Oldest known human fossil found in Europe

[Robert Byers]

Canuckster
Is pscycology really science?
Anyways.
Your wrong.

I asserted and insist that women have , as the bible puts it, great pain and travail during chidbirth.
You should commit yourself to the opposite opinion.

I assert and insist that female animals do not have likewise pain and travail. I mean all of them.
You should commit yourself to the opposite opinion.

I assert and insist there is a anatomical, scientific, reason for womens pain that is abscent in all other female creatures.
You should commit to the opposite opinion.

I assert and insist that in order to bring this change in women by Gods command there was a change in the womans body. Otherwise the present pain is magical. It isn't. Therefore before the present state there was another anatomical state.
The words increase are vague enough to deny they mean there was original pain. The increase was at least big enough to change the character of childbirth in order to justify a punishment had been effected. Claims of "pains" are silly in context.
Female creatures may be restles, whiney, or discomforted during childbirth. Yet they are not in pain or agony. Words matter. Anyways there is, as I said, a reason why female creatures don't suffer pain. They have not the passage issues we had. Evolution , by the way, confirms this fact and seeks erect standing etc ideas to explain it.
I think I have made the winning case and you guys are just not admitting to being surprised to new information.
I have put my intelligence and competence on the table.
You guys are not committing.
I can admit when I'm wrong.
I'm not wrong here methinks.
All the best
Robert byers
Toronto,Ontario

[zoegirl]

Zoegirl.
I must insist that women having birthpain is a actual fact. If some women don't it is a exception.

I must insist that I have never Denied this. YOu REALLY need to read my posts better. I AGREE that those women are an exception

The punishment of women by birthpains is not nullified by the exceptions. The birthpains are a real and defining aspect of childbirth.,

I think you are the one equivocating here. You INSIST that it is punishment from the curse. Yet by that logic, ALL women should be. ANY exceptions should really cause us to question your assertion. Are these women exempt from this part of the curse? God either is making a mistake or for some reason has let these women slide (gosh, why do they get to avoid that agony?) OR the INCREASE in physical pain of childbirth is not the ONLY pain in childbirth. The anguish of introducing someone into a life born in slavery to sin, the anguish of the broken human relationships.

The great pain, even maybe agony, of women is not duplicated in female animals. Some female animals for this or that reason may have irritation or even pain but they are defined as not experiencing anything like the childbirth of women.

I would really love to know if you actually read the comments posted by people here. Those three articles dealt with the physical symptoms of animal pain, animal behavior in response to pain, and the responses of lab rats in birth and to anesthesia given in labor. If animals were not in pain in labor, then it would be useless to use them as laboratory models for anesthesia use.

However, In any case, this really doesn't address the fact that you have no evidence at all of your assertions.

Again there is a anatomical or scientific reason. The baby in women is forced to squueeze thru in a more difficult passage. All female creatures do not have this same anatomical passage problem.

And yet, the clearly DO have pain, and no it's not really irritiation. Good grief, a horse batting its tail at a fly is merely irritation. A dog scratching an itch is a n irritation. The events in labor are pain, pure and simple. The uterine contractions are as strong, the dilation of the uterus must still happen. The uterus must remain closed throughout pregnancy and then dilate during birth. These contractions would still be painful.

To rearrange the clear meaning of scripture of great pain and travail being proscribed by God and the reality of the unique pain is a clear attempt to deny the scripture surely. I have to say so.

Ah yes, the old standby....attack the person of rejecting scripture. Since when have any of us denied scripture? Clearly the scripture says an increase in pain. And yet, just as clearly, we have been seeking, multiple times, for you to understand the multiple responses with regard to the meaning in scripture. It's as if you have your fingers in your ears singing "lalalal...I CAN"T HEAR YOU!!" while we have been writing.

YOu have made an assertion, an assertion which scripture does not expressly say, about the anatomy changing.

Why such desperate fighting against a minor pint? I must of hit a nerve here that you guys aren't admitting too directly.
Rob Byers

Oh puh-lease, don't mistake the reason for our frustration.

My frustration is due solely to the fact that
1) you refuse to address issues or read posts clearly (HOW MANY TIMES MUST YOU ACCUSE ME OF DENYING THE PAIN OF CHILDBIRTH?!?!?!)
2) your arguments (really mere assertions) are poorly made and
3) you simply repeat statment over and over in the mistaken hope and idea that you are actually proving something.



Also, it is you who then resorts to the claim that we are rejecting scripture....if this is such a minor point, why are you so desperate to repeat your assertion over and over??!?!

Female creatures may be restles, whiney, or discomforted during childbirth. Yet they are not in pain or agony. Words matter.

WOW!! I am just...incredulous (that's the kind adjective) You just like to dig yourself deeper and deeper into this weird corner of yours.....So because animal can't COMMUNICATE like humans do, this establishes a pain free life....?!?!?!!?

So the fact that a dog cannot speak in pain after being hit by a car, by your logic this means that the animal is not in pain!?!?!?

What, pray tell, ARE your standards for ANIMAL PAIN!?!?? I sure hope you don't have any pets!!

Anyways there is, as I said, a reason why female creatures don't suffer pain. They have not the passage issues we had. Evolution , by the way, confirms this fact and seeks erect standing etc ideas to explain it.

Ok, now you ARE using evolution as an argument?

[zoegirl]

For everybody....this is where I was remembering the idea the the pain isn't necessarily physical pain .

Pushback: "Wow--this is incredible, Glenn...you can write 15 pages on this topic and NEVER MENTION the fact that this was a curse God put on women in Genesis 3?! How could you ignore such a clear teaching of the bible, and still call yourself an evangelical, etc. etc. etc."



And related to this is: "The bible talks about Eve giving Adam the Apple from the tree.........so God says she will have pain with child birth. I also know that God will forgive us for our sins and I have a hard time believing that Eve wasn't forgiven for her sin? "



Well, the reason I didn't mention Genesis 3 in this topic is that I personally no longer believe it is directly related to the subject of female physiology--apart from the fact that only the Serpent and the ground were actually "cursed" in the passage. Let me try to answer the second (less abusive, smile) question first, and in the process, maybe I can set forth how I now understand Genesis 3--as a conservative evangelical...



The Genesis 3 passage, of course, reads like this (from traditional translations):



To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you shall eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You shall eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.” [NASB]





To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” [NIV]



To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

17 And to the man he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” [NRSV]



To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

17 To the man he said: “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree of which I had forbidden you to eat, “Cursed be the ground because of you! In toil shall you eat its yield all the days of your life. 18 Thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you, as you eat of the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your face shall you get bread to eat, Until you return to the ground, from which you were taken; For you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return.” [NAB]



Western interpreters have traditionally understood these references to the pains of childbirth (even to the point of resisting the introduction of anesthesia into labor/delivery in the 19th century!), but I have lost my confidence that this is the correct exegesis of the passage, for the following reasons and considerations:





1. The effects of the first 'sin' (i.e, disruption and dissonance in the universe) were massive, and not at all restricted to Adam's workload and Eve's childbearing. The cosmic disruption (like ripples you can't ever call back) had BOTH a moral aspect to it (i.e., 'sin' or 'moral failure' or 'crime) which WAS forgiven both Adam and Eve; AND a physical aspect to it (i.e., consequences) which can only be softened or worked around. [For example, I can give someone a black eye, and get them to forgive me instantly, but the swelling won't instantly go away/down...some consequences ripple-through...and if I had chopped off their right thumb in anger, it would NEVER grow back or be restored, even though they could completely forgive me.



2. In this first case, the disruption affected the physical processes of life, throwing them out of synch with one another...various cycles of agriculture, for example, would now be out-of-phase, creating 'pain' for the man-gardener [the Hebrew word for 'painful toil' in verse 17 (cf. also Genesis 5.29: "the toil of our hands"), 'asab, for the man is the SAME Hebrew root used for the 'painful toil' of the woman in childbearing--the difficulty for each is to be equal for each, essentially], just as the muscle systems can work against one another in childbirth, sometimes...



