Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[Catherine Aurelia]

Well, this from a Jewish scholar, so you guys can take it from there.

The verb ??? (kanah) means to acquire/get.

It does not mean to conceive.

The same verb and conjugation (?????) is used in Ecclesiastes 2:7; is this suggesting Solomon conceived the slaves?!!?

I purchased (?????) male and female slaves...

In Ruth 4:9 it is used as well and has nothing to do with conception.

Then Boaz said to the leaders and all the people,

[SilverKnight]

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

I vote for Mudcat and Rhinomelon.

[maklelan]

Well, this from a Jewish scholar, so you guys can take it from there.

Not only is this special pleading and completely anonymous (and so twice as fallacious), but if your unnamed Jewish scholar says qnh does not mean "procreate" then he/she is not much of a scholar at all. I've cited the authoritative lexica. You may respond to them, but please stop this silly game of citing "scholars" you refuse to name.

[Catherine Aurelia]

I vote for Mudcat and Rhinomelon.

At last resort, always use disparaging remarks about someone who has a different opinion. That's the mature thing to do, right? It doesn't reflect very well on Mormon intellectual honesty, I'm afraid. Why not put on your thinking cap and comment on the Jewish commentary posted directly above?

[SlackTime]

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?

Catherine,

You have and continue to be wrong in so many ways that the courteous thing to do would be to apologize for misrepresenting Mak, apologize for misrepresenting LDS Belief, and spend some time trying to understand and learn, in a non-combatative way, about us. I don't expect this to happen, but I could be pleasantly surprised I suppose.

Besides the other ways in which this is wrong you make some suppositions about LDS belief that are wrong, or at least simplistic. While we today, for simplicity, refer to our Heavenly Father as Eloheim and Christ as Jehovah or YHWH, we don't assume that that holds true pre-20th century. LDS scholars are quick to point out places where YHWH likely referred to the Father, not the Son, and that there were times when Eloheim referred to the Heavenly court, and that YHWH was a part of that court or council.

Early 19th Century LDS also had not standardized as we have now, and Joseph Smith was not always consistant in using these name-titles in a specific way.

LDS recognize that all good things come from God, and so an LDS mother, holding her newborn son today would completely understand Eve's exclamation of delight in receiving a child from God, even though she is completely aware that her child's biological father was standing next to her, telling her to "breathe" just moments before as she passed through labor.

But LDS also recognize that revelation is a process that comes from God through imperfect though righteous men, our prophets. Those prophets have to interpret and write down what has been revealed to them. Every reader of the scriptures then also has to interpret the words to obtain understanding from them. Every reader will have personal and cultural biases that will prejudice the way they interpret the text. Translators of the text can also knowingly or unknowingly alter the meaning of the text. So for us, if a text can be "literally" interpreted in some weird way, it is an interesting curiosity but hardly faith-shattering. We are willing to see type and allegory in the scripture as well as poetry, praise, song, and prose. We know that it is through the Spirit that scripture must pass to find the "truth" within it for correct understanding, and we accept that "all truth" has never yet been revealed, but that it is revealed, line upon line, as we individually prepare ourselves.

You knew when you posted that your desire was to "shock" by portraying Mak's scholastic rendition of the translation as if it were LDS doctrine even though you knew that it was not even Mak's belief, but was simply a way in which the text "could" be translated. For us that is no real concern.

LDS belief is that Cain was the son of Adam and Eve. Did God participate? Of course! Did God not provide the spirit that went into the body? Did not God bless Eve's body to carry the child to birth? Did not God preserve both mother and child through the birth process? Did not God provide for Adam's flocks and fields to grow so that they would have sustainance? Did not God cause the sun to shine and the rain to fall?

It is my personal thought that from the time God assigned YHWH to drive Adam out of the garden, and make skins, and teach them to till the earth and raise flocks, YHWH, who later came to earth as Christ was the God that watched over Adam, and I think many LDS would agree with me, but that does not make it LDS doctrine.

We do not have credal statements that we are required to adhere to, we do not have a theology in the classical sense, we simply believe in Christ and know that it is through Him that we can return to God. We believe in His birth. We believe in His atonement. We believe in His love and Grace. We believe in His literal resurrection. And we believe that He ascended to heaven and will return again. We also believe that He has called us forth by prophets in these last days to restore His Gospel and priesthood to the earth, to help prepare the earth for His return. Everything else in our religion is appendage to these great truths. You will understand us better, by trying to understand these simple principles.

- SlackTime

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

Hahaha, you are a riot. I am well aware of what Ram and other Hindu Gods are. I play alot of Final Fantasy and in those games they use a variety of various Gods some ar Hindu some are Norse. Thanks for that though.

Now if you can learn to read Hebrew you might see were this is going. I understand what Adam and Eve procreated Cain. What is interesting is that after this the text states that God and eve procreated Cain. Can you deal with that? Or is that over your head?

