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

[sideshowbob]

"Ezer kenagdo" means "helper corresponding to or fit for", and you have not shown that this phrase has been applied to god, so any out-of-content references to "ezer" are red herrings. If you simply quit refusing to acknowledge the ONLY explicit reason given for the creation of woman (in Genesis 2 and in the KJV, mind you), i.e. companionship, you could easily see that your fixation with "helper" is nonsense to justify your cognitive bias.

You're assuming that "helper corresponding to or fit for" implies companionship but you haven't given a single reference to back up your assumption. I, on the other hand, have provided an example (and there are a dozen or so more) where ezer/help refers to God.

God, as ezer, is help from above (just due to context), but woman, as ezer kenagdo, is help from an equal, at best.

And I have said equal at least. Since the only reference we've seen in this thread (mine) refers to God, I'd say "at least" is at least as viable as "at best". Feel free to provide a reference to back up your claim.

 

[Greatest I am]

Do these?

Like it or not, God is immoral.

Does the award for the greatest evil go to Satan or God?

Where you seem to want us to believe you are just ridiculing the existence of such a god, I am not the only one who is confused over why you continuously assert that this nonexistent god is evil. Why not address the belief in such a god, instead of treating the god like an actuality?

Sigh. Because I debate believers.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

You're assuming that "helper corresponding to or fit for" implies companionship but you haven't given a single reference to back up your assumption. I, on the other hand, have provided an example (and there are a dozen or so more) where ezer/help refers to God.

You conveniently ignore, or are just too intellectually dishonest to acknowledge, the many times I have pointed out that there is only ONE explicit reason given for the creation of woman. I have actually pointed to the exact verse this is given in, which is much more a "reference" than your claims which basically boil down to JFGI (especially when I asked you to cite a specific reference the very first time you brought up the term "ezer"). You also ignore the fact that you have taken one word, out of context (ezer, instead of ezer kenagdo), and used it as a red herring. So far, your whole argument is completely fallacious.

I will tell you what you have been telling me. Searching for "ezer kenagdo" will find you all the references you like, if you can overcome your attentional bias long enough to avoid getting hung up on out of context digressions about "ezer".

And I have said equal at least. Since the only reference we've seen in this thread (mine) refers to God, I'd say "at least" is at least as viable as "at best". Feel free to provide a reference to back up your claim.

Red herring, as the phrase referring to Eve is "ezer kenagdo" not "ezer". I am STILL waiting for you to provide ONE reference. I have given you the exact verse of the only explicit reason given for the creation of woman. I will be more than happy to provide you with references to the phrase "ezer kenagdo", but only after you have shown the intellectual honesty to provide your chosen reference (which I asked you for first). So quit dodging and hamstringing your own argument.

Your "at least" is part and parcel with your out of context red herring.

Sigh. Because I debate believers.

And where are these supposed believers in this thread, for instance?

 

[Greatest I am]

As usual, Christians are running away from any discussions where they know they do not have a moral leg to stand on.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

I have actually pointed to the exact verse this is given in, which is much more a "reference" than your claims which basically boil down to JFGI (especially when I asked you to cite a specific reference the very first time you brought up the term "ezer").

I was giving you a chance to look it up and stop embarassing yourself. If you insist, here's every reference to the word ezer in the Bible:

Gen 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.

Gen 2:20 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.

Exo 18:4 And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh:

Deu 33:7 And this is the blessing of Judah: and he said, Hear, LORD, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his hands be sufficient for him; and be thou an help to him from his enemies.

Deu 33:26 There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky.

Deu 33:29 Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the LORD, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.

Psa 20:1-2 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David. The LORD hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee; Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion;

Psa 33:20 Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.

Psa 70:5 But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O LORD, make no tarrying.

Psa 89:19 Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.

Psa 115:9 O Israel, trust thou in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.

Psa 115:10 O house of Aaron, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.

Psa 115:11 Ye that fear the LORD, trust in the LORD: he is their help and their shield.

