Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[SilverKnight]

Everyone:

It looks like she's limped back to CARM to tell them how brutish and unchristian we are.

As demonstrated by this thread, Evangelical criticism of mormonism is laughably easy to demolish. Indeed this thread turned into slow-pitch day at the batting cages (especially after our Hebrew scholars joined the fray).

But I would not count this as a victory. The real criticism comes from secularists.

And, unlike EV criticism, it is formidable.

We have our hands full with it. And we've lost more battles than we've won.

The next real trial of LDS theology (and all theologies) is going to come from secular criticism.

And it's not going to be easy.

There's a reason why all our former LDS friends are now agnostic or humanist.

[WalkerW]

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.

You couldn't just say it was the USCCB footnote from the NAB? Really? You have to say "a Roman Catholic scholar?"

Fluff is right.

[Catherine Aurelia]

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.

Here, let me break this down for you simply:

On another discussion site, a Mormon has stated that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh and Eve had the child, Cain, through procreation.

So far, are you with me? A Mormon said that Genesis 4 could be translated to say that Cain was Yahweh's biological child.

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).

Then, I went further to compare the "mistranslation" brought forth with Mormon doctrine. It's your doctrine, not mine.

I came here asking whether or not Mormons believed this - and everyone said, "no." But THEN, surprise, surprise, everybody jumps on the bandwagon and agrees that the Bible says Yahweh was the biological father of Cain. Apparently this is a collective blindness - have any Mormons at all bothered to read the first part of the verse which indicates that Eve "knew" Adam and that this resulted in her pregnancy with Cain?

It's just like the Adam-god doctrine - everybody went along with it until it was dismissed as a fantasy of Young - and then everybody was elated that they no longer had to believe what their own prophet had said.

I suggest you all contact Thomas Monson and ask his opinon of the verse - isn't that what a prophet is for?

I also suggest you guys study the serpent's seed doctrine of William Branham - you'll see why.

[bluebell]

Everyone:

It looks like she's limped back to CARM to tell them how brutish and unchristian we are.

That's honestly too bad.

People need to realize though that it's not 'unchristian' to be disagreed with and it's not 'unchristian' when someone calls you out on an obvious mistake or assumption that you refuse to admit.

I'm not going to feel badly when someone doesn't have the ability to do realize those things. We are not 'brutes' because we refuse to capitulate to her.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Why is that? Polygamy is such a biblical concept and was used quite abit in the OT. I am so confused why they think it such a bad thing.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here, let me break this down for you simply:

<Snip>

Catherine, please stop assuming we're dim-witted. When you take what you said, claim that you didn't say it, and then say it again (drenched with even more Christian social niceties), it doesn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Everyone:

It looks like she's limped back to CARM to tell them how brutish and unchristian we are.

As demonstrated by this thread, Evangelical criticism of mormonism is laughably easy to demolish. Indeed this thread turned into slow-pitch day at the batting cages (especially after our Hebrew scholars joined the fray).

But I would not count this as a victory. The real criticism comes from secularists.

And, unlike EV criticism, it is formidable.

We have our hands full with it. And we've lost more battles than we've won.

The next real trial of LDS theology (and all theologies) is going to come from secular criticism.

And it's not going to be easy.

There's a reason why all our former LDS friends are now agnostic or humanist.

You can't win. Mormons are not Christians to them anyway so we are unchristian just by being mormons. And if we are (Christian) and we go along with their theology works do not play a role in salvation so I can be "unChrsitian" all I want but I am still saved as I am constantly told that one you are saved you cannot fall from grace. So which is it?

[thesometimesaint]

Catherine Aurelia:

You don't get do you?

There are some translations, or IMNTBHO mistranslations, that say something else.

It is NOT LDS doctrine that God, and Eve begot Cain. The LDS doctrine is quite clear Adam and Eve begot Cain.

MOVE ON.

[maklelan]

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. "

I really don't care about a single unnamed publication. I can produce many more than you ever could to show that qnh means to procreate. In fact, I already have:

Issam K. H. Halayqa, A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 340; M

[SilverKnight]

Why is that?

Because after losing historically, theologically and doctrinally the weapon of last resort is to attack polygamy - which is an easy target.

[Vance]

On another discussion site, a Mormon has stated that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh and Eve had the child, Cain, through procreation.

STILL GETTING IT WRONG!!!!!

He didn't say that Genesis "teaches" anything!!!!!!!!!!! Get it?

He just told you what the text SAYS!!!! There is a difference. Get a clue!

