Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Catherine,

I think your greatest difficulty is in that you seem to have the mindset that one cannot believe the scriptures have a mistake and say one thing, while personally believing otherwise.

In one of my papers, I wrote that God in the Deuteronomic texts is a God who lies, deceives, and distorts the truth so his enemies will suffer. I don't personally believe God does any of that (at least not to the extent found in the text), but that is what the text says.

In one biblical text, we read that God held a meeting in heaven, asking who will deceive a certain kings prophets so that the king will die, with the hosts of heaven saying one thing or another, when one angel steps up and says "I'll do it. I'll do it by being a lying spirit in the mouth of this king's prophets." To which God says "Go and do it, and you will succeed." Maybe it's just me, but I don't see that as being a legitimate representation of how God works.

The grammatical structure at the END of Genesis 4:1 clearly indicates that YHWH procreated with Eve. You have repeatedly asked if anyone here believes that actually happened, and every single person, including the principle person of interest in this thread (Mak), have said absolutely not (excepting a few people making comments in humor). All of us believe either that the text is corrupted, a scribal error in syntax occurred, or that it represents an archaic and more "pagan" view that comes from a different source than the first part of the verse, which is a common occurrence in the Tanakh.

In another paper, I wrote that 1 Samuel 15 is a late tradition anachronistically added in during the second temple period and is in direct conflict with the rest of Samuel in terms of events and portrayal of Saul. I don't believe that God is the author of this confusion. I do believe that certain scribes included the alternative history either because of it's excellent moral lessons, because they were simply collecting stories on Saul's loss of Kingship, or because they thought it to be more valid. Man, not God is the problem. Just because I believe the pericope is not original, does not mean I throw out the Bible. So really, I don't believe the events of 1 Samuel 15 at all. But I do believe in God. And I do believe that God's words are in the Tanakh. And I do believe that Saul lost the Kingship due to his own unrighteousness. Similar to the Genesis 4:1 example, just because I believe the text says X, does not mean that I believe X.

This is, ever, the difficulty that scholars (and I include myself loosely in that category since I no longer actively pursue the field due to a shift in work for financial reasons) in the field of biblical work face. Though we may fully believe the text says one thing, we are frequently castigated, even within our own churches (Mormon, Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, etc.) for what we write, simply because some members fail to distinguish that just because we write about one thing does not mean that we really believe that is how God or history really happened.

[Daniel Peterson]

So, you are saying that Jesus, a rabbi, only had a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew?

Others here are entirely correct in saying that the modern concept of a rabbi, with its educational requirements, is an anachronism when applied to Jesus.

You cite his being called "rabbi" as if it entailed something like the training of a modern rabbinic scholar, but it most assuredly didn't.

I don't know how well he knew Hebrew. It was almost certainly not as well, though, as he knew the Aramaic that was his native language and the language of his people at the time.

[ERayR]

The Watchtower Society makes a similar argument to shore up its Arianism.

There are none so blind as those who won't see. Catherine Aurelia take off the blinders, pull the beam from thine own eye.

[Ron Beron]

The Watchtower Society makes a similar argument to shore up its Arianism.

Sometimes one finds a sense of foolishness and an arrogance of ignorance that one must flee not walk, but flee from the source. This is one those times.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Only one problem with your argument is that rabbinic Jewry wasn't extant until well after the destruction of the 2nd Temple. No one has declared Jesus didn't know Hebrew only that it wasn't his primary language in which he communicated on a daily basis. Speaking in Hebrew would have been more anachronistic. Writing and reading Hebrew was something much different.

Not true. Someone (mak) has said that IF Jesus knew Hebrew at all, his knowledge was rudimentary. Don't change his words. Do you agree with that statement?

[Catherine Aurelia]

There are none so blind as those who won't see. Catherine Aurelia take off the blinders, pull the beam from thine own eye.

It seems that the only ones with blinders here are those who go along with anything another Mormon states, regardless of how ludicrous it is. Think for yourself.

[maklelan]

I would say the most worthless response I ever read to any post was accusing Jesus of having only a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. I supposed all the Mormons here will gather together and put down Jesus' knowledge of Hebrew in order to shore up the accusation..........is that right? Or is there one Mormon here who does not agree. I remember when we began this thread that everybody went bonkers saying that the translation of Genesis 4 could in no way suggest Yahweh had sexual relations with Eve, and then things changed. My goodness, I wonder why?

Because they found out that you had misrepresented the facts. Once the facts became known, they were fine with it.

[maklelan]

Not true. Someone (mak) has said that IF Jesus knew Hebrew at all, his knowledge was rudimentary. Don't change his words. Do you agree with that statement?

I explained my position. Why do you continue to ignore that explanation?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It seems that the only ones with blinders here are those who go along with anything another Mormon states, regardless of how ludicrous it is. Think for yourself.

You know, it is interesting that you should say this. Do you have a reading problem? What is the position of all of the LDS in this thread? I will give you a hint. It is the same for all of us. I hope you can see it this time.

