avi

Wow, kind of takes my breath away. Very appropriate, thank you Toto.

With regard to writing "modern" terminology, i.e. sperm, rather than "seed", I would redirect your thoughtful inquiry to Jeffrey's scholarly post, above, which indicates, in conformance with my own opinion, that Aristotle, and his fellow thinkers of that era, regarded σπέρμα as the genetic material of both plants and animals. English too, at one time, like ancient Greek, obscured the distinction, hence, KJV's description of the "seed" of David, instead of "sperm" of David, as Aristotle and the other Greek scientists believed. The ancient Greeks used a single word for the genetic material of both plants and animals, we have two words, and since we are living today, and not five hundred years ago, we need to communicate with contemporary English, and not write: I thank thou for thine gentle heart....

The writers of the first century, in my opinion, not necessarily anyone else's, were not ignorant of science, and did understand in my opinion, that σπέρμα represented what we call today, sperm, when they were discussing transfer of male genetic material to a female for fertilization. I believe, in other words, that in their minds, the word σπέρμα, meant, to them, when applied in a setting of male transfer of genetic material, what we call, today, sperm, (not "seed"). I have no reason to imagine, contrarily, that Aristotle believed, that σπέρμα referred only to distant relatives, and not immediate offspring. To me, in abject ignorance, Aristotle used σπέρμα, in the context of vertebrate males, to represent what we call sperm--> immediate genetic transfer, aka F1, in Genetics. Perhaps the answer lies in Jeffrey's many citations to the literature, one day I will get to a library, and look them up. Perhaps I err, and Aristotle did not use σπέρμα to represent what we call, in English, sperm.

With regard to a metaphor, well, it is not intended by me, at least, as a criticism of anyone to assert that so and so has erred in analyzing Romans 1:3, because they thought this passage represented a metaphor.

Toto, I am just very simple minded, here. There is no mystique. I invoke absence of metaphor, not because I have pondered the issue at considerable length, and concluded that a metaphor is most improbable, NO, ganz im gegenteil.

I simply sought to understand the literal translation, FIRST. Then, once I have understood that, THEN, I can begin to try and figure out whether or not the literal English should be taken seriously, or alternatively, should be regarded as a metaphor for some lofty, abstract, extraordinary explanation, very different from the superficial, simple minded literal translation, which I am struggling to master.

The question posed is whether or not the 1st century authors of Romans 1:3 intended the reader to understand that David provided the actual DNA used to create Jesus, thus fulfilling the old testament prophesy. That David had been dead many centuries is not a problem for an omnipotent God, who has already shown his ability to raise Lazarus from the dead, so what's the big deal about raising David from the grave, for a one night stand?

Questions:

1. Could the writers of this epistle have written it differently, to convey exactly the meaning, which is found in all of the extant English Bibles, i.e. David as distant relative, rather than as the source of the sperm itself?

2. If David is NOT the source of the sperm, but simply a distant relative, then, how is he related to Jesus, since Joseph is not the source of the DNA, and since Mary cannot serve in Jewish society ("according to the law" Galatians 4:4) as anyone's link back to David.

In my opinion, the writers of Romans 1:3 addressed this second problem with kata sarka, i.e. insisting that it was David's own sperm.

Thank you Toto.

avi

avi

Hahaha. Thanks Jeffrey, I laughed.
><
Umm, I was being a tad insincere, knowing very well that you would of course, not agree with the idea that the sentence I had concocted was remotely comparable to your own translation, so I generously, used "our", purposefully, and a bit playfully, trying to lighten the weight of this heavy discussion of ours.

Oh, by the way, Jeffrey, what is your English translation of this sentence in Romans 1:3?

Here's the sentence:
Here's KJV:
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

To answer your question, about the meaning of "kata", looks like KJV would respond: "according to the".

I make no such claim.

Here's my translation, again:
absolutely true.

