Trible’s arguments, while not perfect, are some of the most rational and valid arguments we’ve seen so far. She ventures just far enough outside “the box” to make a controversial point, but doesn’t carry it to an extremist notion. Her first argument is perhaps not the best to start with, since it violates our golden rule of separating Genesis 1 and 2. Trible attempts to link the structures of Genesis 1 and 2 to demolish the thought that woman’s creation in genesis 2 is an “afterthought.” Speaking with an obvious agenda, she does what countless feminists before her do: join Genesis 1 and 2 as if one implies something about the other. If Genesis 1 and 2 showed obvious connection in authorship, her argument would be flawless, but unfortunately this is not so.
Her next attack is at the word “helper” which we have seen interpreted many ways. The most credible interpretations of controversial words are the ones which look at its usage in other contexts, and attempt to remove the contemporary connotation. Trible does just this, as she explains that “In some passages, it characterizes Deity” (E&A 432). Given the multiple usages in the animal, human, and divine spheres, Trible devises an interpretation of “helper” as a “beneficial relationship,” one that “does not imply inferiority.” To supplement her argument concerning the word “helper,” Trible points out how man assumes no authority over the woman based on his nonexistent role in her creation. Woman may be made from man, but she is creation by god, as was man, making them equal . She deconstructs the popular argument that woman is merely a subset of man, as people tend to view the woman as only a “talking rib”, and not a fully formed person. Critics who take this view ignore the “building” that takes place from Adam’s rib to arrive at the woman. Trible equates this process with the creation of Adam from the dust.
Her next discussion of androgyny is hard to comment on when I’ve only read the story in English. To really get a true sense of whether or not the first creation in genesis 2 is sex specific, I think it’s necessary to read the story in Hebrew and have a full understanding of the tenses. However, if her claim is true that no sex specific words were used before the creation of woman, then it seems fitting that the creation of woman accompanies the creation of sexuality. Her argument is based on textual evidence, giving it merit above those which stand on loosely interpreted events.
Finally, Trible tackles the naming episode in full detail. When I was first reading her essay, I made a gigantic star mark next to the line “Adham names [the animals] and thereby exercises power over them” (E&A 432), saying to myself “she really dug a hole for herself there.” Thankfully she fully explains her view on the naming episode, which is somewhat awkward. Trible draws a textual distinction between the “calling” of the woman and several other “namings” that occur elsewhere. By recognizing a textual distinction, she asserts that this is evidence of a different meaning removed from authority. To Trible, something about saying the proper name signifies authority, as seen in the animal naming episode and the naming of children. It is important to recognize this distinction, but the interpretation beyond that must be looked at carefully. The notion that the absence of a “name” for the woman implies that no authority exists relies on the assumption that there is authority in the use of a proper name. In the case of the animals, authority is already granted to Adam by God, so it is not clear that the naming episode is responsible for Adam’s authority over the animals. There must be further textual evidence to support Trible’s claim about the naming episode.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Modern Christianity I
By now I have realized that approaching an essay from our modern viewpoint is useless in analyzing its legitamacy. For people who take the word of the old testament as the word of god, there is no getting around the fact that the bible supports male superiority. Every argument we have seen so far that espouses equality of the sexes has left out crucial passages saying otherwise, as if they were hoping they would dissapear if not dealt with. Foh's approach to Genesis allows her to make use of the entire text, and play both sides of the equality fence. The backbone of her argument requires grouping the two creations as creations of different spheres of life. The first creation describes ontological equality, while the second describes the "god given roles" (E&A 389) of male and female with regards to church and marriage only. Apparently there was just too much to say about men and women for there to be only one creation, so naturally there are two to make sure all the bases are covered.
We've seen many ways to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2, including blunt denial and claims of different authorship, but this is by far the most unique. Foh, in most her interpretation, mostly stays close to the text and doesnt take much liberty. However, the one gigantic liberty her argument rests on is that creation in genesis 2 is limited to the church and home, and creation in Genesis 1 is limited to ontological equality. These divisions are not made in the text. Yes, there are different tones in the two stories, but this is because they are. . . two separate stories.
