Is child birth pain really a curse from God?

[OnceConvinced]

Gen 3:16 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.”

I had always believed as a Christian that pain when giving birth was a curse from God and that God must have done something to the woman's body to make it so difficult.

But now that I am more enlightened and don't just believe what the bible says (with blind faith), I now question some things. These questions I now bring here for debate.

1) How is it fair that every woman from Eve on should have to suffer for Eve's sins? Wasn't being thrown out of the Garden of Eden enough?

2) Why was it only Eve that was cursed? Adam should have been made to take responsibility for his own actions, thus some kind of similar curse should have been imposed on him to make it fair.

3) But it wasn't just human women that were cursed either, so it seems. Even female animals were given the curse. Weren't they? Or were they already created to suffer at child birth? If so then wasn't Eve originally created the same way? Thus the curse was irrelevent?

4) Why would God curse women in this way and then immediately after command them to "go forth and multiply?" And why claim that child birth is a blessing? Doesn't God contradict himself here?

[McCulloch]

1) How is it fair that every woman from Eve on should have to suffer for Eve's sins? Wasn't being thrown out of the Garden of Eden enough?

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

I guess this only applies to males.

2) Why was it only Eve that was cursed? Adam should have been made to take responsibility for his own actions, thus some kind of similar curse should have been imposed on him to make it fair.

But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

According to the New Testament, women must be kept in their place because it was woman who was first deceived and fell into transgression.

3) But it wasn't just human women that were cursed either, so it seems. Even female animals were given the curse. Weren't they? Or were they already created to suffer at child birth? If so then wasn't Eve originally created the same way? Thus the curse was irrelevant?

The difficulty that humans have with childbirth as compared to other species, even other species of primates, is getting our oversized brain through the birth passage. Presumably, Eve was not created with having children in the plan or Eve did not have a very big brain until after she ate from the tree of knowledge.

4) Why would God curse women in this way and then immediately after command them to "go forth and multiply?" And why claim that child birth is a blessing? Doesn't God contradict himself here?

Like every blessing from God, this one does not come without pain and suffering. But God loves us!

[OnceConvinced]

[The difficulty that humans have with childbirth as compared to other species, even other species of primates, is getting our oversized brain through the birth passage. Presumably, Eve was not created with having children in the plan or Eve did not have a very big brain until after she ate from the tree of knowledge.

That's an interesting thought. Did that mean God wasn't expecting the sin to happen? I think those who believe God is omniscient have an issue to contend with here. If God is omniscient then he must have created Even in advance to be able to give birth, knowing it was going to be necessary. Unless he made her sexless with the intension of changing her once she sinned. It all seems screwed up to me, no matter which way you look at it. lol.

[Desert_Rose2]

I don't believe that women (or men) were cursed by God.
He was merely stating the consequences of what they had brought on themselves (after He had warned them not to, as any Parent would).

The only other thing He could have done was remove their free will.
No thanks. Love gives free will.

We also have to remember it wasn't originally written in English.

[McCulloch]

I don't believe that women (or men) were cursed by God.
He was merely stating the consequences of what they had brought on themselves (after He had warned them not to, as any Parent would).

But God was not just stating the consequences. Being the creator and being omnipotent, he also determined what those consequences would be.

Notice that the passive voice, appropriate for stating the consequences, is completely missing. 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.” Gen 3:16 . Not, "You pains in childbearing will greatly increase." but "I will greatly increase your pains." The text emphasizes that this is no mere consequence of the humans actions but a deliberate decision on the part of an active God.

[Desert_Rose2]

I don't believe that women (or men) were cursed by God.
He was merely stating the consequences of what they had brought on themselves (after He had warned them not to, as any Parent would).

But God was not just stating the consequences. Being the creator and being omnipotent, he also determined what those consequences would be.

Notice that the passive voice, appropriate for stating the consequences, is completely missing.

I would need to understand Hebrew better to say it's not passive.

so I look to those who do:

from http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/ ... nesis3.htm

In Genesis 3:16, the Lord gives a prophetic word on what is going to happen, not what He commands to happen. There is a tremendous difference, and it is a critical distinction.

16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you." KJV

The translation of five words or phrases in this verse should be questioned. They are shown in bold. Let’s start with the phrase, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow . . .”

In the explaination below, Upper case represents the original Hebrew letter. Lower case represents vowel signs, which are a relatively recent invention added to make the language easier to read. Remember, if you read the original Hebrew, there are no vowel signs.

Bushnell holds that the first section should be translated “a snare has increased your sorrow . . ."

She gets “snare” from the Hebrew word ARB (ARB) translated “ambush” and” liers in wait” or “in ambush” fourteen times in Joshua and Judges.

The difference is between the two translations given below is only in the vowel signs.

HaRBeh, AaRBeh, "multiplying I will multiply," which is usually translated as I will greatly multiply your sorrow

and

HiRBah AoReB, "has-caused-to multiply a lying-in-wait.” Remember that lyer-in wait can also be translated an ambush or snare" So it can be translated “a snare has increased your sorrow," or it is also possible to read here, "A lyer-in-wait (the subtle serpent) has increased your sorrow." Regardless it does not say that God is planning to greatly multiply her sorrow. It is falling for Satan’s snare that has put her in this place.

Then, we are told that God also plans to multiply her “conception.”

To translate HRN (HRN) as “conception” two letters had to be added. The word for conception is spelled HRJWN (HRJWN .) We don’t know for sure what the word “HRN” is, but it is not conception. "Conception" is spelled correctly in Ruth 4:13 and in Hosea 9:1. The Septuagint translates HRN as sighing. Bushnell Paragraph 117.

