thread: Do you believe in evolution or what your holy book says?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Mar 2007
    6,900


    I am concerned about the concept that women have pain in childbirth because of eve's 'fall'. It seems like a patriarchal oppression of women through the physiology of their bodies. The idea that god says women must feel pain seems to deny us the opportunity to experience child birth beyond pain- which I believe I did achieve. To think that birth=pain plays into medical intervention and the paternal model of care we have today.
    I remember reading something on this a while ago and I posted it in another thread:

    The Bible clearly teaches that giving birth is a blessing to women. Although some women have pain in labor and birth for a variety of causes, there is nothing in either the Bible or the Jewish Talmud to indicate that such pain is either necessary or normal.
    The so-called "curse of Eve", cannot be traced to the Scriptures or to early Judaism. It is first found in distorted Christian teachings of the third and fourth centuries A.D. Christian teachings promulgated that abstinence, even in marriage, was the way to salvation. A woman had to groan in labor to atone for her "sin" of marital sex. This teaching persisted for over a thousand years. When chloroform was discovered by Sir James Simpson in the early 19th century for use in cases of difficult childbirth, there was an outcry from the Christian church. This was construed as a blasphemous attempt to rebel against the curse that God had laid upon Eve. Even Queen Victoria in the late 19th century was criticized heavily for having used anesthesia, for having gone against the dictates of the "Christian" teachings with the birth of her 8th child.
    Pain during child birth was actually a rare occurrence in our ancient ancestry. Pain and death was not associated with childbirth until the 16th and 17th century when people began to flock to the cities. Midwives, or wise women, were burned at the stake and falsely accused of witchcraft throughout Europe, especially if they administered any form of pain relief. They were admonished to make the women suffer. The masses of people no longer lived off of the blessings of the land, but used coin to trade for food, goods and services. The decline in health and sanitation until the 1940's, and the epidemics of child bed fever as women began delivering in the "houses of charity" (the precursor for the modern day hospital) created unhealthy conditions for our great great grandmothers to birth in.
    The Bible does not degrade womanhood. It does not label child bearing as a curse. It is the interpretation of the words in the Bible that we must look at.
    Genesis 3:16 is the passage commonly quoted by those who believe women have been "cursed to give birth in pain". That it is Eves punishment for having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
    The word translated as "sorrow" or "pain" is the Hebrew word estev. This word is also used when God curses Adam. This word is accurately translated as sorrow. Let's look at this Bible verse from the New Revised Standard Version. Genesis 3:16-17:To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply your pangs (estev) in childbearing; in pain (estev) you shall bring forth children."
    And to the man He said, "...cursed is the ground because of you; in toil (estev) shall you eat of it all the days of your life..."

    When the Hebrew word is translated as "pain" for the woman and "toil" for the man, it is clear that the translator's cultural beliefs have biased his judgment as a scholar of the text. The best description of giving birth is toil, or labor.
    Estev is also translated as "toil" in Proverbs 5:10, 10:22, Isaiah 68:3 and elsewhere. Again, it is translated as "toil" in Chronicles 4:9, which is the only verse in the entire bible that uses estev in connection with the actual birth of a child. To be consistent with other usage of estev in the Bible, Genesis 3:16 should be translated as toil.


    And Jabez was more honorable than his brethren: and his mother called his name Jabez (which means "Height"), saying, Because I bare him with toil (estev).

    Estev is used 16 times throughout the Bible. And not once does it convey the meaning of pain for which we are made to believe in Genesis 3:16. Rabbi Hirsch says: "Estev is only a mental pain and hurt feelings or worry...The root is...a modification of forsaken...the feeling that we have to give up something that we would have liked to keep, or to have attained."
    This prevailing thought that child birth is a curse did not originate in Judaism.
    Those of us who are already mothers know what we have given up. Our bodies are fatter, we have stretch marks, we lose sleep, we put our needs second to our offspring's wishes and desires, and our children, while an immense joy who cultivate our depth of love, try our patience and find ways to grieve our hearts. Perhaps this pain of childbirth is not the day spent in labor, but the life time of nurturing a child and letting go as that child reaches maturity and flies away from the nest. Perhaps it is the ups and downs of parenting with it's laughter and tears and merry-go-round of emotions.
    When Eve gives birth she announces it with Joy! Every account of birth in the Bible is one of joy. Leah praises God at the births of her children. At the birth of Joseph, Rachel exclaims happily, "The Lord has given me another son!"

