What does God mean by his words in Genesis 3?

[Huiou_Theou]

From the Haydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims’s correct rendition of “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.”:Note the Douay-Rheims gives the only correct English translation out of all the Catholic and Protestant bibles!

The Douay translates the Vulgate, which is itself a translation.

The dispute with Protestants is that the Vulgate itself incorrectly translates the Hebrew and Greek. In your notes, variant manuscripts are mentioned – I have never seen these – nor do I know from whence they come.

I do know, for example, that the Greek used for the KJV comes from Greek manuscripts corrected by the Vulgate by a Catholic priest (!). So, in those manuscripts the Greek would be changed based on the Vulgate – which is a sleight of hand argument – but which serves to illustrate certain Greek manuscripts were changed to reflect Jerome’s translation, and would not be surprising if found.

In the argument given, the Septuagint is made to look as if it reads the same as the Vulgate, but this is not so in the copies I have access to. I can re-check the Codex Vaticanus, which was not edited from the Vulgate – but I think part of Genesis was mysteriously lost. But I’ll look again anyway when I get the chance.

PeterK and I had a very interesting discussion on the nature of the passage based on other reasons than the words themselves… “Clarify Genisis 3:15” which you posted in also has a piece of that. There is far more reason to understand Mary as included in the statement than the gender of the “seed”; I would encourage you to take a look at what he has to say, and the discussion we held on another thread. I’m too tired to look it up now, but perhaps later I can post a link.

–Andrew.

 

[Geremia]

The Douay translates the Vulgate, which is itself a translation.

The dispute with Protestants is that the Vulgate itself incorrectly translates the Hebrew and Greek. In your notes, variant manuscripts are mentioned – I have never seen these – nor do I know from whence they come.

I do know, for example, that the Greek used for the KJV comes from Greek manuscripts corrected by the Vulgate by a Catholic priest (!). So, in those manuscripts the Greek would be changed based on the Vulgate – which is a sleight of hand argument – but which serves to illustrate certain Greek manuscripts were changed to reflect Jerome’s translation, and would not be surprising if found.

In the argument given, the Septuagint is made to look as if it reads the same as the Vulgate, but this is not so in the copies I have access to. I can re-check the Codex Vaticanus, which was not edited from the Vulgate – but I think part of Genesis was mysteriously lost. But I’ll look again anyway when I get the chance.

PeterK and I had a very interesting discussion on the nature of the passage based on other reasons than the words themselves… “Clarify Genisis 3:15” which you posted in also has a piece of that. There is far more reason to understand Mary as included in the statement than the gender of the “seed”; I would encourage you to take a look at what he has to say, and the discussion we held on another thread. I’m too tired to look it up now, but perhaps later I can post a link.

–Andrew.

In the end it comes down to what you think authentic. There are very many reasons to consider the Latin Vulgate the most authentic.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In the end it comes down to what you think authentic. There are very many reasons to consider the Latin Vulgate the most authentic.

Sigh

There is no reason for me to believe the Latin Vulgate in any of its forms since the statement of Trent, that the Vulgate teaches any-one information which is detrimental to the faith.
eg: No errors of teaching; but that of course rests on what the church teaches, as individuals can twist scripture to their destruction.

I do not find that “she” shall crush – or “he” shall crush – are either in error, as the Douay even comments speculating on “it…”. The church fathers saw the feminine role in the passage, as I have mentioned PeterK in the other thread also has an excellent argument for the feminine involvment. The fathers, however, were not totally agreed on the gender of the passage.

There are many genuine things in this world:
genuine distilled water.
genuine spring water.
genuine sewer water.

When you say “authentic”, there is no statement of what kind of authenticity you mean. I KNOW the Vulgate is an authentic translation – but that does not rule out authentic originals either (not that ANY of the manuscripts in circulation ARE originals). But neither is the Vulgate is a product of an infallible council, though it is defended against blind protestant scholarship as free from HERESY.

You will not find me contradicting church “teaching” based on the translation or minor mis-translations of the Vulgate. None of the disputed passages is sufficiently supported to “prove” anything; nor do any of the corrections by various Popes, etc. make much difference to me.

By all means, read the Douay – but if you are in an Apologetics discussion with a snake – watch out for the sharp end.

God bless you, and would you be kind enough to offer prayers for wisdom on my part?

Pax Tecum,
–Andrew.

 

[Geremia]

When you say “authentic”, there is no statement of what kind of authenticity you mean.

By “authentic” I mean “actually the word of God and only God.” What if, for example, someone falsely claimed to have the original four gospels, but there were glaring differences between them and the Vulgate, e.g., if Christ said “I am not a Trinity.” I do not think the Church would change its creed because of it. Both the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, and the Scriptures, His word, are legitimate authorities. They cannot contradict one another inasmuch as God cannot contradict Himself.

God bless you, and would you be kind enough to offer prayers for wisdom on my part?

Certainly

 

[Huiou_Theou]

By “authentic” I mean “actually the word of God and only God.” What if, for example, someone falsely claimed to have the original four gospels, but there were glaring differences between them and the Vulgate, e.g., if Christ said “I am not a Trinity.” I do not think the Church would change its creed because of it. Both the Catholic Church, founded by Christ, and the Scriptures, His word, are legitimate authorities. They cannot contradict one another inasmuch as God cannot contradict Himself.Certainly

“Only God”?
uch:

Ummmm … There are different versions of the Vulgate, LXX, etc.
They have all been edited several times. AKA: The devil’s words are definitely recorded in all true sets of scripture.

But I agree, the church won’t be truly contradicting its doctrine…
Your point is well taken.

Thanks for the prayers.