Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You by far have some of the most profound posts on this board. THanks Dr.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

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.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

As another interesting item of "a Mormon wrote that the Bible says X, so we should all assume all Mormons believe that unless refuted" line of thinking:

A year ago I wrote a 27 page paper demonstrating the evolution of early Israelite views showing clearly that the early Israelites believed God deceived, lied, and distorted truth to make his enemies suffer and die. It was a very careful grammatical study and (in my opinion) broke some new ground on the grammar of some words. If I had been an incompetent student of the Bible, I would have used Strong's, but that would have got me the same wrote answers as always. My conclusions are pretty solid on how modern translators and lexicons have not been willing to study some words in proper context due to the implications.

So, the reason I bring this up? Because I 100% believe that the Israelites believed that God lied, deceived, etc. to make others suffer. At the same time, I in know way believe it to be doctrine, even though I admittedly don't put limits on what God can and can't do and hold it open to possible real variations. But just because I wrote a large paper on it and studied it for hundreds of hours, and I am Mormon, does not mean that I should not ever let people know I am Mormon before sharing my views on what the Hebrew Bible itself says.

In my world, I talk with adults who have the ability to discern between the two, and who out of respect also would not use offensive phrases such as "If a Christian came over to a Mormon board...". But again, maybe that's just me. Being a Mormon and all who studies early Israelite history, maybe it's only expected of me to not make remarks that are derogatory when talking with my Jewish friends, even though Id on't believe what they do.

Of course, maybe I have this all wrong... it could be that "In my world, everyone's a pony and they eat butterflies and poop rainbows... aaaahhhhhh"

[WalkerW]

Of course, maybe I have this all wrong... it could be that "In my world, everyone's a pony and they eat butterflies and poop rainbows... aaaahhhhhh"

Or "In Catherine's world, the Bible is 100% inerrant, having never been tampered with in any other theological, cultural, or political fashion...aaaahhhhhh."

[kamenraider]

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

LOL -- I thought of pointing that out, but actually I think it may have been a resurrected devil from an older world, and Eve might have just thought it was the LORD. This might explain the motive behind why Satan "spake by the mouth of the serpent" and had Eve eat the fruit and be able to procreate mortal children, and might also explain some of the thinly veiled hints about sex in the early chapters of Genesis. Some have suggested that Eve was just seeing the birth of Cain as a fulfillment of the promise of the Lord that she would have seed that would bruise the serpent's head, however Moses 5 mentions sons and daughters being born before Cain and Abel. Could Cain and Abel have been twins by different fathers? Does the Hebrew translated "again bare" support this? (I don't know but have heard this suggested.) Who is referred to as "thy seed" when the serpent is cursed? Ordinary snakes? Bad people who are only symbolically such? Could Jesus' statement in Matt. 13 that "the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one" be taken literally?

[bluebell]

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.

I haven't read the thread on CARM, but i wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't at least part of the reason that mak was even discussing the issue.

[maklelan]

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.

This is a reason Israelite temples were replete with fertility imagery. The oxen under the brazen sea aren't oxen for nothing.

[SlackTime]

This is a reason Israelite temples were replete with fertility imagery. The oxen under the brazen sea aren't oxen for nothing.

Other than the number of them being 12, referencing the 12 tribes, I have often wondered why the choice of an ox. Is there specific symbology there that I'm unfamiliar with? Does the brazen sea represent the waters of Chaos from which all things were created? and maybe an oblique reference to a womb? I am all ears... teach me!

- SlackTime

[maklelan]

Other than the number of them being 12, referencing the 12 tribes, I have often wondered why the choice of an ox. Is there specific symbology there that I'm unfamiliar with? Does the brazen sea represent the waters of Chaos from which all things were created? and maybe an oblique reference to a womb? I am all ears... teach me!

- SlackTime

The brazen sea originally represented the restraining of the waters of chaos, with the twelve oxen representing the twelve tribes of Israel, but also God's blessing them with fertility. Elsewhere God is called the Bull of Jacob ("Mighty One of Jacob" in KJV), which is the same ideology.

[David T]

Just had an epiphany on this topic.

I've been reading Margaret Barker's The Older Testament. In the course of which, I was able to see the connection in the Israelite mytholoogy between Kings, Stars, Angels, and Priests, and Shepherds (all pretty much the same thing).

The Kings of the Earth were all of these things. Their heavenly counterparts were elohim, or angels - the sons of Elyon.

The King of Israel was the counterpart of Yahweh - the firstborn of Elyon. The counterpart of the other nations were the other elohim.

A key purpose of Earth is to have the counterparts be as One, "On earth as it is in heaven", with all the sons of El subservient to, and in accordance with, Yahweh.

