Women. God’s afterthought and man’s curse to rule.

You did not answer my question. Instead of dodging so much, answer this: Do you suppose that even a majority of contexts for a word is the sole arbiter of its meaning in every other instance? If you say a tool "helps" you perform a task, does that single context dictate the meaning of any other use of the word "help"? Is the help of another person only something that makes a task easier, or can their help be encouragement that has nothing to do with any specific task?

Think about it.

Actually, the root words ezer, azar, and ezra lose their distinction in Hebrew (which the OT is written in, as you have pointed out), and much like "help" can mean aid, succor, etc. so can "ezer" have multiple senses. That is if you insist, as you have, on being very pedantic about a very few words. Where you have reached far and wide to make your case on the disparate contexts of a single word, I have made mine on the mutual reinforcement of context within the single context of the relevant verses.

You have consistently ignored the context of:
1. The only explicit reason given for the creation of woman, i.e. loneliness.
2. The creation of woman second, explicitly as a response to the need of man (remember, you argued this need earlier).
3. "Help" as applied to a human, NOT a god.
4. "Kenegdo", the word that most differentiates "ezer" from every other use.

Still not answering my questions, but instead asserting your straw man that I have claimed subordination on the word "help" alone. The word "help", itself, does not need to imply subordination when the much of the context does. (The context of the actual verses being discussed, NOT those referring to a god, which would imply idolatry or blasphemy, both serious crimes to the Hebrew, when used to describe a human.)

No, that is the sense of help given to a particular task, which is not the sense given here.

You not only try to infer an equality, but go way beyond the context of these verses to infer an inequality in the opposite direction.

No, Bobbo, what I am doing is saying that Captian Long John Silver was a pirate. He did not scrub the deck. But your exaggeration illustrates the sort of straw men you erect and your skewed view of things.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe it would help if you could recap your argument. Just summarize your point and show what scripture you're using to back it up.

Keep the lame insults to yourself and it will probably be a very short post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What insults? Do you prefer to claim umbrage over some inferred slight rather than address anything in my post? Seems a dodge.

I'll be more than happy to recap my argument, after I give you some time to maybe gain a little distance from the subject. Maybe in the meantime you would like to recap your own argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I just recapped a few posts back but I'll be glad to do it again:

Bear in mind that the only point I am trying to make is that woman was not created unequal. Each of the first three chapters of Genesis makes that point independently.

Genesis 1 makes no mention of inequality. Male and female were both created in the image of God and both were given dominion over the animals.

Genesis 2 states that the man needed "help" (not companionship). The solution to him being "alone" (not lonely) was a helper (not a companion). The context of the Hebrew word translated as "help" - in the entire Old Testament - suggests help from above, rescue, the kind of help that God gives. The word is most used in reference to God. Nowhere does the context suggest that the "helper" is subordinate.

Genesis 3 states that the snake will be hated because of what he did and that the man will have to work hard because of what he did. Although the word "because" is not used explicitly in reference to the woman, it is strongly implied that her punishment too is because of what she did. If she was already subordinate to the man, there would be no punishment for her.

 

Here is a recap of my argument, even though I covered much of this in my post you outright ignored.

1. Genesis 1 is mute on any purpose behind the creation of woman, other than to satisfy the general prescription to procreate. So any purpose specific to the creation of woman must be sought elsewhere.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it... -Genesis 1:27&28a (KJV)​

2. The purpose, given in Genesis 2:

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.​

Here is the only explicit reason given, anywhere, for the creation of woman. "It is not good that the man should be alone" The Hebrew word for "alone", lə·ḇad·dōw, has 37 occurrences in the OT, all meaning alone, apart, only, and by himself. The only logical solution to being "the only" is to "not be the only". "Help" is only a secondary consequence.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.​

And as we would expect, from this simple logic, no animal could provide a solution to man being the only human.


3. The same problem god saw of man, being alone, is the same problem which prompted god to create man in the first place. All separation from god is man's own doing.

