Genesis 3:16

[Geert van den Bos]

May I please have your input on what "your desire shall be for your husband" means in Genesis 3:16? Some have said it means women want to control men, which is a new interpretation to me and I'm not yet convinced.

Rashi:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi=true

And to your husband will be your desire: for intimacy, but, nevertheless, you will not have the audacity to demand it of him with your mouth, but he will rule over you. Everything is from him and not from you. — [from Eruv. ad loc.]


your desire: Heb. תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ, your desire, like: (Isa. 29:8): “a yearning (שׁוֹקֵקָה) soul.” - [after Targum Onkelos]

for intimacy = "l'tashmish" = sexual intercourse

Isaiah 29:8,

And it shall be, as the hungry man dreams, and behold, he eats, and he shall awaken, and his appetite is unsated, and as the thirsty man dreams, and behold he drinks, and he shall awaken and behold he is faint, and his soul yearns, so shall be the multitude of all the nations gathered on Mount Zion.

multitude of all the nations = "hamon kol goyim" ---

They do miss the letter "hey" that was added to "shishi" in Genesis 1:31, and also to the name Abram to make him "father of the multitude of nations " ....

[Cerebrum123]

Sorry you feel that way. I was not trying to insult you personally, and apologize if that was not clear, but I do stand by my comment about the inadequacy of pedestrian and pedantic propositional logic, yours or anyone's, to deal with the mystery of revelation.

This is the exact same dodge you gave in response to my syllogism the first time. If you're going to engage my argument, you don't get to merely dismiss it without saying why, on it's own terms, that it's wrong. This would mean showing either the premises to be false, and showing how the conclusion doesn't follow from them, or both. Appealing to "mystery" in one of the most straightforward texts God has revealed makes it so that any possible chance at any real understanding is impossible. It's also an evasion of what I said.

Then there's the fact that you've had an air of condescension towards me for most of this thread. You may not think the first was insulting, but the second most certainly is. In fact, I find this kind of passive aggressive insult to be more insulting than if you had called me an idiot to my face.

I did not say you did, but I did ask you a specific question here for a specific reason. If you want to have a conversation, please answer. Do you think that this text here uses an antrhopomorphic presentation of God? Do you recognize the limitations of anthropomorphic presentations of God? How do you think that I am 'stuck on an antrhopomorphism? I do not throw out any New Testament teachings. And, as I've already explained, I do not agree with your view that my hermeneutical method does this.

I already DID answer the question. Yes, anthropomorphisms are used. YOU however, seem to think that God is like a man, that He should change His mind, when that is clearly not the case.

Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

I thought I already did this in my post entitled, "God’s Syllogisms." Please reread again and let me know specifically which of your premises I have not addressed. I do not want to repeat the same thing all over again if we are not connecting on this point. My post was not a dodge, but it does present some methodological principles that I follow. Again, it may also be helpful for you to read Models of Revelation by Avery Cardinal Dulles as that treats some of this same material in much greater detail and relates it to specific theologians.

No, you didn't answer. You dodged. You appealed to "mystery" when clearly we have this text for the purpose of understanding it. We also have other Biblical works that illuminate the meaning of the text.

What about Numbers 2 supports your non-historical version of typology? It's merely a description of how the tribes of Israel camped during the Exodus.

You seem to have only read the snippet I cited, rather than the whole thing. It goes into far more detail as to why this is so. The Jews viewed God as acting in a cyclical way throughout history, What He did in the past, He would do in the future, but in an enhanced way.Then there's also the fact that all of the other Biblical authors treated Adam, Eve, and the serpent(Satan), as real historical figures(as well as the rest of Genesis). Jesus Himself did so as well.

As for who they are, it's an apologetics site run by Glen Miller, and is very useful for those who want to be able to defend their faith.

Perhaps you could ask again so we are both clear on what you think I have not addressed. I think I have been very patient with you and thorough.

No, you haven't done that at all. You've dismissed much of what I've posted, and appealed to "mystery" when you couldn't answer. You accuse me of being insulting while insulting me yourself. You've dismissed two whole posts as nothing more than "ridiculous, false accusations".

Yes, of course I realize that.

Since we do not have a 'merely historical report', it is very hard for us to say exactly what happened and what exactly God or the talking serpent might have said. Looking at the obvious artistry of the biblical author in reporting these conversation, I believe we do have a very profound account that is quite sophisticated, beautiful, and powerful. Some of the elements, eg, the talking serpent, do not strike me as likely historical. I have never met nor heard other reports of talking serpents that seemed to be intended as historical.

