Dawn, on May 22 2009, 12:36 AM, said:
Makes more sense as per LXX rendering on the grounds that the Hebrew word aparently (not that I know much about Hebrew which is why I value mark's input) is derived from the very "shuq" which means - in simplest form - "to run". The prefix "te" given the word an abstract sense and I understand that it corresponds to the English "ness" (eg: kindness). The ending "a" given the word a feminine form usual to Hebrew abstract nouns, to in the intensive form of the verb, it would sort of mean "to run repeatedly" or "to run back and forth" which would necessitate frequent turning.
Putting together a meaning by using the root words isn't a good idea. It's bad lexical practice. If you value Mark's input on Hebrew, why don't you value the input of professional Hebraists, such as those who have written the standard lexicons? In any case, when I check the lexicons I find that it isn't derived from 'shuq', meaning 'to run', if that's even true, I don't know which word he's referring to ('šôq' means 'leg', 'šûq' means 'street', and 'šûq' means 'be abundant'). The root identified by lexicons is 'šag', which does not mean 'to run'.
I meant in relation to Eve and her traducers.
I'm not making up my own to suit me - "turning" and "alliance" are very possible renderings.
According to whom?
Well most do, but a small minority don't don't.
A tiny minority, in other words. So the vast majority of women do.
There isn't one, just as there isn't one to say that she was - but she obviously followed Adam out.
Did she really have a choice?
I realise that it doesn't change the actuall meaning - sure Eve turned after her husband out of the garden and that he ruled over her. I have no problems with that. But the fact that that literally happneed doesn't mean to say that husband ruling over wives is how it was meant to be for all time for all believers.
No one here is suggesting that husbands can rule over their wives at all, so how about we leave that behind.
also, there is nothing in Scripture to say what Adams spiritual state was at this point - on the other hand Eve clearly believed that God was going to send a Saviour (which thought had been sent when Cain was born).
We know what Adam and Eve's spiritual state was at this point, they were both disobedient.
It is offtopic. We're supposed to be trying to determine what the Hebrew word means. Changing the topic to how the Hebrew word has been translated
, and then saying that this is equivalent to the Hebrew word itself
changing meaning, is wrong.
No, and even Mark said he isn't sure about it - I have a reasonable doubt in mind that "desire" is a rendering which might have had a better rendering.
? Because you've studied the Hebrew? Because you've checked standard professional Hebrew lexicons? Or because someone told you so? On what basis it reasonable?
I'm not being irrational - I have a reasonable doubt in mind about the rendering of the word, and am choosing - by careful thought and limited research I have at my disposal - to reject the traditional rendering in favour of one which the earliest translations support.
Until you can actually present reasonable grounds for doubt, and for dismissing all of the standard professional lexicons, then it is irrational to do so. Do you really think that the limited research at your disposal is sufficient to overturn the 'traditional' rendering in favour of one which early translators clearly messed up? You don't even know if the translators of the LXX were using the same Hebrew text here as we do.
For all it's faults, when the LXX was written, certainly more was known about Hebrew than at any time since...
No, that's a popular fallacy. We know a lot more about Hebrew than any of the LXX authors. We certainly know Hebrew these days better than they did.
....and it was the Bible of the evagelists and the apostles for the 1st century. Obviously the original Hebrew text is more valuable, but also the LXX can shed light on certain word where maybe the original hebrew has some obscurities.
It can only do that when this can be verified using other sources. In this case the LXX translation is clearly wrong. There are no two ways about this.
Koehler, on L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M., & Stamm, J. J. (1999, c1994-1996). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Volumes 1-4 combined in one electronic edition. (electronic ed.) (1801). Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, said:
תְּשׁוּקָה: II *שׁוק, Bauer-Leander Heb. 496r; MHeb. תְּשׁוּקָה (in meaning the same as in BibHeb.; Dalman Wörterbuch 450); DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 237); SamP. tēšūqāttək, tēšūqāttu, on the gemination and vowel lengthening see LOT 5: p. 63, §220.127.116.11: sf. תְּשׁוּקָתֵכְ/תוֹ: desire, longing Gn 316 47; Song 711, there is no need for the cj. for וְעָלַי rd. וְאֵלַי, as in BHS (→ II עַל 6); on the content see e.g. O. Keel Das Hohelied (Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 18; 1986) 232f. †
Harris, on R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (913). Chicago: Moody Press., said:
2352a תְּשׁוּקָה (tĕšûqâ) desire, longing.
This noun appears only three times in the ot, once in Song 7:10 [H 11]. The woman says of her beloved: “I am my beloved’s and his ‘desire’ is for me.” The two remaining references are Gen 3:16 and 4:7. In the latter passage God is speaking to Cain and says to him that sin is like a crouching beast “hungering, intent upon” Cain. In the former passage God says, “Your ‘desire’ shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” This is obviously neither an intensification nor a warping of a pre-existing hierarchy between the sexes for no such hierarchy is alluded to.
There are two differences between the Gen passage (3:16) and that in the Song of Solomon. In the former the reference is to the wife’s desire for her husband. In the latter it is the bride-groom’s desire for the bride. Second, in the Gen passage the reference to “desire” is in a context of sin and judgment. In the latter, the reference is in a context of joy and love.
Swanson, on J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLH 9592). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., said:
9592 תְּשׁוּקָה (tešû∙qā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 8669; TWOT 2352a—LN 25.12-25.32 desire, urges, longing, i.e., a very strong emotion or feeling to have or do something (Ge 3:16; 4:7; SS 7:11[EB 10]+), note: this strong desire may refer to sexual urges or desires, or a desire to dominate, or just be independent of the man, other references may also be possible.
Brown, on F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) (1003). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems., said:
†[תְּשׁוּקָה S8669 TWOT2352a GK9592] n.f. longing;—of woman for man, אֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ Gn 3:16 (J); of man for woman, אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְאֵלַי תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Ct 7:11; of beast to devour, fig. אֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Gn 4:7 (J). (G ἀποστροφή Gn, ἐπιστροφή, Ct whence NesMarg. 6 proposes תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ Gn 3:16, which Ball Hpt reads in all; but how explain the unusual and striking word in MT?).
Gesenius, on W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation of the author's Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros, a Latin version of the work first published in 1810-1812 under title: Hebräisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch des Alten Testaments.; Includes index. (876). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., said:
תְּשׁוּקָה f. (from the root שׁוּק No. 2), desire, longing, Gen. 3:16; 4:7; Cant. 7:11.