Genesis 3:15

[toppro77]

Our Catholic Bible has been re written. The Douay Rheims or Latin Vulgate, is no longer the prefered bible. Instead new versions have popped up that contain errors like all the Protestant versions. WHY!

Example:
From the Douay,
Genesis 3:15 says “ I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
The New American Bible says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; **He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” **

From this prophecy in the Douay Rheims comes a long standing tradition that the Blessed Virgin Mary will crush the head of the Satan. Not only in this version but also in the Jerusalem Bible and the Catholic Revised Standard Version, they also mis translate this scripture to be someone other than the Blessed Virgin who is to crush the head of Satan.

This ancient tradition which is based on Genesis 3:15 is being erased from our minds and our bibles if we accept these non traditional translations that have surfaced after Vatican II.

Seeing that this one major teaching of the Catholic Church has been so distorted in the new versions should cause all of us to be very skeptical about what else they may have destroyed of our Catholic heritage.

I understand that most Catholics will never read the entire bible, nor do most Catholics have any idea what the Latin Vulgate or Douay version had in them for almost 2000 years, so most will never detect these errors. I think whoever intentionally re wrote these scripturs are counting on this.

I would like to know who is behind all this?
Should we as Catholics who wish to preserve the faith of our fathers stand for such nonsense, and allow them to degrade our faith to the level of protestantism who detest the Blessed Virgin Mary?

This is only one example of many that I could show you. But this one cuts to the heart because it deals with Our Mother in heaven.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The article on the Immaculate Conception in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia talks about Genesis 3:15 and says in part:

… the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15).** The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.** The conqueror from the seed of the woman, who should crush the serpent’s head, is Christ; the woman at enmity with the serpent is Mary. God puts enmity between her and Satan in the same manner and measure, as there is enmity between Christ and the seed of the serpent. Mary was ever to be in that exalted state of soul which the serpent had destroyed in man, i.e. in sanctifying grace. Only the continual union of Mary with grace explains sufficiently the enmity between her and Satan. The Proto-evangelium, therefore, in the original text contains a direct promise of the Redeemer, and in conjunction therewith the manifestation of the masterpiece of His Redemption, the perfect preservation of His virginal Mother from original sin.

In the 1859 edition of Haydock’s Catholic Bible commentary on Genesis 3:15 it says, in part:
She shall crush. Ipsa, the woman: so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz. the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent’s head. (Challoner) …

 

[Genesis315]

Although the “he shall crush” is probably more accurate, I still like the DR version. I figure, Our Lady would not have given us the depiction on the Miraculous Medal if this were not a good translation. The newer version can also still be used to defend the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s sinless life.

That being said, I really don’t like how the NAB has messed with the Hail Mary and the Magnificat.

 

[toppro77]

Todd Easton:

The article on the Immaculate Conception in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia talks about Genesis 3:15 and says in part:

… the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: “and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel” (Genesis 3:15).** The translation “she” of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.**

Response:

It most certainly can be defended critically! St Jerome who was the foremost scholar at the time would certainly know how to properly translate the Greek into the Latin, having known Greek from birth.

He also knew Latin fluently and if the proper translation was “He” he most certainly would have used it.

FYI: He was almost made pope.

Since the Church held to this translation for over 1700 years we must assume that it is the correct interpretation.

We can However assume that the Holy Spirit did not guide the Church in this instance. If we come to this conclusion, then everything that Holy Mother Church has taught us would be doubtful also. But we have the stamp of approval from the Infallible Council of Trent that ratified the translation of the Latin Vulgate. We therefore know for certain that this translation it accurate.

Since we know that the Holy Spirit does not guide the protestant churches, and they have used the interpretation of “He” instead of “She”, since the 1500’s, in direct opposition to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, we might come to the conclusion that this was changed in our bible due to the spirit of ecumenism in order to water down the True Faith to try to lure the protestants into the church. We also know that these new translations were not ratified by any infallible council, but were only approved by the Catholic Conference of Bishops.

At any rate, a true Catholic should have a problem with these new translations as they tend to be more along the lines of the protestant bibles, or are we to believe that the protestants have had it right all along and we are the ones that have been in the dark?

I tend to agree with 1700 years of tradition, A saint by the name of Jerome, that translated the bible, and an Infallible council that was led by a saintly pope of the Catholic Church, by the name of St Pius V. What about you?

 

[IsaacSheen]

Wow, one little switch of a word and look what happens. Makes me wonder about what else has been changed over the years.

 

[mercygate]

IsaacSheen:

Wow, one little switch of a word and look what happens. Makes me wonder about what else has been changed over the years.

