Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[Walden]

It's been a while since I stepped foot in an LDS church, but growing up in the church and studying it for a number of years, I never once heard that theory.

I imagine if it had been proposed by church leadership or rumored as doctrine, the anti's would have jumped all over it, much like they have the God and Mary relationship belief/doctrine in the LDS church.

[alter idem]

(fixed it for you).

Your supposed "Mormon" is a nut job.

Gen 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain. . .

Cain's biological father was Adam, end of story.

response:

I agree with you. Actually, this person is a well known Mormon and also posts here and elsewhere, and claims to be educated in biblical languages. And, I know for a fact he is a Mormon - not a "claimed" Mormon.

[Catherine Aurelia]

It really doesn't matter who he is or how scholarly he is, You asked a question. Do we teach this? The answer is NO. If you ask any regular LDS person who attends church this question as you posed it here, including President Monson, they will tell you NO. We don't teach that, we don't believe it; your friend's interpretation is his own...it is not representative of the mainstream teachings of the LDS church. If he says he believes it, I guess he can do that, but I assure you the rest of us don't.

Well, he's hardly my "friend." I understand that it isn't Mormon doctrine, but came here to verify that, and to see what other Mormons think. What I'd really like to know is if any other Mormon linguists claim Genesis 4 states that the father of Cain is Yahweh.

[bluebell]

A person presenting himself as a Mormon linguistic scholar, claiming that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh (which would be the pre-Incarnate Jesus according to Mormonism) was the father of Cain (of course, that would have a spirit-creature fathering a physical child), raises a lot of eyebrows - especially among Christians. Whether or not Mormons agree with this (and I would like to know what Dr. Peterson has to say), the fact is that someone stating as much (as a Mormon) is bound to cause controversy. I'm glad to see that, besides one or two ambiguous statements, nobody here believes such a thing.

It doesn't appear that mak believes it either-only that that's more or less the literal translation of Gen. 4.

It seems like you made some assumptions about what mak was saying. They weren't illogical, but they were assumptions. Best to just admit such was the case than to continue to try to make it seem like it's mak's fault for the mistake.

[alter idem]

It really doesn't matter who he is or how scholarly he is, You asked a question. Do we teach this? The answer is NO. If you ask any regular LDS person who attends church this question as you posed it here, including President Monson, they will tell you NO. We don't teach that, we don't believe it; your friend's interpretation is his own...it is not representative of the mainstream teachings of the LDS church. If he says he believes it, I guess he can do that, but I assure you the rest of us don't.

Well, he's hardly my "friend." I understand that it isn't Mormon doctrine, but came here to verify that, and to see what other Mormons think. What I'd really like to know is if any other Mormon linguists claim Genesis 4 states that the father of Cain is Yahweh.

I didn't mean anything nefarious by calling him your 'friend'--I meant it more as aquaintance.

I'm just not sure what you want. You posed your question asking if this was Mormon belief and clearly it is not. But it seems that Mak may never had intimated it was Mormon Belief--only that this was a literal interpretation of the text as he saw it. Whether or not he believes that, you'll have to ask him--but LDS sure don't. I hope if you take anything from this conversation, you understand that.

It appears you want 'Mormon linguists' or Dr. Peterson's opinion on the interpretation of the text.....maybe they will respond, but it won't change the fact that it's not LDS doctrine or an interpretation of the text that would be embraced by mainstream LDS members.

[Daniel Peterson]

A person presenting himself as a Mormon linguistic scholar, claiming that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh (which would be the pre-Incarnate Jesus according to Mormonism) was the father of Cain (of course, that would have a spirit-creature fathering a physical child), raises a lot of eyebrows - especially among [non-Mormon] Christians. Whether or not Mormons agree with this (and I would like to know what Dr. Peterson has to say),

I've already commented, above.

I'm aware of nobody, whether Christian or non-Mormon, who believes that Yahweh, rather than Adam, was the father of Cain. I would be extraordinarily surprised to find out that Mak believes it, either.

Moreover, as I've already said above, I find no serious evidence to suggest that the term elohim should ever be taken to refer to mortal men.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=258

[kamenraider]

Here's a link to a post I made in another thread that contains info regarding Eve and Cain: LINK

[Cold Steel]

A person presenting himself as a Mormon linguistic scholar, claiming that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh (...the pre-Incarnate Jesus...) was the father of Cain (of course, that would have a spirit-creature fathering a physical child), raises a lot of eyebrows - especially among Christians.

Yes, including Mormon Christians. It's an oddball, fruitcake notion. Are you sure you're not confusing us with Jehovah's Witnesses?

