Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[maklelan]

give me the most recent lexica.

Lexica is plural for lexicon. The two most recent are Issam K. H. Halayqa, A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 340; M

[ERayR]

Mak, please list any scholars who agree with you - that Genesis 4:1 is speaking of Eve procreating a child with God. Thank you. I am in contact with a professor who works in Middle Eastern studies and will review this with her.

Here you are asking Mak for a list of scholars and yet you refuse to give the cites for the Scholars you brandish about like a club. For the last time produce the list.

[WalkerW]

Mak, please list any scholars who agree with you - that Genesis 4:1 is speaking of Eve procreating a child with God. Thank you. I am in contact with a professor who works in Middle Eastern studies and will review this with her.

Mak already did. A couple times. Read his past few comments and you will find them. Quit making everyone repeat themselves.

What "professor"? Provide a name. And provide the scholars' names who you mentioned before.

And once again, are you Athanasius from CARM?

[Catherine Aurelia]

Again, I apologize.

Hopefully when I do receive my due punishment, it will serve to illustrate the differences of which you speak.

No problem, Silver Knight. I've done my share of getting angry on apologetics boards, myself. Maybe someday we can sit down and talk under calmer circumstances. I'm not some Mormon-hating "wretch." I have Mormon friends and discuss these kind of issues with them all the time. I've even had them come to church with me. In fact, I spoke at the funeral of one who recently passed away.

So, certainly, apology accepted and I'm sorry if I was out of line with you.

[Doctor Steuss]

give me the most recent lexica.

Hi Catherine,

Welcome again to this thread. I hope that someone will post up something for you (since nothing has been provided yet). I especially hope it

[Catherine Aurelia]

Lexica is plural for lexicon. The two most recent are Issam K. H. Halayqa, A Comparative Lexicon of Ugaritic and Canaanite (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 340; M

[maklelan]

Mak, please list any scholars who agree with you - that Genesis 4:1 is speaking of Eve procreating a child with God. Thank you. I am in contact with a professor who works in Middle Eastern studies and will review this with her.

Athanasius, I already did:

Athanasius, twice in this thread I've cited the four most authoritative lexica on the planet for this topic. Here they are again. Respond or leave, but stop pretending this information is still lacking:

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

[WalkerW]

Mola, you may have heard it all, but have you met Jesus?

You dodged his question again

[SilverKnight]

Mola, you may have heard it all, but have you met Jesus?

Catherine:

First I'll repeat my apology.

Second, are you Carmella/Athanasius from CARM?

[WalkerW]

As has been pointed out on another site, mak, using Canaanite illustrations has nothing to do with Judaism. One is pagan - one is monotheistic. But, I'll forward these to the professor.

You can't be serious.

Who is "the professor?"

[maklelan]

As has been pointed out on another site, mak, using Canaanite illustrations has nothing to do with Judaism. One is pagan - one is monotheistic.

And Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Don't bother trying to talk down to me about this stuff. The languages are almost identical, and the root qnh is used the same ways in all the Canaanite languages.

But, I'll forward these to the professor.

Whoopdie doo. If the professor doesn't already know what lexica to use then the professor has no experience with this verb or anything related, meaning their judgment call is going to be pretty superficial and meaningless. If you'd like to tell me the name of the professor, however (or PM it to me), I can tell you if they are in the proper specialization or not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola, you may have heard it all, but have you met Jesus?

I am intrigued, what does meeting Jesus have to do with salvation. Do I know Jesus? Yes. That is a different question though. I cannot say that I have met Jesus in person. Meaning that he has not physically visited me. I have felt the HG on numerous times though.

I do digress. I really haven't heard it all. I have heard much though.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Athanasius, I already did:

[Catherine Aurelia]

I am intrigued, what does meeting Jesus have to do with salvation. Do I know Jesus? Yes. That is a different question though. I cannot say that I have met Jesus in person. Meaning that he has not physically visited me. I have felt the HG on numerous times though.

