teknomom

Matt’s foundtional assertons are of course the root of how he interprets all else, and the first is his complete misunderstanding of what happened in the Garden of Eden.

He ASSUMES that Adam is in charge of Eve, in spite of not one word from God to that effect. Animals were created prior to Adam, so are they his boss? Adam was formed from dust, is dust his boss? If Matt is to be consistent, he must say ‘yes’ to both questions or he can’t say Adam is over Eve due to his being created first and her being formed from him.

He IGNORES the fact that both of them were commanded to “subdue the earth”.

He CHANGES the meaning of “ezer” (bad KJV translation “helpmeet”) to a lower-rank assistant, knowing full well that this same word is used of God in relationship to Israel. This also ignores the fact that the one needing help is dependent upon what only the helper can supply. It would be perfectly justifiable to claim Eve’s superiority over Adam with this argument.

And that’s all before chapter three!

When Eve was being tempted, scripture plainly states that Adam was there with her. He said nothing. Some leader! Matt would have us believe she snuck away behind Adam’s back to meet the serpent, but the truth is Adam stood idly by as the temptation went on. He never corrected her when she said “or touch it”, which Eve attributed to God, not Adam. He never said anything at all to the serpent. This is “covering”? This makes Adam fit to lead? This makes ALL MEN over ALL WOMEN for ALL TIME?? It is nothing but presumption to claim Eve did this in a dark corner away from Adam’s knowledge.

So Adam watches the temptation, does nothing, and takes the fruit without hesitation. Then God wants them to confess, and what does Adam say? “It’s YOUR FAULT God, for giving me this woman who gave me the fruit!” But what does Eve say? The truth! She did not pass blame but freely admitted her sin, and truthfully stated the cause: “the serpent tricked me”. She didn’t even blame Adam, whom she had every right to blame. This is all proof that Adam had neither the command nor the authority nor even the willingness to rule over Eve.

And look at God’s response: the serpent was cursed, and the earth was cursed because of Adam, so he would have to sweat for his food. But neither Adam nor Eve were cursed directly. No mention is made of “the death of man’s spirit” in the very spot it allegedly happened. Not one word or hint. But notice how God dealt with Eve, in great contrast: He BLESSED her! Through “her seed” the Savior would come!

Does it make any sense to think God then did a 180 and started CURSING her? Not at all. He did NOT say Adam “shall” rule over her, but that he “will”, and this as a result of Eve’s TURNING, NOT” DESIRE”. God then orders ONLY ADAM out of the garden so ONLY ADAM cannot take from the Tree of Life. That’s how the Hebrew reads. This is where God’s prediction to Eve begins: she follows (“turns”) Adam out of the garden, which God never ordered her to do. And as a result, Adam ruled over her, which God never ordered him to do.

And conspicuous by its absence is any claim that the relationship between Adam and Eve is to apply to all their descendents for all time. God never said any such thing, neither did he order it. All God did was curse the earth and the serpent.

So Genesis 3, which Matt takes as proof of authority of all men over all women for all time, does not support his view at all. He wrongly claims Adam was Eve’s boss before sin, and wrongly claims Eve usurped Adam’s alleged authority in the temptation. This makes a very shaky foundation for everything he builds upon it. And lest he demand that we bring in NT verses to supply his interpetations, we would remind him that he allowed no such thing from Cheryl. If she tried to use one scripture to interpret another, he always cut her off.

Why does he not do with “ezer” what he does with “didasko”? Is it because “ezer” is mostly used to describe God? More specifically, it’s because he wants to use a principle only when it looks good in a debate.

And here again, Matt kept equivocating on whether this was a debate or a conversation. Since he offered a formal debate, then at best this was informal, and he can therefore not demand “concise” answers. He can’t have it both ways.

I could go on and on about all his double standards, logical fallacies, and continual eisegesis, but why shoot at a building whose foundation is on shifting sand?