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Jul 2008
    summer street
    2,708

    Thanks heaven! Great passage!

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Jan 2006
    8,369

    Only read parts of this and NEED to jump in with replies!

    1. Scientific theory = "what we take to be fact". It doesn't mean "we think it's probably right." Therefore, evolution is seen as FACT and not some airy-fairy theory. It's the theory of gravity too, remember. Theory in science is different to theory in common parleance. Just as in science you don't weigh something in kg - weight is in newtons and is a force, whereas mass is a constant and is in grams. Or a scientific cell is different to a monk's cell - and in fact two different things depending on if you are into physics or biology.

    2. The Bible and Evolution work together very well. Things evolve in the same order that the Bible states they were made. Why not use evolution? It seems a pretty nifty way of doing things. I'm not a literal 7-day person; I am not one to think that my 24-hour day is one that God is constrained by.

    3. Predestination. Just because I know how a film will end doesn't mean I predestine it. (Yes, predestine is a word.) Just because God knows everything doesn't mean I am a puppet dancing to His string-twitching. God gave us free will. He pre-destined us ALL to be saved, all we have to do is accept it. God didn't pick who will and who will not accept their salvation: salvation is for ALL, not just a few. He chose, or pre-ordained, that we would have the choice and we could all choose to be saved. Just cos we don't doesn't mean God is picking for us to go to Hell.

    4. Who is God? He is the Almighty. And yes, I believe that the God we know in the Bible is the God of Judaism (bit thick if I didn't think that, what with having the Old Testament telling me that!) and the God of Islam. Who is Jesus? I'll go back to my Anglican upbringing and recite from the book of Common Prayer: the vicar will say this
    God so loved the world
    that he gave his only Son Jesus Christ
    to save us from our sins,
    to be our advocate in heaven,
    and to bring us to eternal life.
    Also a set response is:
    We believe in one God,
    the Father, the Almighty,
    maker of heaven and earth,
    of all that is,
    seen and unseen.

    We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    the only Son of God,
    eternally begotten of the Father,
    God from God, Light from Light,
    true God from true God,
    begotten, not made,
    of one Being with the Father;
    through him all things were made.
    Jesus is clearly not the Father, who we know to be the almighty God. Yes, he is the Son of God and, if we think in terms of species, he's the same species as God (like we're humans and there are angels... and there is God. And His Son, who logically has to be god too, but isn't the same person, just as I'm human and you're human but we're not the same person.) but isn't the same person.

    Also just read other posts here, this is something I was brought up with and always believed. How is Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father (something I sang every other week in my late teens) and also the Father? Doesn't make sense. I do believe in Father, Son and Holy Ghost - so in that sense believe in the Trinity - but it's more a species thing than same person thing. Species with the same personality, but just cos we don't have it on Earth doesn't mean that the most perfect of beings wouldn't be the same, personality wise.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Nov 2005
    Ontario, Canada
    1,624

    Evolution is not a proven theory. Widely accepted, yes. Proven, no.

    And it actually presents some insurmountable theological difficulties that you can not reconcile with the Bible. Was there death before the fall into sin? The Bible says no, and bases other doctrines on that fact. (death entered the world through one man's sin, and eternal life comes through one Man's perfect obedience.... etc.)

    Genesis 1 is not written as poetry. It is historical narrative. When God says "there was evening and there was morning, the first day...." that's what he means. Why question it?