I do digress. I really haven't heard it all. I have heard much though.

You really need to ask yourself what it would not have to do with salvation. It is, after all, all about Jesus - for if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. When a Christian speaks of "knowing" the Lord Jesus, they mean they have experienced that saving grace spoken of in Scripture, and now have an assurance that their sins are forgiven and that they have become a child of God by faith.

[maklelan]

I'm aware of that, and have already forwarded your sources, and will also forward this commentary you have posted.

Regarding commentary, you referenced SK's comments over on CARM, and followed with commentary of your own:

Considering the source, of course, we know the demonic motivation of such invective. However, on the whole, I think it pretty well demonstrates how some Mormons deal with "challenges" to their heresy.

He's since apologized, and you accepted it. That was over 20 minutes ago. Do you intend to mention that over at CARM, or are you just going to let the statement sit there and fester in everyone's minds? If so, I find that a terribly dishonest and manipulative thing to do. If you truly accepted the apology, then I think it's incumbent upon you to make that know to those with whom you shared the comment in an effort to enrage.

[Doctor Steuss]

As has been pointed out on another site, mak, using Canaanite illustrations has nothing to do with Judaism. One is pagan - one is monotheistic. But, I'll forward these to the professor.

Hi Catherine,

If your professor friend agrees with your statements in the above quote box, I bet he's super smart, and is a department head for a universally respected ANE Studies program.

(Wish I knew a professor

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You really need to ask yourself what it would not have to do with salvation. It is, after all, all about Jesus - for if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. When a Christian speaks of "knowing" the Lord Jesus, they mean they have experienced that saving grace spoken of in Scripture, and now have an assurance that their sins are forgiven and that they have become a child of God by faith.

Which is what I believe. I believe that I can know my sins are forgiven. I have experianced that quite a few times in my life. I ask for forgivness at least 2 times a day sometimes more. I know that we can become the children of Christ though the atonement. The main disagreement though boils down that I see, is that you think that it is a one time deal. I think that it is an ongoing process.

Believe it or not we believe a lot of the same things. Do we believe somethings differently? Yes. If we wish to focus on those differences then we are limited in our abititly to see the others point of view. Sometimes looking at the difference can enhance each others view. It just depends on how those differences are disccussed.

[alter idem]

Athanasius, I already did:

[Catherine Aurelia]

And Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Don't bother trying to talk down to me about this stuff. The languages are almost identical, and the root qnh is used the same ways in all the Canaanite languages.

Nobody is "talking down" to you. That is just paranoia kicking in. The fact is that paganism is not to be equated with the monotheism of the Bible, nor is the Bible interpreted by it.

Whoopdie doo. If the professor doesn't already know what lexica to use then the professor has no experience with this verb or anything related, meaning their judgment call is going to be pretty superficial and meaningless. If you'd like to tell me the name of the professor, however (or PM it to me), I can tell you if they are in the proper specialization or not.

Well, I highly doubt any scholar you disagree with would be up to snuff in your eyes. You've already said Jesus' Hebrew was rudimentary. But since she has a doctorate, I respect her opinon. All you've given us is documentation that you believe that paganism must define the intent of the writer of Genesis, and that the words of some "mother goddess" have been placed in Eve's mouth. A lot of speculation, especially since the writers of Genesis were monotheists. Why would they borrow from the Canaanites? To use your professional insight, "whoopie doo."

Again, what does the first part of Genesis 4:1 state?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well said SK,

Now if only Catherine would take my suggestion from earlier and make her apologies, to Mak for misrepresenting him, etc. We could all join Dr Peterson in his love fest =)

- SlackTime

I agree that Mak is due an apology for having his position willfully misrepresented -- continuously, after the offender was corrected multiple times.