Whether or not Mormons agree with this (and I would like to know what Dr. Peterson has to say), the fact is that someone stating as much (as a Mormon) is bound to cause controversy. I'm glad to see that, besides one or two ambiguous statements, nobody here believes such a thing.

The problem is, you ought to do some reading, or at least try to educate yourself on some of these things before posting. I've had people ask me if we thing Joseph Smith is Jesus Christ, and while that might be an understandable impromptu question, there are more than enough church-sponsored educational sites on Mormonism that could really lay things like this to rest. And though Dr. Peterson is a competent scholar and an articulate spokesman for the church in these matters, you'll find many others here also know church doctrine and history. God's involvement with evil has always been a problem for theologians and philosophers, but if God created all things, the conclusion is inescapable. He also created evil. Or did He?

LDS theology has addressed this as every other Christian religion. You might want to read David Paulsen's Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil.

.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As a reader of Biblical Hebrew, one who tried to read daily in Hebrew, etc., and as an active Mormon I declare...:

1) Both Mak and David are absolutely correct in that the most accurate reading of the last part of the passage, based on grammatical structures in Hebrew, is that Eve and YHWH had a little trist of sorts. It should be noted that most biblical scholars, myself included, believe that in the early parts of Genesis, one "verse" may have multiple sources, usually from J or E, but sometimes even D and other authors. Thus, the first part seems to indicate Adam and Eve, the second otherwise. Sometimes rather than trying to make them correlate, it just seems more logical to say that they don't correlate at all. That said, it's not overly important in this verse, but I present it only as food for thought.

2) I, as a Mormon and a not-so-practicing scholar, do not believe that YHWH and Eve had sex and that Cain is their love-child. I do believe that scriptures, especially the Old Testament, are highly corrupted, full of mythology and political propaganda, etc. etc., but that thankfully, the Lord in his wisdom did in the latter days bring forth clarity and truth through modern prophets and scripture.

Just my thoughts.

Shalom.

Edited: As I went to sleep last night, I realized I put one source as "W" instead of "E". I was thinking of someone earlier in the thread mentioned Jehovah Witnesses. I'm only a little impressionable....;-)

[torquate]

What if a Christian had come here and said such a thing?

Catherine,

Do you realize how strange and awkward-sounding this is to us?

It would be like someone quoting me and then asking "What if a human had said such a thing?"

[Cold Steel]

Catherine is very aware of her terminology and in my opinion is being rude and ignorant. Who knows what her motives are? She's here with a chip on her shoulder and is in no mood to either be polite or to really engage in discussion. Her primary objective is to be insulting as far as I can tell.

[WalkerW]

I believe his credentials lay in the Spirit-led reading of Scripture.

Oh, well, in this case: I've had a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is true and that the LDS Church is true. That, therefore, leads me not to trust Bill McKeever.

On top of this I've got experts in the actual field of Hebrew in a variety of faiths backing up my view of this particular passage.

I guess I win.

Also, a person with a concordance can easily see how the word "elohim" is used in many ways: angels, mighty men, besides a reference to the True God.

Context is everything, and this is something Mormons need to consider.

Maklelan explained all this already. Throwing out the word "context" without even giving a context is rather ironic. I'd love to hear exactly what context makes the gods of Ps. 82 mortal men. Please try to provide things that have not been addressed by Maklelan or in Dr. Peterson's article that he provided.

[WalkerW]

A person presenting himself as a Mormon linguistic scholar, claiming that Genesis 4 teaches that Yahweh (which would be the pre-Incarnate Jesus according to Mormonism) was the father of Cain (of course, that would have a spirit-creature fathering a physical child), raises a lot of eyebrows - especially among Christians. Whether or not Mormons agree with this (and I would like to know what Dr. Peterson has to say), the fact is that someone stating as much (as a Mormon) is bound to cause controversy. I'm glad to see that, besides one or two ambiguous statements, nobody here believes such a thing.

Quit putting Mormon-context in his mouth. He does not say this is the Mormon view or his personal view. This is what the text says based on his academic training. There is a difference.

I want you to acknowledge this.

[Smith]

What I'd really like to know is if any other Mormon linguists claim Genesis 4 states that the father of Cain is Yahweh.

Have you not read the responses from David Bokovoy in this very thread??

[Ron Beron]

I'm sure this was Mac and he's correct. The literal meaning of Genesis 4:1 is "I have procreated a man with Yahweh." I discuss the matter in my dissertation which discusses the connection between God's sexuality and the divine council, but I don't remember doing so on a message board.