Just in case you can't figure it out it is this. The text says a certain thing, and we do not believe the text and think it to be in error. The fact that you can't deal with it in your inerrant bible is quite revealing.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

1)Catherine, respond to my post. I may not be as caustic as others, but my point is very clear.

2) I am finding your repeated allegation that what one Mormon says, the others follow like sheeple in defense. If you had any meaningful interaction with groups of Mormons, whether here or elsewhere, you would know this is either not true, or you would be using deceptive categorization to paint with a broad stroke the entirety of the LDS faith and members in a way that they are not. Any reading of topics on anything to do with LDS views of their faith would present to you a myriad of disagreeing viewpoints. LeSellers, Sevenbak, Maklelan, Dan Peterson, Brant Garden, Garden Girl, BlueBell, myself, and many others have gotten into lively and sometimes heated debate on everything from the nature of ancient scripture, the nature of moder scripture, and the nature of discourses by modern prophets to where events took place, what a verse is talking about, who it applies to, what the last days hold, etc. Indeed, I find it fascinating that one group (to which you belong) repeatedly says we can't think for ourselves or that we rush to each others defense, while another equally passionate group from CARMS and such places points to the huge variety of views within the church and online by members of the LDS faith as evidence that we are not in unity and therefore are not of God. So which are we? I contend that we are just like any other group that falls under the banner of an organization: I diverse body of people who all adhere to more or less the same basic unifying tenants, but among whom there is a world of diametrically opposed views in regards to the non-essentials. I encourage you to stop arbitrarily (and possibly unintentionally) insulting thinking people in this manner.

[WalkerW]

I remember when we began this thread that everybody went bonkers saying that the translation of Genesis 4 could in no way suggest Yahweh had sexual relations with Eve, and then things changed. My goodness, I wonder why?

You are one of the most intellectually dishonest posters I have ever seen.

You asked if Mormons believe Yahweh conceived Cain with Eve. Everyone said 'no.' No one objects to that being the actual translation, especially when we have actual Hebraists providing evidence as to why.

There is a difference between believing it as doctrine and believing it as the translation. The only people this causes problems for is advocates for biblical inerrancy, literalism, and sola scriptura like yourself.

[WalkerW]

It seems that the only ones with blinders here are those who go along with anything another Mormon states, regardless of how ludicrous it is. Think for yourself.

I'd rather go with the Mormon who provides evidence and sources over the Evangelical who can't do anything except fling ad hominems, call things "ludicrous," and fail to provide scholarly sources.

And others not of our faith have sided with us on this to. Oh, but wait, he was an agnostic, so his opinion doesn't count...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'd rather go with the Mormon who provides evidence and sources over the Evangelical who can't do anything except fling ad hominems, call things "ludicrous," and fail to provide scholarly sources.

Amen!!!

And others not of our faith have sided with us on this to. Oh, but wait, he was an agnostic, so his opinion doesn't count...

He was clearly biased. Because we know only the Jews and that other group are not biased.

[Vance]

Because they found out that you had misrepresented the facts. Once the facts became known, they were fine with it.

Amen!!!!

She did misrepresent what you had posted.

[maklelan]

It seems that the only ones with blinders here are those who go along with anything another Mormon states, regardless of how ludicrous it is. Think for yourself.

Preposterous. You haven't thought for yourself for one second on this or any other thread. You listen blindly to whatever your people tell you that agrees with the dogmas you've been breastfed by your religious leaders. Biblos posted a ridiculous post about the use of Elohim and you cheered his scholarship. I showed it not only to be inadequate, but to be phenomenally ignorant. You never responded, but just recently you advocated the same exact position as that thread. Don't be silly. You haven't posted a unique thought on a message board for years.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You haven't posted a unique thought on a message board for years.

Oh snap!!!.

[alter idem]

I would say the most worthless response I ever read to any post was accusing Jesus of having only a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. I supposed all the Mormons here will gather together and put down Jesus' knowledge of Hebrew in order to shore up the accusation..........is that right? Or is there one Mormon here who does not agree. I remember when we began this thread that everybody went bonkers saying that the translation of Genesis 4 could in no way suggest Yahweh had sexual relations with Eve, and then things changed. My goodness, I wonder why?

One thing you need to be careful of is making assumptions. Just because we do not always speak up, doesn't mean we always agree.

If I typed a response every time I disagreed with a poster, I'd have the highest post count here.

That said, since you seem to believe that silence means we all agree with Mak (that Jesus only had a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew) I will speak up and state that I completely disagree with him.

I believe Jesus knew Hebrew, Latin, Greek and Aramaic and more than just 'rudimentary'. While I was in Israel I was incredulous at the young kids who could speak six or seven languages. I don't doubt Jesus could do the same, and he could read as well--I bet he could read Hebrew better than any of the scholars here.