3. This Great Disruption affected processes everywhere--for example, human life span began to decrease over time right after the Garden--but the only aspects mentioned in Genesis 3 are the one's 'closest' to the initial 'jobs' given Adam and Eve. Adam was a 'farmer/gardener' and so his initial and perhaps most vivid encounter with this large-scale disruption would be in his day-to-day work; Eve was the 'mother of all living' and it would be in that role that she would encounter the effects of the disruption most vividly. The Disruption was not at all confined to these two aspects of cosmic experience (Paul used the phrase "all creation" in Romans).



4. Actually, I should also point out that the word translated 'pain' there, might actually mean 'sorrow' instead--it is NOT the normal word in the bible for childbirth pain (which is hebel)...and this sorrow could refer to bringing children into a post-Eden world, a world that contained deception, treachery, and failure in it.



· "There is no doubt that this term refers to physical pain. Its root lies in a verb that means 'to injure, cause pain or grief.' Whether the pain would lie in the agony of childbirth or in the related grief that accompanies raising that child cannot be finally determined; the text would seem to allow both ideas." [HSOBX]



· The meaning of the two words given by TDOT are "sorrow, labor" (for woman) and "sorrow, toil" (for men)--there is a different word for childbirth pain (hebel: "very intense pain in childbirth" [Louw-Nida Dict of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Old Testament )



· The HAL gives the following meanings for the word:

1. hurt: a hurtful word : Pr 15.1;

2. strenuous work Pr 10.22 , 14.23 ; pl. what is acquired with difficulty Pr 5.10, bread acquired with pain, or bread of anxious toil Ps 127.2,

3. pain (of childbirth) Gn 3.16



· The Louw-Nida definitions focus largely on the difficulty, trouble, hard work of doing something (e.g., labor!)



· "Neither the word used here for 'pain,' nor the earlier one, is the usual one for the pangs of childbirth." [WBC, in. loc.]



· "The next clause strengthens the one we have been discussing by adding 'in sorrow [or pain] you will bring forth children'. Once again note that bearing children in itself was a blessing described in the so-called orders of creation of Genesis 1:28. The grief lies not so much in the conception or in the act of childbirth itself, but in the whole process of bringing children into the world and raising them up to be whole persons before God."[HSOBX]



· "Some believe that the Hebrew root underlying "pains," "pain" and "painful toil" should here be understood in the sense of burdensome labor (see Pr 5:10, "toil"; 14:23, "hard work")" [NIV Study Bible Notes]





5. [See http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wgencurz.html for a discussion on the "he shall master you"...]





6. The 'increase your pain in childbearing' is literally 'increase your pain/toil/sorrow and your pregnancies'...the Disruption Factor would have created much more "vulnerable" lives (which it did, through both harsher living conditions, shorter lifespans, and through increasing amounts of human treachery/violence), and for the human race to continue, expand, and thrive would have required a faster child-production rate (as it would also require a faster and higher-yield agricultural production rate, to compensate for the effects of the curse on the ground)...there is a certain amount of exertion-pain with normal childbirth (severe muscle exertion pain, as an extreme weight-lifter might feel in spurts), and this could have stayed constant with only the SUM TOTAL of the discomfort increased, through increased FREQUENCY of childbirth events (to offset natural death rates). As death invaded the world, infant mortality would also have arisen, and nothing bears so much sorrow/pain/grief for a mother than the loss of a child. This too, would have increased, with the required increase in childbirth rates.



7. Finally, let me also point out that there are a couple of very important textual problems in the passage, and that a strong case can be made for a radically different understanding of this passage. Let me give the summary from HSOBX on this:



"Katherine C. Bushnell, in God's Word to Woman, suggests that verse 16 be translated differently since the Hebrew text could support such a reading. She noted that some ancient versions attached the meaning of 'lying in wait', 'an ambush', or a 'snare' to the word generally read as 'multiply.' This idea of a snare or a lying in wait, however, may have been moved back to Genesis 3:15 from its more normal position in Genesis 3:16. Bushnell would render the opening words of verse 16 this way: "Unto the woman he said, 'A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing.' "



"This translation is not all that different in meaning from the more traditional "I will greatly multiply..." The difference between the two readings is found wholly in the interlinear Hebrew vowel signs which came as late as the eighth century of the Christian era. The difference is this (using capital letters to show the original Hebrew consonantal text and lowercase to show the late addition of the vowel letters): HaRBah AaRBeh, "I will greatly multiply," and HiRBah Ao-ReB, "has caused to multiply (or made great) a lying-in-wait." The participial form ARB appears some fourteen times in Joshua and is translated as "ambush" or "a lying in wait."



