Cheryl Schatz

Mark,

You seem to be throwing ‘identity’ around a lot now. If you have changed your opinion of what you said about verse 22 just admit it. We are on the same page that God’s plan existed before any human- just don’t ignore the way God uses human instruments to fulfil his purposes.

Naming is identifying. What I did say was that God didn’t necessarily “call” her woman, by saying “I call you woman”. I don’t know how He did that, but I do know as a matter of fact that He created her woman. He did not say that He created her female and she became woman later. I hold to that opinion and I have not changed my mind. If I do change my mind, I am sure to let you know 😉

“Let’s just accept the text for what it says.”

Yes, lets do that and not say God called her woman before the man which is clearly not in the text.

The text CLEARLY says that she was made a woman. If she was not made a woman, what was she “called” and why does God identify her as woman in her creation when He doesn’t say that He created a being that Adam would call “woman”.

The thing about identifying character and nature is so important to me as a woman. To know that God created the woman as a woman and His purpose in her coming out of the man as an equal keeps me from devaluing women as only having an identity through the man. I am SO happy that God identified woman first and His plan was all along what counts because man’s plan has been hurtful in many ways to women. We don’t need to look to men for our identity. We can receive that from God alone without the help of man. Adam’s identity was a bonus. He identified what God had already created and that is a second witness. Adam was not the first witness to the woman being a woman. Adam was the second witness and God was first.

This is interesting! 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.

If your view that it is authoritative, then prove it from the text. The problem is that you have to go to culture outside of the direct narrative. But the fact is that authority is never taken without being given. It is impossible for Adam to take authority over Eve in a rightful way without it being given to him. But the text never says this so we need to read it as it is written without the nuance of authority. I am tempted to think that men have some kind of “authority” gene that turns their brains into a quest for “who is the boss” mentality. There is no authority of one human over the other in this passage and if you believe me to be wrong, then prove it from the text.

Why is it that the real important aspects of the text and culture you continually dismiss as nuances or ‘rabbit trails’ as if they have no bearing on the discussion. It bewilders me.

Well, my friend, if you could really prove your point from the text itself and then take that proof and use culture as a second witness, I wouldn’t have a problem with a second witness. But you fail to even get a first witness from the text and without a proper exegesis of your point, your appeal to culture just appears to be rabbit trails. I have more then enough experience with those who practice rabbit trails and I had to learn early on that without a clear cut evidence in the text itself, rabbit trails are merely methods of smoke and mirrors with no valid presentation of the truth. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to bring actual proof from the text first. Thanks!