Genesis 3:16

[finder]

On another thread the topic of God's command to procreate came up. Specifically when did man begin to obey this command.

Take note of the glaringly obvious use of the future tense in the passage translated above.
NIV "with pain you will give birth to children"
NAS "in pain you shall bring forth children"
GW "I will increase your pain and your labor when you give birth to children"
ERV "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children"


Nearly every translation uses the future tense in discussing childbirth. Not one says, ""in [greater] sorrow [than you've already experienced] you shall bring forth children [from this point on]..."

No doubt there was a future change in the way Eve was going to experience the whole ordeal of giving birth, but that doesn't discount the fact the text reads..." Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;..."

Obviously there is no way around it, her conception was to be multiplied so she had to have concieved in the past. Even Truthreality reluctantly agreed...

Conception refers to pregnancy. On that I agree with you. The increase, however, refers to both sorrow and conception not just conception.

So Jack, this begs the question, what is your point? I disagree, in context it is a ["from this point on..."] pronouncement however it's in the way she will experience giving birth, not that she will start giving birth. The text refers to what she had been experiencing and how it is going to change.

You can make a case for "sorrow" existing before the fall but that would be another topic for another debate.

[Dave In Canada]

Can we please move this thread to the historical fiction in literature section?

[finder]

Can we please move this thread to the historical fiction in literature section?

Why would we move this to an atheists philosophy thread?

[NoJingoLingo]

Are you trying to show that Eve gave birth at least once before eating from the tree?

[Dave In Canada]

Why would we move this to an atheists philosophy thread?

I wasn't asking to.

The bible and it's stories were written by men. The OT is a fictional account of the history of a tribe in the Middle East. The story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken literally.

All holy books are on par with each other, none can prove that theirs is anymore truthful than the other, all are products of the beliefs in the minds of tribe elders. They are cultural artifacts, anyone who believes their stories as being a literal fact should closely examine why they believe that their book is superior to others.

[BlackSheep]

The simple fact is that the bible speaks of no children until after the curse and it does speak to it then. I suggest therefor that there is no evidence of childbearing before then.

[Jack]

So Jack, this begs the question, what is your point?

My original point was simply an inquiry. I asked if your interpretations meant you believed that Eve bore children before the fall, previous to the births of Cain and Abel. Having established you do believe that, my next point was that since reading several translations of either creation story (Genesis 1 and 2) clearly shows that neither explicitly states whether she did or didn't that your belief she did is conjecture based on your own interpretation or possibly the doctrine of whichever denomination you align yourself with. Since then you've attempted to establish that no other interpretation is possible other than the one you favor, that she did give birth before the fall. I'm not saying that she did or didn't. I am saying that the text does not support a definitive, unambiguous conclusion. Believe what you will, but from a purely scholarly point of view the case cannot be made either way depending on Genesis alone.

Are you trying to show that Eve gave birth at least once before eating from the tree?

As I understand it that's the core of the debate, yes.

The simple fact is that the bible speaks of no children until after the curse and it does speak to it then. I suggest therefor that there is no evidence of childbearing before then.

Nor is there any evidence that conclusively establishes she didn't. It's just another instance in which the Bible is less than clear, allowing for many conclusions. That's what sustains the large number of Protestant denominations throughout the world.

[BlackSheep]

Nor is there any evidence that conclusively establishes she didn't. It's just another instance in which the Bible is less than clear, allowing for many conclusions. That's what sustains the large number of Protestant denominations throughout the world.

I never said it conclusively establishes it. Nothing will do that, I simply point out that there is zero evidence of children before. I simply go with the evidence.

[finder]

My original point was simply an inquiry. I asked if your interpretations meant you believed that Eve bore children before the fall, previous to the births of Cain and Abel. Having established you do believe that, my next point was that since reading several translations of either creation story (Genesis 1 and 2) clearly shows that neither explicitly states whether she did or didn't that your belief she did is conjecture based on your own interpretation or possibly the doctrine of whichever denomination you align yourself with. Since then you've attempted to establish that no other interpretation is possible other than the one you favor, that she did give birth before the fall. I'm not saying that she did or didn't. I am saying that the text does not support a definitive, unambiguous conclusion. Believe what you will, but from a purely scholarly point of view the case cannot be made either way depending on Genesis alone.

All the translations support my conclusion. "I will increase....and thy conception..." [or synonym of choice for "increase" & "conception"] is a declaration of adding to that what is already present. It doesn't have to state she conceived in chapters 1&2 to know she had conceived prior to chapter 3. The text "I will increase thy sorrow and thy conception" establishes beyond a doubt she had. Just because you dismiss that statement of fact as "conjecture" because you can't refute it doesn't mean the text doesn't say what says. Nor does it mean it's "open to interpretation". It says what it says, her conception increased from a prior conception rate. It doesn't say she will "begin to conceive and it will be painful." The Bible is clear on this. I am aware that most scholars disagree but that's the power of doctrine. It can stop even the educated from thinking for themselves.

[Jack]

The text "I will increase thy sorrow and thy conception" establishes beyond a doubt she had.

Only in your own mind. Our failure to be similarly convinced is evidence that your belief has not been established "beyond a doubt".

Just because you dismiss that statement of fact as "conjecture" because you can't refute it doesn't mean the text doesn't say what says. Nor does it mean it's "open to interpretation". It says what it says...

Conversely it doesn't say what it doesn't say, and nowhere in either Genesis 1 or 2 does it state clearly and irrefutably what you contend.

[finder]

I never said it conclusively establishes it. Nothing will do that, I simply point out that there is zero evidence of children before. I simply go with the evidence.

If that were true you would realize that anything multiplied by zero is zero and conclude there must of been conceptions prior to Genesis 3 for the text to read..."I will multiply thy sorrow and thy conception..."

[finder]

Only in your own mind. Our failure to be similarly convinced is evidence that your belief has not been established "beyond a doubt".


Conversely it doesn't say what it doesn't say, and nowhere in either Genesis 1 or 2 does it state clearly and irrefutably what you contend.

Why does it have to in Genesis 1&2 when in Genesis 3 it does state clearly what I contend? Conversely just because it's unclear to you doesn't mean all of a sudden you can multiply something by zero and have an increase. You must solve that dilemma for your position to hold water. How is it not clear, what words of the text "increase....and thy conception" do you not understand?