Psa 121:1 A Song of degrees. I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

Psa 121:2 My help cometh from the LORD, which made heaven and earth.

Psa 124:8 Our help is in the name of the LORD, who made heaven and earth.

Psa 146:5 Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:

Isa 30:5 They were all ashamed of a people that could not profit them, nor be an help nor profit, but a shame, and also a reproach.

Eze 12:14 And I will scatter toward every wind all that are about him to help him, and all his bands; and I will draw out the sword after them.

Dan 11:34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

Hos 13:9 O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.
​

As anybody can see, most of them refer to God as the helper - i.e. help does not mean subordinate.

The root azar (to surround - i.e. protect) is also translated as "help". Here are a few examples:

Gen 49:25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:

Deu 32:37-38 And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection.

1Sa 7:12 Then Samuel took a stone, and set it between Mizpeh and Shen, and called the name of it Ebenezer, saying, Hitherto hath the LORD helped us.
​

Feel free to point out where any subordination is implied.

You also ignore the fact that you have taken one word, out of context (ezer, instead of ezer kenagdo), and used it as a red herring.

The word "meet" usually refers to an encounter between two or more persons. Here are all of the exceptions that I could find:

Gen_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.

Gen_2:20 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.

Exo 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?

Deu 3:18 And I commanded you at that time, saying, The LORD your God hath given you this land to possess it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war.

Jdg 5:30 Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?

Ezr 4:14 Now because we have maintenance from the king's palace, and it was not meet for us to see the king's dishonour, therefore have we sent and certified the king;

Est 2:9 And the maiden pleased him, and she obtained kindness of him; and he speedily gave her her things for purification, with such things as belonged to her, and seven maidens, which were meet to be given her, out of the king's house: and he preferred her and her maids unto the best place of the house of the women.

Job 34:31 Surely it is meet to be said unto God, I have borne chastisement, I will not offend any more:

Pro 11:24 There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.

Jer 26:14 As for me, behold, I am in your hand: do with me as seemeth good and meet unto you.

Jer 27:5 I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.

Jer 27:5 I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me.

Eze 15:5 Behold, when it was whole, it was meet for no work: how much less shall it be meet yet for any work, when the fire hath devoured it, and it is burned?
​

As far as I can see, they all imply "appropriate" or "suitable" with no connotation of subordination.

So, are you ready yet to acknowedge that the word "help" in no way implies a subordinate?

 

[Syne]

As usual, Christians are running away from any discussions where they know they do not have a moral leg to stand on.

So I ask you where these supposed Christians are in this thread, and you simply proclaim that they have run away. Where is the evidence that they were ever here in the first place?

I was giving you a chance to look it up and stop embarassing yourself. If you insist, here's every reference to the word ezer in the Bible:
...
As anybody can see, most of them refer to God as the helper - i.e. help does not mean subordinate.

The root azar (to surround - i.e. protect) is also translated as "help". Here are a few examples:
...
Feel free to point out where any subordination is implied.


The word "meet" usually refers to an encounter between two or more persons. Here are all of the exceptions that I could find:
...
As far as I can see, they all imply "appropriate" or "suitable" with no connotation of subordination.

So, are you ready yet to acknowedge that the word "help" in no way implies a subordinate?

Way to ride that red herring into the ground. Confirmation bias often works like that.

"Help" referring to a god does not change anything about the meaning of help any more than "help" referring to a guide dog, a child, a tool, etc.. Hence implying that its association with a god has any impact on its fundamental meaning is completely fallacious. That makes every verse referring to a god as a helper an out of context, red herring distraction and off topic from the actual verses under discussion here. You have not made the case that help never implies any subordination, only that a god cannot be, by definition, subordinate. You have, whether out of obtuseness or outright intellectual dishonesty, erected a straw man of help referring to a god in lieu of the actual debated point about help referring to woman. The only one embarrassed by such tactics should be you, but your bias probably precludes that.


As I have told you, many times now, I have not been arguing that help necessarily implies subordination. I have been waiting for you to make any case that it never implies subordination that is not blatantly fallacious. Since you do not seem capable of that (as certainly you would have by now, if you could), perhaps you would now, finally, address my actual argument. I have humored you on this "help" digression, but apparently to no use.


Like many pedantic people, you focus on a few specific words to the exclusion of the context. It is great that you have finally examined more than one word though. Perhaps we are making progress after all. I have followed your lead in giving you the chance to look up "ezer kenegdo" for yourself. If you had, you should realize that, in the only specific context given (loneliness, i.e. companionship), "help" would mean support or encouragement and "meet" would mean suitable to.

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.
...
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. -Genesis 2 (KJV)​

In what other way could woman be a help suitable to solve man's loneliness, that no animal could?

Now I have made every concession to appease you (read avoid your fallacious arguments). I have stuck to the KJV and even neglected referring to Genesis 1. If you do not have the intellectual honesty to admit that you are obtusely or willfully ignoring the context then we should move on, as your bias is demonstrably beyond help.




Now whether woman was created subordinate or not is largely immaterial to the argument you have been making. This all hinges on the nature of "the fall", and each person's take on this is largely dependent upon their own personality traits, such as responsibility, even though the argument can easily be made that a god would have created complete creatures, with no amendments necessary (as that would imply that the god experienced unanticipated events).

 

[sideshowbob]

"Help" referring to a god does not change anything about the meaning of help any more than "help" referring to a guide dog, a child, a tool, etc.. Hence implying that its association with a god has any impact on its fundamental meaning is completely fallacious. That makes every verse referring to a god as a helper an out of context, red herring distraction and off topic from the actual verses under discussion here.

But the verses I quoted are the context. That is the meaning of the word "help" as it is used in the Old Testament. You haven't shown any contrary evidence, period.

You have not made the case that help never implies any subordination, only that a god cannot be, by definition, subordinate.

I've shown examples where it doesn't mean subordinate. You haven't shown any Biblical examples where it does.

As I have told you, many times now, I have not been arguing that help necessarily implies subordination. I have been waiting for you to make any case that it never implies subordination that is not blatantly fallacious.

I have never suggested that the English word "help" never means subordination. I've shown that the Hebrew word "ezer", translated as "help", doesn't.

If you had, you should realize that, in the only specific context given (loneliness, i.e. companionship), "help" would mean support or encouragement and "meet" would mean suitable to.

"Companionsip" has nothing to do with the topic. Greatest I am claimed that woman was created subordinate to man and I have shown that she wasn't. Whether she was meant as a companion or a rescuer doesn't matter. What matters is that she was not created subordinate.

 

[Syne]

But the verses I quoted are the context. That is the meaning of the word "help" as it is used in the Old Testament. You haven't shown any contrary evidence, period.

You do not seem to know that the Old Testament had many sources, and this is just another lame justification for your red herring. You are either intellectually dishonest or extremely obtuse. Either way, there does not seem to be anything to be gained by further humoring this nonsense.

I've shown examples where it doesn't mean subordinate. You haven't shown any Biblical examples where it does.

Red herrings. And I have already told you that that is not my argument. If you insist on ignoring that actual context of why woman was created, then it is your burden to show how "help" is definitely not subordinate in the specific context we have been discussing. But no doubt you will continue to claim you have done this with your red herrings.

I have never suggested that the English word "help" never means subordination. I've shown that the Hebrew word "ezer", translated as "help", doesn't.

By your word alone. You seem to have refused to provide any reference that could be refuted. Probably because you references have an obvious feminist bias/source.

"Companionsip" has nothing to do with the topic. Greatest I am claimed that woman was created subordinate to man and I have shown that she wasn't. Whether she was meant as a companion or a rescuer doesn't matter. What matters is that she was not created subordinate.

You also seem completely incapable of taking me up on the offer to discuss your claim that woman was made subordinate due to the fall. My contention that woman was created subordinate has little to do with Genesis 2, as I have maintained that the creation of woman is all about companionship.

You are so caught up in arguing that you cannot see that I am not arguing about "help" other than to point out your poor arguments not supported by the actual text in question. If you would stop the red herrings then you are free to believe whatever you wish, and we could discuss the fall.

 

[sideshowbob]

If you insist on ignoring that actual context of why woman was created, then it is your burden to show how "help" is definitely not subordinate in the specific context we have been discussing.

The problem, as God perceived it, was that the man was alone. It was not good that he was alone. The solution that God came up with was to give him "help". As it turned out, the animals were not a suitable "help" but the woman was. So, since "help" was the solution, lack of "help" must have been the problem. Yes, I have shown every instance of the word ezer/help in the Old Testament, so yes, I have shown the whole context. Not one of those examples suggests subordination. If I have missed any examples, feel free to point them out.

You seem to have refused to provide any reference that could be refuted.

The only reference I have used is the Bible. You're welcome to refute the Bible all you want. I'm only talking about what the story says. It doesn't matter whether there's any truth to the story or not.

Probably because you references have an obvious feminist bias/source.

I wouldn't say that the Bible has a feminist bias. However, in this case it is pretty clear that women were created equal. The point of the story is to explain why ancient Hebrew society had an anti-feminist bias.

You also seem completely incapable of taking me up on the offer to discuss your claim that woman was made subordinate due to the fall. My contention that woman was created subordinate has little to do with Genesis 2, as I have maintained that the creation of woman is all about companionship.

But that claim is wrong. Unless you can understand the plain meaning of the word "help", there's little point in going past Genesis 2.

To recap, there are three separate indications in the first three chapters of Genesis that woman was not created subordinate:

1. In Genesis 1, male and female were both created in the image of God and both were given dominion over the animals. There is no indication of inequality.
   
2. In Genesis 2, the woman was created because the man needed a "help". The context of the word ezer/help is "help from above", rescue, the same kind of help that God gives.
   
3. In Genesis 3, God explicitly told the serpent and the man that their punishment was because of their actions. Implicitly, the woman's punishment was also because of her actions. If she was already subordinate, there would be no punishment.

You are so caught up in arguing that you cannot see that I am not arguing about "help" other than to point out your poor arguments not supported by the actual text in question.

But of course my argument is supported by the text. As I have pointed out ad nauseum, the word ezer/help in the Old Testament always indicates the kind of help that God gives. It does not imply either companonship or subordinacy, which is why you haven't been able to produce any evidence to pack up your claim. Calling the facts a "red herring" won't make them go away.

 

[Syne]

The problem, as God perceived it, was that the man was alone. It was not good that he was alone. The solution that God came up with was to give him "help". As it turned out, the animals were not a suitable "help" but the woman was. So, since "help" was the solution, lack of "help" must have been the problem. Yes, I have shown every instance of the word ezer/help in the Old Testament, so yes, I have shown the whole context. Not one of those examples suggests subordination. If I have missed any examples, feel free to point them out.

It is truly tiresome how you keep reverting to a fixation on a single word to support your bias. And you seem incapable of following the simplest of logic. The entire Old Testament was not written by a single author, unless you actually believe that a god was the author, of course, so you cannot use that as a single, coherent context for one word throughout. Quite aside from the elementary fact that, while specific context may change the meaning of a word, one context does not change the possible meanings of that word in every other context, which is what you are claiming. This is ridiculous, illogical, and betrays your firm bias.

The only reference I have used is the Bible. You're welcome to refute the Bible all you want. I'm only talking about what the story says. It doesn't matter whether there's any truth to the story or not.


I wouldn't say that the Bible has a feminist bias. However, in this case it is pretty clear that women were created equal. The point of the story is to explain why ancient Hebrew society had an anti-feminist bias.

I was speaking of the references you prompted me to find, where unless you are a Biblical scholar you would have got your list of uses of the word ezer. I am not refuting the Bible, only your ignorance of simple reason. And it is beyond ridiculous to claim that "the point of the story is to explain why ancient Hebrew society had an anti-feminist bias", as such notions did not exist then.

But that claim is wrong. Unless you can understand the plain meaning of the word "help", there's little point in going past Genesis 2.

Then why do you hypocritically insist on traipsing through the entire Old Testament to justify your biased claim of what help may mean? And I had such high hopes that you might be able to continue to consider the whole phrase "ezer kenegdo". Pity.

To recap, there are three separate indications in the first three chapters of Genesis that woman was not created subordinate:

1. In Genesis 1, male and female were both created in the image of God and both were given dominion over the animals. There is no indication of inequality.
   
2. In Genesis 2, the woman was created because the man needed a "help". The context of the word ezer/help is "help from above", rescue, the same kind of help that God gives.
   
3. In Genesis 3, God explicitly told the serpent and the man that their punishment was because of their actions. Implicitly, the woman's punishment was also because of her actions. If she was already subordinate, there would be no punishment.

Genesis 1 - Yes, I know you like to cherry pick to suit your bias.

Genesis 2 - An example of your cherry picking is woman being created second, only in response to this "need". Genesis 2 does not provide any such context for the word "help", as you have amply demonstrated with verses other than Genesis 2.

Genesis 3 - So you finally want to talk about chapter 3? The entire Bible was written by men, so every story in it is from a decidedly human perspective. If a human were to suddenly become aware of a hardship, it would feel as if it were a punishment. The forbidden fruit was all about knowledge.

But of course my argument is supported by the text. As I have pointed out ad nauseum, the word ezer/help in the Old Testament always indicates the kind of help that God gives. It does not imply either companonship or subordinacy, which is why you haven't been able to produce any evidence to pack up your claim. Calling the facts a "red herring" won't make them go away.

All you have pointed out, ad nauseam, is your hypocritical bias. You have hardly deemed to address the actual phrase "ezer kenegdo". You have made ridiculous claims about a single context altering the fundamental meaning of a word in every other possible context. You have denied the only explicit reason given for the creation of woman, in favor of what you only infer. People who ignore and deny the obvious in favor of what they imagine things to imply only demonstrate their bias.

Unless you show you can manage to engage any of my actual arguments, or even just the actual, explicit text in question, this a waste of time.

 

[sideshowbob]

The entire Old Testament was not written by a single author, unless you actually believe that a god was the author, of course, so you cannot use that as a single, coherent context for one word throughout.

The whole Old Testament was written in Hebrew. I have shown every instance of the word translated as "help" - i.e. I have shown the entire context. If there is anything I have missed about the context of the word, why don't you point it out instead of harping on my supposed bias?

The simple fact is that nowhere in the context is subordination implied.

And I had such high hopes that you might be able to continue to consider the whole phrase "ezer kenegdo".

I have considered the whole phrase. I've shown every instance of the word ezer, including ezer kenegdo. If I've missed any instance, point it out.

You have denied the only explicit reason given for the creation of woman, in favor of what you only infer.

One more time: The problem that God perceived was that the man was alone. The solution that He proposed was a helper, not a companion. As anybody can see from the word translated as "help", it doesn't imply subordination or companionship in Hebrew. When God said it wasn't good for the man to be alone, it was in the sense of, "it isn't good to swim alone." It might be more fun to swim with a companion but the real reason that it isn't good to swim alone is because you might need somebody to rescue you, to help you. That's the Hebrew context.

Unless you show you can manage to engage any of my actual arguments, or even just the actual, explicit text in question, this a waste of time.

You haven't made any actual arguments. All you've done is ignore the Hebrew text and insist on an English dictionary definition of "help".

 

[Syne]

The entire Old Testament was not written by a single author, unless you actually believe that a god was the author, of course, so you cannot use that as a single, coherent context for one word throughout.

The whole Old Testament was written in Hebrew.

That is quite the non sequitur. How do you suppose that addresses the varied authorship of the Old Testament? Do you imagine that all authors who speak the same language always use the exact same sense of a word? If so, that is very naive.

