Debunking the Demonic II: Why the Hebrew "Ha-Adam" (הָֽאָדָם֙) does not support the Cult of Queer Theology.

Queer theology based on queer ideology is the newest Apostasy spreading like a malignant pestilence and using explanations based on faux-Hebrew and large amounts of hyperactive imagination.

It sometimes just so happens that there are contents that are so abysmally blasphemous,  so twisted,  and based so solidly on falsehoods that it is quite difficult to even begin to unravel its absurdity. When making claims of a theological nature especially when claiming to be a believer, scripture must be allowed to interpret scripture with the contents of said verse understood via the context in which it was written, the historical period in which it was written and also the culture that impacted upon the language.  Anything other than this, is conjecture and pure speculation,  the musings of one's own personal imagination.  

For the readers orientation, the Torah( teaching, law or instruction תּוֹרָה), is part of the Canonical Christian Scriptures  and is comprised of the first five books as found in the Bible. It contains the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Number and Deuteronomy with common consensus being that these were written by the Prophet Moses, hence it is known also as the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses. At times it is confused with the Tanakh ( תָּנָ״ךְ also known as מִקְרָא‎ Mīqrā) which is the complete Hebrew Scriptures that also includes Nevi’im (נביאים אחרונים) and Ketuvim (כְּתוּבִים). When understanding the Hebrew Scriptures we return to the understanding of the Ancient Hebrew and Aramiac world view, the context in which scriptures were written and how they were taught at the time, we DO NOT imagine our own new modern meanings based on errant philosophies which would be counterproductive in trying to understand what these Sacred Writings teach us.

In this article, we will debunk the false claims made by Liam Hooper ( a woman who believes she is a man) concerning the nature of Adam and Eve and the preposterous ideas based on Queer Theory which is in direct opposition to Biblical truth. Liam Hooper claims to make conversations around “gender and intersectional power” ; she also calls God a “force presence” thereby making Him to be an impersonal or unknowable force. 

She states that she views the Torah, the Qu’ran and New Testament (Greek Scriptures) for the same perspective, it is clear that this is based on personal ideas rather than scholarly validity. She also states that she does not view scripture as the literal word of God nor does she believe that God spoke through the chosen ones, her beliefs are therefore even contrary to those of Judaism which states in 2 Samuel 23:2 that the Spirit of God spoke through King David putting its words in his mouth or in Hebrew literally “on my tongue” (עַללְשׁוֹנִֽי) .  Further, in her claims she says that she  looks at scripture as the stories of people in a particular time and place who were searching to understand the divine, yet contradicts this by using Queer Theory, which did not exist at the time (unless you count the sordid abominations of Ba’al worship as Queer Theory). Hooper states that she wanted to be “a queer poet” and therefore reads scripture as “high, intentionally-crafted literature” which is to miss the entire point of scripture in the first place!

Most ironically, when she begins to explain scripture according to her own interpretation, she warns that “close reading is very important” and that “horrible things can happen when we don’t read closely or when we do and then a decision is made to ignore what we find there”. In the entire video she continues to ignore all evidence that shows she is creating an imaginary reading based on her own ideology and not on scripture nor on Hebrew.  Let us then consider her claims and then consider what the Bible actually states.

In the beginning, she begins with an explanation of Genesis 2:4-8 and 2: 18-22 as if it is independent of Genesis 1, this is an extremely elementary mistake when it comes to understanding the verses. Modern chapters and verses were not used in ancient times, in fact, they are quite modern. The ancient Hebrews divided their Holy Writings using paragraphs which were marked by two Hebrew letters Peh (פ‎) indicated an "open" paragraph that began on a new line, while Samekh (ס‎) indicated a "closed" paragraph that began on the same line after a small space. (Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 20.) The Torah was divided into 154 sections in Israel and into 53 or 54 sections by the Jewish diaspora in Babylonia, the divisions were to make it easier to handle scrolls which were quite bulky and could get quite heavy. Modern chapter divisions of the Bible are based on the system developed by Archbishop Stephen Langton in the 13th Century. In 1557, William Whittingham published the first English Bible with verse divisions and in 1560 the Geneva Bible used both chapters and verses which became the standard we use today. Why all this background information?

