Hi, Tim! Good job in yet again presenting truth in a balanced way. I agree that the ESV (& NET) translation is accurate and not a biased rendering of Genesis 3:16, my own translation philosophy prefers a more literal translation, which requires the reader to learn "Bible-eze" rather than having a translator do the work of interpretation for me. I'm not saying that my preference is THE right one, but only that it's my preference. I find that the reward for doing my own study to determine what the more literal translation means is most satisfying. I also want to say that your channel has given me a greater appreciation for different Bible translations. Thank you for that! God bless you always!
I disagree with the NET's conclusions here. Song of Solomon 7.10's use of the "desire for" idiom is quite clear, and the sexual desire interpretation still makes sense in the Genesis passages. *I am my beloved's,* *and his desire is for me.* *- Song 7.10, ESV 2016* Genesis 3.16 establishes that childbirth will be painful for Eve, but she will continue to desire sexual union with Adam regardless. Yet Eve's negative influence led Adam to sin in Eden, so he is now placed in a position of dominance over her, lest she lead him to further folly through her sexual desire. *To the woman he said,* *“I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great;* *in pain you shall bring forth children,* *yet your desire shall be for your husband,* *and he shall rule over you.”* *- Gen. 3.16, NRSVue* And then Genesis 4.7 plays off of these words in order to offer a secondary metaphor for sin. At first, sin is a predator looking to devour Cain, but then it becomes a seductress looking to control him with lust. Thus Cain must rule over sin, lest it lead him into the same error that Eve did with Adam. *The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”* *- Gen. 4.7, NRSVue*
The reason the Bible calls it the sin of ADAM is because the dumbhead was standing there doing nothing while the snake was conversing with Eve instead of telling the snake to get away from his WIFE and chasing him out of the garden. You don’t get to turn this into the sin of Eve because the Bible doesn’t do it.
Thanks Tim. This translation change in Genesis has stood out for me. Your clarification discussing why this happened is very helpful. Thanks again. Robert from Leeds England
To me the solution is pretty simple, and you've identified it perfectly, Tim. Because certain judgments have to be made and some amount of bias is unavoidable in translation, translation notes should ALWAYS be available for those who want to dig deeper into the scriptures and truly understand the intent and nuances of the author. The NET and NKJV are great examples of good translations that include copious notes.
I agree! My 1985 Nelson NKJV has a note "toward" or "unto" in these verses. That makes sense to me. I love this old bible I've used for over 30+ years.
The ESV footnotes point out the alternate reading, but to be fair the update is far more understandable on a verse that confused people since English bibles have been printed.
Excellent episode. I have been using the NET full notes edition as one of my primary study Bibles. I also have the large print reference edition which I carry with me (in its clamshell box for extra protection, contrary to the "box tossers" 🤔😉😊). Thanks for your insightful comments! Let us all be gracious to one another concerning our areas of disagreement. The ESV update: No problem. Blessings!🙋🏼♂️📖
This was eye-opening! When I first started reading the ESV 2016 a few years ago, Genesis 3:16 was the biggest controversial topic that I came across the internet when searching the difference between the 2011 text and the updated 2016 text. But the NET commentary you showed definitely dispelled the arguments saying that it was a wrong rendering, but actually made it a better rendering than before. The fact that they also changed the wording from "AND he shall rule over you" in the 2011 text to "BUT he shall rule over you" in the 2016 text is the KEY to make sure that the rendering is essentially the same meaning when the initial structure of the sentence is changed to an opposite meaning. Another good reminder you made is that context is important, and this is now God's judgment upon Adam and Eve and all of mankind that will follow since they disobeyed God's command. Before the fall, when there was no sin in the world, Adam and Eve would have always desired for one another as God designed. There would be nothing contrary in their nature to the original design of desire toward one another as husband and wife. Considering this: In the 2011 text, God's judgment is saying to Eve that as a result of their disobedience, [there will be this desire to control her husband in their now fallen state BECAUSE OF SIN, which previously never existed], [but regardless of this new desire to control her husband], "Your desire shall be FOR your husband, AND he shall rule over you." So the 2016 text essentially renders this meaning by saying, "Your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband [because of your now fallen state in sin], BUT he shall rule over you." Thank you very much for covering this topic! As a new subscriber, can't wait to see your older contents!
I don't know the biblical languages. However, I'm fluent in Spanish. My kid is taking Spanish and when he asks "what does THIS phrase mean?" I give him the literal meaning and sometimes it makes no sense, then I give him the non-literal translation. Just that alone tells me that I have to think about translation and to be slow to judge some of the renderings. I absolutely look at translator's footnotes. My father has a doctorate in linguistics and the knack for learning languages is now three generations.
