|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
"Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 3:51:34 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1880
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
This is a continuation from a thread the "Marriage" section.
What are your opinions on the "desire" mentioned as part of the curse in Genesis 3:16?
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 4:01:36 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3571
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
This is a continuation from a thread the "Marriage" section.
What are your opinions on the "desire" mentioned as part of the curse in Genesis 3:16?
This was a consequence of the sin of the fall. The Hebrew word used in this verse is only used one other time in Genesis (it is only use 3 times in the entire entire OT); In Ge. 4 this word is used to describe sin's desire to dominate Cain. Without a doubt in Ge. 4 this word carries a very negative overtone, and there is no reason to believe it didn't carry the same negative overtone when it was used one chapter earlier. To understand this verse we must remember that this word has a much more negative connotation than the English word used to translate it does, and while desire for ones husband is a very good thing, this kind of "desire" is not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 4:57:59 PM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3423
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
. . . what Benelchi wrote
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 5:00:14 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
Song of Solomon 7:10 "I [am] my beloved's, and his desire [is] toward me."
Same Hebrew word translated "desire" in Gen 3:16.
The two books were written by completely different authors with completely different writing styles, most likely seperated by hundreds of years of history. However, the verse I pointed out (which you ignored, by the way) was written by the same author, probably on the same day, since it's about a chapter away.
A good hermeneutic demands taking the narrative into account as a whole, including the textual background. It seems erroneous to suppose that this Jewish author (likely Moses) would use the same word in such close proximity, but have a completely different meaning. In a society where the written word was a rarity, to suggest such sloppy authorship is insulting to the writer.
However, the word "desire" doesn't have a completely different meaning. Desire simply means to desire, to want, to long for. Gen. 3:16 says that the woman would desire her husband. Gen. 4:17 says that sin desired to rule over Cain. And SS 7:10 says that the woman's beloved desired her.
The context determines the object being desired. In Gen. 3:16 the woman's desire was for her husband. It doesn't say that the woman desired to rule over her husband. Rather, it specifically says that the man would rule over the woman.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 5:11:59 PM
|
|
|
Covaan_Meshuga
Posts: 3423
Joined: 6/8/2005
From: a mother who let me live
Status: offline
|
tn1
. . . but one must keep in mind the intent of the Hebrew writer and what the word means in Hebrew
_____________________________
Abiyah
"Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn by the weakest among us, and when you snuff them out, you are the one that loses." ~~Gianna Jesson, 1977 LA, CA, saline abortion survivor
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 5:12:20 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: benelchi
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
This is a continuation from a thread the "Marriage" section.
What are your opinions on the "desire" mentioned as part of the curse in Genesis 3:16?
This was a consequence of the sin of the fall. The Hebrew word used in this verse is only used one other time in Genesis (it is only use 3 times in the entire entire OT); In Ge. 4 this word is used to describe sin's desire to dominate Cain. Without a doubt in Ge. 4 this word carries a very negative overtone, and there is no reason to believe it didn't carry the same negative overtone when it was used one chapter earlier. To understand this verse we must remember that this word has a much more negative connotation than the English word used to translate it does, and while desire for ones husband is a very good thing, this kind of "desire" is not.
"desire" in Gen.4 doesn't carry either a positive or negative connotation or overtone, the sourse and context provided the negative overtone.
Though I do agree that a woman desiring a man even though she will be ruled over and though she will experience great pain in child-birth does have a negative overtone to it.
But of course, in the Song of Solomon passage, the connotation is not negative, but positive. In Gen. 3:16 though, the object of her desire is her husband himself, not to rule over her husband.
Even so, oppression does beget both rebellion and the desire to oppress others. And beyond that, our selfish nature seeks to control, rule over others; but that is true for men, women, even children, and especially adolescents! :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 5:18:24 PM
|
|
|
tn1
Posts: 167
Joined: 9/22/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
tn1
. . . but one must keep in mind the intent of the Hebrew writer and what the word means in Hebrew
The Hebrew word is תְּשׁוּקָה tâshuwqah, and simply means to desire, to long for, to crave, and has the connotation or sense of stretching out after, reaching for.
It does not imply whether either the object being desired or the one doing the desiring is either positive or negative. It's a simple verb.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 6:34:04 PM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
God never "curses" the man and the woman.
Only the ground and the serpent are "cursed"
God speaks prophetically describing the consequences of their sin.
To the woman HE says "your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you" As Benelchi notes, the same Hebrew word translated "desire" is used in Genesis 4:7. However, the same Hebrew word is also used in Song of Solomon 7:10 "I [am] my beloved's, and his desire [is] toward me."
