One Again, Biblical Confusion: Genesis 3:15 (myth, atheist, protestant, Satan)

[Richard1965]

Originally Posted by perry335654

Adam was not of the seed so the her maybe alluding to the virgin birth.

G-d was talking to the Serpent...The seed of the woman would be her descendants, and the only way she would have descendants is with Adam...So, what are you talking about?...

[hd4me]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

There no end to the messiness found in Biblical translations. Take for example Genesis 3:15 which Christians love to tout as the first promise God made to send Jesus to save mankind. But does it really refer to Jesus, or is it just some vague obscure mumbo-jumbo that nobody but a Hebrew scribe could dream up?

Here are three translations:







A fourth translation which I found quoted but cannot get a reference to reads:



So we have three and possibly four different pronouns for who the offspring of the woman is. Any experts in Hebrew in here? What Hebrew word is used for the bolded pronoun referring to the woman's offspring? Is it properly translated as "he", "she", "it" or "they"?

In a nutshell how does one render the Hebrew pronoun hu

Hu is referring to zera which is masculine

The KJV renders hu as "it" because although zera is masculine in Hebrew the corresponding English word "seed" is neuter thus the translators of the KJV could, in a sense, correctly render hu as "it" since it is referring to "seed" which is neuter in English.

However, hu can also be rendered as "he" because it is referring to zera which is masculine in the Hebrew. Additionally, there's the ancient Septuagint which was written around the 3rd century BCE in which the Greek speaking Jews translated the first five books of the Bible and translated hu as "he." What's also significant about this is these translators could have translated hu as "it" because the Koine Greek for "seed" is also neuter just as in English. However, they chose to translate as "he" and it should not be discounted because these were Jews (NOT Christians) who were familiar with whatever oral or written traditions were in place at the time reflecting Jewish thought about how to render this pronoun.

The other rendering of "they" can't be discounted grammatically. However it does not negate the broader messianic message of the Hebrew Scriptures. Even those translations that translate hu as "they" still can't get around the singular "you" and "your head" in reference to the serpent because it's the head of the serpent not the offspring or zera that is bruised and it's the serpent who bruises the heal of the woman's zera.

The use of "she" fits in with the importance that is given to Mary by Catholics. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this about the rendering of Genesis 3:15 and the use of she: "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 …”

Just some info in support on why hu can properly be rendered as "he" based on syntactic studies (rules of language) published in the Tyndalehouse Bulletin. About Tyndalehouse Cambridge :Tyndale House is an independent biblical studies library with a Christian foundation. Founded in 1944, it aims to provide specialist resources in support of research into the Old Testament, New Testament and relevant historical backgrounds.-Wikipedia

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/l...WomansSeed.pdf

[thrillobyte]

Originally Posted by hd4me

In a nutshell how does one render the Hebrew pronoun hu

Hu is referring to zera which is masculine

The KJV renders hu as "it" because although zera is masculine in Hebrew the corresponding English word "seed" is neuter thus the translators of the KJV could, in a sense, correctly render hu as "it" since it is referring to "seed" which is neuter in English.

However, hu can also be rendered as "he" because it is referring to zera which is masculine in the Hebrew. Additionally, there's the ancient Septuagint which was written around the 3rd century BCE in which the Greek speaking Jews translated the first five books of the Bible and translated hu as "he." What's also significant about this is these translators could have translated hu as "it" because the Koine Greek for "seed" is also neuter just as in English. However, they chose to translate as "he" and it should not be discounted because these were Jews (NOT Christians) who were familiar with whatever oral or written traditions were in place at the time reflecting Jewish thought about how to render this pronoun.

The other rendering of "they" can't be discounted grammatically. However it does not negate the broader messianic message of the Hebrew Scriptures. Even those translations that translate hu as "they" still can't get around the singular "you" and "your head" in reference to the serpent because it's the head of the serpent not the offspring or zera that is bruised and it's the serpent who bruises the heal of the woman's zera.

The use of "she" fits in with the importance that is given to Mary by Catholics. The Catholic Encyclopedia says this about the rendering of Genesis 3:15 and the use of she: "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 …”

Just some info in support on why hu can properly be rendered as "he" based on syntactic studies (rules of language) published in the Tyndalehouse Bulletin. About Tyndalehouse Cambridge :Tyndale House is an independent biblical studies library with a Christian foundation. Founded in 1944, it aims to provide specialist resources in support of research into the Old Testament, New Testament and relevant historical backgrounds.-Wikipedia

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/l...WomansSeed.pdf

All this wrangling over a lousy little pronoun, again, just goes to show how uninspired the Bible really is. In the end it's just another book on religious laws like a thousand others of one religion or another. If this indeed were inspired by God, would God have chosen words so utterly confusing as to cause millions of people over the last 3 millennia to start wars over the meanings contained therein? A truly inspired book from God would have been so crystal-clear there could only be agreement amongst the billions who have read it, not 30,000 different Christian sects splitting off over how this scripture or that scripture should be interpreted.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

The fact that none of this occurs in Genesis 3:15 can only lead one to conclude that these Jews writing this passage hadn’t the vaguest clue what they were writing about far as a messiah goes. They had to have had an entirely different meaning in mind, which as you suggest, was more a general curse on snakes and the enmity between them and men, probably because so many Jews were being bitten by poisonous vipers and dying.

