No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Discuss Biblical and theological support for concept that Bible teaches equality between sexes.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:01 pm

One more thing, Zarove. You said,
Read the El Shaddai thread, and this time Hoenslty
I do not appreciate your insistence that I am dishonest, merely because I disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I have not read the El Shaddai thread since you and Metacrock started it up again after the forum hack-- because I don't care. Whether "El Shaddai" carries an association with female breasts is a very small issue that I have long since decided was not worth all this aggravation. Have it your way, Zarove. It really doesn't matter to me.

How's that for honesty?
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:26 pm

When I say read it hoenslty, I only mean what I aid above. My problem wih the El Shaddai issue extends beyind the singile issue. Its hte reason you were wuich ti point to it as a feminine name for God in the firts olace without dong any sort of extensive research. You beleived it because it suited you to. Its the same problem withthe Curse argument, or a lot of others.

Bare in mind you seem to appriciate what Metacrock tells me and hes much more rude and hostile than I am. You just see me as mroe hostile because Im contradictign you. Still, this is less becasue you disagree wiht me and mroe because its just flat out not True. As I said, it spoor linguistics and poor logic that I'm addessing, and the dishonesty rests in emotional desires, not in diliberate deception. Taking offense simply shows the other great problem I have wiht modern times, that peopel are no longer literate nohg to make these distinctions automatically. No this is nt a disparagement to you personally, but my writtign style confuses a lot of people even though its the same writtign style used by much older writers. Its formal english.

Other than the dyslexia, it shoudln't be that hard to read, but yoru reading into it intentions never meant. Which is also what you do with the Hebrew words, from a language you've never studied.


If its that easy to misundestand me when I speak English, albeit in a stilted and formal and old fashiioned way, then how do you expect to give an authoritive statement about hwat a Hebrew phrase meant 4500 years ago?

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:48 pm

Zarove, I have a degree in English. I have read all styles of English prose both before and after Shakespeare. I can tell you without reservation that your way of addressing me and others is far more than "old fashioned." It is indeed insulting.

If you had said to a man in the 18th century, "Now read it again, and this time honestly," if he were of your social class he would have challenged you to a duel for impugning his honor.

Metacrock knows I don't like it when he writes in a rude or hostile way. I'm not going to nag him about it. If you were rude or hostile to someone else, I might speak up once or twice and then leave you alone. I wouldn't nag you to be good; I'm not your mom, and I'm not Metacrock's.

But when someone is rude and hostile to me, I object. I stand up for myself.

Contradicting me is not a problem for me, when it's respectful and allows me the liberty of having my own point of view. Your posts to me are usually neither. Even now you insist on saying I just don't like being contradicted-- which is a judgment on my motives and is therefore rude. You can't just say it's old-fashioned language. It's bad manners to tell someone what their motives are for something they've said. It's bad manners to tell someone else what they think or what they believe. It's bad manners to refer to what someone else believes as "rubbish." It's bad manners to speak of what someone else has said in terms that malign their character, such as "selfish," "dishonest," or "sophistry."

If you want to have a respectful discussion, please re-read over what you say before you click on "submit," and ask yourself, "if that were said to me in just that way, would I feel insulted?"

Now I will ask you once again: Will you take my olive branch? Will you agree that we are not going to discuss egalitarianism between ourselves? Will you agree to the terms I set out on how I envision this working? Do you have a better idea for making it work?

I want to be able to peacefully coexist on this forum. Please work with me.
Last edited by KR Wordgazer on Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:51 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Wag more.
Bark less.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:49 pm

To further elaborate on how you misinterpret my own speaking style. Or rather, writing style...

Zarove, you're insulting me again. I see no reason to reply to any of this until you change your tone. Let me make it clear where the insults are.

You say Metacrock has "enabled" me to "believe rubbish." So I couldn't have come up with any of my opinions on my own; I need Metacrock to tell me what to think-- also I will swallow any "rubbish" Metacrock hands me. I am incapable of discerning a good argument from a bad one.
I mean, Metacrock enables you to continue wiht the beleif system. When I firts noted El Shaddai was not feminien you accepted what I said,then he showe dup and said I was wrong. You imidiatley agreed wiht him, and veen now seehim as a valient prunce rescuing yoru position agsisnt a vile tyrant that is Zarove.

That attitude alone insults me. Metacrock has never studied Hebrew at all, where I have. While I never claiemd to be a Hebrew Scholar, I do know the Language. Yet, I cant use that as the basis of naythign I say, and have to take sriosyly half baked claims you foudn on a website by someone lse hwo is quotign somethign else they have read?

Do you not think thats a bit insulting?

