- But it is still heel, not the owner of the heel, — who can be either physiological gender.
You rather undo yourself here, being that the heel was described as masculine, and as S.R. pointed out, that determined independently, as S.R. provided some correction to myself for.
Yet he also supplied;
- "What this would look like then in English (oversimplified somewhat) is "bruise [you will] [his]" followed]by "heel." This explains why the LXX supplied..." [transliterated] "...autou, which is the masculine genitive. They wanted to draw that out to show who owned the heel in question."
which you seem to not understand -- even with it being bracketed in word-for-word demonstration as the Hebrew expression (in form of a 'word') unfolds.
You (alex) said;
- However, I never claimed that the Vulgate translation is rooted in the Hebrew text.
Actually, previously on this thread in comment #5602 you indicated Hebrew as "original", along with Greek.
Yet Jerome did claim that the Old Testament portions of his own translation were from Hebrew. Veritas Hebraica (truth of the Hebrew) as Jerome put it.
Regardless of all your own little theories, "Catholic Bible" text has been changed -- and then changed back, that is unless you desire to entirely disavow Latin translations, and claim some Greek or particular Hebrew version as representative of OT portion of "Catholic Bible". As S.R. noted -- those texts belong to all of us --- to which I will add my own extended comment "belongs to all of us, not only those whom in some way look upon the bishop of Rome as the "head of the Church" ".
Even then, if Latin versions (and all other but Greek and Hebrew texts) were to be set aside, and only Greek and Hebrew were looked upon as "Catholic Bible" --- the contents have changed over time, by way of eventually having encompassed those writings which Jerome referred to as (Old Testament) Apocrypha.
You do seem to be continually dodging that aspect -- other than to have taken stabs at rewriting history -- which efforts so far, have failed.
Need we go over it all again?
What is the problem here? Do you not accept information I bring to you, providing links for source of my own assertions as I go along -- because it's coming through me? --and is opposition to Romish apologetic?
Is it just too much to accept that the RCC has made it's share of mistakes -- and it's legions of apologists are quite frequently in error themselves (as they go about trying to put the best face on "things")?
I do notice that they often seem to strain at gnats, but instead of a Pharisaical straining at gnats, the dredging and postulating of gnat-like aspects, in musings & suppositions, are being strained at for reasons of attempting to establish foundational support for modern-day RC apologetic in regards to issues pertaining to OT canon, and more.
The overall efforts can be quite "buggy"...
To answer another question which you had;
All the twisting and turning which you have engaged in for how many comments is it now(?) for several days running, to 'keep the faith' that your own statements be 'true', and the lengths of asserting this or that, or musing and reasoning some other collection of things in order to avoid the ramifications of the supplied information irrefutably showing that statements such as exampled here again are not true --- that is what is bizarre.
You said further;
- I still think it is corrupted simply because it is easier to think of the passage in terms of the woman and her heel because of the leading statement of enmity between the woman and the serpent.
Such vagueness, and confusion.
What is corrupted? The Hebrew texts? The Greek? The Vulgate (which one?!?).
But here again your own statements provide such a mixture of things; of error along with other "stuff" spoken of vaguely, I expect yet another reply that addresses only those portions which you may find convenient to yourself to provide clarity towards -- and the focus remain upon gnat-like bodies while ignoring the large camels which are milling around, as if those were not even there.