Maybe we all need to learn a little Hebrew. Don’t whine. The Jews don’t gripe about it.

 

[Della]

Before anyone loses faith over a single Bible verse let’s all remember that the Church is the final authority as to what the Bible means in such verses–no matter what translation it uses or promotes.

The Church certainly teaches that Mary is the fulfillment of this passage, as is Jesus, her Son. Really, that’s all we need to understand.

And while it would do no harm to learn Hebrew (or Latin for that matter), it isn’t necessary to our acceptance of Church teaching in this matter or any other.

 

[toppro77]

Della:

Before anyone loses faith over a single Bible verse let’s all remember that the Church is the final authority as to what the Bible means in such verses–no matter what translation it uses or promotes.

The Church certainly teaches that Mary is the fulfillment of this passage, as is Jesus, her Son. Really, that’s all we need to understand.

And while it would do no harm to learn Hebrew (or Latin for that matter), it isn’t necessary to our acceptance of Church teaching in this matter or any other.

Dear Della,

I understand that the Church still teaches that Mary is the fulfillment of this passage. The question is why did they change it after 1700 years? There was no need to circumvent the dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary like the protestants have done. This is not the only passage they have messd with and distorted the meaning. I will post another soon.

I also like Genesis 315’s comment about the Miraculous Medal.
***The Meaning of the Front Side of the Miraculous Medal ***
“Mary is standing upon a globe, crushing the head of a serpent beneath her foot. She stands upon the globe, as the Queen of Heaven and Earth. Her feet crush the serpent to proclaim Satan and all his followers are helpless before her (Gn 3:15).”
amm.org/medalp.htm

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

Mary crushes the serpent’s head in that she replaces him as the most beautiful of all of God’s creations in perfect union with the Godhead.

Christ crushes the head of the serpent by repelling his attacks, casting out his demons, and through his passion, death and resurrection.

Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will have an updated translation of scripture commissioned and have all others decommissioned; A bible that will be part of the major counter-offensive needed regain all that was lost through the Church’s apathy towards holy scripture.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

toppro77:

Todd Easton:

At any rate, a true Catholic should have a problem with these new translations as they tend to be more along the lines of the protestant bibles, or are we to believe that the protestants have had it right all along and we are the ones that have been in the dark?

I tend to agree with 1700 years of tradition, A saint by the name of Jerome, that translated the bible, and an Infallible council that was led by a saintly pope of the Catholic Church, by the name of St Pius V. What about you?

I think that, absent the Keys being entrusted to you, you ought to be careful about laying down the law on what constitutes a “true Catholic.”

 

[Psalm45_9]

If you see the parallel between Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12, it seems that having the woman crush the head of the serpent would make more sense. Either way, whoever crushes the head of the serpent does not change the importance of that Messianic prophecy.

 

[Psalm45_9]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Perhaps Pope Benedict XVI will have an updated translation of scripture commissioned and have all others decommissioned; A bible that will be part of the major counter-offensive needed regain all that was lost through the Church’s apathy towards holy scripture.

Maybe he’ll say the New American Bible will not be used for liturgy any more. :bowdown:

 

[toppro77]

JKirkLVNV:

toppro77:

I think that, absent the Keys being entrusted to you, you ought to be careful about laying down the law on what constitutes a “true Catholic.”

Hello JKirkLVNV,
I did not imply that I was the pope or that God entrusted me with any authority. But I did imply that God entrusted His authority to an infallible council, namely The Council of Trent who approved the Latin Vulgate as the proper translation of the bible.

Now if this council had no problem with the translation of Gen 3:15 the way that St Jerome said it should read. How come you have a problem with it?

I have a problem with the new translation because it attacks the Magesterium of the Church, a Saintly Pope and a Saint who translated the bible, as though all these were wrong for over 1700 years.

You tell me why you have a problem with God’s infallible Church and we’ll go from there.

BTW there was no infallible council who determined that these new versions were accurate so don’t try to use Vatican II in your defense, because it was not an infallible council to start with. Pope Paul VI said that himself.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

toppro77:

JKirkLVNV:

Hello JKirkLVNV,
I did not imply that I was the pope or that God entrusted me with any authority. But I did imply that God entrusted His authority to an infallible council, namely The Council of Trent who approved the Latin Vulgate as the proper translation of the bible.

Now if this council had no problem with the translation of Gen 3:15 the way that St Jerome said it should read. How come you have a problem with it?

I have a problem with the new translation because it attacks the Magesterium of the Church, a Saintly Pope and a Saint who translated the bible, as though all these were wrong for over 1700 years.

