Spoke to Kent Hovind!


(George) #61

@John_Harshman

You are quite the contrarian, aren’t you? You’ll tackle just about anything anyone says … even on material you have no experience with.

John, the words put in Adam’s mouth is an “etymological fiction”… a story proposed to explain how Eve was named Eve.

The story is saying that Adam had the idea to call his female companion EVE because the Hebrew word (“Chavvah”, Strong’s Hebrew # 2332) sounded like the word for “living” (“Chay”, Strong’s Hebrew # 2416).

The King James uses “Chay” in the following ways:
197 times, Chay is translated as “live”.
144 times, Chay is translated as “life”.
76 times, Chay is translated as “beast” (analagous to using the word “create” to form the word “creature”).
31 times, Chay is translated as “alive”.
15 times, Chay is used as “creature”.
7 times, Chay is used to mean “running”.
6 times, “living thing”.
and 19 times to mean miscellaneous other things.

In the opinion of Strong’s, “Chay” is derived from the Hebrew verb “Chayah” (Strong’s Hebrew # 2421), which is also used to mean “live”, “alive”, “save”, “quicken”, “revive”, “surely”, “life”, “recover” and 9 additional miscellaneous meanings.

But these Biblical etymologies are notoriously dodgey. They are intended to inspire, not necessarily to inform. Strong says the Hebrew for “Eve” seems to be related more to the word “to declare” or “make known” than “to live”. Eve might have been originally named for being a nagger!

The wiki article on Eve points out that the goddess, Asherah (wife of EL), held the title “Chawat”, which is believed to be the origin for the Aramaic word “Hawwah”, which is the Aramaean form of “Eve”. So is the Adam story just a cover-up for Eve being originally a goddess figure?

Below is a nice list of all the English versions popularly known for that line of Genesis:
KJV
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

NKJV
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

NLT
Then the man—Adam—named his wife Eve, because she would be the mother of all who live.

NIV
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

ESV
The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

CSB
The man named his wife Eve because she was the mother of all the living.

NASB
Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

NET
The man named his wife Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

RSV
The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

ASV
And the man called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

YLT
And the man calleth his wife’s name Eve: for she hath been mother of all living.

DBY
And Man called his wife’s name Eve; because she is the mother of all living.

WEB
And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

HNV
The man called his wife Havah, because she was the mother of all living.


(John Harshman) #62

If I deny that, it will just be more evidence, won’t it? But I do deny it. I do have experience with the material.

I agree. But that’s the case only if the story is not to be taken as inspired and true. It’s evidence that the story is just a story.

I see no meaningful distinctions among them.


(George) #63

@John_Harshman,

I’m pretty skeptical about what you call “experience”… are you counting a 3 hour lunch break talking to a seminarian?

You asked about the Hebrew use of the “specific article”… when it is basic knowledge. You asked us for the Greek, when someone with “experience” could have looked that up themselves.

Since you and I agree that it’s just “a story”, we don’t have to take seriously Evangelical protests that Eve can only be “Mother of all [the] Living” if she is the first and only woman.

So… any time you want to help defend Genealogical Adam along those lines, I’m sure it would be welcome assistance.

As for the list of verses, sometimes it is important to show that there ARENT any important distinctions. But this is where you crack me up! You spent a few hours busting people’s chops on the issue of the specific article… and here I show you how English diverges on just that point, and you don’t find it meaningful! You are an AWESOME camp fire story teller!

9 leave “the” out all together. And one of them actually uses the present tense! Of the 4 popular English versions that include the specific article, 3 of them use the past tense, and 1 uses “would become”!

John, good to have you on the “winning side” on the issue of Eve!

NINE INSTANCES: “of all living [x]”
7=Past Tense; 1=Alt. Past Tense; 1=Present Tense.
YLT she hath been mother of all living.
DBY she is the mother of all living.
KJV she was the mother of all living.
NKJV she was the mother of all living.
RSV she was the mother of all living.
ASV she was the mother of all living.
WEB she was the mother of all living.
HNV she was the mother of all living.
ESV she was the mother of all living.

FOUR INSTANCES: “of all THE living [x? optional?]”
3=Past Tense; 1 = “would become”.
NIV she would become the mother of all the living.
CSB she was the mother of all the living.
NASB she was the mother of all the living.
NET she was the mother of all the living.


(John Harshman) #64

No, I just mean that I’ve read Genesis. In English translation.

I think you’re confusing what the story says with what we can say is historically true based on it. Since it’s just a story, we can’t say anything is historically true based on it. But we can tell what the story itself claims. If it’s just a story, what it claims is irrelevant to a defense of genealogical Adam. If it’s historically true, it’s evidence against genealogical Adam.

I have doubts that this sort of “assistance” would be welcome.

Didn’t, actually. It’s not about the words used but about their interpretation. “The” and “a” are standins for two different interpretations. But your comparison below even refers to the wrong “the”.


(George) #65

Hey, @swamidass !

That had never occurred to me! How interesting that is! Another good component to include in the usual “pitch” for Genealogical Adam!


(Jon Garvey) #66

Here’s my opinion, based on a biblical theology approach that includes genealogical Adam.

The whole business of Eden was a new creation, in which God’s glory would become all in all, through Adam and his chillun (it eventually came through Christ, but that’s another part of the story). But, as we all know A & E’s disobedience led not to eternal life as planned, but to the sentence of death - both spiritual and physical, the theme developed throughout salvation history up to and including the final resurrection of the redeemed through Christ.

On the basis of the fall, then, Eve ought to be the mother of all the dead, not the living at all (taking the implied noun to be the new race in Adam, “dead in sins and trespasses”).

However, in pronouncing sentence on her in Gen 3, Yahweh also offered the hope of redemption through her, in that though sin and death had come through her action, the crushing of the serpent would come through her seed. This theme too is continued in Scripture, being picked up in a few NT passages (for example, it’s part of the significance of Paul’s speaking of Jesus as “born under the Law, born of a woman.”)

Now, the rest of the Genesis protohistory, as has long been recognised, is primarily interested in the line of Seth down to Abraham, and hence to Israel (and hence to Messiah, the promised “seed”). This line is distinguished as the channel for eventual salvation (note that in the time of Seth and Enosh “men began to call on the name of Yahweh” - blessing is still coming through them to mankind, despite everything).

So I suggest that Adam, redeemed by grace although fallen (as Irenaeus insisted way back in the 2nd century, and as implied, immediately after Eve’s naming, by God’s clothing them in Gen 3:21), speaks prophetically here, not sinfully, recognising and echoing the gracious promise implicit in Yahweh’s words of judgement on Eve. So “living” here is being opposed not to “not existing,” ie all those as yet unborn, but to “the dead,” ie those suffering the effects of the fall. That kind of death, after all, is the subject of the whole chapter.

Adam’s naming oif his wide, then, addresses Eve’s role in the reversal of death-as-judgement, not merely her procreative abilities. Genesis is more subtle than that.

All this follows from seeing the Eden account not as “the beginning of the world,” but as the first act in the drama of the new creation, in which categories of “living” and “dead” have a meaning encompassing relationship with God, adoption as his children, and eternity: not just biology. (See for example Matt 8:22 for that same distinction in the NT).

Genealogical Adam lends a great deal of weight to that understanding of the garden account in biblical cointect, but is not necessary to it - Greg Beale has made the case very strongly in his massive “New Testament Biblical Theology.” Whether Kent Hovind has been up to reading that I wouldn’t know, but at Peaceful Science “we’re all skolars, init?”


(Jon Garvey) #67

And a bit more, tying the above into the specific authorial concerns of Genesis alone, for those doubting the divine oversight of Scripture as a whole.

Whatever the sources used, Genesis as we have it comes from a single author/final editor, who had a purpose for the whole book. We may take that broadly as the promise to Abraham, and how it was sustained until the birth of Israel as the nation of promise, which is predicted in Genesis but fulfilled in Exodus, to which it is the “prequel.” The Israelites and their life in God’s blessing are the focus - those who dwell in “the land of the living” (Ps. 27:13; 52:5; 56:13; 69:28; 116:9; 142:5; Isa 4:3; 398:11, 19-20; 53:8; Jer 17:13; Ezek 26:20; Ezek 32: throughout - note dead foreign kings who once inspired terror “in the land of the living of the living,” ie chosen Israel, their enemy.)

Now women play a very small role in the Protohistory (even Noah and his sons’ wives are not named, though ostensibly universal parents). But once the promise comes to the Patriarchs, their wives become major players, particularly with their provenance (Isaac and Jacob both return to family roots for their wives), and with their fertility problems. Everyone knows about Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah.

It seems that the naming of Eve is likely to be one of the many parallels and resonances deliberately made between the protohistory and the Patriarchal narratives, simply within the book itself, let alone within the wider boundaries of the Torah the Tanakh and the whole Bible.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #68

God was so glorious that he made this new creation completely without any evidence to scientific inquiry.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #69

I’m not really sure we can blame God for the limits of science.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #70

I am not blaming God for anything. It is just incredulous to see modern scientific minds make up scenarios that would be not show any records in the fossils, artifacts, and genetics so that a fiction written by ancient pre-scientific power hungry priests can reconcile the cognitive dissonance of religious indoctrination of educated scientific people today.


(John Harshman) #71

And yet many of the people who talk about the limits of science also claim that God made the universe on purpose to be understandable. If that’s not quite a contradiction, it’s at least getting close.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #72

You mean like string theory?

Nope. I am just trying to take legitimate questions seriously.

Many people who are taking the most stubborn anti-science positions are fairly ignorant of what science can and cannot do. The fact that they incorrectly think science can resolve this question is one source of their resistance.


(Jon Garvey) #73

You obviously never lived when the old one was all there was.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #74

And neither did you.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #75

I give string theory a better chance at explaining some unknown aspects of the universe that we live in than GA. :sunglasses:


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #76

Yep, that’s correct.


(Daniel Ang) #77

People often talk about God making the universe to be intelligible - not only through the tools of science, but also of other fields of knowledge such as philosophy and theology. So there’s no contradiction there.


(John Harshman) #78

The universe is said to be intelligible through science. So yes, there’s a contradiction.


(Daniel Ang) #79

Source please?


(Retired Professor & Minister.) #80

Thank you all for providing feedback to my post. This really helps me to select what points I cover. That particular post was quite long. I don’t provide so much verbiage without careful reflection on what may be of maximum value to the forum. It is always a matter of selective emphasis, and I must choose between very technical analysis and that which can meaningfully engage the average reader who may not have a grounding in general linguistics and Biblical language exegesis. So your comments are a major guide to my efforts. Thank you for taking the time to describe what you found helpful.