Excellent comments excellent work, quite a few years back my research on these two verses had led me to the same conclusion. I think the ESV is spot on regarding these two texts.
The NLT has never been my go to translation but here I believe it offers the clearest option. I love the NET. Well done explanation - again. Thank you.
I think the wording is a good change and helps people to understand what I’ve always been taught was the true meaning of that verse :the way the verse is normally worded is pretty confusing and I’ve always been taught that the desire would be for your husbands authority or your husbands position so to me this makes more sense the way the ESV has put it
I never even heard about this till recently. Been using the ESV for a long time but had not noticed this change. That said I don’t really have an issue with it. As for the NET I do use it and absolutely love it. In fact I am reading it as part of my yearly reading plan. The notes are top notch and I think everyone should use these. Which you can since they are freely available online.
In the not so distant past, I spent a lot of time looking at this very issue and coming to the conclusion that Genesis 4:7 is key in understanding Genesis 3:16. You used the word struggle and I do think that is what's going on here, the power struggle between husband and wife in our fallen natures. I think that's further borne out by Paul's instructions to husbands and wives. If there were no such struggle, there would be no need for such directions. Plus, I don't know how it is for men, but as a woman I know what's inside of me that resonates with that understanding of that scripture. I actually prefer the translation you mentioned that more fully expresses the effect on both the husband and the wife, ending in that he will dominate his wfe. But I do agree with what this updated translation is saying. Thanks for mentioning about the NET notes; not something I was aware of but will look into.
Using "contrary" in Gen. 4:7 always seemed more awkward to me than it did in 3:16. Because we know sin isn't "contrary" to the flesh, which is what Cain is being led by. The ESV footnote "against" makes more since to me.
I use the NET notes a lot, but I strongly disagree with the way they reach their conclusions. They say that the renderings and interpretations of the OT Scripture found in the NT should not in any way inform our translation of the OT Scripture, which any Christian who affirms biblical inerrancy should disagree with. What is good is that they at least provide in the footnotes the renderings that others argue should be given based on the way it is used in the NT.
I'm not sure I follow here. If the husband is the desire why would the wife's desires be contrary to, or the exact opposite of the husband? I think when you look at the passage the old meaning makes more sense. Eve messed up and part of the solution is she will now have Adam as her desire and he will rule over her. This other meaning seems like mental gymnastics to get to another view point. Dan Wallace the lead translator for the NET has stated he is an egalitarian. I would ask if you consider yourself one and that's why the new usage makes sense? I just don't see how the Hebrew stating the husband will be your desire turns into your desire shall be opposite of your husband. Granted the ESV notes say toward for contrary, but no dictionary I found has that as a meaning. Just seems off and a bad change.
Lexham English Septuagint: He said to the woman "Multiplying, I will multiply your pain and your moaning. You will bring forth children in pain, and your recourse will be to your husband, and he will be master over you."
I listened to a Hebrew expert speaking about this passage once a while back. He explained that this reading in the ESV was probably correct, because of the way those terms in Hebrew are typically used. It seems to be conveying a wrongful or contradictory desire towards the husband.
I just started using this translation recently so I actually did not read that verse yet in my Bible. Well, sure enough that is what it said. To me it is confusing because the former word desire makes me think that the woman would move toward her husband (perhaps codependently desire) and contrary seems to seem now that she is repelled by him. It sure takes a lot of study to get to the heart of what is actually meant. Question? If these verses are judgement for the curse does that make them a prescription? As I often have the dominating husband in the back of my mind as the way the relationship between husband and wife is to be now. And the wife is to be the "yes" girl. Just asking for a friend.
I'm always suspicious, lol! This:🤨 is my usual response to changes made in translations. But I like to know the reasoning behind the choices made. And I'm unfamiliar with the NET. What does that stand for, and what kind of translation is it? Thank you for your clarifying video. Thoughtful as usual! 💛
New English Translation (NET). It is a dynamic style translation, more like NIV than NASB/NKJV. But they added the translator notes to explain translation decisions and provide literal alternatives
@@dawnmichelle4403 I don't like the NET for reading but the notes are AMAZING. It's extremely helpful, they lay out the original word as well as the grammar structure. The notes also point out when things aren't clear cut and whether or not there could be different interpretations.
