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.
-
|
UntoHim, null and void? Heavens no. Desire and rule are the same words in both verses. The sentence structure is the same. Two pairs of relationship and the relationship in each pair is the same. You can't apply desire and rule one way for Gen 3:16 and a different way for Gen 4:7.
Evangelical covered it in more detail in Post 49 and 50. If Jane's logic to change up 3:16 is applied to 4:7 it does not make sense.
Drake