Question Concerning a Bible Footnote

[biscuit1953]

In "The Evidence Bible" (old edition) the following footnote is found on Hebrews 11:11.

"Scientific Facts in the Bible.  Genesis 3:15 reveals that a female possesses a seed for childbearing.  This was not the common knowledge until a few centuries ago.  It was widely believed that only the male possessed the seed of life and that the woman was nothing more than a glorified incubator."

Any comments?  I plan on getting the NKJV edition with the with expanded commentary so could anyone make a comparison between the old and new editions?

 

[rsc2a]

Different ancients believed different things. Some believed women provided "seed" to the embryo, two-seed theory. Others believe women provided "ground" for the seed to grow in. However, in the patriarchal society of the time, the one-seed theory was the most common belief. (In fact, even the two-seed theorists thought that the male portion was "stronger" than the female portion.) The most influential was probably Aristotle who, advocating for a one-seed theory, wrote:

"If, then, the male stands for the effective and active, and the female, considered as female, for the passive, it follows that what the female would contribute to the semen of the male would not be semen but material for the semen to work upon. This is just what we find to be the case, for the catamenia have in their nature an affinity to the primitive matter." - The Generation of Animals

After making several disparaging remarks about women, Aristotle goes on to describe the roles of men and women in reproduction, where the male plants the "seed" in the "ground" of the woman which enables the seed to grow. Aquinas (who was heavily influenced by Aristotle) later echoed this in his Summa Theologica. This line of reasoning continued well into 1700s, especially for those most strongly influenced by Aristotle.

It also is reflected both in the Biblical narrative (where, with very rare exception, it is always the lineage of the man that matters) and extra-Biblical writings. (See Gospel of Thomas.)

This flawed understanding of biology is also important if one wants to fully understand what the Incarnation via the virgin birth meant to those in the early Church; it was God's seed (via the Spirit) that implanted Mary, making Jesus (in every sense) the Son of God. It was Mary who, being human, gave flesh to Jesus, making Him the Son of Man. The miracles were not solely (or even primarily) to be proofs that Jesus was the Messiah; the miracles were to tell us something about the nature of God and His Kingdom.



Disclaimer: This is a topic that I am still learning a great deal about, so the previous statements are not a thorough (or maybe even adequate) treatment of the subject.

 

[biscuit1953]

Different ancients believed different things. Some believed women provided "seed" to the embryo, two-seed theory. Others believe women provided "ground" for the seed to grow in. However, in the patriarchal society of the time, the one-seed theory was the most common belief. (In fact, even the two-seed theorists thought that the male portion was "stronger" than the female portion.) The most influential was probably Aristotle who, advocating for a one-seed theory, wrote:

"If, then, the male stands for the effective and active, and the female, considered as female, for the passive, it follows that what the female would contribute to the semen of the male would not be semen but material for the semen to work upon. This is just what we find to be the case, for the catamenia have in their nature an affinity to the primitive matter." - The Generation of Animals

After making several disparaging remarks about women, Aristotle goes on to describe the roles of men and women in reproduction, where the male plants the "seed" in the "ground" of the woman which enables the seed to grow. Aquinas (who was heavily influenced by Aristotle) later echoed this in his Summa Theologica. This line of reasoning continued well into 1700s, especially for those most strongly influenced by Aristotle.

It also is reflected both in the Biblical narrative (where, with very rare exception, it is always the lineage of the man that matters) and extra-Biblical writings. (See Gospel of Thomas.)

This flawed understanding of biology is also important if one wants to fully understand what the Incarnation via the virgin birth meant to those in the early Church; it was God's seed (via the Spirit) that implanted Mary, making Jesus (in every sense) the Son of God. It was Mary who, being human, gave flesh to Jesus, making Him the Son of Man. The miracles were not solely (or even primarily) to be proofs that Jesus was the Messiah; the miracles were to tell us something about the nature of God and His Kingdom.



Disclaimer: This is a topic that I am still learning a great deal about, so the previous statements are not a thorough (or maybe even adequate) treatment of the subject.

It has always been my understanding that only the man carried the seed so when the seed of the woman was mentioned in Genesis 3:15, it was a clear prophecy that Christ would be virgin born.  I didn't know what the purpose of the footnote was exactly and am still a little confused.

 

[Izdaari]

Seeds and ground? Metaphorical silliness IMO. Male and female each provide 50% of the child's genetic material. So patriarchal patronizing is biologically nonsense.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=biscuit1953]It has always been my understanding that only the man carried the seed so when the seed of the woman was mentioned in Genesis 3:15, it was a clear prophecy that Christ would be virgin born.  I didn't know what the purpose of the footnote was exactly and am still a little confused.[/quote]

I believe it was prophetic regarding the virgin birth, regardless of who "carries the seed". The original audience would have understood the seed to come from man. The Scriptural narrative would have reinforced this. (See Gen 5.) The fact that Genesis 3:15 says the seed will be the seed of woman makes this verse unique and would have been odd to the audience. In other words, the wording was drawing attention to itself so that people would pay attention, part of the reason leading me to believe that it was prophetic.



As far as the purpose of the footnote, I think it is a (poor) attempt to show where the Bible "got it right" where the science at the time "got it wrong". It appears to be encouraging the whole (dumb) "Bible vs. science" mindset.

 

[rsc2a]

Seeds and ground? Metaphorical silliness IMO. Male and female each provide 50% of the child's genetic material. So patriarchal patronizing is biologically nonsense.

I agree. I'm just stating what the common belief at the time was.