If you feel some have changed their positions, I think it is because we got more information. You made it sound like an LDS scholar came to your board claiming that LDS believed Yahweh and Eve were the parents of Cain--of course we went bonkers, because it was so outlandish a claim! Then, after getting more info, we find out that Mak was not advocating the position as an LDS belief, but only telling what the Hebrew text translated literally said..and I guess he was doing that because you most likely of a faith that insists there are no errors in the Bible.

I don't read Hebrew, but I assume the Hebrew scholars are correct and the text literally says something that can be interpreted to say what Mak says it says, but IMO, the text is not correct..and since I don't belong to a faith that demands that the Bible be error-free, I don't have a problem with it.

And I still want to remind you that this is not LDS belief...regardless of what the text says. But if you are of a faith that demands that the Bible text is error free...well, you might be in a bit of a pickle.

[cjcampbell]

On another discussion site, a Mormon has stated that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh and Eve had the child, Cain, through procreation. If Mormonism's contention that Jehovah (Yahweh) is Jesus, this would mean that Jesus engaged in sexual procreation with his spirit sister, Eve. This Mormon contends that the Hebrew word "qanah" in the verse denotes sexual procreation, and that the translators know this but have chosen to translate the word another way to avoid what the verse actually says (Yahweh is the biological father of the murderer, Cain).

I would like to know which Mormons here agree with this view and is it an official view of Mormonism? If so, why is it kept secret?

Frankly, I believe the "Mormon" on that other discussion site is an apostate nutcase.

Such people are fairly common, even posting here pretending to be educated "Mormon" apologists.

It is a fundamental doctrine of the Church that you have to have a physical body in order to procreate a physical child. As Jesus had not yet received a physical body, it would have been impossible for Him to be Cain's biological father.

[Zakuska]

Frankly, I believe the "Mormon" on that other discussion site is an apostate nutcase.

Such people are fairly common, even posting here pretending to be educated "Mormon" apologists.

It is a fundamental doctrine of the Church that you have to have a physical body in order to procreate a physical child. As Jesus had not yet received a physical body, it would have been impossible for Him to be Cain's biological father.

The Holy Ghost was Jesus' biological father. or So says the Scriptures.

[Calm]

Frankly, I believe the "Mormon" on that other discussion site is an apostate nutcase.

Possibly if she had represented the individual correctly, but since she didn't....

Maklelan is most definitely not a nutcase, don't see him as an apostate either, just someone who doesn't insist the text be read according to his personal theology.

[volgadon]

I would say the most worthless response I ever read to any post was accusing Jesus of having only a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. I supposed all the Mormons here will gather together and put down Jesus' knowledge of Hebrew in order to shore up the accusation..........is that right? Or is there one Mormon here who does not agree. I remember when we began this thread that everybody went bonkers saying that the translation of Genesis 4 could in no way suggest Yahweh had sexual relations with Eve, and then things changed. My goodness, I wonder why?

Are you ignoring my posts? I said many posts ago that I believe that Christ's grasp of Hebrew was probably stronger than what the traditional academic (including evangelical protestants, anglicans and Jesuits) view attributes to him.

And even if I'm wrong and Maklelan is right, so what?

[volgadon]

Pretty much = educated.

I'm sorry but "educated = unbiased" is a false equation.

[volgadon]

In case you missed it in the Scriptures, Jesus was known as a rabbi by the Jews. Rabbis know Hebrew, and in fact, would debate in Hebrew. The position that his Hebrew knowledge was rudimentary is really coming out of left field.

In case you missed it, rabbi was an honorific not a role. As I said, calling Jesus a rabbi is anachronistic.

Since you obviously have not bothered asking your yeshiva graduate friend, allow me to relate to you a story of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi's maid.

The sages did not know what serugin, halaglagot and matate were, nor could they decide who was greater- him in years [age] or in wisdom. They said let us go ask at Rabbi [Yehuda]'s home. They argued over who should enter first. Rabbi's maid went out and told them to enter two by two. They did not enter one right after another. She said why do you enter serugin, serugin?

One of them had some purslane and dropped it. She said to him young man, your halaglogot have scattered, I shall fetch a matate- and brought a broom.

Talmud Yerushalmi, t. Megilla 19a

Rabbis would debate in Hebrew AND Aramaic.

[volgadon]

Can you do better? Actually, I'm looking for a Doctor of Biblical languages from an Anglican seminary that I know. He teaches Hebrew to Anglicans, and is actually quite the liberal. I'll see if I can locate him.

I gave you a respected JEWISH biblical scholar and you ignore that?

[volgadon]

Only one problem with your argument is that rabbinic Jewry wasn't extant until well after the destruction of the 2nd Temple. No one has declared Jesus didn't know Hebrew only that it wasn't his primary language in which he communicated on a daily basis. Speaking in Hebrew would have been more anachronistic. Writing and reading Hebrew was something much different.

Spoken Hebrew was more prevalent In Judaea and Samaria then the Galilee. For Christ Aramaic would have been the language of the hearth, the one he used most intimately, the one in which he instinctively called out when in agony upon the cross.