Woman can't teach in the congregation

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

SaintMichaels

Active member
Jun 6, 2018
156
105
28
Romans 10:4 "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes."
 

joaniemarie

Senior Member
Jan 4, 2017
3,092
160
63
Unfortunately, there are those men in our society that happen on a faith that they believe empowers the male persona exclusively, and as such those type men think that means women are inferior by edict of that religions deity.
They're pathetic.
The first sign in my experience that a man is not in Christ is when that man would state women are not to pray.
I don't know what cult they're a member of. I don't wish to know. However, I do know that by those words, or similar, they are openly stating first and foremost that they are most certainly not in the Christ that was born of a woman that prayed. And was found to be so pure in God's sight that His eternal foreknowledge and wisdom chose her to bear His only begotten son to life.And in this fallen world that was so largely because prayer was rare.

LOL another well written post SaintMichaels. I'm at such a disadvantage since CC has changed it's format. I don't know how to find out who is who here anymore or what country they come from or how old they are or if they are male or female. But thank you for your posts I've enjoyed them very much. I appreciate voices of REASON so much here! There are many Christians who are against voting and being involved with politics even by voting so much so they will accuse those of us who are to be earthly minded. shhheeessshhh.

I believe God is working in the lives of His people but He doesn't force us. We are to be part of His plan in all areas we find ourselves in. (co-laborers) It's not always easy but voting is such a small thing we can do for instance. Being aware of what is going on around us is also important.

There are many people who put man made traditions over God's truth and I was in such a church for many years. We actually believed the interpretation about men being over woman in such a way women could not teach or pray in mixed company. It became a shocking reality to me after having my son and recovering in the hospital. A man from our church was visiting his wife who just had a baby and he treated her so shabbily. He wore his 3 piece suit (the church goers uniform at the time) and his disrespect and lack of concern for his sweet wife clearly showed me what this sort of teaching does to people.
 

SaintMichaels

Active member
Jun 6, 2018
156
105
28
LOL another well written post SaintMichaels. I'm at such a disadvantage since CC has changed it's format. I don't know how to find out who is who here anymore or what country they come from or how old they are or if they are male or female. But thank you for your posts I've enjoyed them very much. I appreciate voices of REASON so much here! There are many Christians who are against voting and being involved with politics even by voting so much so they will accuse those of us who are to be earthly minded. shhheeessshhh.

I believe God is working in the lives of His people but He doesn't force us. We are to be part of His plan in all areas we find ourselves in. (co-laborers) It's not always easy but voting is such a small thing we can do for instance. Being aware of what is going on around us is also important.

There are many people who put man made traditions over God's truth and I was in such a church for many years. We actually believed the interpretation about men being over woman in such a way women could not teach or pray in mixed company. It became a shocking reality to me after having my son and recovering in the hospital. A man from our church was visiting his wife who just had a baby and he treated her so shabbily. He wore his 3 piece suit (the church goers uniform at the time) and his disrespect and lack of concern for his sweet wife clearly showed me what this sort of teaching does to people.
That poor woman. We should hold her in prayer always. And her husband as well that he find his way into a real Biblical church.
I think there is a very distinct example in the world where people in any faith will be discovered to invoke their god or even goddess, as the sustainer of their personal failing prejudices.
That petulant excuse that goes, "it isn't me! It's ________________ word that tells me this", excuse. And so as to invoke separation and division into the whole of the faithful while espousing prejudice as a virtue.

It's a shame. In the case of women pastors especially so. God calls whom he will to his service. God made man and woman in his image and likeness. He made eve from the rib of the first man. Not from the bones in his feet so that she'd be trodden under foot. And not from his skull so that she'd be higher minded. But from the rib, the middle ground, so that they'd be equals side by side.

It is an inconsistency, ascribing the status of omniscient benevolent creator to God, while holding and defending the position that while God used a woman to bring himself to life in this world so as to save the world from sin, He would never use a woman to spread the good news that son died to deliver.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
Totally unlike Paul to refer to a Genesis verse as the law.
Law = 5 books of Moses.

It was a very common division of the Bible (Law, psalms, prophets or Moses, David, prophets) used even by Jesus himself.

