Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
This quote is neither from the Bible nor does it contain the word "help"... implying "help with the kids". You said:
Short answer...it didn't and He didn't. "Desire" and "turning" are two different things. "Desire" implies physical desire, and historically a man's desire toward a woman is epically stronger than a woman's desire toward a man. That's why "desire" is not a good fit.
Gen. 3:16 isn't about Eve asking Adam for help raising the kids, or not. That wasn't what the warning was about. The warning was that there would be consequences if she "turned to" and relied on man, instead of God, to meet her needs. Her needs were greater than man has the capacity to meet, and worse, man would rule over her .... and he still wouldn't help with the kids! Remember, she was to be his helper, not the other way around! We can almost hear him saying "and don't you forget it!"
Practically speaking, this paragraph could represents half of the problems in marriages on the earth today. That's why "turning" is a better fit than "desire". The truth is, apart from God, neither men nor women can meet the needs of the other. Man "ruling over" woman is the trump card that buries her.
This is a woman's perspective. No man's perspective can change the way she views this issue because she is still living with the consequences of her decision to this day.
Nell
|
I have no issue with changing "desire" to "turning to".
So if I understand you correctly, the interpretation for
Gen. 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
is as follows:
"Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and I am warning you not to turn to man from God because if you do he shall rule over thee."
Is that how you understand this verse?
Because that is how I understand it. I reject it because of my previous post. So unless I have missed something my previous analysis stands.