Gen 3:16 says her DESIRE shall be for her husband and he shall rule over her.
She yearns for relationship with him, but that has been broken and twisted by the Fall and instead of relationship and intimacy like they had in the Garden, he wants to protect his turf, he rules and she suffers under it. She desires to satisfy, to please, to "be enough" for her husband. She desires his approval and affirmation which makes her vulnerable to his harsh rule. She makes her husband into an idol, puts him where only God should be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 6:45:15 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3571
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tn1
quote:
ORIGINAL: Covaan_Meshuga
tn1
. . . but one must keep in mind the intent of the Hebrew writer and what the word means in Hebrew
The Hebrew word is תְּשׁוּקָה tâshuwqah, and simply means to desire, to long for, to crave, and has the connotation or sense of stretching out after, reaching for.
It does not imply whether either the object being desired or the one doing the desiring is either positive or negative. It's a simple verb.
There are several big difficulties with trying to to equate tashuwqah as used in S. of Songs with the usage in Ge. 3.
First, there were centuries between these writings, and it is far more likely that the word was used as it is in Ge. 4 i.e a passage written at the same time as that in Ge. 3.
Second the grammar used in Ge. 3 is identical to that used in Ge. 4; aside from the change of a noun and a pronoun the grammatical structure of these passages is identical. Included is the text from both passages in Ge. and the S. of Songs passage for comparison. Note: remember the Hebrew reads right to left, but the English translation reads left to right.
ואל-אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשל-בך
ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל-בו
To your man [is] your desire - and he - will rule in you
To you [is] its desire - and you - must rule in it
אני לדודי ועלי תשוקתו
I [am] to my beloved - and on me [is] his desire
Third, there is a change in prepositions between both Ge. passages and the passage in S. of Songs. In both Ge. passages the preposition 'el' (אל)is used, but in S. of Songs 'al'(על) is used. In Hebrew this is a very significant grammatical change i.e. one says "to you is his desire" and the other "on you is his desire"
Last, the context of Ge. 3 implies that this is the result of the curse brought about by the sin in the garden. That alone makes it difficult to understand this as a positive and healthy desire.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 8:53:10 PM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
In Gen. 4, the desire is sin's desire, sin (which is already negative) will be turning toward the man lying in wait for him. This is a decidedly negative picture BECAUSE sin is negative.
In Gen. 3, the desire is the woman's. To assume the woman is a negative thus her 'turning' (desire) must be negative is unjustified despite any similarities in grammatical construction
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 9:24:26 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1880
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
despite any similarities in grammatical construction
You're approaching this from a 20th-21st century context. In our day and age, where the written word is literally everywhere, sometimes grammatical constructions are mere accidents, or there simply to make the text "sound better." This was not the case when Genesis was written. The written word was, comparatively speaking, exceedingly rare. When people wrote things down, it was done carefully, with a great deal of purpose. To say that the grammatical construction is effectively meaningless is to ignore the entire culture it was written in.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 9:25:36 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3571
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KerussoCharis
In Gen. 4, the desire is sin's desire, sin (which is already negative) will be turning toward the man lying in wait for him. This is a decidedly negative picture BECAUSE sin is negative.
In Gen. 3, the desire is the woman's. To assume the woman is a negative thus her 'turning' (desire) must be negative is unjustified despite any similarities in grammatical construction
Based on the context of the passage of Ge. 3 i.e. this was what God said would happen because of Eve's sin, it like Ge. 4 is already in a negative context, and based on the similarity of the grammar, and the contemporary use of the word itself there is no reason to believe this desire was something "good".
The usage in S. of Songs was not contemporary with Ge. 3 or 4; it was written centuries later and it is used in entirely different way. Appealing to its use in S. of Songs is a wild stretch when there is such a clear example only one chapter later in the same book; an example that mirrors the exact same usage in Ge. 3.
This is while scholars like Foe, Hamilton, Cassuto, Wenham, and others all affirm the negative tone of this word in Ge. 3.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 10:09:35 PM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
despite any similarities in grammatical construction
You're approaching this from a 20th-21st century context. In our day and age, where the written word is literally everywhere, sometimes grammatical constructions are mere accidents, or there simply to make the text "sound better." This was not the case when Genesis was written. The written word was, comparatively speaking, exceedingly rare. When people wrote things down, it was done carefully, with a great deal of purpose. To say that the grammatical construction is effectively meaningless is to ignore the entire culture it was written in.
