Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480268)

Some have considered this to be a defect while others have labeled it a strength. My brain has a tendency to collect and analyze data, and then my brain proceeds to analyze the initial analysis.

I was reading in Genesis 3:13-14 where the women deceived Eve and thereafter God cursed the serpent (e.g. crawl on belly, eat dust).

What was the correlation between the serpent and Satan? I’m sure there were a multitude of hosts that Lucifer could have utilized. And even if Lucifer embodied a serpent, why curse the serpent over something that’s not necessarily its fault?

Here’s what I found interesting.

I realize that Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam. In addition, the bible never indicated a female’s role of submission until after God pronounced judgement over the women.

Notice, God tells Eve in Genesis 3:16, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” The women wasn’t ruled over by man until after the women was deceived by the serpent.

This causes me to believe that even though Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam, Adam and Eve were co-equal in authority prior to her being deceived.

Let us ponder this question.

Why would God impose submission as a penalty to the women for Eve’s disobedience if submission was already present between Adam and Eve?

The only method of introducing submission roles between two individuals is if there’s no submission role present.

If there’s no submission role present, that must concluded that there was co-equal authority between the two individuals until a higher authority established roles of submission between the two.

What saith the forum?

Originally Posted by Esaias (Post 1480284)

In 1Corinthians 11:8-9 Paul argues in favour of his doctrine concerning headship and head covering upon the basis of Pre-Fall distinctions between Adam and Eve, including the idea that the man was not made for the woman, but vice versa, indicating a Pre-Fall hierarchy of some kind.

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480268)

Notice, God tells Eve in Genesis 3:16, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” The women wasn’t ruled over by man until after the women was deceived by the serpent.

This causes me to believe that even though Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam, Adam and Eve were co-equal in authority prior to her being deceived.

Let us ponder this question.

Why would God impose submission as a penalty to the women for Eve’s disobedience if submission was already present between Adam and Eve?

The only method of introducing submission roles between two individuals is if there’s no submission role present.

If there’s no submission role present, that must concluded that there was co-equal authority between the two individuals until a higher authority established roles of submission between the two.

What saith the forum?

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480300)

1Corinthiians 11:
3-But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
8-For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9-Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

I'm in agreement that women was taken from out of man, and that women was created as a helpmate for man. Paul clearly states in verse 3 that the head of women is man, which coincides with God's punishment spoken over women. However, Paul's teachings give no clear indication that men were the head of women prior to Eve's punishment.

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480300)

1Corinthiians 11:
3-But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
8-For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9-Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

I'm in agreement that women was taken from out of man, and that women was created as a helpmate for man. Paul clearly states in verse 3 that the head of women is man, which coincides with God's punishment spoken over women. However, Paul's teachings give no clear indication that men were the head of women prior to Eve's punishment.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa (Post 1480307)

Why did Paul say Adam wasn't deceived in 1 Timothy 2:14?

Originally Posted by votivesoul (Post 1480341)

Anyone who is called to be an assistant to someone else, by default, is already under submission. The "helper" will always follow the lead of the one needing help.

Originally Posted by mfblume (Post 1480311)

By simply saying man is not of the woman , after noting Man is head of woman, we see Paul stating headship over woman BEFORE the fall. Woman was made from man before the fall.

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480626)

MfBlume,

Could Paul's words have simply been for present informational purposes and not reinforcing or referencing head-ship before the fall?

Could Paul have simply meant as followed? (my interpretation in red)


1Coritinthain 11:3
But I want you to realize that (in this present hour as I'm aware) the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.


1 Corinthians 11:8
For man was not made from woman (but rather was made from the dust of the ground), but woman (who was made from the rib of man) was from man.


Here's a question for you. If headship (submission) existed between Adam and Eve before the fall, why did Eve's punishment include being ruled over by man? (Gen 3:16)

I simply mean that if Eve was already submitted to Adam, what was God's purpose of verbalizing to Eve that Adam would rule over her? Why was this her punishment for disobedience if she was already submitted to Adam? How was being ruled over by man a punishment for her disobedience if she was already being ruled over by man?

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480616)

If I had a supervisor who hired an individual to help me accomplish a task, that doesn't necessarily mean that the new employee is submitted to me. It only signifies that the supervisor hired a helpmate to help me accomplish a task.

Originally Posted by votivesoul (Post 1480873)

And if you have to show this newly hired helper how to do the task assigned to you? Then this newly hired helper has to submit to your instruction.

Adam was given the task of tending the Garden by his Supervisor. Eve was brought along side of Adam to help him perform the tasks given to him by God. Any assistance Eve could have possibly rendered to Adam would have required her submission to him as he showed her what to do and how to do it.

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480268)

If there’s no submission role present, that must concluded that there was co-equal authority between the two individuals until a higher authority established roles of submission between the two.

What saith the forum?

Originally Posted by mfblume (Post 1480863)

It's more simple than that. As soon as Paul said there is headship FOR (or BECAUSE) man is not of the woman but the woman is of man, it is basing the issue on creation of woman from man's side before they ever fell. We would not read any reason existed by way of Woman's creation FROM man if there is a headship issue only since the fall.

Originally Posted by mfblume (Post 1480863)

As soon as Paul said there is headship FOR (or BECAUSE) man is not of the woman but the woman is of man, it is basing the issue on creation of woman from man's side before they ever fell.

Originally Posted by mfblume (Post 1480863)

We would not read any reason existed by way of Woman's creation FROM man if there is a headship issue only since the fall"

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480949)

MfBlume,

I hope you don't interpret my responses as argumentative. I'm simply typing information from this brain of mine, lol.

Your comments read:



I realize that Paul mentions that women was brought forth from man's side, basing his information from creation. Even though Paul relays fact about how women originated, this don't conclude that she was created in a submissive state to man. Is it possible that Paul is simply referencing the origin of women without implying headship?





Well, here's my take on the issue, and your input is encouraged.

Genesis 1

26-Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

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

28-God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”


Notice that God created mankind in his image, and He gave them (Adam/Eve) authority to RULE OVER CREATION (Gen 1:26-27). From the very beginning God was explicit about submission. He told Adam and Eve to subdue and rule over animals, etc. God never implied that Adam was to rule over Eve and creature. I believe God would have establish submissive roles from creation, and we read that he did. He told Adam and Eve to rule without implying a submissive state between Adam and Eve.


Now consider this. In Genesis 3:16 after Eve’s fall, God said to Eve,

"Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

The word “rule" in Hebrew is - 4910 Mashal: have dominion.

It was here that God pronounced submissive roles between male and female, and here God pronounced that male would have dominion over female. If dominion and/or a submission state existed prior to Eve's fall, God would not have told Eve that she would be dominated by man for her disobedience

If a submissive state existed prior to Eve's fall, as you suggested that Paul mentioned, what do you perceive this additional “dominion” that God pronounced over Eve the man would have?

Originally Posted by mfblume (Post 1481444)

I think headship over the woman is not necessarily dominion over her like the curse mentioned.

Paul says we're no longer under the curse. But yet he said husbands are still head of the wives.

Originally Posted by BrainWashed (Post 1480942)

You mentioned, "Then this newly hired helper has to submit to your instruction."


Obedience isn't necessarily submission. The instruction I would relay to the new employee would have been instituted by the owner of the company. I'm simply there to obey and teach his instruction. If I don't have a managerial position, the new employee and I are found in the same positions. They only difference is that I would have seniority, which does not indicate authority.