By all means, Jeffrey, please, give us the correct translation of this sentence. Thank you.
So, do you mean to express the opinion, as I have read your rejoinder, that κατὰ σάρκα does NOT modify David?

Really? Wow. Epiphany. Holy cow.

Or, is it the case, that certain folks would prefer that the sentence were written, ...his son, kata sarka, ....David, instead of the word order that we inherited?

avi

show_no_mercy

The KJV is right. It looks like your translation actually completely omits the very necessary Greek word κατά.

From my [Greek] dictionary:

κατά (+ genitive) (kata)

1. downwards, down from
2. into
3. against

κατά (+ accusative) (kata)

1. downwards
2. along, through, in
3. towards
4. during
5. for, for the purpose of
6. according to, in conformity with

So what form is the noun σπερμα in as presented by Paul (or the interpolator)? Accusative? Nominative? Dative? Genitive? Vocative? Some other form?

Jeffrey Gibson

Where do you get this nonsense. σπέρμα is a Greek word and in Modern Greek it means "germ", "seed".

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

What I produced for you from LSJ and TDNT is not opinion but conclusions based on a survey of all of the instances of ancient usage of σπέρμα.

Did I say Rom. 1:3, let alone the expression ἐκ σπέρματος + person, was a metaphor? I said it contains an idiom -- which if you'd do what you have never done and actually look at the instances of its usage by Greek speakers, not the least of which those Paul and his readers were familiar with -- such as those who gave us the LXX, you'd see has the particular meaning I have said it has.

To make it easier on you, here are the LXX instances. Can you show me where the idiom is used with the meaning you say it has?

Septuaginta, Leviticus
Chapter 21, section 21, line 2

πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, ᾧ ἂν ᾖ ἐν αὐτῷ μῶμος, οὐ προσελεύ-
σεται, ἄνθρωπος χωλὸς ἢ τυφλὸς ἢ κολοβόρριν ἢ ὠτότμητος
ἢ
ἄνθρωπος, ᾧ ἐστιν ἐν αὐτῷ σύντριμμα χειρὸς ἢ σύντριμμα ποδός,
ἢ κυρτὸς ἢ ἔφηλος ἢ πτίλος τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἢ ἄνθρωπος, ᾧ ἂν
ᾖ ἐν αὐτῷ ψώρα ἀγρία ἢ λιχήν, ἢ μόνορχις,
πᾶς, ᾧ ἐστιν ἐν
αὐτῷ μῶμος, ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ααρων τοῦ ἱερέως, οὐκ ἐγγιεῖ τοῦ
προσενεγκεῖν τὰς θυσίας τῷ θεῷ σου· ὅτι μῶμος ἐν αὐτῷ, τὰ
δῶρα τοῦ θεοῦ οὐ προσελεύσεται προσενεγκεῖν.

Septuaginta, Leviticus
Chapter 22, section 4, line 1

καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος
Ααρων τοῦ ἱερέως καὶ οὗτος λεπρᾷ ἢ γονορρυής, τῶν ἁγίων οὐκ
ἔδεται, ἕως ἂν καθαρισθῇ· καὶ ὁ ἁπτόμενος πάσης ἀκαθαρσίας ψυχῆς
ἢ ἄνθρωπος, ᾧ ἂν ἐξέλθῃ ἐξ αὐτοῦ κοίτη σπέρματος,
ἢ ὅστις
ἂν ἅψηται παντὸς ἑρπετοῦ ἀκαθάρτου, ὃ μιανεῖ αὐτόν, ἢ ἐπ' ἀν-
θρώπῳ, ἐν ᾧ μιανεῖ αὐτὸν κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀκαθαρσίαν αὐτοῦ,
ψυχή,
ἥτις ἂν ἅψηται αὐτῶν, ἀκάθαρτος ἔσται ἕως ἑσπέρας· οὐκ ἔδεται
ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων, ἐὰν μὴ λούσηται τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ ὕδατι·

