The Effect of Eve's Sin on Women

[Dino246]

Allegory aside, Paul still referred to what was written in the book of Genesis as the law. This is indisputable.

What about what Jesus said here?

Mar 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mar 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mar 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mar 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mar 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mar 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. He initially responded by asking his questioners what Moses commanded them. They, in turn, quoted what Moses had written in the 24th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, but this was not the answer that Jesus was looking for. He, while answering the question of whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, quoted what Moses had written in Genesis 2:24. In other words, he regarded what Moses had written there as being part of the law or as being a command in relation to whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.

Psst: A quotation from Jesus doesn't prove your point about Paul.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Allegory aside, Paul still referred to what was written in the book of Genesis as the law. This is indisputable.

What about what Jesus said here?

Mar 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mar 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mar 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mar 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mar 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mar 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. He initially responded by asking his questioners what Moses commanded them. They, in turn, quoted what Moses had written in the 24th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, but this was not the answer that Jesus was looking for. He, while answering the question of whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, quoted what Moses had written in Genesis 2:24. In other words, he regarded what Moses had written there as being part of the law or as being a command in relation to whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.

It wasn't a command or a law in Genesis to not divorce. Jesus was simply telling them not to destroy something God created because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus actually sanctioned divorce in the case of adultery

 

[keepingthingsreal]

I disagree strongly with your assessment and your reasons. In short, your argument is circular.

Nothing in the Law says that women are to be silent, so either Paul didn't write those words (he probably was responding to a quoted question) or he didn't know the Law. The second is completely incompatible with the wealth of knowledge he displays in his letters, so that leaves the first option. Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.

A more coherent interpretation of Gen. 3:16 doesn't assume the presence of the words "to rule over". Adam was never given authority over Eve, so there was no authority for her to "usurp".

So that just leaves the first option? Says who? You?

Like it or not, Paul alluded to something in the law which commands wives to be under obedience to their own husbands, so what portion of scripture from the law was he referring to?

Also, your claim about there being no authority to usurp is totally unbiblical. There are numerous passages in the New Testament which refute your view.

I should end this post by asking those who are reading my comments not to assume what I believe these passages mean because they will more than likely come up with a completely inaccurate view of my actual beliefs.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Psst: A quotation from Jesus doesn't prove your point about Paul.

I was not trying to prove my point about Paul by quoting Jesus. I already proved my point about Paul by quoting Paul.

Tell me, did both Paul and Jesus refer to the book of Genesis as being part of the law or not?

 

[keepingthingsreal]

It wasn't a command or a law in Genesis to not divorce. Jesus was simply telling them not to destroy something God created because of the hardness of their hearts. Jesus actually sanctioned divorce in the case of adultery

I never said that Jesus did not sanction divorce under certain circumstances. Instead, I quoted that conversation to show that Jesus considered the book of Genesis to be a part of the law. Are you willing to admit the same?

 

[Dino246]

So that just leaves the first option? Says who? You?

Methinks you didn't read my post carefully.

Like it or not, Paul alluded to something in the law which commands wives to be under obedience to their own husbands, so what portion of scripture from the law was he referring to?

Ditto the above comment.

Also, your claim about there being no authority to usurp is totally unbiblical. There are numerous passages in the New Testament which refute your view.

Ditto the above comment, and you're engaging in circular reasoning.

I should end this post by asking those who are reading my comments not to assume what I believe these passages mean because they will more than likely come up with a completely inaccurate view of my actual beliefs.

I can only go by what you wrote. If what you wrote doesn't represent what you believe, that's on you, not on me.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Methinks you didn't read my post carefully.


Ditto the above comment.


Ditto the above comment, and you're engaging in circular reasoning.


I can only go by what you wrote. If what you wrote doesn't represent what you believe, that's on you, not on me.

So, a bunch of non-responses?

That is what I thought.

