Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[volgadon]

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

Jesus was NOT a rabbi, and his Hebrew is up for debate.

[maklelan]

Well, Athanasius, my ban ran up so I went back to respond to some ridiculous accusations on BrianH's part (mainly that Olishem is in Egypt, according to the Book of Abraham), and I was immediately hit with a barrage of lunacy. Here are some of the statements your constituents have hurled at me.

On "Chaldeans" being a mistranslation of ?????:

A "mistranslation"??? No. Sorry. It is again evident that you have no idea what you are talking about. "Chaldean" is a Greek term describing the empire that fought AGAINST the Babylonians and WELL documented LONG before the 19th century. You need only read your KJV (400 years BEFORE the 19th century) to see this. The Chaldeans were identified by that name in the Bible sitting on Joseph Smith's desk. The Chaldean empire was not the Babylonian empire. And while the Kasdim existed in Abraham's day, they were NOT the "Chaldeans" until after Abraham was dead.

On Greek philosophy as the inspiration for Jewish monotheism:

OC said that Jewish monotheism was due to Hellenistic influence and credited YOU with the idea.

That you would even PRETEND to deny the FACT that the Greeks WERE polytheists under the ruberic that there might have been the occasional monotheist only demonstrates how empty your rhetoric really is. You are just playing word games again and you know it. It may indeed be that there were a few monotheistic Greeks. The FACT from which you are fleeing like a scared kitten is the FACT that NORMATIVE Greek religion was, in reality, POLYTHEISTIC. It matters not a wit IF there were a few Greeks who were monotheistic. "Hellenistic" influence must NECESSARILY refer to the NORMATIVE characteristics of the Greeks, Mormon.

On being corrected about "Hellenism" and "Greek":

Hellenistic does NOT mean Greek? Oh my goodness. You really are totally ignorant, aren't you. Dude, here is a little grade school history for you. Alexander the Great was a GREEK.

Yes, you heard that right. Alexander the Great was a Greek. It gets better, though:

Alexander the Great was a GREEK speaking and GREEK educated man and an adherent of GREEK religion and the kingdom of Macedon was GREEK turf in Alexander's time.

Apparently Macedon was a part of Greece when Alexander the Great took over rule from his father (who, as a Macedonian, took over Greece). This is grade school knowledge being dropped on me, indeed.

My most sincere attempts to be cordial in responding to these accusations were met with another ban (evidently I was being rude). The posts which pointed out the errors in the above statements were summarily deleted. I am completely and utterly astonished. I have dealt with bigotry and stupidity, but this is far beyond anything I ever thought was possible for any human being. The bottom of the barrel has been scraped clean and deposited at CARM.

[volgadon]

That is appalling.

[WalkerW]

Well, Athanasius, my ban ran up so I went back to respond to some ridiculous accusations on BrianH's part (mainly that Olishem is in Egypt, according to the Book of Abraham), and I was immediately hit with a barrage of lunacy. Here are some of the statements your constituents have hurled at me.

On "Chaldeans" being a mistranslation of ?????:

On Greek philosophy as the inspiration for Jewish monotheism:

On being corrected about "Hellenism" and "Greek":

Yes, you heard that right. Alexander the Great was a Greek. It gets better, though:

Apparently Macedon was a part of Greece when Alexander the Great took over rule from his father (who, as a Macedonian, took over Greece). This is grade school knowledge being dropped on me, indeed.

My most sincere attempts to be cordial in responding to these accusations were met with another ban (evidently I was being rude). The posts which pointed out the errors in the above statements were summarily deleted. I am completely and utterly astonished. I have dealt with bigotry and stupidity, but this is far beyond anything I ever thought was possible for any human being. The bottom of the barrel has been scraped clean and deposited at CARM.

I apparently was banned for responding to this:

Mormon's have a real problem. they cannot admit they worship another God from the Bible consider the following teachings.

Elohiym in Mormonism refers to the Father.

Jehovah in the Old Testament refers to Jesus.

( Quotes available from Jospeh Smith if you like ).

Then by defination Mormonism should worship Jesus as when Elohiym is used it is used of Pagan gods, of Men ( abraham being one in gen 26 ). it is used of the One true God. ( 90 percent as YHWH Elohiym ). which makes Jesus the God of the Old Testament.

Then Mormonism be defination has gone after another god

with:

Mak has already spanked you like a small child in a similar subject. Posting the same nonsense under a different title just makes you look pathetic.

