Mark

Cheryl

I feel like we continually go round in circles. Let me comment on a few things, particularly where you have misunderstood me aswell.

1. In your original post you said God named the woman “God called her woman before Adam did.” Now you say things like this “I said that God identified/called her woman when he built her.” Can you see the problem i am having. I understand that essentially you are saying that because the narrative says “he made into a woman” (Gen 2:22), that this narrative is identifying her as ‘woman’ and thus God calls her woman before the man. But it’s just dancing around the obvious. Yes God created her, but the job of calling her something was given to the man.

2. The sentence structure is the same as with the other animals. God ‘forms’ the creation ( and the narrative identifies what the created animal is i.e beasts, birds and woman), then God ‘brought them to the man’, to ‘see what he would call them’. To get hung-up on the narrative description of what God has made misses the point. The emphasis of the passage is not on that, it is on the declaration of the man- this is what is being stressed, not the narrative. The mans declaration is a completely different genre, it is poetry, this means we should stop and look why the narrative changes- it is emphasis. The fact that we are debating verse 22 and ignoring what verse 23 actually represents, obscures the intention of the author.

3. “When you say that God did not identify her as woman before He brought her to Eve” Here you misunderstand me. I am not saying God is ignorant of what he has made, simply that we do not have a quote before the man’s declaration that says “God said “you are called woman”. Therefore God allows the man to name the woman, the same way he allowed the man to name all the other animals. This does not mean that i am saying God did not know what he created, nor that he knew what Adam would call her, simply it was Adams role to declare to both the woman and himself what her identification was.

4. I am not trying to offend or attack you with the Islamic relations. But your deliberate denial of historical relevance is not proper scholarly exegesis.

5. No i am not arguing that this is myth. 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. 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.

6. “It is plainly there that God built a woman. You can say that this isn’t in the text and that God didn’t identify/call her woman when her built her as woman from the body of the man, but the text says she was already known as woman before she was brought to the man. My friend, you will have to deal with that instead of say it isn’t in the text.”

When have i ever denied that God formed the woman? Please show me. What i have said all along is that verse 22 does not say that “God called her woman” as you so matter of factly stated earlier. The literature is narrative- it is a description of what occurred, it is not a quote of God’s. Since when does “God formed a woman”= God identifies/names a woman. This isn’t logic, it’s word dribbling. God made the woman, brought her to the man who calls her woman, the same way God made the animals, brought them to the man who gives them names. The exception being that this creation of God’s is perfect as his ezer kenego. They are a one flesh union.

7. “but your comment that it is only narrative appears to deny that God really did create a “woman”
   How did you come to that conclusion. The literary genre is narrative-simple fact. Why do you then come to the conclusion that i deny that God created a woman. I have said several times that God created a woman, just not that we have a recorded quote of God calling her woman before the man. Naming her was the mans responsibility.

“If that is so, which I believe the text shows, then Adam’s glorious acclamation was an affirmation of what she already was.”

Agreed. Not denial of that. But Adam was also the one who named her. God did not say “here Adam this is woman”, nor did God say to the woman “you are woman”. God gave the identification naming to Adam. Only after he did that does the woman know her identity (i.e where she came from and why she was created)

8. “You said yourself that this was only God’s foreknowledge”
   First God’s foreknowledge is what he knows and ordains will happen. Therefore i do not doubt that God knew and ordained that Adam call her woman. But for the two of them to know this he gave the responsibility to Adam. I am not saying God did not create a woman nor know she was a woman, simply that the responsibility of calling her woman was given to Adam.

9. “Did God create a “woman”? Or did God create something that later became a woman when Adam identified her as such?”

God created a woman. However her identity is only revealed to the man and the woman after God brings her to him to call her something. Adam calls her woman because he recognises where she has come from- man.

10. Finally “Please prove your point. Where does it say that it was “God’s plan for the man to name the woman”. Please give me the inspired words that reveal this in the text.”

This is a big one. So are you denying that it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Yes or No?

And yes i did get a revelation that it was God’s plan to name the woman- its called the Bible. The bible says that Adam named the woman and since i believe that God is sovereign and that nothing happens apart from his will, then yes it was his plan for the man to name the woman. If it wasn’t his plan, it wouldn’t of happened. The fact that this is the inspired word of God, and the fact that this event happened, shows that this was God’s plan.

Now im not sure if you were pulling a bluff with your comment. But i would really like to know if you don’t think it was God’s plan for the man to name the woman. Please answer this question at least.

Cheerio