So, I am not sure why it should be "totally unlike" that Paul used Gen as "Law".
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
I'm looking at this word occurance in the LXX, and every place it's used (except Genesis 3:16 and 4:7) it means to return or to turn away from. Submission doesn't make sense.
Turn is etymology of the word.

Submission is its translation.

Czech: Představa.

Etymology: před + stavět = to put something before

Translation: "idea, image".

Do not change etymology (your "turnings from will be to your husband) for translation (your submission will be to your husband).
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
I am sorry, I do not see hypotasso in that LXX version of Gen. 3:16. I did find an interesting article, which talks about both the Hebrew and Greek for apostrophé.

"In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament, teshuqah is translated as apostrophē.[15][16] The etymology of apostrophē gives the meaning “a turning away”, but it is has a broader range of meanings, some of which are conflicting.

Liddell, Scott and Jones (LSJ), arguably one of the best lexicons of Ancient Greek, has several definitions for apostrophē. Most don’t fit the context of Genesis 3:16 at all. For definition III, however, the LSJ says that apostrophē is used rhetorically when one turns away from all others to one person and addresses him specifically.[17] This meaning makes good sense in the contexts of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

Since the preposition pros (“towards”) also occurs in Genesis 3:16 (“your turning (apostrophē) will be towards (pros) your husband”), I think the meaning of a woman turning away from others to turn towards, or even long for, her husband may well be what is intended here.[18]

Skip Moen believes that teshuqah may not mean “desire” and he looks to the early Greek, Syriac, and Coptic translations, for insight. He writes,

“But there is another translation stream arising through the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta and Coptic translations. This stream views the rare Hebrew word teshuqah as “turning,” not “lust.” If this stream is correct, then the word in Genesis 3:16 is about Eve’s mistake of “turning” her principle devotion toward Adam rather than God. Eve makes Adam her priority . . . .”[19]

Walter Kaiser likewise states that teshuqah should be understood as “turning”.

The Hebrew word teshuqah, now almost universally translated as ‘desire,’ was previously rendered as ‘turning.’ The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only three times: here in Genesis 3:16, in Genesis 4:7 and in Song of Songs 7:10. Of the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s Greek, Theodotion’s Greek and the Latin Vulgate), almost every one (twenty-one out of twenty-eight times) renders these three instances of teshuqah as “turning,” not “desire.” Likewise, the church fathers (Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, along with Philo, a Jew who died about A.D. 50) seem to be ignorant of any other sense for this word teshuqah than the translation of “turning.” Furthermore, the Latin rendering was conversio and the Greek was apostrophē or epistrophē, words all meaning “a turning”.[20]

https://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/

There is more in this article, well worth reading!

See my response to HeRoseFromTheDead, #245
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
First, if there were a plethora of verses supporting women not being in ministry, and this was just another verse added to those many verses, I think your point on the location of the period would be well taken.

Instead, 1 Cor. 14 is one of the ONLY verses that supports women being silent, a verse that can be easily challenged. Fact, not a lot of verses to go on, saying women can't preach or teach. I've covered most of 1 Tim. 2:12, although not the "teach" part.

Suffice it to say, in a private document, Paul is not telling Timothy privately a universal principle found no where else. He is writing to him about the church in Ephesus, and a situation that has arisen. If the principle that women were not to teach was important, it would be in Romans, and other books. Maybe even Luke would have written about it in Acts.

Instead, we have this letter to Timothy, about "A" woman. And the women is to learn! In fact, this was the exact instructions given to rabbinical students of that day. They were to learn in silence. And that didn't mean silence forever. Basically, till they had the knowledge and information to be teachers! And Paul, far from wanting woman to be barefoot, silent and pregnant, wanted the women to learn in the same manner the rabbinical students learned, which he knew from having been a rabbinical student, and most Jews of the day understood, because there were quite a few rabbinical students.

Further, with regards to context, Corinthians was one of FOUR letters Paul wrote in a correspondence with that church. So, he dealt with sexual immorality, and what to do about it, he dealt with wrong use of the gifts, how to to order the Church, and that women should be praying (out loud) and prophecying (also out loud). So, 1 Cor. 14 seems to be in direct conflict with what Paul just said a few chapters earlier.

