On Tue, 12 Dec 1995, Dave Probert wrote:
>
> This discussion on Sarah's seminal emission has show way over my head.
> Perhaps Denis (or somebody) can help clear up my confusion.
I will send you the post that began this discussion on Sarah. But
briefly, my point was to underline that the Scripture's view of
reproductive science changed between Gen 11: 30 (PREFORMATISM THEORY) to
Heb 11: 11 (DOUBLE SEED THEORY). In saying this, I was trying show that
when the Holy Spirit inspired the Biblical writers, it was within their
intellectual horizon--specifically, the writers were allowed to make
statements about nature (ie, scientific statements) that was consistent
with the science of their day. However, over time many of these theories
were superceded (that's science) with a better theory. And this is seen
with the shift from preformatism to the double seed theory as testified
in our own Scriptures.
> 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?
The double seed theory makes no allowance that the "emission" of an egg
is only in the mid-cycle of a woman cycle.
> 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'?
It is a good term. That is why it was used. But the ancients thought
the "laying down of seed" in women was similar to that in men. They were
certainly not thinking in ovulatory terms.
> So why is it that this term could not be applied to Sarah?
It could be used, but not in a fully accurate sense. I agree with you is
was the best "INTELLECTUAL TOOL" they had to try in explaining the issue.
But it is not completely accurate because women do not "lay down seed" in
the sex act like men. It only happens once a month, as opposed to men
who are capable to "lay down seed" any time during the month.
> 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.
I am not talking about a Hebrew term, but an actual Greek idom, a
technical term used to specifically to describe ejaculation.
> 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?
Firstly, the term is a technical term for ejaculation. Secondly, it
cannot be used for ovulation because ovulation was not discovered till
very late. You are committing eisegesis by introducing to an ancient
text an intellectual category foreign to the writer.
> 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:
I disagree with how you set this argument up. All I have to show is one
of your catergories is erroneous.
> 1 - that it is somehow fundamentally inaccurate.
It is a fundamental error. Women do not ejaculate, they ovulate.
> 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.
This was very appropriate. The reason the ancient world began musing on
the notion of two seeds was because the children bore characteristics of
both parents. The only very clear notion "seed being thrown down" was
the seen the ejaculatory act. So, with the principle of "two seeds", the
ancients "argued" (but did not observe--after all how could they without
microscopes?) that women must have a similar "seed throwing" mechanism.
And if was a very logical argument indeed considering the limits (ie,
without microscopes) of observations. AND IT WAS A VERY LOGICAL USE OF
AN IDIOM TO USE KATABOLAN SPERMATOS.
> 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.
It may make sense to you metaphorically, but ask yourself, "Do you think
the ancients when they were trying understand why their children
resembled them were giving a metaphorical answer?" Not likely.
This is similar to the argument Fundamentalists make for Josh 10.
Because the sun is clearly moving in this chapter, Fundamentalists are
quick (for the shake of their notion of "inerracy") to argue that this is
metaphorical or phenomenological language. But really, that's
eisegesis. They are feeling the tension of the obvious geocentric
interpretation now in the 20th century, so they skew Josh 10 to placate
their notion of revelation. Put them squarely in Joshua's day, and they
wouldn't dream that the sun of static . . . and put you and me in the 1st
century, we wouldn't be thinking that women ovulate either.
> *** 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 be
> really dense in the morning sometimes (e.g. before he had his coffee),
> but my conclusion is that the record is fundamentally inaccurate, and
> there was no metaphorical value (i.e. poetic license) to munging the time
> sequence.
>
> Therefore I think this is an example of error. However the Scripture is
> undiminished by it.
I quite agree with you. And with the writer of Hebrews seeing Sarah
gain the ability of having a seminal emission is of the same
order as your fine NT example. The historical reality is that for some
biological reason she could not reproduce, and the Biblical writers' (Gen 11
and Heb 11) understanding of the problem is permeated with the
reproductive science of their day. Ancient science shifted between
the time of Gen 11 and Heb 11 . . . and it was very different science at
that. Both versions (Preformatism & Double Seed Theory) have since been
superceded. However, the Word of God clearly has substantive errors in
it, but not only that these errors are even contradictory.
Enjoyed your post,
Blessings,
Denis
----------------------------------------------------------
Denis O. Lamoureux DDS PhD PhD (cand)
Department of Oral Biology Residence:
Faculty of Dentistry # 1908
University of Alberta 8515-112 Street
Edmonton, Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
T6G 2N8 T6G 1K7
CANADA CANADA
Lab: (403) 492-1354
Residence: (403) 439-2648
Dental Office: (403) 425-4000
E-mail: dlamoure@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
"In all debates, let truth be thy aim, and endeavor to gain
rather than expose thy opponent."
------------------------------------------------------------