# Multiplying conception - or not?



## Peairtach (Jan 13, 2011)

> Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; (Genesis 3:16, KJV)



Does this mean that the woman was likely to conceive more often, after the Fall, as well as have pain in chldbirth, or not?


----------



## TimV (Jan 13, 2011)

Just another bad KJV translation. In other versions its clear that the reference is to the pain and sorrow of birthing. As K&D pointed out, conception was a blessing, and the instrument in subduing the earth and filling it, so it makes no sense for it to be included in the curse.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 13, 2011)

birthing and childraising (I believe)


----------



## Hebrew Student (Jan 15, 2011)

Richard Tallach,



> > Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; (Genesis 3:16, KJV)
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that the woman was likely to conceive more often, after the Fall, as well as have pain in chldbirth, or not?



While I don't agree with the reason TimV gave that this translation being wrong [c.f. Genesis 1:22, and blessing of childbearing given without dominion], he is right that this is a bad translation. You have to understand that, although the KJV was a milestone of scholarship for its time, our knowledge of Hebrew has increased dramatically over the last 400 years. One of the things that has improved is our knowledge of the syntactio-semantic functions of the waw. With the advent of Discourse Analysis, and the discovery of the Amarna Letters, the Northwest Semitic Inscriptions, and Ugaritic, our knowledge of the waw is much more complete. Also, seeing more examples has helped us to better see when various semantic categories are being used in the text.

In Genesis 3:16, the KJV translators simply translated the text in a very mechanical fashion, translating the phrase עִצְּבונֵךְ וְהֵרֺנֵךְ as "thy sorrow and thy conception." The reality is that the waw has a fairly large number of functions in Hebrew, and, most likely, this is an example of an explicative waw [aka an epexegetical waw]. Waltke and O'Connor in their _An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax_ discuss this usage [§39.2.1b], and list other examples. One example of this is 1 Samuel 17:40:

1 Samuel 17:40 He took his stick in his hand and chose for himself five smooth stones from the brook, and put them in the shepherd's bag which he had, even in his pouch [בִּכְלִי הָרֺעִים אֲשׁר־לו וּבַיַּלְקוּט], and his sling was in his hand; and he approached the Philistine[NASB].

The literal Hebrew is "and put them in the shepherd's bag which he had, and in his pouch." Clearly, the "shepherd's vessel" that he had with him is further described as "his pouch."

Another example given is Amos 4:10:

Amos 4:10 "I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your young men by the sword along with your captured horses, And I made the stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils[וּבְאַפְּכֶם]; Yet you have not returned to Me," declares the LORD[NASB].

The literal Hebrew here is "I made the stench of your camp rise up, and in your nostrils." The point is that the phrase "and in your nostrils" is further explaining the phrase "I made the stench of your camp rise up."

Also, another reason why I would say that this is what is going on in Genesis 3:16 is because of the fact that the following phrase would then be parallel: "In pain you will bring forth children." Hence, if we understand the "and childbearing" as qualifying and explaining the "pain," then we have a phrase [pain in childbearing] that is parallel to the next phrase "In pain you will bring forth children." Hence, it would fit the context as well.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 16, 2011)

Yes. Thanks for that Adam for that thorough and scholarly explanation.

I thought it would be a poor translation, as I don't think it is used in other English versions that I'm aware of.

I just wanted to check out of interest, as it would have a little bearing on the contraception debate, if it was the correct translation.


----------



## MW (Jan 16, 2011)

You gentlemen couldn't possibly be serious. First, the second clause of the verse clearly spells out how the first clause is to be understood. Secondly, Calvin understood the meaning without the need of some superior sense of learning. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit." Thirdly, the AV does not give a poor nor bad translation; it gives a litleral translation. By means of its literal translation of the OT the English language has been enriched with numerous Hebraisms, as will be certified by any English scholar. By means of a literal translation in this instance the reader is required to look at the second clause for clarification, even as the original Hebrew reader would have done. Fourthly, however the first clause is translated, this text again spells out the biblical "creationist" worldview and intricately links sexuality and reproduction in relation to God. Yet again it is seen to be impossible to separate sexuality and reproduction while remaining faithful to the biblical worldview. The "curse" is the normative burden which God has placed on human dominion in order to restrain sin and continue blessing his creation. Childbearing and subjection to the husband are tied together. The apostle demonstrates that this tie also continues under the redemptive order, 1 Timothy 2.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 16, 2011)

Thanks, Matthew, for that further clarification.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Jan 16, 2011)

armourbearer,

1. Reread my post. I did not say that the issue was just knowledge of syntactio-semantic categories alone, _but also *when* they apply_. Yes, you are right to see that there were people before the KJV translators who got it right. That was even the case with Granville Sharp's rule in Greek. It was known to classical grammarians before Sharp. The problem is that the KJV translators were relying heavily on the Latin to get them through the Hebrew and Greek. That is why they have this really bad translation here, and in other places. We have come a long way from using Latin to understand Hebrew!