Aside from this flaw, Foh is pretty tasteful in how she portrays female subjection. She covers the blunt words subjection and authority with more neutral words such as "difference in function" and "sinless heirarchy." Some of her evidence for male superiority is clearly supported in the text, such as the naming argument. It is clear that Adam was exhibiting dominion over the world's animals by naming them. Why then, should the naming of woman be any different; she is after all just another "attempted partner" for Adam that happens to be successful.
Foh's stance on the Fall is a bit confusing. She claims that the fall upsets the balance of the "sinless heirarchy" of which the woman is happy "helping" the man. She then recalls the punishment of the woman desiring the husband, and the move to his more harsh rule over her. Then, she counters this by saying that "many wives have no desire -sexual, psychological or otherwise- for their husbands" (E&A 393). Was god's prediction of male-female relationship wrong? Nevertheless, Foh favors a return to the pre-Fall relationship of man and woman.
We've seen many ways to reconcile Genesis 1 and 2, including blunt denial and claims of different authorship, but this is by far the most unique. Foh, in most her interpretation, mostly stays close to the text and doesnt take much liberty. However, the one gigantic liberty her argument rests on is that creation in genesis 2 is limited to the church and home, and creation in Genesis 1 is limited to ontological equality. These divisions are not made in the text. Yes, there are different tones in the two stories, but this is because they are. . . two separate stories.
Aside from this flaw, Foh is pretty tasteful in how she portrays female subjection. She covers the blunt words subjection and authority with more neutral words such as "difference in function" and "sinless heirarchy." Some of her evidence for male superiority is clearly supported in the text, such as the naming argument. It is clear that Adam was exhibiting dominion over the world's animals by naming them. Why then, should the naming of woman be any different; she is after all just another "attempted partner" for Adam that happens to be successful.
Foh's stance on the Fall is a bit confusing. She claims that the fall upsets the balance of the "sinless heirarchy" of which the woman is happy "helping" the man. She then recalls the punishment of the woman desiring the husband, and the move to his more harsh rule over her. Then, she counters this by saying that "many wives have no desire -sexual, psychological or otherwise- for their husbands" (E&A 393). Was god's prediction of male-female relationship wrong? Nevertheless, Foh favors a return to the pre-Fall relationship of man and woman.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Since Adam and Eve
Studying human sexuality from an evolutionary standpoint reveals fascinating truths and origins about behaviors deeply entrenched in human thought. Marriage and monogamy, at least in America, have evolved into an almost instinctual practice, as every child is conditioned to long for her/his "night in shining armour" and "perfect princess." Behavioral studies of related animal species shed light that monogamy is a state preferred only under certain conditions, and has pros and cons. For humans, monogamy is favored because competition for food is not an issue, and dual parental care for an incompetent human child is a huge advantage. The Jewish religion seeks to explain heterosexual monogamy as the plan of God for the human race. Are religious standpoints on monogamy really only concerned with moral and social structure, or are they really etiologies for the more complex biological roots of monogamy?
The same ten or so scattered lines in Genesis 1-3 have been used to support such varied arguments that I start to seriously question if there was any "real meaning" intended for these lines. Here we see quotes from the creation, naming, and flood stories that are interpreted as statements about monogamy and kinship. As always, simple statements are elaborated and given connotations that bolster the sense of utter completeness in marriage. "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife" is used to support that marriage is the only way to achieve the highest fulfillment of human personality, a clear stretch from the text.
Now that marriage is the topic of discussion, suddenly male writers start to use creation in Genesis 1 to support female equality. Given the agenda of proving that companionship is one of the two primary functions of marriage, women now need to be seen as more than maids with uterus's. They are elevated to "equals of their husbands" (E&A 403). The process of obtaining a mate to achieve a divine relationship is glorified, so the status of women is heightened to prize worthy. .
