spin

It was in B.2. If you still can't see it, change browser.

You chose the drama queen approach blurting the whole κατα entry into the thread which was typical but not productive.

Do you believe your antagonist can eke out the notion of "imaginary" from πνευματων in its context?

I can already see the possible smokescreens.


spin

avi

Hi Spin, glad you chose to participate. I don't know why Jeffrey had trouble seeing your red text, I saw it, just fine, with SeaMonkey browser, 2.0.

Yes, I tend to agree with your assessment, spin. Here's a guy, me, who knows nothing, and then encounters these two words, one = sperm, the other = semen, and concludes, apparently incorrectly, that David is the source of the Genetic transfer of DNA to Mary.

However, I am not buying your assertion above, spin, i.e. that the Greek and Latin from 1500-2000 years ago, did not correspond to "sperm" and "semen" respectively. You may be correct. I may be incorrect. My basis for thinking that the Greek "sperma", and the Latin "semine" do correspond to the English sperm and semen, has less to do with the obvious morphological similarity, and more to do with the elegant experiments and observations conducted by Aristotle, and his successors.

We, unfortunately, lost the sequence of exciting mathematics and science/medicine, which the ancient Greeks had discovered. For more than a thousand years, our European ancestors regressed into oblivion. The so called "renaissance" represented only a return to the dark ages, when the only accomplishment of monks was to copy those ancient documents, but not to pursue any further the methods of scientific inquiry which the Greeks had employed.

The problem then, is that in the intervening ~~1500 years, say, until the 19th century, the Christians suppressed much of the scientific inquiry in Europe, and as a result, the Bible itself, translated into English, reflects a mentality about science, and reproductive medicine, that is not only antiquated, but fails to accurately portray the extensive knowledge which the Greeks had, but which our European ancestors did not possess, until the last couple of centuries.

We see this very clearly, spin, in your reply on this thread. Notwithstanding your impressive erudition, you still would write this:We need to recognize that whoever employed this English word "seed", did so, on the basis of dark ages understanding of reproductive medicine, and to perpetuate its use, imagining that the ancient Greeks were similarly clueless, is a fundamental mistake.

There are gametes, and somatic cells. Gametes are haploid. Somatic cells are diploid. The joining of a male and female gamete produces a diploid zygote. Consider an ear of corn. It has seeds, i.e. the kernels which we eat. Those seeds are diploid, not haploid. The haploid gametes, pollen, are found in the tassels, which correspond in a human, to the haploid sperm in the testes. The corn's silk corresponds to the male penis. One strand of silk is attached to each kernel, analogous to an ovum. The pollen travels down the silk, to the kernel, fertilization occurs, and a zygote is formed, which we either eat, or insert into the soil, to produce a new corn plant.

Now, spin (and Jeffrey), how many of those words above are derived from Greek? How many of these Greek words were employed by Greek scientists communicating ideas comparable to the paragraph above?

Ok, here's the 64k$ question: How much of this reproductive biological process was apparent to Greeks at least by the time of Aristotle? I am not basing my argument that David is the source of sperm for Jesus, solely on the text of Romans 1:3, but also on my belief, perhaps erroneous, (you two, spin, and Jeffrey, would certainly know as well as anyone,) that Aristotle, or his colleagues, understood enough about genetics, so that when they wrote sperma, they were thinking of a substance which we call sperm, and not, "house of", i.e. some distant relationship, 7-8 centuries beforehand.

Now, if you wish to refute me, spin, or Jeffrey, it will not serve your purpose to quote from any Jewish writings, or 2nd century and beyond authors. You need to quote from Aristotle, or other scientists who followed him.... You need to show that "sperma" was not the substance introduced deliberately by the ancient Greek scientists seeking to improve the livestock and plants, but rather the word used to designate "house of", a reading which is offensive to me, because it implies that the ancient Greek scientists were idiots, and they most certainly were not.

I really do not recognize any religious authority on this question. Unlike the two of you, I have not yet sufficient understanding of the fundamentals of any part of the bible, so I cannot accept the commentary of any Jewish or Christian oriented scholar's interpretations on the ancient Greek understanding of the word sperma. I require Greek scientists' interpretations, only, for, fertilization of any human ovum, is a scientific matter, not a spiritual inquiry. Those who wish to impose upon us, a definition of "seed", a diploid embryo, entirely irrelevant to genetic breeding, rather than "male gamete" (i.e. haploid sperm), for the Greek word sperma, do so, in my opinion, in order to deflect from the fact that the first century authors wrote as they did in Romans 1:3-4, because they did understand, or at least suspect, and investigate, the role of male sperm, in fertilization.