2. Actually, the fact that Richard Tallach was asking the question shows that the translation is not as clear as you think it is. The reason I knew of this passage before he even asked the question is because I already came across the bad KJV translation in the first place, since someone else had already asked the question to me. That makes two people who couldn't understand it. This should go to show us that "literal" [whatever that means] is not always better. Consider Aquilla's translation; it is embarrassingly literal. He translated Genesis 1:1: "In a headpiece, God created with the heavens and the earth." "Literal" is not always better, and in this case, it does create confusion. Even the KJV translates Isaiah 40:2 "Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem" rather than the literal Hebrew "Speak concerning the heart of Jerusalem." Even the KJV translators recognized that this would not communicate the meaning of the text. Translation is a primarily semantic enterprise, and, if the semantics of the text are destroyed in favor of the text being "literal," you get this kind of confusion.

3. Again, and I don't mean any offense by this, but your exegesis of this text with regards to contraception is not good. The first clause is talking about pain in childbearing. Where is there anything about all human sexual acts? It is simply not in the text. Why is it that I always see this kind of eisegesis when I talk to anti-contraception advocates? Isn't there anyone out there who holds this position that just simply allows the text to speak for itself rather than reading extranious things into the text? 

Finally, while continuing to reject anything in the syntax of Genesis 1:28 that would even begin to suggest that procreation is the means to dominion [again, the same blessing is given in 1:22 with no mention of dominion], I would also say that there is also nothing about a "restraint" of sin here. This is in the context of a punishment. The whole point of the text is that humanity has, with its own sin, tainted one of the blessings God gave to it at creation, namely, procreation. Now, it will be painful. Now, there will be strife. 

The point of this text is actually to give us the *opposite* conclusion. The point is that we should *not* look to children for dominion, we should not look to the marriage relationship, and we should not look to our work. It is only the seed of the woman [Genesis 3:15] that has the power to redeem us from this punishment. The whole point of this text is to take away any comfort we might have in this life to point us back to God and his promises. In fact, this is Paul's point in 1 Timothy 2 as well. It is not through childbearing in general but through *the* childbirth, namely, the birth of Christ. I would say that G.W. Knight does an excellent job in summarizing the issues with regards to 1 Timothy 2:



> The most likely understanding of this verse is that it refers to spiritual salvation through the birth of the Messiah. Some commentators (Alford, Bernard, Guthrie, Ward) have rejected this view without giving adequate reasons. But good reasons exist for adopting it (so Ellicott; Lock; H. von Soden; Wohlenberg; Huizenga, “Women”; cf. RV, RSV margin, NEB margin; with undue emphasis on Mary, Ignatius, Eph.19; Irenaeus, Haer. 5.19; Justin, Dial. 100).
> 
> First, the context: V. 14 summarizes the woman’s fall into sin (ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν) described in Genesis 3. The one about whom it speaks is “the woman” (ἡ γυνή), Eve, and this one is the natural subject to be understood in v. 15, “she will be saved” = the woman, Eve, will be saved. From what does Eve need to be saved (in both 1 Timothy 2 and Genesis 3)? From ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν, the last words preceding this verse. In the protevangelium of Gn. 3:15, which speaks of “her seed” and says “He [the seed] shall bruise you [the serpent = Satan] on the head,” salvation is announced in terms of a child to be borne by the woman.
> 
> ...



What amazes me is that, in order to maintain an unbiblical tradition that contraception is wrong, the testimony to the gospel is weakened in *both* Genesis 3:15-16 and 1 Timothy 2:15. Church tradition is helpful in giving us ideas about a text, but, when it contradicts scripture, and especially when it lessens its testimony to the gospel, it must be rejected.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## MW (Jan 16, 2011)

Again, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit."


----------

