Mark

Thankyou once again sm for answering my questions and helping me understand your views. I’m glad you talked abit about Genesis as i think it would begin to be helpful if we could begin looking at texts to help Lauren understand the positions.

I obviously disagree with you that Adam is not the leader in Gen 1-3. You talked about the ‘them’ of Gen 1 and how both genders were to rule the living creatures- I agree. However i have a few semantic issiues with these chapters from an egalitarian viewpoint. Let me attempt to be clear in what i am trying to say.
1. ‘Adam’ in the hebrew in Gen 1 is gender inclusive because of the ‘them’ phrases’. However hebrew does not have a ‘neuter’ gender, only masc and fem. So just as a small sidetrack- i have an issue with the TNIV for example which uses gender inclusive language as this is clearly NOT being faithful to the inspired words and grammer (which i know Cheryl loves). Just because English does have a neuter, if we are going to be faithful exegetes we should keep the original masc words translated into masc english words, otherwise we are changing the original language and commentating on it, even though i do agree that it is talking inclusively… sorry for the sidetrack
2. In Gen 2 there is the introduction of the definate article so it is rightly translated ‘the man’ dealing directly with Adam not Eve.
3. However in Gen 3 when they are banished from the garden, it is again ‘the man’, not ‘man’ (gender inclusive). Should we assume then that only Adam was removed from the Garden- i don’t think so.

Therefore my argument is that to get hung up on the combined function of ruling animals to prove equality and no leadership soley by the gender inclusive language is weak. Clearly we all except Eve to have been banished from the Garden also, even though the inspired words are directed to Adam only

So i am happy to read into the text that ‘the man’ was held primarily accountable for the fall and thus is addressed first by God, and is the primary one spoken of in the banishment. You might be big eyed at my claim of ‘reading into’ but in reality we all do. What is Richard Hess’ understanding of God approaching Adam first…
1. Because he was given the injunction not to eat first
2. God has to address them seperably.
Neither of these two options are available from the text and are in fact ‘read into’ also. So please dont jump to the conclusion that the comp is merely again reading into the text.

A quick question for Cheryl or others. Egals claim that Adam was ‘with’ Eve when she was conversing with the serpent and thus dismiis the notion that Eve strayed from the protection of Adam as reading into the text. Where in Gen 2 is it explicit that Adam was there during the conversation? It is after Eve has eaten the fruit, after the conversation that Adam is mentioned as being ‘with’ her. I could easily say of course he was with her, he was in the garden. But it doesnt mean he wasby her side during the conversation. Is this egal view not just as guilty of reading into the text?

Also Cheryl, how have you come to the conclusion that the curse of the woman is not a mandate given by God, but just a prophecy of what fallen man would do? Could you point me to the text where it explains this?