Because God is not the author of confusion, we can be certain that Paul did not contradict himself. In fact, we are listening in on an ongoing conversation between the Corinthian church and Paul. I am certain he is quoting a letter from the church, with irony, because the Law simply never says women should be silent in church. To pretend there is a lost law in the OT saying this, is to say that God was not able to preserve his Word. That is blasphemy, in my opinion!

If you can't figure out what Paul is talking about, best not to use it as a proof text. But, the case against women in ministry, is so feeble, that people like you are grasping at straws, like a lost Law forbidding women to speak in church. As I said, modern Jewish women openly converse in the synagogue, to the point of distraction.

Further, using Genesis 3 to prove women should be submissive to all men, is totally wrong. First, it was a statement of the consequences of their sin - both men and women. This sin, called THE FALL, is NOT God's best plan for humanity. Jesus came to redeem us from the consequences of the law, not to keep women in some kind of subservient "role" (a word that never appears in the Bible!) for all eternity.

That is why Paul celebrates women, commends them as deacons, apostles and teachers. And says, there is no male or female, in Gal. 3:28! Of course, there are differences physically between men and women. And women certainly were treated badly for millennia by men - and I am not just talking Christian men. Eve was called an ezer or warrior, before the Fall. That is a term in Hebrew reserved for God, helping Israel, and military allies. No "help meet" there!
Give me one verse in the NT saying that women should teach men or to lead them or to rule them.

If there is none, there is no basis for your view. You are just trying to refute 3 or 4 verses saying the opposite, but what verses are actually saying what you believe?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
The submission is mutual, as one submits to another in love the other does the same. It's like the father and Son working together to form a government . If two or three gather together Christ is there.

In order to create a government two or more are needed. The father "ruling over" being in a greater position not a better person. Just as husband and wife.
It is not mutual. You are mixing different verses into one.

Children are submitted to parents. Its not mutual.

Women are submitted to their husbands. Its not mutual.

Verse "submit yourself to another in love" is between members in churches, in their common life. Instead of arguing and fighting.

---

Also, the Son is submitted to Father. Its not mutual.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
To translate Gen 3:16 as "your turnings from will be to your husband" is a machine style of translation, this is how google would translate it.

Humans are translating contextual meanings.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
I'm looking at this word occurance in the LXX, and every place it's used (except Genesis 3:16 and 4:7) it means to return or to turn away from. Submission doesn't make sense.
Thats not true, btw.

Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it?
Be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.

Gen 4:7

I am not sure what sense would "turn" make. "To thee shall be his turn and you shall rule over him" - a machine´s style of translation.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
9,963
791
113
Turn is etymology of the word.

Submission is its translation.

Czech: Představa.

Etymology: před + stavět = to put something before

Translation: "idea, image".

Do not change etymology (your "turnings from will be to your husband) for translation (your submission will be to your husband).
Submission is so totally wrong it is ridiculous. Since you elected not to go to the article I posted, which says it better than I can, I will post the whole article.

"
TESHUQAH: A RARE WORD
Several words that are crucial in understanding what the Bible shows us about the relationship between men and women are rare and somewhat obscure in their original languages. I’ve previously written about the Hebrew word kenegdo which occurs only twice in the Old Testament (in Genesis 2:18 and 20). And I’ve looked at the Greek word authentein which occurs only once in the New Testament (in 1 Timothy 2:12). In this post I look at the Hebrew word teshuqah in Genesis 3:16. This word also occurs in Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. Three times in all.

In Genesis 3:16 God says to the woman:

“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire (teshuqah) will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” NASB

Until Susan Foh wrote her 1974-5 paper What is a Woman’s Desire?, many Bible translators were content to understand teshuqahas simply meaning “desire” and “longing”.[1] A few English translations such as the NLT and NET, however, show the influence of Foh’s paper. They have translated teshuqah as “desire to control” and “want to control” in Genesis 3:16. Is “a desire to control” what the original authors meant in Genesis and in Song of Solomon?

