Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[Catherine Aurelia]

I don't seem to recall Mak referring to Jesus as an ignoramus. Calvinists on the other hand . . . (can't say I disagree with him on that score).

Well, you would be surprised what an undergraduate degree at BYU can do for you. We usually try to keep this secret, but it is true, an undergraduate degree from BYU pretty much makes you smarter than Jesus. I have a graduate degree from BYU so I, of course, consider people like Einstein, Newton, and so forth as pretty much bush-league.

I doubt Jesus was mistaken, but I have a hunch that the interminable layers of dogma applied to his words over the centuries probably are mistaken in many respects.

But, really, what difference does this make? Most Mormons I know have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior so in the rapture we will be right there with you, even if your little brand of dogma happens to be right.

Of course, it has to be the Jesus of Scripture who saves us. You'd agree, wouldn't you?

[Daniel Peterson]

Of course, it has to be the Jesus of Scripture who saves us. You'd agree, wouldn't you?

What C.A. is eventually going to say is that you have to accept something pretty close to evangelical doctrine about Jesus in order to be saved.

So it's really, practically speaking, salvation by grace in addition to adherence to certain doctrines, or salvation through Christ and evangelical-certified orthodoxy.

Incidentally, I just went over and looked at the relevant thread at CARM. Wow. The place is as toxic (and complacent and useless) as I remember it. I was amused to read about the behind-the-scenes role that I've apparently been playing in the "discussion" there, coaching Mak and scheming to save Mormonism through his graduate work, or something like that.

[Catherine Aurelia]

I found the following NASB version, which seems to accord with what you are saying:

"Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, "I have gotten a manchild with {the help of} the LORD."

It at least puts "the help of" in brackets to show that this was added (I assume that is what the brackets mean).

Carefully read the first part of the verse which states that Adam "knew" Eve, biblical language for sexual intercourse. When Eve states she had the child with the Lord, the word indicates she attained the child through God's assistance. It's quite obvious when one reads these words in context instead of looking for some kind of inference of sexual activity between the Lord God and Eve, that the verse indicates the Lord's help - the verb "kanah" means to acquire or to get, but does not mean conceived (and this is from a Jewish source).

[Catherine Aurelia]

What C.A. is eventually going to say is that you have to accept something pretty close to evangelical doctrine about Jesus in order to be saved.

No, I said you must accept the Biblical Jesus to be saved - you will find Him described in John 1.

So it's really, practically speaking, salvation by grace in addition to adherence to certain doctrines, or salvation through Christ and evangelical-certified orthodoxy.

No, it's totally of God. No man can come to Christ unless the Father draws that person. I hold to the doctrines of Sovereign Grace. Are you familiar with them?

Incidentally, I just went over and looked at the relevant thread at CARM. Wow. The place is as toxic (and complacent and useless) as I remember it. I was amused to read about the behind-the-scenes role that I've apparently been playing in the "discussion" there, coaching Mak and scheming to save Mormonism through his graduate work, or something like that.

I'll have to take a look - not sure what you're talking about.

[dblagent007]

Of course, it has to be the Jesus of Scripture who saves us. You'd agree, wouldn't you?

I read the New Testament, felt God's influence as I did so, and accepted Jesus as my Savior. As I recall, that is all I need to do (shoot, I only needed to accept Jesus as my personal Savior). Are you adding more requirements to salvation, possibly some kind of work (like adherence to Calvinist dogma)? Boy, I sure hope not.

[Daniel Peterson]

No, I said you must accept the Biblical Jesus to be saved - you will find Him described in John 1.

I know that chapter very well, and I accept it completely.

One would think, in view of what you've just said, that that would suffice to make me a Christian. But I suspect, somehow, that it won't.

No, it's totally of God. No man can come to Christ unless the Father draws that person. I hold to the doctrines of Sovereign Grace. Are you familiar with them?

Yup.

[dblagent007]

Carefully read the first part of the verse which states that Adam "knew" Eve, biblical language for sexual intercourse. When Eve states she had the child with the Lord, the word indicates she attained the child through God's assistance. It's quite obvious when one reads these words in context instead of looking for some kind of inference of sexual activity between the Lord God and Eve, that the verse indicates the Lord's help - the verb "kanah" means to acquire or to get, but does not mean conceived (and this is from a Jewish source).