The majority of translations support the translation line that has run from the KJV; but some, eg NKJV and ESV, include a note that the NET and now-ESV text rendering is possible. The NET notes (which I find to be of very mixed value) should always be consulted, but they need to be read alongside other linguistic commentary - eg, Kiel and Delitzsch, Speaker’s, Lange, Pulpit, Walton, Wenham, etc.;and, again, these other commentators support the traditional translation. Be all that as it may : the final clause is clear, that the man, whether kindly or unkindly, will rule over or dominate the woman. This dictum is in a post-Fall context; but it will surely be unacceptable to many liberals, feminists, etc.!
I guess I interpret this differently. I don't read Gen 4:7 as sin wanting to control and dominate Cain (although sin's motive is obvious). I read it with more subtly. Sin desires Cain, like a ravenous wolf. The scripture doesn't go on to explain sin's desire is nefarious because the word "sin" is a known transgression. Eve desires Adam, but should we assume it's for control and dominance? I see a few other possibilities. Maybe her desire will no longer be to please God. Instead it'll be to please her husband? I would prefer if this verse were kept literal as the other translations since it's too difficult to ascertain what it might mean.
I think practically speaking, when we look at the relationships between men an women in today’s society, what the ESV is saying is true. Every husband/wife relationship that I personally know of the wife is always trying to control her husband at least to a certain extent. God says here that the proper response is then for the man to rule over her. This has played out all too clearly in our culture today. As feminism has expanded, men have been marginalized and the revolutionary spirit of women has been unleashed on society.
Sometimes fully literal makes a verse difficult. I think this is an improvement to clarity. Both of these verses made no sense to me when I use to use KJV.
For a second I thought they updated it again after saying it was the final text. Either way I use the NKJV and NASB95 which are best to me for study and reading and accurate translations faithful to originals.
Yeah but because of the fall, there will be a clash. And in the time of context that's precisely what it means. It further shows that the same clash will exist. People need to understand the time of context in which these verses were written. Why is there a gender clash to this day, if that didn't mean contrarian including sexual interaction? The man will overreact and control, the woman will fight. That's why in the new testament the Bible says that husbands and wives are to love and honor each other.
This wasn't a problem, for me, desire didn't fit so I did a basic word study (concordance/vine's exp dic./MH comm.) So I realised, desire=to want/own therefore control.. basically desire=not in a good way hence the husband must rule because it's his neck on the block for himself & his wife; so to speak 😉 the NLT is a lot more transparent than we give it credit for.
I've done extensive research on this. I've consulted with people who can read Hebrew, the Vulgate, LXX, and historical interpretation. This is simple theological bias. It changes the meaning of the text.
There is a major problem with the new change as it focuses on the woman in a manner outside of Eve's sin. There is a battle going on between them to. Where the language for Cain speaks to a war between sin and human service towards righteousness, we know that Cain and we all need to not to be *controlled* or conquered. So where the word "contrary" comes in, it changes a key point about using *for* and that is to speak to her nature for her husband. The next line unveils what *for* speaks to: to conquer. Because of sin, she will desire to conquer her husband, but he will rule over her. Saying contrary changes that meaning and steers the revelation away from her curse of sin back to her husband. So it seems to make her appear innocent and in some degree of humility, but her husband is in war mode. Today we hear that about men today.
So what you see,@@kathleens.laroche754 , is that both are at war with one another? I can accept that as well. Still, as men, we don't necessarily think of females as contentious opponents in war. Contentious? Yes, but not for all out battle! Still, I get it and I agree with the point. Far too much proof to say otherwise. Thanks. Great conversing with you!
Hi, Tim! Good job in yet again presenting truth in a balanced way. I agree that the ESV (& NET) translation is accurate and not a biased rendering of Genesis 3:16, my own translation philosophy prefers a more literal translation, which requires the reader to learn "Bible-eze" rather than having a translator do the work of interpretation for me. I'm not saying that my preference is THE right one, but only that it's my preference. I find that the reward for doing my own study to determine what the more literal translation means is most satisfying. I also want to say that your channel has given me a greater appreciation for different Bible translations. Thank you for that! God bless you always!
I disagree with the NET's conclusions here. Song of Solomon 7.10's use of the "desire for" idiom is quite clear, and the sexual desire interpretation still makes sense in the Genesis passages.
*I am my beloved's,*
*and his desire is for me.*
*- Song 7.10, ESV 2016*
Genesis 3.16 establishes that childbirth will be painful for Eve, but she will continue to desire sexual union with Adam regardless. Yet Eve's negative influence led Adam to sin in Eden, so he is now placed in a position of dominance over her, lest she lead him to further folly through her sexual desire.