Septuaginta, Numeri
Chapter 17, section 5, line 3

καὶ ἔλαβεν Ελεαζαρ υἱὸς Ααρων
τοῦ ἱερέως τὰ πυρεῖα τὰ χαλκᾶ, ὅσα προσήνεγκαν οἱ κατακεκαυ-
μένοι, καὶ προσέθηκαν αὐτὰ περίθεμα τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ,
μνημόσυ-
νον τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ, ὅπως ἂν μὴ προσέλθῃ μηθεὶς ἀλλογενής,
ὃς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ααρων, ἐπιθεῖναι θυμίαμα ἔναντι
κυρίου καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὥσπερ Κορε καὶ ἡ ἐπισύστασις αὐτοῦ, καθὰ
ἐλάλησεν κύριος ἐν χειρὶ Μωυσῆ.

Septuaginta, Numeri
Chapter 24, section 7, line 1

ἐξελεύσεται ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ
καὶ κυριεύσει ἐθνῶν πολλῶν,
καὶ ὑψωθήσεται ἢ Γωγ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ,
καὶ αὐξηθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ.

Septuaginta, Ruth
Chapter 4, section 12, line 3

καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι εἴποσαν Δῴη κύριος τὴν γυναῖκά
σου τὴν εἰσπορευομένην εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου ὡς Ραχηλ καὶ ὡς Λει-
αν, αἳ ᾠκοδόμησαν ἀμφότεραι τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ καὶ ἐποίησαν δύ-
ναμιν ἐν Εφραθα, καὶ ἔσται ὄνομα ἐν Βαιθλεεμ·
καὶ γένοιτο ὁ
οἶκός σου ὡς ὁ οἶκος Φαρες, ὃν ἔτεκεν Θαμαρ τῷ Ιουδα, ἐκ τοῦ
σπέρματος, οὗ δώσει κύριός σοι ἐκ τῆς παιδίσκης ταύτης.

Septuaginta, Regnorum ii (Samuelis ii in textu Masoretico)
Chapter 4, section 8, line 6

καὶ ἤνεγκαν τὴν κεφαλὴν
Μεμφιβοσθε τῷ Δαυιδ εἰς Χεβρων καὶ εἶπαν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα
Ἰδοὺ ἡ κεφαλὴ Μεμφιβοσθε υἱοῦ Σαουλ τοῦ ἐχθροῦ σου, ὃς ἐζή-
τει τὴν ψυχήν σου, καὶ ἔδωκεν κύριος τῷ κυρίῳ βασιλεῖ ἐκδίκησιν
τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ ὡς ἡ ἡμέρα αὕτη, ἐκ Σαουλ τοῦ ἐχθροῦ σου
καὶ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ.

Septuaginta, Regnorum iii (Regum i in textu Masoretico)
Chapter 1, section 48, line 3

καὶ ἐκάθισεν Σαλωμων ἐπὶ θρόνον τῆς βα-
σιλείας,
καὶ εἰσῆλθον οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ βασιλέως εὐλογῆσαι τὸν
κύριον ἡμῶν τὸν βασιλέα Δαυιδ λέγοντες Ἀγαθύναι ὁ θεὸς τὸ
ὄνομα Σαλωμων τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ὑπὲρ τὸ ὄνομά σου καὶ μεγαλύναι
τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ τὸν θρόνον σου· καὶ προσεκύνησεν ὁ
βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ,
καί γε οὕτως εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς
Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ, ὃς ἔδωκεν σήμερον ἐκ τοῦ σπέρ-
ματός μου καθήμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου μου, καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου
βλέπουσιν.

Septuaginta, Regnorum iii (Regum i in textu Masoretico)
Chapter 11, section 14, line 6

καὶ Αδερ ὁ
Ιδουμαῖος ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς βασιλείας ἐν Ιδουμαίᾳ·
καὶ ἐγέ-
νετο ἐν τῷ ἐξολεθρεῦσαι Δαυιδ τὸν Εδωμ ἐν τῷ πορευθῆναι Ιωαβ
ἄρχοντα τῆς στρατιᾶς θάπτειν τοὺς τραυματίας ἔκοψαν πᾶν ἀρ-
σενικὸν ἐν τῇ Ιδουμαίᾳ –
ὅτι ἓξ μῆνας ἐνεκάθητο ἐκεῖ Ιωαβ
καὶ πᾶς Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ Ιδουμαίᾳ, ἕως ὅτου ἐξωλέθρευσεν πᾶν ἀρ-
σενικὸν ἐκ τῆς Ιδουμαίας –
καὶ ἀπέδρα Αδερ, αὐτὸς καὶ πάντες
ἄνδρες Ιδουμαῖοι τῶν παίδων τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετ' αὐτοῦ, καὶ

Septuaginta, Regnorum iv (Regum ii in textu Masoretico)
Chapter 25, section 25, line 2

καὶ ἐγενήθη ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ
μηνὶ ἦλθεν Ισμαηλ υἱὸς Ναθανιου υἱοῦ Ελισαμα ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος
τῶν βασιλέων καὶ δέκα ἄνδρες μετ' αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐπάταξεν τὸν Γο-
δολιαν, καὶ ἀπέθανεν, καὶ τοὺς Ιουδαίους καὶ τοὺς Χαλδαίους, οἳ
ἦσαν μετ' αὐτοῦ εἰς Μασσηφαθ.

Septuaginta, Tobias (Cod. Vaticanus + Cod. Alexandrinus)
Chapter 1, section 1, line 2

<ΤΩΒΙΤ>

Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιτ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ τοῦ Αδουηλ τοῦ
Γαβαηλ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ασιηλ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Νεφθαλιμ,
ὃς ᾐχ-
μαλωτεύθη ἐν ἡμέραις Ενεμεσσαρου τοῦ βασιλέως Ἀσσυρίων ἐκ
Θισβης, ἥ ἐστιν ἐκ δεξιῶν Κυδιως τῆς Νεφθαλιμ ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ
ὑπεράνω Ασηρ.

Septuaginta, Tobias (Cod. Vaticanus + Cod. Alexandrinus)
Chapter 1, section 9, line 2

καὶ
ὅτε ἐγενόμην ἀνήρ, ἔλαβον Ανναν γυναῖκα ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς
πατριᾶς ἡμῶν καὶ ἐγέννησα ἐξ αὐτῆς Τωβιαν.

Septuaginta, Tobias (Cod. Sinaiticus)
Chapter 1, section 1, line 2

Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιθ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ τοῦ Αδουηλ τοῦ
Γαβαηλ τοῦ Ραφαηλ τοῦ Ραγουηλ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ασιηλ ἐκ φυλῆς
Νεφθαλιμ,
ὃς ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ενεμεσσαρου τοῦ βα-
σιλέως τῶν Ἀσσυρίων ἐκ Θισβης, ἥ ἐστιν ἐκ δεξιῶν Κυδιως τῆς
Νεφθαλιμ ἐν τῇ ἄνω Γαλιλαίᾳ ὑπεράνω Ασσηρ ὀπίσω <ὁδοῦ> δυ-
σμῶν ἡλίου ἐξ ἀριστερῶν Φογωρ.

Septuaginta, Tobias (Cod. Sinaiticus)
Chapter 1, section 9, line 2

καὶ ὅτε ἐγενή-
θην ἀνήρ, ἔλαβον γυναῖκα ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς πατριᾶς ἡμῶν
καὶ ἐγέννησα ἐξ αὐτῆς υἱὸν καὶ ἐκάλεσα τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Τωβιαν.
Septuaginta, Tobias (Cod. Sinaiticus)
Chapter 6, section 19, line 3

καὶ
ὅτε ἤκουσεν Τωβιας τῶν λόγων Ραφαηλ καὶ ὅτι ἔστιν αὐτῷ ἀδελ-
φὴ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, λίαν ἠγάπησεν
αὐτήν, καὶ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ἐκολλήθη εἰς αὐτήν.