So, you would deny the talking donkey in Numbers as well I suppose?

Numbers 22:31-33New International Version (NIV)

31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32 The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”

Or do you think that Satan can't use a serpent in his deceit?

Both are historical accounts, and both have things we wouldn't normally see, but so does the resurrection of Jesus, and a host of other miraculous events. Then there's the fact that often those who are to be shamed are not directly named. Which appears to have been done for the sun and moon in Genesis, and they aren't even living beings. They were however worshiped, which is more than enough to put them in a low light(pun not intended).

Learning the original languages of the Bible has nothing whatsoever to do with gnosticism.

I never said it did.

Nor have I ever said that you are unable to understand the things I do.

By saying that each individual is responsible for deriving meaning, that means that I can't get the subjective interpretation you get. Which would by definition of subjective experiences mean I can't get the same understanding.

I would be happy to teach you or anyone else biblical languages and I recommend them very highly to anyone. Your innuendo that I might not believe that God is more powerful than any language barrier is, of course, absurd. I have never said, implied, or hinted at anything of that nature.

Due to my disability learning a new language is an impossibility at this point. My short term memory is shot, and I'm often unable to even study the things I really have a passion for.

Your judgments about my moral character, or lack thereof in your view, are not helpful, or accurate.

I merely said you don't have the high ground like you think, and that's due to your passive aggressive condescending insult.

And I say that my words, when followed to their logical conclusions, most certainly do not do what you say they do.

If that were true you should be able to show that logically. You haven't done that. You've merely dismissed logic itself in this matter as "pedantic", and "pedestrian".

I think we will have to agree to disagree about your understanding of what I meant by what I said. I do not now, nor have I ever believed that God has ever lied, even in part. You might be more careful about your indirect quotes of me. For example: "You said that God did not carry out His word to Adam, even though there was no repentance." My quote had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not there had been any repentance and I did not claim that is how God works.

The part about repentance is mine, but it displays accurately the situation that you claim happened. You claim that God did not go through with the punishment He specified. We also know that Adam was not only unrepentant, but was actively defiant at the time of the punishment. So, in essence, your own position states exactly what you deny, but somehow you are unable to see even that much.

Then, if we go by the definition of what is false, along with my given definition of a lie. You have God lying to Adam.

adjective, falser, falsest.
1.
not true or correct; erroneous:
a false statement.
2.
uttering or declaring what is untrue:
a false witness.
3.
not faithful or loyal; treacherous:
a false friend.

Is it true, or untrue, in your view that God punished Adam with death that very day(that's regardless of whether or not you only except instant spiritual death, or the beginning of a process of death).

My understanding of the narrative incorporates potentially mitigating factors as they are recounted, in fact I think the Hebrew artistry of the text can actually be seen as emphasizing this view. I do not believe nor did I say or imply that God made a 100% false statement, or even a .0000000001% false statement. I do not think the account ever addresses any philosophical questions of God's foreknowledge, complete, partial, or otherwise. When you bring such a philosophical presupposition to the text or my interpretation thereof you run the risk of misinterpreting the text and you completely misinterpret my understanding of the text.

You need to answer my previous question before you can really say if what God said was false. Then you can move onto whether or not that would be a lie.

Next, you are trying to separate Genesis into it's own little world completely cut off from the rest of the Bible. That is causing you to misunderstand the text as well.

Also, I did not say Adam did not begin to die; I was merely speaking of the meaning and function of the infinitive absolute construction in Hebrew. Personally, I am not familiar with your ‘process’ interpretation of the infinitive absolute construction in Hebrew. As for what the text allows, I did say that it was a perfectly valid reading of the larger narrative.

Yet you still have been saying that God did not punish Adam the way He said He would. Why is that? I simply can't understand it.

Nor have I ever indirectly said or implied that God is unjust and your attempt to walk me through my own thoughts and words by hand are hopelessly misguided in my opinion.

Yes you have implied that, especially with the serpent being punished for telling the truth. That is the implications of what you said earlier. I'm also not the only one who sees this either. Maybe there is more to this than you are currently realizing?

I know very well what I think and the implications of my beliefs and methodology, which as been examined very carefully not only by myself but also by others, professionals in the field and those with pastoral authority in the church. I do not mean to imply that my method is original. Quite the contrary.

So, you know others who think that the serpent was punished for telling the truth, and that Adam and Eve were not punished by God in the way God specified? Whoever these professionals are, tell me who they are so I know what I'm dealing with beforehand.

