Changing the Bible

[researcher]

One example of how interpreters changed the Bible because how it was written didn't make sense to them.

Eve thought she had given birth to the Messiah, or the "angel of the Lord" when she gave birth to Cain.
In the original writing of Gen 4:1, Eve stated, "I have gotten a man, the Lord." Interpreters changed this to, "I have gotten a man, from the Lord" because they didn't understand why she would think she had given birth to the Promised One so soon.

Commentary notes

Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible
Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)

Gen 4:1
Many suppose that Eve had a conceit that this son was the promised seed, and that therefore she thus triumphed in him, as her words may be read, I have gotten a man, the Lord, God-man. If so, she was wretchedly mistaken, as Samuel, when he said, Surely the Lord's anointed is before me, 1Sa_16:6. When children are born, who can foresee what they will prove? He that was thought to be a man, the Lord, or at least a man from the Lord, and for his service as priest of the family, became an enemy to the Lord.


Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Adam Clarke, LL.D., F.S.A., (1715-1832)

Gen 4:1
I have gotten a man from the Lord - Cain, קין, signifies acquisition; hence Eve says קנתי kanithi, I have gotten or acquired a man, ×Âת ×™×â€Ã—•×†eth Yehovah, the Lord. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the sense in which Eve used these words, which have been as variously translated as understood. Most expositors think that Eve imagined Cain to be the promised seed that should bruise the head of the serpent. This exposition really seems too refined for that period.


John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Dr. John Gill (1690-1771)

I have gotten a man from the Lord; as a gift and blessing from him, as children are; or by him, by his favour and good will; and through his blessing upon her, causing her to conceive and bear and bring forth a son: some render it, "I have gotten a man, the Lord" (x); that promised seed that should break the serpents head; by which it would appear, that she took that seed to be a divine person, the true God, even Jehovah, that should become man; though she must have been ignorant of the mystery of his incarnation, or of his taking flesh of a virgin, since she conceived and bare Cain through her husband's knowledge of her: however, having imbibed this notion, it is no wonder she should call him Cain, a possession or inheritance; since had this been the case, she had got a goodly one indeed: but in this she was sadly mistaken, he proved not only to be a mere man, but to be a very bad man: the Targum of Jonathan favours this sense, rendering the words,"I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.''

(x) ×Âיש ×Âת ×™×â€Ã—•×†"virum Dominum", Fagius, Helvicus, Forster, Schindler, Luther, Pellican, Cocceius; "virum qui Jehovah est", Schmidt.

Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Johann (C.F.) Keil (1807-1888) & Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)

At the birth of the first son Eve exclaimed with joy, “I have gotten (קניתי) a man with Jehovah;†wherefore the child received the name Cain (קַיִן from קוּן = קָנָ×â€, κÄᾶÃθαι). So far as the grammar is concerned, the expression ×Âֶת־יְ×â€Ã–¹×•Ö¸×†might be rendered, as in apposition to ×Âִיֹש×Â, “a man, the Lord†(Luther), but the sense would not allow it. For even if we could suppose the faith of Eve in the promised conqueror of the serpent to have been sufficiently alive for this, the promise of God had not given her the slightest reason to expect that the promised seed would be of divine nature, and might be Jehovah, so as to lead her to believe that she had given birth to Jehovah now.


How to innocuosly change the Bible and get away with it.

 

[Lewis]

No Eve did not think that she gave birth to Jesus. That is twisting the Bible.

 

[researcher]

No Eve did not think that she gave birth to Jesus. That is twisting the Bible.

Read the commentaries posted. That's how I found out about it. They were the ones schooled in Hebrew. I can't read a lick of it. Lol. :D

Matthew Henry
"as her words may be read, I have gotten a man, the Lord, God-man."

Not my words.

 

[JoJo]

I'm probably not educated enough to give much input, but I think Scripture was handed down verbally through the generations until a certain time (I don't know when) when they were written. Perhaps it is possible that an error was made in translation from verbal to written Scripture.

Just my

 

[Lewis]

I read a little bit, and I still say Eve knew better than that, her husband Adam had a personal relationship with God, so she would have known better than that.

 

[Adullam]

Interesting..

It says... kaniti ish et-hashem (Adonai)

This translates without embelishment...

I have received a man the Lord (the sacred name) this cannot be God-man since it is not the word God being used...It is the sacred name (Yahweh, Jehovah, Yahavah etc.)

The object of the sentence is God (Yahveh)...that's what the et is for. It denotes THE....as in the object. That makes it...

I have received man (the) Lord (Yahveh).

But Hebrew is strangely put together. Look at this verse

Bayom hahou karat hashem et-avram brit (Gen 15) Or literally....

In that day cut God the Abram a covenant.

Now the translations add in "with"

My conclusion is that Gen. 4:1 is properly translated. It is maybe better as "with", however. As in...

I have received a man (with) God.

 

[researcher]

I read a little bit, and I still say Eve knew better than that, her husband Adam had a personal relationship with God, so she would have known better than that.

"Most expositors think that Eve imagined Cain to be the promised seed that should bruise the head of the serpent."

Adam Clark commentary

 

[researcher]

Interesting..

It says... kaniti ish et-hashem (Adonai)

This translates without embelishment...

I have received a man the Lord (the sacred name) this cannot be God-man since it is not the word God being used...It is the sacred name (Yahweh, Jehovah, Yahavah etc.)

The object of the sentence is God (Yahveh)...that's what the et is for. It denotes THE....as in the object. That makes it...

I have received man (the) Lord (Yahveh).

But Hebrew is strangely put together. Look at this verse

Bayom hahou karat hashem et-avram brit (Gen 15) Or literally....