Think back to the previous elementary mistake, chapter 1 and chapter 2 of Genesis were not originally divided, they continue on to provide the entire context of the same account. Chapter 1 tells of the order in which things took place during the creative process then in Chapter 2, the account of HOW things took place in Chapter 1 is recorded. So, in reality one cannot interpret Chapter 2 without basing all contextual knowledge on Chapter 1.  Hooper interprets Chapter 2 separately from Chapter 1 because Chapter 1 invalidates her ideology and thus is a willful exclusion of fact.  

When explaining the meaning of “the man” and Adam”, Hopper claims that “et” (אֶת־) in Hebrew means that the definite article “the” (ha הָ־) is coming up so that and that “the text is almost saying the-the”. This statement is in of itself completely erroneous. Hebrew does not have any free standing word for “the” (definite article) and is always a part of a conjugation, the prefix “et” (אֶת־) translated into English as “the” can also mean “this”  (Aaron Rubin (2005), “Definite Articles”, in Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization, Brill, DOI:10.1163/9789004370029_005,). It is possible that “ha” entered into Hebrew from Aramiac or possibly during captivity in Babylonia (based on Babylonian “the/this” anu’um 𒀭𒉡𒌝). Regardless of its origins, the “ha” prefix acts to orient the reader toward the article being spoken about which in this case is the noun “man” (אָדָם֙). This differentiates “Adam” ( אָדָם֙) which simply means mankind and which appears without the definite prefix “ha” (הָֽ) from the actual individual human (הָֽאָדָם֙) that was created which appears with the definite prefix “ha”(הָֽ).  Then what about “et(h)אֶת־”? Et (אֶת־) is a direct object marker in the accusative case which has no equivalent in the English language, it does NOT mean “the” regardless of Hooper’s claims. It functions to tell the reader that the object which follows it is the object to which a certain action is being done or to which something is taking place.  For example, Genesis 1:27 shows that God created Adam by stating “So created (וַיִּבְרָ֨א) God (אֱלֹהִ֤ים) marker showing who was created (אֶת־) prefix definite article marker + man (הָֽאָדָם֙). This goes contrary to her claims that “ha-adam” is some sort of gender statement and that Adam was a “genderless being” or that Adam was “intersex” (sic).

Hooper then claims that the text in Chapter 2 is not speaking of the creation of the first man and woman but rather of the “creation of relationships” as she calls it. Is this true? Remember chapter 1 and 2 cannot be interpreted separately. Why is she so adamant to exclude chapter 1? Her argument falls to pieces when considering Genesis 1:27 which not only uses “ha-adam” but also distinctly explains exactly which two sexes were created. It says that God created the first human couple not as some vague genderless humanoids but as male (zakar זָכָ֥ר)  and female (nə·qê·ḇāh נְקֵבָ֖ה). Zakar appears in scripture 82 times and only ever means a male even being applied to male animals.  Neqebah appears 22 times and only ever means  a female, also used to denote female animals. No reading about an implied gender identity can be ascribed to these words either linguistically nor based on any historical evidence.

Her understanding of the order of events which take place is also erroneous. She states essentially that Adam was created and THEN God creates creatures (animals) to bring to Adam for him to name them but because Adam is not able to build a relationship with these animals that God then creates a “gender  assignment” by creating Eve. The Bible clearly states that animals were created before humans and that all species of plants existed before humans. So essentially her claims are the opposite of what the Bible actually states. Hopper claims that Adam was androgynous and that “gender” was created via the “first gender assignment surgery” which created Eve. At no time does Hooper support this with any Biblical evidence. 

