Help me here, problem with Genesis 3:15

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike_D30
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mike_D30

Guest
I have issue with the apparent error in the Latin Vulgate of Gensis 3:15:

3:15. 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.

I read the explanation on Catholic Encyclopedia and I’m having trouble with it. Did the writers of the Latin Vulgate purposely allude to Mary rather than Jesus defeating Satan when that isn’t what the original Hebrew states? The NAB is a completely different translation:

**3:15 “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.” **

I’m a faithful Catholic, but I do need a real professional apologetic to put my heart at ease over this one. It bothers me, I’ll be honest, to think someone altering Genesis 3:15 to give Mary the stature of defeating the devil instead of her son would bother me a lot.

So please guys, give me some info to put my heart at ease. My faith is shaken albeit just a tad…
 
Hi Mike:

I googled the Douay Rheims Bible (which is the Catholic translation of the Vulgate), directly to Genesis 3:15.

Here is what it says in the footnotes:
5 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.
Click to expand...
15 “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.
Click to expand...
Note that the translators have said that the sense is the same, whether it is she (the woman) or he (the seed or offspring). Jesus was born of Mary, the woman. Without her fiat, there would have been no Incarnation.

Mary always leads us to Christ. Mary always conforms her will to that of God. All Mary’s power and grace is through God, praise God.
 
Mike I think you should have all perspectives. I honestly am not sure which is right but i always think someone should look at all sides and make an informed decision.
This is the Jewish perspective.
BH
messiahtruth.com/gen315.html
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
I have issue with the apparent error in the Latin Vulgate of Gensis 3:15:

3:15. 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.

I read the explanation on Catholic Encyclopedia and I’m having trouble with it. Did the writers of the Latin Vulgate purposely allude to Mary rather than Jesus defeating Satan when that isn’t what the original Hebrew states? The NAB is a completely different translation:

**3:15 “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.” **

I’m a faithful Catholic, but I do need a real professional apologetic to put my heart at ease over this one. It bothers me, I’ll be honest, to think someone altering Genesis 3:15 to give Mary the stature of defeating the devil instead of her son would bother me a lot.

So please guys, give me some info to put my heart at ease. My faith is shaken albeit just a tad…
Click to expand...
The Jewish expression referring to a “woman’s seed” usually regards her son. BrianH’s link to a Judaic site seems to want to generalize the expression, or make it sound like the seed (son) of the woman refers to a son of Eve (Seth.) But this fails for the obvious reason that Seth did not destroy the serpent. (Satan.)

Here is a clip from the Hebrew translation:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring/[seed] and her offspring/[seed]; they/[he] will strike your head, and you will strike their/[his] heel.

The words “they” and “their” confirm a sort of tag-team effort on the part of the woman and her son. Both will share in the victory; Mary to exhonerate Eve and womankind, Jesus because of His sacrifice through which death is destroyed.

Thal59
 
Talk about obscure. If one obtuse verse written by and for a mob of desert savages can rock your world, how do you handle Revelation?

Do what I do. Rub your eyes, give your head a quick shake and skip on down the page. I know from experience that it is really very hard to translate imagery between two unrelated languages, never mind three. Just take the Church’s word for it that it is going to be Jesus.

So, this one verse is a little opaque. Let the rest of the Bible flesh out the truth for you.
 
Genesis 3:15 JPS
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel.

Romans 16:20 NIV
The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
“And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. THEY SHALL MAKE PEACE WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE END, IN THE VERY END OF DAYS, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH.” (Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch; emphasis added) [Webster (4): 156]
Click to expand...
In the above traditions, the seed (“zera”) appears to be understood as plural as it is the Torah-observers that have the power to “smite the serpent on the head,” or be “bitten on the heel by the serpent” for not observing the Torah. However, the ultimate “remedy” to the problem is the Messiah.
Click to expand...
Webster, William. “Behold Your King: Prophetic Proofs that Jesus is the Messiah.” Christian Resources Inc. 2003.
Click to expand...
tektonics.org/guest/antianti.html
 
40.png
richbansha:
Talk about obscure. If one obtuse verse written by and for a mob of desert savages can rock your world, how do you handle Revelation?