I would not say that. I do think it is difficult to approach objectively true interpretations of some texts, perhaps especially those that touch upon the mystery of God and creation, but a variety of methods do help us to approach this truth. In the end, we may not understand a given historical author's understanding until we meet in heaven and read the text together, and he may likewise may not have been aware of some of the profundity of his own text at the time of writing, and none of us will understand how God reads the text, perhaps ever, but certainly not this side of eternity.

Genesis is perhaps the most simple, straightforward text we have in the Bible. If we can't understand that, then what hope have we of understanding Christ's teachings, which are far more complex? Or what about Paul's teachings, whom even Peter said was hard to understand.

That is a very old way of speaking of higher and lower criticism and it is merely meant to differentiate relatively objective methods such as text criticism, grammatical and lexical study of languages from interpretative methodologies, be they historical or exegetical. It does not imply any 'huge part of the problem' other than the difficulty involved in interpreting texts and history.

I say it's a "huge part of the problem", because most of the time I read of someone using "higher criticism", they are arguing for things that are blatantly unbiblical, or at minimum do great harm to understanding Biblical texts. Especially if they are to be considered as a whole.

Please take that up with Rudolf Bultmann, not me.

Hard to do that with a dead person. Anyway, it was only an example of what I've seen come from this methodology. IIRC the Documentary Hypothesis is also from that methodology, and it also undermines Christ's very words. Especially by declaring that Moses did not write the works ascribed to him.

Thank you for the advice. I will take it under advisement.

It is not clear to what this asterisk statement is meant to apply.

It's part of my system when I write posts. When I have 1 asterisk next to a word in a post, I will place a clarifying statement at the end of the post, Same goes for 2, and 3. I don't think I've ever even reached a 3rd one since being on TWeb until now though. I think when I had to cut that response in two because of the character limit it might have gotten separated from the word that was marked.

I should probably change to a more clear system.

I may be dropping out of this discussion at this point(I will probably still read your response to this though), but I saw something from your next post that I wanted to deal with right now.

As for promising to read the book if you purchased it for me. I feel I can't do that, not because I don't want to read the book, but because the difficulties I have in reading them. Reading something on paper has become impossible for me if it's more than a short paragraph or two, and even on a kindle I find it more difficult to read books. I definitely can't ask you to pay for this when I know my limitations will keep me from carrying out such a promise.

I want to get back into reading books again, but I'm having a hard time with headaches when I try to do so. Perhaps it's because, unlike TWeb, I can't interact with them the way I can a person's posts. I'm not fully sure why this happens myself, and before it happened I loved to read. If I owned all the books I have read, I would have a pretty substantial collection by now, although mostly fiction of various types.

[robrecht]

This is the exact same dodge you gave in response to my syllogism the first time. If you're going to engage my argument, you don't get to merely dismiss it without saying why, on it's own terms, that it's wrong. This would mean showing either the premises to be false, and showing how the conclusion doesn't follow from them, or both. Appealing to "mystery" in one of the most straightforward texts God has revealed makes it so that any possible chance at any real understanding is impossible. It's also an evasion of what I said.

This is not a dodge, but my honest opinion. I do not agree with you that this is one of the most straightforward texts God has revealed. I think it is one of the least straightforward. I've given examples of the difficulty of applying strict logic by asking a series of questions that the text raises, which you have not answered because you can't. That's not a slight of you. I think that is, in part, the intent of author, and in part, the nature of a poetic narrative (Paul Ricoeur). As to the latter, on the one hand, a 'narrative' implies the existence of a logical story that 'explains' in this case the origins of evil in God's good creation, without actually giving answers to larger questions. Let's just review the first couple of questions I raised to illustrate the inadequacy of syllogisms when applied to such a narrative: Did God create evil? Why did he create and place a cunning serpent with us in the garden? Your response was to say that God did not create moral evil, but not to answer the larger or subsequent question. And your partial answer immediately departed from this text, looking for answers elsewhere in the Bible, a saying of Jesus in the gospel of Luke: "“I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven." If this narrative were really one of the most straighforward texts God has revealed, why does it not provide us with a straightforward propositional answer to one of the most basic questions of all? Why? If God created evil, why? Why did God create the serpent and place him in the garden with us? This narrative provides us with no answer to this most basic, straighforward question of all. You need to jump elsewhere, but your answer is not only not from this narrative, it is somewhat at odds with this narrative, which says God created the serpent and placed it in the garden. Jesus' statement does not answer the question of why God placed the serpent in the garden; instead it says Satan fell like lightning from heaven. Does that mean God did not purposefully place the serpent in the garden, as our narrative says? And, again, why? Why did God place the serpent in the garden with us? You can, I'm sure, formulate the basic propositional logical 'answers' proposed in any treatise developed to deal with the philosophical problem of evil, but our narrative does not approach the issue in a philosophical manner. This is why propositional logic and syllogisms are not an adequate approach to understanding this narrative, or any such poetic narrative. And that is also why your attempt to analyze and critique my interpretive approach to this narrative by constructing premises and syllogisms will not successfully arrive at philosophical or theological positions that are supposedly the logical consequences of my approach to undestanding this narrative. You should not accuse me of dodging anything. I am just following the author in trying to understand the character of his poetic narrative. Do you accuse him of dodging your questions?