[WalkerW]

Everyone:

It looks like she's limped back to CARM to tell them how brutish and unchristian we are.

As demonstrated by this thread, Evangelical criticism of mormonism is laughably easy to demolish. Indeed this thread turned into slow-pitch day at the batting cages (especially after our Hebrew scholars joined the fray).

But I would not count this as a victory. The real criticism comes from secularists.

And, unlike EV criticism, it is formidable.

We have our hands full with it. And we've lost more battles than we've won.

The next real trial of LDS theology (and all theologies) is going to come from secular criticism.

And it's not going to be easy.

There's a reason why all our former LDS friends are now agnostic or humanist.

I couldn't agree more.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I came here asking whether or not Mormons believed this - and everyone said, "no." But THEN, surprise, surprise, everybody jumps on the bandwagon and agrees that the Bible says Yahweh was the biological father of Cain. Apparently this is a collective blindness - have any Mormons at all bothered to read the first part of the verse which indicates that Eve "knew" Adam and that this resulted in her pregnancy with Cain?

Suprise, surprise, you can't seem to deal with what the actually text says. That is what is so sad. You claim we are the one with "blinders". Yet we are the one pointing out what the actual text says. Do we believe the actual text? No. But that does nto change what is written. Try as you may you cannot simply just deal with the text, as it underminds your innerant view of the bible. THat is the real issue.

[maklelan]

Here, let me break this down for you simply:

Don't patronize me or anyone here, Catherine. You're the one who seems to have issues with comprehension here.

On another discussion site, a Mormon has stated that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh and Eve had the child, Cain, through procreation.

So far, are you with me? A Mormon said that Genesis 4 could be translated to say that Cain was Yahweh's biological child.

These two statements are different. Saying it should be translated one way does not mean the scriptures teach it.

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).

Which is absolutely correct. However, I stated quite clearly that I was not speaking about Mormonism in any capacity.

Then, I went further to compare the "mistranslation" brought forth with Mormon doctrine. It's your doctrine, not mine.

I came here asking whether or not Mormons believed this - and everyone said, "no." But THEN, surprise, surprise, everybody jumps on the bandwagon and agrees that the Bible says Yahweh was the biological father of Cain.

Because belief and what the Bible says are not the same thing.

Apparently this is a collective blindness

And we do hope the reprobates at CARM get over it.

have any Mormons at all bothered to read the first part of the verse which indicates that Eve "knew" Adam and that this resulted in her pregnancy with Cain?

We all have, and I knew about that and discussed it over at CARM. You ignored me.

It's just like the Adam-god doctrine - everybody went along with it until it was dismissed as a fantasy of Young - and then everybody was elated that they no longer had to believe what their own prophet had said.

Marvelously ridiculous comparison.

I suggest you all contact Thomas Monson and ask his opinon of the verse - isn't that what a prophet is for?

I also suggest you guys study the serpent's seed doctrine of William Branham - you'll see why.

What a joke. I suggest you read the books I cited in my previous post. You're not going to, though. You don't care what the truth is, you just care about promoting your dogmas.

[WalkerW]

If Mormonism's contention that Jehovah (Yahweh) is Jesus

And it this is why no one cares about anything you have to say after this. You are meshing Mormon doctrine with a translation solely because the Hebraist is Mormon. Translation and doctrine are different things (for the umpteenth time).

I came here asking whether or not Mormons believed this - and everyone said, "no." But THEN, surprise, surprise, everybody jumps on the bandwagon and agrees that the Bible says Yahweh was the biological father of Cain.

We don't believe Yahweh procreated with Eve. But we have no objection to the text actually saying it though.

It's just like the Adam-god doctrine

It's just like every other CARMite who gets whipped in a debate: bring up something else that is controversial like Adam-god and polygamy.

I suggest you all contact Thomas Monson and ask his opinon of the verse - isn't that what a prophet is for?

Irrelevant

I also suggest you guys study the serpent's seed doctrine of William Branham - you'll see why.

Aware of it thanks.

[bluebell]

Here, let me break this down for you simply:

On another discussion site, a Mormon has stated that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh and Eve had the child, Cain, through procreation.

So far, are you with me? A Mormon said that Genesis 4 could be translated to say that Cain was Yahweh's biological child.

Yes, i'm with you.

If Mormonism's contention that Jehovah (Yahweh) is Jesus, this would mean that Jesus engaged in sexual procreation with his spirit sister, Eve.

k.

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).

k.

Then, I went further to compare the "mistranslation" brought forth with Mormon doctrine. It's your doctrine, not mine.

Alright.

