I love all that you added about the authority here. I agree with you that contextually it makes a lot more sense for the man to refer to the Seed. It's interesting to me that it's so heavily argued that because the possessive typically indicates a spouse, it *must* be a spouse...and yet the conventional interpretations all require that we twist ourselves into pretzels *importing* additional phrases or ideas that aren't present in the text at all.
I do not think there are any in the OT. However, context is king. Just because there aren't any examples in the OT does not therefore dictate that it should not be translated this way. The context and consistency of the passage is what determines meaning.
Jeremiah 10:3-6 [3]For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. [4]They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. [5]They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good. [6]Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
@@lapantera8 They do but I think there is a big difference between misinterpreting and trying to twist Scripture for one's own desires. This is an honest attempt at trying to show what the scriptures are teaching.
Genesis 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. (Part of the curse on the woman wasn’t only pain in childbirth, but the multiplication of the woman’s conception. This is speaking of the number of times she would bear children. The man ruling over his wife was also part of the curse. Christ removed all of the curses by becoming a curse Himself (Galatians 3:13) so that we don’t have to live under these curses anymore. There is still a headship of the husband in marriage (1 Corinthians 11:3), but we are now heirs together of life (1 Peter 3:7). We are to submit one to another in the fear of God (Ephesians 5:21)
Your desire will be for the child, which is masculine in thought form! The woman is the Mara! The material world! The thoughts will rule over the material world! This is why your thoughts are so very powerful!…GenXAbovetruth ♒️👽
Oh, when you explained this a bit the other night I thought you meant that the 'he' in verse 16 is the serpent, not the children. Reading this as a prophesy rather than an etiology seems to be a bit of a stretch, to me. Toward the end you're definitely reading Christian theology back into the text in an anachronistic sort of way. Pretty interesting though! Are there other places in the Hebrew where "your ish" or "her ish" is referring to a woman's child rather than her husband?
Thanks for the comment. So I think that the evidence of this is in Genesis. I also think that it is interesting that people believe this is supposed to be focused on etiology. I do not see any reason for that assumption. The focus is on the dominion over the earth and who will rule. The rule begins with Adam then to the Serpent and then to the promised seed. I would argue that this is not anachronistic but quite the opposite. I'm claiming that this is what Adam and Eve thought was being said. Eve proclaims when she has Cain behold with the help of the Lord I have produced a man(ish)! No woman refers to her child as a man except Eve. Notice that when she has Seth they call him son (ben in Hebrew) not ish. Eve has in mind the prophecy of God in Gen 3:16.
@@curiouschristianity if we have no other examples of a woman's child being called her ish makes your interpretation less likely to be correct, but it is still interesting! Our language is similar in this way. If someone refers to my wife's "man", they are almost certainly not referring to one of our sons. It would be bizarre.
@@NavigateWithNate there is exactly one example. Eve calls her first born ish in Gen 4:1. It most unusual for a woman to call her child a man but Eve does. This is in line with Gen 4:7 where Cain is told to rule over the temptation but he fails to do so. Gen 4:7 is a direct call back to Gen 3:16.
I get ur argument about context and who the subject but Verse 15 the subject is the serpent, 16 the woman and 17 the man, actually the last line of 16 is much closer to Adam than it is to the line about the male descendants that will war with each other. So I see where u are coming from but I'm not convinced u have contextual credence here Regards.
Thanks for the comment. Take Genesis 3:15 and then take Genesis 3:16 and put them side by side together. If you read them side by side you can see how each line connects together. They're connected through poetic structure and the context of the same thematic elements being talked about.
@@curiouschristianity yes I see that..Nd what I'm pointing out is verse 16 last line introduced verse 17 subject, just like how verse 15 last line introduce verse 16 subject.... these lines flow into each other
Interesting. I'm not convinced of your interpretation (for now), but I don't think it is unreasonable.
Don't worry Mark you'll come around.
@@curiouschristianity , LOL.
I love all that you added about the authority here. I agree with you that contextually it makes a lot more sense for the man to refer to the Seed.