I am not saying "grammatical construction is meaningless". Quite the contrary. I believe every jot and and title is God breathed. That is why I object to adding to what is written. God says "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you" The verse does not say "desire to usurp your husband's authority" or "desire to control your husband". Those are interpretations imposed on the text. The text says "your desire shall be for your husband"
The fact of the matter is, a woman's natural inclination is NOT to dominate. This is proven historically. Men have "ruled over" just as God prophesied.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 11:12:38 PM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1880
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
That is why I object to adding to what is written. God says "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you" The verse does not say "desire to usurp your husband's authority" or "desire to control your husband". Those are interpretations imposed on the text. The text says "your desire shall be for your husband"
Then why do you impose your idea of a negative desire on sin? Aren't you reading more into the word desire there than is in the text?
Another factor to consider - Genesis 3:16-19 is showing the consequences of the Fall. If the "desire" here was a good thing, something that is inherent in woman's nature, then why would God mention it here in the future tense - implying it was not the way things were pre-fruit?
< Message edited by MrFribbles -- 10/28/2008 11:30:40 PM >
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/28/2008 11:30:04 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3571
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KerussoCharis
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrFribbles
quote:
despite any similarities in grammatical construction
You're approaching this from a 20th-21st century context. In our day and age, where the written word is literally everywhere, sometimes grammatical constructions are mere accidents, or there simply to make the text "sound better." This was not the case when Genesis was written. The written word was, comparatively speaking, exceedingly rare. When people wrote things down, it was done carefully, with a great deal of purpose. To say that the grammatical construction is effectively meaningless is to ignore the entire culture it was written in.
I am not saying "grammatical construction is meaningless". Quite the contrary. I believe every jot and and title is God breathed. That is why I object to adding to what is written. God says "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you" The verse does not say "desire to usurp your husband's authority" or "desire to control your husband". Those are interpretations imposed on the text. The text says "your desire shall be for your husband"
The fact of the matter is, a woman's natural inclination is NOT to dominate. This is proven historically. Men have "ruled over" just as God prophesied.
No, the text really does not say "your desire shall be for your husband". Remember this verse was written in Hebrew and it actually says:
ואל-אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשל-בך
And a literal translations would be more like this:
"And to - your man - your desire - and he - will rule - in you"
What you have quoted is a translation of the text, and one that reflects the interpretations imposed by the translator of the NIV. You have then imposed you very own interpretation onto the text of that translation.
However, the translators of the NIV will readily acknowledge the requirement of the the translator to interpret the text they are translating, and most of the scholars involved in the translation of the NIV would reject the interpretation you have imposed on their translation. David Talley, Ph.D. Old Testament Professor, Talbot School of Theology, author of the article on 'Teshuqa' in the "New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis" says "Susan Foh provides a good foundation for further study. Her conclusion that the desire is a contention for leadership, a negative usage, seems probable for Gen. 3:16. If the translators who produced the very text you quoted recognize the negative aspects of this word as used in this verse, don't you think it is a little presumptuous to declare with such certainty that it means something else?
< Message edited by benelchi -- 10/28/2008 11:36:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/29/2008 10:35:20 AM
|
|
|
KerussoCharis
Posts: 36
Joined: 10/28/2008
Status: offline
|
People scratch their heads and wonder why abused women return to their abusers even unto death sometimes.
I wonder if it goes right back to this "desire" God spoke of in Genesis 3:16?
And I wonder if it is why only men are instructed to "cleave" in marriage?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/29/2008 10:41:45 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3571
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: KerussoCharis
People scratch their heads and wonder why abused women return to their abusers even unto death sometimes.
I wonder if it goes right back to this "desire" God spoke of in Genesis 3:16?
And I wonder if it is why only men are instructed to "cleave" in marriage?
That sounds like a pretty unhealthy and negative "desire" to me. Something that could be a result of the curse of Ge. 3:16 and not something that is lauded as an example that women should follow.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/29/2008 10:43:10 AM
|
|
|
MrFribbles
Posts: 1880
Joined: 1/29/2007
From: Hawaii, but I've moved around since then
Status: offline
|
quote:
And I wonder if it is why only men are instructed to "cleave" in marriage?
Now now, I started this thread because we were getting off topic on the other one. If you want to discuss the cleaving, don't do it here.
quote:
People scratch their heads and wonder why abused women return to their abusers even unto death sometimes.
I wonder if it goes right back to this "desire" God spoke of in Genesis 3:16?
I doubt it, since men do the same thing. Except it's more typical for men to suffer emotional abuse.
_____________________________
You're a door without a key,
A field without a fence.
