To: wagglebee; metmom; murron; Persevero; ReformationFan; surroundedbyblue
Precisely, two thousand years ago there was no reference to fertilization regarding conception. They knew women had eggs and the man's sperm was referred to as his seed.
Actually, they didn't "know women had eggs." This is demonstrated by the fact that they referred to the man's semen as "seed." The concept was that he planted a seed in the womb of a woman and it grew into a child, like a seed planted in the ground sprouts and grows into a plant. That is, within the semen were preformed humans that grew within the womb.
44 posted on
11/08/2011 2:41:27 PM PST by
aruanan
To: aruanan; wagglebee; murron; Persevero; ReformationFan; surroundedbyblue
Actually, in Genesis 3:15 there’s an indication that a woman having seed was recognized.
The Hebrew word there could easily be translated *seed*.
Different versions use different words. It’s either *offspring*, *descendents*, or *seed*. *Seed* is actually the word of choice for translation and seems to be the closest to the meaning of the Hebrew.
Genesis 3:15
http://bible.cc/genesis/3-15.htm
Strong’s Concordance
http://concordances.org/hebrew/2233.htm
45 posted on
11/08/2011 3:11:53 PM PST by
metmom
(For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson