Did Yahweh Procreate Cain with Eve?

[maklelan]

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.

No. Religious denomination has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of one's scholarship.

[maklelan]

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.

I don't believe I ever said anything of the sort. I stated that we have a text that may or may not line up with Jesus' actual words in every instance. I said nothing beyond that regarding Christ's personal opinions.

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);

I did not say they were incompetent. I said they did not have access to the resources we do for historical grammar, and they based a lot of conclusions on less than objective data.

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.

I said the writer of John 10 was basing his interpretation on a common ideology. Whether or not that was Jesus was something I clearly stated we do not know.

Only by virtue of recent readings of pagan

non-biblical fairytales can the true meaning of elohim be understood.

Nothing of the sort. The true meaning of the word has always been known, but cognate literature does help us understand that the importation of a wider semantic range for the word was not warranted.

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!

And the only responses in all that time have been "Nu-uh!" just like this one.

[maklelan]

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).

The simple fact is the word means "to procreate" in procreative contexts. Those who insist otherwise do so because of what they perceive as some theological impropriety, like the implications with Prov 8:22 and pre-Christian binitarianism. Jewish scholars don't like the implications with Gen 14:19 and 22 (or Prov 8:22, for that matter). Here are the best modern lexicons available on the subject, and they unanimously agree that qnh can mean "procreate." I am aware of no modern lexicon that denies that interpretation:

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

[maklelan]

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.

I said he wouldn't have spoken it fluently. He spoke Aramaic. He would have understood Hebrew only through reading. In addition, my research is actually focused directly on how 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."

Yes. His spoken Hebrew. Remember, you were adamant that Hebrew was a living language because it was read and I explained that it had ceased to be spoken and was pretty much a dead language?

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),

False. You're making stuff up. They spoke Aramaic.

according to one historical source I consulted.

Please cite this "historical source."

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.

He was not a Rabbi.

[maklelan]

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.

You certainly have tried to be my judge, with all the sentences of eternal damnation you've pronounced on me over at CARM.

[Catherine Aurelia]

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

YOU have to accept Him? I think it's the other way around.

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.

Do you know Hebrew, or are you just going by what one or two people are saying? I suggest you find a non-biased Hebrew scholar and ask them about the translation.

[volgadon]

Do you know Hebrew, or are you just going by what one or two people are saying? I suggest you find a non-biased Hebrew scholar and ask them about the translation.

Except that those unbiased scholars ought to be Anglicans or Jesuits..... =)

[Catherine Aurelia]

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.

Paul, sir, spoke of the danger of "another Jesus." There is a Biblical Jesus, and "another Jesus," actually many others. The Watchtower Jesus is the Archangel Michael. The New Age Jesus is an ascended spirit teacher. The Christian Science Jesus is a man filled with "divine wisdom," and so forth. The Unitarian Jesus was a good human teacher. The Mormon Jesus is deficient - the Mormon Jesus was not eternally God (as John 1 and many other Biblical passages teach, but had to someow "attain" godhood. The Mormon Jesus was procreated in pre-mortality by Elohim and a wife as a spirit child - this is absolutely not taught in the Scriptures. The Mormon Jesus sunk and destroyed cities when coming to the New World. The Mormon Jesus is sometimes called Quetzacoatl, the horned serpent. These, and other Mormon teachings about Jesus are unacceptable, unbibilical, and make him "another Jesus," which according to Paul must be avoided.

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.

As I've said to another poster, it is not YOUR acceptance of Jesus which saves, but His acceptance of you. Furthermore, only Jesus' sheep can and will come to Him, because they are called of the Father. The sheep are the wheat, those who are not sheep, are the tares. The fruit of salvation is evidenced by having a deep and abiding faith in the Biblical Jesus - who is God, and identified as God many, many times in Scripture. Here is a little Bible study of verses explaining my position: First, John 6:

65

And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

and

John 10:

25

Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30

I and my Father are one.

As can be seen, salvation is by God's grace from first to last. Not because I or some other Christian has greater insight, greater works, etc. It is, according to Eph. 1, an election (call) unto salvation, predestined before the foundation of the world. Reject it, if you will, but there is no getting around the words of Scripture, other than to cast doubt (as Mormons are very prone to do) upon the authenticity of the Bible.

But, in that regard, it seems they swallow a camel (the BoM) and strain at a tiny gnat (the Bible).

QED.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Except that those unbiased scholars ought to be Anglicans or Jesuits..... =)

or Jewish. Certainly not Mormons who have a vested interest in shoring up Smith's polytheism.

[maklelan]

Do you know Hebrew, or are you just going by what one or two people are saying? I suggest you find a non-biased Hebrew scholar and ask them about the translation.

Please. "Non-biased"? You mean a Jesuit or a Jewish scholar? Does that equal "non-biased" in your view?

[maklelan]

or Jewish. Certainly not Mormons who have a vested interest in shoring up Smith's polytheism.

I can't believe I'm reading this. Mormons are dogmatic, but Jews and Jesuits are not. Holy freaking cow.

[volgadon]

Well Catherine, Israeli scholars would concurr with Maklelan, that kanah had a meaning of procreation.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Please. "Non-biased"? You mean a Jesuit or a Jewish scholar? Does that equal "non-biased" in your view?