And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods. -Deuteronomy 31:18 (KJV)​

But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. -Isaiah 59:2 (KJV)​

God is an "only one", which would make that same condition in man the most readily apparent. If a god created man to solve that situation for itself, then it naturally follows that it would also seek to solve that situation for man.


4. "Ezer" means help, aid, succor, encouragement, or support. There is no implication of from what strata such help many be derived in this single word. Only coming from a god is it help "from above". Help = help, and god = from above (where god is often said to reside). The word "ezer" does not convey any source of help whatsoever. That is what specific contexts, such as "kenegdo" and god, provide.


5. "Kenegdo" only has the above two occurrences, meaning "fit for" or "suitable".


6. Where chronological order is indicated for the creation of man and woman (Genesis 2), man is clearly created first.

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.​

This logically makes man the antecedent of the creation of woman, both for procreation and as a solution to being the "only" human.

Genesis 2 never even implies that "man needed help". Very much the opposite, as man successfully accomplished every task mentioned without aid.

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field...​

"Kenegdo" means NOT from above. Ezer = help, and kenegdo = suitable. Nowhere else is kenegdo used, and as you have painstakingly pointed out, EVERY other instance of ezer has a completely different context. Where, in Genesis 2 specifically, are you finding ANY indication of "from above". You are not. You are searching far afield for things that do not exist in this chapter.

Few words have a single meaning in every context, and no context, even if a majority, determines the meaning in all contexts. You have yet to address this at all, even though I have given you examples and many opportunities.

You seem to have the same punitive ideas about "the fall" as GIA. As I have tried to tell GIA, the only consequence of eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the ability to make self-aware value judgments. They were warned of the consequence as best they could comprehend. Like the difference between animals and man, they simply were not aware of the hardships they already faced, and would naturally see the sudden awareness as a punishment.

Remember, the Bible was written by man, from the perspective of man.

So god did not create woman in a state that would require later editing. There is no oops where god did not account for the human nature he created. Woman always was what she is, only blissfully unaware of it prior to the fall.

 

This is where you're going wrong. You admit that "kenegdo" is used nowhere else and yet you assume that it turns the meaning of "ezer" upside down. Without some other example of "kenegdo" used as you claim it's used, you have no case.

You're superimposing your own ideas on the story. What the story says, explicitly, is that the consequences were because of their actions.

 

You continue to obtusely ignore the very simple and obvious fact that some OTHER word must be added to ezer to make its context "from above". It makes absolutely no difference what "kenegdo" means other than that it is a context for the "ezer" that IS NOT God. It does matter that "kenegdo" is never used in relation to God. This directly means that the context applied to woman is definitively different from that applied to God.

My case only relies on the simple fact that "ezer" only means "help from above" when referring to God. Not all of your examples of "ezer" refer to God, hence "ezer", itself, does not imply "help from above". Is English not your native language?

33 “Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time. -Daniel 11​

Do you suppose that "little or insincere help" qualifies as "from above"?

But I am sure that your bias will continue to preclude you from applying simple reason to the matter. You have continually proven yourself to be incapable of considering the least alternative to your bias, including other versions of the Bible and other verses (except when you hypocritically think they help your case).

Yes, the consequences of gaining the ability to make self-aware value judgments "were because of their actions". Stating the obvious changes nothing about my argument.

 

So you continue to have nothing to say about any of the six points I made above?

 

You haven't made that pont; you've only asserted it. You haven't shown a single example of where ezer means what you claim it means.

I don't know what you mean by bias. I couldn't care less one way or the other what the story says. I'm only pointing out what it clearly does say.

Of course it does. The consequence of what Eve did was that she became subordinate to Adam. Hence, she was NOT created subordinate.

 

I guess you missed this:

33 “Those who are wise will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by the sword or be burned or captured or plundered. 34 When they fall, they will receive a little help, and many who are not sincere will join them. 35 Some of the wise will stumble, so that they may be refined, purified and made spotless until the time of the end, for it will still come at the appointed time. -Daniel 11​

This has no reference to god, and no implication of "from above". It is actually you who has made the assertion that help always implies "from above", even without any reference to god. I have directly asked you if you assume one context dictates the meaning in every other context, but you have, so far, completely dodged this question. I can only assume it true, based on your argument.

