1 Timothy 2:15

[inhistime]

I really don't understand how this argument has anything to do with the OP though?

Title: 1 Timothy 2:15

OP: Could someone shed some light on this verse?

Is Paul referring to the curse of childbirth, initiated by God in Genesis?

The OP questions the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15. If 1 Tim 2:15 is ripped out of it's context and not considered in light of it then there is no way to understand the OP which is the meaning of the verse. Therefore the context (which we've been discussing) that the verse is found in must be considered which has everything to do with the OP. Make sense?

In v.15. Paul was not refering to any curse put on the woman nor did he speak of such a thing anywhere in the passage and it's entire context just as neither does Genesis 3 say anything about a curse on the woman. That there was no curse put on the woman can be easily understood when taken to it's full conclusion, in light of the Christ not coming through a curse! That would be blasphemous. Only the ground and the serpent were cursed as Gen 3 says.

Can someone help me out here. I are not very familiar with these discussion boards and I don't know what OP means?

[firehill]

I really don't understand how this argument has anything to do with the OP though?

Title: 1 Timothy 2:15

OP: Could someone shed some light on this verse?

Is Paul referring to the curse of childbirth, initiated by God in Genesis?

The OP questions the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15. If 1 Tim 2:15 is ripped out of it's context and not considered in light of it then there is no way to understand the OP which is the meaning of the verse. Therefore the context (which we've been discussing) that the verse is found in must be considered which has everything to do with the OP. Make sense?

In v.15. Paul was not refering to any curse put on the woman nor did he speak of such a thing anywhere in the passage and it's entire context just as neither does Genesis 3 say anything about a curse on the woman. That there was no curse put on the woman can be easily understood when taken to it's full conclusion, in light of the Christ not coming through a curse! That would be blasphemous. Only the ground and the serpent were cursed as Gen 3 says.

Can someone help me out here. I are not very familiar with these discussion boards and I don't know what OP means?

It stands for 'original post.'

[inhistime]

I really don't understand how this argument has anything to do with the OP though?

Title: 1 Timothy 2:15

OP: Could someone shed some light on this verse?

Is Paul referring to the curse of childbirth, initiated by God in Genesis?

The OP questions the meaning of 1 Tim 2:15. If 1 Tim 2:15 is ripped out of it's context and not considered in light of it then there is no way to understand the OP which is the meaning of the verse. Therefore the context (which we've been discussing) that the verse is found in must be considered which has everything to do with the OP. Make sense?

In v.15. Paul was not refering to any curse put on the woman nor did he speak of such a thing anywhere in the passage and it's entire context just as neither does Genesis 3 say anything about a curse on the woman. That there was no curse put on the woman can be easily understood when taken to it's full conclusion, in light of the Christ not coming through a curse! That would be blasphemous. Only the ground and the serpent were cursed as Gen 3 says.

Can someone help me out here. I are not very familiar with these discussion boards and I don't know what OP means?

It stands for 'original post.'

Thank you!!!

[Guest Biblicist]

No curse on the woman?

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."

Um, yeah, that's a curse. But also a blessing. The curse is the pain when we are NOT chidbearing. I can take labor and delivery any day. It's the rest of the time, the pain for "no good reason" that is the curse for me! I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

God spoke directly to the serpent, the woman and the man. God said, 'cursed are you' to the serpent, in Gen 3:14. God also said, 'cursed is the ground' to the man, in Gen 3:17. Are you saying that GOD SAID, 'cursed are you' to the woman and the man like he did to the serpent while he was talking directly to them? The only words in the bible you could possibly be refering to are God's own having come directly out of his mouth.

If for you pain is a curse and occurs when you are not childbearing that belongs to you. You shouldn't think that you are cursed when God didn't say so.

I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

How can you begin to understand a curse in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman?

Show me where God said, because he is the ONLY one doing the talking directly to the serpent, the woman, and the man. The curse you think you are under isn't found in the text. What you need to do in order to support your unverified claim is provide evidence that God 'cursed' the woman and by that I mean, QUOTE HIM. DON'T ADD to his words but QUOTE HIM. Quote his words and his usage of the word 'curse' since he used the word twice in Gen 3. Show me where God said to the woman that she is cursed. Now you can say that the woman is cursed but you cannot say that God said.

OK "The curse" was a joke! Isn't that what a womans monthly cycle is called? Notice the wink? Sheesh. Read carefully, I said Adam wasn't cursed either.