[Catherine Aurelia]

Not only is this special pleading and completely anonymous (and so twice as fallacious), but if your unnamed Jewish scholar says qnh does not mean "procreate" then he/she is not much of a scholar at all. I've cited the authoritative lexica. You may respond to them, but please stop this silly game of citing "scholars" you refuse to name.

Your statement does not address my concerns. Show us another instance in the Bible where this Hebrew words means to sexually conceive.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Hahaha, you are a riot. I am well aware of what Ram and other Hindu Gods are. I play alot of Final Fantasy and in those games they use a variety of various Gods some ar Hindu some are Norse. Thanks for that though.

Now if you can learn to read Hebrew you might see were this is going. I understand what Adam and Eve procreated Cain. What is interesting is that after this the text states that God and eve procreated Cain. Can you deal with that? Or is that over your head?

Fantasy games? Figures.

[Vance]

It doesn't reflect very well on Mormon intellectual honesty, I'm afraid.

This coming from you? Honestly!!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why not put on your thinking cap and comment on the Jewish commentary posted directly above

Why not add a source to the jewsih scholar? It seems that you have dodged this more than a guy in a dodge ball game dodging the balls thrown at him.

[SilverKnight]

At last resort, always use disparaging remarks about someone who has a different opinion. That's the mature thing to do, right? It doesn't reflect very well on Mormon intellectual honesty, I'm afraid.

I use disparaging remarks whenever I encounter someone who displays breathtaking ignorance in an attempt to dogmatically criticize things they have zero clue about.

And I will readily concede that am neither mature nor intellectual.

[Catherine Aurelia]

This coming from you? Honestly!!!

I have yet to have even ONE Mormon here tell me what the first part of Genesis 4:1 states. Just one would do - but all have studiously avoided addressing the issue. The sequence of events in Genesis 4 is "Adam knows Eve" (sexually); Eve bears Cain (as a result of previous knowing); Eve gives Yahweh the honor and glory for the new child.

If you receive a special blessing, are you not likely to say it is from the Lord? For instance, if you were healed by the doctors, wouldn't you say, the healing was "gotten" from the Lord? Please think for yourself - or go to some Mormon authority and ask him.

[Catherine Aurelia]

I use disparaging remarks whenever I encounter someone who displays breathtaking ignorance in an attempt to dogmatically criticize things they have zero clue about.

And I will readily concede that am neither mature nor intellectual.

So, you use them about yourself?

[bluebell]

At last resort, always use disparaging remarks about someone who has a different opinion. That's the mature thing to do, right?

You mean, like you just did to Mola?

"Fantasy games? Figures."

It would be great if people could communicate without going to that level-it's always my goal but sometimes i fall short. But to tell someone they are being immature for disparaging them and then not a few minutes later do the exact same thing to someone else seems to imply a HUGE disconnect between yourself and the other people in the discussion.

It's hard to lecture from a 'high horse' when it's actually the same height as everyone else's.

[Doctor Steuss]

Well, this from a Jewish scholar, so you guys can take it from there.

<snip>

Why are you being so coy with your sources? Cite them please.

[bluebell]

I have yet to have even ONE Mormon here tell me what the first part of Genesis 4:1 states. Just one would do - but all have studiously avoided addressing the issue.

Does Mak not count?

Most of us don't read hebrew, so we are incapable of telling you what the text of Gen. 4:1 'states'. We can tell you what we believe it teaches (and many in this thread already have).

We believe it teaches that Eve is thanking the Lord for the gift of her son (cain) which was created when adam had sexual relations with her.

The sequence of events in Genesis 4 is "Adam knows Eve" (sexually); Eve bears Cain (as a result of previous knowing); Eve gives Yahweh the honor and glory for the new child.

One more time! LDS agree that that's what happened.

If you receive a special blessing, are you not likely to say it is from the Lord?

Absolutely.

That you are asking these questions tells me that you have failed to understand pretty much everything that the LDS posters in this thread have been saying from the beginning.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Here is another scholar who gives us insight into the verse, Gen. 4:1:

'When the first woman voices, on giving birth to her firstborn, her heart's joy at having become a partner of the Almighty in the work of creation, and, and feels, as a result of this partnership, God's personal nearness to herself, she uses, in accordance with our rules, the name YHWH, and cries exultingly: I have created a man equally with God (Gen. iv 1). On the other hand, at the birth of her third son, when she is in mourning for the calamity that bereaved her of her first two sons in one day, she is indeed conscious of the power of the Creator, who cructifies and multiplies His creatures, but in the despair of her soul, which still grieves for the first two children, and with their memory revivified just at this hour, she is unable to rise to a sense of God's nearness and of sharing in His creativity. This time she does not describe the birth of her son as a new act of creation that she herself had achieved jointly with YHWH, but as a passive acceptance on her part of what the God of life had given her: For Elohim has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him (iv 25). The position is not unlike that depicted in Amos (vi 10) with reference to those who converse in the house of the departed: Hush! We must not mention the name of YHWH. Only when the first human pair were granted to see grandchildren --- a new assurance of continued life for generations --- only then did they find solace an feel again the proximity of YHWH: Then men began once more to call upon the name of YHWH (Gen. iv 26).'

--- Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Hebrew University, Jerusalem).

However, I'm still waiting for proof that the Hebrew verb, qnh, refers to conceiving a child in the Bible. Your expert contends that the verb means to procreate, so let's see some word studies in that regard. I've given you two examples where it refers to attained/get/etc.....so far you have given me nothing.

[Scott Lloyd]

As it has been pointed out before, apparently the Hebrew text is translated as such. Do we believe it? Nope. You know why? Because we don't believe the bible to be inerrant like you do. IOW you are the one with the problem and you need to figure out how your inerrant bible has such a phrasing in it.

Just getting around to reading this thread. A lot of good posts here, but in my observation, the above takes the prize for pithy wisdom.

[WalkerW]

Here is another scholar who gives us insight into the verse, Gen. 4:1:

'When the first woman voices, on giving birth to her firstborn, her heart's joy at having become a partner of the Almighty in the work of creation, and, and feels, as a result of this partnership, God's personal nearness to herself, she uses, in accordance with our rules, the name YHWH, and cries exultingly: I have created a man equally with God (Gen. iv 1)...This time she does not describe the birth of her son as a new act of creation that she herself had achieved jointly with YHWH...'

How does this conflict with anything?

[ERayR]

Well, this from a Jewish scholar, so you guys can take it from there.

PRODUCE THE JEWISH SCHOLARS NAME OR SHUT UP ABOUT JEWISH SCHOLARS. PRODUCE THE CITE SO WE CAN ALL LOOK AT IT.

For the rest of you I am sorry for shouting but I would really like the cites. By now though I think they are probably made up ficticious Jewish scholars.

[WalkerW]

Here is another scholar who gives us insight into the verse, Gen. 4:1:

'When the first woman voices, on giving birth to her firstborn, her heart's joy at having become a partner of the Almighty in the work of creation, and, and feels, as a result of this partnership, God's personal nearness to herself, she uses, in accordance with our rules, the name YHWH, and cries exultingly: I have created a man equally with God (Gen. iv 1). On the other hand, at the birth of her third son, when she is in mourning for the calamity that bereaved her of her first two sons in one day, she is indeed conscious of the power of the Creator, who cructifies and multiplies His creatures, but in the despair of her soul, which still grieves for the first two children, and with their memory revivified just at this hour, she is unable to rise to a sense of God's nearness and of sharing in His creativity. This time she does not describe the birth of her son as a new act of creation that she herself had achieved jointly with YHWH, but as a passive acceptance on her part of what the God of life had given her: For Elohim has appointed for me another child instead of Abel, for Cain slew him (iv 25). The position is not unlike that depicted in Amos (vi 10) with reference to those who converse in the house of the departed: Hush! We must not mention the name of YHWH. Only when the first human pair were granted to see grandchildren --- a new assurance of continued life for generations --- only then did they find solace an feel again the proximity of YHWH: Then men began once more to call upon the name of YHWH (Gen. iv 26).'

--- Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Hebrew University, Jerusalem).

However, I'm still waiting for proof that the Hebrew verb, qnh, refers to conceiving a child in the Bible. Your expert contends that the verb means to procreate, so let's see some word studies in that regard. I've given you two examples where it refers to attained/get/etc.....so far you have given me nothing.

Cassuto was also dead by the early 1950s. You have work that is from 1950 and below, with the Ugaritic texts only being discovered in the late 1920s. Not to mention the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[maklelan]

I have yet to have even ONE Mormon here tell me what the first part of Genesis 4:1 states.

Then you're not paying any attention at all.

Just one would do - but all have studiously avoided addressing the issue.

All the above state that the first part of Gen 4:1 states Adam is the father of Cain. You're not paying any attention.

[Doctor Steuss]

Here is another scholar who gives us insight into the verse, Gen. 4:1:

[...]

Although I understand it's a bit outdated, that book's been on my wish list for a while. Thanks for the quote from it.

However, I'm still waiting for proof that the Hebrew verb, qnh, refers to conceiving a child in the Bible.

Welcome to this thread, I hope you take the time read it.

PS.

If you can, try to take a break from goal post moving, and putting words in people

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Fantasy games? Figures.

What figures? That I choose a name from the Movie Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

Is this some kind of a rebuttle?

[structurecop]

It may just be the Adversary in me, but I do enjoy when Dr. S gets snarky with our reading comprehension-impaired guests.