The ESV Bible has changed Genesis 3:16 yet again!

7 thoughts on “The ESV Bible has changed Genesis 3:16 yet again!”

1. As someone who has made huge life decisions and guidelines for my actions and life, these revisions and changes are encouraging yet, discouraging. I don’t understand how God has allowed such confusion when people like me have taken His Word so seriously, and then found out later that it wasn’t an accurate translation. Over the years I observed that most, if not all of the women that I knew (and I have lived in many different places and attended many churches!) had the desire “for” and not “contrary to” their husbands. This always baffled me as we and our husbands were taught that was a wife’s “bent”. This small word change could have possibly saved my marriage, but my husband had the attitude that any hint of disagreement meant that I was trying to resist and gain power over him.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   1. GiGi,

      I loved your comment! 😊

      You wrote (8th March 2025):

      As someone who has made huge life decisions and guidelines for my actions and life, these revisions and changes are encouraging yet, discouraging. I don’t understand….such confusion when people like me have taken His Word so seriously, and then found out later that it wasn’t an accurate translation.

      I hope you don’t mind, Gigi, 😊 and no offence to you intended 😊 ….I’ve taken the liberty of slightly modifying your comment to reflect what might (or could) be said by many people.

      You wrote:

      Over the years I observed that most, if not all of the women that I knew (and I have lived in many different places and attended many churches!) had the desire “for” and not “contrary to” their husbands.

      I love that you wrote that most, if not all of the women that you knew had the desire FOR their husband, and not CONTRARY TO their husband. And my apologies once again 😊 , for pointing out — and I know this isn’t what you intended 😊 — that even the phrase “the desire for their husband” can be problematic….indeed, that phrasing has also been weaponized.

      You wrote:

      This small word change [from the phrase “contrary to” to the word “for”] could have possibly saved my marriage, but my husband had the attitude that any hint of disagreement meant that I was trying to resist and gain power over him.

      [The phrase in brackets “from the phrase “contrary to” to the word “for”” was added by me.]

      I’m so sorry this happened to you, GiGi. 😢 And not to diminish you or devalue your experience 😊 ….this kind of thing has happened to many women. Very big sigh.

      LikeLiked by 1 person

      1. Finding Answers, you’re right that even the phrase “the woman’s desire FOR her husband” can be weaponised.

         One way it has been weaponised is by depicting women as being primarily motivated by sexual lust and thus being inferior to men, lesser in value and worth, and less trustworthy than men.

         That’s why I appreciate the deep dive Dr Andrew A Macintosh did into the meaning of the Hebrew word “teshuqua” which is so often translated as “desire” in Genesis 3:16.

         In his article, “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies 61 (2016):365-387, Andrew A. Macintosh did a thorough study of the word תְּשׁוּקָה (teshûqâ) and came to an interesting conclusion. He said:

         In summary, I conclude that ‘desire’ is not a proper rendering of the Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה in the Hebrew Bible or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, on the evidence of comparative philology and of the ancient versions, ‘concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus’, appears to be more likely. [bold emphasis mine]

         (I wish Macintosh’s paper was available online. I had to go to the biggest university library in Melbourne to access it!)

         If Macintosh is right, and “teshuqua” means concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus, then it can’t primarily connote sexual lust. For more on what I think it means, please read my article The woman’s desire in Genesis 3:16 — let’s be consistent with the context and with actual life.

         LikeLike

   2. Gigi, thanks for your comment! :)

      Like you, most of the women I have known have desire “for,” not “contrary to”, their husbands. I recognise that psychopathy and sociopathy are not found only in males, but in my observation and experience the vast majority of married women desire “for” their husbands. The translators and Bible interpreters who have taught that the woman’s desire is “contrary to” her husband, or that woman’s desire is to “usurp male authority”, have been playing into the agenda of stony-hearted evil men who enjoy oppressing and harming women.

      You wrote:

      I don’t understand how God has allowed such confusion when people like me have taken His Word so seriously, and then found out later that it wasn’t an accurate translation.

      I’ve pondered this for years. The only conclusion I can come up with is that God is not the author of sin, nor is He the author of confusion. Fallen human beings, through their own selfishness, their fear of man, their love of self-glory, their sinful blindness, have translated scripture in ways that oppress women, children and other vulnerable groups. And many sheep in the churches have gone along with those bad translations because they prefer having leaders tell them what to think, rather than having to think for themselves.

      I believe the worst mistranslations have sprung from the pens of the psychopaths among us — the Bible calls them wolves, Pharisees, sons of Belial. They have been intentionally malevolent in consorting with Satan, and they have produced translations and interpretations designed to elevate and empower themselves, dis-empowering and devaluing those they are oppressing.

      LikeLike

2. Great catch finding that, Barbara!

   LikeLiked by 1 person

3. Barb,

   You wrote (in your post):

   The ESV Bible editors have changed their translation of Genesis 3:16 yet again.

   ….just like so many “Christians” (and abusers). Constantly moving the goalposts to suit themselves.

   LikeLike

   1. I think the ESV editors may have felt a bit ashamed after they made their update in 2016. They got a lot of pushback in 2016, including from yours truly (not that they would’ve cared a fig for the opinion of a woman like me with no letters after her name and no big platform).

      LikeLike