And you imedatley fall back into the same positions.

Enabling is a Psycological term, it is also elastiv. It simply meant here that he allows you to view me as wrong. You also ignroe how many times h'es personally insulted me, of heck for hat matter how oftne you've personally insulted me. My own tne is largley responcive. However, anythgin I sy omes off as way mroe aggressive than it really is because thats how you porefer to see me. Its also enabled byt he fac htat this is a text medium. If I wre speakign you coudl still project motives, but it'd be harder to defend raw aggression, as Im not that angry. Still, your even twisign what I say here.




because you rpoefer yoru feminist ideology over anything remotely connected to viable study
So I deliberately choose deception because it makes me happy, and I don't care about scholarship.

No, you selectivley choose to beleive peices of information wihtout goign deeper into them because the idea you glean form it appeals to you its a mistake the vast majority of people make.

Speakign of which, why haven't you called Metacrock on the numerous insults he issued to me?




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.
I did not make such a value judgment about you. I have NEVER called you sexist. I know I have said things in anger, but I know I never called you sexist. I may have said you were biased, but I also admit that I am biased, as all humans are.

On this I may be wrong. It may have been Metacrock. If so I apologise.

Whatever Metacrock said is between you and him.

But you are making a value judgment about me and deciding that you know what my true motives are.
Based on what you've written its fairly easy.






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.
Again you tell me what I think and interpret my motives for me.
Now htis I do remember. You said plainly you "Prefer" the motherly image to "God of the montain". But preference shoudl never matter in a linguisyical study.


It is unfortunate that our earlier conversation was wiped out in the forum hack, because I actually said to you that I was not wed to the idea that El Shaddai had to refer to breasts. However, I can't prove this because it's gone. Also gone are my repeated and futile efforts to make peace with you, to agree not to discuss egalitarianism any more with you, and to focus on what we could agree on-- none of which you ever responded to.

But Im discussing Hebrew and the Theology of the Vurse here. My outrage, in this instance, is ourely motivated by your misapplication of a Hebrew Phrase. Once you realise this,and just how Insuler my actual argument is ( as in it focuses soely on one part of yoru essay, and not the rest, and is based on your misundrstandign a Hebrew phrase) then you may be less angry over it.


I did mention messiah Tain, and the reasonw as he makes grammatical mistakes in English base don his Theological Views. I dislike how words are twisted to mean somethign they dotn really mean to prove a point, especially by someone hwo doens't really now the language they are twisting.



Now, even though I really shouldn't after the tone you just used with me, I will address the one substantive thing you did say.

I've said more hran one substantive thing.


No, I don't believe Mesopotamian women were just like me. They may very well have been "hardier" than women are today, although of course they were also subject to diseases that have since been eradicated. Yes, I believe they wanted to have more children than I want today. Yes, I believe they saw pregnancy as a whole as a good thing. I still don't see how that negates the idea that this passage says "I will multiply your sorrows AND your pregnancies" as part of the Curse.
Well for one thing, they'd be oblivious to why this was a Curse.


Besies, thats not what the Phrase was intended to convey. In Hebrew a lotof things which link wuth forme words really woudl try to point to the former first. "I will increse your sorrows and your conception" woudl mor elikely be heard as "You will be sorrowful when pregnant" more htan "You will be pregnant mroe often". Its simply not hwo the language works in Hebrew.


Despite the tendency of interpreters to replace the word "and" there with "in" or "of," every source I read says that "sorrows AND pregnancies" is what the actual Hebrew says.

But, the Phre in Hebrew would be heard by a Hebrew speaking as mainly focusinf on Sorrows, not multilication iof pregnancy. Basiclaly, Pregnancy will be a sorrowful event instead of Joyous a it was meat to be. Thats the point that is being made here. Not an increase in fertility.

And again, its a LINGUISTICAL point.

Though in this cse it does have Thelogical ramifications.



Yes, I do think that the ability of a woman's body to have more frequent pregnancies than her health can sustain, is part of the curse. Yes, I think it quite likely that, however much they wanted and welcomed more children, they wouldn't enjoy the fact that too-close-together pregnancies can kill-- no matter how "hardy" you are to start out.

But you back this ofd nothing but a misinterpreted Hebrew Phrase and a desire to prmote Birth Control. Basically, you start wiht the ocnclusion.

Thats the Logical Fallacy I was attemptign to cite.


Which by the way is also why I dont address the Onan Argument ( which is not invalid) and why I odnt address the Birth Control Issue ( WHich I have no interest in). I am merely not happy wihtthe abuse of the Hebrew Language, and how peopel reshape their Thellogy on thigns they reas into the text rather than a reading of the text.