I came here asking whether or not Mormons believed this - and everyone said, "no." But THEN, surprise, surprise, everybody jumps on the bandwagon and agrees that the Bible says Yahweh was the biological father of Cain.

I KNOW you are smarter than this Catherine-this shouldn't be this hard.

Let me break it down for you simply:

1) The mormons in the thread agree that it's NOT mormon belief that Eve and Jehovah produced cain.

2) The mormons in the thread agree though that Mac is probably correct suggesting that the verse can be translated to imply such.

Apparently this is a collective blindness - have any Mormons at all bothered to read the first part of the verse which indicates that Eve "knew" Adam and that this resulted in her pregnancy with Cain?

Yes, we've read it-we AGREE with it. That's why the hebrew of the verse is so interesting.

[

b]It's just like the Adam-god doctrine - everybody went along with it until it was dismissed as a fantasy of Young - and then everybody was elated that they no longer had to believe what their own prophet had said.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I suggest you all contact Thomas Monson and ask his opinon of the verse - isn't that what a prophet is for?

Some people are so easy to dismiss. It's a shame you have chosen to become one of them.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Suprise, surprise, you can't seem to deal with what the actually text says. That is what is so sad. You claim we are the one with "blinders". Yet we are the one pointing out what the actual text says. Do we believe the actual text? No. But that does nto change what is written. Try as you may you cannot simply just deal with the text, as it underminds your innerant view of the bible. THat is the real issue.

Let me break Genesis 4:1 down in simple English (are you aware that "Ram" is a Hindu god?):

Adam and Eve KNEW (sexually) each other and she conceived Cain, and gave glory to God. Is that over your head?

[Catherine Aurelia]

And it this is why no one cares about anything you have to say after this. You are meshing Mormon doctrine with a translation solely because the Hebraist is Mormon. Translation and doctrine are different things (for the umpteenth time).

We don't believe Yahweh procreated with Eve. But we have no objection to the text actually saying it though.

It's just like every other CARMite who gets whipped in a debate: bring up something else that is controversial like Adam-god and polygamy.

Irrelevant

Aware of it thanks.

So, then you can align yourself with the Two Seeder heretics, if you want, but if I were you I'd think twice about that.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Everyone:

It looks like she's limped back to CARM to tell them how brutish and unchristian we are.

As demonstrated by this thread, Evangelical criticism of mormonism is laughably easy to demolish. Indeed this thread turned into slow-pitch day at the batting cages (especially after our Hebrew scholars joined the fray).

But I would not count this as a victory. The real criticism comes from secularists.

And, unlike EV criticism, it is formidable.

We have our hands full with it. And we've lost more battles than we've won.

The next real trial of LDS theology (and all theologies) is going to come from secular criticism.

And it's not going to be easy.

There's a reason why all our former LDS friends are now agnostic or humanist.

Unfortunately, the only battles you've "won" are among yourselves. Mormonism's doctrine is chaotic, and in the end, this is what will do it in.

[WalkerW]

Let me break Genesis 4:1 down in simple English

Too bad Gen. 4:1 isn't in simple English and you don't know the first thing about Hebrew to convey the meaning of it in simple English.

(are you aware that "Ram" is a Hindu god?)

Of course he does. Mormonism was obviously inspired by Hinduism. Duh...

What are you doing as a Christian reading about Hindu gods? No real Christian would do that!

[Doctor Steuss]

So, then you can align yourself with the Two Seeder heretics, if you want, but if I were you I'd think twice about that.

Engrish?

[WalkerW]

Unfortunately, the only battles you've "won" are among yourselves. Mormonism's doctrine is chaotic, and in the end, this is what will do it in.

Well, we all wait with bated breath the impending doom of Mormonism...

[WalkerW]

So, then you can align yourself with the Two Seeder heretics, if you want, but if I were you I'd think twice about that.

CFR where I did this. Quit trying to make us all say something we didn't. Does your dishonesty know no bounds?

[SilverKnight]

Unfortunately, the only battles you've "won" are among yourselves. Mormonism's doctrine is chaotic, and in the end, this is what will do it in.

Listen lady. I have watched you simply get destroyed over 16 pages of gruesome embarrassment. Every last thing that you have said has been surgically skewered by people far more knowledgeable than you. In my years on this board I have rarely seen such pitiful implosion of ignorance.

I would strongly advise you to disassociate yourself from CARM, as the type of delusions you pick up there will make you lose every real world argument you ever get into.

[Vance]

I miss Hoops. Hoops is a freaking genius compared to this one.