Welcome to ignore.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I never said that Jesus did not sanction divorce under certain circumstances. Instead, I quoted that conversation to show that Jesus considered the book of Genesis to be a part of the law. Are you willing to admit the same?

What law? The law of Moses? No. The first 5 books of the bible that were possibly referred to colloquially as the law, ie, the law and the prophets? Yes.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Like it or not, Paul alluded to something in the law which commands wives to be under obedience to their own husbands, so what portion of scripture from the law was he referring to?

IMO you need to carefully consider the possibility that Paul didn't write those verses, so the mention therein of the law is irrelevant

 

[Dino246]

So, a bunch of non-responses?

That is what I thought.

Welcome to ignore.

This is the kind of snowflake behaviour that makes this board so interesting. The guy doesn't like one post, so he puts me on Ignore.

Oh well, now I can refute his folly without his interference.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

After Adam and Eve sinned and God handed out His sentence to the serpent and its seed, and before He sentenced Adam and males, He told Eve that the sentence for her and females was that their desire would be for their husband who would rule over them. Here is the verse:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16).

A woman's desire being for her husband (for men) doesn't sound like a bad thing unless you acknowledge that that was said in the context of sentencing one to a curse. There are translations that do a better job of showing why that desire is actually a curse, but I still don't understand the whole verse (I mean, God said He would multiply woman's sorrow and conception; we know what pain in childbirth means, but what does pain in conception mean?).

As far as the original KJV, God told Eve at least five different things there in the context of a curse:

1. Her sorrow would be greatly multiplied (what sorrow).

2. Her conception would also be greatly multiplied.

3. Her childbearing (possibly before, during, and after) would be painful.

4. Her life would revolve around and be lived for [a man/men].

5. Her life and reality would be subject to [a man/men].

I was one of the few high schoolers who enjoyed history class. I like to know what happened in the past especially as it affects the present. So, I tend to follow things back to their past so I can make sense of them in the present. And so I wonder what the curse on Eve means because it is the origin of many of the things about women today that most men don't understand or can't make peace with. Actually, if there is anything right now that makes me feel a genuine need to truly pursue and lay hold of God to make sense of a lot of things, it is the effects the Fall has had on women. ('Lay hold of God' doesn't mean 'spending time with God' or Bible reading and prayer but an actual 'face to face' or continuing type of conversation.)

Anyone with more of an explanation of Gen. 3:16 feel free to share. When I read that verse, just like when I read the first three chapters of Genesis and as with much of the Bible, I know there is a lot more going on there than is written on the surface. Besides, the things or aftershocks I can clearly see in the present require that there is a lot more being said in Gen. 3:16 than what is written on the surface.

I disagree strongly with your assessment and your reasons. In short, your argument is circular.

Nothing in the Law says that women are to be silent, so either Paul didn't write those words (he probably was responding to a quoted question) or he didn't know the Law. The second is completely incompatible with the wealth of knowledge he displays in his letters, so that leaves the first option. Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.

A more coherent interpretation of Gen. 3:16 doesn't assume the presence of the words "to rule over". Adam was never given authority over Eve, so there was no authority for her to "usurp".

That’s the moment that caused this

Paul definately knew the law and he definately wrote those words .

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.”

He’s definately talking about Adam and Eve in genesis three

definately he knew the law he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin and claims to be faultless according to the law.

Paul is using that story in Genesis as an allegory of the law, so I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion that anything in Genesis is the law

Genesis is written by Moses when God told him the creation story on Mount Sinai over fourty days

 

[Pilgrimshope]

IMO you need to carefully consider the possibility that Paul didn't write those verses, so the mention therein of the law is irrelevant

Why should we wonder of just those verses are from Paul ?

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That seems a pretty precarious position to remove verses as of they aren’t genuine because we don’t agree

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Genesis is written by Moses when God told him the creation story on Mount Sinai over fourty days

That's possible, but none of the book of genesis is law in the sense that we are used to, ie, commandments

 

[Dino246]

That’s the moment that caused this

Paul definately knew the law and he definately wrote those words .

