A Biological Question
An interesting parallel to the Bible's treatment (or lack thereof)
of cosmology is its treatment of human "parenting" and biology.
The Bible has quite a bit to say about "seeds," "sons," "heirs,"
and the like, and since biology and genetics are sciences as well
as physics and cosmology, the extent of Scripture's treatment of
one scientific "discipline" may hold pretty much true with the
Where Do They Come From?
It may come as a surprise to many but the most basic biological
question, asked from as far back as history will take us, was not
fully and scientifically answered until around 1900 AD! That
question—"Where do babies come from"—perplexed man for millennia.
Today many in the west assume it has long been common knowledge
that the male has his part with his "sperm," the female has her
part with her "egg," and when the two come together, a child
sharing traits of both is conceived. Nine months later the child
is born into the world. As matter-of-fact as this sounds today,
this entire concept is only around 120 years old.
Consider a moment that for 5900 years of recorded history no one
really knew the biology of how children were conceived. Yes,
people came up with many sometimes crazy ideas, but no one could
prove any of them. Aristotle, the (supposed) great philosopher
didn't know; Leonardo DaVinci the genius didn't know; Isaac
Newton, the great physicist didn't know; nor did even Charles
Darwin the silly evolutionist know (he claimed to know where man
came from...apes...but didn't have a clue how children are
conceived). It was one of science's great mysteries.
The most common idea throughout the millennia was "the man
supplied the seed and the woman the fertile ground." This
contention was so prevalent that it still has adherents today. If
one does a simple internet search he will find that practically
all people in the Muslim nations of the Middle-East, and even some
Americans in 2018 still insist the woman is merely the
"field" or "soil" where the man plants his "seed." This belief
makes the mother only a surrogate mother. She contributes no
traits or nature of herself since she is not a true parent of the
child. She is merely an incubator to grow the human seed of the
father. As an ancient Greek said, four centuries before Christ (as
found in The Seeds of Life by Edward Dolnick),
The woman you call the mother of the child
Is not the parent, just a nurse to the seed.
the new-sown seed that grow and swells inside her.
The man is the source of life—the one who mounts.
She, like a stranger for a stranger, keeps
the shoot alive unless god hurts the roots.
This view was still held twenty centuries later when King James
of England's royal physician said in 1618,
‘The woman hath a womb ordained by nature as a
field or seed-plot to receive and cherish the seed."
Yes, this is the same King James who commissioned the "King James
Bible" of 1611, thus we see the prevailing thought on "human
reproduction" at the time the AV was translated. But this idea
brought even more questions, "How does the man get the seed"?
"Where does the seed come from"?
One suggestion that held sway for many years was every individual
that will ever live was created when God created Adam. It held
that man is too sinful to be the conduit of (pro)creation so God
had to create all men at once. Thus, within the man's "issue" were
tiny, immature humans bundled in a tiny seed pod waiting to be
planted in the woman's "fertile soil" to grow and be born. To
continue the perpetuity, each tiny human also had an even smaller
tiny, immature human in him waiting for his day, and on and on
into infinity. Humans were much like the nested gift boxes some
get at Christmas: a box, in a box, in a box,.... The adherents of
this view also had Bible to back them up. Look at Hebrews 7:9-10
"And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes,
payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his
father, when Melchisedec met him."
Levi is said to be in his distant ancestor's "loins" and actually
performed actions while there! Furthermore, Heb 7:5 says all the
Jews came out of the "loins of Abraham." This fits perfectly with
the male seed propagation idea. The entire Jewish race was
dwelling inside Abraham "loins" doing the things he did. What are
loins you ask? Ever eat a tenderloin? They are a physical part of
the anatomy primarily around the pelvic area. They are made of
flesh. This is made clear in Acts 2:30, when speaking of David
"...and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to
him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he
would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;"
So was Christ, at least His human body, inside David's body like
Levi was in the loins of Abraham? Hum.... There is more to this
than you first thought, isn't there?
"That's My Seed, Not Yours"
We have not even mentioned yet how the Scriptures use the term
"seed." What a seed is, is common knowledge. Any grade school kid
can tell you that a seed is the small part of something one plants
to let it grow and make more seeds. "Mighty oaks from little
acorns grow." All the information needed for the seed to grow to
maturity is already there; it is complete and whole. All it lacks
is the "fertile ground" to supply the nutrients and allow it to
germinate and mature. The first mention of seed in the Bible bears
this out (Gen 1:11),
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the
herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."
Each tree yields seed after its own kind, which produces more
trees. Here you may say, "Everyone knows this, what about people,
do they have a seed?" Indeed they do. Not only people, though,
even serpents have them. Look at Genesis 3:15,
"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."
Here both the woman, Eve, and the serpent, Satan, are said to have
a seed. The woman's seed we later learn is ultimately the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the serpent's seed is the "antichrist," "man of
sin," or "beast." Nevertheless, it is said that a woman can have a
seed, but...look at the next mention, Genesis 4:25,
"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and
called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me
another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."