Something i found very interesting to note is the parallel between puberty and the "Fall." Here I am talking about the gaining of knowledge, not the disobediance. Before puberty, it is acceptable for a child to be seen naked, correlating to the innocent nature of Adam and Eve before the fall. Puberty, a time of physical and emotional development, carries with it the shameful feelings of nudity. This transition is similar to the fall, where an acquired knowledge and development causes Adam and Eve to be aware and ashamed of their nudity. This ties into previous notions of Genesis 2-3 as an etiology for our biologically rooted tendancy to hide nudity past a certain age.
Another biological theory is that the monogamous sexual relationship is responsible for hidden genitalia. I was going to say that this doesnt jive well with Genesis 2-3, since there was no one else around to have sex with before the fall, in their state of nudity. However, I am reminded that Adam "had sex with all the animals" before the fall, supporting the notion that the monogamy of Adam and Eve may have had something to do with their bashfulness. This is just a thought though, because obviously they were monogamous and happily naked before the fall.
The same ten or so scattered lines in Genesis 1-3 have been used to support such varied arguments that I start to seriously question if there was any "real meaning" intended for these lines. Here we see quotes from the creation, naming, and flood stories that are interpreted as statements about monogamy and kinship. As always, simple statements are elaborated and given connotations that bolster the sense of utter completeness in marriage. "A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife" is used to support that marriage is the only way to achieve the highest fulfillment of human personality, a clear stretch from the text.
Now that marriage is the topic of discussion, suddenly male writers start to use creation in Genesis 1 to support female equality. Given the agenda of proving that companionship is one of the two primary functions of marriage, women now need to be seen as more than maids with uterus's. They are elevated to "equals of their husbands" (E&A 403). The process of obtaining a mate to achieve a divine relationship is glorified, so the status of women is heightened to prize worthy. .
Something i found very interesting to note is the parallel between puberty and the "Fall." Here I am talking about the gaining of knowledge, not the disobediance. Before puberty, it is acceptable for a child to be seen naked, correlating to the innocent nature of Adam and Eve before the fall. Puberty, a time of physical and emotional development, carries with it the shameful feelings of nudity. This transition is similar to the fall, where an acquired knowledge and development causes Adam and Eve to be aware and ashamed of their nudity. This ties into previous notions of Genesis 2-3 as an etiology for our biologically rooted tendancy to hide nudity past a certain age.
Another biological theory is that the monogamous sexual relationship is responsible for hidden genitalia. I was going to say that this doesnt jive well with Genesis 2-3, since there was no one else around to have sex with before the fall, in their state of nudity. However, I am reminded that Adam "had sex with all the animals" before the fall, supporting the notion that the monogamy of Adam and Eve may have had something to do with their bashfulness. This is just a thought though, because obviously they were monogamous and happily naked before the fall.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Muslim Viewpoints
What an evil prompt you've given us this week! If there's one thing I've learned from this class it's that there is no "correct" when interpreting ancient texts. I've seen opinion, irrational opinion, textually supported opinion, and outright absurdity, but no "correctness." I have learned to respect the argument that places a text in context, and looks at it as more than just words. Language structure, attitudes of the time, and translation errors all must be analyzed to truly understand the meaning of a text.
Mawdudi draws many interpretations about various Surahs based on the way they sound, what they seem to imply, without really diving into the language and structure of the text. The argument about menstruation references lines that merely state that "it is a state of impurity, so keep away from them and do not approach them till they are cleansed" (E&A 414). Mawdudi then talk about how the "explanation of this injunction by the Prophet makes it clear . . . " that the impurity only refers to sexual intercourse. Unless he is referring to uncited textual evidence, his notion of a clear explanation is completely unrepresented in the text. The terms "keep away" and "do not approach" are completely neutral and justify no inferences about the spheres in which they apply. While Mawdudi's interpretation is perhaps more uplifting than some, and favors women being treated the "normal way," whatever that is, his delusions of clear and concise textual explanations are merely reflections of his own conviction regarding an ambiguous passage.
Even when Mawdudi attempts to incorporate language structure into his argument, his speculations are purely interprative and not factually based. In his interpretation of female equality he references the definition of a verb, "a derivative of the root fdl", [that] is not used to mean . . . . Rather it means . . . " (E&A 418). Where is the credability in his statements? His interpretations for all we know are based on what he feels something means, and does not merit credability.