I'm calling your bishop as I type....tsk tsk...I told you that that God's body stuff will get you in trouble.

[Ron Beron]

I haven't read the thread, but Mac knows what he's talking about. All I can say is again, Mac is correct that the passage literally states that Yahweh procreated a child with Eve. This is clearly an intentional play upon traditions in the Bible and the ancient Near East where gods produce offspring sexually with mortal woman. It's just a play on themes, however, for as has been mentioned in this thread, the verse itself identifies Adam as the biological father of Cain.

I have read that in some legends it was the satan that procreated with Eve although the Bible states that emphatically Adam was the father of Cain.

[maklelan]

I believe his credentials lay in the Spirit-led reading of Scripture. Also, a person with a concordance can easily see how the word "elohim" is used in many ways: angels, mighty men, besides a reference to the True God. Context is everything, and this is something Mormons need to consider.

Wow, a thread aimed directly at me, and it's attracted so much attention! Catherine/Athanasius, you don't seem to be paying much attention at all (or you don't care). To begin with, concordances aren't for figuring out word meanings. I explained quite clearly how and why Biblos' staggeringly incompetent use of Strong's led him down the path of an indefensible conclusion (claiming ???? ????? means "mighty thunder," for instance. By the way, all those knowledgeable in Hebrew are now giggling to themselves). You didn't respond, and you couldn't. You and Biblos' were flat wrong. You have been shown to be flat wrong over and over and over again. You have all been shown to be remarkably inept students of Hebrew and the Bible, and your only response is to try to shame me as a Mormon and to whine so that I am banned (again) from CARM. Calling me a "pompous arse" and a "snot nosed little boy" are evidently no problem, but telling you your argument is "bigotry" is ban-worthy.

As far as my statement about Gen 4:1, I stated numerous times directly to you that I was not there to promote Mormonism, but to correct a rather ridiculous misunderstanding. I was explaining what the texts say, not my personal theology. I don't believe Eve was conceived by Yahweh. The text clearly states that, though. Attempts to get around it will never be anything but attempts to get around it. I explained that I don't believe the Bible is inerrant. You asked this same question in a thread over there and didn't get the response you wanted, and so now you come over here? Tell me, did you get the response you wanted?

[maklelan]

Wow. This is my dissertation topic! But I don't remember discussing the issue on a website. It must be Mac, he's a lunatic.

I've been working on a paper that argues Gen 14:19, 22's ??? ???? ???? means "El, begetter of the heavens and earth."

[Chris Smith]

NO. LDS Theology is that Cain is the mortal child of Adam and Eve.

If Adam = Yahweh, the contradiction goes away...

[maklelan]

If Adam = Yahweh, the contradiction goes away...

Or you can just recognize the fractured nature of the text and its historical layers.

[David Bokovoy]

I've been working on a paper that argues Gen 14:19, 22's ??? ???? ???? means "El, begetter of the heavens and earth."

Awesome! Please let me know when you've finished. I would love to read it.

Best,

--DB

[David Bokovoy]

I'm calling your bishop as I type....tsk tsk...I told you that that God's body stuff will get you in trouble.

You don't know the half of it. The worst part occurred when in a rushed moment, I accidently used a Church computer to try and find the bibliographic information for Gwendolyn Leick's book and in a complete act of absent minded innocency, ran a google search for sex and eroticism.

I'll never make that mistake again!

[Ron Beron]

You don't know the half of it. The worst part occurred when in a rushed moment, I accidently used a Church computer to try and find the bibliographic information for Gwendolyn Leick's book and in a complete act of absent minded innocency, ran a google search for sex and eroticism.

I'll never make that mistake again!

LOL Too funny.

[maklelan]

Awesome! Please let me know when you've finished. I would love to read it.

Best,

--DB

It's on hold for now while I work on my masters thesis, which is on the evolution of the divine council during the Second Temple Period, but I have most of it done. I really just have to wrap it up and write a conclusion.

[Ron Beron]

I've been working on a paper that argues Gen 14:19, 22's ??? ???? ???? means "El, begetter of the heavens and earth."

Aside from the specific reference in Genesis it makes perfect sense for the ancient Israelite to perceive a sexual connotation in their supreme deity. Given the proximity of Ba'al et al and their erotic behaviors it seems like a natural assumption. Lets take it one step forward and assign "heavenly" virility to the king or priest level. This seems to be the essential message in not only the "warming" of King David in his latter years, but also in the Egyptian funeral rites and even European kingly prerequisites. Sex and the revivication of that notion post death seemed to be an essential part of the ancient world. I would look forward to reading Mak's paper.