Deny it all you want, but the NASB translation, without the inserted bracketed text for which there is no corresponding Hebrew, states that "I have gotten a manchild with the Lord." This clearly supports what Mak and David (both experts in Hebrew) have been saying in this thread.

[Catherine Aurelia]

He might have embraced Jesus as his "personal savior", but at the end of the day Jesus is just

another "nuh-uh" ignoramus as far as Mak is concerned. Not only does Mak claim that the likes

of the Talmudic sages, Maimonides, Rashi, Isaak of Troki, and Jewish scholarship of the last two

thousand years were "incompetent" at understanding Hebrew (and that he knows Hebrew better

than any of them); Mak has stated several times that he -- by virtue of an undergraduate degree

from BYU* -- knows Hebrew better than Jesus of Nazareth himself. Apparently, Jesus was mistaken

in his understanding of the word elohim in Psalm 82. Only by virtue of recent readings of pagan

non-biblical fairytales can the true meaning of elohim be understood. Sorry Jesus, next time you

decide to give one of your unscholarly "nuh-uh" sermons, you better step aside and let Mak do

the talking to save yourself any embarrassment.

* And don't try the "Oxford" high and mighty infallibility shtick with me; He's only been at Oxford for

5 weeks now, and he's been claiming all this garbage for a lot longer than that!

Kind Regards,

Thorkyll

This is inappropriate and uncalled for. You are banned from the thread and if you aren't capable of talking about the subject instead of the poster find yourself another board.

Yes, I do recall that mak said that Jesus had a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, or something like that. Of course, Jesus was a rabbi, and read the Hebrew scrolls in the synagogue. I think mak would do well to study exactly how the Jews preserved their Scriptures and their meanings.

Actually, here is mak's exact quote from CARM:

"Jesus spoke Aramaic.. His Hebrew, if he knew any, would have been rudimentary at best."

Since Jesus was fully guided by the Holy Spirit, and also taught and read texts in Hebrew, I'd say his knowledge far surpassed any person's, past or present. Furthermore, when he debated the Pharisees, He would debate in Hebrew (as Catholics used to debate in Latin), according to one historical source I consulted. You would think that the statement, "if he knew any" is really incredibly naive, given the fact that Jesus was a teacher and rabbi. I don't think it was called for at all.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Deny it all you want, but the NASB translation, without the inserted bracketed text for which there is no corresponding Hebrew, states that "I have gotten a manchild with the Lord." This clearly supports what Mak and David (both experts in Hebrew) have been saying in this thread.

What's the first part of the verse say? You have to totally ignore the context of the phrase to come away with Yahweh having sex with Eve. The word "kanah" does not relate to conception or procreation.

[Catherine Aurelia]

I know that chapter very well, and I accept it completely.

One would think, in view of what you've just said, that that would suffice to make me a Christian. But I suspect, somehow, that it won't.

Yup.

I'm not your judge. Your words will judge you on that day, as I'm sure you know. I hope all things, therefore, I hope I'll see you there.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not your judge. Your words will judge you on that day, as I'm sure you know. I hope all things, therefore, I hope I'll see you there.

I thought all that mattered was that he accept the "biblical Jesus". Now his words will be judged against him?

Deny it all you want, but the NASB translation, without the inserted bracketed text for which there is no corresponding Hebrew, states that "I have gotten a manchild with the Lord." This clearly supports what Mak and David (both experts in Hebrew) have been saying in this thread.

What's the first part of the verse say? You have to totally ignore the context of the phrase to come away with Yahweh having sex with Eve. The word "kanah" does not relate to conception or procreation.

This is a prime example of you (and the NASB) reading into the text that which is not there. This is the whole point. As I said you believe the bible to be inerant, and it is your problem that the bible contains such phrasing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Carefully read the first part of the verse which states that Adam "knew" Eve, biblical language for sexual intercourse. When Eve states she had the child with the Lord, the word indicates she attained the child through God's assistance. It's quite obvious when one reads these words in context instead of looking for some kind of inference of sexual activity between the Lord God and Eve, that the verse indicates the Lord's help - the verb "kanah" means to acquire or to get, but does not mean conceived (and this is from a Jewish source).

