# A Skeptic Asks about The Compositional Approach

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Theology\
**Created:** [September 23, 2018, 11:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793 "2018-09-23T23:37:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 24, 2018, 11:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/21 "2018-09-24T23:59:43Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> > I have. In both this thread and others.
> 
> ???

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> > “according to their kind” is better translated as “of many kinds”
> 
> Do you understand that one?

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> > - the word for “mankind” and “man” in Genesis 1 and 2 is “Adam” in Hebrew. Genesis 2 on is about the rise of the lineage of Adam, not about the biological origin of “human kind” as a whole. Genesis 1 is a different account that describes the creation (which could be by evolution) of a population of “adams” both male and female, not the individual Adam alone.
> 
> Do you understand this one?

There is a list on the other thread. Where are you getting lost?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 12:07am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/22 "2018-09-25T00:07:05Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> There is a list on the other thread. Where are you getting lost?

There are so many threads and so many messages that I do have trouble keeping track of them all, but I do remember that list, now that you remind me. Still wouldn’t know how to find it again.

The ones you mention above seem to have nothing to do with contradictions. The first potentially resolves a problem between the Genesis text and reality, which was not in contention. The second isan assertion, but it seems to me that the explanation of the word “adam” offers no support for that assertion. If anything, it would argue against your interpretation, since the lineage of Adam would be understood, given the etymology, as the lineage of mankind. There is also no support in the text of Genesis 1 for the 6 days being anything other than actual days, so evolution seems out unless we abandon a natural reading. I would encourage that abandonment. Derive all the spiritual message you like, but don’t try to turn it into a description of history.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 12:08am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/23 "2018-09-25T00:08:32Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> There are so many threads and so many messages that I do have trouble keeping track of them all, but I do remember that list, now that you remind me. Still wouldn’t know how to find it again.

I’m linking to it repeatedly here: [Literal Interpretations and the Genealogical Adam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/literal-interpretations-and-the-genealogical-adam/1455).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 12:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/24 "2018-09-25T00:10:51Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> I’m linking to it repeatedly here: [Literal Interpretations and the Genealogical Adam](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/literal-interpretations-and-the-genealogical-adam/1455).

Yeah, I looked. It doesn’t seem to me as if anything on that list actually speaks to the point. Not a one of them involves “tensions”, and not a one of them would be likely to confuse a reader in the translation except for “after their kind”, which I have never been able to interpret.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 12:12am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/25 "2018-09-25T00:12:52Z")

</div>

Well, how about this. I’m writing a book at the moment, and should focus on that. When it is mature enough, you are welcome to give me your comments on it. It addresses these questions more than I’ll be able to do in a forum.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 12:17am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/26 "2018-09-25T00:17:18Z")

</div>

I would be happy to. What is the particular focus of your book? Could you provide an abstract of sorts?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 12:20am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/27 "2018-09-25T00:20:29Z")

</div>

This is adapting a paper I presented at Dabar into a book. It includes this article: [https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF3-18Swamidass.pdf](https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2018/PSCF3-18Swamidass.pdf), and discussed here: [Ken Keathley: Notes from Dabar and a Baptist's Hope](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/ken-keathley-notes-from-dabar-and-a-baptists-hope/568).

Here is the general topic:

> **[A Genealogical Rapprochement on Adam? - Peaceful Science](http://peacefulscience.org/genealogical-rapprochement/)**
>
> A genealogical Adam will not solve the puzzle of Adam and Eve for everyone, but it will for many. Is a rapprochement possible?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/28 "2018-09-25T01:01:23Z")

</div>

Ah, so it’s all about the genealogical Adam? I presume it includes an analysis of the biblical text that shows genealogical Adam to be a natural reading.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 2:00am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/29 "2018-09-25T02:00:03Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> I presume it includes an analysis of the biblical text that shows genealogical Adam to be a natural reading.

@John_Harshman

What seems to be a natural reading is that Genesis 1 and 2 are too different to be considered two sides of a single story.

So the dilemma of Cain’s wife becomes a natural puzzle to solve.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 2:19am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/30 "2018-09-25T02:19:58Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> So the dilemma of Cain’s wife becomes a natural puzzle to solve.