"If this reading is correct (and some ancient versions read such a word just a few words back in verse 15, probably by misplacement), then that "lier-in-wait' would undoubtedly he that subtle serpent, the devil. He it was who would increase the sorrow of raising children. This is the only way we can explain why the idea of "a snare" or "lying-in-wait" still clings to this context.



"But another matter demands our attention in verse 16, the word for conception. This translation is difficult because the Hebrew word HRN is not the correct way to spell conception. It is spelled correctly as HRJWN in Ruth 4:13 and Hosea 9:11. But this spelling in Genesis 3:16 is two letters short and its vowels are also unusual. The form is regarded by lexical authorities such as Brown, Driver and Briggs as a contraction or even an error. The early Greek translation (made in the third or second century before Christ) read instead [...] meaning "sighing." The resultant meaning for this clause would be "A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing..."



"Furthermore, it must be remembered that this statement, no matter how we shall finally interpret it, is from a curse passage. In no case should it be made normative. And if the Evil One and not God is the source of the sorrow and sighing, then it is all the more necessary for us to refuse to place any degree of normativity to such statements and describe either the ordeal of giving birth to a child, or the challenge of raising that child, as an evil originating in God. God is never the source of evil; he would rather bless women. Instead, it is Satan who has set this trap."



[Note: in addition to the LXX rendering of "conception" as "sighings/groanings", Augustine comments on this clause in a similar fashion: "For she clearly has her pains and sighs multiplied in the woes of this life." (Manicheans 2.19.29).]



What this would mean--if this understanding is correct--is that the passage may simply be a descriptive one (instead of a prescriptive one), in which God is reminding the woman that the Evil one was not a dispenser of blessings and life, but of sorrow, grief, and toil...



Whether this last point is correct or not, it seems to me that the passage is focused on the subjective aspect of birthing and raising a child in a post-Eden world.



[There is not even a hint in the biblical text, by the way, that this applied to anyone other than or anyone after Eve(!), so to argue for extensive physiological changes in female anatomy which occurred at that time, and which were passed on to her female progeny is going way beyond the textual data...I cannot imagine the subjective/emotional aspect alone of having actually lived in the Garden and then bringing each child into a fallen world of alienation and hardship...its hard enough to do that NOT having seen the Garden, if you know what I mean...]



So, that's why I didn't bring it up here...smile...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/made4pain.html

[Gman]

Gman
I guess I didn't understand you. I thought we were talking about the unique birthpain of woman as comparede to no pain of animals. I never said death was involved in this.

It does because you were implying that pain and death go together...

There was no death or pain before the fall. Gods punishment is actually what it is. A increase in such a way as to be obvious its a punishment. Therefore thee must of been no pain before the new stuation for women. The use of the word increase doesn't mean there had to be original pain. anyways no more pain then the conception (a joke).
The whole point is to show the truth of scripture on a interesting case. The separateness of woman from female animals is clearly dealt with in scripture. Human knowledge confirms this uniqueness and evolution must scramble to come up with another reason.
Score one for YEC.
Rob byers

Again, you are simply interjecting your own beliefs. The verse ONLY talks about an increase in childbirth pains... NOT death. You still haven't come up with a verse that states that physical death would follow sin. And you still haven't answered my questions...

[Canuckster1127]

Robert,

I'm delighted you are here. I really am. I once held most of the positions you do and now believe I know better.

Expect to be challenged to support your positions. I hope you address those challenges better than you've demonstrated thus far.

Last I checked Psychology was a science. While your thought that it isn't will be truly devastating to those in the field, I think we'll manage to get over it and carry on as best we can.

Welcome to the board. I suggest if you haven't already, that you read the Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines.

Frankly I'm not frustrated with you. I think you represent YEC very well. I hope in addition to presenting your thoughts that you give consideration to what is being said too.

Regards,

Bart

[Himantolophus]

The frustrating part of all of this is if we just packed up and left the thread, he would be the one to claim victory by default, despite not presenting one shred of convincing evidence for his position.

