Question on Genesis 3:16

[Cantaress4Him]

:?: :?: :?:

Genesis 3:16 says:

To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

Just wondering if this means that up until that time, Eve had not experienced much pain in childbirth (this would mean she had children in the Garden ...

... or does it mean that God didn't intend for there to be much pain in childbirth, but now there would be a lot of pain (whenever Eve did finally give birth sometime in the future).

Any ideas on this?

:?: :?: :?:

[Bob the Quiet]

I think it means that God hadn't originally intended for childbirth to be so painful.

Think about the implications of the first option. It would mean a generation of people were born without original sin. Then, God would likely have chosen those people to survive the Flood, and I don't think we'd have the sin problem as we do today. Certainly Jesus wouldn't be able to be the Second Adam, since the First Adam wouldn't have been responsible for everyone's sin.

[bchandler]

If Adam and Eve had no children while in the garden, they would have been breaking one of the few commandments God gave them... Be fruitful and multiply...

Gen 1:27 And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the seas, and over birds of the heavens, and over all beasts creeping on the earth.


The question is how long were they in the garden... I've seen some scholars say they fell the day they were created... but I find that hard to believe for the following reasons...

Gen 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good, the man being alone. I will make a helper suited to him.
Gen 2:19 And Jehovah God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the heavens out of the ground. And He brought them to the man, to see what he would call it. And all which the man might call it, each living soul, that was its name.
Gen 2:20 And the man called names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every animal of the field. But no helper suited to him was found for a man.
Gen 2:21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath.
Gen 2:22 And Jehovah God formed the rib which He had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 And the man said, This now at last is bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man.

It seems to me that there was some period of time here... God says it isn't good for man to be alone... he then proceeds to bring him every animal to see what he Adam will call it... considering that there are millions of species on this planet today, and there are millions more extinct species... I imagine this task took Adam quite some time... and when it was all said and done... no helper suited to him was found... Now I'm certain God knew this... but just as a parent educates a child, God was teaching Adam about his creation in a form of divine "show and tell"...

Finally God creates Eve...hmmm... why do you think God waited so long... and made Adam do that other stuff first? Maybe so he would have a greater appreciation and reverence for her? I'm not sure...

The bible then goes directly...cutscene fashion... to the fall... Now I hardly think Eve woke up after being created and went straight to the forbiden tree and ate the forbiden fruit... Just as the bible treates the priod of time Adam spent naming the animals as a cutscene, so it is the way it treats the fall...

I'm sure that God has his reasons for doing this... after all it is he who showed this information to Moses...or so we believe.

So to think Adam and Eve had no children before the fall would be a mistake in my opinion.

So, what happened to them... I know about the theories of the nephilim, but I have also heard it postulated that the "sons of God" who saw the daughters of men and took them as wives were Adam and Eve's "unfallen" children.

That there had been some genetic corruption in fallen man as a result of that first sin,(some believe the fruit contained a gene altering virus) and that when the unfallen and the fallen produced offspring this was what produced the race of giants...

But in the end it is all speculation... cause the bible doesn't say... the only evidence we have in our own flesh is a severely deformed Y chromosome carried by every man on the planet.

Personally I would expect it to be far more likely that the "sons of God" spoken of in genesis are unfallen children. I find it dificult to believe that God would allow demons who are "spirit beings" and angels whom Jesus said in scripture are not given or taken in marriage, to produce offspring with man... and from what Jesus had to say about it, I doubt it would even have been possible.

As for why these "sons of God" weren't chosen to survive the flood? I can't answer.... the bible doesn't even give grounds for speculation except to say that everything had corrupted its ways...
Is it possible that like Enoch, God took his unfallen sons out of this world? Well, we all know that with God all things are possible...

I guess we will just have to wait and ask him for ourselves.

As for genesis 3:16 it says I will increase, not you will experience... God is speaking to Eve in a way that suggests that she already has some knowledge of the discomfort of childbirth and that from now on it will be much worse than before.

Otherwise God would have or should have phrased it in a way that would tell her that WHEN she gave birth she would experience great pain.

I expect God used the tensing and phrasing he did in that verse for a specific reason.

[Bob the Quiet]

The tense and all in that verse isn't indicative at all as to wether or not she had already had children. It simply states that her pain in giving birth will be increased and that she'll give birth in sorrow. The reading doesn't require one to believe that she had already had children. I think it is significant that she isn't said to have had any children at all until Cain was born.