Then there's the fact that you've had an air of condescension towards me for most of this thread. You may not think the first was insulting, but the second most certainly is. In fact, I find this kind of passive aggressive insult to be more insulting than if you had called me an idiot to my face.

Once again, your attempts to make judgments about my person and character are neither helpful nor accurate. Please try to avoid personal insults and focus on the content of the discussion.

I already DID answer the question. Yes, anthropomorphisms are used.

Sorry, I took this to be a general answer about the use of anthropomorphisms in the Bible and not a specific answer to my questions about this particular narrative. Now, perhaps you can expand upon the strengths and weaknesses of the use of an anthropomorphic presentation of God in this particular narrative, which I have asked you about.

YOU however, seem to think that God is like a man, that He should change His mind, when that is clearly not the case.

Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

No, exactly the opposite! You think that my approach to this narrative implies that God is a liar, but I reject your attempt to claim that this is implicit in my thinking. I do not move from anthropomorphic elements in the story to make implicit or explicit claims about God's nature. Propositional logic and syllogisms about my approach to an anthropomorphic presentation of God in a poetic narrative cannot succeed in exposing the supposed implications about my view of the nature of God.

No, you didn't answer. You dodged. You appealed to "mystery" when clearly we have this text for the purpose of understanding it. We also have other Biblical works that illuminate the meaning of the text.

I did not merely appeal to mystery but rather attempted to illustrate why propositional logic and syllogisms are inadequate to the task. Speaking of dodging, I will ask you again: Please reread and let me know specifically which of your premises I have not addressed. I do not want to repeat the same things all over again if we are not connecting on this point.

What about Numbers 2 supports your non-historical version of typology? It's merely a description of how the tribes of Israel camped during the Exodus.

Not Numbers 2, as in the chapter of the biblical book, but the Number 2 in the definition of typology I just quoted: "2. the study and interpretation of types and symbols, originally especially in the Bible."

You seem to have only read the snippet I cited, rather than the whole thing.

Please do not argue by weblink. If you want me to respond to specific points that can be found in a link, please let me know which points you are thinking of.

It goes into far more detail as to why this is so. The Jews viewed God as acting in a cyclical way throughout history, What He did in the past, He would do in the future, but in an enhanced way.Then there's also the fact that all of the other Biblical authors treated Adam, Eve, and the serpent(Satan), as real historical figures(as well as the rest of Genesis). Jesus Himself did so as well.

As for who they are, it's an apologetics site run by Glen Miller, and is very useful for those who want to be able to defend their faith.

But, again, because I and others define typology differently, you cannot use a different definition of typology do argue that I supposedly throw out teachings of the New Testament. You might be able to make a logical argument about the implications of my approach if I did use this definition of typology but I do not so your attempt to describe or impose the logical consequences of your defintion and my views are not logically valid when speaking of the supposedly logical consequences of my views.

No, you haven't done that at all.

Again, please let me know specific points that you would like me to address. You keep claiming that I have not addressed your points and when I ask you to be more specific you repeatedly will not identify any of the specific points that I have not addressed.

You've dismissed much of what I've posted, and appealed to "mystery" when you couldn't answer. You accuse me of being insulting while insulting me yourself. You've dismissed two whole posts as nothing more than "ridiculous, false accusations".

What specifically do you think I am unable to answer? Where have I insulted you? I'm sorry you do not see how ridiculous it is for you to try and impose your presuppositions and logical consequences on my views. I do think this has led you to false conclusions about me and my views. Should I call something 'true' that I know to be 'false'?

So, you would deny the talking donkey in Numbers as well I suppose?

Numbers 22:31-33New International Version (NIV)

31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with his sword drawn. So he bowed low and fell facedown.

32 The angel of the Lord asked him, “Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me.[a] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If it had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared it.”