Do what I do. Rub your eyes, give your head a quick shake and skip on down the page. I know from experience that it is really very hard to translate imagery between two unrelated languages, never mind three. Just take the Church’s word for it that it is going to be Jesus.

So, this one verse is a little opaque. Let the rest of the Bible flesh out the truth for you.
Click to expand...
It didn’t rock my world I said it shook me up a bit, because it seems to give credence that the early Catholic Church may have attempted to give Mary more power than she merited. I’m still Catholic in fact I’m going to Mass in an hour, but it was curious to find. I understand the confusion with the Hebrew HUW, and most earlier versions of the Bible did not contain “He”, but rather “it” or “they”. So I can understand the mess up, but this surprised as I’ve never found much in the way of confusion since I came back to the Catholic Church.

What did you mean by, how do I get through revelations? I’ve read the book three times, and quite honestly I haven’t a clue what to make of it. It’s very cryptic I get the general idea, but I don’t see why revelations would have me challenge my faith at all. Can you expound, or maybe start another thread? I hoenstly don’t know.
 
What did you mean by, how do I get through revelations? I’ve read the book three times, and quite honestly I haven’t a clue what to make of it. It’s very cryptic I get the general idea, but I don’t see why revelations would have me challenge my faith at all. Can you expound, or maybe start another thread? I hoenstly don’t know.
Click to expand...
It may be that he expected you to make the connection between the woman of Rev. 12:1 and in Gn. 3:15 with Mary as the fulfillment of both. The Church has used both passages in its liturgies celebrating the various feast days of the Blessed Virgin. Not as primary interpretations, but as secondary ones.

You see, there are 4 levels of biblical interpretation. The primary interpretation is always the literal (not literalistic, which is something else altogether) one. And the literal one is the one the author intended. The author of Genesis wanted to tell us that God had a plan in place for the redemption of man that would come through the descendants of Eve. IOW, that he would be another human being, the Son of Man, and not an angel or other kind of agent. Mary is an integral part of the fulfillment of that prophecy, which is why the Church uses it to celebrate her life in its sacred liturgies.
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
What did you mean by, how do I get through revelations? I’ve read the book three times, and quite honestly I haven’t a clue what to make of it. It’s very cryptic I get the general idea, but I don’t see why revelations would have me challenge my faith at all. Can you expound, or maybe start another thread? I hoenstly don’t know.
Click to expand...
Sure. The fact is Mike, my post was less directed to you personally than the forum as a whole. I have not been posting long but it can’t escape the notice of even first timers, that many get carried away by some adjective inflection in Latin or a less than perfect paraphrase of a Hebrew fragment.

Don’t get me wrong. It is important that people do this, both for its own sake and so that these skills survive forever. When responding to people’s questions of faith, my opinion is that a simple appeal to reason is usually best. Short of that, a reassertion of doctrine with an eye toward an easy surrender to the teaching is second best. If the last two are not appropriate, innocent speculation supported by science and nature will have to do, with the proviso that one should stay open to correction when a better explaination is found.

I admit that sometimes I go too far and over simplify. I am also developing a tendency to couple fringe science with an overly naive view of creation. Sometimes, I just can’t resist it. I guess it is my Irish blood that makes me try to emulate Patrick when he used something as simple as a shamrock to illustrate the Trinity.

Revelation? I only picked that because I doubt that anyone really knows what it means. Hells Bells. Even John, himself, couldn’t quite get it right. He mistook an seraph for a cherib. But, so what? Whatever the message of that book is we will find out eventually.

Mike, if I offended you or seemed to be taunting you, I am truly sorry. My only aim was to point out that Genisis has already been interpreted for us. It is much easier to take current teaching at face value rather than let vague lingustic issues have a role in anyone’s faith – even to the smallest degree.
 
40.png
richbansha:
Mike, if I offended you or seemed to be taunting you, I am truly sorry. My only aim was to point out that Genisis has already been interpreted for us. It is much easier to take current teaching at face value rather than let vague lingustic issues have a role in anyone’s faith – even to the smallest degree.
Click to expand...
No you didn’t offend me at all, I was sincerely curious what Revelations had to do with my faith. I didn’t know if you meant SDA calling the Catholic Church or the Pope the anti-Christ, because I’ve already seen and dismissed that nonsense. But I agree really who could interpret Revelations with any certainty.

