Lin

“I am also glad to hear that you do not see Gen 3:16 as positive. If this is your’s and gengwell’s view, why is it you never say anything to combat Cheryl when she does say it is positive?”

Where have you been? I have disagreed with Cheryl on several things but not on the essentials. For one thing, I wanted to study this further because I was having a hard time thinking of some of Gen 3 as positive. (Maybe that comes from experiencing labor pains?) But I do see some of it as positive. What God told the serpent about what would happen through the Woman is VERY positive and positive for women. I think you comps miss that and it’s importance.

‘Do you agree that the desire of the woman is ‘against’ her husband?”

ABSOLUTLEY NOT! That is ridiculous. This is another area of disagreement with many egals for me. I think desire is a horrible translation and brings in the sexual element which I think too much is made of. The problem that God is saying will happen (He is not commanding…it is a consequence of her sin) is that she will TURN AWAY from God and toward her husband. Doing so is SIN!

You cannot see that because your comp filter tells you that Adam was in charge of Eve before the fall. And you ignore ‘One Flesh Union”. The fall is what ruined the One Flesh Union and brought in the sin of patriarchy and men wanting pre-eminance. A quick glance at history after the fall only proves that women were more than willing to turn toward their husbands and even be treated horribly.

“Again if the banishment is not an issue why is it never communicated that way to Cheryl? For Cheryl’s opinions to work, the banishment (or lack of for Eve) is vital. Once that crumbles her whole view does. For example if Eve was banished her ‘deception’ is not as innocent as Cheryl makes out. This therefore has implication on 1 Tim 2, since the argument is she is a ‘decieved false teacher’ as opposed to a deliberate false teacher. This distinction between deliberate and decieved flows all the way from Gen for Cheryl, to support her exegesis of other passages.”

You are reading WAY too much into this theory of banishment. The whole thing does not crumble over that. You wish it did and are grasping at straws. My view is that it does not matter. And I made that clear in my last comment. Eve was looking for that promised Messiah. The correct translation is: “I have purchased a man with YHWH”

Eve seemed to be more focused on that. Another reason it does not matter is because of what Gen 3 already told us about Eve would turn toward her husband and AWAY from God.

“Basically my point is- tell Cheryl you disagree with her if that is what you believe. When everyone stays silent the assuption is you all agree with Cheryl.”

Mark, this is not about trashing Cheryl. Cheryl is great about disagreements in egal circles. She believes we learn truth from the Word. She is open to being corrected but I cannot correct because I simply do not know. My point has been that it does not matter to me one way or the other because Gen 3 tells me that Eve will turn toward Adam and away from God. My view is she followed him out because she was turning toward Adam.

Eve’s consequence of the fall is that she will turn away from God and toward her husband instead. That is simple basic truth of why comp teaching is sinful. Because you teach a wife turning toward her husband instead of God as virtue. It simply is not true.