Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
You said:

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 what a word even means. If you say that understanding Hebraic naming is irrelevant, then by necessity you should deny any understanding of what ‘ezer kenego’ can possibly mean.

Mark, you mixing apples with oranges. I am not denying the historical relevance of words. I have been arguing for the meaning of the inspired words in the text, but there is no such authority in the culture for naming of a wife by a husband and I wish you would just quit with this argument. It is not only irrelevant to the text, but it isn’t a correct cultural argument over words. Show me from the culture where the husband proved his authority by naming his wife?

I could simply follow your line of logic and say it is irrelevant what ‘helper’ means outside of Gen 2. Do you see the problem. You are picking and choosing which Hebrew things help your supposed argument. It is inconsistent.

Not true. I am not dismissing the meaning of words. That is not my “line of logic” so it is unfair of you to characterize my argument this way. The meaning of words has absolutely nothing to do with a claimed authority given to a man. Neither is there historical precedence for men to name their wives, Hebrew or otherwise. Your point is not supported at all by any proof. And me? I have kept to the text with the inspired words and the inspired grammar.