Septuaginta, Machabaeorum i
Chapter 5, section 62, line 2

καὶ ἐγενήθη τροπὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ λαῷ, ὅτι οὐκ ἤκουσαν
Ιουδου καὶ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ οἰόμενοι ἀνδραγαθῆσαι·
αὐτοὶ
δὲ οὐκ ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων, οἷς ἐδόθη
σωτηρία Ισραηλ διὰ χειρὸς αὐτῶν.

Septuaginta, Ecclesiasticus sive Siracides (Sapientia Jesu filii Sirach)
Chapter 47, section 23, line 2

Καὶ ἀνεπαύσατο Σαλωμων μετὰ τῶν πατέρων αὐτοῦ
καὶ κατέλιπεν μετ' αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ
λαοῦ ἀφροσύνην καὶ ἐλασσούμενον συνέσει
Ροβοαμ, ὃς ἀπέστησεν λαὸν ἐκ βουλῆς αὐτοῦ.
Go to Context


Septuaginta, Jeremias
Chapter 22, section 30, line 2

γῆ γῆ, ἄκουε
λόγον κυρίου
Γράψον τὸν ἄνδρα τοῦτον ἐκκήρυκτον ἄνθρωπον,
ὅτι οὐ μὴ αὐξηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτοῦ ἀνὴρ καθήμενος ἐπὶ
θρόνου Δαυιδ ἄρχων ἔτι ἐν τῷ Ιουδα. Septuaginta, Ezechiel
Chapter 17, section 13, line 2

καὶ λήμψεται ἐκ τοῦ σπέρ-
ματος τῆς βασιλείας καὶ διαθήσεται πρὸς αὐτὸν διαθήκην καὶ εἰς-
άξει αὐτὸν ἐν ἀρᾷ· καὶ τοὺς ἡγουμένους τῆς γῆς λήμψεται
τοῦ
γενέσθαι εἰς βασιλείαν ἀσθενῆ τὸ καθόλου μὴ ἐπαίρεσθαι τοῦ φυ-
λάσσειν τὴν διαθήκην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἱστάνειν αὐτήν.

Septuaginta, Ezechiel
Chapter 43, section 19, line 2

καὶ δώσεις τοῖς ἱερεῦσι τοῖς Λευίταις
τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Σαδδουκ τοῖς ἐγγίζουσι πρός με, λέγει
κύριος ὁ θεός, τοῦ λειτουργεῖν μοι, μόσχον ἐκ βοῶν περὶ ἁμαρτίας·
καὶ λήμψονται ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπιθήσουσιν ἐπὶ τὰ
τέσσαρα κέρατα τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς τέσσαρας γωνίας
τοῦ ἱλαστηρίου καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν βάσιν κύκλῳ καὶ ἐξιλάσονται αὐτό·
καὶ λήμψονται τὸν μόσχον τὸν περὶ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ κατακαυθήσεται
ἐν τῷ ἀποκεχωρισμένῳ τοῦ οἴκου ἔξωθεν τῶν ἁγίων.

Septuaginta, Ezechiel
Chapter 44, section 22, line 3

καὶ χήραν καὶ ἐκβεβλημένην
οὐ λήμψονται ἑαυτοῖς εἰς γυναῖκα, ἀλλ' ἢ παρθένον ἐκ τοῦ σπέρ-
ματος Ισραηλ· καὶ χήρα ἐὰν γένηται ἐξ ἱερέως, λήμψονται.

Septuaginta, Machabaeorum i
Chapter 7, section 14, line 2

καὶ ἐπισυνήχθησαν πρὸς Ἄλκιμον καὶ Βακχίδην
συναγωγὴ γραμματέων ἐκζητῆσαι δίκαια,
καὶ πρῶτοι οἱ Ασιδαῖοι
ἦσαν ἐν υἱοῖς Ισραηλ καὶ ἐπεζήτουν παρ' αὐτῶν εἰρήνην·
εἶπον
γάρ Ἄνθρωπος ἱερεὺς ἐκ σπέρματος Ααρων ἦλθεν ἐν ταῖς δυνά-
μεσιν καὶ οὐκ ἀδικήσει ἡμᾶς.