"A snare hath increased your sorrow and your sighing." is a probable translation of the first section. Bushnell Lessons 13-15.

While Katharine Bushnell first gave this translation, other scholars now accept it.

“In pain you shall bring forth children.”

While it is true that having a child is painful, the word translated "pain" means far more than physical pain. It connotes a deep grieving or sorrow of spirit and can also be translated sorrow, and probably should be in this case. “The root from which it is taken, along with its derivatives, signify physical, mental, and spiritual anguish ranging from sorrow to bitterness or despair, to feelings disgust, trouble, turmoil, indignation, even terror. It is used less of physical pain than of mental pain.” Women have brought children into the world when they knew they could not provide for them, when they had no say in their lives or what would happen to them. Even in the best of times there is pain and sorrow in raising children. Note that the word is translated "sorrow" or "toil" when it relates to Adam in verse 17.

“Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

"Shall" is an imperative--a command word in English. The word in Hebrew is "will," which simply tells of the future in this case the consequences of an action. Many recent translations have changed to "will," but the damage done by considering this verse a command cannot be measured.

The word desire should be translated "turning"—you will turn to or reach out after your husband instead of the Lord and when you do he will rule over you. To see how the change came about, click here to look at the chart developed by Bushnell to show how the translation of "teshuqa" changed over the centuries. We suggest that you print it off and study it. The chart includes the Ten Curses of Eve listed below.

Why so many translation errors on one verse? Again we see the “days of mingling and out of them the rabbinic perversion and addition to the Scripture. A rabbinic teaching that God pronounced ten curses on Eve (something that Scripture nowhere teaches is the probable source of this erroneous translation. Bushnell Paragraph 106

and continued

also http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/ ... n%2014.htm

[McCulloch]

I don't believe that women (or men) were cursed by God.
He was merely stating the consequences of what they had brought on themselves (after He had warned them not to, as any Parent would).

But God was not just stating the consequences. Being the creator and being omnipotent, he also determined what those consequences would be.

Notice that the passive voice, appropriate for stating the consequences, is completely missing.

You address my second point, the active not passive voice but you neglected to address the first, God being omnipotent creator determined what those consequences would be.

I would need to understand Hebrew better to say it's not passive.

so I look to those who do:

As do I. They are called translators.

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children;

To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;

To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.

Unto the woman He said, `Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children,

He told the Woman: "I'll multiply your pains in childbirth;

To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children.

Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth.

One could survey even a larger number. But there seems to be a consensus among translators that the active voice is appropriate here. I found one exception, The Contemporary English Version uses the passive voice.

Then the LORD said to the woman, "You will suffer terribly when you give birth.

So I'll take the safe road and rely on the consensus of experts in translating ancient Hebrew in to English. You may wish to assert that the majority of scholars in a subject that you admittedly are not an expert in are in error, and perhaps they are, but I'll wait.

[Desert_Rose2]

You address my second point, the active not passive voice but you neglected to address the first, God being omnipotent creator determined what those consequences would be

Can you see the article and it's link that I provided?
I did answer, in detail in that.

[McCulloch]

You address my second point, the active not passive voice but you neglected to address the first, God being omnipotent creator determined what those consequences would be

Can you see the article and it's link that I provided?
I did answer, in detail in that.

Did you mean Genesis 3 The Temptation and Fall By Pat Joyce OR THE FALSE INTERPRETATION.

I briefly scanned each and did not find any reference to God's omnipotence and His determination of consequences.

From the first citation: While Katharine Bushnell first gave this translation, other scholars now accept it. It would have been helpful if the anonymous other scholars were identified, if Bushnell's translation was generally accepted among biblical scholars, how long this view has been out there for examination and what objections, if any, other scholars have to her view.
It is asserted that In Genesis 3:16, the Lord gives a prophetic word on what is going to happen, not what He commands to happen. There is a tremendous difference, and it is a critical distinction. But no evidential support other than the allegation that practically all translators up to this point have been either inadequate to their task or deliberately biased.

It would have also been somewhat helpful to have identified Katharine Bushnell, from whom this interpretation is attributed. Her formal training was medical not linguistic yet she claimed that the existing translations of the Bible were biased against feminism. Could it not be that she was biased for feminism and longed to reconcile her faith in God with her feminism? She died in 1946. Has there been a major translation since her time that has taken her scholarship into account?

In the second cited lesson, it says "The assumption is more or less general that morbidly intense sensuality, when it displays itself in the female character, is of Divine manufacture. " To this I have to disagree. This is not the assumption but the direct teaching of this and other passages of scripture. God is the creator and as such determines the characteristics of the creation. But the second link focuses almost exclusively on the desire for her husband phrase, not the pain in childbearing bit.

[OnceConvinced]

The only other thing He could have done was remove their free will.
No thanks. Love gives free will.

God is quite happy to violate freewill when he sees the need. Just look at the times in the OT he did.

Also how will God prevent sin in Heaven? Turn his people into robots?

We also have to remember it wasn't originally written in English.

Then why take any of the bible seriously? Many of it could be mistranslated, even the important stuff.

When someone (like in the links provided) says... "Ah, but our translations are wrong, this is what it really means..." you have to take them with a grain of salt. McCulloch makes a good point when he shows you a list of different English translations, all which tend to agree on the correct English translation. These are supposed experts on the original languages who have translated this stuff and they all concur with each other. What makes your expert any more accurate than the experts men have accepted for decades? Why do you take them more seriously? Because they came up with something that you liked the sound of better?

I think that if God was real and that the bible was his word, he'd make sure the typical translations we have would be correct, wouldn't you? He'd have ensured that.