What is your basis for saying this? Do you have access to the source texts? Do you have extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew?
Here is Genesis 3:16 from the NET, with the translators' notes...
"To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
Re "increase": The imperfect verb form is emphasized and intensified by the infinitive absolute from the same verb.
Re "pains":
Heb “your pain and your conception,” suggesting to some interpreters that having a lot of children was a result of the judgment (probably to make up for the loss through death). But the next clause shows that the pain is associated with conception and childbirth. The two words form a hendiadys (where two words are joined to express one idea, like “good and angry” in English), the second explaining the first. “Conception,” if the correct meaning of the noun, must be figurative here since there is no pain in conception; it is a synecdoche, representing the entire process of childbirth and child rearing from the very start. However, recent etymological research suggests the noun is derived from a root הרר (
hrr), not הרה (
hrh), and means “trembling, pain” (see D. Tsumura, “A Note on הרוֹן (Gen 3, 16),”
Bib 75 [1994]: 398-400). In this case “pain and trembling” refers to the physical effects of childbirth. The word עִצְּבוֹן (
ʿitsevon, “pain”), an abstract noun related to the verb (עָצַב,
ʿatsav), includes more than physical pain. It is emotional distress as well as physical pain. The same word is used in
v. 17 for the man’s painful toil in the field.
Re "control your husband":
Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle. The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (
teshuqah, “desire”) is debated. Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in
Song 7:11 HT (
7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in
Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in
Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In
Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?”
WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
Re "dominate": The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (
mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.sn This passage is a judgment oracle. It announces that conflict between man and woman will become the norm in human society. It does not depict the NT ideal, where the husband sacrificially loves his wife, as Christ loved the church, and where the wife recognizes the husband’s loving leadership in the family and voluntarily submits to it. Sin produces a conflict or power struggle between the man and the woman, but in Christ man and woman call a truce and live harmoniously (
Eph 5:18-32).
I use the NET Bible for two reasons: 1) it is an
excellent translation into modern English and 2) as shown above, there are extensive, thorough translator's notes describing why and how translations decisions were made. It does away with KJVO's absurd comments about the "accuracy" of the 400+ years old translation that is based on a) a limited number of manuscripts compared to what is available today, b) a limited understanding of the cultures of the Bible, compared to excellent modern archaeological findings, for example, the Dead Sea scrolls, and c) the need to promote the theology of a secular king.
I claim that KJVOs' thinking is based on the false assumption that 17th Century Englyshe somehow conveys God's thoughts and ideas more clearly than the modern English that they themselves use every day to convey those same thoughts. Do they really think that the ancient scribes used stilted language instead of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek to convey God's words to a population that was almost entirely illiterate? Do they really think that when Jesus spoke to thousands of people, He spoke in a language that they couldn't understand?
They are confusing holiness with pomposity. The reject modern society and scholarship in favor of an imagined 17th Century England. They forget that the KJV is a
translation of the texts that were available at the time and
not the pure, true word of God. For some reason, they think that particular version is both inspired and correct, forgetting that it is based in part on earlier English translations and that the translators expected their work to be modified at a later time.
Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart." They are clearly delusional.
