Originally posted by NemesioGenesis 3:15 has no reference to the woman's seed?
There is no mention of 'seed of a woman.' You are imparting a meaning that is
not there. Such a meaning would be in contradiction to the seed-vessel relationship
which was the 'science' of the times and is iterated several times in the Bible.
Nemesio
The seed-vessel was the science of the times of whom? Adam? Moses?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Genesis 3:15 has no reference to the woman's seed?
Offspring does not imply that the woman has any seed. The woman's
offspring is the product of the man's seed grown in her vessel. Fruit
of the woman's womb is grown from the seed planted by man.
The seed-vessel was the science of the times of whom? Adam? Moses?
Um. The Jewish authors of the various books of the Bible.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYour fundamental misunderstanding of Jewish tradition coupled with your
And once you see the places where the Bible refers to the same, you will do what with that information?
desire to make the Bible out to be a science textbook is an example of
having intent before understanding.
The notion of sin nature is not something material; it is something spiritual.
The Jews say it is passed on through the male through third and fourth
generation, but do not assert that it has a 'materiality' that can be tested,
just like Christians don't assert that the soul has 'materiality.'
In fact, the whole separation between spiritual and corporeal speak against
such a concept.
And so, modern Jews understand this passing on of sin to be entirely spiritual,
totally apart from the genetic exchange that we now know goes on during
conception.
That is, the Jews recognize that their forefathers had an incomplete understanding
of the science of conception and that the Bible's references to it are necessarily
flawed (just like the idea that the earth is flat, resting on pillars with a firmament
in the sky with little gates that let down water).
The Bible is NOT a science textbook. It's a manual for spirituality. When you try
to reconcile science (corporeal) with theology (spiritual), you just appear foolish.
The earth isn't flat, there is no firmament, the sun doesn't go around the earth, and
man doesn't deposit seed in a vessel.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI didn't realize there was a Jewish tradition surrounding Mary. My bad; guess I didn't Google far enough.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of Jewish tradition coupled with your
desire to make the Bible out to be a science textbook is an example of
having intent before understanding.
The notion of sin nature is not something material; it is something spiritual.
The Jews say it is passed on through the male through third and fourth
generation, but ...[text shortened]... nt, the sun doesn't go around the earth, and
man doesn't deposit seed in a vessel.
Nemesio
The Bible as a science textbook? That's a little overstepping my intents.
Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what you say the Jews say about how the sin nature is passed on. What the Bible has to say about it holds a lot more water than your take on the Jews' view. Further, if you knew what you were talking about with respect to the generational curse, you wouldn't try to patch it together with the sin nature.
The Bible's references were perfect for the time in which they were written. I know you likely have the references to where the Bible claims a literal flat earth, resting on literal pillars, being watered via literal gates in its atmosphere, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that in each of those references, the Bible is using metaphors.
Of course, in our enlightened state, we never watch the sun rise or set, we merely stand still while the earth rotates on its axis... among other quaint sayings.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI thought the virgin birth was mentioned in one of the Prophets (Isaiah, IIRC).
I heard it claimed that Luke is the only Gospel that describes a virgin birth. None of the others state that Mary is a virgin. Is this the case?
Further, the source from which I heard this explained it by observing that Luke was Greek, and came from a culture in which virgin births were a mythological staple.
Comment.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLast I checked several of your posts mentioned books like genesis. You are aware that christianity split off from Judaism at the new testament right? If you believe in your Bible, their traditions are just as valid, if not more so, than yours for anything that isn't New Testament. After all, half of the Christian dogma was put in place by Constantine for political purposes.
I didn't realize there was a Jewish tradition surrounding Mary. My bad; guess I didn't Google far enough.
The Bible as a science textbook? That's a little overstepping my intents.
Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what you say the Jews say about how the sin nature is passed on. What the Bible has to say about it holds a lot more water t ...[text shortened]... or set, we merely stand still while the earth rotates on its axis... among other quaint sayings.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowNot to take umbrage with you, but please be aware that I tend more toward precise than vague, wherever possible.
You are aware that christianity split off from Judaism at the new testament right?
That being said, please note my previous post referred to Nemmy's attempt to place HIS take on Jewish tradition on the same level as the Bible. As the Bible is what is in view here, I was simply not allowing HIS take on Jewish traditions to enter in and receive any validity.
Moreover, I do not put any weight on any tradition (Jewish, Christian, or otherwise) nearing the import I place on the Bible.
While many of the same may offer insights on a variety of topics, none replace the Bible as the ultimate source.