Hassan is the polar opposite in her arguments for female equality, elagently weaving language usage and meaning with exposing misconceptions and false incoporations. However, she too, in her grace of argument, ignores key texts that refute her cause, as most feminist authors seem to do. The clear statements that Mawdudi refers to in Surah 4:34 are not touched upon by Hassan, who only discusses misconceptions and instances of equal creation. Her assumption that if man and woman were created equally, they could not become unequal, does little to provide insight into the later references of women as subordinate and obedient to men.
Mawdudi draws many interpretations about various Surahs based on the way they sound, what they seem to imply, without really diving into the language and structure of the text. The argument about menstruation references lines that merely state that "it is a state of impurity, so keep away from them and do not approach them till they are cleansed" (E&A 414). Mawdudi then talk about how the "explanation of this injunction by the Prophet makes it clear . . . " that the impurity only refers to sexual intercourse. Unless he is referring to uncited textual evidence, his notion of a clear explanation is completely unrepresented in the text. The terms "keep away" and "do not approach" are completely neutral and justify no inferences about the spheres in which they apply. While Mawdudi's interpretation is perhaps more uplifting than some, and favors women being treated the "normal way," whatever that is, his delusions of clear and concise textual explanations are merely reflections of his own conviction regarding an ambiguous passage.
Even when Mawdudi attempts to incorporate language structure into his argument, his speculations are purely interprative and not factually based. In his interpretation of female equality he references the definition of a verb, "a derivative of the root fdl", [that] is not used to mean . . . . Rather it means . . . " (E&A 418). Where is the credability in his statements? His interpretations for all we know are based on what he feels something means, and does not merit credability.
Hassan is the polar opposite in her arguments for female equality, elagently weaving language usage and meaning with exposing misconceptions and false incoporations. However, she too, in her grace of argument, ignores key texts that refute her cause, as most feminist authors seem to do. The clear statements that Mawdudi refers to in Surah 4:34 are not touched upon by Hassan, who only discusses misconceptions and instances of equal creation. Her assumption that if man and woman were created equally, they could not become unequal, does little to provide insight into the later references of women as subordinate and obedient to men.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Qur'an
Creation in the Qur'an is certainly influenced by previous creation stories, but contains radical differences and clarifications that mark its separation from the old testament. The question of sex before sin in Genesis is a long debated argument with little textual reconciliation. The Qur'an, however, clearly sanctions sex, although whether this is before or after the "fall" is not clear due to the jumbled nature of the verses. When speaking of menstruation, it is said that men should "go not in unto them till they are cleansed. . . then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you" (E&A 180.) This clear sanctioning of sex is not seen in Genesis, and contributes heavily to the debate about what life was like before the "fall." Life before the fall is thought by some to embody god's intentions for humankind. The ambiguity regarding "pre-sin" sex in genesis leads to theories such as celibacy, sex on occasion, sex all the time without lust, and sex all the time with reproduction only sometimes. The Qur'an avoids this mess by clearly stating that sex is sanctioned by Allah.
Another hotly debated topic in Genesis that the Qur'an deals with straightforwardly is the issue of immortality. When Satan talks to Adam and his mate, he explains the consequences of eating the fruit as"lest ye should become angels or become of the immortals" (E&A181.) This implies that Adam and the woman (hard not to call here Eve here) were not made immortal if Satan speaks the truth. Genesis deals with this issue with confusion and ambiguity, like most others. God states that Adam and Eve "will certainly die" if they eat from the fruit, with no counter action to explain what would happen if they did not eat.
Adam and the woman's reaction to their own sin is by far the most drastically different facet of the story. We have seen the pride and relentlessness that accompanies the human's excuses to God in Genesis. In the Qur'an, the two humans immediately admit their wrongdoing by saying "We have wronged ourselves" (E&A 181.) This is part of the Islamic view that there was no "fall," and that the first humans are not to blame for introducing evil into the world. Their acknowledgement of their wrongdoing leads only to a "punishment" of banishment, not comparable to that in Genesis.