*To the woman he said,*
*“I will make your pangs in childbirth exceedingly great;*
*in pain you shall bring forth children,*
*yet your desire shall be for your husband,*
*and he shall rule over you.”*
*- Gen. 3.16, NRSVue*
And then Genesis 4.7 plays off of these words in order to offer a secondary metaphor for sin. At first, sin is a predator looking to devour Cain, but then it becomes a seductress looking to control him with lust. Thus Cain must rule over sin, lest it lead him into the same error that Eve did with Adam.
*The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”*
*- Gen. 4.7, NRSVue*
The reason the Bible calls it the sin of ADAM is because the dumbhead was standing there doing nothing while the snake was conversing with Eve instead of telling the snake to get away from his WIFE and chasing him out of the garden. You don’t get to turn this into the sin of Eve because the Bible doesn’t do it.
I mean if the KJV is more literal the ESV, then what is the ESV doing?
Thanks Tim. This translation change in Genesis has stood out for me. Your clarification discussing why this happened is very helpful. Thanks again. Robert from Leeds England
To me the solution is pretty simple, and you've identified it perfectly, Tim. Because certain judgments have to be made and some amount of bias is unavoidable in translation, translation notes should ALWAYS be available for those who want to dig deeper into the scriptures and truly understand the intent and nuances of the author. The NET and NKJV are great examples of good translations that include copious notes.
I agree! My 1985 Nelson NKJV has a note "toward" or "unto" in these verses. That makes sense to me. I love this old bible I've used for over 30+ years.
The ESV footnotes point out the alternate reading, but to be fair the update is far more understandable on a verse that confused people since English bibles have been printed.
Excellent episode. I have been using the NET full notes edition as one of my primary study Bibles. I also have the large print reference edition which I carry with me (in its clamshell box for extra protection, contrary to the "box tossers" 🤔😉😊). Thanks for your insightful comments! Let us all be gracious to one another concerning our areas of disagreement. The ESV update: No problem. Blessings!🙋🏼♂️📖
Greetings Tim
I couldn't agree more. Brilliant video. The NET is spot on. Sin brought disharmony!!
Tim everything you said and you made a lot of sense. God Bless
The new rendering seems more appropriate. I will definitely use the NET notes now. Thanks for the tip and the great content.
Yet that is NOT the Hebrew word for CONTRARY.
This was eye-opening! When I first started reading the ESV 2016 a few years ago, Genesis 3:16 was the biggest controversial topic that I came across the internet when searching the difference between the 2011 text and the updated 2016 text. But the NET commentary you showed definitely dispelled the arguments saying that it was a wrong rendering, but actually made it a better rendering than before. The fact that they also changed the wording from "AND he shall rule over you" in the 2011 text to "BUT he shall rule over you" in the 2016 text is the KEY to make sure that the rendering is essentially the same meaning when the initial structure of the sentence is changed to an opposite meaning.
Another good reminder you made is that context is important, and this is now God's judgment upon Adam and Eve and all of mankind that will follow since they disobeyed God's command. Before the fall, when there was no sin in the world, Adam and Eve would have always desired for one another as God designed. There would be nothing contrary in their nature to the original design of desire toward one another as husband and wife. Considering this:
In the 2011 text, God's judgment is saying to Eve that as a result of their disobedience, [there will be this desire to control her husband in their now fallen state BECAUSE OF SIN, which previously never existed], [but regardless of this new desire to control her husband], "Your desire shall be FOR your husband, AND he shall rule over you."
So the 2016 text essentially renders this meaning by saying, "Your desire shall be CONTRARY TO your husband [because of your now fallen state in sin], BUT he shall rule over you."
Thank you very much for covering this topic! As a new subscriber, can't wait to see your older contents!
I don't enjoy the NET for reading, but I absolutely LOVE the notes. Thanks for the video
I don't know the biblical languages. However, I'm fluent in Spanish. My kid is taking Spanish and when he asks "what does THIS phrase mean?" I give him the literal meaning and sometimes it makes no sense, then I give him the non-literal translation. Just that alone tells me that I have to think about translation and to be slow to judge some of the renderings. I absolutely look at translator's footnotes.
My father has a doctorate in linguistics and the knack for learning languages is now three generations.
Excellent comments excellent work, quite a few years back my research on these two verses had led me to the same conclusion. I think the ESV is spot on regarding these two texts.