Frankly I'm not frustrated with you. I think you represent YEC very well. I hope in addition to presenting your thoughts that you give consideration to what is being said too.

This is all too true. The YEC's like these are the hardest to argue against because they are so stubborn in their beliefs and basically do not accept or rebute anything you throw at them. Eventually you are forced to give up because they don't "debate" like the more learned people on this site. The "LALALA, I don't hear you" people are maddening

This is just with a simple matter like childbirth... imagine if we went into geology or Noah's Ark? lol

[Canuckster1127]

The frustrating part of all of this is if we just packed up and left the thread, he would be the one to claim victory by default, despite not presenting one shred of convincing evidence for his position.

Frankly I'm not frustrated with you. I think you represent YEC very well. I hope in addition to presenting your thoughts that you give consideration to what is being said too.

This is all too true. The YEC's like these are the hardest to argue against because they are so stubborn in their beliefs and basically do not accept or rebute anything you throw at them. Eventually you are forced to give up because they don't "debate" like the more learned people on this site. The "LALALA, I don't hear you" people are maddening

This is just with a simple matter like childbirth... imagine if we went into geology or Noah's Ark? lol

Best thing I know to do is to keep the posts short and on point. That makes it more obvious when there's only an agenda to state one's own positions and not interact.

Defining terms is a good idea as well.

In terms of no pain being present before the fall to the degree often claimed by some YEC proponents, it would make Leprosy a blessing, wouldn't it?

[YLTYLT]

Its not debatable. The evidence is that there is now skeleton alignment that is the cause of the pain. So since pain came at the fall therefore the skeleton.
Rob byers

The physiological reason for the increas in pain is definitely debatable!!!!!

Here is a possible reason:

Maybe the the skeleton alignment did not change at all but the nervous system did. It is not the bones themselves that registers pain. It is the brain through the path of the nervous system. There could be new nerves, new brain functions, etc....

There could be many others.

[Himantolophus]

the nervous system currently has nerves that go to every inch of our body, inside and out. What type of change are you talking about here because it wouldn't be very advantageous to have a lack of nerves in that region of the body and if there was no pain before the fall, that would mean no nervous system period! Also not possible because we couldn't feel anything, heck we couldn't function, without the nervous system

[Robert Byers]

Its not debatable. The evidence is that there is now skeleton alignment that is the cause of the pain. So since pain came at the fall therefore the skeleton.
Rob byers

The physiological reason for the increas in pain is definitely debatable!!!!!

Here is a possible reason:

Maybe the the skeleton alignment did not change at all but the nervous system did. It is not the bones themselves that registers pain. It is the brain through the path of the nervous system. There could be new nerves, new brain functions, etc....

There could be many others.

You got to be kidding. The pain is from the childs passage thru a specially confined area unique to women. To try to say that only nerves changed is unreasonable and impossible. Glad you agree there was no evolution change that was the origin of the pain like evolution says. Likewise you couldn''t believe nerves evolved suddenly. However the structural reason is the source of the pain and so its the thing that changed. If not then even with no nerves the child would still struggle to get out. There would be no reason for women to have this structural situation to begin with. They would just be like apes. Your not thinking this thru if I may say so.
Rob byers

[Robert Byers]

Zoegirl

I don't mean animals must talk. I mean words desribing pain and words desribing discomfort matter. Theres a difference.
The punishment was to the female body and exceptions are fine. They are surely irrelevant to the clear intent of the author that in giving birth woman, newly, will have pain or agony.

Nope I don't read links. You have to make the case yourselves. I have read plenty about animals childbirth being effertless. I have read of monkeys having a little pain for a percentage however all these creatures do not have the great pain or agony or anything but a quick drop by and large.
You still try to avoid that pain in women is unique because of structure. Animals, none, don't have this structure and so don't have pain as anyone would define pain. Contractions are not the point. Its a tight squeeze unique to the female form. Evolution agrees to this and gives a explanation.
What are you commiting to here.
That women and female animals alike have pain in birthing for the same or different reasons?
I'm not saying you reject scripture.
Yet you reject the plain talking of scripture in saying women newly will give birth in pain. The pain they now have. Unique pain in intensity compared to animals. The animals lack of pain is the evidence of this verse.
what is your point?

