Replies

You are correct that "she shall crush" is a mistranslation, both the Sepuagint and the Hebrew original have the masculine pronoun referring to the seed. The commentary to that verse in Douay says

15 "She shall crush"... Ipsa, the woman; so divers of the fathers read this place, conformably to the Latin: others read it ipsum, viz., the seed. The sense is the same: for it is by her seed, Jesus Christ, that the woman crushes the serpent's head.

It is acknowledged as St. Jerome's mistake. You are wrong however to insist that anything deep comes out of the mistranslation since the entire verse still speaks of the victory of the Woman.

I explained both the reasoning for perpetual virginity and the lack of scriptural support for the denial thereof in my previous post.

The parallel between Adam and Christ and Eve and Mary is perfect. Adam is the first to sin and Christ is the first to redeem. Eve is listenes to Satan, questions him, and agrees with the Devil. Mary listens to the angel, questions him, and agrees with God. Adam sins through the mechanism of the seduction of Eve cooperatiing with Satan, and Christ redeems through the mechanism of His incarnation through Mary cooperating with the Holy Ghost.

that mariophobic translations, that abounded in modern times and Harley is using, mistranslate it as "until". It is most similar to the English "till" which also does not have the strict "before, but not after" meaning.

It should be pointed out this is John Calvin's argument for the reason that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Although the word "until" (or "til" take your pick) is used, Rev Calvin states this does not necessarily mean that Mary HAD sex afterwards. Personally I think this strain credibility for the conjunction "until" (or "til") is a transitional statement.

Also in regards to eos the definition is “…to continue up to a particular time”. The word is also used in such places as “until a thousand years are finished” (Rev 20:5). Clearly something is going to happen after that.

I disagree with Calvin's interpretation nor do I find anything convincing me otherwise in your analysis. You would have to explain this transitional statement in conjunction with the "brothers" statement by Jesus in Matt (and I believe Luke), Paul's statement of the Lord's brothers in 1 Cor 9:5 and the beginning of the book of James.

As to the "brothers", Jesus Himself loved calling people brothers

Like this:

Matt 12:48-50 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Or….

Matt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Oops, wrong one. ;O)

Eve doesn’t just listen to Satan and makes some “intellectual” choice; she is deceived by Satan, a very distinct difference. Fooled, duped. That's why she is in subjection to men. If you would like to convince me otherwise you will have to provide an answer to where Paul states this to be the case-twice!

As I stated in the above post to Forest Keeper, this isn’t “mariophobic”. It’s an attempt by the Roman Catholic Church to base a skewed doctrine on something that really isn’t there. The Mary/Eve comparison is a good case. Now if you want to say Mary was duped by the angel then that's a different issue-something I'd disagree with.

BTW-Let me know when the correct the Latin Vulgate or even the Doury-Rheims versions.