TESHUQAH IN HEBREW LEXICONS
In the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) it says that teshuqah means “longing”: a longing of woman for man in Genesis 3:16; a longing of man for woman in Song of Solomon 7:11;[2] and, figuratively, a longing of a beast (representing sin) to devour Cain in Genesis 4:7.[3] Furthermore, BDB claims that teshuqah is derived from a stem shuq which means “attract, impel, of desire, affection”.[4]

Gesenius likewise states that teshuqah is derived from the stem shuq which has the meanings “to run after, to desire, to long for anything; whence תְּשׁוּקָה [teshuqah means] desire, longing.”[5] Other lexicons, such as HALOT, also define teshuqah as “desire, longing.” None of these lexicons, however, connect teshuqah with a desire to control.



Screenshot of the second meaning of shuq with teshuqah (in Hebrew letters)
As it appears in Gesenius’ lexicon.

Teshuqah may simply mean “desire”. If so, it is the context which supplies what kind of desire is being spoken of.[6]

TESHUQAH AND THE CONTEXT OF GENESIS 3:16
There have been several ways of understanding what “desire” means in the context of Genesis 3:16. Here are four of the more common interpretations.

1. A woman will desire a husband and marriage despite the pain that comes with having children.

When God speaks to the woman in Genesis 3:16, he begins by telling her that having children will be a painful experience. It is immediately after God gives this information that he says, “your desire will be for your husband . . .” So perhaps we are meant to understand that even though childbirth and child rearing will involve pain and sorrow, a woman will still desire to be married and have a family. (In the days before contraceptives, the primary reason for marriage in practically all cultures was to raise a family.) The use of the word “yet” in the NRSV and NASB indicates that this may be the preferred interpretation of the NRSV and NASB translators: “. . . in pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband . . .” (NASB, italics added)

2. A woman will desire marriage and sex despite this intimacy being marred by her husband’s rule.

Instead of looking at the preceding phrases, perhaps we are meant to look at the last phrase of Genesis 3:16 (“he will rule over her”) to give us the context of teshuqah. If so, then the meaning is that a woman will desire to be married, and have a longing for her husband, even though the intimacy and joy of marriage will be marred by her husband’s rule. The use of the word “but” in the CEB translation indicates that this may be their preferred interpretation: “You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you.” (Italics added)

Some have understood the woman’s desire to be sexual lust, rather than simply a longing for, or a longing towards, a husband. Keil and Delitzsch include an overstatement in their commentary on Genesis 3:16 describing the woman’s teshuqah as an almost manic desire: “she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תּשׁוּקה from שׁוּק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing).”[7]

3. A wife’s own desires are submitted to her husband.

Another interpretation found in quite a few older commentaries is that a woman’s own desires, or the determination of her own will,[8] will be submitted and referred to her husband, and he will grant or deny her desires as he sees fit.[9] This disturbing interpretation, and variations on it, seem to have been popular in the last several centuries.[10]

4. A wife will desire to control her husband.

Foh’s interpretation, adopted by some, is that a women will desire to control her husband,[11] but, despite this desire, her husband will rule her. Foh bases her interpretation on a comparison of Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7 where the keywords teshuqah and mashal (“rule”) also occur. However, there are some significant differences between Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

In Genesis 4:7, sin is unmistakably depicted as Cain’s adversary, crouching at the door; and Cain is told that he must master sin and that this is the right thing to do. Foh believes Eve is similarly presented in Genesis 3:16 as Adam’s adversary, but this is not explicit in the text.[12]

Furthermore, while Cain is directly told by God to master or rule sin, Adam is nowhere told by God to master or rule Eve. In fact, God never tells men to rule women. The “rule” spoken of in Genesis 3:16 is a consequence of sin. It is not divinely commanded, as in 4:7, and it does not refer to a beneficial rule.[13] The contexts of 3:16 and 4:7 are different, even though they share two keywords.[14]

Update: the meaning of “single-minded devotion” is given in this more recent article.

CONTINUED BELOW
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
9,963
791
113
EARLY TRANSLATIONS OF TESHUQAH
In Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament, teshuqah is translated as apostrophē.[15][16] The etymology of apostrophē gives the meaning “a turning away”, but it is has a broader range of meanings, some of which are conflicting.