If it troubles you to consider the word sperma to represent "sperm", that's not a problem. I am very content to substitute the word "gamete", or better yet, "male gamete", or best of all: "haploid male gamete". The point is, sperm is NOT a seed, which is a diploid embryonic plant. Neither humans, nor any other member of the animal kingdom, reproduce by means of "seeds".

I think the two of you need to sort out, whether or not, your objection to my insistence on translating "sperma" as sperm, is based upon understanding Aristotle's notion of the male reproductive role, or to the anti-scientific hysteria promulgated for more than a millenium by the Christian church.

First, we need an accurate translation of Romans 1:1-5, THEN, we can argue about its interpretation, its context, its relationship to LXX, etc....I maintain, notwithstanding all the brouhaha about grammar, that my translation is correct, and that all the existing translations err.

These questions remain unanswered, perhaps they should be? I am recopying the text, which has been obscured by some rather important details about "kata", kindly inserted by Jeffrey--> thank you!!!


Thanks again, spin and Jeffrey, I appreciate your comments, and am not offended by your occasional sharp rebukes, most of them are justly awarded....



avi

spin

There are very many examples where your imposition is simply wrong. I stopped at five from Genesis because it should have indicated a trend to you.

Rubbish. You clearly didn't look at all of those examples.

Modern ideas are of no relevance to the ancient texts under investigation. Perhaps, you could show why the notion translated as "seed" in Gen 1:11 should be translated any other way. You need to build up an understanding of words from the evidence available in the language of the source. You haven't done so. You seem to have avoided any attempt to demonstrate your linguistic claims. So, you can dream up any meaning you like for terms under investigation, but unless you make the effort to show from the source languages that what you dream up is actually representative, you are simply urinating into a stiff breeze.

Tangents aren't useful to you. (And do yourself a favor: look up the etymology of "gamete". You haven't done so yet.)

Tangent.

It's not a 64k$ question. It is merely another tangent. You have to go to the text and use it to make your claims, as it is you who have made a substantive claim about the significance of terminology which flies in the face of scholarly texts (such as Liddell & Scott and the OLD).

You could base it on anything that takes your fancy... oh, yes, that's what you have done.

Your beliefs are not the grounds for any sort of argument. You are here at an infidel site talking about your beliefs. That's amazing. You are supposed to be able to support the things you claim with a semblance of evidence, but no, it seems you can't.

What is there to refute? No, evidence has been proffered, merely opinions and beliefs. There is no argument here to be refuted.

(Umm, even the term "scientist" didn't exist until the 19th century. )

Except your own.

Liddell & Scott is a standard scholarly Greek dictionary. Neither Jewish nor Christian. You are trying to muddy the waters.


"Greek scientists"?

You are making claims about what a word means in a text. Tangents about scientists and Aristotle do not support your claims.

As to your mistranslation of σπερμα I said nothing about grammar. Please try to concentrate. My objections were based on 1) the way the term is used in Greek and 2) the fact that your claim has been given no evidence, that forces one to conclude that the scholarly understanding of the term should be reconsidered.

Lots of questions remain unanswered, though I hope more relevant ones won't be left that way.

And which I've shown is wanting, based not on any knowledge of the Greek.

Seth in Gen 4:25 is referred to as σπερμα in place of Abel. It should be obvious that both Seth and Abel are referred to here as σπερμα. They are, for want of other words, the seed of Adam. Give me a better term.

In 2 Kgs 11:1, when Athalia set about to destroy the royal seed, is this not the same notion of σπερμα found in Rom 1:3? If not, why not? If so, how do you get it to mean "sperm"?

Umm, everyone who?

Which do you mean, flesh or sperm? And what about Jacob in Isa 41:8, who is the seed of Abraham? Is he Abraham's sperm? or his flesh? or what?

This is where you do need an understanding of grammar and syntax. κατα σαρκα is an argument of the verb γενομενου. But do try to find an example that clearly supports your sentence structure.

My criticisms have been strictly linguistic.