Not according to @Alice_Linsley You’re too aligned to one branch of science - genetics and genealogy. Anthropology is another branch of science that you must be aligned with also.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 2:46am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/31 "2018-09-25T02:46:47Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> > So the dilemma of Cain’s wife becomes a natural puzzle to solve.
> 
> Not according to @Alice_Linsley You’re too aligned to one branch of science - genetics and genealogy. Anthropology is another branch of science that you must be aligned with also.

Nothing contradictory about what @Patrick and @gbrooks9 are saying.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 3:31am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/32 "2018-09-25T03:31:11Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> What seems to be a natural reading is that Genesis 1 and 2 are too different to be considered two sides of a single story.
> 
> So the dilemma of Cain’s wife becomes a natural puzzle to solve.

Simple solution: Cain is a third story.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 4:01am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/33 "2018-09-25T04:01:31Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Harshman](#):
>
> Simple solution: Cain is a third story.

That is “a” solution… but not the simplest. The simplest is that there are humans other than those in Adam’s immediate family!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/34 "2018-09-25T13:21:50Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> The simplest is that there are humans other than those in Adam’s immediate family!

I don’t see that as simplest, since the intent of the Adam story is clearly that he’s the sole male parent (and Eve the sole female parent) of all humanity (that natural reading again).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/35 "2018-09-25T13:45:36Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> That is “a” solution… but not the simplest. The simplest is that there are humans other than those in Adam’s immediate family!

Yes, just like what has been shown by biblical anthropology and science.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:50pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/36 "2018-09-25T13:50:13Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> Yes, just like what has been shown by biblical anthropology and science.

???

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 1:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/37 "2018-09-25T13:55:15Z")

</div>

That Cain was a son of Adam and Eve among a large population of other people.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 3:17pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/38 "2018-09-25T15:17:57Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> That Cain was a son of Adam and Eve among a large population of other people.

Right. And how have anthropology and science shown that?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Alice\_Linsley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alice_linsley/32/596_2.png) [@Alice\_Linsley](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Alice_Linsley)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 7:32pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/39 "2018-09-25T19:32:34Z")

</div>

Some biblical scholars (notably, E.A. Speiser) note that what Eve says when she gives birth is not a reference to Kain/Cain, the father of Enoch in Genesis 4. In Genesis 4:1, in Proto-Hebrew Cain’s mother declares, “Ka-niti (or Qanitti); I have gotten a man, as has YHWH.” Instead, this is a Messianic reference about giving birth to a line of kings. Qanyty or Qanitti comes from Nilo-Saharan languages like Luo, Oromo and ancient Egyptian. These languages share many phonemes with ancient Akkadian, the language of Nimrod’s kingdom. Nimrod was the son of Kush according to Genesis 10. The Akkadian itti, as in _itti šarrim_ , means “with the king” or “for the king.” It is attached to the names of royalty. Even today the Oromo and the Luo attach itti to names: Onditi, Kaartuumitti, Finfinneetti and Dimashqitti. That itti is associated with Nilotic rulers is evident in the name of the great Egyptian queen Nefertitti.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![deuteroKJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/46a35a/32.png) [@deuteroKJ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/deuteroKJ)\
**Post date:** [September 25, 2018, 7:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793/40 "2018-09-25T19:46:22Z")

</div>

> [@Alice\_Linsley](#):
>
> In Genesis 4:1, in Proto-Hebrew Cain’s mother declares, “Ka-niti (or Qanitti); I have gotten a man, as has YHWH.”

What Eve declared in so-called proto-Hebrew is speculative. What we have is the text (written in Classical Hebrew), which itself is difficult: “I have acquired a man [_'et_: ‘with’ or direct-object indicator] YHWH.” There’s a clear wordplay between the name _Qayin_ (= Cain) and the verb _qaniti_ (“I acquired”). If one takes the particle _'et_ as direct-object indicator, then a messianic reading is possible (harking back to Gen 3:15). This is how Walt Kaiser takes it in his _Toward an Old Testament Theology_. I’m not sure if my comments assist or are just sideline commentary.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-skeptic-asks-about-the-compositional-approach/1793.md?page=3)