tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post3964792128797432964..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: desire to controlSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-62193379788036844312016-05-02T19:42:59.563-07:002016-05-02T19:42:59.563-07:00Very good. God's Word never says that women wi...Very good. God's Word never says that women will "desire to control" men. This is a false doctrine put forward by Susan Foh in the 70's to combat the 2nd wave of feminism and it was adopted by many Evangelicals. I praise God that He has given me a definitive answer to debunk this false doctrine. Please read my blog. I think that you will find it encouraging and theologically sound.<br /><br />Much love,<br />Jennifer<br /><br />https://jenniferjolene.wordpress.com/2016/02/26/two-verses-i-never-understood-before-genesis-47-and-316/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303306730946791718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-80878221035781474302008-08-22T09:09:00.000-07:002008-08-22T09:09:00.000-07:00Desire to control? My King James and ESV say no s...Desire to control? My King James and ESV say no such thing even as English translations which are highly touted for their supposed word-for-word renderings.<BR/><BR/>I can only conclude that authors Allender and Longman have extrapolated out of thin air something that does not exist in the original text.Greg Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01165026355782861827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-22868131893480704382008-08-21T08:32:00.000-07:002008-08-21T08:32:00.000-07:00It's not just comps that have that interpretat...It's not just comps that have that interpretation. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis explained it that way in her blog entry of May 19th at http:menandwomenleaderstogether.blogspot.com entitled 'Adam & Eve in Genesis & First Timothy'. Gordon Fee (in Discovering Biblical Equality) and Linda Belleville, two other egalitarians, believe this is the correct interpretation as well. Hmmm..... MaureenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-84103257348800455182008-08-20T23:35:00.000-07:002008-08-20T23:35:00.000-07:00The NLT actually translates it that way? Yuck! Now...The NLT actually translates it that way? Yuck! Now I'm sure that somewhere out there there are women battling to control their husbands and swap the underdog role with them, but that's not what I mostly see. I see women made vulnerable by their longing for a man's love, yielding up their power and letting men become tyrants .. quite the opposite.<BR/><BR/>But something really puzzling just occurred to me about the whole comp argument. if that's what they really think the passage is saying, why do they make the statement about husbands prescriptive, and the one about wives descriptive. How can this be? If it is somehow "proper" for husbands to rule over wives, how come it's terribly wrong for wives to want to control husbands, when the 2 statements are presented side by side? They'd actually argue a better case (if they somehow think curses should be prescriptive) if they translated tesuqa as "yielding" or something like that, then they could turn both statements equally into commands ..Lynnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982043538182690871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-30388533204739397112008-08-20T20:54:00.000-07:002008-08-20T20:54:00.000-07:00Dave,My point is that "desire to control" is about...Dave,<BR/><BR/>My point is that "desire to control" is about 30 - 40 years old as an interpretation, whereas, subdue/rule is 2000 years old as an interpretation. That is the difference. It is not my personal flavour that I am talking about, it is history that I am talking about. So, yes, I am cranky, because I didn't express my main point very well. <BR/><BR/>But I am not that cranky because I forgot to look at the video clip you sent. So, I'll go and do that now. Thanks for reminding me. :-)Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-82277865014356172162008-08-20T19:15:00.000-07:002008-08-20T19:15:00.000-07:00"The things that people do to each other, both men..."The things that people do to each other, both men and women, are very cruel. There is no need to lay this burden on the shoulders of women alone. Let us all be egalitarian in the way we distribute guilt and blame."<BR/><BR/>I can whole-heartedly agree with you on this.<BR/><BR/>Your reaction to this verse: "you will desire to control your husband,<BR/>but he will rule over you," reminded me of an online dialogue I had with Peter Kirk. I really wanted God to say something like, "Be good stewards of the earth." But according to Peter, it was pretty much "rule/subdue." At that point I had admit that within the worldview of the original authors that this was the way they would perceive God's mandate even if we in a more enlightened age see it differently.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if this is going to make you crankier... I hope not! By the way did you get my email about Son of Rambow?David Kerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13140007604009678479noreply@blogger.com