You've made a holy fool of me,
And I've thanked you ever since.
- Aaron Weiss
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/29/2008 11:08:48 AM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2911
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
Because this is a consequence of sin it is safe to say that the woman's desire as stated in Genesis is unhealthy. And, the man's ruling over her is also unhealthy. Whatever the specifics are I believe that this new dynamic in their relationship is in direct contrast to "I will make him a helper suitable for him" (helpmate, ezer neged) and "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh". Her "desire" is somehow opposite of being an "ezer neged" and his "ruling" is opposite of "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh".
The original ideal of "helpmate" and "bone of my bone" is echoed in Ephesians 5 where Paul commands the woman to submit to her husband and the husband to love his wife in the same way he loves his own flesh. So, again, her "desire" must be in contrast to "submit".
Now, let's try really hard not to let this discussion jump the topic into "submission" and thus become a men's/women's roles in the home. Good luck. I know you can resist.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/29/2008 11:39:03 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3571
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
Because this is a consequence of sin it is safe to say that the woman's desire as stated in Genesis is unhealthy. And, the man's ruling over her is also unhealthy. Whatever the specifics are I believe that this new dynamic in their relationship is in direct contrast to "I will make him a helper suitable for him" (helpmate, ezer neged) and "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh". Her "desire" is somehow opposite of being an "ezer neged" and his "ruling" is opposite of "bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh".
The original ideal of "helpmate" and "bone of my bone" is echoed in Ephesians 5 where Paul commands the woman to submit to her husband and the husband to love his wife in the same way he loves his own flesh. So, again, her "desire" must be in contrast to "submit".
Now, let's try really hard not to let this discussion jump the topic into "submission" and thus become a men's/women's roles in the home. Good luck. I know you can resist.
Agreed!
FYI - The phrase in Ge. is 'ezer kenegdo' 'neged' is the root meaning 'opposite', and the prefix 'ke' means 'as', and the suffixed 'o' means 'his'; putting it together this one word 'kenegdo' means 'as his opposite'; the entire phrase literally translates to 'a helper as his opposite' or as in most translations 'a helper suitable for him'
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/29/2008 11:44:11 AM
|
|
|
laura...
Posts: 2911
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: NE Ohio
Status: offline
|
quote:
FYI - The phrase in Ge. is 'ezer kenegdo' 'neged' is the root meaning 'opposite', and the prefix 'ke' means 'as', and the suffixed 'o' means 'his'; putting it together this one word 'kenegdo' means 'as his opposite'; the entire phrase literally translates to 'a helper as his opposite' or as in most translations 'a helper suitable for him'
Thank you. "Neged" was the best the Strongs would give me. I know that Strongs isn't the most complete resource but it was all I have available at the moment and I couldn't remember off the top of my head the exact hebrew phrase.
_____________________________
This is what the Lord says: “Stop at the crossroads and look around. Ask for the old, godly way, and walk in it. Travel its path, and you will find rest for your souls. But you reply, ‘No, that’s not the road we want!’ Jer 6:16
|
|
|
|
|
RE: "Desire" in Genesis 3:16 - 10/29/2008 12:06:22 PM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3571
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: laura...
quote:
FYI - The phrase in Ge. is 'ezer kenegdo' 'neged' is the root meaning 'opposite', and the prefix 'ke' means 'as', and the suffixed 'o' means 'his'; putting it together this one word 'kenegdo' means 'as his opposite'; the entire phrase literally translates to 'a helper as his opposite' or as in most translations 'a helper suitable for him'
Thank you. "Neged" was the best the Strongs would give me. I know that Strongs isn't the most complete resource but it was all I have available at the moment and I couldn't remember off the top of my head the exact hebrew phrase.
Unless you find a commentary that specifically address a phrase it is unlikely that you will do better than Strong's using any available resource accessible to those who don't know Hebrew. Every lexicon lists Hebrew words only by their root; however, they are almost never used that way in the text. All Hebrew words can be (and often are) declined (suffixed) to show possession, prefixed with prepositions like 'in, with, like, to, for, from, etc...' and conjugated to show tense, number, and voice. The most challenging part of learning Hebrew is learning how to recognize the root, so you can find it in a dictionary. Sometimes the root is very difficult to recognize because root letters can be dropped that you must simply memorize it. An extreme example 'NTN' (to give) in the infinitive is LTT, and there is no way you are going to find that in a dictionary unless you have already memorized it. On the other hand 'Kenegdo' (KNGDO) is relatively easy because it retains all of its root letters. 
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
