On Mon, 11 Dec 1995, Stephen Jones wrote:
Denis:
> >Russ, do women have seminal emissions? No, this is not a joke (though
> >when I first heard of the point I hope to make I thought it was).
> >
> >Of course they don't (mind you, my clinical expertise is at the other
> >"end" of the "tube" so I might be wrong ;-)). But Russ that is EXACTLY
> >what the NT states in Hebrews 11:11. Yes, that great Faith chapter
> >states unequivocally that Sarah K-A-T-A-B-O-L-A-N S-P-E-R-M-A-T-O-S.
> >Translated it means she "had a seminal emission." For that matter, the
> >Greek used is the technical term for an ejaculation. And proof of this
> >is that the NIV has INACCURATELY slipped Abraham into the verse to cover
> >up the embarrassment of what the Greek NT actually records. But again go
> >to a Greek NT and you will see there is not ONE manuscript that has
> >Abraham in it.
>
> >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.
Stephen:
> I have no problem with God speaking through 1st century science. But
> I am not persuaded that Denis is right in his NT Gk exegesis that
> katabolan spermatos means "had a seminal emission.".
Stephen then states:
> My Interlinear says:
> My Vincent's Word Studies in the NT says of Heb 11:11:
> My Vines Expository Dictionary of NT Words, says under CONCEIVE:
> My Theological Wordbook of the NT says of katabole:
> My New International Commentary says:
Very energetic! But Stephen, you will note that in all you citations the
primary meaning of "katabolan spermatos" is to ejaculate. The standard
Greek lexicon used by NT theologians (Bauer's) makes that very clear in
calling it a "technical term" for "sowing seed, for begetting." So clear
is the meaning of the term, this entery goes on to state with regard to
the "problem" in Heb 11: 11 that "there is probably some error in the
text, SINCE THIS EXPRESSION COULD NOT BE USED OF SARAH, BUT ONLY ABRAHAM."
But Stephen, our best manuscripts show no problem with the text--see the
footnotes in the eclectic standard Greek NT (Aland's). No wonder the NIV
slips "Abraham" in the main text, but there is not one hint of
manuscript evidence to support this translation decision.
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.
> I believe therefore, that you overstate the case, Denis, in claiming
> that the words `eis katabolen spermatos' definitely means that the
> writer of Hebrews held to a "double-seed theory" and that the NIV
> translators were "embarrased" and "inaccurately slipped Abraham into
> the verse". I am sure the translators of the NIV were top Greek
> scholars and had good reasons for their supplying of "Abraham" in the
> verse.
I am not overstating the case. That is exactly what the NT says. And
that is exactly what the 1st literature affirms. And I assure you, I am not
embarrassed by it one minute. The
reason it is problematic is that few translators have a definitive grasp
of the relationship between science and theology.
> While I do believe there may be human errors in Scripture, I am
> conscious that I make human errors too and therefore I must be careful
> before I claim that something in the Bible is definitely an error.
Amen! But when the Text itself is clear, then I do exegesis--it shapes
me and my theology . . . not vice versa by the eisegetical approach.
> I believe we should treat the Bible writers like any other trustworthy
> witness - as innocent until *proven* guilty - and exhaust every other
> reasonable possibility before we conclude they made a mistake. In
> this case there are such other reasonable possibilities.
Amen! But I am employing the primary sources, and not secondary
sources which obviously are troubled with the very clear meaning of the
Greek. There are no manuscript problems and the term is a technical term
that was commonly used in the 1st century for a seminal emission.
The only ERROR that exists is for those who refuse to appreciate the
hermeneutical plasticity we must afford an ancient text when reading it.
You have to shut down some 20th century categories before reading
material from a foreign epistemological milieu. It
is only an ERROR for those committed to a hyper-literalism . . . and, of
course, that IMHO is the true ERROR . . . it is not the Word of God.
As always, I enjoy your respectful interaction.
Praise to the Lamb,
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."
------------------------------------------------------------