Yes, so-called "prophecies" that are open to interpretation (not clearly explained, as you mentioned) are really a trademark of later Apocalyptic literature, and even then most of it is quite specific. The Yahwistic author appears to have been more concerned with Primeval events with etiological explanations, and not with the future. The number of etiological explanations in the Genesis 2-3 story number at least 13, from my count. Yet, we only have a prophecy attached to one of them, by later interpreters.

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

And this particular interpretation of Genesis 3:15 being a prophecy about Jesus is so common and so ingrained in Christians’ minds it can NEVER be unhinged no matter how much evidence you show them it has nothing to do with Jesus. Such is the power of indoctrination from an early age.

True, but I would definitely qualify that assessment to apply to Fundamentalist Christians. There are plenty of reasonable Christians who are able to critically assess the text and not read into it a tradition that has been shown to be quite shaky.

Originally Posted by Richard1965

I agree...Considering that G-d expected Israel to be a Holy Nation, a Nation of Priests....Priests to do what?...Minister to the rest of the world...Be a beacon of Righteousness to the rest of the world...An example...I don't think the Jews see Satan as the one in Gan HaEden...

Yes, most definitely not. "The שָּׂטָן" only appears a few scarce times in the Hebrew Bible, and can only be found in the Garden story through creative eisegesis!

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Both great posts whoppers.

Some other points:

1) It is also, I think, an etiology about why snakes don't have any legs yet being a land animal.

2) I think Paul had a big hand in allowing Christians to interpret Gen.3:15 as singular and thus Jesus Christ when he authored Galatians 3:16 pointing out that Gen.12:7 did not say descendants/plural but descendant/singular - which he said was Christ. Of course when you read Gen.12:7 it is plural - go figure? Which by the way is the same word for 'seed' (zera) in Gen.3:15.

Thanks, and the loss of legs is definitely part of that etiology. I don't favor the figurative sense that sees it as a symbol of shame (the eating of dust and going about on one's belly), but rather favor the view that the serpent originally had legs or arms. I doubt we could point to examples from the fossil record, but more of a common question asked by most children: why doesn't it have any legs, like other animals? It could also be a reflection of some of the divine beings that may perhaps have been reflected in the many iconographic representations we have from the ANE.

Originally Posted by hd4me

In a nutshell how does one render the Hebrew pronoun hu....


Just some info in support on why hu can properly be rendered as "he" based on syntactic studies (rules of language) published in the Tyndalehouse Bulletin.

This is all very true, but does not necessarily lead to reading a prophecy of Christ in it.
Some other examples of singular vs collective can easily be adduced from the Bible:

Singular: Gen 15:3; 17:19; 19:32, 34; 21:12; 26:3, 4; 28:4
Collective: Gen 7:13; 13:16(?); 28:14(?); 46:6, 7; 48:4, 19; Ex 28:43; Lev 18:21.

This is taken from Zevit's book I previously cited, and he remarks:

In some cases the singular sense of "son" or the collective sense "progeny" or "sons" is supported by the presence of appropriate verbal or pronominal forms. Examples of the former are Gen 4:25; 15:18; 16:10; 21:13; 22:17; Num 14:24. Some of these could be dismissed as cases where the verbs and/or pronouns are made to agree with the morphology of the noun, but examples of the plural sense with appropriate verbs and pronouns place the burden of proof on those who dismiss them: Gen 15:13; 17:7; Ex 30:21.
(Zevit, WRHGE, p. 322, n. 25)

In the end, you would be hard pressed to find any reputable and honest scholar of Genesis who would support a Christological reading of the text, and many of these are Christian scholars who have a stake in the matter. Sometimes we must follow the evidence where it leads us, not where we would like to go.

Originally Posted by whoppers

Yes, so-called "prophecies" that are open to interpretation (not clearly explained, as you mentioned) are really a trademark of later Apocalyptic literature, and even then most of it is quite specific. The Yahwistic author appears to have been more concerned with Primeval events with etiological explanations, and not with the future. The number of etiological explanations in the Genesis 2-3 story number at least 13, from my count. Yet, we only have a prophecy attached to one of them, by later interpreters.



True, but I would definitely qualify that assessment to apply to Fundamentalist Christians. There are plenty of reasonable Christians who are able to critically assess the text and not read into it a tradition that has been shown to be quite shaky.



Yes, most definitely not. "The שָּׂטָן" only appears a few scarce times in the Hebrew Bible, and can only be found in the Garden story through creative eisegesis!



Thanks, and the loss of legs is definitely part of that etiology. I don't favor the figurative sense that sees it as a symbol of shame (the eating of dust and going about on one's belly), but rather favor the view that the serpent originally had legs or arms. I doubt we could point to examples from the fossil record, but more of a common question asked by most children: why doesn't it have any legs, like other animals? It could also be a reflection of some of the divine beings that may perhaps have been reflected in the many iconographic representations we have from the ANE.