Apparently, this was too much of a "personal attack" or "mocking."

Nevermind condescending comments like:

You really are totally ignorant, aren't you. Dude, here is a little grade school history for you.

I don't care if one wants to say this, but it is pretty sad to ban me for my remark and leave so many CARMite responses untouched.

[Catherine Aurelia]

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.

If there is any "dishonesty" here, it is in this: I came here asserting that one of your Mormon language students stated that according to Genesis 4 Yahweh (Mormon pre-incarnate Jesus) impregnated Eve, and was the biological father of the first murderer, Cain. Cain, apparently being some kind of hybrid between a spirit creature and Eve, a physical woman. Everybody assured me that Mormons never would suggest such a thing, some suggesting that it was a joke - UNTIL, it was learned that a Mormon student had made the claim - and then everybody, including Dr. Peterson, jumped on the linguistic bandwagon and said that Genesis 4 certainly did imply Yahweh was the biological father of Cain! It just shows a real lockstep mentality. Is there any, ANY Mormon here who disagrees with that translation of Genesis 4? (By the way, the Jewish linguists think it's nutty to consider Yahweh the father of Cain or to translate the verse in that way).

Surely the fact that the first part of Genesis 4:1 indicates that Eve "knew" her husband (hint - "knew" meaning sexual intercourse) with the resultant pregnancy and birth of Cain, with the help of the Lord (the word "gotten" does not denote sex in a normal person's vocabulary), must speak to someone here on a rational, intellectual level! But, if they're out there, they are apparently afraid to say anything that would upset the polytheistic apple cart.

[WalkerW]

If there is any "dishonesty" here, it is...

It is you, plain and simple.

I came here asserting...

Allow me to show what you came here asserting:

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?

You added supposed Mormon interpretation of the verse on top of the actual translation. Mak didn't do that. He merely offered the translation. Big difference. A difference that you either can't comprehend or refuse to.

Cain, apparently being some kind of hybrid between a spirit creature and Eve, a physical woman.

Theologically presupposed nonsense

Everybody assured me that Mormons never would suggest such a thing

Wrong. Everybody answered 'no' to your actual question:

I would like to know which Mormons here agree with this view and is it an official view of Mormonism?

You'll note that I originally said it sounded like Mak and that I doubted he was asserting this as a personal belief. I turned out to be right. Your presentation and questions were misleading as to the intentions of Mak.

jumped on the linguistic bandwagon and said that Genesis 4 certainly did imply Yahweh was the biological father of Cain!

If that is what the text says, that is what the text says. Doesn't bother us.

(By the way, the Jewish linguists think it's nutty to consider Yahweh the father of Cain or to translate the verse in that way).

Jewish linguists that you don't name, nor provide the arguments of. This = useless.

(the word "gotten" does not denote sex in a normal person's vocabulary),

This isn't English. This is Hebrew. Mak has explained his reasoning.

But, if they're out there, they are apparently afraid to say anything that would upset the polytheistic apple cart.

You have continued to demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty and lack of knowledge of this subject.

Go home.

[maklelan]

If there is any "dishonesty" here, it is in this: I came here asserting that one of your Mormon language students stated that according to Genesis 4 Yahweh (Mormon pre-incarnate Jesus) impregnated Eve, and was the biological father of the first murderer, Cain.

You're still being dishonest. I did not say that this happened, or that it is according to Genesis 4. I said "the text says that . . ." Whether or not I think that happened is an entirely different discussion that had already taken place back at CARM that you entirely ignored. You misrepresented my position knowing full well that I had clarified it perfectly. After I clarified it again you continued to harp on your original misrepresentation. You are here simply to try to cause embarrassment, and you have to knowingly be dishonest to do it.

Cain, apparently being some kind of hybrid between a spirit creature and Eve, a physical woman. Everybody assured me that Mormons never would suggest such a thing, some suggesting that it was a joke - UNTIL, it was learned that a Mormon student had made the claim - and then everybody, including Dr. Peterson, jumped on the linguistic bandwagon and said that Genesis 4 certainly did imply Yahweh was the biological father of Cain! It just shows a real lockstep mentality. Is there any, ANY Mormon here who disagrees with that translation of Genesis 4? (By the way, the Jewish linguists think it's nutty to consider Yahweh the father of Cain or to translate the verse in that way).