It is you who must make the case that ezer implied "from above" when not used to refer to god.

The clarity of your understanding is sorely lacking, making your bias along the lines of the Dunning-Kruger effect at worst and a simple confirmation bias at best.

That is your unfounded and unsupported assertion. The only thing that explicitly changed was "knowledge" of her situation.



Well, seems you keep refusing to address that majority of my argument and have nothing new to contribute to your own. I have tried my best, but this discussion is beyond you and I have grow weary of your lack of mental dexterity. Feel free to get the last word in here, unless you manage to come up with anything new to add.

 

Of course there is. When they fall, they will receive a little help - i.e. somebody will help them up. That's exactly the kind of help I've been talking about. In no way does it imply subordination.

We've looked at every context and none of them supports your claim of subordination.

 

You asked for me to recap my argument, so why have you completely ignored the 6 points I made above. Seems intellectually dishonest. Where in those points is ANY claim that help, itself, implies subordination?

Why don't you reread my recap and try to actually respond to what I have written?

 

Do you agree then that ezer/help in Genesis 2 does NOT indicate that Eve was a subordinate helper? Because that's the only point that I've been trying to make.

 

No, because there is much more context than that single word, which you still seem to refuse to address.

Again, why have you completely ignored the 6 points above, which you asked me to recap? Do you agree with them but cannot manage to admit it?

Ezer/help does not, by itself, necessarily imply subordination, but this is an entirely different question than whether ezer/help AND the entire context of Eve implies she was created subordinate.

 

Okay, we're making progress. Help does NOT imply subordination.

The next step is to recognize that help was the solution to the problem of being alone. The solution was not companionship; it was help.

 

You need to learn to read better, or improve on your attentional bias. I did not say "help does NOT imply subordination", I said "help does not necessarily imply subordination". Do you know what "necessarily" means? It means that help may or may not imply subordination, but whether or not it does relies on context beyond that one word (context you have so far refused to address). Help necessarily implies "aid", but it does not necessarily imply "rescue", as a god or a tool can both aid in the easing of a task, but tools rarely "rescue" any more than easing a particular task.

I have already given you every meaning of alone. "The Hebrew word for "alone", lə·ḇad·dōw, has 37 occurrences in the OT, all meaning alone, apart, only, and by himself." How is "help" a solution to alone, apart, only, and by himself? Help is a possible secondary benefit of NOT being the only one.



This is tiring. You have not addressed the majority of my argument, even though I have address all of yours, and you insist on things you have not and cannot support, other than with your own biased and myopic assertions. I have already asked you for any new argument, and you have nothing but naive misrepresentations of what I say.

 

The important point is that "help" WAS God's solution to Adam being alone, apart, only, and by himself. It was not a "secondary benefit"; it was the only benefit mentioned.

The solution to the problem helps us understand the nature of the problem and we can see from the other usages of the word "help" that it does NOT imply companionship. You have not shown one single solitary example where it does.

 

Are you really this dense? Where have I said "help", itself, meant companionship?

The solution to there being only one human was to create another human, which is what god did. If humans were created with free will, which is always assumed by their freedom to disobey, then whether woman was actually helpful would have been uncertain from the beginning. You are just so enamored with that one word that you cannot see the forest. You have consistently ignored everything else for your fixation on one word.



Get over it. I am, and I am tired of going in circles with you, especially when you refuse to address ANYTHING that could possibly more this conversation out of its rut. I will consider it truly miraculous if you manage to add anything new beyond further naive, obtuse, or intellectually dishonest misrepresentations of what I have said.

 

Didn't you say that companionship was the "only explicit reason" given for the creaton of the woman? The solution to Adam being alone was help, so you seem to be equating help with companionship.

Free will has nothing to do with this discussion. All I'm talking about is what the story actually says.

 

The story actually says man is capable of disobedience, as that is what they actually did. But as predicted, nothing here other than distractions.