Biblical Translation--Eden, 2

bertot:You are right on. Human beings cannot form anything of "dust".Only a nonanthropomorphic Deity could devise a living being of "dust".Good call,
Ger

bertot:
You are right on. Human beings cannot form anything of "dust".Only a nonanthropomorphic Deity could devise a living being of "dust".Good call,Wow I finally got one correct and you said miracles dont happen. Your going to have to help me with that other Egghead post though. Remember you talking to an idiot. Just switch gears when you are talking to Jaywill and the myself, moron. ha haD Bertot

bertot:Just let me know what you need. Take it one piece at a time, and I'll do my best.Ger

You may be working on it right now, and I am sure from you perspective you have stated what you mean in the study text but if you could put it in simple english it would help after the technical stuff.ThanksD Bertot

Bertot,I searched and this is the only comment from you I found in AM's post concerning that matter. So excuse me if you had other comments on it which I didn't find. I gather from this that you are proposing that perhaps God created a special person to furnish Cain with a wife.Well, I never thought that this was the case. I have never had such a concept as this.Let's look for a moment at some matters and see if it is necessary to resort to such a theory.To begin with Eve is called the mother of all living:"And the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Gen. 3:20)To hold to a special creation theory of Cain's wife we would have to resort to a belief that Adam's name was mistaken and that Eve was not the mother of the specially created human wife of Cain. Are you willing to jump to such a concept? I am not.The implications of it would be so significant that we would have to conclude there were TWO nearly simultaneous proto mothers. Would God make the special wife of Cain with the sin nature?Would God create the special wife of Cain unfallen? Then for all intents and purposes she should still be around. That is unless this special creation also ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But the garden where the tree was is off limits to man.To concoct a theory that this special wife of Cain somehow went back into the garden and became as all other women descendents of Adam and Eve is too much speculation out of thin air for me.So I have to assume that Eve was indeed the mother or great grandmother of all boys, girls, men, and women. I prefer the belief that we ALL trace out roots back to Eve. The alternative would be to trace all humans back to Eve AND Mrs. Cain.Now lets consider if the ages of people make it necessary to resort to such an extreme theory.The ages of people are given for the godly line which leads to the Israelites and ultimately the Messiah. The geneologies of the other line is not given. Apparently that is not God's concern to trace the years of those people.When Adam and Eve had Seth Adam was one hundred and thirty years old (Gen. 5:3, 4:25). We are told that Seth was a son to replace Abel who was killed.We are told that Seth was considered the replacement of Abel. What we are not told is whether Eve had female children between the death of Abel and the birth of Seth. It is possible that females were born to the first couple inbetween Abel's death and Seth's birth."And Adam knew his wife again. And she gave birth to a son and called his name Seth, for [she said], God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel because Cain slew him."My opinion is that the expectation of a seed was the expectation of a MALE child. For God said that HE would crush the head of the serpent. I think that the first couple were still expecting a Savior male child to help them get back into the paradise of Eden. The long reachingness of the prophecy they did not realize, in my opinion.Do we know for certain that Eve had no girl babies before Seth was born? I do not know that. But if she did it is not unreasonable that Cain married one of those girls in Nod after she became of age.Do we know for certain how long it was between the murder of Abel and the marriage of Cain? I do not know how long that was. Could it been sufficiently long for a girl child to have matured and become a sister / wife of Cain? I think it is possible.Consider another scenario. After Adam and Eve had Seth at Adam's age of 130 years old Adam lived another 800 years. And they had other sons and daughters:"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years, AND HE BEGOT [MORE] SONS AND DAUGHTERS." (Genesis 5:4)In the 800 years after Seth's birth in which Adam and Eve had other "sons and daughters" could one of those daughters been available for Cain to marry? I think so. I assume that Cain died after Adam if his longevity was similar to his father's. There seems ample time in eight hundred years for a daughter of Eve, a sister of Cain, to mature and be Cain's wife.It seems ample time for a daugher of a daughter, during those 800 years, to have matured to be a much younger yet marriagable spouse for Cain.I just don't see where there is a need to resort to the special creation of a female for Cain.What I think we have to realize is the the account in Genesis is not exhaustive. It is selective. What is important for us to know is what is econimically recorded. In passing it says Cain obtained a wife period. We do not know how LONG it was between the time he fled the murder scene to Nod and when he got married.Did he get married one month latter?
Did he get married 10 years latter?
Did he marry 30 years latter?
Did he marry 130 years latter?
Did he marry 330 years latter?
We simply do not know.We know he wandered to Nod. We know he obtained a wife. That is all.Inventing a secondary first female mother, I think, presents more theological problems than it solves.What do you think? We do run the risk of getting into "endless geneologies" here which Paul recommended the New Testament teachers avoid.Your comment?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Jaywill, Wow you certainly did what I asked you to do. You are always very thourogh, thanks indeed. You have given me much to think about. I usually to not alter my positions on things unless there is obvious evidence to indicate that I need to do so.I know how I would, but how do deal with the objection of Gods apparent subjective and relative altering of ethics, specifically in this area. Why would it be an abomination in one instance and in the beggining not. In other words would it not be a sin for early on for physiological reasons, and God blocked or altered those defects and then later let them take thier natural course and encouraged and ordered his creation to avoid these practices? What do you think?Thanks for you exhaustive response.D Bertot