Or do you think that Satan can't use a serpent in his deceit?

Both are historical accounts, and both have things we wouldn't normally see, but so does the resurrection of Jesus, and a host of other miraculous events. Then there's the fact that often those who are to be shamed are not directly named. Which appears to have been done for the sun and moon in Genesis, and they aren't even living beings. They were however worshiped, which is more than enough to put them in a low light(pun not intended).

Would I 'deny' the talking donkey? I suspect it is probably a poetic element, either of Balaam's vision or the author's narrative, but I don't see that as 'denying' it, just trying to best understand its function in the narrative text being studied. As a rule, the exegetical study of texts does not primarily or directly seek to determine the historicity of the events reported in the text, but to study the texts themselves. Arguments about the historicity or implausibility of events reported in the texts are usually engaged in by apologists of religious points of view and their opponents. As for what Satan can or cannot do, I have no special knowledge in this area or any particular opinion, nor am I sure how the sun and moon relate to our discussion. All of these issues seem completely irrelevant to our understanding of the text itself.

I never said it did.

By saying that each individual is responsible for deriving meaning, that means that I can't get the subjective interpretation you get. Which would by definition of subjective experiences mean I can't get the same understanding.

Nope, it does not mean that at all. I believe very much in intersubjectivity. Please stop trying to divine logical consequences of my views and what they mean, especially in arguing against what I have already stated as my view.

Due to my disability learning a new language is an impossibility at this point. My short term memory is shot, and I'm often unable to even study the things I really have a passion for.

I merely said you don't have the high ground like you think, and that's due to your passive aggressive condescending insult.

I submit that focusing your attention on what you believe are my internal thoughts of having some moral high ground and your perception of my supposed passive aggressive condecension as an insult of you are not at all helpful in our discussion. I'm sorry to hear about your disability and lack of short-term memory.

If that were true you should be able to show that logically. You haven't done that. You've merely dismissed logic itself in this matter as "pedantic", and "pedestrian".

You want me to show that my words do not lead to your conclusions about my words, or something like that. I think I have pointed out in several places and in various ways why this is so. Let's see if I can illustrate simply with your next point:

The part about repentance is mine, but it displays accurately the situation that you claim happened. You claim that God did not go through with the punishment He specified. We also know that Adam was not only unrepentant, but was actively defiant at the time of the punishment. So, in essence, your own position states exactly what you deny, but somehow you are unable to see even that much.

Then, if we go by the definition of what is false, along with my given definition of a lie. You have God lying to Adam.

adjective, falser, falsest.
1.
not true or correct; erroneous:
a false statement.
2.
uttering or declaring what is untrue:
a false witness.
3.
not faithful or loyal; treacherous:
a false friend.

Is it true, or untrue, in your view that God punished Adam with death that very day(that's regardless of whether or not you only except instant spiritual death, or the beginning of a process of death).

The conclusion you want to draw here is poorly supported by your representation of my position because it leaves out the most central point of my approach, namely that the text presents quite a few possibly mitigating factors in why God might have chosen to punish Adam and Eve and the Serpent differently than what he first presented to Adam alone as the immediate punishment or consequences of disobedience. For me this is an illustration of the fundamental character of God as compassionate and merciful and his intent for the future of humanity. For me, if an antrhopomorphic God changes his previously stated approach (to one human) for good intervening reasons and for a multitude of characters, including all of future of humanity since Eve is the mother of all the living, that does not lead to the conclusion that God is a liar or that he lied to Adam. In the story it is true that God's actions, presumably on that very day, did result in Adam's physical death some 800 years later, but it was not the case that Adam died that day. You think this view necessarily entails the view that God is a liar. I think it is an anthropomorphic presentation of God beginning the story of salvation and that the use of propositional logic, presuppositions, and syllogisms to prove that I somehow really believe or must view God as a liar if only I would examine the logical consequences of my own approach to this story is actually ignorant of my whole methodological approach to a poetic narrative. Likewise, the use of propositional logic, presuppositions, and syllogisms to prove that I somehow really must believe or view God does not have foreknowlede of future events is also misplaced as a supposedly logical consequence of my approach to this anthropomorphic story that I do not believe was intended to address the philosophical examination of questions of theodicy and divine foreknowledge or providence.

You need to answer my previous question before you can really say if what God said was false. Then you can move onto whether or not that would be a lie.

Of course it is not a lie. I am continually shocked that you ever and even continually keep bringing this up as a possibility.

Next, you are trying to separate Genesis into it's own little world completely cut off from the rest of the Bible. That is causing you to misunderstand the text as well.