Liddell, Scott and Jones (LSJ), arguably one of the best lexicons of Ancient Greek, has several definitions for apostrophē. Most don’t fit the context of Genesis 3:16 at all. For definition III, however, the LSJ says that apostrophē is used rhetorically when one turns away from all others to one person and addresses him specifically.[17] This meaning makes good sense in the contexts of Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

Since the preposition pros (“towards”) also occurs in Genesis 3:16 (“your turning (apostrophē) will be towards (pros) your husband”), I think the meaning of a woman turning away from others to turn towards, or even long for, her husband may well be what is intended here.[18]

Skip Moen believes that teshuqah may not mean “desire” and he looks to the early Greek, Syriac, and Coptic translations, for insight. He writes,

“But there is another translation stream arising through the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta and Coptic translations. This stream views the rare Hebrew word teshuqah as “turning,” not “lust.” If this stream is correct, then the word in Genesis 3:16 is about Eve’s mistake of “turning” her principle devotion toward Adam rather than God. Eve makes Adam her priority . . . .”[19]

Walter Kaiser likewise states that teshuqah should be understood as “turning”.

The Hebrew word teshuqah, now almost universally translated as ‘desire,’ was previously rendered as ‘turning.’ The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only three times: here in Genesis 3:16, in Genesis 4:7 and in Song of Songs 7:10. Of the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s Greek, Theodotion’s Greek and the Latin Vulgate), almost every one (twenty-one out of twenty-eight times) renders these three instances of teshuqah as “turning,” not “desire.” Likewise, the church fathers (Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, along with Philo, a Jew who died about A.D. 50) seem to be ignorant of any other sense for this word teshuqah than the translation of “turning.” Furthermore, the Latin rendering was conversio and the Greek was apostrophē or epistrophē, words all meaning “a turning”.[20]

While Susan Foh, and a few others, see a power struggle implied in Genesis 3:16b, women turning towards their husbands, rather than having a desire to control them, fits better with what we see in the world at large.

CONCLUSION
There is ample evidence that, due to the prevalence of patriarchy, men have ruled their wives. God’s prophetic description that “he will rule over you” has been played out in countless marriages across millennia across the globe. Over the centuries, many Christians have even assumed that Genesis 3:16 gave men permission to rule and control their wives, but there is no divine mandate here.

Is there widespread evidence that women have typically desired to control their husbands, even if this desire has been thwarted by male rule? If there is, I haven’t seen it.

The precise meaning of teshuqah is not certain. It may mean “desire”. It may mean “turning”. But context, as well as the evidence from history and the present day, seems to rule out that it means “a desire to control”. Whatever its meaning, the mutuality and unity between the first couple was spoiled by sin. Yet this is not the end of the story. Thankfully, Jesus came to deal with sin, and our relationships today can potentially be as mutual and harmonious as it was in Eden before the Fall (Gen. 2:21-25). Restored relationships between men and women is part of the good news of Jesus.


https://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/


Simply NO word submission at all! This is making up stuff to fit your theology! You cite the Czech, but miss the Greek and Hebrew. And all the research that has been done on this topic. If you won't read and study, and instead just make up stuff, there is no point in continuing this conversation!
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
Submission is so totally wrong it is ridiculous. Since you elected not to go to the article I posted, which says it better than I can, I will post the whole article.

"
TESHUQAH: A RARE WORD
Several words that are crucial in understanding what the Bible shows us about the relationship between men and women are rare and somewhat obscure in their original languages. I’ve previously written about the Hebrew word kenegdo which occurs only twice in the Old Testament (in Genesis 2:18 and 20). And I’ve looked at the Greek word authentein which occurs only once in the New Testament (in 1 Timothy 2:12). In this post I look at the Hebrew word teshuqah in Genesis 3:16. This word also occurs in Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10. Three times in all.

In Genesis 3:16 God says to the woman:

“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire (teshuqah) will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.” NASB

Until Susan Foh wrote her 1974-5 paper What is a Woman’s Desire?, many Bible translators were content to understand teshuqahas simply meaning “desire” and “longing”.[1] A few English translations such as the NLT and NET, however, show the influence of Foh’s paper. They have translated teshuqah as “desire to control” and “want to control” in Genesis 3:16. Is “a desire to control” what the original authors meant in Genesis and in Song of Solomon?