 

[biscuit1953]

Why is it necessarily dumb to contrast what the Bible says with science?  A lot of what is considered science is nothing more than an attempt to explain the Creator away.

 

[rsc2a]

Why is it necessarily dumb to contrast what the Bible says with science?  A lot of what is considered science is nothing more than an attempt to explain the Creator away.

No. Science is an attempt to explain how the universe works. People use science to attempt to explain the Creator away, often because they don't understand how science works and/or its limitations.

 

[biscuit1953]

Why is it necessarily dumb to contrast what the Bible says with science?  A lot of what is considered science is nothing more than an attempt to explain the Creator away.

No. Science is an attempt to explain how the universe works. People use science to attempt to explain the Creator away, often because they don't understand how science works and/or its limitations.

I totally disagree.  Steven Hawking stated; "the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us.  If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."  (Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997)

I can find similar statements by Einstein and numerous other men of science.  There is no other reason to believe in what many know is impossible scientifically other than to relieve us off from being accountable to the God who created us.

 

[rsc2a]

Why is it necessarily dumb to contrast what the Bible says with science?  A lot of what is considered science is nothing more than an attempt to explain the Creator away.

No. Science is an attempt to explain how the universe works. People use science to attempt to explain the Creator away, often because they don't understand how science works and/or its limitations.

I totally disagree.  Steven Hawking stated; "the universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us.  If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on..."  (Austin American-Statesman, October 19, 1997)

I can find similar statements by Einstein and numerous other men of science.  There is no other reason to believe in what many know is impossible scientifically other than to relieve us off from being accountable to the God who created us.

Nothing in that quote contradicts what I've said in any way.

 

[Ransom]

Why is there any need to invoke science?  "Seed" is often simply a metaphor for offspring.  See Gen. 4:25, for example: "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."  Seed is the same word as in 3:15, and clearly it is referring to Seth, not to the ovum that became Seth.  Similarly, Gen. 3:15 is saying that there will be enmity between the "seed" (descendants) of the serpent, and the "seed" (descendants) of the woman - specifically, the great battle between Christ and Satan.

"Seed" can mean literal seeds, or semen, or offspring.  It's not an amazing scientific fact. It's just a figure of speech.

 

[Castor Muscular]

It also is reflected both in the Biblical narrative (where, with very rare exception, it is always the lineage of the man that matters) and extra-Biblical writings. (See Gospel of Thomas.)

Luke reckons the lineage of Jesus through his father Joseph, who was not the biological father and therefore did not produce the "seed". 

The Matthew reckoning of the lineage includes Tamar, a woman, and ends with Mary, a woman. 

 

[rsc2a]

Why is there any need to invoke science?  "Seed" is often simply a metaphor for offspring.  See Gen. 4:25, for example: "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."  Seed is the same word as in 3:15, and clearly it is referring to Seth, not to the ovum that became Seth.  Similarly, Gen. 3:15 is saying that there will be enmity between the "seed" (descendants) of the serpent, and the "seed" (descendants) of the woman - specifically, the great battle between Christ and Satan.

"Seed" can mean literal seeds, or semen, or offspring.  It's not an amazing scientific fact. It's just a figure of speech.

I agree. My mention of science was specifically in regards to why I believe they included the footnote.

It also is reflected both in the Biblical narrative (where, with very rare exception, it is always the lineage of the man that matters) and extra-Biblical writings. (See Gospel of Thomas.)

Luke reckons the lineage of Jesus through his father Joseph, who was not the biological father and therefore did not produce the "seed". 

The Matthew reckoning of the lineage includes Tamar, a woman, and ends with Mary, a woman. 

These lineages only reinforce my point. They are still tracing the genealogy of Jesus through the father...

"and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David the king."

...and mentioning the women as a special case (and I believe for special reason). You'll notice I said that including the women in a lineage was a "very rare exception". Now look at all the other lists of begats and tell me how many women you see on them.

Furthermore, I specifically said "it" (referring to the offspring coming from the man) was reflected in the Biblical narrative. Start looking at inheritance laws, familial relationships, and the like from both Biblical and relevant extra-Biblical sources, and it is clear that the contribution of the mother to the makeup of the child was largely inconsequential (in the minds of people at the time). The entire framework from the biological understanding to the custodial rights points to a belief that the male was the source/head/kephale of, not only the child, but the whole family.

 

[Timothy]

Doesn't the stork bring the little ones? ???

 

[biscuit1953]

Why is there any need to invoke science?  "Seed" is often simply a metaphor for offspring.  See Gen. 4:25, for example: "And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, [said she], hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."  Seed is the same word as in 3:15, and clearly it is referring to Seth, not to the ovum that became Seth.  Similarly, Gen. 3:15 is saying that there will be enmity between the "seed" (descendants) of the serpent, and the "seed" (descendants) of the woman - specifically, the great battle between Christ and Satan.

"Seed" can mean literal seeds, or semen, or offspring.  It's not an amazing scientific fact. It's just a figure of speech.

I appreciate the answer.  So you would never use Genesis 3:15 as a proof text for the virgin birth prophecy? 

 

[Ransom]

biscuit1953 said:

I appreciate the answer.  So you would never use Genesis 3:15 as a proof text for the virgin birth prophecy?

Genesis 3:15 is known as the Protoevangelion, the "First Gospel," because it is regarded as the earliest foreshadowing of the Christ.  However, I wouldn't use it as a proof-text for the virgin birth simply because it doesn't say anything about the virgin birth.

 

[T-Bone]

Doesn't the stork bring the little ones? ???

Timothy the first cabbage-head...I mean cabbage-patch doll!