And we are entitled to an answer to the question of whether she posted here under the name "Carmella" and any other assorted handles.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Which is what I believe. I believe that I can know my sins are forgiven. I have experianced that quite a few times in my life. I ask for forgivness at least 2 times a day sometimes more. I know that we can become the children of Christ though the atonement. The main disagreement though boils down that I see, is that you think that it is a one time deal. I think that it is an ongoing process.

No, I believe we must continue to ask for forgiveness, but that Christ's Blood continually cleanses us from all sin, as John states.

Believe it or not we believe a lot of the same things. Do we believe somethings differently? Yes. If we wish to focus on those differences then we are limited in our abititly to see the others point of view. Sometimes looking at the difference can enhance each others view. It just depends on how those differences are disccussed.

Well, mola, it's the definition of words that separates us. But, I pray you'll be in Christ's Kingdom when He returns, I really do.

[maklelan]

Well, I highly doubt any scholar you disagree with would be up to snuff in your eyes.

That's not true at all. Lowell Handy disagrees with me, but I highly respect him; Bruce Vawter as well. I disagree with a couple of my professors on some things, but that doesn't mean I think they're not good scholars. No one is going to agree on everything, but I expect a level of experience with this area of Northwest Semitic philology, and I don't think your "scholar" is going to have it.

You've already said Jesus' Hebrew was rudimentary. But since she has a doctorate, I respect her opinon.

No you don't. I've already cited a dozen scholars who got their PhD's before your scholar was born and you haven't even acknowledged them. Don't pretend this is as simple as a fallacious appeal to authority. You appeal to education when you think it props up your dogmas and you denigrate it when it doesn't.

All you've given us is documentation that you believe that paganism must define the intent of the writer of Genesis, and that the words of some "mother goddess" have been placed in Eve's mouth. A lot of speculation, especially since the writers of Genesis were monotheists. Why would they borrow from the Canaanites? To use your professional insight, "whoopie doo."

No, no writers or redactors of Genesis were monotheists.

[SilverKnight]

Regarding commentary, you referenced SK's comments over on CARM, and followed with commentary of your own:

He's since apologized, and you accepted it. That was over 20 minutes ago. Do you intend to mention that over at CARM, or are you just going to let the statement sit there and fester in everyone's minds? If so, I find that a terribly dishonest and manipulative thing to do. If you truly accepted the apology, then I think it's incumbent upon you to make that know to those with whom you shared the comment in an effort to enrage.

Considering the source, of course, we know the demonic motivation of such invective. However, on the whole, I think it pretty well demonstrates how some Mormons deal with "challenges" to their heresy.

So Carmella, level with me here.

You took what I said, and ran off to CARM with it, and prescribed demonic motivations to it?

An angry rant is evidence of demonic possession!

Then you used my rant about your past dishonesty, as justification as how mormons deal with challenges to their heresy?

My earlier rant, which I will likely be banned for, was all about your well-documented record of twisting the truth. Now you are doing exactly that.

Do you realize the irony in all this?

[maklelan]

Again, what does the first part of Genesis 4:1 state?

That Adam knew his wife and she conceived and bore a son. I addressed this ad nauseum at CARM. My point was never that the second part of the verse agrees with the first, and I explained exactly why at CARM. You really need to pay better attention.

[WalkerW]

Nobody is "talking down" to you. That is just paranoia kicking in.

No, you've had an elitist attitude since you started posting.

The fact is that paganism is not to be equated with the monotheism of the Bible, nor is the Bible interpreted by it.

1. This is about language, not theology necessarily.

2. This is a presupposition. One which you haven't backed up with any sources.

Well, I highly doubt any scholar you disagree with would be up to snuff in your eyes.

Kind of like how no Mormon scholar is up to snuff in yours?

You've already said Jesus' Hebrew was rudimentary.

And?

But since she has a doctorate, I respect her opinon.

Who is she? Mak's scholars have doctorates too.

especially since the writers of Genesis were monotheists

You said something about speculation?

Again, what does the first part of Genesis 4:1 state?

He's already answered this.