You tell me why you have a problem with God’s infallible Church and we’ll go from there.

BTW there was no infallible council who determined that these new versions were accurate so don’t try to use Vatican II in your defense, because it was not an infallible council to start with. Pope Paul VI said that himself.

Do you hear your tone? You may as well use the papal “we.” You’ve made an enormous assumption that I have any problem at all with the Vulgate (I don’t) or God’s infallible Church (I don’t). Where in my post do you see that I challenge either? I simply reminded you that you’re in no position to definitively determine who on these boards in a “true Catholic.” You’re being bellicose and beligerent. How old are you, anyway? Did your mother teach you manners? Should we assume that you are a “rad trad?” I’ve read your other posts denouncing His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
Here’s a link for those interested in reading Toppro77’s comments on our late and beloved Holy Father.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=614031&postcount=78

You seem to have quite the agenda for a new member. Have we heard from you before, perhaps under a different name?

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

JKirkLVNV:

toppro77:

Here’s a link for those interested in reading Toppro77’s comments on our late and beloved Holy Father.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=614031&postcount=78

You seem to have quite the agenda for a new member. Have we heard from you before, perhaps under a different name?

I have read your posts Toppro77. It is one thing to question, quite another to condemn. Your condemnations are incomplete and very misleading.

Your questions will be answered, as well as your condemnations.

Questions bring answers, condemnation brings judgement.

Unity with the Pope is unity with the Church and visa versa.

Two years ago in frustration with John Paul II and the Church I was quoted in my local newspaper challenging his papal authority. Our Lord, in his mercy and love, granted me the grace to recognize my error and repent of my insolence.

If you think that the pope may be error then lay down your life for him with prayer and fasting.

 

[toppro77]

JKirkLVNV:

toppro77:

Do you hear your tone? You may as well use the papal “we.” You’ve made an enormous assumption that I have any problem at all with the Vulgate (I don’t) or God’s infallible Church (I don’t). Where in my post do you see that I challenge either? I simply reminded you that you’re in no position to definitively determine who on these boards in a “true Catholic.” You’re being bellicose and beligerent. How old are you, anyway? Did your mother teach you manners? Should we assume that you are a “rad trad?” I’ve read your other posts denouncing His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
Here’s a link for those interested in reading Toppro77’s comments on our late and beloved Holy Father.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=614031&postcount=78

You seem to have quite the agenda for a new member. Have we heard from you before, perhaps under a different name?

Hi my friend,
First off I did not judge anyone as to who is a true Catholic, If you feel challenged perhaps you have a personal issue with your faith.By saying “a true Catholic” I was refering to something St John stated in his epistle.
St John says, speaking of priest who were deceiving the Christians at that time:
I John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us.“

That statement refers to those at the time who were calling themselves Christians but had no real desire to hold to the teachings of Christ’s Church, but were perverting doctrine.

In this same instance, those who would prefer perversion of teaching to the true teaching of the Church, fall into the same class.

Now as to your remark "Should we assume that you are a “rad trad?” Yeah baby! about as rad as St Paul who says in 2 Thes. 2:14 and I quote “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

toppro77:

JKirkLVNV:

Hi my friend,
First off I did not judge anyone as to who is a true Catholic, If you feel challenged perhaps you have a personal issue with your faith.By saying “a true Catholic” I was refering to something St John stated in his epistle.
St John says, speaking of priest who were deceiving the Christians at that time:
I John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us.“

That statement refers to those at the time who were calling themselves Christians but had no real desire to hold to the teachings of Christ’s Church, but were perverting doctrine.

In this same instance, those who would prefer perversion of teaching to the true teaching of the Church, fall into the same class.

Now as to your remark "Should we assume that you are a “rad trad?” Yeah baby! about as rad as St Paul who says in 2 Thes. 2:14 and I quote “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

Not challenged at all, except by your manner. Our Lord described himself as meek and lowly. You presumptuously toss off assessments about the criteria for what constitutes a “true” Catholic (go back and read your own posts) and you insult our late and beloved Holy Father. I’m not challenged, I’m offended, in much the same way I am when someone spits or perhaps breaks wind and then laughs about it or tells a crude joke about a holy person. You came to be noticed. Well, you have been.

 

[toppro77]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

JKirkLVNV:

I have read your posts Toppro77. It is one thing to question, quite another to condemn. Your condemnations are incomplete and very misleading.

Your questions will be answered, as well as your condemnations.

Questions bring answers, condemnation brings judgement.

Unity with the Pope is unity with the Church and visa versa.

Two years ago in frustration with John Paul II and the Church I was quoted in my local newspaper challenging his papal authority. Our Lord, in his mercy and love, granted me the grace to recognize my error and repent of my insolence.