TESHUQAH IN HEBREW LEXICONS
In the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) it says that teshuqah means “longing”: a longing of woman for man in Genesis 3:16; a longing of man for woman in Song of Solomon 7:11;[2] and, figuratively, a longing of a beast (representing sin) to devour Cain in Genesis 4:7.[3] Furthermore, BDB claims that teshuqah is derived from a stem shuq which means “attract, impel, of desire, affection”.[4]

Gesenius likewise states that teshuqah is derived from the stem shuq which has the meanings “to run after, to desire, to long for anything; whence תְּשׁוּקָה [teshuqah means] desire, longing.”[5] Other lexicons, such as HALOT, also define teshuqah as “desire, longing.” None of these lexicons, however, connect teshuqah with a desire to control.



Screenshot of the second meaning of shuq with teshuqah (in Hebrew letters)
As it appears in Gesenius’ lexicon.

Teshuqah may simply mean “desire”. If so, it is the context which supplies what kind of desire is being spoken of.[6]

TESHUQAH AND THE CONTEXT OF GENESIS 3:16
There have been several ways of understanding what “desire” means in the context of Genesis 3:16. Here are four of the more common interpretations.

1. A woman will desire a husband and marriage despite the pain that comes with having children.

When God speaks to the woman in Genesis 3:16, he begins by telling her that having children will be a painful experience. It is immediately after God gives this information that he says, “your desire will be for your husband . . .” So perhaps we are meant to understand that even though childbirth and child rearing will involve pain and sorrow, a woman will still desire to be married and have a family. (In the days before contraceptives, the primary reason for marriage in practically all cultures was to raise a family.) The use of the word “yet” in the NRSV and NASB indicates that this may be the preferred interpretation of the NRSV and NASB translators: “. . . in pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband . . .” (NASB, italics added)

2. A woman will desire marriage and sex despite this intimacy being marred by her husband’s rule.

Instead of looking at the preceding phrases, perhaps we are meant to look at the last phrase of Genesis 3:16 (“he will rule over her”) to give us the context of teshuqah. If so, then the meaning is that a woman will desire to be married, and have a longing for her husband, even though the intimacy and joy of marriage will be marred by her husband’s rule. The use of the word “but” in the CEB translation indicates that this may be their preferred interpretation: “You will desire your husband, but he will rule over you.” (Italics added)

Some have understood the woman’s desire to be sexual lust, rather than simply a longing for, or a longing towards, a husband. Keil and Delitzsch include an overstatement in their commentary on Genesis 3:16 describing the woman’s teshuqah as an almost manic desire: “she was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תּשׁוּקה from שׁוּק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing).”[7]

3. A wife’s own desires are submitted to her husband.

Another interpretation found in quite a few older commentaries is that a woman’s own desires, or the determination of her own will,[8] will be submitted and referred to her husband, and he will grant or deny her desires as he sees fit.[9] This disturbing interpretation, and variations on it, seem to have been popular in the last several centuries.[10]

4. A wife will desire to control her husband.

Foh’s interpretation, adopted by some, is that a women will desire to control her husband,[11] but, despite this desire, her husband will rule her. Foh bases her interpretation on a comparison of Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7 where the keywords teshuqah and mashal (“rule”) also occur. However, there are some significant differences between Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

In Genesis 4:7, sin is unmistakably depicted as Cain’s adversary, crouching at the door; and Cain is told that he must master sin and that this is the right thing to do. Foh believes Eve is similarly presented in Genesis 3:16 as Adam’s adversary, but this is not explicit in the text.[12]

Furthermore, while Cain is directly told by God to master or rule sin, Adam is nowhere told by God to master or rule Eve. In fact, God never tells men to rule women. The “rule” spoken of in Genesis 3:16 is a consequence of sin. It is not divinely commanded, as in 4:7, and it does not refer to a beneficial rule.[13] The contexts of 3:16 and 4:7 are different, even though they share two keywords.[14]

Update: the meaning of “single-minded devotion” is given in this more recent article.

CONTINUED BELOW
I read the article (full) and also like 5 others on the topic.

Also, I do not care much about Hebrew teshuaqah, I use Septuagint.

Septuagint has "apostrophé" and it means submission as translated to English. Yes, technically, it means "turning from". But thats not a translation.

