Very good insight and welcome to this blog!  I appreciated your comments.

He goes through a great list of male namings and asserts that such namings were expressions of aurthority AND that they are a male act only. Of significance, he notes Seth’s naming of Enosh, yet he conveniently ignores the fact that it was Eve who named Seth (she also named Cain). If his premise about naming is correct, then Eve not only broke the “rule” that males are the only namers but she then took sole authority over Seth.

His rebuttal to the objection of Matthew 1:21 is also incorrect (as is the objection itself, which may have been misrepresented). In reality, the paralle with God and Adam is somewhat striking. Just as God instructed Adam to name the animals, the angel, as representative of God, instructed Mary to name Jesus. It was in fact MARY who named Jesus. Does God break his own rules? I hardly think so.

The second flaw is in the premise itself - that naming de facto grants authority. Adam (and Eve) did not achieve dominion over the animals by the act of naming them and would not have had less authority over the animals had God chosen to name them Himself. Nowhere in the bible, outside of cultural norms, is it stated that naming grants authority. The fact is that naming has no effect on authority. You either have dominon or you do not. Naming is a task which neither adds to or detracts from dominion. Mr. Slick should be careful what he presupposes. According to his logic in the many verses he quotes, no one, including God in His relationship with His named creation, had any authority until after they did the naming.

She was already called Woman by God, no need for adam to say anything. Adam breaking out in a poem was adam using his free will, nothing more. The Woman was to be “with him”, they were equal partners on the same team so to speak.

Adam calling her Eve, tells us some things. #1 Life comes through Her….The promise seed will come through Woman! #2 she did not bring death, He (Adam) did and shows he is putting faith in the promise seed. Eve accepting this name shows she too is putting faith in this promise seed to come! 

BTW: Hagar named God: El Roi

And all these years I thought Elroy was made up by the old Jetsons cartoon.

My question is this: To what point does this become false teaching? At what point does reading INTO the text, twisting it to mean something else become false teaching?

If you mean something worthy of being thrown out of a fellowship and “handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme”, I would say at the point where it alters the gospel, turns people away from it, or eats at their faith. There are many such issues today that would qualify, but the insidious thing about this particular issue is that it crosses all the lines, between denominations, religions, and societies, and has done so throughout history. (Which is to say, it isn’t us egalitarians who are bowing to culture!)
This male supremacism, and the larger issue of hierarchy between “clergy” and “laity”, are issues of pride, of looking on the flesh, and of thinking God really is a “respecter of persons”. The disciples are still clamoring for positions of importance in spite of Jesus’ clear statement, “not so among you”. For any believer to think he or she is to be a boss over other adult believers is nothing but conceit, and the method or character of such rule is irrelevant. To rule “gently and wisely” is still to rule and still in violation of every basic tenet of the Spirit-filled believer. It is impossible to “think of others as better” than ourselves while insisting on “having the final say”, whether it’s in the home or the community of believers (a phrase I much prefer to “church”).
For the Christian community at large to condone any system of hierarchy based upon the flesh or position is inexcusable. God will hold to account all who bind up at least half the Body of Christ, or who “beat their fellow servants”.
</rant>

This type of interpretation is in all the their teaching. It is all over CBMW. Everything they believe on this issue has to be implied or read into the account. They tell us what God ‘meant’ when He did this or that…not what He ’said’ or did not say. I have also noticed that they also ignore Genesis 1 quite a bit because it does not fit into their interpretation of Genesis 2.

My question is this: To what point does this become false teaching? At what point does reading INTO the text, twisting it to mean something else become false teaching?

BTW: Hagar named God: El Roi

They assume that Genesis supports female subordination, then when reading 1 Tim. 2:11-15 they appeal back to it as their justification for their view. In other words, they presume authority being established in Genesis, then use it to support their interpretation of Paul’s words to Timothy as being universally applicable since it refers to creation order.

So to stretch and twist scripture in a vain effort to keep grasping at male superiority, he uses circular reasoning and ignores the context of each passage, while also ignoring the grammar of 1 Tim. 2 to indiscriminately mix singular and plural. This is identical to the typical Calvinist twist on passages like John 3:16 and Romans 5:15-21, where somehow “all” means “many” and “many” means “all”, mixing and matching within a single sentence!

It’s just amazing, the lengths to which some people will go in order to “keep their position” (John 11:48). That passage also tells us how the Pharisees reacted to the raising of Lazarus from the dead: to plot to kill Jesus! But is the male supremacist attitude really much different? “Scripture shows women are equal to men, but we will suppress this and spread lies about those who would expose us and take away our place as rulers!”