bertot: The following is all in paraphrase.Gn.2:7 concludes saying, and the human archetype became in regard to a "breathing brute animal".Gn.2:18 God says, it is not good that the human archetype is isolated; I will make "a helper as opposite to it".Gn.2:19 describes God then forming all the beasts of the field and flying creatures of the air and he brings them to the human archetype to see how the human archetype would encounter and designate all the "breathing brute animals".Gn.2:20 describes the human archetype designating all the carnivores, flying creatures, and beasts of the field, but for the human archetype there was not found "a helper as opposite to it".The human archetype in Gen. 2:7 becomes "in regard to a breathing brute animal." According to Gen. 2:18 God regards this condition as, "not good." No other brute animals exist in Gen. 2:18, thus God say, "It is not good that the human archetype is isolated," And God goes on to say, "I will make for it "a helper as opposite to it." In Gen. 2:19 God then forms all the brute animals of the field and flying creatures of the air, and brings these brute animals to the human archetype to see how it would encounter and designate them. In Gen. 2:20 the human archetype designates the carnivores, the flying creatures, and the beasts of the field {all of which are breathing brute animals just like the human archetype). But for the human archetype there was "not found a helper as opposite to it"{they were all breathing brute animals, not "opposite to" the human brute animal).What this strongly suggest is that the "helper as opposite to the human archetype" would not be "a woman" as the sexual counterpart to a male human being. The Heb. term traditionally rendered "woman" has not been translated properly. This also strongly suggest that the "helper" would not be "a human woman" because the "helper" was first search for but not found among the other breathing brute animals.Do you follow me so far?
Ger

Am Wow you are blowing me awaaay. Since I am not a Hebraist and do not understand the simplest principles of Hebrew I cannot repond in a acedemic way. I suppose all I can do is ask, what type of helper did God have in mind and what was it then?this seems the only way for me to proceed. What are the exact words in paragraph form in english, without a break down of every word. Could you present it from the BHS text as if I was reading it?D Bertot

Hi bertot, Don't feel bad I know Hebrew and I have no idea what he is talking about and if Paul was here he would not either.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Icant, maybe you are the conduit I am looking for here to buffer my understanding of what he is getting at. perhaps you and him could start a dialouge to help us simple folk,Thanks for your response.Autunman, I will start back on htis in the morning.Thanks for you presentations to this point.D Bertot

bertot: The "helper" which God will "build" for the human archetype will be that aspect of the human mind and consciousness that will fully distinguish "the human animal" from all other animals; the human creative intellect will be the "helper as opposite to the human brute animal. The human creative intellect will be metaphorically represented by "a strong support" which God "builds" and then will be metaphorically designated as "woman/wife," the pro-creative half of the human species.We will get into all this as we move to Gen. 2:21 - 25. Let me take you through a little more research, before translating the Hebrew Eden Poem directly from the BHS. That way I can introduce you to some of the metaphorical concepts written into the consonantal Hebrew text.I am so glad that you are beginning to see.I've got to call it a night, so I'll catch up with you in the morning.Remember, I do not claim to have all the answers, so take everything I share with you in a critical manner.All the best,
Ger

quote:

---

What this strongly suggest is that the "helper as opposite to the human archetype" would not be "a woman" as the sexual counterpart to a male human being. The Heb. term traditionally rendered "woman" has not been translated properly. This also strongly suggest that the "helper" would not be "a human woman" because the "helper" was first search for but not found among the other breathing brute animals.

---

This appears a fine reasoning. That Adam was shown the animals are not a suitable partner had to be first established, then woman appeared. It is also apparent the woman is more than a helpmate, and in fact the last and epitomy of creation. Consider that Abraham, a great prophet, being told: 'WHATEVER SARAH TELLS YOU TO DO - DO IT' [Gen]; this signifies Sarah saw further than Abraham of God's will. The same occured with Rebecca, who decieved Isaac, but made three religions happen, which would not have happened without her initiative. Woman sees the future more than man, because life is in her bosom, and she has to figure out the future requireents to sustain that life.

quote:

---

I gather from this that you are proposing that perhaps God created a special person to furnish Cain with a wife.

---

This question has baffled many. IMHO, the events described of the garden are not on the earth, but in another realm, signified by talking serpents, the 'US" which refers to angelic beings, and the casting out from the garden of Cain, and its re-entry barred.

quote:

---

Gen Ch 3/
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

​

24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life. {S}

---

Further, the bestowing of a life form with speech is also not of this earth, signified by no life forms on earth have acquired this attribute, despite the premises of adaptation, which is a time based factor. Humans acquired speech despite being the newest life form, bypassing the evolutionary thread. Here we find, the concept of reproduction is a factor which does not relate to angelic beings, who do not experience death or sexual desires. Reproduction only occurs on earth:

quote:

---

1 And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore Cain, and said: 'I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.'

---

Further, we see that Cain left th Garden, and met speech endowed humans same as he was:

quote:

---

Gen 4/16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch; and he builded a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son Enoch.

---

Thus the garden of eden report is not of this earth, and a epiphany occured, whereby humans were bestowed with speech not via evolutiuon, but from a decision in another realm. IOW, when Adam and Eve were given speech, a Gdlike attribute, it was simultainiously bestowed upon the human species which began with Adam. We note that Adam is a generic term in Gen 1, but it becomes a proper noun thereafter.

The author of some 13 of the 27 New Testament books had revelation from God extending from heaven onto the earth and under the earth as well. His revelation was so great that God had to send a thorn of discomfort to his flesh to keep him from being too proud.There is no way anyone had more insight into the Old Testament than Paul. That is why God chose such a man to author so many books of the New Testament. He completed the word of God.Not that he did not confess that some things were too deep to be comprehended easily. That Apostle Paul was specifically converted and prepared by God. Part of that preparation was his extensive success in the Hebrew's relegion and because of his extensive expertise on the Hebrew Bible.He was an extraordinary scholar who took the initiative to persecute the Christian church, a star student of Gameliel. He received mercy and was chosen by Christ to "complete the word of God." Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

To ICANT. I know this is you screen name but I hope it doesnt mean "IWONT", we could use the benifit of your understanding of the Hebrew. thanksD Bertot