Despite the differences noted above, some contradictions seen in Genesis are also observed in the Qur'an. It is stated many times that men are superior to women. However, just as in Genesis 1, a phrase exists that seems to support equality: "We have created you male and female" (E&A 184). This is strikingly similar to the statement "male and female he did create them" (Gen 1:27). The similarity of these two statements support a direct influence of Genesis on the Qur'an.
Another hotly debated topic in Genesis that the Qur'an deals with straightforwardly is the issue of immortality. When Satan talks to Adam and his mate, he explains the consequences of eating the fruit as"lest ye should become angels or become of the immortals" (E&A181.) This implies that Adam and the woman (hard not to call here Eve here) were not made immortal if Satan speaks the truth. Genesis deals with this issue with confusion and ambiguity, like most others. God states that Adam and Eve "will certainly die" if they eat from the fruit, with no counter action to explain what would happen if they did not eat.
Adam and the woman's reaction to their own sin is by far the most drastically different facet of the story. We have seen the pride and relentlessness that accompanies the human's excuses to God in Genesis. In the Qur'an, the two humans immediately admit their wrongdoing by saying "We have wronged ourselves" (E&A 181.) This is part of the Islamic view that there was no "fall," and that the first humans are not to blame for introducing evil into the world. Their acknowledgement of their wrongdoing leads only to a "punishment" of banishment, not comparable to that in Genesis.
Despite the differences noted above, some contradictions seen in Genesis are also observed in the Qur'an. It is stated many times that men are superior to women. However, just as in Genesis 1, a phrase exists that seems to support equality: "We have created you male and female" (E&A 184). This is strikingly similar to the statement "male and female he did create them" (Gen 1:27). The similarity of these two statements support a direct influence of Genesis on the Qur'an.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Shakers and the Oneida Community
The argument of Noyes regarding the function of women, like most other arguments we've seen, relies on selective picking of textual references to reach an agenda. To support the claim that amative sexuality is superior to reproductive sexuality, Noyes cites Gen 2:18, "he saw it was not good for man to be alone," to reason that companionship came before reproduction. However, just as the feminists hail Genesis 1 and abandon Genesis 2, Noyes does the opposite. The constant repetition in Genesis 1 of "after their kind" (Gen 1:14) and "bear fruit and be many and fill the earth" (Gen 1:28) clearly supports reproductive sexuality that Noyes does not touch upon. In stead, Noyes focuses on Genesis 2, where his claim can be better supported. As per most writers we've seen with agendas, Noyes picks and chooses what will strengthen his argument and leaves out contradictions.
The Oneida community values seem to be a conscious reversal of God's punishment. Both punishments, labor pains for women and a hard working struggle for men, are mitigated by the practice of shabby "birth control." The view of the Fall as an etiology for the modern American marriage seems supportable, as the modern link between reproduction, female inferiority, and male work is undeniable. Classifying the punishment as an etiology, rather than God's will allows its reversal to be tolerated. Once again, we see how different interpreters utilize different parts of the text to support their claims. Previous interpretations referred to the punishment as God's will to validate female subordination. Here, Noyes takes the word of God as the intention of amative love with only occasional reproduction, and attempts to reproduce it.
The entire claim that Adam and Eve enjoyed non-reproductive sex before the fall is founded on a translation of Genesis that improves this argument. Noyes references the King James version of Gen 3:16, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception," suggesting that sorrow and conception and independantly increased. Our Fox translation has genesis 3:16 as "I will multiply, multiply your pain (from) your pregnancy." This translation clearly does not support an increase in conception, and just refers to pain upon conception. A quick search on "biblegateway.com" of Genesis 3:16 in all versions shows that most link the pains with pregnancy, while few consider them separately like that of the King James bible. Standing an interpretation on a controversial clause of Genesis makes it easier to claim something without much direct opposing evidence, since many translations exist.