Adam is viewed as the first King/Priest, from who all the other nations of the earth are subservient. He is the first representative of Yahweh, and, in the context of the Old Testament (not taking into consideration the Restorationist re-contextualizing of the Eden narrative), was the first of the Kings to show themselves unworthy of being Yahweh's representative. In this case.

Without being the literal same personage of Yahweh, in Israelite Mythology, Adam may have been viewed as Yahweh, and Eve/Life as Wisdom, the consort of Yahweh,(the first of his creations - proceeded forth from his side) through whom all the nations of the earth came forth.

All Israelite kings are Adams: earthly representatives of Yahweh.

Just as the Adam of Genesis was the first Yahweh, Jesus is the last Adam. The perfect Yahweh, who in his millennial reign will allow things to be On Earth as it is in Heaven.

I think I'm going to study this up, and elaborate on this idea as a blog entry. Wow.

ADDITION: In this context, the Restoration connection between Adam and Michael is very interesting, seeing that in antiquity the archangel Michael ("Who is like El?"), also viewed as the patron of Israel, is also viewed in many writings as an aspect/Avatar of Yahweh.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Yes, and we have all noted that this poster, PaPa has bravely circumvented giving us his opinion of wether or not Yahweh biologically fathered Cain.

[Daniel Peterson]

Yes, and we have all noted that this poster, PaPa has bravely circumvented giving us his opinion of wether or not Yahweh biologically fathered Cain.

Have you found any Latter-day Saint here who does believe that?

Personally, I've never met one.

[Catherine Aurelia]

This is a reason Israelite temples were replete with fertility imagery. The oxen under the brazen sea aren't oxen for nothing.

It just seems to me that your are now attributing "fertility" imagery to YHWH, the God of the Jews, who gave the model of the Temple and its specifications. So, was YHWH into fertily worship?

Mormonism seems to have a real hang-up in this regard - sorry, but you can see it right here!

[Catherine Aurelia]

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/pu...d=51&chapid=258

What he did say is that that is what the true translation of the Hebrew in Genesis 4 teaches. Is that what you think?

By the way, you are certainly in a minority position regarding your view that "elohim" never refers men, and Ps. 82 obviously proves that the "elohim" there will die like men. God is eternal, and does not die. Furthermore, if the term "elohim" is referring to angelic beings (not in the Mormon sense of resurrected beings, which is not the Christian view), or even fallen angels, these "elohim" would be contingent beings and certainly not sharing the ontological nature of God.

Of course, I can see how avoiding the obvious fact that "elohim" can refer to beings other than "gods" or God serves to prop up Joseph Smith's view of many gods throughtout the universe. However, I believe that context, context, context, is the key to proper translation, and I'm sure you would agree.

[Vance]

What he did say is that that is what the true translation of the Hebrew in Genesis 4 SAYS.

There, fixed it for you.

[Zakuska]

Other than the number of them being 12, referencing the 12 tribes, I have often wondered why the choice of an ox. Is there specific symbology there that I'm unfamiliar with? Does the brazen sea represent the waters of Chaos from which all things were created? and maybe an oblique reference to a womb? I am all ears... teach me!

- SlackTime

There is a reason the Gods hand is holding a Sceptre of fertiliy over the Bulls "hinder parts" in the hypercephelus in the POGP.

[Catherine Aurelia]

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.

No, he was carefully questioned by several on the board. He said that he believed the translation indicates that Cain's father is Yahweh, not Adam. It is possible that he did not personally believe this, but if so, he did not articulate that.

[Vance]

By the way, you are certainly in a minority position regarding your view that "elohim" never refers men, . . .

The educated are always in the minority. The ignorant have always out numbered those that know.

So what is your point.

Of course, I can see how avoiding the obvious fact that "elohim" never refers to MORTAL (you missed this important adjective) men serves to prop up the anti-mormon view. However, I believe that context, context, context, is the key to proper translation, unfortunately for you, your understanding of the context is in error.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Have you found any Latter-day Saint here who does believe that?

Personally, I've never met one.

Do you agree with mak's view that Genesis 4 indicates Yahweh is the father of Cain, and that Bible translators know this and have not correctly translated the passage in order to avoid any reference to Yahweh having a sexual union with Eve?

[Vance]

Do you agree with mak's view that Genesis 4 indicates Yahweh is the father of Cain, and that Bible translators know this and have not correctly translated the passage in order to avoid any reference to Yahweh having a sexual union with Eve?

That really creates a problem for the Bible inerrantists, but not Mormons. You know, that "translated correctly" thing.

[maklelan]

It just seems to me that your are now attributing "fertility" imagery to YHWH, the God of the Jews, who gave the model of the Temple and its specifications. So, was YHWH into fertily worship?