In that day cut God the Abram a covenant.

Now the translations add in "with"

My conclusion is that Gen. 4:1 is properly translated. It is maybe better as "with", however. As in...

I have received a man (with) God.

Glad there is someone with a little Hebrew background. Lol. :D

Although, the Targum of Jonathan puts it

"the Targum of Jonathan favours this sense, rendering the words,'I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.'"

John Gill's Exposition

I think the Bible was changed from the original in many places. Thus the importance of the HS teaching.

P.S. I find that Keil and Delitzsch have some of the best expositions on ancient Hebrew and Oriental languages.

http://www.swordsearcher.com/christian- ... tzsch.html

 

[Adullam]

Interesting..

It says... kaniti ish et-hashem (Adonai)

This translates without embelishment...

I have received a man the Lord (the sacred name) this cannot be God-man since it is not the word God being used...It is the sacred name (Yahweh, Jehovah, Yahavah etc.)

The object of the sentence is God (Yahveh)...that's what the et is for. It denotes THE....as in the object. That makes it...

I have received man (the) Lord (Yahveh).

But Hebrew is strangely put together. Look at this verse

Bayom hahou karat hashem et-avram brit (Gen 15) Or literally....

In that day cut God the Abram a covenant.

Now the translations add in "with"

My conclusion is that Gen. 4:1 is properly translated. It is maybe better as "with", however. As in...

I have received a man (with) God.

Glad there is someone with a little Hebrew background. Lol. :D

Although, the Targum of Jonathan puts it

"the Targum of Jonathan favours this sense, rendering the words,'I have gotten a man, the angel of the Lord.'"

John Gill's Exposition

I think the Bible was changed from the original in many places. Thus the importance of the HS teaching.

The angel of the Lord???? No way. It is God's sacred name used here. There can be no mistake about this.

And yes. We need the help of the Holy Spirit.

 

[researcher]

The angel of the Lord???? No way. It is God's sacred name used here. There can be no mistake about this.

And yes. We need the help of the Holy Spirit.

Interesting. He was a secular Jew I believe.

 

[researcher]

The angel of the Lord???? No way. It is God's sacred name used here. There can be no mistake about this.

And yes. We need the help of the Holy Spirit.

Here's another one from http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/God-Man.html

Genesis 4:1
And the man knew Eve his wife, she conceived and bare Cain and said "I have gotten a man: Jehovah".

This is exactly the same sentence construction as the next verse "Again she bare his brother Abel".

Few Bible translators really understand what Eve is saying here, which is why our English translations do not read as given above. Eve has clearly understood from God's word in Genesis 3:15 that the Serpent will be defeated by a God-Man. She obviously thinks that Cain is Yahweh. Her basic theology is correct: Messiah would be both Man and God. Her mistake is in her application of that theology and the timing of it.

She has assumed that Cain, her first child, was the promised God-Man. That she quickly realized her mistake is evident at the birth of Cain's brother whom she names Abel, meaning "Vanity."

It is interesting to note how different Scholars have dealt with this verse at different times. Most English translations read, "I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah". The words "with the help of" were added by the translators to avoid giving a reading which was unacceptable to them. But the Hebrew does literally read, "I have gotten a man: Yahweh." This is actually the same construction as the Hebrew for the Immediately preceding words, "and she bare: Cain."

The common English is not based on the Hebrew text but on the Greek Septuagint which reads "through God". This was followed by the Latin Vulgate which also reads "through God".

 

[Adullam]

Translations add as much confusion as they clear up. For example why all the different words from one root. This makes it very difficult to compare scriptures. An example

Why is Jacob called "plain" and Noah "perfect" ?...both Hebrew words are the same...tam /tamim

It is plain that the Holy Spirit's meaning is often translated out of the text. For EX.

My soul is weaned as a child ( PS 131)

But in Hebrew it is... As a child is weaned from his mother, so I am weaned from my soul (life)

Now this doesn't make sesne unless you understand that he who loses his (in Christ) life actually finds it. David was more of a prophet than many think. It is no longer I who live.... David prophesies here of the exchanged life in Christ, but the translators miss it.

 

[researcher]

Translations add as much confusion as they clear up. For example why all the different words from one root. This makes it very difficult to compare scriptures. An example

Why is Jacob called "plain" and Noah "perfect" ?...both Hebrew words are the same...tam /tamim

It is plain that the Holy Spirit's meaning is often translated out of the text. For EX.

My soul is weaned as a child ( PS 131)

But in Hebrew it is... As a child is weaned from his mother, so I am weaned from my soul (life)

Now this doesn't make sesne unless you understand that he who loses his (in Christ) life actually finds it. David was more of a prophet than many think. It is no longer I who live.... David prophesies here of the exchanged life in Christ, but the translators miss it.

Wow. Pretty cool.

(JPS) Surely I have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with his mother; my soul is with me like a weaned child. (Jewish Publication Society)

What does this verse say in Hebrew?
Zec 14:11 And men shall dwell therein, and there shall be no more curse; but Jerusalem shall dwell safely.
Zec 14:11 ויש×Âבו ב׆וחרנלני×â€Ã—™×â€Ã–¾×¢× œ ויש×Âב׆ירוש×Âלנלבטח׃

 

[Vic C.]

I read a little bit, and I still say Eve knew better than that, her husband Adam had a personal relationship with God, so she would have known better than that.

"Most expositors think that Eve imagined Cain to be the promised seed that should bruise the head of the serpent."

Adam Clark commentary

This is interesting. Adam Clarke commentaries have been well received by his peers and beyond. I have little reason to doubt Adam's observations. I rely on them from time to time myself.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/