    For me, the question is "who am I going to believe." Either I accept that the Bible, in it's entirety is true, or I can start chopping it up and accepting what I like and leaving what I don't. If I start leaving some parts out, or adjusting them to fit what men have said, then it is no longer the standard for truth. Science is. Or scientific theories. Or human opinion. I will not put my faith in any of those. For me, that's part of believing in God. I believe he is who has revealed himself to be in his Word, and I believe that everything he has said in his Word is true and trustworthy. That's why I personally can not accept theistic evolution.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Jan 2006
    8,369

    Was there death before the Fall? Well, we know that for mankind there wasn't death before the Fall. What about other animals? I reckon that we are special, which is why there was no death for us. Animals? It's only logical that they died. Look at fossils. They were alive and now they're not LOOOOONG before the Fall happened.

    Can someone tell me how evolution is yet to be proved? By us mutating into X-Men? Doesn't work like that. I had a big problem accepting evolution until I understood what it was actually about. I don't think it could have happened at all without God, but I can see how it happens today and has happened over the last few million years. OK, so one brand-new life form has evolved in the last 200 years only, and that was a hybrid grass. But look at bacteria. Whole new species can evolve in a lab in mere years. Without humans tinkering with the genome. It's adaption. I think that God did give us evolution so we could adapt to the world that we created (which is different to the world God created for us, because we've messed it up a fair bit). I think that is a gift of love. He could have made us static and unable to cope outside of Eden. No, my God loves the world so much that He ensured we'd survive until at least His Son arrived, and allowing evolution seems to me like the best way.

    BTW, I'm often curious about how far back time-wise I could go and still be viable with another "human". I wonder if I went back to the time of Noah whether I would be able to have children with the people then, or if we've changed (evolved) too much. Which means that either we're not human or they weren't, which is a whole 'nother exciting thing to consider!

  6. #6

    Nov 2007
    Earth
    4,434

    I think the problem - at least in my humble opinion - is that evolution is taught in schools as being the goo to human kind, as opposed to simple adaptation to ones environment. I know that until the other thread, I flatly refused anything to do with evolution, because I know I didn't come from a monkey or any other animal. BUT I can understand that environmental factors do impact on us - you put it really well LZ, about it being God's love that allows us to adapt rather than being made for the only place on Earth that we'll never find by ourselves.

    I had a whole big 'discussion' with DH a while ago, based on the premise that Adam and Eve wouldn't have had belly buttons, as they were created and not born attached to an umbilical cord. I raised my own theory that they also wouldn't have required a 'back passage' while they were in Eden and therefore perfect, because that is used to rid the body of waste products. And if your body is perfect, and you're only eating perfect foods in perfect portions - what waste would there be?

    It's interesting to wonder about how different Adam & Eve were to what we are now - our bodies seem capable of functioning with tonsils, appendix, gall bladder and even spleen in some cases, but Jehovah would have created them with a purpose, they wouldn't have just been superfluous. So I wonder what their designed function was in the beginning?

  7. #7
    BellyBelly Life Subscriber

    Feb 2006
    South Eastern Suburbs, Vic
    6,054

    I think there's a huge difference between evolution and adaptation.

    I don't know if I've said this elsewhere on BB, but evolution involves pain, death, survival of the fittest. My bible records God as saying things were good at the end of each day. So with evolution, at the end of that 'day' where somehow life evolves from molecular form to a cow, for example, with all the struggles, mutations and violence along the way...and then God says that it is good, as in perfect. I'm not sure about that really.

    While I think it can be beneficial to think on these things, to try and have a better understanding of our faiths, I try to be careful not to get too hung up on these things. For me, as a Christian, the most important thing is love, to love others and love God, and I've seen too many people get really grotty at each other because they get bogged down in these matters. So while I find it interesting, and I know of people who have found their lives significantly changed when their beliefs on creation/evolution changed, I don't base my faith on evolution vs 7 day creation. I believe God created, and while I have my own personal view that I consider to be not entirely uneducated, I don't claim to have inside knowledge any further than what my holy book teaches.