This completely misrepresents what is there. There is a verb with two arguments: του γενομενου 1) εκ σπερματος δανιδ 2) κατα σαρκα. Grammatically δανιδ qualifies σπερματος, showing that the name not the main focus of the clause. It simply says whose seed it was. This leaves the only option for κατα σαρκα as a phrase of manner for the verb. The subject of the subordinated verb, who was made from what?: the seed of David how?: according to the flesh, is in fact Jesus.

Enjoy!


spin

sschlichter

God slew Onan for neglecting his familial responsibilites. His firstborn was to belong to his dead brother. Onan spilled his seed and deprived his dead brother of his rights. The incident had nothing to do with sperm.

~Steve

sschlichter

I agree with you on taking these things as literally as possible but I am wondering how you got the thesis to hover over your head at such a great distance.

~steve

avi

Hey spin, thank you very much for your detailed, fact filled, highly educational response. Terrific. I am very grateful for the effort you have made, on this thread to explain many things to me, a relative retard, at least as regards Greek language and literature. spin, You and Jeffrey have both offered a terrific education on my behalf, and I am grateful.

With regard to the least important point of your noteworthy reply, allow me to offer one comment, and one suggestion. You continue to write "seed of David", and I am not sure if you comprehend why that is erroneous, regardless of whether or not my hypothesis about the correct English translation is right or wrong. Seed is an English word which means embryonic plant. Seed cannot be employed to describe genetic transmission within the animal kingdom, spin. That was, quite possibly, I don't know, not the case five hundred years ago..., but it is the case today. No animal, spin, transmits genetic information by means of a "seed".

There are two possibilities, either I am in error, about my notion that "sperma", and the Latin "semine" correspond to male genetic material, or I am correct. Either way, you and many, many others (basically, the entire Forum!!!)may be correct, and I may be wrong, to imagine that these same two words represent either (a) NOT sperm + semen, or (b) BOTH sperm + semen, AND distant relatives, or more appropriately, genetic offspring of indeterminate generational distance from the parent DNA.

If you do not believe, as I imagine is the case, that the Greeks of Aristotle's day, used "sperma" to represent male genetic material, i.e. leading directly to F1, but instead wrote "sperma" to represent instead, exclusively, genetic offspring of indeterminate status vis a vis generational distance, (1 or 1000 generations from F1) then please use, (instead of "seed",) relatives, or descendants, if "offspring" seems trite or colloquial. Continued use of "seed", when this word is clearly inappropriate, diminishes the value of your otherwise excellent rejoinder. I am reminded of listening to Jimmy Carter, an engineer by training, mispronouncing the word "nuclear", saying instead, "nukuler". It is a small mistake, but, why utter it? Is it so difficult to change, even a lifetime, of misapplication of this word, seed?

Getting to the more important component of your response, Whoa. I am now responding to your comment on grammar, not discussing "seed", ok? So, with that in mind, I am going to employ your word, "seed", though, as described above, it is incorrect. Please don't misunderstand, I am not writing "seed", because I agree with its use, but rather, because we need to discuss your idea, not your choice of words.

"It simply says whose seed it was", Hmm. ok, well then, what is the consequence of that thought? "whose seed", does not mean, whose descendants, does it? It means, whose genetic material, right? When you wrote "seed", were you thinking of "offspring", or "sperm"? Aristotle was thinking of "sperm", as he understood it--he imagined diploid gametes, not haploid, so was in error on that point, but he nevertheless understood the distinction between F1, and "distant relative", and would not have used sperma, to reference "distant relative", in a conversation about pedigree, for his animal husbandry experiments. More precisely, I believe that Aristotle used "sperma" to indicate immediate F1 relations, rather than distant relatives of indeterminant generational status (Fn, where n is any large integer) with respect to the gamete donor.

But, regardless of whether or not I err with respect to Aristotle's thinking, what is important here, in my view, is that you have written this rejoinder, (to my reading, at least,) as if you believe that it is the sperm of David, else, had you wished to communicate "offspring", why would you have chosen "whose seed it was", which is an obvious reference to male genetic material? If you had intended to signal, in other words, spin, the concept that Romans 1:3 is referring not to sperm, but rather, to "distant relatives", why would you write "whose seed it was"? It is clear, at least to me, that in your mind, "seed" here, corresponded to sperm. I can show you that easily: simply rewrite it, both ways:
"whose sperm it was", yes, makes sense, Jesus is F1.
"whose offspring it was", no, makes no sense. Had you wished to indicate that you believe that Romans 1:3 refers to David's offspring, i.e. Fn, where n is some large number, you would not have written, "whose seed it was". You would have written, instead, "who served as progenitor", i.e. NOT the parent of F1, but a distant ancestor.