It's interesting to me that it's so heavily argued that because the possessive typically indicates a spouse, it *must* be a spouse...and yet the conventional interpretations all require that we twist ourselves into pretzels *importing* additional phrases or ideas that aren't present in the text at all.
Interesting to be sure I'd like to see some examples of where ish is translated in this way
I do not think there are any in the OT. However, context is king. Just because there aren't any examples in the OT does not therefore dictate that it should not be translated this way. The context and consistency of the passage is what determines meaning.
Jeremiah 10:3-6
[3]For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
[4]They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
[5]They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
[6]Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
So I didn't understand the connection.
@@curiouschristianity I'm tired of everyone online trying to make the bible say what is doesn't say. genesis 3. 16 it correct
@@revelation6175 Hmmm interesting. I'm just trying to make sure that it says what the Bible says. Why do you disagree with me?
@@revelation6175 Yes people miss interpret the scriptures just like satan tempting The Lord, in the desert.
@@lapantera8 They do but I think there is a big difference between misinterpreting and trying to twist Scripture for one's own desires. This is an honest attempt at trying to show what the scriptures are teaching.
Genesis 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.
(Part of the curse on the woman wasn’t only pain in childbirth, but the multiplication of the woman’s conception. This is speaking of the number of times she would bear children. The man ruling over his wife was also part of the curse. Christ removed all of the curses by becoming a curse Himself (Galatians 3:13) so that we don’t have to live under these curses anymore. There is still a headship of the husband in marriage (1 Corinthians 11:3), but we are now heirs together of life (1 Peter 3:7). We are to submit one to another in the fear of God (Ephesians 5:21)
Thanks for the comment Leo!
Your desire will be for the child, which is masculine in thought form! The woman is the Mara! The material world! The thoughts will rule over the material world! This is why your thoughts are so very powerful!…GenXAbovetruth ♒️👽
Oh, when you explained this a bit the other night I thought you meant that the 'he' in verse 16 is the serpent, not the children. Reading this as a prophesy rather than an etiology seems to be a bit of a stretch, to me. Toward the end you're definitely reading Christian theology back into the text in an anachronistic sort of way. Pretty interesting though!
Are there other places in the Hebrew where "your ish" or "her ish" is referring to a woman's child rather than her husband?
Thanks for the comment. So I think that the evidence of this is in Genesis. I also think that it is interesting that people believe this is supposed to be focused on etiology. I do not see any reason for that assumption. The focus is on the dominion over the earth and who will rule. The rule begins with Adam then to the Serpent and then to the promised seed. I would argue that this is not anachronistic but quite the opposite. I'm claiming that this is what Adam and Eve thought was being said. Eve proclaims when she has Cain behold with the help of the Lord I have produced a man(ish)! No woman refers to her child as a man except Eve. Notice that when she has Seth they call him son (ben in Hebrew) not ish. Eve has in mind the prophecy of God in Gen 3:16.
@@curiouschristianity if we have no other examples of a woman's child being called her ish makes your interpretation less likely to be correct, but it is still interesting!
Our language is similar in this way. If someone refers to my wife's "man", they are almost certainly not referring to one of our sons. It would be bizarre.
@@NavigateWithNate there is exactly one example. Eve calls her first born ish in Gen 4:1. It most unusual for a woman to call her child a man but Eve does. This is in line with Gen 4:7 where Cain is told to rule over the temptation but he fails to do so. Gen 4:7 is a direct call back to Gen 3:16.
Yes, look at John 16:21 as well!
I get ur argument about context and who the subject but
Verse 15 the subject is the serpent, 16 the woman and 17 the man, actually the last line of 16 is much closer to Adam than it is to the line about the male descendants that will war with each other.
So I see where u are coming from but I'm not convinced u have contextual credence here
Regards.
Thanks for the comment. Take Genesis 3:15 and then take Genesis 3:16 and put them side by side together. If you read them side by side you can see how each line connects together. They're connected through poetic structure and the context of the same thematic elements being talked about.
@@curiouschristianity yes I see that..Nd what I'm pointing out is verse 16 last line introduced verse 17 subject, just like how verse 15 last line introduce verse 16 subject.... these lines flow into each other