This is all very true, but does not necessarily lead to reading a prophecy of Christ in it.
Some other examples of singular vs collective can easily be adduced from the Bible:

Singular: Gen 15:3; 17:19; 19:32, 34; 21:12; 26:3, 4; 28:4
Collective: Gen 7:13; 13:16(?); 28:14(?); 46:6, 7; 48:4, 19; Ex 28:43; Lev 18:21.

This is taken from Zevit's book I previously cited, and he remarks:

In some cases the singular sense of "son" or the collective sense "progeny" or "sons" is supported by the presence of appropriate verbal or pronominal forms. Examples of the former are Gen 4:25; 15:18; 16:10; 21:13; 22:17; Num 14:24. Some of these could be dismissed as cases where the verbs and/or pronouns are made to agree with the morphology of the noun, but examples of the plural sense with appropriate verbs and pronouns place the burden of proof on those who dismiss them: Gen 15:13; 17:7; Ex 30:21.
(Zevit, WRHGE, p. 322, n. 25)

In the end, you would be hard pressed to find any reputable and honest scholar of Genesis who would support a Christological reading of the text, and many of these are Christian scholars who have a stake in the matter. Sometimes we must follow the evidence where it leads us, not where we would like to go.

Again very nice post whoppers! The iconography I was unaware of - thanks for that enlightening evidence of the ANE influencing the so-called unique 'revelation' from YHWH.

I was wondering about the talking snake aspect of this section. Is there some ANE background to the first or ancient humans and animals communicating with one another? From my memory I want to say yes but was not sure.

[perry335654]

Originally Posted by Richard1965

G-d was talking to the Serpent...The seed of the woman would be her descendants, and the only way she would have descendants is with Adam...So, what are you talking about?...

Good Lord, you don't know what the virgin birth was ? You don't know who the serpent was ?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

All this wrangling over a lousy little pronoun, again, just goes to show how uninspired the Bible really is.

In my view it shows that written words are not as great and unambiguous a mechanism for conveying precise meaning as bibliolaters want to claim it is.

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

If this indeed were inspired by God, would God have chosen words so utterly confusing as to cause millions of people over the last 3 millennia to start wars over the meanings contained therein? A truly inspired book from God would have been so crystal-clear there could only be agreement amongst the billions who have read it, not 30,000 different Christian sects splitting off over how this scripture or that scripture should be interpreted.

Such crystal clarity is impossible in a book. Even ignoring the problems of translations that are so perfectly highlighted in this thread, even ignoring the constantly shifting dynamic nature of language, there is still the potential for disconnect between god and the writer and between the writer's output and the reader. Even the Bible decries people who "twist the scriptures to their own destruction" and we all know people who can twist your OWN words to supposedly mean something completely alien to what you were thinking or intended.

The only way I can think of to achieve "crystal clarity" would be for god to "bake in" his revelation AND his interpretation and understanding thereof into every human mind so that everyone would intuitively "know" the intended capital-T "Truth". Such a thing would be trivial for the usually posited omnipotent, omniscient god to do.

How odd that instead he used humans to author documents that were in no meaningful way forward thinking or original, but simply reflected the ignorance and bias of their day. Documents that tell people how to be "good" slaveowners, "good" holders of women-as-chattel, how to properly kill rebellious children, etc.

[perry335654]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

There no end to the messiness found in Biblical translations. Take for example Genesis 3:15 which Christians love to tout as the first promise God made to send Jesus to save mankind. But does it really refer to Jesus, or is it just some vague obscure mumbo-jumbo that nobody but a Hebrew scribe could dream up?

Here are three translations:







A fourth translation which I found quoted but cannot get a reference to reads:



So we have three and possibly four different pronouns for who the offspring of the woman is. Any experts in Hebrew in here? What Hebrew word is used for the bolded pronoun referring to the woman's offspring? Is it properly translated as "he", "she", "it" or "they"?

Thrill this is why there are churches, whereby churches have Sunday school, whereby there are teachers so one can clarify scripture amongst each other and better understand its meaning, whereby one doesn't have to ask ridiculous questions on a forum.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by perry335654

Thrill this is why there are churches, whereby churches have Sunday school, whereby there are teachers so one can clarify scripture amongst each other and better understand its meaning, whereby one doesn't have to ask ridiculous questions on a forum.

Lol! Do you not realize you are saying in so many words that we must not think for ourselves but defer to approved teachers?

You even apply it to Sunday School teachers, who in the main are untrained volunteers / enthusiasts and not even authorities in the sense of being particularly learned or astute.

Besides, in what way is the question ridiculous? Because it involves semantics and grammar? How are those silly concerns when it comes to a document that is supposedly divinely inspired and contains critical information that is vitally important to people's eternal destiny? Or does it just disturb you to realize that the meaning of particular Bible verses may not be as drop dead simple to divine as you have thought it was?

Originally Posted by perry335654

Adam was not of the seed so the her maybe alluding to the virgin birth.

What in the context makes you think that it is the virgin birth? Why would you go that rout and not see it as her descendants, offspring, humanity, etc.?