This has only barely scratched the surface of your thorough rebuttal, and I apologize for not addressing some of your other comments, which are surely also deserving of a reply. I wish to conclude this comment by responding only to one other issue, among the several which remain:

A. The boy drove a red car while listening to the radio.
B. The boy drove a blue car with new tires.
In both examples, noun A is "boy", noun B is car.
Here, "with new tires" describes noun B, not noun A, and certainly not the verb, to drive.
In contrast, "while listening to the radio", describes "how" the boy was driving. It does modify the verb, to drive.
Then, is "kata sarka" a part of speech which describes noun A, Jesus, noun B, David, or the verb? spin argues that the correct answer to this question is that kata sarka modifies a verb, not a noun!!!

I ardently, thoroughly, and whole heartedly disagree, and argue that kata sarka describes a noun, not a verb. Actions are not fleshy. Objects are "fleshy", or "virtual", i.e. imaginary/invisible/transparent. Sarka connotes not something akin to "while listening to the radio", but rather represents the radio, itself. Kata serves simply as a preposition, "to", or "in", or "of", or "into". Neither kata nor sarka are verbs, nor objects of a verb, nor do they serve as adverbs. Kata sarka is an idiom, best translated here as "authentic" or "genuine", or "actual", necessary in view of the leap of faith associated with having a mummy return from the dead to inseminate Mary.

I ask again: Is there no other way to write, in Koine Greek the following sentence?

Concerning his son, a true human, whose distant relative was King David, (--> to Romans 1:4.) I imagine that this is your translation, spin, of Romans 1:3. I hope you will provide us with a different translation, if I have erred, in that regard.

Many thanks, again, for your thoughtful response.

avi

avi

Hmm. I am confused. How can "spilling one's seed", have nothing to do with sperm?

That's a mystery to me, since "seed" represents the (erroneous for all animals) notion of reproduction by means of diploid genetic material....Both plants and animals reproduce by means of haploid gametes, a fact apparently unknown in Aristotle's time, and certainly not appreciated in the time of KJV, either. Plants, and plants alone, employ seeds to recreate new plants. Humans, and all other animals, including the insects, do not rely upon "seeds". In the case of humans and other mammals, the zygote is implanted into the uterus, where it develops into the F1 offspring (monotremes may represent an exception to this latter rule, since they are egg layers, like birds and some reptiles.)

But, assuming that you understand the biology, perhaps in your mind, "seed" does not correspond to haploid gamete, but rather to "distant relative"....That's fine, no problem, however, then, one has difficulty understanding your English: Hmm. Let us ignore the obvious reference here to children being traded or sold into slavery, or, in this case, apparently, unwillingly given up for adoption, and instead focus on your sentence: How could we explain "spilled his seed", if "seed" does not refer to "sperm", but instead to "distant relative", or "offspring"? Does one "spill" one's distant relatives? To me, that English makes absolutely no sense, even if one is seeking to explain an intent to murder someone.

avi

spin

You need to accept the fact that words have the appearance of polysemy (usually based on derived meanings of a core concept).

Here you are simply turning your back on English usage (google, "spread his seed").

Why not open a book and find out for yourself? I've suggested a few.

Try arguing that with the writers of the literature we are analyzing. I don't normally use these terms anyway.

OK, you're back is to the wall and you're prepared to make these idiosyncratic pronouncements about the language that you personally use as a measure for how everyone else should speak, but surely you realize that other people are not bound up by your linguistic foibles. To say that "this word is clearly inappropriate" is a prescriptive position which reality has already rejected. The English translations of the bible as representatives of a large scale use of the term with its various collocations should persuade you from such erroneous pronouncements as the one above. Or do I have to imagine you writing to Hollywood to tell them that the title of the film "The Seed of Chucky" has an inappropriate use of the word? How about petitioning to get the book and movie called "Bad Seed" changed? Maybe Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds might listen.

Another great tangent.

I thought you said something about commenting on grammar.

OK, stop. You cannot help yourself. I understand that you are arguing from a linguistic deficit, but you don't have to keep rehearsing the fact.

Take an ordinary word, "move", which has many collocations, "your move", "move an inch and I'll...", "moved to the coast", "move up in the firm", "move some merchandise", etc., etc. The logic that you employ with "seed" is the one which excludes all but your preferred use of "move".