It says Eve was "appointed" a seed. To "appoint" is "to place" or
"bring" so the verse can easily be saying Eve's seed was not
originally hers but was given to her by God through Adam. The same
could be said of other places where women are said to have a
"seed" (Gen 16:10, etc.) This also explains how men "begat" their
children (Gen 5:4, etc.). They generate or sire the seed to the
woman which she later bares (Gen 4:1). Women are NEVER said to
"begat" a child, they are said to only "bare" it.
Considering the above, it is clear that the Bible indicates a
"patriarchal" view towards human reproduction and family
relations. Genesis 3:16 also speaks of this with, "and thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." This is
actually part of the curse. Furthermore, the Lord said of Abraham,
"For I know him, that he will command his children and his
household after him..." indicating he is the head of the
Doth Not Nature Teach You?
Obviously, every human has a "human nature." It is actually what
makes one human, even the Lord Jesus Christ has one. Sadly,
though, except for Christ, everyone's nature is a sinful, fallen
nature; it fell when Adam fell because in a sense, we were all in
him when he sinned (Rom 5:21) and his guilt is imputed to us. This
makes us "by nature the children of wrath..." (Eph 2:3). Christ,
however, though fully human, does not have a fallen, sinful nature
even though He also is a descendant of Adam and was born into this
same evil world. What is the difference? Why do we have a fallen
nature and Christ doesn't? The reason subscribed to by most Bible
Believers is it is because Christ did not have a human father. He
was virgin born.
The virgin birth of Christ served two key purposes. One was to
enable the second person of the Godhead, the Word, to be born into
the world as a man. The second was to bypass the sin and fallen
nature of Adam since the Scriptures indicate they are passed
by the male; the father. Since Jesus had no human father,
this sin, guilt, and fallen nature did not pass to him. He
inherited a full human nature from his mother, Mary, but she,
being female, did not pass along Adam's guilt or a tainted nature.
The passing of Adam's nature to one's "seed" could be called "male
The implications are obvious. If a believer believes Jesus did not
inherit or have imputed to Him Adam's guilt and nature because He
had no human father and by this claims Adam's guilt and nature
only passes through the male, then the argument for male seed
propagation is made even stronger. If Adam's guilt only
passes through the male, then the contention the whole person, or
at least the key elements of a person, does as well gains clear
What's the Point?
At this point you may be thinking, "What does all this have to do
with Geocentrism?" Simple. Biology is a science as physics and
cosmology are sciences. If Geocentrists are going to insist one
take "sunrise" and "sunset" literally, then they must also insist
Levi was actually in Abraham's loins and only the human male
begats the seed: the whole person. This is the "historical" view
held by man for millennia. To not contend this shows them as
scripturally inconsistent. They can't consistently say the Bible
is scientific in one science and not in another. They can't claim
"sunset" and "not be moved" is absolute and literal while "seed,"
"begat," and a person being "yet in the loins of his father" are
not and expect people to take them seriously.
However...if the Bible reader takes these passages the way they
are meant to be taken, both the geocentric and biological, and
does not force wooden, hyper-literalism on them, he realizes some
great truths. Levi did not absolutely and literally pay tithes
in Abraham, how could he, he did not yet exist! Levi was
only in his ancestor's loins in a seminal manner: that is, because
he subsequently became a seed or descendant. If Levi had never
been born, it could never be said a nonexistent person was ever in
As for "male seed propagation" claim, the Scriptures do allow
this view, but more importantly they do not disallow other
views. (Allowing or accommodating a view is not the same as
verifying or confirming it as absolute fact.) As we said in the
first chapter dealing with creation, the Bible is often ambiguous,
and it is ambiguous in the area of human biology as well as
cosmology. The Bible does not specifically state HOW children are
conceived, it does not state dogmatically women are not considered
an actual parent, nor does it absolutely say only the father
provides the entire "person" of a child.
Concerning the human nature of Jesus Christ, Mary
does provide her own nature toward His conception (Rom 1:3,
etc.), however, her case deals with the "mystery of godliness"
and cannot be proof for the rest of humanity. Nevertheless, one
dilemma the male seed propagation proponents could never
adequately answer was, "Why do daughters often look like
The simple fact is the Bible is not speaking about absolute
biology in these "seed" matters any more than it is speaking about
absolute cosmology when it says the sun sets or the earth doesn't
move. However, if the Hyper-Literal Geocentrists were consistent
they would claim something like,
"Since the Bible says throughout only a man can
provide the "seed" and "beget" a child or heir, and the woman,
which is called a "helpmeet" only helps by "bearing" it; and
apart from the miracle of the virgin birth of Christ no woman is
ever said to have a seed until after the man supplies it to her;
and since male seed propagation was the prevailing
biological view on human reproduction for thousands of years and
it correlates perfectly with the guilt of Adam passing only
through the male, we challenge the current claim that the female
contributes in the conception of a child and contend
that our view is just as valid as the modern "scientific" view.
As ludicrous as they are, these statements would not be any more
outrageous than their fanciful claims for Geocentrism.
"All the "scientific" "proofs" made by biologists and doctors
claiming a woman has an "egg" which carries 23 chromosomes of
DNA molecules and the male "sperm" carries the same, and that
when the two are joined they produce a new child with the full
human compliment of 46 chromosomes, thus sharing traits of both
parents, are completely unscriptural and unproven. We will not
concede to this "mutual conception" conspiracy; we choose to
believe the Bible."