If this is indeed the case why dopes the original state that "I have gotten a manchild with the Lord." I realize the supposed context, what we are question is why does the inerant bible use such phrasing when it is wrong.

[Daniel Peterson]

I thought all that mattered was that he accept the "biblical Jesus". Now his words will be judged against him?

Evangelicals who accept Jesus as depicted in John 1 can have, I suspect, absolute certainty that they are saved, and other evangelicals are entirely willing, in my experience, to speak of them as having been saved.

Mormons, though, can accept Jesus as depicted in John 1 and yet -- even when an evangelical professes not to judge -- their salvation remains, at best, uncertain.

Thus, there appears to be a doctrinal test. In fact, it isn't so much acceptance of Jesus that saves, apparently, as acceptance of Jesus coupled with adherence to evangelically-approved doctrine. To go even further, it seems that it's adherence to evangelically-approved doctrine that makes salvation certain, since, otherwise, acceptance of Jesus is common to both those whose salvation is certain and those whose salvation is not certain.

Let J represent "acceptance of Jesus," D represent "adherence to evangelically-approved doctrine," and S represent "certainty of salvation."

Plainly, on CA's understanding, J + D = S, but J < S.

Thus, while acceptance of Jesus is essential to salvation, according to CA's evident doctrine, it is potentially insufficient. It must be coupled with adherence to evangelically-approved doctrine in order to have assured saving power.

QED.

[Avatar4321]

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.

Fertility is a main focus of the temple?

[Zakuska]

Fertility is a main focus of the temple?

Surely you remember the promises, and phrasiology that is used?

[Zakuska]

Carefully read the first part of the verse which states that Adam "knew" Eve, biblical language for sexual intercourse. When Eve states she had the child with the Lord, the word indicates she attained the child through God's assistance. It's quite obvious when one reads these words in context instead of looking for some kind of inference of sexual activity between the Lord God and Eve, that the verse indicates the Lord's help - the verb "kanah" means to acquire or to get, but does not mean conceived (and this is from a Jewish source).

And yet the same word is used for Lady Wisdom being "Begotten" by God before the foundation of the earth.

http://books.google....page&q=&f=false

This is from a "Christian" source.

Here are more sources on "qanah" as "procreate". (Emphesis mine)

In several ways Prov. 8:22-29 reminds the listener that the origin of Wisdom is from before the beginning of ceation. If one starts with Prov. 8:22 one reads, "Yahweh procreated me the first-born (or first fruits) of his way." The verb qanani can mean "acquire" and thus we might tranlsate, "Yahweh acquired me" (so Aquila, Symmachus, Theodot, and Jerome), but this hardly suits the context here where one expects to hear something about the origin of Woman Wisdom. As Rinngrren points out in Gen. 14:19,22 the meaning of the radical must be "creator" and in Gen.4:1 "to bear". In Ps.139:13 as well it is propery rendered, "for you have formed/created my inward parts"124 Thus it is possibe to translate qanani as either create or PROCREATE, i.e., either "to fashion" or "to beget" (the Greek, Syriac and Targum suggest "create")125

http://tinyurl.com/yhqemcg

MAK is dead on the money with the translation of Qanah as procreate!

[volgadon]

Catherine, perhaps this may shock you, but I believe that Eve's statement is true. She is acknowledging by what power life was given!!!

For the ancients sexual intercourse was a tool, a means, but life was given only through God's intervention. To them, God was involved in literally every aspect of their lives, certainly in something as great as conception, pregnancy and birth. There are nuances, shades of meaning in the use of both terms relating to sexual intercourse and procreation. Perhaps Eve really is a little too bold for modern, prurient evangelical readers. People back then were earthier, after all, privacy was almost nonexistant. I mean, good luck hiding anything when you live in a tent!

When one listens to what ancient texts say then one can begin to see the world as the ancients did. New levels of depth and texture are opened up. Personally, I find most evangelical biblical notions rather shallow and superficial.