No, the Jewish linguists do not think that. Jewish linguists were among the first to point that reading out. The reason people changed their tune was because they weren't aware of the textual issue and were led to believe by you that I had stated that this was what I believed had happened. I had firmly established on the other board that that was simply what the text said, and not what I believed. You ignored that and then misrepresented me here. You continue to be dishonest by continuing to ignore that fact, and you continue to try to create some kind of intrigue by insinuating that everyone is being dishonest to protect me. The truth is, once they found out what was behind your misrepresentation they understood the context and were fine with it.

Surely the fact that the first part of Genesis 4:1 indicates that Eve "knew" her husband (hint - "knew" meaning sexual intercourse) with the resultant pregnancy and birth of Cain, with the help of the Lord (the word "gotten" does not denote sex in a normal person's vocabulary),

Of course, "gotten" is also not the correct translation.

speaks to someone here on a rational level!

Don't presume for a second to represent rationality in any of its manifestations. You have shown yourself to be diametrically opposed to any manner of rationality that undermines in the least your perception of your dogmas.

But, if they're out there, they are apparently afraid to say anything that would upset the polytheistic apple cart.

The only one who's afraid of being unorthodox here is you.

[WalkerW]

Since you misrepresented Mak's position, I want you to apologize, Catherine.

A simple, "I'm sorry, I misunderstood" or "I'm sorry, I was wrong" will do. You can argue about the translation, but do not continue to argue about Mak's stance. He has made it very clear. Enough with this "Yahweh (pre-mortal Mormon Jesus) impregnated Eve (one of His spirit sisters!) to produce Cain (a muderer and spirit brother!)" nonsense. That is not what Mak said.

Now apologize and move on.

[Catherine Aurelia]

You're still being dishonest. I did not say that this happened, or that it is according to Genesis 4. I said "the text says that . . ." Whether or not I think that happened is an entirely different discussion that had already taken place back at CARM that you entirely ignored. You misrepresented my position knowing full well that I had clarified it perfectly. After I clarified it again you continued to harp on your original misrepresentation. You are here simply to try to cause embarrassment, and you have to knowingly be dishonest to do it.

No, the Jewish linguists do not think that. Jewish linguists were among the first to point that reading out. The reason people changed their tune was because they weren't aware of the textual issue and were led to believe by you that I had stated that this was what I believed had happened. I had firmly established on the other board that that was simply what the text said, and not what I believed. You ignored that and then misrepresented me here. You continue to be dishonest by continuing to ignore that fact, and you continue to try to create some kind of intrigue by insinuating that everyone is being dishonest to protect me. The truth is, once they found out what was behind your misrepresentation they understood the context and were fine with it.

Of course, "gotten" is also not the correct translation.

Don't presume for a second to represent rationality in any of its manifestations. You have shown yourself to be diametrically opposed to any manner of rationality that undermines in the least your perception of your dogmas.

The only one who's afraid of being unorthodox here is you.

The statement of a Roman Catholic scholar in biblical languages regarding Genesis 4:1:

"The Hebrew name qayin ("Cain") and the term qaniti ("I have produced") present another play on words. "

Mak, one thing the Jewish scholars state is that you should never derive doctrine from O.T. poetry. You have continued to claim Psalms, for instance, teaches polytheism - but Psalms is Jewish poetry, as is the play on words in Genesis 4:1. I suggest you go back to the drawing board. Maybe you can claim that Philo was the real author of Jewish monotheism.

By the way, I NEVER said you personally believed this happened, however you clearly stated that the sacred text taught that. And you know I'm right.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Since you misrepresented Mak's position, I want you to apologize, Catherine.

A simple, "I'm sorry, I misunderstood" or "I'm sorry, I was wrong" will do. You can argue about the translation, but do not continue to argue about Mak's stance. He has made it very clear. Enough with this "Yahweh (pre-mortal Mormon Jesus) impregnated Eve (one of His spirit sisters!) to produce Cain (a muderer and spirit brother!)" nonsense. That is not what Mak said.

Now apologize and move on.

I won't lie. He clearly said that the text teaches that Yahweh was the father of Cain and that Christian translators had covered this up. Go an see the OP for his statement.

[Vance]

I won't lie. He clearly said that the text teaches that Yahweh was the father of Cain and that Christian translators had covered this up. Go an see the OP for his statement.

