Replies

>>Neither Jesus nor His blessed mother crushed the Serpent literally,<<

Jesus will totally crush Satan when He returns. Mary has no part in that.

>>Note that Moses put Mary in the context of the Protoevangelium even though the pronoun should be masculine.<<

No he didn't and the pronoun is masculine because it is referencing Jesus alone. Including Mary is a corruption by the Catholic Church to bolster the apostacy of Mariology.

It is good to read the Holy Bible every once in a while before opining about it.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (Douay)

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (KJV)

Observe this grammatical wonder: Our Lady's seed is "it" in one part of the sentence but it is equipped with "his heel". Not "its heel".

The point remains that however you render it, Mary is right there in the context in which the crushing occurs.

No he didn't and the pronoun is masculine because it is referencing Jesus alone. Including Mary is a corruption by the Catholic Church to bolster the apostacy of Mariology.

Actually, it is a corruption by some RCs, not an indisputable official interpretation, even if a couple popes sided with it. The notes in the RC New American Bible translates Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” And its notes include,

Because “the Son of God was revealed to destroy the works of the devil” (1 Jn 3:8), the passage was understood as the first promise of a redeemer for fallen humankind, the protoevangelium. Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. A.D. 130–200), in his Against Heresies 5.21.1, followed by several other Fathers of the Church, interpreted the verse as referring to Christ, and cited Gal 3:19 and 4:4 to support the reference. - http://www.usccb.org/bible/gn/3:15#01003015-1

Likewise the Catholic RSV-2CE, while even anti-evangelical RC apologist Akin states,

The reason for the difference in the renderings is a manuscript difference. Modern translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). The variant probably originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman. - http://jimmyakin.com/mary-and-genesis-315

The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia states on the IM, The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically," even if it still thinks the women is Mary.

And contrary to the Hebrew being rendered as 'she,' the word is a Qal imperfect, second person singular masculine with third person singular masculine suffix. http://www.wlsessays.net/files/MillerGenesis.rtf

There is also another use of the word for "seed" as coming to a woman in Rebekah in Gn. 24:60. And the Hebrew is said to allow a plural rendering.

But like their father, some RCs presume they cannot be wrong as Catholics, and cannot tolerate any dissent, thus resorting to sophistry and spitballs when refuted, rendering themselves as unworthy of extended exchange.