I, BTW, am a native Israeli. How's that for one-upsmanship. No, I didn't go to yeshiva, could have if I wanted to, there were people who really wanted me too, could have gone far too. I hope you realise that most yeshivot really don't focus on biblical history and linguistics. The traditional focus of the yeshiva is pilpul- splitting hairs over anything imaginable. They also tend to focus more on how the Bible was interpreted by later commentators, and confront it, and them with each other, all from the POV of legalistic ritual.

That said, some yeshivot include better methodlogy, I know some fairly comptenent individuals.

[volgadon]

Fertility is a main focus of the temple?

I hope I don't dissapoint anyone, but fertility does not mean wild orgies and naughty behaviour, but is about LIFE.

It served to remind them of the source of life.

[dblagent007]

What's the first part of the verse say? You have to totally ignore the context of the phrase to come away with Yahweh having sex with Eve. The word "kanah" does not relate to conception or procreation.

Have you been reading this thread? I have, and this point has already been addressed. I'm not sure whether you didn't see it, or whether you are feigning ignorance of it. If you really didn't notice it, I suppose I can go back and find it for you.

[Ron Beron]

Or, if you prefer, an Anglican scholar. They are the best scholars you know, besides the Jesuits. A Jesuit if possible would be the very best.

Or maybe one with a beard and a pair of glasses? He gave you what you wanted. Now acknowledge it.

[etana]

Just as a point of possible interest; I think that the (Sethian?) gnostics did believe that both Cain and Abel were fathered by the Demiurge Yaldabaoth (the counterfeit blind god of the Old Testament) or by the powers that it created. Seth was then the first begotten by Adam and thus, the father of the enlightened race.

[volgadon]

Yes, I do recall that mak said that Jesus had a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew, or something like that. Of course, Jesus was a rabbi, and read the Hebrew scrolls in the synagogue. I think mak would do well to study exactly how the Jews preserved their Scriptures and their meanings.

Yes, you would do well to do so yourself. Ask your friend to relate to you the delightful tale of Rabbi's maid. He ought to know exactly what it is.

Jesus, BTW, was not a rabbi. That is a little anachronistic.

Actually, here is mak's exact quote from CARM:

"Jesus spoke Aramaic.. His Hebrew, if he knew any, would have been rudimentary at best."

Maklelan's view here, the traditional scholarly one, is actually a bit outdated. A closer look at the sources, as well as archeological evidence, show that Hebrew was far more common and prevalent than was once thought. However, I'm sure that Christ would speak with others in a way that they would understand, which comes out to much the same thing.

Since Jesus was fully guided by the Holy Spirit, and also taught and read texts in Hebrew, I'd say his knowledge far surpassed any person's, past or present. Furthermore, when he debated the Pharisees, He would debate in Hebrew (as Catholics used to debate in Latin), according to one historical source I consulted. You would think that the statement, "if he knew any" is really incredibly naive, given the fact that Jesus was a teacher and rabbi. I don't think it was called for at all.

Whatever source you had read, it is full of it. Debates took place in hebrew, switching to Aramaic and back, even in mid-sentence. The sages were comfortable in both, but even they realised that because language evolves, sometimes the older meanings were lost.

Maklelan's statement was hardly uncalled for, regardless of whether he was right or wrong. It is very important to examine assumptions. If true, then they will stand.

[Garden Girl]

I think you would be wise to read this: http://www.watchman.org/profile/murraypro.htm

Arnold Murray is NOT an evangelical, and we consider him to be heretical in some of his teachings.

Very interesting link about Pastor Murray... Out of curiosity I've tuned in to several pastors from time to time from TBN to CBN, including Murray, etc., just to see their positions...

GG

[Zakuska]

I hope I don't dissapoint anyone, but fertility does not mean wild orgies and naughty behaviour, but is about LIFE.

It served to remind them of the source of life.

AMEN!

[Ron Beron]

I hope I don't dissapoint anyone, but fertility does not mean wild orgies and naughty behaviour, but is about LIFE.

It served to remind them of the source of life.

Try to explain this to a room full of teenagers or even college students. Subdued snickers and a arrogant view expressed in "yeah, sure".