Jesuits are probably the best scholars in the world, and are highly trained in biblical languages. Most of them are fairly liberal, so I believe they'd tell you exactly what the words say. Anglicans - same thing. The Jews, on the other hand, consider the Hebrew to be such a sacred language and the texts so holy, that I think they'd be quite angry that anyone suggested the God of Israel was the "father" of the murderer, Cain.

[Catherine Aurelia]

Well Catherine, Israeli scholars would concurr with Maklelan, that kanah had a meaning of procreation.

Not the Jews that I've consulted. If you find one, please link me to him/her.

[Catherine Aurelia]

I can't believe I'm reading this. Mormons are dogmatic, but Jews and Jesuits are not. Holy freaking cow.

You obviously don't know many Jesuits, do you?

[volgadon]

or Jewish. Certainly not Mormons who have a vested interest in shoring up Smith's polytheism.

I'll post a link to an article by Benjamin Uffenheimer, an Israeli biblical scholar, in which he traces the developement of the montheistic idea in Judaism. He uses Ps 82 as an example of many gods.

The article is in Hebrew, but I'm sure your friend could give you the gist.

[volgadon]

Not the Jews that I've consulted. If you find one, please link me to him/her.

And have you consulted many biblical scholars and philologists?

[volgadon]

Jesuits are probably the best scholars in the world, and are highly trained in biblical languages. Most of them are fairly liberal, so I believe they'd tell you exactly what the words say. Anglicans - same thing. The Jews, on the other hand, consider the Hebrew to be such a sacred language and the texts so holy, that I think they'd be quite angry that anyone suggested the God of Israel was the "father" of the murderer, Cain.

Depends which Jews.

My high-school Old Testament teacher, a very religious Jew and kabbalist from Safed, had no problem with the idea that that s what the text was saying.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Catherine,

Do you know Hebrew, or are you just going by what one or two people are saying? I suggest you find a non-biased Hebrew scholar and ask them about the translation.

There's no such thing as a non-biased scholar. What does exist are scholars who attempt to divorce themselves from any specific theological lense and interpret Hebrew and the Bible strictly in accordance within it's ancient context. This is the closest we will get to a non-biased source. This is the type of scholarship that Mac has used all throughout his discussions.

The fact of the matter is one would be hard pressed to find a single academic scholar attempting to approach the issue without bias who would suggest that this reading is incorrect and furthermore that the word elohim can ever be used for entities other than gods. In fact, with the recent Oxford University Press publication from David P. Wright on the Covenant Code in Exodus, the term elohim in Exodus 22 (which was the only reason justifying the apologetic argument that elohim can function as a term used to refer to non-divine human judges), has been proven to directly reflect the Akkadian word ilim, both of which mean gods, not human judges.

Regardless of the fact that this conclusion provides support for a biblical connection with LDS theology, the matter of a biblical belief in literal gods has been completely laid to rest by the closest thing one can find to non-biased biblical scholars.

[volgadon]

An article by Benjamin Uffenheimer, an Israeli biblical scholar.

???? ???, ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????. ???? ??' ???? ????? ????? ????? (??' ?? 21), ???? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????. ?? ????? "?? ???? ????? ?'" (??' ?? 11), ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????, ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??'. ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??, ????? ????? ????? ?????. ??? ???? ???' ?? 8, ??? ???? ??????:

????? ????? ????

??? ????? ????

??????? ??? ???

????? ??? [ ] ??. (?????: ?????)

?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???????, ??? ??? ?? ???:

????? ??? ???? ??

???? ????? ???? ????

???? ????? ????...

?? ??? ???? ??? ????? (??' 1, 8 )

???? "?????" ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?'; ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ???. ???, ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????, ??? ??? ????. ??? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?' ??????: "??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?????", ???? ????, ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????, ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?????. ???, ?????? ??? ????? ?????????? ?? ??????, ???????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???.

Here he uses the Deut verse and Ps 82.

[CV75]

This Mormon contends that the Hebrew word "qanah" in the verse denotes sexual procreation

Happy Belated Mother's Day!

And we thank you as mothers or potential mothers for your partnership with God in providing life.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=6a5079356427b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

The exercise of a man or woman

[Zakuska]

Do you know Hebrew, or are you just going by what one or two people are saying? I suggest you find a non-biased Hebrew scholar and ask them about the translation.

Good luck with that!

[CV75]

If so, why is it kept secret?

It shouldn't be--we do nothing in a vacuum. Everybody knows that having sex is a multifaceted experience and not just exclusively genital and gamete contact. Also, that when you have sex, you're also having sex with anyone your partner has ever had sex with, and also anyone your partner has ever had influence him/her in any manner whatsoever (parents, siblings, friends, animals, church leaders, Deity, etc.), for the influence of others gets passed along in the soul (mind-body-spirit) of the person you are having sex with. So any child born is the result of having sex between more than just two people donating their respective gametes. Of course we don't always give credit to all these participants when we are happy with the outcome of sexual intercourse, but when we think to, it is appropriate to thank God and give Him the credit. He is involved every step of the way.

[WalkerW]

Certainly not Mormons who have a vested interest in shoring up Smith's polytheism.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

Bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion

Which one is Catherine?

[WalkerW]

one would be hard pressed to find a single academic scholar attempting to approach the issue without bias who would suggest that this reading is incorrect and furthermore that the word elohim can ever be used for entities other than gods

In other words, Catherine, you need to provide some contemporary sources that support your interpretation of Ps. 82.