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?

[Desert_Rose2]

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.

could you give one or two specific examples from the text itself? Thanks.
(Here's an online resource if you don't have a bible available http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/ )

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

Christians are changing, slowly, from choice, by co-operating with God the Spirit within. I won't go into that in depth here, for it's another deep subject concerning 'sanctification.'

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.

that seems to indicate to me that you're not used to studying it yourself, from a faith understanding, or you wouldn't need to ask that.
In cross linguistic communication, even today, verbal and written, there are sometimes not exact translations.
Checking is important. Understanding the spirit of a langage and some background knowledge about it's culture, all helps with being able to choose the right, or closest, word to translate into (as often there is a choice between various words to use).
That's why Christians who care about study and getting the bigger picture, often use more than one translation and interlinears, as the spirit of a word or phrase is important too. It's not simply a case of word for word translation.

Then why take any of the bible seriously

well you don't have to, if you don't want to. I do, but again, that is another distracting subject.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=3168

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?

Because they came up with something that I liked the sound of better? You are making a very big assumption that does not help dialogue.
A personal judgement of me. I refute it as incorrect. You do not know me. I search for the truth. I study to find out how all the scriptures to come into a balanced overview, harmonise, as I do not believe they contradict. That is what I am doing, and they do, once we shed our human, traditional and childhood-inherited preconceptions about secondary doctrines and come to the text afresh.
This does not happen overnight, it is also part of our growth as Christians, as the fallen human within is sanctified.
It also happens for practical reasons, i.e. when we have more time to study in depth.

What makes your expert any more accurate than the experts men have accepted for decades?

it is not my 'expert,' and it is not even recent, what the article is quoting. It is also accepted by many.

Plus there are very many more Christians (even on this forum I have noticed this view), who hold to it as being God stating the automatic consequence of rejecting His rule, protection, than a direct curse from Him as a punishment.
As a parent I know, now my kids are teens, that I have to let them find out what their rejection of my protection can bring on sometimes.
It's the only way of learning once they have chosen to walk out from under it.

If you think English can sufficiently and simply, explain the nuances of the Hebrew language and understanding, you are mistaken.
We need to hold a number of things together in our understanding regarding God's original design, the Fall, and the New Covenant restoration.
In other words, have some working knowledge of the whole of scripture, which I don't believe a sceptic has, in order to debate this subject in the way the opening post was requiring.

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.

really?
What do you mean by correct? Do you mean a translation can be perfect?
He would give the translators word for word accuracy would He? What - supernatural knowledge?
Even if they were translating some things according to the traditions of the day in obedience to the set view of some things?
Plus there were different manuscripts available, which we used in the Middle Ages, not just one kind.

I am sorry, but translation is not such a simplistic business as you are implying.
The translations are not holy or perfect. Neither were, or are, any translators. Although I have a lot more confidence in some modern-day ones who now have computer resources and programmes to check 'common usuage' (in the whole of the bible), and other things more accurately, and who, also, are not, necessarily, tied and bound to any denominational prejeudices and are often teams of trans-denominational translators.
I think I've said enough about that, for even that is another subject and distracting from discussing the actual text.

McCulloch, I'll get back to you, if you're not finding the answers in what I quoted above.

[Vladd44]

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

could you give one or two specific examples from the text itself? Thanks.

And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

[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.

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

I meant the part I quoted, which was actually in the post, dealing with Gen. 3:16, and the rest of that article
http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/ ... nesis3.htm

noting the points about vowels and the extra-biblical Rabbinic additions re. 'the10 curses.'

[OnceConvinced]

[could you give one or two specific examples from the text itself? Thanks.

The immediate one that comes to mind is in the story of Gideon where the use tools to scare the bejesus out of the Midianites. God then forces the Midianites to turn their swords against one another.

Jdg 7:22 When the three hundred trumpets sounded, the LORD caused the men throughout the camp to turn on each other with their swords. The army fled to Beth Shittah toward Zererah as far as the border of Abel Meholah near Tabbath.

1Sa 11:6 And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly.

Now there are brief references in other scriptures where it says God caused someone to do something. But I have read them in passing and did not note them down.

that seems to indicate to me that you're not used to studying it yourself, from a faith understanding, or you wouldn't need to ask that.

Then you would be wrong. I have been studying all my life and still study it. My stance has changed over the last few years. Before I took it as the infallible word of God. Now I don't. That's the difference. It's not about understanding it's about looking at it from a particular viewpoint.

In cross linguistic communication, even today, verbal and written, there are sometimes not exact translations.
Checking is important. Understanding the spirit of a langage and some background knowledge about it's culture, all helps with being able to choose the right, or closest, word to translate into (as often there is a choice between various words to use).
That's why Christians who care about study and getting the bigger picture, often use more than one translation and interlinears, as the spirit of a word or phrase is important too. It's not simply a case of word for word translation.

That just gives even more possible meanings. The problem is even the experts can't agree.

Because they came up with something that I liked the sound of better? You are making a very big assumption that does not help dialogue.
A personal judgement of me. I refute it as incorrect.