Septuaginta, Sapientia Salomonis
Chapter 7, section 2, line 2

Εἰμὶ μὲν κἀγὼ θνητὸς ἄνθρωπος ἴσος ἅπασιν
καὶ γηγενοῦς ἀπόγονος πρωτοπλάστου·
καὶ ἐν κοιλίᾳ μητρὸς ἐγλύφην σὰρξ
δεκαμηνιαίῳ χρόνῳ παγεὶς ἐν αἵματι
ἐκ σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς καὶ ἡδονῆς ὕπνῳ συνελθούσης.

It is your "mediocre vision" and your admitted cluelessness matters Greek.

No, he does not. So going to Aristotle to find out what Greek speakers meant when they, like Paul, used ἐκ σπέρματος with reference to a person is useless.

These are not gaffes, let alone "amateurish" ones. A gaffe is an unintended blunder made by someone who knows better. And an amateur has at least some competence in the matters he speaks about.


But even if you are able to comprehend what Christians believe about Rom 1:3, what they believe in this regard is not the issue. It's what the text of Rom 1:3 says. And that can only be ascertained through a knowledge of Greek.

And since you have admitted that you do not have this knowledge, why do you persist in claiming that you alone know what the text says.

But the text does not say David was the father of Jesus anymore than Rom 9:2 and 2 Cor. 11:22 in which Paul describes his Jewish brethren and, notably, himself the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ is a declaration (let alone was meant to be taken as a claim on Paul's part, or was read by the readers of Romans and 2 Corinthians as saying) that Abraham was the literal father of Paul and his Jewish brethren.

Please, until you learn Greek, will you leave off with this nonsense.

I have no more -- or inclination -- time to deal with it.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Where on earth did you get that that's the only thing Aristotle and his contemporaries thought the term signified?? Is that what he actually says in the sections of the Metaphysics that I gave to you? Is that actually what the Tragedians say?

Please show me where Paul indicates that he or his Roman readers, knew of , let alone believed in, the so called "virginal conception" of Jesus. And please document your claim that one's mother;s line was not taken into account, let alone never served, as a legally accepted link back to an ancestor?

An opinion which not only has absolutely no data to back it up, but which commits you to saying that when Paul declates, as he does in Rom. 4:1, that the Christians in Rome are the κατὰ σάρκα offspring of the Christians in Rome is Abraham, he is saying that were actually sired by Abraham.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

No more than its intended parallel κατὰ
πνεῦμα does.


I have no idea, nor do I care, what "others" would prefer. And you show yourself once again absolutely clueless with respect to Greek, let alone with respect to your claim about what the referent of κατὰ σάρκα is, if you think that its rules of word order were the same as those of English grammar.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

It doesn't omit it so much as it shows absolutely no understanding of what κατά with the accusative means.

Jeffrey

avi

nota bene: "ex semine", tell me, please, is semen to be understood as representing the same thing as "house of", or "distant ancestor", rather than the fluid which ultimately leads to reproduction?????

,

OOPS.
Hmm.
Some problems here.
We are back to square one, I fear.

Folks, kata sarka means in or by or with or of or relating to "the flesh", according to context. As an idiom, it means, "genuine", "real McCoy", "authentic", and is juxtaposed to κατὰ
πνεῦμα, meaning "imaginary", or "spiritual", or "not physically present".

So, I am very sorry to disagree with you, show_no_mercy, but, the KJV is wholly inadequate, and, in my opinion, completely inappropriate as a reliable translation of the Codex Sinaiticus/Hort-Westcott version of the Greek original.