It is not difficult to understand the words spoken to Eve, in 3:16. Things are as he said they would be. If it is simple to understand the words spoken to the serpent and to Adam then the words would be just as simple to Eve. After all, she is easily deceived. There is no need to read things into them that are not there.

[firehill]

No curse on the woman?

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."

Um, yeah, that's a curse. But also a blessing. The curse is the pain when we are NOT chidbearing. I can take labor and delivery any day. It's the rest of the time, the pain for "no good reason" that is the curse for me! I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

God spoke directly to the serpent, the woman and the man. God said, 'cursed are you' to the serpent, in Gen 3:14. God also said, 'cursed is the ground' to the man, in Gen 3:17. Are you saying that GOD SAID, 'cursed are you' to the woman and the man like he did to the serpent while he was talking directly to them? The only words in the bible you could possibly be refering to are God's own having come directly out of his mouth.

If for you pain is a curse and occurs when you are not childbearing that belongs to you. You shouldn't think that you are cursed when God didn't say so.

I do not have any problem understanding the "curse" in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman.

How can you begin to understand a curse in the entire context of 3:16 over the woman?

Show me where God said, because he is the ONLY one doing the talking directly to the serpent, the woman, and the man. The curse you think you are under isn't found in the text. What you need to do in order to support your unverified claim is provide evidence that God 'cursed' the woman and by that I mean, QUOTE HIM. DON'T ADD to his words but QUOTE HIM. Quote his words and his usage of the word 'curse' since he used the word twice in Gen 3. Show me where God said to the woman that she is cursed. Now you can say that the woman is cursed but you cannot say that God said.

OK "The curse" was a joke! Isn't that what a womans monthly cycle is called? Notice the wink? Sheesh. Read carefully, I said Adam wasn't cursed either.

It is not difficult to understand the words spoken to Eve, in 3:16. Things are as he said they would be. If it is simple to understand the words spoken to the serpent and to Adam then the words would be just as simple to Eve. After all, she is easily deceived. There is no need to read things into them that are not there.

I took the phrase 'Adam wasn't cursed either' as a reference to what others have said being that he wasn't.

You are joking again but now about 'After all, she is easily deceived'?

[Guest Biblicist]

Biblicist said:

I completely agree that Bible Verses should never be taken out of the context of scripture. However, I am still not seeing the connection. How does a singluar woman false teacher connect with women, in general, being saved through childbirth. Something is being missed here.

Here is where you need to see the inspired words and the inspired grammar. The word "women" is not in verse 15. A singular woman false teacher "she" will be saved if "they"... "They" is plural but it is not plural feminine. If Paul had meant to say women he would have done so, but he didn't. "She" refers back to "a woman" from verse 12. "They" refers back to "a woman" AND "a man" from verse 12. The "they" is the particular husband and wife that Paul is dealing with. "She" has been teaching and influencing him in her error. Does that make more sense?

Inspired grammar from where? The Greek and Hebrew or from the English translation?

You are misinterpreting "a woman" it is one Greek word ~ gunaiki [goo-nay] a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow, a wife, betrothed woman. It is not specific. It's a general feminine term. The same with the term "of a man" general statement. Not specific to any one person. Where did you get the information that Paul was refering to a specific woman and man? It makes no sense that he would change tenses for one verse then switch back to plural for the rest of the passage. And I believe it's simply not done unless names are involved.

[Guest Biblicist]

I took the phrase 'Adam wasn't cursed either' as a reference to what others have said being that he wasn't.

You are joking again but now about 'After all, she is easily deceived'?

Well, I'm kind of joking about Eve being easily deceived, after all, several times in God's word she is defined as being easily deceived by God himself. So in actuality it is true. She was "easily deceived". But truthfully, if Eve is easily deceived then wouldn't God have given her simple instructions as to what was to happen as a result of their sin? Why would it be simple to the serpent and to Adam and not to Eve?

[Guest Biblicist]

While Gen. 3:15 is a difficult passage to interpret, what IS certain is that God is NOT cursing her OR the man. The judgment for them was determined prior. When they ate of the fruit in an act of disobedience, one by deception and one by rebellion, then the predetermined judgment of death came upon them both.

I have heard it suggested that the increase in child labor (same Hebrew word as in vs. 17 where the man will toil) is an increase in children that the woman would bear. That is an indirect blessing in that children are needed to help with the hardships of living in a cursed world. The husband ruling harshly over the woman is a warning of what to expect. Because sin has now been introduced into humans life, men would seek to rule over people instead of the rule of guardianship of the earth and creatures. This is a picture of the strong ruling over the weaker; a characteristic of sin.

