Gazza

Pinklight

Thanks for the clarification.

The proof of this point is quite simple. Naming in Hebrew culture was a mark of authority so the text is saying to the people it was written for that Adam is claiming authority over the animals and over the woman. The author doesn’t have to spell this out directly as it is simply understood to be the meaning of the actions just as each word we use has a meaning that has to be mutually understood by both the author and the reader. Just as if you said that someone looked you in the eye and made a promise it would be understood to be out of respect and trust in a western culture, but in many asian cultures looking someone in the eye is the height of insolence and disrespect so this same description of the same action would have an entirely different meaning.

Could you explain what significance you would place on the Hebrew context of the writing of Genesis? I get the feeling that out disparity on the importance of context is really the difference between what we both feel the passage is plainly saying. Do you understand how I can consider this a proof from the text? Is there something that I am overlooking?

If the naming is as I understand a sign of authority as it was occurring pre-fall it is reasonable to say that this authority is inline with Gods intention. Whether or not God had previously named her woman is a bit of a side point. If God had not given this authority to the man, then he would be claiming what was rightfully Gods and it would be this claim of authority, rather than eating the fruit, that would have been the first sin.