Why does the Bible assert women have semen?

Question

I was reading the Bible today and I come across this. How can the Bible be called the word of God if the science within the text itself is nothing but, excuse my language, trash?

In the Old Testament, Leviticus 12:2 seems to indicate that a woman can produce semen: "When a woman tazria and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days." The root of tazria is ZR, which means to sow (a seed). When a form of ZR means "to become pregnant, to be impregnated," the form tazara (the niphal or passive form) is always used (see, for example, Numbers 5:28; Nahum 1:14). In Leviticus, however, the causative (hiphil) is used. The only other place in the Hebrew Bible where the causative form of this root appears, it is used of plants in the sense of "produce seed, yield seed, form seed" (Genesis 1:11-12--on the third day of creation God created plants yielding seed). The causative form, used in Leviticus 12:2, cannot mean anything else than "make seed."


Ray, if you're read the Bible, then surely you know this. You can be an athiest, but there's a difference between an intelligent athiest and one that remarks arrogantly. ;)

Answer 1

You don't give a reference for that assertion; personally, I've never heard it. A reference would be handy if one is to intelligently answer your question.

Edit: Clearly you've never been around a woman who has just given birth. A woman bleeds for MANY days after giving birth (seven is VERY conservative); until she ceases to bleed and have a discharge, she is niddah according to the Torah. Being niddah has nothing to do with semen or "seed", and everything to do with having a discharge.

It also says (translating from the Hebrew): "When a woman AT CHILDBIRTH [emphasis mine] bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity." Verse three say commands circumcision of a male child on the 8th day of life; verse four says "She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed."

Verse five goes on to say, "If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days." The remainder of the chapter tells of the rituals involved for purification after childbirth.

There is some justification for this difference between male and female births because of the hormones of the fetus and how they interact with the mother's uterus and how fast she therefore sloughs off the tissues built up during pregnancy.

It has nothing to do with CONCEPTION, and everything to do with BIRTH.

After giving birth and after the specified length of time has passed, an observant Jewish woman even today goes to a ritual bath known as a mikvah, so that she is no longer considered niddah. As there is no longer a temple in existence, there is no sacrifice offered, as there is no place to offer properly as the Torah commands.

Answer 2

I don't know how you can construe the meaning of the word "seed" to "semen".

Scientifically, the men have sperm and the women have ovum. In that sense, both contribute toward the "seed", if you will. If you are thinking in terms of 'sowing the seed' you could say that is done by man. But the text talks about "if a woman have conceived a seed" which to me does not appear like the woman is doing the 'sowing' part.

Answer 3

Dunno where you get your knowledge of hebrew from- but you are obviously cutting and pasting from someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Hebrew words have three letter roots- in this case Tazriah- to conceive- is an imperitavive active form of Zerah (ZRH without the vowels- which means seed- NOT to sow). So a women actively giving birth has nothing to do with semen- it is a combination of two active elements- male sperm and female egg.

So, the only trash here is the rubbish you post with linguistic knowledge to try and make a point which is as trash as the analysis.

Answer 4

Well lets see what is really trash. 1.The God Yahweh that wrote a book called The Bible full of evidence of His knowledge of the germ theory and other fields of science that evolved from microbiology.
2. Our public schools are teaching our children from a book called "Origin of the Species" by Charles Darwin who at the time he wrote it still believed in the spontaneous generation theory. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand which book should be thrown in the trash.

Answer 5

the 1st 2 or 3 verser that u consult with are actually not God conversing, those are ordanices that Paul put in place to the church or Corinth using attractiveness that the temple had for celebrations alongside with prostitutes, abdomen dancers and such. Paul seen that the girl's openion could desire to acquire or reported together with her husband at homestead fairly interior the temple the place females have been valued so little.As u examine (and study the bible and the historic previous or the time) u will locate that God valued females to the utmost diploma and used them mightly in His works. My chum, wheather u have faith the be conscious or no longer it quite is needed have your information appropriate to your evaluations. by applying the way, he wrote that letter to Timothy to place across to the church and for this reason it quite is carried on interior the e book of Timothy.

Answer 6

Standing by for the reference, version, etc.
New International is very different from the King James, for example.

Answer 7

Do you mean it says that women have sea men? Say something like "Verily the women of Bethlehem did lay with the bosun's first mate and they didst splice his main brace and shiver his timbers"

Answer 8

Cant say I have ever cu*m across that bit in the bible! (forgive the pun)! Just couldnt resist it.
But the rest is true it is trash!

Answer 9

The seed being referred to could also be the female egg, dude.

Answer 10

First please provide the chapter and verse, next no less of a Christian intelectual than Thomas Aquanius has said the Bible is not a scinces book.