Since I noted that “he even made a case based on a semicolon in the KJV” he reaffirmed the importance of the semicolon but since I wrote on that in details already, see Zen Garcia on the Hebrew Torah, Aramaic Targum and English KJV. In that article I also deal with the issue of his reliance upon the Targum about which, this time around, Zen wrote, “Targum (Aramaic translation of the original Hebrew Torah).” Well, this is far too simplistic as the various Targumim are not merely translations but paraphrases many of which include heavy interpretive elements (include Jewish folklore, etc.).
In spoken and written statements Zen refers to the “Targum” but never (or hardly ever) tells us which Targum he is quoting—we will get to that. For now, note that Zen quotes a portion of some Targum thusly:
And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat Sheth [Seth], who had the likeness of his image and of his similitude: for before had Hava [Eve] born Kain [Cain], who was not like to him; and Habel [Abel] was killed by his hand. And Kain was cast out; neither is his seed genealogized in the book of the genealogy of Adam. But afterwards there was born one like him, and he called his name Sheth.
He then writes, “This also is excluded from the King James version of Genesis chapter five.” Yet, it is mistaken to claim that this is “excluded” from the KJV since the KJV was translating Genesis and not a paraphrased Targum into which much folklore was added. That is the point, it is not that this is “excluded” from the KJV but that it was added to the Targum (and added to it with no manuscript support).
My reply to this section of his statements began with, “Friend, you are merely repeating the same errors time and time again. It is almost as if you are now more interested in protecting the book you wrote than properly representing the Bible” this is because I had already written a detailed reply, and made him aware of it, to that which he was now merely repeating. The rest of my reply thus far is as follows:
It is simply illegitimate to claim that a punctuation mark in the English of the 1600s AD has any relevance whatsoever to the original Hebrew which knew of no such thing. But then again, you are not dealing with the Hebrew text but from Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which, as I have already told you, dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis).
Genesis 4:17 states, “Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch” and so, according to your 1600s English punctuation logic, Cain’s wife conceived but their son was not Enoch. Also as I have already told you, the Palestinian Targum states, “And Adam knew his wife Hava, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Cain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.” Thus, again according to your 1600s English punctuation logic, we must separate, “And Adam knew his wife Hava, who had desired the Angel” from “and she conceived, and bare Cain” and then also from “and she said, I have acquired a man, the angel of the Lord. And she added to bear from her husband Adam his twin, even Habel.”
Thus, apparently, neither Adam nor the Angel were the father of Cain. In fact, the text implies that Adam knew his wife even though she desired the Angel.
Someone chimed into the comment section wherein this discussion ensued and asked me:
Ken Ammi just a thought to add… when hava gives birth to Cain and says she has gotten a man from the lord.. the Hebrew here for Lord is the Tetragrammaton. I wonder if Zen sees that as an issue.. as it would mean making a case that the Tetragrammaton can be used to represent the most high or.. hasatan [“the Satan”] or various angels. [ellipses in original]
I replied:
[name withheld], you are quite right that Hava refers to having gotten a man from the Tetragrammaton and NOT from the Angel of the Lord. I would say that Zen SHOULD see it as an issue as he is teaching things that are contradicting the Bible. But he does not see that as an issue because he is basing his views on not on the Greek Septuagint/LXX, nor on any Hebrew manuscripts whatsoever but on the Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis). He keeps referring to “the original passage” but does not tell people that he is quoting this very, very, very late dated Targum which is not only a translation but a paraphrase which includes Rabbinic folkloric interpretations.
Zen replied to the question posed to me thusly:
As posted above: Actually the original passage references that she got a man child from the angel of the Lord or that the child itself is an angel of the Lord. And then she added from her husband another child Abel.
I replied with something that kept coming up again and again which is Zen Garcia’s claim to be quoting “the original passage” even though he is quoting a very, very, very late dated folkloric-interpretive-paraphrase which states things not found in any previously written manuscript in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or Latin:
Zen, you keep referring to “the original passage” but you are not telling these dear unsuspecting people to what you are referring as being “the original passage”: please tell then what text you are quoting. You and I both known that you are quoting the Aramaic from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which dates to the sixth century AD which is circa 1,500 to 2,000 years after the Book of Genesis was written (depending on when one dates Genesis).
This will come up again (and again) but let us leave off for now as Zen next draws our attention to that which he claims is symbolic language in Genesis 3.
For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.
Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia