I'm asking you to link to a single post that proves what you're trying to claim. Or to mention a single successful present day black country or society. Or to name where black people have contributed significant achievements en mass. I'm mentioning it because this topic exposes your double standard when it comes to blindly pressing on why women have not contributed en mass the way men have. Hint: it wasnt because they were incapable.
I didn't bother becase I thought you were intelligent enough to actually go through the answer
@justjess Gave you . . . It was not a feminist source. But seeing as you seem determined to ignore what's right in front of you, I'll give you another snippet:
"Kenegdô comes from the word
neged. The Hebrew lexicon Brown, Driver and Briggs (BDB) gives the primary meanings of
neged as “in front of,” “in sight of,” or “opposite to” when the word functions as a preposition (or adverb), as it does in
Genesis 2:18 and
20.
But the word in verse 18 and 20 isn’t simply “neged”; it has both a prefix at the beginning of the word and a suffix at the end.
The
כּ (
kaf) prefix (=”k”) is an inseparable preposition which is typically translated as “like,” “as,” and “according to,” and it affects the meaning of
neged. The “k” (
kaf) prefix means that “opposite” is an unlikely sense of
kenegdô. The pronominal
וֹ (
holem vav) suffix is equivalent to the pronoun “him.” So the word
kenegdô is effectively made up of two prepositions plus a pronoun, and is a prepositional phrase.
BDB goes on to give the definition of
kenegdo as “to what is in front of = according to,” and it translates
Genesis 2:18 as “I will make him a help
corresponding to him i.e. equal and adequate to himself.” The Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon notes that while
kenegdô is not used elsewhere in the Bible, it is used a few times in Rabbinic texts (with or without a pronominal suffix) where it “is often used of things which are like one another.” So, in Rabbinic texts, the word means “similar.”
Walter Kaiser addresses this misunderstanding.
“… the woman was never meant to be an assistant or ‘helpmate’ to the man. The word
mate slipped into English since it was so close to Old English
meet, which means ‘fit to’ or ‘corresponding to’ the man. . . . What God had intended then was to make a ‘power’ or ‘strength’ [i.e.
ezer] for the man who would in every way ‘correspond to him’ or even ‘be his equal.’
These ideas continue with the man’s description of the first woman who was formed from a part taken out of his own body: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (
Gen. 2:23). The first man noticed the similarities, that they had the same nature, that the woman was his counterpart."
Sources:
Allen P. Ross,
Introducing Biblical Hebrew (Baker Academic, 2001), 47.
Francis Brown,
The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 617.
Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius,
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, German to English translation by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1857) (Online
Source)
“Genesis,”
Hard Sayings of the Bible by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred Brauch (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 94.
Equal does not mean identical. Difference does not automatically mean hierarchy. What a primitive way of thinking. What does this scripture have to do with purpose lol? And what makes you think this prophecy refers to something coming and not something past? How do you even connect this to a great reset? Besides, this doesnt really gel well with Paul's (you know, the guy everyone loves to bring up as the big bad misogynist of the NT) advice to young single women and widows to not marry so they can focus on serving the Lord instead of pleasing her husband? Speaking of Paul, you never responded to this:
death camps wow shocking we’re all shaking colonel.....