No, I am not trying to do that. One can look at pericopes as separated wholes and one can look at biblical theology as a whole, and many things in between (books, chapters, etc), and there are various methodologies geared toward doing this. Pleaes stop making statements about what I am supposedly 'trying to do' in your opinion of my intentions.

Yet you still have been saying that God did not punish Adam the way He said He would. Why is that? I simply can't understand it.

I presented a number of possibilities, based on elements in the text. I am not going to list them all over again.

Yes you have implied that, especially with the serpent being punished for telling the truth. That is the implications of what you said earlier. I'm also not the only one who sees this either. Maybe there is more to this than you are currently realizing?

No, I have not implied that God is unjust. You have inferred that based on assuming a meaning of unjust mercy that I did not, do not, and will not endorse. If anyone else has followed you or independently presumed this, they are kindly invited to reevaluate their views based on my patient attempts to present my views in more detail.

So, you know others who think that the serpent was punished for telling the truth, and that Adam and Eve were not punished by God in the way God specified? Whoever these professionals are, tell me who they are so I know what I'm dealing with beforehand.

That is not at all what I said. I was speaking of what seems to be the strange presumption that I am unaware of the implications of my beliefs and methodology, which has been examined very carefully not only by myself but also by others, professionals in the field and those with pastoral authority in the church. I do not care to name those who have evaluated my methodolgy as they would probably prefer to remain blissfully ignorant of this discussion.

Genesis is perhaps the most simple, straightforward text we have in the Bible. If we can't understand that, then what hope have we of understanding Christ's teachings, which are far more complex? Or what about Paul's teachings, whom even Peter said was hard to understand.

I am extremely hopeful that we can! I think many people understand Genesis very well, but there are honest disagreements about this or that element so scholars are generally circumspect in claiming that they have correctly and fully understood a given historical author's intent. Although that is the goal of most historico-critical approaches, we must acknowledge that the lack of consensus among scholars employing the same methodologies is telling.

I say it's a "huge part of the problem", because most of the time I read of someone using "higher criticism", they are arguing for things that are blatantly unbiblical, or at minimum do great harm to understanding Biblical texts. Especially if they are to be considered as a whole.

Back when it was more common to speak of lower and higher criticism, the idea of a unified or monolithic biblical theology actually had a much greater acceptance.

Hard to do that with a dead person. Anyway, it was only an example of what I've seen come from this methodology. IIRC the Documentary Hypothesis is also from that methodology, and it also undermines Christ's very words. Especially by declaring that Moses did not write the works ascribed to him.



It's part of my system when I write posts. When I have 1 asterisk next to a word in a post, I will place a clarifying statement at the end of the post, Same goes for 2, and 3. I don't think I've ever even reached a 3rd one since being on TWeb until now though. I think when I had to cut that response in two because of the character limit it might have gotten separated from the word that was marked.

I should probably change to a more clear system.

I may be dropping out of this discussion at this point(I will probably still read your response to this though), but I saw something from your next post that I wanted to deal with right now.

As for promising to read the book if you purchased it for me. I feel I can't do that, not because I don't want to read the book, but because the difficulties I have in reading them. Reading something on paper has become impossible for me if it's more than a short paragraph or two, and even on a kindle I find it more difficult to read books. I definitely can't ask you to pay for this when I know my limitations will keep me from carrying out such a promise.

I want to get back into reading books again, but I'm having a hard time with headaches when I try to do so. Perhaps it's because, unlike TWeb, I can't interact with them the way I can a person's posts. I'm not fully sure why this happens myself, and before it happened I loved to read. If I owned all the books I have read, I would have a pretty substantial collection by now, although mostly fiction of various types.

Well, we can always hope for more interactive discussion with dead authors in heaven.

[Violet]

Rashi:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi=true



for intimacy = "l'tashmish" = sexual intercourse

This makes sense to me, but I wonder about the interpretive constraints of Gen. 4:7 that other interpreters put on Gen. 3:16? Some believe 4:7 explains what "desire" means because of the similar structure of these verses. What do you think about it?

Isaiah 29:8,

And it shall be, as the hungry man dreams, and behold, he eats, and he shall awaken, and his appetite is unsated, and as the thirsty man dreams, and behold he drinks, and he shall awaken and behold he is faint, and his soul yearns, so shall be the multitude of all the nations gathered on Mount Zion.

multitude of all the nations = "hamon kol goyim" ---

They do miss the letter "hey" that was added to "shishi" in Genesis 1:31, and also to the name Abram to make him "father of the multitude of nations " ....