"Your turning from will be to your husband" means nothing. Its a google translate´ style of translation.
 

SaintMichaels

Active member
Jun 6, 2018
156
105
28
I read the article (full) and also like 5 others on the topic.

Also, I do not care much about Hebrew teshuaqah, I use Septuagint.

Septuagint has "apostrophé" and it means submission as translated to English. Yes, technically, it means "turning from". But thats not a translation.

"Your turning from will be to your husband" means nothing. Its a google translate´ style of translation.
My, how hard you work to disparage God's wisdom and women.
I mean this with all sincerity. I pray you are single.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
My, how hard you work to disparage God's wisdom and women.
I mean this with all sincerity. I pray you are single.
What a great argument for a good conversation.

Vulgate (English translation) has:
"and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. "

Septuagint (English translation) has:
"and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

But you, in the 21st century, finally got the right meaning and pray for me to be single, because I stick to the classic one. OK.
 

SaintMichaels

Active member
Jun 6, 2018
156
105
28
What a great argument for a good conversation.

Vulgate (English translation) has:
"and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee. "

Septuagint (English translation) has:
"and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

But you, in the 21st century, finally got the right meaning and pray for me to be single, because I stick to the classic one. OK.
No, let me correct your error and presumption.
I don't pray that you're single for the reasons you've imagined and written there.

I pray that you're single because your personal view point contradicts the words of God and in turn espouses separation and sexual discrimination. Which are sins, not virtues. Which is why I would feel for any woman that would have to live with someone who see's them as a lesser figure because they are created by God to be female. That sex that God made so as to insure the human race continues to be born into this world he oversees to the most minute detail.
Women's bodies grow babies by God's design. There is nothing less than about that. There is nothing weak about that. There is nothing lesser empowered about that.
Weak men are afraid of strong women. And mores the pity when such ones as that create God's word in their own image and likeness in order to argue God made women to be doormats. Women are called to preach. The Bible tells us this and even shares their names. That "preach" isn't in those scripture wording, or "minister" , or "pastor", is irrelevant. Taking verses out of context and giving them meaning preferred by those who disparage women and their power is a great lesson to witness. Because such ones that are guilty of that missed that other scripture they may wish to pay attention to while still in the flesh. Those words of God that tell them, those who falsify his truth will answer for it. And it shall not be fun.



Can Christian Woman Be Pastors and Preachers?
By Em70 on Saturday, May 12, 2018
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
No, let me correct your error and presumption.
I don't pray that you're single for the reasons you've imagined and written there.

I pray that you're single because your personal view point contradicts the words of God and in turn espouses separation and sexual discrimination. Which are sins, not virtues. Which is why I would feel for any woman that would have to live with someone who see's them as a lesser figure because they are created by God to be female. That sex that God made so as to insure the human race continues to be born into this world he oversees to the most minute detail.
Women's bodies grow babies by God's design. There is nothing less than about that. There is nothing weak about that. There is nothing lesser empowered about that.
Weak men are afraid of strong women. And mores the pity when such ones as that create God's word in their own image and likeness in order to argue God made women to be doormats. Women are called to preach. The Bible tells us this and even shares their names. That "preach" isn't in those scripture wording, or "minister" , or "pastor", is irrelevant. Taking verses out of context and giving them meaning preferred by those who disparage women and their power is a great lesson to witness. Because such ones that are guilty of that missed that other scripture they may wish to pay attention to while still in the flesh. Those words of God that tell them, those who falsify his truth will answer for it. And it shall not be fun.



Can Christian Woman Be Pastors and Preachers?
By Em70 on Saturday, May 12, 2018
Women´s bodies grow babies... Weak men are afraid of strong women...

And what about the Bible? We will ignore what it says just because you have these "arguments"? Not a wise stance.
 
Jun 10, 2018
44
19
8
My, how hard you work to disparage God's wisdom and women.
I mean this with all sincerity. I pray you are single.
I pray that also as a woman. There's always trolling in Christian forums by those who don't respect our faith. How many threads are needed on this one topic that invites the same false argument that women aren't able to preach?
Trolls rarely do the research necessary to at least make a good show of faking their having a right to be involved in a community. Their goal is to start trouble and sit back and enjoy watching how people react to that.