Kane Augustus is right-- there is evidence of the existence of birth control in most ancient societies, including that of Mesopotamia. Yes, I think women availed themselves of it.

Which doens't really speak about my point which is linguitical and theological.



But it really doesn't matter to me whether we agree on this or not. I am once again extending the olive branch, though last time I did, it did no good. Can we agree to disagree, and drop this matter? It's illogical and unproductive to continue this. You can't browbeat me into changing my mind-- and yes, your posts are coming across as attempts to browbeat, not as respectful discussion in which I am allowed to have a point of view that differs from yours.

They are also comign accross to you as somehign enurley different than they are, an attemto to attakc you prsonally or your position. I am instead simply unhappy wiht the use of a Hebrew Phrae you ont udnestand beign twisted to suit an agenda. Again, once you get htat part the rest becoems much less offensive.


I propose that we forgive one another and bury the hatchet. You can post whatever you like about Complementarianism in any thread you start yourself.l I can post anything I like about Egalitarianism in any thread I open myself. We agree to stay out of one another's threads. In threads that are started by others in this Egalitarian section, we ignore one another's posts (it's easy to do, simply list me as a "foe" in your profile and you don't have to read anything I write unless you click on it deliberately).

This isnt abotu a Hatchet or you prsonally. Its about me havign studied Hebrew and not liking the prhase beign misinterpreted.

Again, this is not even aboutthe position you've taken on Birth Congrol. Its about hte Hebrew Language and misrepresentation of it.

While yo may not liek this respince, I ask you to perhaos see my postigns in a new light. I am addressing a VERY specific, VERY narrow point. I am nothign is not literal minded, and despite theattacks on me recently, veey precice and Logical. The sole purpose I made of myself here is to address how yo misinterrpeted a singular Hebrew Phrase in a singular passage to arrive at a prefered conclusion.

So rather than take this as an overall condemnation, why not look at it as what it is. A Rather lenghty discussion about the linguistical matters of the Genesis chapter 3 text.


Because thats what I intended it to be.


On the non-egalitarian forums, we can interact with one another normally and courteously, as friends who have agreed to disagree on one issue and not to discuss it any more between ourselves.

I don't see how I could make a fairer offer. Will you agree?

But his issue for me is not Egalitarian to begin with. it is entirley base don hebrew culture and Language.


All I ask is that this portion of yru argument be retracted as its really not a berty sound argument, as it rests on a Linguistical misinterpretation.

ZAROVE
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by ZAROVE » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:07 pm

I have an idea. I will on monday or Tuesday post what I mean regardign abuses of Hebrew andhow they effect the Text in "Avdventures Of Faith". I won't use the specific exampels you supplied me here, I willuse others,and trust me there are plenty of others.


I will explain why I dislike the abuse of Language and these "Lookign deeper" sorts of arguments there, and it will eb quiet apart form the Egalitarian threads you seem to confuse my point with.


Read the enw post, and see what I mean then. Afterward you can decide what I mean.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:42 pm

As far as "confusing" your posts with Egalitarianism, Zarove-- the point I have been trying to make all along is that this is my thread that I started here in the Egalitarian Christianity subforum. Yes, the topic of birth control is closely associated with the topic of egalitarianism, for obvious reasons-- and it is associated here with Quiverfull teachings, which is what this thread is about.

So no, I wasn't confusing anything with anything. My point was that I would appreciate it if you would not post in threads that I open, in this subforum. The fact that we were talking about Hebrew construction as it relates to the topic of birth control, is secondary to this point. My real issue is that I don't want to discuss women's issues here in the Egalitarian subforum with you at all.

That said, I have been "looking deeper" into ancient Hebrew construction in order to understand where you're coming from, and I learned that many scholars consider "sorrow and conception" to be a "hendiadys" Hebrew construction, where two things are meant to be read as one. I can understand that-- and it makes sense to me as to why, if this truly is a "hendiadys" language construction, you would object to them being read as two objects of the verb "multiply" instead of one.

However, this concept as it relates to Genesis 3:16 is by no means cut-and-dried. There are Hebrew scholars who question whether a "hendiadys" construction was intended at all in Genesis 3:16, particularly in light of the fact that the Septuagint does not use the hendiadys construction (in fact, it renders "conception" as "sighing," which is what Metacrock was talking about when he referred to Katharine Bushnell's book disagreeing that the word meant "conception" at all-- but the Septuagint treats the two words as two different things, not two words expressing the same thing.) If the word does mean "conception," then the reading of the two words as one is also disputed because "sorrow" and "pregnancy" are such different terms. While "pain" and "childbirth" are closely associated and could much more easily be viewed in terms of a hendiadys, the (more accurate) translation of the words as "sorrow" (or "toil" or "trouble") and "conception" (or "pregnancies") are much more difficult to read as one concept.