Not worship, but the iconography is crystal clear. This isn't really a topic that's open for debate. Fertility is without question a main focus of the temple.

Mormonism seems to have a real hang-up in this regard - sorry, but you can see it right here!

And you seem to have a real hard time accepting facts when they conflict with your dogmas.

[Daniel Peterson]

What he did say is that that is what the true translation of the Hebrew in Genesis 4 teaches. Is that what you think?

He's a good Hebraist, and -- correct me if I'm wrong -- I believe that David Bokovoy, another very fine Hebraist and a doctoral student in Hebrew Bible in one of the finest Hebrew Bible programs in America, has concurred with him.

I would defer to their reading of the Hebrew.

But I very much doubt that either one of them -- or any other minimally mainstream and sane Latter-day Saint -- believes that Yahweh, rather than Adam, is the father of Cain.

By the way, you are certainly in a minority position regarding your view that "elohim" never refers men,

Not in recent decades I'm not. As I show in the article to which I've referred you (and which, I'm guessing, you have not read).

and Ps. 82 obviously proves that the "elohim" there will die like men. God is eternal, and does not die. Furthermore, if the term "elohim" is referring to angelic beings (not in the Mormon sense of resurrected beings, which is not the Christian view), or even fallen angels, these "elohim" would be contingent beings and certainly not sharing the ontological nature of God.

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

Incidentally, if you can find a real discussion of "ontology" anywhere in the Bible, I hope you'll point it out to me.

I do Greek and Arabic philosophy, in which there's a lot of discussion of ousia or "being," but I've never seen anything of the kind in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. What, I ask, has Athens to do with Jerusalem?

Of course, I can see how avoiding the obvious fact that "elohim" can refer to beings other than "gods" or God serves to prop up Joseph Smith's view of many gods throughtout the universe.

My good friend the late David Noel Freedman abominated the word obvious, and virtually always struck it from works that he edited -- and he edited lots of them -- because, as he once told me while editing something of mine, obvious and obviously are very often used, as you've just used the word, by people who seek to disguise the weakness of their case via bluster.

However, I believe that context, context, context, is the key to proper translation, and I'm sure you would agree.

It's one of the keys. No doubt. But knowing the relevant languages and having a good dictionary are also relevant. As is letting the text speak for itself, without seeking to impose one's own foreign concepts upon it.

That's why very few scholars today hold to the position on the term elohim that you pretend is so obvious and, it seems, even commonly recognized except by disingenuous Mormon apologists such as myself.

[Zakuska]

Not worship, but the iconography is crystal clear. This isn't really a topic that's open for debate. Fertility is without question a main focus of the temple.

And you seem to have a real hard time accepting facts when they conflict with your dogmas.

AMEN!

Ps. 2: 7

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Acts 13: 33

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Heb. 1: 5

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Heb. 5: 5

5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

[maklelan]

What he did say is that that is what the true translation of the Hebrew in Genesis 4 teaches. Is that what you think?

By the way, you are certainly in a minority position regarding your view that "elohim" never refers men,

No, actually you are in the minority thinking otherwise. The kicker is that that entire minority is made up of people who don't know Hebrew.

and Ps. 82 obviously proves that the "elohim" there will die like men.

Which, as I have explained directly to you several times, is intended to stand in sharp and blatant contrast to their nature as gods.

God is eternal, and does not die.

The Bible doesn't say God would die, it says the other gods would die. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. That you continue to vomit up "Nu-uh!" repeatedly instead of address the facts presented you shows you're not interested in the truth, but only in the proliferation of your dogmatism, no matter what it has to do with the truth.

Furthermore, if the term "elohim" is referring to angelic beings (not in the Mormon sense of resurrected beings, which is not the Christian view), or even fallen angels, these "elohim" would be contingent beings and certainly not sharing the ontological nature of God.

"Contingent beings" is not something that even comes within sight of the worldview of the Hebrew Bible. That's much, much later ideas retrojected into a place they absolutely do not belong.

Of course, I can see how avoiding the obvious fact that "elohim" can refer to beings other than "gods" or God serves to prop up Joseph Smith's view of many gods throughtout the universe. However, I believe that context, context, context, is the key to proper translation, and I'm sure you would agree.

But you keep ignoring the context and instead assert nakedly that your utterly made up context is meaningful. You've already been embarrassed for high-fiving Biblos when he was completely and totally wrong and then again when you accidentally cited scholarship in support of your position that actually entirely undermines your position (after rounds and rounds of denigrating that scholar because he agreed with me). You don't read any of this scholarship, you don't know any of the facts, and you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.