Will you explain how you believe this helps explain Gen 3? It seems the rare and relatively obscure word "desire" in Gen 3:16 is only used elsewhere in Gen 4:7 and in the Canticles. Apparently the usage in Gen 4:7 likely determines the use in 3:16 because the interpretation of the word is contextually better understood in 4:7 and because the structure of the verses is the same (implying that the same structure means the same interpretation for the difficult to translate word). So it's not just a matter of interpreting the word itself and seeing how it most naturally flows in the immediate text but of seeing where the same word was used with the same structure and reading the definition of that (more clear) verse into this more obscure one. At least that is how I think the argument goes. What do you think about it?

[Geert van den Bos]

This makes sense to me, but I wonder about the interpretive constraints of Gen. 4:7 that other interpreters put on Gen. 3:16? Some believe 4:7 explains what "desire" means because of the similar structure of these verses. What do you think about it?

Will you explain how you believe this helps explain Gen 3? It seems the word "desire" in Gen 3:16 is only used elsewhere in Gen 4:7 and in the Canticles. Apparently the usage in Gen 4:7 interprets the use in 3:16 because of the same structure of the verses. So it's not just a matter of interpreting the word itself and seeing how it most naturally flows in the immediate text but of seeing where the same word was used with the same structure and reading the definition of that (more clear) verse into this more obscure one. At least that is how I think the argument goes. What do you think about it?

I would say in both instances it is related to sexuality. The verb in Genesis 4:7 "ravats" = to lie, couch, stretch out, sit over, makes out of sin kind of a living being.

Rashi:

and to you is it’s longing: [The longing] of sin- i.e., the evil inclination-which constantly longs and lusts to cause you to stumble.

Genesis 3:16 being about the female desire, and Genesis 4:7 about the male.

Cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:28,

and subdue it: The“vav” [in וְכִבְשֻׁהָ is missing, [allowing the word to be read וְכִבְשָׁה, the masculine singular imperative] to teach you that the male subdues the female that she should not be a gadabout (Gen. Rabbah 8:12), and it is also meant to teach you that the man, whose way it is to subdue, is commanded to propagate, but not the woman (Yev. Yev. 65b).

By the way, the above mentioned things might prove that the bible was written by men (males) for men, and not for women, nor by women.

[Violet]

That is the main issue under discussion, yes, but a related issue which quickly cropped up as a key disagreement is whether a desire to sin necessarily results in sin.

A desire to sin does not mean one must sin. However, how could one resist a desire if it was given by God? Also, this seems much like temptation. And God does not tempt anyone to sin, not even those in Rom 1. They were predisposed to those depraved dispositions and God handed them over which is different than saying God gave them those desires in the first place. Additionally, the text does not indicate that Eve had tried to dominate her husband by giving him the fruit. Indeed, she was uneducated and therefore easily deceived. How does offering the fruit to her husband imply domination, anyway? Her problem was not accurately knowing what God had said and was therefore easily deceived by the serpent. There is nothing in the text that says she was trying to dominate her husband. Rather, she was offering her wrong view and misunderstanding and Adam, who actually knew better, sinned. She was deceived, not dominating. It was Adam who knew better but disobeyed.

If God can give humanity over to impurity, to dishonourable passions, to a debased mind, what is inconceivable about such a punishment - if it is indeed a punishment, and not just a statement of fact?

I think James 1:13-17 is helpful in seperating the Genesis text from Rom. 1. The desire to control may be a statement of fact instead of a punishment. However, it comes with the other punishments and because she had not tried to already dominate her husband I do not see this as a "handing over" to do what she was already doing. But I'm still thinking about it

[Paprika]

A desire to sin does not mean one must sin. However, how could one resist a desire if it was given by God?

Why do you assume that a desire given by God is irresistible? God gives us the desire to love Him and love our neighbour but that is not irresistible.

Also, this seems much like temptation. And God does not tempt anyone to sin, not even those in Rom 1. They were predisposed to those depraved dispositions and God handed them over which is different than saying God gave them those desires in the first place.

So if the people in Romans 1 were predisposed to depraved dispositions, why couldn't Eve be predisposed to wanting to dominate her husband?

Additionally, the text does not indicate that Eve had tried to dominate her husband by giving him the fruit. Indeed, she was uneducated and therefore easily deceived. How does offering the fruit to her husband imply domination, anyway? Her problem was not accurately knowing what God had said and was therefore easily deceived by the serpent. There is nothing in the text that says she was trying to dominate her husband. Rather, she was offering her wrong view and misunderstanding and Adam, who actually knew better, sinned. She was deceived, not dominating. It was Adam who knew better but disobeyed.