For example, consider this simple passage from Romans 8:1
Here is KJV:
[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Holy Cow. As with Romans 1:3, KJV adds material not present in the Greek original.
Here is the same verse, but from one of the later Greek editions (Byzantine Majority):
Bold letters indicate text not found in the two oldest codices.

However, for our conversation, note please, the translation of kata sarka, given in this bit of forgery, in everyone else's favorite bible: KJV. YUP. "after the flesh", idiomatic, indicating "pursuit of".

What's my point? show_no_mercy (snm) has indicated approval of the KJV translation of kata sarka. I disapprove of this translation. To bolster his argument, snm has provided some readings from his dictionary:

Oh! Excuse me. I don't observe "after" in this erudite listing of possible meanings for "kata".

Oh! (number 2) Wait a minute:
What is that #2? "along, through, in. IN. IN. I better write it again: in.

Gosh, that looks a tiny tad FAMILIAR. Hello? IN. as in, IN THE FLESH.

Conclusions: 1. KJV uses words, quite a few actually, which are not found in the Greek original, and 2. KJV violates snm's dictionary., and 3. avi's definition is not threatened in any way, by snm's dictionary.

I remain unconvinced, thus far, that anyone understands what I am trying to communicate. On the other hand, most folks with a slight leaning towards the opaque do tend to view the rest of the world as being askew....

Thank you show_no_mercy, very instructive!!! I learned something, and appreciate your input.


avi

Toto

The phrase kata sarka has no implications of genuine or real McCoy or authentic. And kata pneuma does not mean imaginary.

In this post-Enlightenment time, we all believe in physical reality, even those of us who claim to be spiritual or religious. This is not the case for the first century.

avi

Oh. Wow. so, you mean, that "sperm" is not considered a proper definition of the Greek word σπέρμα?
That's interesting.
Hmm.
Jeffrey, til now, I had absolute faith in your scholarly pinnacle of competence.
My friend, you are confused. Perhaps you can spare a few minutes to look up a couple of words, in any dictionary:
How about:
1. gamete
2. genetics
3. reproduction
Now, you may think that Greeks of 2400 years ago were ignorant beef eaters, but, in my humble opinion, their knowledge of science, and medicine was formidable. Yes, they committed some important errors. They had some mistaken notions, but, compared with the rest of the planet, they were light years ahead.

There is a negligible probability, in my arrogant opinion, that the Greeks, raising goats, and making goat cheese, engaging in viniculture, and improving the genetic strains of both plants and animals, were confused about the male contribution to the reproductive process.

In my opinion, the word chosen by the Greek scientists to describe the substance responsible for their successful horticultural progress: σπέρμα, is best translated in English, today, as "sperm". Now, if we were talking instead about growing corn, ok, then, yes: SEED. no problem (well, ok, if you want to get technical about it, the haploid gametes of corn are found in the tassels, not the "seed", but, that's getting a tiny bit too far afield.) Interesting though the subject of growing corn surely may be, it is not quite germaine (no pun intended) to our topic here, today.

So, Jeffrey, what is another name for gamete? (I mean, besides, sperm?) YES... you are correct sir. "GERM" cell. In other words, σπέρμα, which you Jeffrey, wish to define as "germ" is fine by me, so long as you append "cell" to it, to differentiate from some microbial organism, as we, unfortunately, in English employ the same word, germ, to be synonymous with pathogenic bacteria, viruses, fungi, and the like...

So, sperm are "germ cells", and "wheat germ" is the nucleic acid rich component of wheat, i.e. the part of the plant capable of reproduction.

Are we making progress, or just spinning our wheels?

recap: contrary to the opinion of the learned, scholarly, and otherwise very well informed Doctor Gibson, σπέρμα does indeed translate, today, and yesterday, as sperm. It does not today, nor yesterday, translate as "house of". Romans 1:3, is best translated, into English, as indicating that David, and no one else, furnished the living sperm to impregnate Mary.

Thanks Jeffrey, for your comment.


avi