Is there any linguistics in here? No. It's just more of your restriction on language which don't represent real world usage.

I would appreciate it when you decide to scratch a bit more deeply. And the promised dealing with the grammar still hasn't arrived.

Your examples are not analogous with what you are trying to deal with. Using English material unrelated to underlying Greek structures is yet another tangent.


It's very hard to extract argument from this. It assumes it's conclusions (" Actions are not fleshy"). It doesn't understand the grammatical issues ("kata nor sarka are verbs, nor objects of a verb"). It works from an agenda which hasn't been shown to reflect the text.

If you want to assume that 'Kata sarka is an idiom, best translated here as "authentic" or "genuine", or "actual"', how about getting off your A and arguing from evidence that that is in fact the case. Show us all where the Greek compels you to hold that conviction. As is, it appears as bald conjecture about a language which you haven't shown any linguistic knowledge of.

Let's go back to the clause:

του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δανιδ κατα σαρκα.
who was made of the seed of David through the flesh

First, let's look at Aeschylus, Libation Bearers, 503ff, which says "Have compassion on your offspring, on the woman and on the man as well, and let not this seed of Pelops' line be blotted out: for then, in spite of death, you are not dead. For children are voices of salvation to a man, though he is dead;". What do you think this use of σπερμα indicates exactly?

It would only be refractory to argue your restrictive understanding of σπερμα based on the evidence that the word is obviously used well beyond your restrictions. The Greek word can be seen in a number of uses. Denial is futile.

I can happily show you examples of where κατα is used to provide manner for an action and how it is different from other usages. To argue your idiosyncratic meaning for κατα σαρκα ... well, you actually have to argue it. Show why you think it means something other than what it is usually taken to mean. The burden is squarely on your shoulders. You have conjectured another significance. Why?


spin

avi

Thanks for your reply.

I think σπερμα, in this phrase represents "lineage", and I would have translated Aeschylus as follows:
"Have compassion on your offspring, on the woman and on the man as well, and let not Pelops' lineage be blotted out: ..."
I would have written, were I in your shoes, "who was descended from David's own flesh." He obviously was not literally made from any seeds, since humans are not botanical objects....Repeating the errors of bygone generations, by continuing to misuse the English word "seed", when discussing animals, rather than plants, renders a service to no one.

"...through the flesh", ??? What does that mean? spin argues that "kata sarka", i.e. "through the flesh", modifies the verb, "made" (or born, if one prefers--to me the two verbs are roughly interchangeable in this setting). Well, sorry, I am not buying that argument. Here's why:

Let us suppose spin is correct. Let us then rewrite this clause, without the unnecessary "of the seed of David", and ask whether "through the flesh" makes sense.

"who was made ... through the flesh...". Does this make any sense at all to anyone????

Nor, does the situation change, if we modify the verb, from "to make" to "to give birth":

"who was born...through the flesh..." How is a description of the validity of the birth process facilitated by adding the qualifier, "through the flesh"? What does "through the flesh" mean in the context of giving birth? Is there some other way of giving birth that does not require exit from the uterus? Is that what spin believes "through the flesh" explains--> exiting the myometrium of the uterus?

Is "kata sarka" supposed to refer to maternal uterine smooth muscle? If so, I have certainly missed the boat...

Were I "turning my back", i.e. retreating, would I be disputing the interpretation of a Greek word with a Greek master? No, I am David without a slingshot (or a clue!), to your Goliath with an M16, when it comes to knowledge of Greek. So, I do not agree that I am retreating, I am coming straight at you.

As far as confronting misinterpretation, and misuse of English words, yes, I dispute those who engage in the improper use of vocabulary. No, I do not accept as valid those who, in Michigan, for example, in the suburbs of Detroit, consistently mispronounce "Lahser Road", saying "Lasher Road", as though it were the correct pronunciation. Seed is not a term unrelated to genetic propagation, but it must be used in the proper context, thus, referring to plants, exclusively. I feel bad that so many folks mispronounce Lahser Road, and I feel sorry for the millions who misunderstand what "seed" is, but I am not going to accept their shortcomings, simply based upon their overwhelming numbers.

Where's spin's cute icon of Don Quixote when you need it?

avi

spin

Not even one bit of textual support for your conjectures?



How about if you get given a second chance? You're trying to make arguments about Greek meanings. Do so by showing how the Greek supports your interpretations.


spin