Meanwhile, Acts 2 tells us of Pentecost. When the Holy Spirit descended on all people in the upper room. That would include the women there. And then those gathered began speaking in languages otherwise unknown to them prior. And this a gift of God so that those who received this gift could then go forth and fulfill the Great Commission of spreading the Gospel to all people. And in their native tongue.
Women were in that number gathered.

Ignore the Trolls. They're not of God. They're trouble makers who need God.
Are you into anagrams? I am. I also like puzzles. Always have.
Ever notice how easily Tourism, as in Trolling through and visiting Christian sites, can so easily be jumbled into a screen name used on Christian forums by Trolls?
:LOL:Keep speaking truth Brother! That there is one female pastor in the world is proof all the naysayers don't know what they're talking about. Especially when they think to talk us out of believing God's will and word that calls women to minister the truth of God in Christ Jesus! I mean, how stupid, right? Jesus came to die so that all who believed would be saved. Oh, but now listen, if a woman tells you that from the pulpit of a church, leave! Because she's not meant to do that.
God knows that's dumb. And not a word of scripture proves it is true.

Seriously, there needs to be more Bibles put under bridges. Someone should contact the Gideon's.
 

Ugly

Senior Member
Apr 19, 2011
20,848
820
113
I pray that also as a woman. There's always trolling in Christian forums by those who don't respect our faith. How many threads are needed on this one topic that invites the same false argument that women aren't able to preach?
Trolls rarely do the research necessary to at least make a good show of faking their having a right to be involved in a community. Their goal is to start trouble and sit back and enjoy watching how people react to that.

Meanwhile, Acts 2 tells us of Pentecost. When the Holy Spirit descended on all people in the upper room. That would include the women there. And then those gathered began speaking in languages otherwise unknown to them prior. And this a gift of God so that those who received this gift could then go forth and fulfill the Great Commission of spreading the Gospel to all people. And in their native tongue.
Women were in that number gathered.

Ignore the Trolls. They're not of God. They're trouble makers who need God.
Are you into anagrams? I am. I also like puzzles. Always have.
Ever notice how easily Tourism, as in Trolling through and visiting Christian sites, can so easily be jumbled into a screen name used on Christian forums by Trolls?
:LOL:Keep speaking truth Brother! That there is one female pastor in the world is proof all the naysayers don't know what they're talking about. Especially when they think to talk us out of believing God's will and word that calls women to minister the truth of God in Christ Jesus! I mean, how stupid, right? Jesus came to die so that all who believed would be saved. Oh, but now listen, if a woman tells you that from the pulpit of a church, leave! Because she's not meant to do that.
God knows that's dumb. And not a word of scripture proves it is true.

Seriously, there needs to be more Bibles put under bridges. Someone should contact the Gideon's.
I'd encourage you to learn more about the site before labeling 'trolls'. You are in the BDF (Bible Discussion Forums). It is made up of a bunch of self righteous, overly opinionated religious nuts that spend all day doing nothing but arguing the same topics over and over while criticizing others for their 'unbiblical' belief. /cough
There is nothing 'troll' about it, this is simply the way the BDF has functioned for years.
 
Jun 10, 2018
44
19
8
I'd encourage you to learn more about the site before labeling 'trolls'. You are in the BDF (Bible Discussion Forums). It is made up of a bunch of self righteous, overly opinionated religious nuts that spend all day doing nothing but arguing the same topics over and over while criticizing others for their 'unbiblical' belief. /cough
There is nothing 'troll' about it, this is simply the way the BDF has functioned for years.
I think the mistake any Christian forum makes is to allow unbelievers full access to the entire forum. There should be a board expressly for that type person. That way they are able to seek if sincere, and be limited to causing trouble when they're not.

I don't really think your words are encouraging in the least. The way you label people here and then claim there are no Trolls and then claim that is the way this site has operated for years, is not encouraging at all. It is more like a warning.
There are scriptures that tell Christians how we're to speak and especially when sharing scripture or discussing it within the body.

Calling yourself Ugly, using Ugly as a screen name, is not a label that imparts a positive self image. I'd encourage you to refrain from calling people names as you impart there is no trolling behavior here.