There was a few years ago a good article on this by a woman researcher. She mentions apes in comparison.
I'm failing to understand you guys criticisms.
You question my asertions (whatever that means) but offer no accurate alternative interpretation.
I think I'm dead on.
Punishment =birth pain-structural change to bring to pass plus animals having no such structure =no such pain.
somebody's wrong here.
Rob Byers

[Canuckster1127]

To try to say that only nerves changed is unreasonable and impossible.

Really? So God is limited to doing this in the way you understand even when you are without direct evidence to prove your position?

[zoegirl]

Well, I've said my piece.

I have provided valid references to my points concerning animal pain and concerning the meanings of the Hebrew words. I have made my own case and given you the references to support it.

YOu really haven't addresses those points and have bluntly stated that you refuse to address them, so I am wasting my time. All I'll say is that you will never convince anybody iof anything you saY if you aren't willing to actually read what people provide and address the actual points.

Actually let me add, though, that CONTRACTIONS ARE the source of most of the pain during birth. They are painful!!

[Himantolophus]

You still try to avoid that pain in women is unique because of structure. Animals, none, don't have this structure and so don't have pain as anyone would define pain. Contractions are not the point. Its a tight squeeze unique to the female form. Evolution agrees to this and gives a explanation.

yes, humans are the only fully bipedal mammal (please don't counter saying a kangaroo is) so yes the baby of a human has a difficult way "out".

BUT, there is pain in our fellow mammals. Maybe not as much pain, but this is a relative term because the human female condition is the most EXTREME in the animal kingdom. I wouldn't argue that fish experience pain, or frogs, but egg layers do not experience anything simply because the size of their egg/young is so much smaller. Human babies, and other mammal babies, are so large in relation to their parents (for the most part) that they have to squeeze the young out over a period of time. This is the reason for the pain.

Evolution has an explanation that there are trade-offs for having certain traits. In humans, we became upright but must pay for that "benefit" by having an awkward birth canal (as well as a bad back and knees with age). In order to fit in all of our organ systems into our abdominal cavity and have the ideal bone structure for upright walking, we couldn't afford to have larger birth canals or ones situated like "lower mammals". So a horse or a mouse has less trouble giving birth but to say it experiences no pain or discomfort is lacking in evidence. If you can provide me with ANY information supporting your continual assertion, I ask you to please post it.

The evidence, evolutionarily speaking and Biblically speaking, points to pain in humans from the beginning. Death from childbirth was a common ailment in ancient times and I'm sure that was the case in pre-history too. Neanderthals and Homo erectus and Australopithicus had the same "design" and thus the same "flaw". Their pelvic structure is similar to our own.

[Robert Byers]

Well, I've said my piece.

I have provided valid references to my points concerning animal pain and concerning the meanings of the Hebrew words. I have made my own case and given you the references to support it.

YOu really haven't addresses those points and have bluntly stated that you refuse to address them, so I am wasting my time. All I'll say is that you will never convince anybody iof anything you saY if you aren't willing to actually read what people provide and address the actual points.

Actually let me add, though, that CONTRACTIONS ARE the source of most of the pain during birth. They are painful!!

My info is also not my own invention or experience. I know what science says about the source of birthpain. Its the passage way construction added with the size of the kid. You say its the contractions. Well I guess these are what push the kid thru but still not the source of pain. This is why female animals though having contractions don't have much or any pain 8 times out of ten.
I have debated this with evolutionists and always beat them when actual references were inquired.
They also tried to tell me about animal birthpain but always it turned out to be incidents or minor aches.
In fact one poster here talked about a dog whining, restless, tired and tried to compare this to OUCH WOW of women (well Canadian) . In fact sedation is used mostly and not because they are whiners.

The difference between women and animals is a great scientific fact concerning chidbirth pains.
This is noted by the bible and explained as a change from the original plans. The source of the pain is the change therefore. So the change is logically due to a change in the skeleton.
A excellent line of reasoning.

This is all about the accuracy or scripture and conclusions of mans separatenes from animals as recorded in Genesis.
Something is true and something is not.
Good discussion all round.
Rob byers