Hooper claims that the current understanding of Genesis is misogynistic and sexist. The beauty of Genesis 2:20 to 23 on both a symbolic and scientific level is completely missed. Eve is created not as an inferior specimen, she is not merely a weak man, she is an entirely new creation, her genetics may share a common origin to Adam but the scriptures make clear that she is something unique.  Verse 20 calls Eve a “helper” ( ezer עֵ֖זֶר), in ancient Hebrew culture this is not considered an inferior position but rather one of equality because a helper is one who “works together with or one that aids in a work”. God thus dignifies Eve by giving her a complimentary position which is further emphasized by the process of her creation. Whereas Adam is created “from the dust of the earth”, Eve is created in a different process. God puts Adam into a deep sleep (tardemahתַּרְדֵּמָ֛ה) here used to describe a state of general anesthesia where Adam would not have been conscious of pain.  God proceeds to take a rib (tsela צֵלָע) (on a side note the Hebrew word for rib is a feminine noun), this is highly practical as well as symbolic. The rib can be removed without disabling a person, contains stem cells which can be engineered into something new (in this case the female) but the rib is also a covering to the heart, which in ancient cultures refers to the seat of affection and love.  The word rib (tsela צֵלָע) can also refer to the side, once again, emphasizing that the woman was to work side by side with the man not treated as an inferior and was to be loved by the man. 

What then does Genesis 1: 26 mean when speaking about creating humans in God’s “image”? To understand this one must try to fathom the nature of God which while not possible in whole, is possible to conceptualize through hints given in scripture. God is for example not bound by the constraints of DNA, since he exists outside of what humans understand to be the universe (1 Kings 8:270 nor is he affected by time nor does he perceive time in the same manner as humans (2 Peter 3:8) remaining constant and unchanging (Malachi 3:6). 

God is a being of Spirit, a state of existence we cannot fully comprehend, and where things such a sex and gender are not even applicable. Yet, should we not refer to God as he wishes us to refer to him? Are we to incite God to jealousy (1 Corinthians 10:22) by referring to Him by the stipulations of a corrupt and debased man-made philosophy such as Gender Theory that would force pronouns on Him that He has not chosen? 

So what pronouns HAS God chosen? Deuteronomy explains both the personal name He chose and the masculinity which he has chosen to be understood with. Deuteronomy 20:6 states “I am Yahweh/Jehovah your God.” The Tetragrammaton (four letters יְהוָ֣ה), is God’s most Sacred personal name which in English is transliterated as Yahweh or Yehovah but commonly Anglicised as Jehovah,  it is a proper noun but more importantly it is a singular noun. “Your God” is rendered as ’ĕ·lō·he·ḵā (אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ) which is a compound form of elohim (אֱלֹהִ֥֨ים) and is a second person masculine singular.  

So being “made in God’s image” “ in the likeness of God” must have a different meaning other than an anthropological description. When referring to the “image” of God in Colossians 3:10, the Apostle Paul uses the very same Greek word for image as that found in the Septuagint version of Genesis 1:26 and exhorts “clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it”. Rather than being a physical manifestation, being “made in the image of God” refers to the capacity and ability to reflect Divine qualities as love and kindness  based on knowledge, qualities with which animals are not imbued. This is in line with Deuteronomy 6:5 which states “You must love Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength.” The divine capacity for love is therefore the greatest gift and reflection of God’s image. Confusion arises because the fact that God is love is twisted by religious leaders to say that He will permit anything and that He will not judge those who break regulations. This is a falsehood as shown in Proverbs 3:11-12 “My son, do not reject the discipline of Jehovah, And do not loathe his reproof,  12 For those whom Jehovah loves he reproves, Just as a father does a son in whom he delights.” Divine approval and the requirement for receiving God’s love is therefore submitting to Him, repenting (turning away from) a bad course and restraining oneself in self-discipline, all concepts that are the polar opposite to the “anything goes” attitude preached by Queer and Gender Theory adherents and who have Apostatised both from Judaism and Christianity in teaching what is contrary to scripture. Indeed, God directly rebukes such things as cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5) noting how it causes corruption and that it is an abomination (תוֹעֲבַ֛ת). 

In short, there can be no consolidation between Biblical Theology and Queer Theology just as one cannot partake from the table of God and the table of demons (1 Corinthians 10:21).The scriptures aptly describe them as follows; “Such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into ministers of righteousness.” (2 Cor. 11:13-15).