If you think that the pope may be error then lay down your life for him with prayer and fasting.

Hi MarkAnthonyCozy,
I appreciate your comments. I for one have always defended the papacy as you might have noticed from several other of my posts. We must always adhere to the true infallible teachings of the Church, but we must also test the spirits when we are dealing with statements or actions that are not based on infallible teaching.

Every action and statement from Pope John Paul II fall into the second category because he never taught anything “ex cathedra” nor did either of his 3 predecesors.

If I am to blame for my conservative, traditional beliefs perhaps we have the Apostles and Christ Himself to blame for my caution, for they stated:

Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

II Corinthians 11:13 “For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”

I Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit manifestly says, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils.”

Hebrews 13:9 “Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.”

From all this warning we are to suspect the clergy. St Paul said in Acts 20:29 "I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

If you will blindly follow anyone who wears a collar then you can expect to fall into the pit with them. Or perhaps you would have followed Luther himself simply because he was a Catholic Bishop! Maybe Adam Weishaupt, who was a Jesuit-trained professor of canon law, would be more to your liking? He founded the Illuminati on May 1, 1776.

All I’m suggesting in these posts, are for catholics to be cautious and do not jump so easily into accepting every whim that comes down the pike. Question the change. You have that right. Do not let anyone steal your faith from you.

All I was doing, was asking why that scripture had to be changed after 1700 years? Why would anyone blindly accept a change that degrades the Blessed Virgin Mary?

 

[toppro77]

JKirkLVNV:

toppro77:

Not challenged at all, except by your manner. Our Lord described himself as meek and lowly. You presumptuously toss off assessments about the criteria for what constitutes a “true” Catholic (go back and read your own posts) and you insult our late and beloved Holy Father. I’m not challenged, I’m offended, in much the same way I am when someone spits or perhaps breaks wind and then laughs about it or tells a crude joke about a holy person. You came to be noticed. Well, you have been.

Wow you must sit on this site all day to be able to respond this quickly to my post!

Here is the quote of mine you are talking about:
“At any rate, a true Catholic should have a problem with these new translations as they tend to be more along the lines of the protestant bibles, or are we to believe that the protestants have had it right all along and we are the ones that have been in the dark?”

A true Catholic in this sense would have a problem when 1700 years of tradition are being attacked. A modernist Catholic would have no problem with this because he believes tradition is old hat and we must always be trying to find new ways to express our faith, which is heresy and has been condemned by numerous popes.

I must assume from your attack that you would tend to believe the protestants have had it right all along and us Catholics have been misled by the Magesterium of the Church for 1700 years, am I right?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

toppro77:

MarkAnthonyCozy:

Hi MarkAnthonyCozy,
I appreciate your comments. I for one have always defended the papacy as you might have noticed from several other of my posts. We must always adhere to the true infallible teachings of the Church, but we must also test the spirits when we are dealing with statements or actions that are not based on infallible teaching.

Every action and statement from Pope John Paul II fall into the second category because he never taught anything “ex cathedra” nor did either of his 3 predecesors.

If I am to blame for my conservative, traditional beliefs perhaps we have the Apostles and Christ Himself to blame for my caution, for they stated:

Galatians 1:8 “But though

we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

II Corinthians 11:13 “For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.”

I Timothy 4:1 “Now the Spirit manifestly says, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils.”

Hebrews 13:9 “Be not led away with various and strange doctrines.”

From all this warning we are to suspect the clergy. St Paul said in Acts 20:29 "I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

If you will blindly follow anyone who wears a collar then you can expect to fall into the pit with them. Or perhaps you would have followed Luther himself simply because he was a Catholic Bishop! Maybe Adam Weishaupt, who was a Jesuit-trained professor of canon law, would be more to your liking? He founded the Illuminati on May 1, 1776.

All I’m suggesting in these posts, are for catholics to be cautious and do not jump so easily into accepting every whim that comes down the pike. Question the change. You have that right. Do not let anyone steal your faith from you.

All I was doing, was asking why that scripture had to be changed after 1700 years? Why would anyone blindly accept a change that degrades the Blessed Virgin Mary?

a) Martin Luther was never a bishop.

b) If (and that’s a huge if taken with an equally large grain of salt) what you assert is so, how is that a degradation of our Blessed Mother, who only ever pointed us to Her Son, if it instead refered to “Her Seed?”

I think this is one more effort on the part of a “rad trad” to sow disquiet among the faithful, to make them doubtful and fearful for their own standing before God as a part of the Church governed by the Vicar of Christ.