Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Sorry Drake, but your analysis is pretty much null and void because you switched horses right in the middle of the race. Genesis 3:16 is applicable to Jane's argument, but Genesis 4:7 is not. The "desire" in the former is very different to the "desire" in the latter. Jane's "reasoning" is solid, and the merits of her reasoning stand upon a very plausible understanding of the original presentation of the original author.
-
|
You are factually incorrect that the desire of Gen 3:16 is very different to the desire in Gen 4:7. You are correct that these are two different circumstances, but you are incorrect that they are very different when we look at the original text.
In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 the word desire is the same Hebrew word, teshuqah, or in the Septuagint, both are translated as apostrophē.
So whatever changes are to be made to Gen 3:16, then Gen 4:7 is affected as well. If Gen 3:16 is a lemon, then Gen 4:7 is a lemon as well. If translators were male biased, then they were also "farmer biased" in Gen 4:7.
This is related to my earlier question, - how come male translators were influenced by Satan only on the verses pertaining to women?
The common meaning between Gen 3:16 and 4:7 is that there would be a struggle and there is something to rule over. Eve's struggle was with man, and Cain's struggle was with sin. I think this is the reason that most bible versions translate both as "desire".
Jane's reasoning is not so solid at all. She has to argue from the Syriac or Coptic translations, and her interpretation is one of many more plausible interpretations, which by the way, do not necessarily support the case she is arguing against. A simple interpretation is that this verse means "men and women will struggle with each other" .