The Oneida community values seem to be a conscious reversal of God's punishment. Both punishments, labor pains for women and a hard working struggle for men, are mitigated by the practice of shabby "birth control." The view of the Fall as an etiology for the modern American marriage seems supportable, as the modern link between reproduction, female inferiority, and male work is undeniable. Classifying the punishment as an etiology, rather than God's will allows its reversal to be tolerated. Once again, we see how different interpreters utilize different parts of the text to support their claims. Previous interpretations referred to the punishment as God's will to validate female subordination. Here, Noyes takes the word of God as the intention of amative love with only occasional reproduction, and attempts to reproduce it.
The entire claim that Adam and Eve enjoyed non-reproductive sex before the fall is founded on a translation of Genesis that improves this argument. Noyes references the King James version of Gen 3:16, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception," suggesting that sorrow and conception and independantly increased. Our Fox translation has genesis 3:16 as "I will multiply, multiply your pain (from) your pregnancy." This translation clearly does not support an increase in conception, and just refers to pain upon conception. A quick search on "biblegateway.com" of Genesis 3:16 in all versions shows that most link the pains with pregnancy, while few consider them separately like that of the King James bible. Standing an interpretation on a controversial clause of Genesis makes it easier to claim something without much direct opposing evidence, since many translations exist.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Slavery Ordained of God
Fred A. Ross puts strong emphasis on a definition of right that is "made by God" (E&A 324). God's word is so strong it is mentioned as "world wide law" (E&A 325). This sanctity of God's word is repeated multiple times for effect, and sets a tone for absolute acceptance for whatever is even implied by God's word. Ross lists the relations ordained by god, including master and slave. A little research shows that slavery is indeed mentioned in the old testament:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Clearly, slavery is ordained by god through the bible. As Ross states, these relationships are "directly commanded" (E&A 325) as seen by the verses above. However, to give more credibility to his argument beyond a few sporadic mentions of slavery that few people have heard of, Ross draws a huge parallel between the relationship of master/slave and husband/wife. Ross asserts that the wife is the slave, a notion that obviously stem's from Eve's punishment of being ruled over. In doing this, Ross links slavery to one of the most recognizable Christian religious events: the fall of man. He clearly references the punishment when he discusses how the role of women "is made for her, and not by her" (E&A 325). Ross compares the horrors of slavery to the even worse horrors of female subjugation. Further so, he compares the "command" of a husband to wife to that of a master to slave.
The Problem in Ross' argument is that, while there may be mention of slavery elsewhere, his paramount parallel of slavery to marriage is unfounded in the text. God clearly punishes women and only the woman: "To the woman he said" (Gen 3:15). Ross also makes no mention of how that command of subjugation is in unison with one of labor pains, which certainly do not fit into his parallel of slavery. With an agenda of likening the relationships of slavery and marriage, Ross focuses on the more advantageous of the two punishments, the one about ruling. Ross cleverly constructs his argument, first laying down the sanctity of God's word, then making the reader believe God's word about Eve's punishment is a command of slavery.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Clearly, slavery is ordained by god through the bible. As Ross states, these relationships are "directly commanded" (E&A 325) as seen by the verses above. However, to give more credibility to his argument beyond a few sporadic mentions of slavery that few people have heard of, Ross draws a huge parallel between the relationship of master/slave and husband/wife. Ross asserts that the wife is the slave, a notion that obviously stem's from Eve's punishment of being ruled over. In doing this, Ross links slavery to one of the most recognizable Christian religious events: the fall of man. He clearly references the punishment when he discusses how the role of women "is made for her, and not by her" (E&A 325). Ross compares the horrors of slavery to the even worse horrors of female subjugation. Further so, he compares the "command" of a husband to wife to that of a master to slave.
The Problem in Ross' argument is that, while there may be mention of slavery elsewhere, his paramount parallel of slavery to marriage is unfounded in the text. God clearly punishes women and only the woman: "To the woman he said" (Gen 3:15). Ross also makes no mention of how that command of subjugation is in unison with one of labor pains, which certainly do not fit into his parallel of slavery. With an agenda of likening the relationships of slavery and marriage, Ross focuses on the more advantageous of the two punishments, the one about ruling. Ross cleverly constructs his argument, first laying down the sanctity of God's word, then making the reader believe God's word about Eve's punishment is a command of slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)