Here's one modern source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ssFUqm ... 16&f=false (see Page 38)

Here's another, from 1850:

http://www.jewish-history.com/occident/ ... s3-16.html

So-- when you were taught Hebrew, Zarove, were you taught that the only possible construction of "sorrow" and "conception" in this verse was as a hendiadys? Because here is a scholarly work that says that Jerome, in preparing the Vulgate, also did not use the hendiadys construction, (just as the Septuagint didn't), though he rendered the word "conception" as "conception."

http://books.google.com/books?id=5uDDLo ... 16&f=false
(see Page 38)

In other words, the issue you have raised as to the proper way to read this passage in terms of Hebrew construction, is not a settled, resolved issue (as other sources I found and posted earlier also make clear). In light of that, I must decline to retract this from my Quverfull essay. You may be right that I should have done more research before coming to a final conclusion in that essay, but I see no reason to change it now that I have done that further research, because I don't think now any more than I did earlier, that these two words were meant to be read as one concept.

If the thread you are promising throws more light on the issue, I may change my mind-- but the fact remains that for ex-Quiverfull women who are questioning their faith after being used by the movement as having little value beyond breeding "arrows" for their husband's "quivers"-- they need more reasons, not less, to see that the Bible was never meant to bind them and control them.

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:06 am

I'll tell you what I will do. :D I will revise the article I wrote for No Longer Quivering, so that it acknowledges "trouble/sorrow in conceptions/preganancies" as another possible reading. This still reasonably includes the fact that too many pregnancies, too close together, wear down and harm a woman's body, and that this is part of the curse.

But my research has made me even more certain this phrase does not mean "pain in childbirth."
Wag more.
Bark less.

Kane Augustus
Posts: 120
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:25 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by Kane Augustus » Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:48 pm

KR Wordgazer wrote:I'll tell you what I will do. :D I will revise the article I wrote for No Longer Quivering, so that it acknowledges "trouble/sorrow in conceptions/preganancies" as another possible reading. This still reasonably includes the fact that too many pregnancies, too close together, wear down and harm a woman's body, and that this is part of the curse.

But my research has made me even more certain this phrase does not mean "pain in childbirth."
KR,

How do you feel about living in submission to a god who has cursed you?

User avatar
KR Wordgazer
Posts: 1410
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by KR Wordgazer » Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:56 pm

I have two answers to that, Kane. First, if you look at the passage in Gen. 3:16, God does not "curse" the man or the woman. He pronounces the serpent "cursed," and he tells Adam that the ground is "cursed" because of what he has done. But the rest of what God tells them, I read as just a statement of the natural consequences-- that this is the way the world is going to work now, because they have separated themselves from the life of God and placed themselves under a system called "the knowledge of good and evil," rather than in a relationship of life in God where God walks with them in the cool of the day. The trees represented that choice, between living by judgments and labels, "this is good," and "this is evil" -- and simple, pure life in trust and communion with God.

The whole thing is spoken of collectively as "the curse," but that's just a label, really, for purposes of theological discussion.

Secondly, I personally view the Genesis account in the second sense in which I spoke to Zarove:

If you take Genesis 2-3 as figurative, then the Curse expresses a statement of a lost ideal, an articulation of the "human problematic" or the problem of being human-- that the world is not as we feel it should be, nor are we as we feel we should be. It is a lament about the difficulty of life in a world of thorns and thistles, painful and too-frequent childbirth, male domination and female dependency, and a need to cover ourselves and hide in shame from God.

I think Genesis 2-3 was intended to be a symbolic story. I see the "curse" as an articulation of the human problematic, not a literal pronouncement of God in a literal Garden. I believe the passage articulates truth without having to be newspaper-style "fact."
Wag more.
Bark less.

User avatar
Gwarlroge
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:37 pm

Re: No Longer Quivering/Take Heart Project

Post by Gwarlroge » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:47 pm

Kane Augustus wrote:How do you feel about living in submission to a god who has cursed you?
Well, as KR said, he cursed the ground and some other things. However, this is the same God who "became flesh and dwelled among us," "becoming a curse for us" so that we could have eternal life with Him. This same God has told us to await a new heaven, a new earth, and the redemption of our bodies. He has already redeemed us from iniquity, forgiven our sins, and given us a new hope.

To submit to such a God ought to be the most natural thing in the world, but ultimately He gives the grace to do it.

[EDIT: I had to click "Submit" after I was done typing. :D]

Post Reply