How’s this for biblical:
>>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. Genisis 3:15<<
Except that's NOT Biblical. It was a translation error in the Latin Vulgate. The Hebrew actually says in Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Mary doesn't crush Satan, Jesus does. Satan doesn't lie in wait for or crush Mary's heel, he goes after Jesus. The enmity was and will be between the devil and the posterity of Eve, mankind. But it is JESUS who will crush/destroy the devil finally. Mary has no such power.
Not very.
You have cited the passage as it can be found in Challoner version of Douay-Rheims, did you not?
I won't lay the blame for this mistranslation on Challoner -- although he SHOULD have known better, even if the DR texts he was working with had what Jimmmy Akin (a Catholic apologist) referred to as "copy error" which had changed the word him into the word her leaving what you have brought here presenting it as "bible" be a faulty translation.
In the oldest Hebrew and Greek (OT translations) texts, it speaks of a "his heel" and a male "he" doing the crushing -- or being bit at/laid in wait for etc.. depending upon how one cares to translate the Hebrew at that juncture. BUT -- there is no doubt about the gender identities, with it NOT being a "her" which shall do the crushing.
Here -- go and LOOK --->Gen.3:15 then perhaps do some more investigation of this on your own, since I'm a bit tuckered out doing all the study/work/homework for hard-headed Roman Catholics, who then just either ignore what is placed in from of them, or produce empty denials, etc.
It may have well enough come about by "copy error" as Akin maintains, being that in Latin the words for he-and-she are perhaps about as similar as they are comparably in English, yet in light of the development of hyperized forms of Marionism, even personified by this latest "Pope" laying a wreath of flowers before some earthly statue of depiction of "her" ("Mary") it is difficult to accept that the error was not a "how convenient" one -- for even after notice has been widely enough made and pointed to, the effort to correct or rectify the texts as they may best appear in English translation leaves a lot to be desired, with the U.S. Bishops employing "footnotes" to explain away their own tampering with the text at this precise passage (Gen 3:15) being that there is gender specific language in the best source texts which instead could have (and SHOULD have) been followed -- which the U.S. Bishops instead chose to turn into a "they", providing "footnotes" for their own reasons for doing so --- which in the end still results in having their own opinions being imposed upon the text in this particular passage, rather than faithful transmission of what this particular ancient text did otherwise say...