was not deceived” in 1 Tim 2 supports the Gen 2 text saying “who was with her” in the context of when the serpent approached Eve, and proves that he was with Eve when the serpent worked his deception because there is no evidence that Eve attempted to deceive Adam, and the only deceiver we have in Eden was the serpent, so he had to of heard the serpent’s deceptive words in order to not have been deceived since there is no way, no evidence, no proof, to attribute the serpent’s words as having been relayed by Eve to Adam. Besides the serpent asked with the plural “you” and lied using the plural “you”. Paul’s words once again confirm Genesis at creation and the fall in regards to Adam.
The father of the dying over the mother of the living? How unsound.
What I find very interesting is, that man Adam of all people – considering what he did, his failure, sin out of rebellion, accusations against God and Eve, the one alone who was thrown out of Eden, etc, is given a high place over the female in some hierarchy! Amazing!
He couldn’t even keep watch of the garden! What does that tell us about how well he ruled his home? ;P
I can’t imagine one trying to make that man Adam out to be some leader of God endowed with authority, over another human being, namley Eve.
…the connection to the new testament that I haven’t shared yet.
Can’t wait!
Me? Having to go kicking and screaming into an exegesis? LOL! No, just the opposite
LOL! gengwall ;P
You continue to treat Genesis 3:9 as a quote from God. It is not. It is a description of God’s action. We have no idea what God’s words were. We also are not privy to any direct conversation God had with Adam where God uses ‘adam in any form, so we don’t know if God had yet used it as a proper name. Frankly, we have no idea how God addressed the first couple either individually or together.
What is this about gengwall?
Looking at scripture4all I see God speaking in 3:9 “and he is saying” and then the man in 3:10 speaking next in response to God, “and he is saying”.
The context and the pronouns are essential for us to understand the meaning.
Essential indeed!