[bchandler]

I disagree, I think the sense is there... so we just have to agree to disagree.

[Bob the Quiet]

Agreed :D

[Abiding in His Word]

Cantaress4Him

I see this differently.

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

God established perpetual enmity, not only between the serpent and the woman, but also between the serpent's and the woman's seed, i.e., between the human and the serpent race. The seed of the woman would crush the serpent's head,

Gen 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.

I see this as prophetic as a result of having to leave the perfect place and harmony God had intended for them. Eve would bring forth children in sorrow knowing what could have been, as opposed to what would be now outside of the garden (God's perfect will for them.)

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

This is the prophectic difference between the perfect garden which was green and plush and watered by mist. Carefree, without toil. Adam would toil with thorns and thistles and eat of it in sorrow all the days of his life.

The punishment or result of the fall, was being sent out of the perfect place God had designed that they would be in His perfect will and have all their needs met without pain, sorrow or toil.

If you see these as prophetic as I do, you will see that they have been fulfilled from the time of Genesis for both Eve and Adam and their offspring until the present.

[bchandler]

While I agree with your assessment, also note that Adam's job in scripture was to care for the Garden of Eden, so he had experiencedwhat the earth and his work would have been like without the curse.... Just as I believe Eve experienced what bringing children into the world was like before the curse...

Can I say it definitvely? No... but I believe this is a more plausible explanation than fallen demon spirits comming to earth and making babies with humans.

[Abiding in His Word]

Gen 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.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Seems as though there would be sorrow that previously had not been known.

[bchandler]

agreed

[daffodyllady]

another thought...

If you look at the wording of the KJV here, God tells Eve that He will increase her conception. In other words, she will get pregnant more often. Makes sense, if her children die off, that we need more people born, to replace them.

[Abiding in His Word]

Of course, you will agree, I think, that all of the words to Eve seem to apply to married women only, right? So unmarried women what???

And the words to Adam to apply to who.....?

Just observing.......

[daffodyllady]

I would not think that God would place only married women under authority of men, while unmarried young women would be foot-loose and fancy-free. :?

It seems to me, that God's placing a curse on the ground, and requiring sweat from the brow in self-support, is passed on all mankind, women included.

And the words to Eve, were addressed to a married woman, but in fact, they affect all women, no matter what their station or situation. God has placed man in authority over women. Women are not to lead men.
The verse that says there is no male nor female in Christ is not saying men and women can ignore other commandments in the Bible concerning our God-given roles in the church or the home. Rather, the context is speaking of acceptance into the plan of salvation, just as God made an equal entrance into His family for all races, so did He make it equally easy for men and women, to become His children.

We are born again in our spirits, which are neither male nor female. But on this earth, we have to function as either one or the other. Therefore, we must submit to God's rules for functioning as male and female (in relationships toward each other), until we are freed from these mortal bodies.

God ordained that women be under the leadership and protection of men. Fathers and Husbands are to fulfill this role. My own husband does not. He left me. Therefore, since I am middle-aged, single, and my father is dead, I submit myself to my church leadership, as though they were my earthly male head. I have found this to be a great protection and comfort. It has given stability to my life, and has supplied the missing element of having a man to help me make decisions.

I feel America has left the foundation of the home, by choosing to reject God's Word concerning the role of women. Women in America have pushed and shoved men out of their role, usurping authority God never intended them to have. And they in turn have lost the respect, the protection and the freedom of the homemaker's role which God truely designed us for. Think about it. It is to women that God entrusted the training of the next generation. And what does America do now with babies?

The church of America has swallowed the lie of the women's rights movement. I for one, do not want to be counted among those on the broad road. The narrow path is not easy on the "old man" (or "old woman", in this case! !), but it is the only way to heaven.

[Abiding in His Word]

I would not think that God would place only married women under authority of men, while unmarried young women would be foot-loose and fancy-free

Foot-loose and fancy-free? If you mean free to think for ourselves and make responsible choices and decisions based on God's word and His direction for our lives, yes He did.

women included.

Scripture doesn't say that. These were words spoken to Adam.

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

And the words to Eve, were addressed to a married woman, but in fact, they affect all women, no matter what their station or situation.

Are you saying that because Eve was deceived, that I am paying the price for her deception? With this reasoning, all women might also have to pay the price for other OT women also; ie Lot's wife, Delilah, Gomer, Zeresh. Is that what you are implying - that I am encumbered with someone's else's sin for the rest of my life?

