[Nell]

Originally Posted by OBW

While I am not averse to the general notion provided in this short part, I believe that it is potentially presumptuous to suggest that woman was not put out since she was on the same side of the cherubim and the flaming sword as Adam when it was all over.

As I said "...She (Jane) also noted that nowhere does the Scripture say that God put Eve out of the garden." If you have a verse stating otherwise, please quote it. It's hardly "potentially presumptuous" to suggest that the woman was not put out when the Bible nowhere says she was... unless you have a verse that says otherwise.

Further, as Jane has theorized, Eve chose to follow Adam out of the Garden. This goes back to the mistranslation of the Hebrew word teshuqua when Eve "turned" to her husband and followed him or accompanied him somehow out of the Garden, just as Gen. 3:16 warned.

It (the Bible) does plainly say, however, that He drove Adam out of the garden and that He gave a consequence that was specifically tailored to fit with what Adam’s job had been in the Garden of Eden—to cultivate and guard it.

Gen. 3:23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Besides, no matter how you do or don't like the allegedly sexist wording of the Bible, it does not say that Adam was put out of the Garden, but that "he" was put out. "He" and "man" are often used generically for mankind.

I think that's understood...

If you want to take the "he" as just meaning Adam, then it should be that only "the man (Adam) has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." And we know better than that because they both had the same revelation from the eating — they were naked. But other than the specific speaking to Eve, God never mentions the woman. Just "the man" and "he." Yet at least part of that is clearly applicable to the woman as well, so there is little room for anyone to be patting themselves on the back for getting a better shake in the deal.

But all of that aside, and my general perception that there is a level of over-analysis in this segment, ...

I believe you have a level of over analysis going on as well.

...the bulk of the truly relevant conclusions are correct. Genesis 3:16 is more descriptive, or maybe prophetic than it is prescriptive. The painful childbearing (if that is what it is supposed to be) is simply what it is. Maybe best described as Eve's punishment to go along with Adam's working the land that would now bring forth thorns and thistles. But the rest is a telling of what would be, not what ought to be. Or has to be.

Perhaps "what would be" if Eve turned to her husband to meet her needs instead of turning to God. I don't believe there is support for this being a punishment to Eve, since in Romans Paul held Adam accountable for sin entering the world but not Eve.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come."

Another translation of Gen. 3:16 is from the ISV:
"I'll greatly increase the pain of your labor during childbirth. It will be painful for you to bear children, since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you." Discussed in Kindle Location 1052.

Nell