I have shown every instance of the word translated as "help" - i.e. I have shown the entire context. If there is anything I have missed about the context of the word, why don't you point it out instead of harping on my supposed bias?

No, you have not. There is more than one word in Hebrew translated as "help". I have pointed out the context, and you seem determined not to address it.

The simple fact is that nowhere in the context is subordination implied.

Would woman have been created if man had no such need? Not according to the explicit text. This makes woman's existence necessarily subordinate to the needs of man.

One more time: The problem that God perceived was that the man was alone. The solution that He proposed was a helper, not a companion. As anybody can see from the word translated as "help", it doesn't imply subordination or companionship in Hebrew. When God said it wasn't good for the man to be alone, it was in the sense of, "it isn't good to swim alone." It might be more fun to swim with a companion but the real reason that it isn't good to swim alone is because you might need somebody to rescue you, to help you. That's the Hebrew context.

There is only one solution to being alone. It is companionship. If you cannot handle that very simple logic then you are ill equipped for this discussion. You continue to further warp the implications of the text to fit your inference. Nowhere is it implied that man was in peril or in need of rescue. According to Genesis 2, man even successfully named every animal without any help at all.

 

[Neverfly]

I don't get it. Are you guys actually arguing over the 'validity' in a work of fiction?

 

[rcscwc]

In desert religions, woman is an after thought, created for sex starved man. Not so in Hinduism, where man and woman have existence in their own. In fact man is incomplete without his woman counterpart creative force.

 

[wynn]

In desert religions, woman is an after thought, created for sex starved man. Not so in Hinduism, where man and woman have existence in their own. In fact man is incomplete without his woman counterpart creative force.

Whom he can divinely justified "beat with fists and sticks" if she won't have sex with him.


Wonderful religion!!

 

[rcscwc]

Whom he can divinely justified "beat with fists and sticks" if she won't have sex with him.


Wonderful religion!!

In all the desrt religions it is so. Ev en beating of wives is sanctioned by Bible and kuran both.

 

[wynn]

In all the desrt religions it is so. Ev en beating of wives is sanctioned by Bible and kuran both.

Your supposedly superior Hindu religion is no better than what you call the "desert religions."

 

[ParryJonathan]

I feel that neither a man is responsible to a woman nor a woman responsible to a man. Just because something of that kind is mentioned in the Bible does not directly mean it is true at a more natural level.

 

[sideshowbob]

Do you imagine that all authors who speak the same language always use the exact same sense of a word?

I have quoted every sense that the word is used in the Old Testament. None of them support your case. If I have missed any, feel free to point them out.

There is more than one word in Hebrew translated as "help".

We're only concerned with the word translated as "help" in the passage that we're discussing. That word is "ezer" and I have quoted every use of it in the Old Testament, every possible context of it as used by every author. None of them support your case. If I've missed any, feel free to point them out.

I have pointed out the context, and you seem determined not to address it.

On the contrary, the context you have pointed out is part of the context I have pointed out. You're trying to twist the meaning of the word in one place with no support from any other usage.

Would woman have been created if man had no such need? Not according to the explicit text. This makes woman's existence necessarily subordinate to the needs of man.

And yet the word translated as "help" does NOT imply subordinacy anywhere that it is used in the Old Testament. Why is that?

There is only one solution to being alone. It is companionship.

I gave an example to the contrary. The solution to swimming alone is a lifeguard. That's the sense that the word "help/ezer" implies everywhere in the Old Testment.

Nowhere is it implied that man was in peril or in need of rescue.

On the contrary, it is implied everywhere that the word "ezer" is used - the kind of help that God gives, help from above, a lifeguard.

According to Genesis 2, man even successfully named every animal without any help at all.

Maybe he could tie his own shoes too. That's hardly much of an accomplishment.

 

[sideshowbob]

I don't get it. Are you guys actually arguing over the 'validity' in a work of fiction?

Not the validity, the plain wording of the text. For example, in Treasure Island, it states quite plainly that Long John Silver was a pirate. What Syne is doing is the equivalent of claiming that Long John Silver was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.