I'm not sure what education has to do with this. Though she was deceived (presumably about whether she would die), she still tried to destroy God's authority over Adam, contradicting God, the one in authority, and telling Adam what to do; instead of desiring her husband to follow God she influenced him into following her words and her example.

[Violet]

I would say in both instances it is related to sexuality. The verb in Genesis 4:7 "ravats" = to lie, couch, stretch out, sit over, makes out of sin kind of a living being.

Rashi:


Genesis 3:16 being about the female desire, and Genesis 4:7 about the male.

Cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:28,

This really makes a lot of sense to me and I had also brought this up. However, it seems to some interpreters that because "desire" is used in the same structure as "control" and "mastery", that desire must mean to negatively control. But I still don't see why it can't still mean in sexual way, ie intimate way in both instances, as in your example. One is just negative and the other positive. But I guess it is believed that because it is negative in 4:7 that it is also negative in 3:16.

By the way, the above mentioned things might prove that the bible was written by men (males) for men, and not for women, nor by women.

I see your point. I do, however, still come at the scriptures believing God has inspired the story.

[Paprika]

This really makes a lot of sense to me and I had also brought this up. However, it seems to some interpreters that because "desire" is used in the same structure as "control" and "mastery", that desire must mean to negatively control. But I still don't see why it can't still mean in sexual way, ie intimate way in both instances, as in your example. One is just negative and the other positive. But I guess it is believed that because it is negative in 4:7 that it is also negative in 3:16.

So you think that Gen 4:7 is about male sexual lust?

[Violet]

Why do you assume that a desire given by God is irresistible? God gives us the desire to love Him and love our neighbour but that is not irresistible.

Because it is a desire to sin and I disagree that God gives sinful desires. This seems to run counter to James 1:13-17.

So if the people in Romans 1 were predisposed to depraved dispositions, why couldn't Eve be predisposed to wanting to dominate her husband?

Because the people in Rom. 1 knew God but refused to worship Him, they themselves thought up false ideas about what God is like. As a result, God gave them over to the darkened way they had conceived themselves.

Eve, on the other hand was deceived into believing the lie of Satan. The people of Rom 1 were rather deliberate.

I'm not sure what education has to do with this. Though she was deceived (presumably about whether she would die), she still tried to destroy God's authority over Adam, contradicting God, the one in authority, and telling Adam what to do;

Where does she tell Adam what to do? Adam was with her when she ate and she gave it to him. Where is it implied that she domineered her husband into submission? Nowhere.

instead of desiring her husband to follow God she influenced him into following her words and her example.

Influence is by no means the same as domination.

[Paprika]

Because it is a desire to sin and I disagree that God gives sinful desires. This seems to run counter to James 1:13-17.

I don't believe it does.

Eve, on the other hand was deceived into believing the lie of Satan. The people of Rom 1 were rather deliberate.

So Eve didn't deliberately eat the fruit?

Where does she tell Adam what to do? Adam was with her when she ate and she gave it to him. Where is it implied that she domineered her husband into submission? Nowhere.

Nonsense. "And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you,"

Influence is by no means the same as domination.

Quite, influence might be manifestation of the wish to dominate without domination completely actualising.

[Violet]

So you think that Gen 4:7 is about male sexual lust?

No, indeed. In Gen 4:7 it is sin that does the desiring. In Gen 3:16, it is the woman who does the desiring.

[robrecht]

Why do you assume that a desire given by God is irresistible? God gives us the desire to love Him and love our neighbour but that is not irresistible.

Because it is a desire to sin and I disagree that God gives sinful desires. This seems to run counter to James 1:13-17.

I think this question also relates to whether we see this desire as actually a curse given by God that we would presumably be unable to counteract.

[Paprika]

I think this question also relates to whether we see this desire as actually a curse given by God that we would presumably be unable to counteract.

I believe Violet is doing special pleading here:

She cannot deny that God gives us good desires that are resistible, but somehow any (hypothetical) sinful desire given by God must be irresistible.

[robrecht]

I believe Violet is doing special pleading here:

She cannot deny that God gives us good desires that are resistible, but somehow any (hypothetical) sinful desire given by God must be irresistible.

With respect to your own view only, if I recall correctly, you did at one time seem to conisder this desire to be part of a curse of Eve by God, but then were not so sure because the word 'curse' is not explictly applied to Eve. Is that correct? Has your view changed subsequently?