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.”

He’s definately talking about Adam and Eve in genesis three

definately he knew the law he was a Jew of the tribe of Benjamin and claims to be faultless according to the law.





Genesis is written by Moses when God told him the creation story on Mount Sinai over fourty days

It's not entirely clear what you're saying because your quotations were messed up. Generally though, you haven't made an argument just by saying, "Paul definately (sic) wrote those words."

Firstly, the word is "definitely"; the root word is "finite" as in "limited". Secondly, without evidence, you have presented an opinion.

 

[Dino246]

Why should we wonder of just those verses are from Paul ?

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That seems a pretty precarious position to remove verses as of they aren’t genuine because we don’t agree

I don't "remove" them because I don't agree; I consider them spurious because they are incoherent.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Why should we wonder of just those verses are from Paul ?

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;”
‭‭1 Timothy‬ ‭1:1‬ ‭KJV‬‬

That seems a pretty precarious position to remove verses as of they aren’t genuine because we don’t agree

The history of biblical criticism is pretty remarkable. You wouldn't have a bible apart from it. The evidence has become compelling that those two verses are not original. Take it or leave it.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

What law? The law of Moses? No. The first 5 books of the bible that were possibly referred to colloquially as the law, ie, the law and the prophets? Yes.

In case you are unaware, more than just the first 5 books of the Bible are referred to as being the law in scripture. Here are a couple of examples.

Jhn 15:25
But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Jesus' quote from their law is found in both Psalm 35:19 and Psalm 69:4.

1Co 14:21
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Paul's reference to the law can be found in Isaiah 28:11-12.

We have veered a bit off topic here because you sought to invalidate Paul's reference to Genesis 3:16 by wrongly stating that Genesis is not the law. Granted, I understand that the formal Mosaic law was given at Mt. Sinai, but both Jesus and Paul referred to the law in a broader sense as I have already shown.

 

[Aaron56]

Within one generation, murder (fratricide) entered the world. Cain killed Abel. By extension, Cain eliminated an entire line of people that could have come from "righteous Abel".

 

[keepingthingsreal]

That's possible, but none of the book of genesis is law in the sense that we are used to, ie, commandments

I have already shown you that Jesus considered what Moses wrote in Genesis 2:24 to be a command. I am not seeking to be contentious or to win an argument here. I am merely trying to give honest parameters by which we can properly determine biblical truth.

 

[Pilgrimshope]

That's possible, but none of the book of genesis is law in the sense that we are used to, ie, commandments

“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭4:21-22‬ ‭KJV‬‬

remember when God gave Adam a covenant in genesis and then later in chapter 2 he gave him a single commandment ? That was the law for Adam

a then remember when Gid made a covenant with Noah and his soms after the floods and he set the terms and conditions for instance he instituted that if anyone “kills a man they will be killed by man “

but before in the prior covenant cain killed abel and was only exiled not killed .

What im getting at is the Bible is a series of covenants made by God with mankind Adam and Eve then they broke tbier covenant led the world into sin and death and god ended thier covenant and made a new one with Noah then later he made two with Abram/ Abraham both for a single nation with twelve tribes and for all the people and nations of earth

then one of those covenants came to the children of Israel abrams descendants and they received the law of Moses to govern over thoer covenant. Like Gods command governed over adams and then Noah’s the law of Moses would govern the children of Israel’s covenant

We eventually get to Jesus and the covenant he made with all people and his words are now the law , as Moses words were on the Old Testament , as Gods were in the prior covenants made with man

My point is “the law “ isn’t always referring to Moses law for Israel the law often is referring to whatever commandment God has currently given the people in whatever covenant they live under

i think the issue here is that Paul sometimes in his letters says “ this is what I’m saying Thisnos my judgement about the matter “ other times he says “ this is Gods word about the matter not my word “