Again you misrepresent, Mak NEVER said that the text "teaches", he simply said what is written.

You really are being dishonest here. Grow up or move on.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Again you misrepresent, Mak NEVER said that the text "teaches", he simply said what is written.

You really are being dishonest here. Grow up or move on.

Right, and Mormonism never "taught" polygamy, it was just a suggestion!

[ERayR]

[Mak, one thing the Jewish scholars state is that you should never derive doctrine from O.T. poetry. You have continued to claim Psalms, for instance, teaches polytheism - but Psalms is Jewish poetry, as is the play on words in Genesis 4:1. I suggest you go back to the drawing board. Maybe you can claim that Philo was the real author of Jewish monotheism.

PLease name the above quoted Jewish Scholars or quit quoting them.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right, and Mormonism never "taught" polygamy, it was just a suggestion!

What are you talking about? THis has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

No one that I am aware of ever thought that polygamy was a suggestion. Nice strawman.

I see that this is a really weak attempt at a deflection. You have to remember that you are not dealing with your stalwart friends at CARM. We see through this kind of stuff.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Right, and Mormonism never "taught" polygamy, it was just a suggestion!

In the sytle of Cathy.

Right, and Evangelicals preach a "do nothing" goespel.

[SilverKnight]

Right, and Mormonism never "taught" polygamy, it was just a suggestion!

And the final nail of your coffin is in place.

The surest sign that your position has been thoroughly disemboweled is when you resort to frantic histrionics. Do you realize, after getting so humiliated, how infantile it looks to run away screeching about polygamy.

I could not have scripted this any better.

[WalkerW]

The statement of a Roman Catholic scholar in biblical languages regarding Genesis 4:1:

"The Hebrew name qayin ("Cain") and the term qaniti ("I have produced") present another play on words. "

Mak, one thing the Jewish scholars state is that you should never derive doctrine from O.T. poetry. You have continued to claim Psalms, for instance, teaches polytheism - but Psalms is Jewish poetry, as is the play on words in Genesis 4:1. I suggest you go back to the drawing board. Maybe you can claim that Philo was the real author of Jewish monotheism.

By the way, I NEVER said you personally believed this happened, however you clearly stated that the sacred text taught that. And you know I'm right.

Provide names

[WalkerW]

I won't lie. He clearly said that the text teaches that Yahweh was the father of Cain and that Christian translators had covered this up. Go an see the OP for his statement.

I have read the OP, which why I can say your opening post is misleading.

[Vance]

And the final nail of your coffin is in place.

The surest sign that your position has been thoroughly disemboweled is when you resort to frantic histrionics. Do you realize, after getting so humiliated, how infantile it looks to run away screeching about polygamy.

I could not have scripted this any better.

How correct you are!!!!

[bluebell]

Right, and Mormonism never "taught" polygamy, it was just a suggestion!

Really? THIS is your comeback. You are doing yourself and your cause a great disservice with stuff like this.

[Doctor Steuss]

The statement of a Roman Catholic scholar in biblical languages regarding Genesis 4:1:

"The Hebrew name qayin ("Cain") and the term qaniti ("I have produced") present another play on words. "

Reference?

Mak, one thing the Jewish scholars state is that you should never derive doctrine from O.T. poetry. [...]as is the play on words in Genesis 4:1

And just because something is a poem, or a play on words, doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't actually say what it actually says.

If I say "You have impregnated me with strange ideas,

[WalkerW]

Right, and Mormonism never "taught" polygamy, it was just a suggestion!

Oooh, good one.

How about this: I'm rubber and you're glue. Everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

Gotcha!

[WalkerW]

It always goes back to polygamy.

I recently had a debate that began with human deification & multiple deities. When he couldn't deal with that, he moved to BOM archaeology. When I provided some from Arabia, he wanted some in America. When provided that, he wanted to move to Joseph Smith's character. Then, it all ended up at polygamy.

The CARMite mindset is the same everywhere.

[bluebell]

I have read the OP, which why I can say your opening post is misleading.

Yes it was.

The OP makes it sound like mac believes cain was the product of eve and deity and that mak was teaching that as doctrine.

Clearly, when it is examined, mac was teaching that such was what the verse said in hebrew, not what he believed.

[Doctor Steuss]

Reference?

Never mind, just noticed that you were merely taking a USCCB footnote from the NAB and then fluffing it up to make it sound more impressive.