I don't think this idea is accurate. Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply before the fall. There is no place in God's word that says how many children she actually did have, let alone how many she should have had if there had not been a fall.

The words actually are, its-tsaw-bone' ~ pain, labour, hardship, sorrow, toil & eh'-tseb ~ basically the same defination.

The actual translation is Unto Wife [woman] He spoke, multiply, multiply sorrow, toil, in conception, sorrow, labor to bare children [words in italics mine].

Adam and Eve were the only two on the planet. They were bound to have hundreds of children in their lifetime since they both lived over 800 years. They were to fill the earth, not really another way to do that. . .

The rest of it? Well, it's pretty clear to me. They want to have rule over each other. Naturally that is not the way God wanted relationships to be, but because of sin, that is the way it is. Warped because of The Deceiver.

[Guest Biblicist]

Adam was not cursed either. . . To Adam he said, "Cursed is the ground; thanks to you"

One question, are you guys translating this passage from the Original Greek/Hebrew? OR are you using current English translations of God's word?

Have a close look at the verse you just quoted and see what you are missing. To Adam he (God) said, "Cursed is...." cursed is what? Cursed is Adam? No. Cursed is....the ground. Do you see the difference between cursing the ground and cursing Adam. God didn't say cursed is the ground because of Eve's sin. He said cursed is the ground because of Adam. When we add to God's inspired words we change the entire meaning. God did not curse Adam and he did not curse Eve.

I am not sure what you are arguing here?

[inhistime]

Biblicist said:

I completely agree that Bible Verses should never be taken out of the context of scripture. However, I am still not seeing the connection. How does a singluar woman false teacher connect with women, in general, being saved through childbirth. Something is being missed here.

Here is where you need to see the inspired words and the inspired grammar. The word "women" is not in verse 15. A singular woman false teacher "she" will be saved if "they"... "They" is plural but it is not plural feminine. If Paul had meant to say women he would have done so, but he didn't. "She" refers back to "a woman" from verse 12. "They" refers back to "a woman" AND "a man" from verse 12. The "they" is the particular husband and wife that Paul is dealing with. "She" has been teaching and influencing him in her error. Does that make more sense?

Inspired grammar from where? The Greek and Hebrew or from the English translation?

You are misinterpreting "a woman" it is one Greek word ~ gunaiki [goo-nay] a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow, a wife, betrothed woman. It is not specific. It's a general feminine term. The same with the term "of a man" general statement. Not specific to any one person. Where did you get the information that Paul was refering to a specific woman and man? It makes no sense that he would change tenses for one verse then switch back to plural for the rest of the passage. And I believe it's simply not done unless names are involved.

The inspired words are always the original languages. I was referring of course to the Greek but giving the English interpretation so that we all could be edified. The Greek uses the term gune which translates into English as "a woman" as all translations render it. It can be specific or general so we have to look at the context to see which it is. If it is generic "a woman" can mean "any woman" or "all women". The other option is "a woman" as in a specific woman. Now if we follow the grammar through we will come down to verse 15. Verse 15 says "she" and "they". "She" is singular feminine. Following the rules of grammar there can be no "she" unless there is an original noun to attach the "she" too. The only singular feminine word in the passage is "a woman" so we attach "she" to "a woman". Then Paul says "they". This is not grammatically women because it is generic human beings so it can be a man and a women. It would be improper grammar for Paul to say "she" and "they" if "she" = "they". Instead he must say "she will be saved if she..." or "they will be saved if they..." But you cannot have "she" and "they" properly in the sentence unless "she" and "they" are not the same. The only possible solution from the grammar is that "she" refers to "a woman" and "they" refers to "a woman" and "a man". Now throughout scripture whenever a woman and a man are in some kind of relationship it should always be interpreted as husband and wife. This is easy to understand because in the time of Jesus men did not converse with women publicly. If a woman was teaching a single man he would have had to be her husband. Once one understands this it is very understandable why Paul changes back and forth with the singular and the plural. If we do not place "a woman" as a specific woman, there is no explanation for "she" and "they". This is why this verse has been considered a difficult verse for several thousand years. Because of our human tradition that for thousands of years has said that women are inferior to men (recently modified to be that women are equal to men in essence but not in role), we have naturally understood the passage to be talking about women because our tradition has given us a presupposition that forced this interpretation of the passage.