The NLT has never been my go to translation but here I believe it offers the clearest option. I love the NET. Well done explanation - again. Thank you.
The context is judgement.
I think the wording is a good change and helps people to understand what I’ve always been taught was the true meaning of that verse :the way the verse is normally worded is pretty confusing and I’ve always been taught that the desire would be for your husbands authority or your husbands position so to me this makes more sense the way the ESV has put it
Sorry about my lack of punctuation and capitalization I’m using the talk to text feature because I’m driving thanks
I never even heard about this till recently. Been using the ESV for a long time but had not noticed this change. That said I don’t really have an issue with it.
As for the NET I do use it and absolutely love it. In fact I am reading it as part of my yearly reading plan. The notes are top notch and I think everyone should use these. Which you can since they are freely available online.
In the not so distant past, I spent a lot of time looking at this very issue and coming to the conclusion that Genesis 4:7 is key in understanding Genesis 3:16. You used the word struggle and I do think that is what's going on here, the power struggle between husband and wife in our fallen natures. I think that's further borne out by Paul's instructions to husbands and wives. If there were no such struggle, there would be no need for such directions. Plus, I don't know how it is for men, but as a woman I know what's inside of me that resonates with that understanding of that scripture. I actually prefer the translation you mentioned that more fully expresses the effect on both the husband and the wife, ending in that he will dominate his wfe. But I do agree with what this updated translation is saying. Thanks for mentioning about the NET notes; not something I was aware of but will look into.
Never really was an issue. I do use the NET precisely for the translator’s notes.
I wish more seminaries would be willing to make a good/great/better translation of the Bible.
Using "contrary" in Gen. 4:7 always seemed more awkward to me than it did in 3:16. Because we know sin isn't "contrary" to the flesh, which is what Cain is being led by. The ESV footnote "against" makes more since to me.
Thank you for the video. I don't read Greek or Hebrew so I sue multiple translations when studying. The NET notes are great.
I use the NET notes a lot, but I strongly disagree with the way they reach their conclusions. They say that the renderings and interpretations of the OT Scripture found in the NT should not in any way inform our translation of the OT Scripture, which any Christian who affirms biblical inerrancy should disagree with. What is good is that they at least provide in the footnotes the renderings that others argue should be given based on the way it is used in the NT.
Why don't we just ask someone who speaks Hebrew to explain it to us?
I love the NET notes and use them regularly. Especially since I don't read Greek/ Hebrew.
Very interesting, thank you Tim :)
I'm not sure I follow here. If the husband is the desire why would the wife's desires be contrary to, or the exact opposite of the husband? I think when you look at the passage the old meaning makes more sense. Eve messed up and part of the solution is she will now have Adam as her desire and he will rule over her. This other meaning seems like mental gymnastics to get to another view point. Dan Wallace the lead translator for the NET has stated he is an egalitarian. I would ask if you consider yourself one and that's why the new usage makes sense? I just don't see how the Hebrew stating the husband will be your desire turns into your desire shall be opposite of your husband. Granted the ESV notes say toward for contrary, but no dictionary I found has that as a meaning. Just seems off and a bad change.
Lexham English Septuagint:
He said to the woman "Multiplying, I will multiply your pain and your moaning. You will bring forth children in pain, and your recourse will be to your husband, and he will be master over you."
I listened to a Hebrew expert speaking about this passage once a while back. He explained that this reading in the ESV was probably correct, because of the way those terms in Hebrew are typically used. It seems to be conveying a wrongful or contradictory desire towards the husband.
I just started using this translation recently so I actually did not read that verse yet in my Bible. Well, sure enough that is what it said. To me it is confusing because the former word desire makes me think that the woman would move toward her husband (perhaps codependently desire) and contrary seems to seem now that she is repelled by him. It sure takes a lot of study to get to the heart of what is actually meant. Question? If these verses are judgement for the curse does that make them a prescription? As I often have the dominating husband in the back of my mind as the way the relationship between husband and wife is to be now. And the wife is to be the "yes" girl. Just asking for a friend.
I'm always suspicious, lol! This:🤨 is my usual response to changes made in translations. But I like to know the reasoning behind the choices made.
And I'm unfamiliar with the NET. What does that stand for, and what kind of translation is it?
Thank you for your clarifying video. Thoughtful as usual! 💛
New English Translation (NET). It is a dynamic style translation, more like NIV than NASB/NKJV. But they added the translator notes to explain translation decisions and provide literal alternatives
@@shawnd04 Thank you!
