Kristen, I knw that Metacrock has enabled you to just continue in believing this sort of rubbish, and you will just see me as a man puhsign dominance over women, so its pointless in talking to you because you rpoefer yoru feminist ideology over anything remotely connected to viable study, and Truth must be made subordinate to Ideals, but lets hink for a moment about what I have said rather than the dismissals.
Zarove, you keep asserting and re-asserting that a woman in ancient Mesopotamia would never consider it burdensome to be pregnant every year, year after year, feeling her body slowly weakening with the stress, knowing that the chances are high that one of the pregnancies will one day kill her.
Actually I refuted the argument that the stress would one day kill her. Her body was likely a whole lot more sturdy than even most mens in the Modern world. Women and men in this time lead a very different lifestyle, they were a breed that could till the fields, give birth the same day, and go back. They weren’t anywhere near as weak as today’s women, just like the men could lift swords that were well over 40 Pounds in battle. This was a different Era, and a different world. There is also the fact that your trying to project a western value system onto these women, in thinking they believed like you in their individuality. They didn’t. Individualism had not come along in Ancient Mesopotamia. They were ultimately Tribal minded, not individually minded. Giving Birth to numerous Children would make more sense in terms of continuing family line and supplying familial support than having only a few. Your acting as if these women had a mentality that placed their own desires first in their lives, which would not have been the case.
I say that this is a universal female condition without birth control, and would have been seen that way then by women, regardless of how happy and proud they were of the many children they bore.
Your evidence is what? Personal feeling as a woman?
I myself am very, very
different form most men of my own Era, though Metacrock thinks In a typical southern male who hats women’s equality because I’d feel controlled. I also know from studies that while there are universal attributes to Humanity and the Sexes, there is also vast differences in terms of Culture. Heck, some Cultures venerate Suicide, and others have no problem with polygamy.
So I’m going to need a lot more than just your word on this, I’ll need documentation from the culture itself.
You keep asking me to show you texts but you furnish none, as to why this passage does not mean what it actually says.
Every time I supply evidence I’m ridiculed. it’s not like your going to buy it anyway, you’d say its “The Patriarchy” and Metacrock will show up and find someone else who disagrees and that will be the evidence that’s True. We’ve done this before.
So why don't you give me some, and then let Metacrock give you some? I don't think you can prove anything more than that there are different interpretations of this passage, but hey, give it a shot.
And of course the interpretation that doesn’t agree with you will be ignored and dismissed as “Patriarchy” because your view is the correct one that looked deeper into the Bible, and my view is purely base don some sort of inherent sexism. So no, it’s not worth a shot, when your up against those who absolutely refuse to accept their position is wrong, it never is. In that way your no different than the Atheists I’ve had to deal with wh adamantly insist they aren’t Religious. They never listen to my actual argument and just seek out their own “reasoning” on it.
You really don’t care about the Truth in this matter, its completely about validating your own opinion.
I mean, look at anyone who discusses the Curse apart from the whole “Egalitarian” rot. Anyone from Augustine to John MacArthur. Its never discussed. Metacrock hasn’t exactly been forthcoming with Talmudic references either. Why is it that such an obvious part of the Curse would be overlooked for so long?
As for the "Shaddai" reference, you seem to think that if you just keep repeating yourself over and over, I will eventually say, "Oh, Zarove, you're right and I was wrong." But you've given me no sources that refute the connection of this word to the ancient word for "female breast,"[/quote]
That’s because Metacrock did that for me. Nothing connect it to Female Breast even in what you presented, only “Breast” , and even that’s speculative. Does it never occur to you that your reading “Breast” as feminine because of a Bias? As I’ve said numerous times, “Breast” is not a word that is inherently feminine. Women are not the only sex that has Breasts. Your assumption that El Shaddai means “The Breasted One” is based entirely on your desire to read “Breast’ as an object exclusive ro women so that you can take a principle name for God and make it female to make yourself feel better, and has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word El Shaddai.
Its sole based on your need to find feminine names or aspects for God and accepting any claim that one exists.
The reason I bring it up here is because the same problem exists in your other arguments. Your too busy trying to impose your current views on the scripture and will use any scrap of anything to vindicate your claims.
though Metacrock has given you many that support it. Why should we simply accept your authority on these things? What is the source of your authoritative scholarship, please?
Kristen, one of the thigns I pointe dout to Metacrock was that the “Plenty of soruces that support it” thathe gave actually proved me right. Read the El Shaddai thread, and this time Hoenslty. Again, your seeing what you want to see, and that is that Zarove the evil sexist is wrong and Metacrock is a hero who prove d me a fraud.
But the Truth is, he didn’t show any soruces that proved anything but what I had already said. We don’t know the exact root for Shaddai, but you and he act as if it cme from Shad menaign Breast and this is a poven absolute Fact. Nothing in the word means “Female Breast used ot nurture the Young”, that’s a completely modern reinterpretation. And again, the actual word is Masculine.
Yoru original claim was that oen of the principle names for God was actually feminine, El Shaddai meaning the Breasted One, about how God suppies us with nourishmnet ike a Mother giving ,ilk form her Breast. Butthis isn’t supported by the words origins itelf, an isn’t supported by anything Metacrock presented other than the Blue Letrr Bible quoting Harriet Lunsty.
Its simply foolish ti think a Hebrew word endign in Ai would be a Motherly image though because it’s a Masculien ending. Do you try to call upon a Mother Image by refrign to the Mother figure as “He”? That’s the equivolent here.
If you re-read the El Shaddai thread and remve the “Metacrock is Great but Zarove is bad and evil, and I like the fac that God is a woman” glasses, you’d see that my whole problem with how the word is interpreted is not roote din some sort fo intrinsic sexism and Metacrocks arguments aren’t as storng as hes pretending them to be.
But you don’t want to loose this, you want El Shaddai to be a Feminien name for God as it make syou feel good. You’ve already admited this you prefer. But preference doenst make reality.
One more thing. You keep claiming I'm biased and that I'm reading into the passage from my bias. But bias is a universal human condition, isn't it?
No. It can be overcome.
You are also reading what you want to read into the passage, and choosing to take whatever sources you have (which you have not yet shown us)
I did show you soruces, and no, I try to udnertand it as it was written, not to fit some agenda.
Just repeating the Lie Metacrock told that I gave no soruces at all and he gave a lot of scholars doesn’t make it so.
as authoritative and to reject the plain meaning of the passage.
See, this is what I mean. You take yoru reading as “The plain reading” and somehow Im using a mental game to sidestep it. But if yours is the plain reading of the text, why did no one before the 20th Century ever come to this conclusion about it?
Before you ask for sorces, I can’t prove a Negative. I cant hwo you soruces don’t exist.
What you have to show is not that I am biased and that you are not, but that your reasons for your reading trump my reasons for mine. In the absence of such reasons, the plain sense of the text in the original language is a pretty high standard to overcome.
OJK, fine, yoru using the plain reading int heorigional text and Im using a bias reading base dupon my biases against women.
Can you show me the mountian of Rabbinical documents speaking of how women will become pregnant more often as the result fo the Curse on Eve? How about Hebraic writings from before the first Century? Anything? Anythgin at all?
Because a large poart fo my argument is that what your calling the plain reading of the text is really not. You even admit this when you say “Let slook deeper in the Bible” which is often used as a ploy to act as if part of the text is overlooked.
But if this is indeed the plain reading, why did no one notice it before 20th century writers?
Would’t it be logical to assume that at leats a few peple woul have, in the last 4500 years, mentioned Eve’s increased fertility as part of the Curse at some point?
If the reading is so plain, why didn’t they?