Posted on 12/30/2013 5:09:11 AM PST by Kaslin
Please show me where it says that in the Hebrew. My take on "tĕshuwqatah" in Gen. 3:16 is that she will hunger for food that he will provide, particularly in pregnancy and early child-rearing. Interestingly, the modern Hebrew term, "shuk" refers to a grocery store.
> GDP is a terrible measure of national wealth.
^ Truth
I'm avoiding nothing. The "how" is providing leadership...aka good direction. Men are leading in the wrong direction...if they are leading at all. (There are still good men obviously who recognize and practice good leadership but the trend is the wrong one.)
Men are becoming more feminized, not less. This is because they are not choosing to lead. A leader whom people will follow has a beneficial direction in mind for followers. Porn and gay rights is not the right direction and this is what is taking place...this is not the fault of women. Men are choosing this themselves.
The feminization of men will never lead to good leaders. Woman will not submit to bad leadership.
Then how do you explain Gen. 4:7?
I’m not going to bother “playing army” with the kid who shouts “YOU MISSED” when I’ve got my finger in his ear.
The same way. Solomon had it all wrong, as usual.
That chapter took two years' worth of translation work btw, and my explanation of that verse alone goes on for eight pages. So don't get me started because I won't answer until I publish it. The existing interpretation of Gen 4 makes a mess of the Hebrew.
What I can tell you is that the interpretation I dug out of the Hebrew in Gen. 2:5- Genesis 9 is reflected in both the archaeological and geophysical records for the entire region, from Persia to Morocco, starting about 11-12,000 years ago. It unifies with the entire Torah, especially the Sabbath for the Land as interpreted literally in Ex. 23:11. Wrote a whole book about that, one that I pulled from the market because I had found so much more in the same pastoral vein.
Except for one little problem, your interpretation can hardly be termed a “curse.”
lol, in whose judgment? It certainly was in terms of her ambitions. Think of what it is to "know" good and evil in the Biblical sense of yud-dalet-ayn.
Anyone who has a normative understanding of the term "curse."
Furthermore, are you really willing to strain your credibility by proposing a desire of which there is no empirical evidence?
People have normative understanding of singulars and plurals too, but they ignore them all in their "normative understanding" of Genesis 4. They think G_d is saying that Cain can "rule over" sin in 4:7, right after saying that sin is "couching." They ignore the lack of a definite article in "bereshit" Genesis 1:1. They ignore the usual meaning of "bara" in that verse too. Then they build an entire "creation science" on it. So, you want me to go by "normative understanding"? Sheesh. People had a "normative understanding" of Ex. 23:11 too, but since my book on the topic even the Chabad.org website has changed its translation of the verse to agree with mine. At least you can find physical evidence of my interpretation in the archaeological record, and it fits the literal Hebrew better than the existing "normative understanding." But first one must dump an urban intellectual rabbi's interpretation of a book written by a shepherd that was then ignored for 500 years!
Try taking the Hebrew as literally as possible. Use a lexicon and a concordance. Dump the fliers and narrow the interpretations. Believe that what was written was true but that we may not see what it says the way it was intended. Try to put yourself into the perspective of a pastoral nomad while you're at it (seeing as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and David were all shepherds). You'll be amazed at what you'll find. Try this and maybe you'll see what I mean.
Furthermore, are you really willing to strain your credibility by proposing a desire of which there is no empirical evidence?
"No empirical evidence?" People do need to eat. They do have sex to procreate (you know, "yada"). The next verse is about pregnancy and pain. Then she must rear children. So what is inconsistent about talking about the consequences of that? She wanted to "know..." good and evil... Well, she got it all righty. If you wanted to understand Genesis 4, you might just think about what I just wrote in that context.
G_d's not a big fan of agro-urban civilization. That's but one reason why "the meek" were the first to be told about Messiah's birth.
Utterly awesome. Well done and very impressive.
” Jobs that used to pay decently have been replaced by free student labor, or “internships.””
BS
They were replaced by temp agencies who employ illegals.
Spot on and good analysis.
But that's not what you said. Apparently you infer some kind of drive to have one's husband provide that food.
Frankly, your interpretation of the curse is a tautology, at best.
I won't pretend you have anywhere near your background, but I am also not willing to throw out the traditional understanding, which does work, on the word of a scholar that seems to presume to rewrite the Torah. Particularly when many Christian scholars have found much validation in the "discrepancies" you seek to harmonize.
Care to elaborate?
Nope.
The work has been reviewed by Orthodox Jewish rabbis in Israel. They found it compelling, innovative, and linguistically correct.
Frankly, your interpretation of the curse is a tautology, at best.
So say you.
I have no idea where your finger is but it is definitely nowhere near my ear lol.
You’re losing the debate because you don’t acknowledge the tendency very plain to most that men generally have softened. Its allowed the feminists to grab the reins and is destroying the family.
How am I losing the debate when you just admitted feminists have grabbed the reins?
How were men supposed to keep the reins when a woman's vote counts for just as much as a man's, and there are more women than men?
It's easy to throw stones at the people who can't do anything about a problem. So you tell me how some hardnose guy convinces a woman to choose something he wants her to do instead of what she wants to do.
That's a pretty flippant answer when you're claiming to know better than the biblical personage famous for his wisdom and understanding of dark sayings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.