@@dawnmichelle4403 I don't like the NET for reading but the notes are AMAZING. It's extremely helpful, they lay out the original word as well as the grammar structure. The notes also point out when things aren't clear cut and whether or not there could be different interpretations.
@@amptown1 That sounds very interesting and like it would be helpful.
@@dawnmichelle4403 I, too, love the NET - both for reading as well as study. I find it excellent to read - both aloud and silently. Blessings to you.
I appreciate your objectivity while analyzing potentialy controversial passages of scripture.
The majority of translations support the translation line that has run from the KJV; but some, eg NKJV and ESV, include a note that the NET and now-ESV text rendering is possible. The NET notes (which I find to be of very mixed value) should always be consulted, but they need to be read alongside other linguistic commentary - eg, Kiel and Delitzsch, Speaker’s, Lange, Pulpit, Walton, Wenham, etc.;and, again, these other commentators support the traditional translation. Be all that as it may : the final clause is clear, that the man, whether kindly or unkindly, will rule over or dominate the woman. This dictum is in a post-Fall context; but it will surely be unacceptable to many liberals, feminists, etc.!
I guess I interpret this differently. I don't read Gen 4:7 as sin wanting to control and dominate Cain (although sin's motive is obvious). I read it with more subtly. Sin desires Cain, like a ravenous wolf. The scripture doesn't go on to explain sin's desire is nefarious because the word "sin" is a known transgression. Eve desires Adam, but should we assume it's for control and dominance? I see a few other possibilities. Maybe her desire will no longer be to please God. Instead it'll be to please her husband? I would prefer if this verse were kept literal as the other translations since it's too difficult to ascertain what it might mean.
Yes, worship him? Her husband and not God.
I think practically speaking, when we look at the relationships between men an women in today’s society, what the ESV is saying is true. Every husband/wife relationship that I personally know of the wife is always trying to control her husband at least to a certain extent. God says here that the proper response is then for the man to rule over her. This has played out all too clearly in our culture today. As feminism has expanded, men have been marginalized and the revolutionary spirit of women has been unleashed on society.
Sometimes fully literal makes a verse difficult. I think this is an improvement to clarity. Both of these verses made no sense to me when I use to use KJV.
my goodness!!!!! this is so frustrating!!!!!!!
For a second I thought they updated it again after saying it was the final text. Either way I use the NKJV and NASB95 which are best to me for study and reading and accurate translations faithful to originals.
Yeah but because of the fall, there will be a clash. And in the time of context that's precisely what it means. It further shows that the same clash will exist. People need to understand the time of context in which these verses were written. Why is there a gender clash to this day, if that didn't mean contrarian including sexual interaction? The man will overreact and control, the woman will fight. That's why in the new testament the Bible says that husbands and wives are to love and honor each other.
This wasn't a problem, for me, desire didn't fit so I did a basic word study (concordance/vine's exp dic./MH comm.) So I realised, desire=to want/own therefore control.. basically desire=not in a good way hence the husband must rule because it's his neck on the block for himself & his wife; so to speak 😉 the NLT is a lot more transparent than we give it credit for.
What you said about the husband is not how I was looking at it, but that's an interesting insight to consider.
I've done extensive research on this. I've consulted with people who can read Hebrew, the Vulgate, LXX, and historical interpretation. This is simple theological bias. It changes the meaning of the text.
There is a major problem with the new change as it focuses on the woman in a manner outside of Eve's sin.
There is a battle going on between them to. Where the language for Cain speaks to a war between sin and human service towards righteousness, we know that Cain and we all need to not to be *controlled* or conquered.
So where the word "contrary" comes in, it changes a key point about using *for* and that is to speak to her nature for her husband.
The next line unveils what *for* speaks to: to conquer. Because of sin, she will desire to conquer her husband, but he will rule over her.
Saying contrary changes that meaning and steers the revelation away from her curse of sin back to her husband. So it seems to make her appear innocent and in some degree of humility, but her husband is in war mode.
Today we hear that about men today.
I disagree because I believe that what they meant by contrary means to be in opposition to, as in at war with,as in wants to/strives to conquer.
So what you see,@@kathleens.laroche754 , is that both are at war with one another? I can accept that as well. Still, as men, we don't necessarily think of females as contentious opponents in war.
Contentious? Yes, but not for all out battle! Still, I get it and I agree with the point. Far too much proof to say otherwise.
Thanks. Great conversing with you!
The King James version, aka THE HOLY BIBLE, does not have this problem. It never changes. Amen.