Not really, I said it with a question mark at the end, which makes it more of a question. Unlike yourself who made the assumption that I am not used to studying the bible for myself. That was a definite judgement of me.

If you think English can sufficiently and simply, explain the nuances of the Hebrew language and understanding, you are mistaken.

I don't, which is why I think it is pretty much impossible for man on his own to get an accurate interpretation of the original texts and why there will always be debate about their meanings. I do however believe that if God is who he claims to be he could easily guide the hand of all respectable modern bible translators to ensure they get an accurate English version down on paper.

[r~]

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?

1,2) Fair? It is God's Curse on women that knowledge requires a large brain that recognizes pain even as it causes pain in childbirth.

3) It is my understanding that animals do not suffer so in childbirth. How many animal births have you witnessed?

4) Children can sometimes be a blessing.

ItS
Peace
r~

[OnceConvinced]

1,2) Fair? It is God's Curse on women that knowledge requires a large brain that recognizes pain even as it causes pain in childbirth.

Knowledge does not require a large brain. Only a very small part of our brain deals with the accumulation of knowledge. Many dumb animals have bigger brains than humans, so according to your logic, they should have more knowledge.

Also the baby's head it unncessarily big at birth. Why not keep it in proportion with the rest of the body?

Also the brain is not fully developed at birth. Knowledge can only be gained as the brain develops.

So no, your argument of requiring a bigger brain for knowledge is invalid.

3) It is my understanding that animals do not suffer so in childbirth. How many animal births have you witnessed?

What??? Where on earth did you gain that "understanding"? Obviously YOU have not witnessed animal births. I have seen cats and cows give birth and there is obvious pain for the poor old cow. Hard to tell with the cat, it looked as though it was in pain. I think human women would have it easy compared to cows. How about Chickens laying eggs? Have you ever witnessed that. They do a lot of clucking when that happens. Pain? I guarantee it. I shudder to think how much agony an Elephant has to go through.

4) Children can sometimes be a blessing.

No. According to bible, Children are ALWAYS a blessing. Unless you want to argue against God on that one. Although I guess the bible could be wrong about that, huh?

Psa 127:3 Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him.

[r~]

Knowledge does not require a large brain.

Knowledge requires intelligence that requires a large brain in humans. It is the passage of the large head that causes the greatest pain during childbirth; the rest of the body just kind of squirts out.

What??? Have you ever witness animals give birth? I have seen cats and cows give birth and there is obvious pain there, especially for the poor old cow. How could their not be, the way they were "designed"?

I have seen cats in much greater pain having sex than giving birth. If it weren't for the tail and legs, this cow might just as well have been constipated.

4) Children can sometimes be a blessing.

No. According to God, Children are ALWAYS a blessing. Unless you want to argue against God on that one. Although I guess God could be wrong about that, huh?

Funny, the word "always" seems to missing from my translation of the Bible. Besides, God did not write the Bible, men did.

ItS
Peace
r~

[OnceConvinced]

Knowledge does not require a large brain.

Knowledge requires intelligence that requires a large brain in humans. It is the passage of the large head that causes the greatest pain during childbirth; the rest of the body just kind of squirts out.

The size of the brain has nothing to do with intelligence. A whale's brain is about 6 times larger than a human's, but that doesn't make it more intelligent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/844217.stm

I have seen cats in much greater pain having sex than giving birth. If it weren't for the tail and legs, this cow might just as well have been constipated.

Whether pain is similar or not is irrelevent. For some humans it is more painful than others. Maybe you should have talked to my grandmother (RIP), she claimed that child birth was just like a bad case of diorrhea. (she had 10 kids). So an animals pain at child birth is no worse than constipation? It's still pain so therefore it appears that animals (or at least most of them) are suffering the same curse as humans are.

Funny, the word "always" seems to missing from my translation of the Bible. Besides, God did not write the Bible, men did.

The scripture says Children are a reward from him. The word "some" is also missing from the scripture. There fore it is an absolute. Children (as a whole) are a reward from him

If you don't believe that the Bible is the inspired (or infallible word of God), then that's fine. I agree it is written by man. The bible is wrong on many accounts. For one thing, why would God "bless" people who take fertility drugs and give them multiple kids?

[Beto]

Knowledge does not require a large brain.

Knowledge requires intelligence that requires a large brain in humans. It is the passage of the large head that causes the greatest pain during childbirth; the rest of the body just kind of squirts out.

The size of the brain has nothing to do with intelligence. A whale's brain is about 6 times larger than a human's, but that doesn't make it more intelligent.

And you have severe cases of hydrocephaly, where the person has virtually no brain (up to 95% cerebrospinal fluid) and some will have IQ's of over 100.

[McCulloch]

Knowledge does not require a large brain.

Knowledge requires intelligence that requires a large brain in humans. It is the passage of the large head that causes the greatest pain during childbirth; the rest of the body just kind of squirts out.

The size of the brain has nothing to do with intelligence. A whale's brain is about 6 times larger than a human's, but that doesn't make it more intelligent.

The size and complexity of the brain in relation to the size of the rest of the body does have a correlation to the maximum potential intelligence of a being.