No harm done, I’m satisfied with the explanation, thanks.
 
This was taken from www.scripturecatholic.com
Scripture

I. The Uniqueness of Mary as the Mother of God

Gen. 3:15 - we see from the very beginning that God gives Mary a unique role in salvation history. God says “I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.” This refers to Jesus (the “enmity”) and Mary (the “woman”). The phrase “her seed” (spermatos) is not seen elsewhere in Scripture.

Is it correct to assume that most Catholics believe that
Jesus = (“enmity”) & Mary = (“woman”) in Gen 3:15?
 
The Hebrew word is “hu” which means “he.” It is clearly masculine. The vulgate is not inspired, and it is not essential to Catholic doctrine to make it a “she.”
 
40.png
trumpet152:
The Hebrew word is “hu” which means “he.” It is clearly masculine. The vulgate is not inspired, and it is not essential to Catholic doctrine to make it a “she.”
Click to expand...
THen why does the original King James version translate the Hebrew “IT” and not “He”? Does this mean the King James is not inspired too?

What makes a translation of the Bible inspired or not? Is one error or misstep in translation enough to judge the Bible poor and worthless?

I’m just really confused by this statement.

God Bless
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
THen why does the original King James version translate the Hebrew “IT” and not “He”? Does this mean the King James is not inspired too?

What makes a translation of the Bible inspired or not? Is one error or misstep in translation enough to judge the Bible poor and worthless?

I’m just really confused by this statement.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Hebrew does not have a neuter genter or neuter pronouns. The masculine “hu” can be translated as either “he” or “it,” depending on the context, and the feminine (pronounced like the English masculine pronoun “he”) can be translated as either “she” or “it,” again depending on the context.

My education on this was updated by another forum member last year when this question came up. “Hu” can be either “he” or “she.” I didn’t know that, but I checked it out in my grammar references, and it is true. However, verbs in Hebrew also carry gender, and the verb in this case is definitely masculine.

DaveBj
 
40.png
DaveBj:
Hebrew does not have a neuter genter or neuter pronouns. The masculine “hu” can be translated as either “he” or “it,” depending on the context, and the feminine (pronounced like the English masculine pronoun “he”) can be translated as either “she” or “it,” again depending on the context.

My education on this was updated by another forum member last year when this question came up. “Hu” can be either “he” or “she.” I didn’t know that, but I checked it out in my grammar references, and it is true. However, verbs in Hebrew also carry gender, and the verb in this case is definitely masculine.

DaveBj
Click to expand...
Interesting. I’ll look into that. I was always taught that “hu” meant “he” or possibly “it” but I’ve never heard about “she.” Nonetheless, your point about the verb also stands.
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
THen why does the original King James version translate the Hebrew “IT” and not “He”? Does this mean the King James is not inspired too?

What makes a translation of the Bible inspired or not? Is one error or misstep in translation enough to judge the Bible poor and worthless?

I’m just really confused by this statement.

God Bless
Click to expand...
The only inspired word of God is the original manuscripts. No translation is inspired. And no, one error is not enough to condemn a translation (Christ quoted from the LXX which had many errors). But it does mean that we need to be aware of the existence of errors and only build doctrine on portions of scripture that are properly understood in the original language.
 
O.K so I am hearing that the Catholic Chruch teaches that Jesus will crush the head of the serpent, and the Latin Vulgate had the translation to interpret the Hebrew HUW into she. I thought it was a mistranslation, I was fien with that.

I was recently investitured into the Carmelite order with the brown scapular. In the investure the following is prayed:

*"*We beseach her to crush the head of the ancient serpent ** so that you may entre into possession of your eternal heritage through Christ our Lord"

I’m sorry if I seem like a pain but I am really confused, does the Catholic Church believe Mary will destroy Satan and not Jesus? Some other posters say relax and stop questioning, but that isn’t good enough for me. I find that to be a major error, and it is a big deal to me. Big enough for me to think that we have elevated Mary way higher than we should and I would need to give real thought into Lutheranism again. Can someone explain this to me?

Thanks

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top