[bchandler]

Um, we were every one of us encumbered with Adam's sin nature due to Adam's sin. How would that be any different?

[Abiding in His Word]

encumbered with Adam's sin nature due to Adam's sin.

Agreed, bchandler, no disagreement here. We were all born with a propensity to sin; ie. sinful nature. We were not all born, I think you would agree, with a propensity toward someone else's particular sin.

For example, I was not born with a disposition towards the sin of David - polygamy or adultery. That's not to say that over a period of 50-60 years, I may not commit the sin of adultery (this is not a confession BTW), but I do not have a leaning towards it just because David did.

I use David because we get "stuck" when this example focuses on Adam or Eve. The myth that all women have "inherited" a propensity towards deception because Eve was deceived is not true. It was Eve's sin and she accepted responsibility for it.

Adam, on the other hand, hid or covered his sin. Can we create a doctrine around Adam's sin and lump all men into this particular sin? Can we say that all males are polygamous because David was? Can we say all women are prophetesses because Miriam was? You get my point.

Of course, all have sinned and fall short.....but I am not responsible for someone else's sin.

[bchandler]

Wow, I guess I missed something.... I don't think scripture indicates women are deceitful at all... at least not any more than any man for that matter...

I'm not sure where you thought i was even intimating such a thing...

In fact... I don't even know you could call Eve's actions sin... the scripture says SHE was deceived, it doesn't say she deceived Adam... Adam's sin was 3 fold... 1 he was not deceived as was Eve, and 2 he chose to disobey God.3 he tried to blame Eve.

The portion of the curse that placed Eve and all her decendants under the authority of either her father or her husband was for her protection.

Scripture speaks of a woman as the weaker vessel... Not spiritually, but certainly physically, and maybe in other areas i would probably get flamed for mentioning..... so I won't...lol

Suffice it to say, a woman's husban is her covering... I didn't make it that way... God did... Unfortunately I think some men have used their position of authority to put forward doctrines regarding women that are nothing short of onerous.

My point regarding the curse was nothing to do with the idea that women were deceptive... It was that just as the curse that applied to Adam applied to all men, the portion of the curse that applied to Eve applied to all women that came after her...

The earth was cursed, and each sex bore a specific protion of the curse as well...

Imagine what it was like to be Adam or Eve... to know what was... to know what might have been.. to know what was lost, what they threw away... what they placed on all of humanity... I sure wouldn't want that burden on me... It would be too much for me... I think it would make me crazy...

I have a hard enough time thinking of my failures as a husband and father... let alone the whole of humanity.

[daffodyllady]

[quote="Abiding in His Word]Are you saying that because Eve was deceived, that I am paying the price for her deception? With this reasoning, all women might also have to pay the price for other OT women also; ie Lot's wife, Delilah, Gomer, Zeresh. Is that what you are implying - that I am encumbered with someone's else's sin for the rest of my life?[/quote]

Well, if I may humbly say this; we as women suffer along with men, in the toil, sweat and sorrow of making a living. As a single mother, I can testify that the earth brings forth brambles and weeds in my garden too, and God isn't punishing the man in this household. Cause he left long ago.

I am wondering what you do with I Timothy 2:11-14

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Is this inspired by God? Is it just as relevant for life today as it was when Paul wrote it?

[Abiding in His Word]

daffodyllady

Adam had already been charged with cultivating the garden. After his transgression, he would continue to cultivate the ground, only now it would be with sorrow and it would not yield the fruit as it did in the garden of Eden.

Compare the 2 verses:

Gen 2:15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

Gen 3:17 .......cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

This wasn't God's punishment to Adam. Being sent out of the perfect paradise God wanted for him was his punishment.

If you think that was God's punishment for all men, then why aren't all men farmers? Was this a command given to Adam or was it a prophetic word that this is what his work would be like outside of the garden?

I suggest that this was a natural consequence of having to leave the garden of Eden. It was not a punishment nor a command for all men to be cultivators of the land. The Bible says this word was spoken to Adam specifically:

Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life......

We need to stay on topic in this thread. You need to start another thread to discuss I Timothy 2:11-14 if you want to.

Blessings to you!

[daffodyllady]

I'm sorry, I didn't think about staying on-topic. I like rabbit trails too much.