Denis wrote:
> So Russ--the Bible has errors of fact in it. The Double Seed Theory of
> reproduction was the state of the art science in the first century. It
> is erroneous, BUT IT GOT INTO GOD'S WORD. And please, go check it out
> for yourself.
...
> But better yet, read Pieter Willem Van Der Horst's "Did Sarah Have A
> Seminal Emission?" Bible Review (Feb 1992): 35-39. He shows how the 1st
> century literature clearly supports they believed that women had seminal
> emissions--that was the science of the day. And when the writer of
> Hebrews wrote the letter, he/she employed his/her intellectual
> horizon--it was not suspended.
First, I was taught that conception involved the emission of an egg by
the woman as well as the contribution of sperm by the male. Exactly
how does the `Double Seed Theory of reproduction' contradict that?
K-A-T-A-B-O-L-A-N S-P-E-R-M-A-T-O-S means to lay down seed. We generally
use the word `sperm' in the male context, but isn't a better translation
`seed'? (e.g. SPERMOLOGOS is a `seed-picker,' used to refer to someone
who is `trifling in their talk' ... an insult without any sexual connotation).
So why is it that this term could not be applied to Sarah?
In Hebrew the word for seed is synonymous with lineage. It is used to
refer to someone of Eve's lineage in Genesis 3:15, and Onan's seminal
emission in Genesis 38:9.
Isn't the description used particularly suggestive that (or even
literally translated as) she received the ability to ovulate?
I believe that there are various miscellaneous errors in the Scripture ***,
but this sure doesn't seem to be one of them.
Even if katabolan spermatos is used to refer exclusively to male
ejaculation, why does that prevent it from also being used to mean
ovluation by the author of Hebrews? Is there some term for ovulation
in koine that should have been used instead? Would it have carried
the same sense of bringing forth lineage that is implied here?
Denis asserts that he has not overstated the case, but as far as I can
tell he has haven't yet presented a convincing argument. To show error,
I think he would have to demonstrate two things about the description
in Heb 11:11:
1 - that it is somehow fundamentally inaccurate.
2 - that given the limitations of language and knowledge in the era
it was written, that this was a definitely inappropriate way to
convey the author's point.
The second point requires that the specific language used could not make
sense metaphorically. It doesn't seem reasonable to judge speech literally
that wasn't intended as literal. Little evocative prose from any era would
stand up to that test.
--Dave*** For example: In Mark 11 Jesus curses the fig tree on the way from Bethany to Jerusalem and it is observed as withered the next morning, at which point Jesus teaches them on faith.
In Matthew 21 the fig tree withers at once, and Jesus immediately teaches them on faith.
Perhaps Jesus was habitually cursing fig trees, or maybe Peter could bereally dense in the morning sometimes (e.g. before he had his coffee),but my conclusion is that the record is fundamentally inaccurate, andthere was no metaphorical value (i.e. poetic license) to munging the timesequence.
Therefore I think this is an example of error. However the Scripture isundiminished by it.