SavedByGrace
Well-Known Member
We can look back to Genesis 4:1 again, and see Cain's own name is derived from the word itself:
"The same as H7013 (with a play upon the affinity to H7069); Kajin, the name of the first child, also of a place in Palestine, and of an Oriental tribe: - Cain, Kenite (-s)." - Strong's Concordance Esword Edition
As one person succinctly stated:
"Cain’s name in Hebrew is קַיִן Kayan (Strongs # 7014) comes from קָנָה (Strongs # 7069) kanah, meaning “possessing” or “acquiring.” Eve explicitly bases Cain’s name upon the notion of acquiring: “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired1 (קָנִיתִי kaniti) a man from the Holy One.” In order to farm or ranch Cain needs to “acquire” tools, animals, and the land itself – a new concept in history." - What’s In A Name: A Secret About Cain and Abel | Rabbi David ZaslowThere are others who dive even deeper into the origins of Origin's Hexapla and choices therein (ektisen):
"...Now, the ἔκτισεν means "he created", "he made", but its semantic field also includes "he brought forth" (Liddle&Scott give few references when the word means "to bring about", as in Aeschylus' "Suppliants" 171, where according to the context it can be translated even as "beget", as chosen by H.W. Smith). In Septuagint, for example in Sirach 44:2 it is impossible for the ἔκτισεν to be used in a strict technical meaning of "creation out of nothing" as it later acquired through the relevant theological debates, especially the Arian controversy, for it is said that "God wrought much glory through hero-ancestors, that is to say, His great power/majesty from the beginning" (πολλὴν δόξαν ἔκτισεν ὁ Κύριος, τὴν μεγαλωσύνην αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾿ αἰῶνος), now God's glory and majesty is always with Him inseparably, and therefore ἔκτισεν in this passage can but mean that He revealed or worked His (αὐτοῦ) ever-existing glory through the heroes of the past, and not created this glory and majesty out of nothing (the Hebrew is even more clear with this, for it has "He apportioned His glory to them"); that men can partake of uncreated divine glory is clear from the Scriptures (cf. John 5:44). The English translations of this passage give a range of options for the ἔκτισεν from “created” (CEB) to “wrought” (DRA), “honored” (GNT), "manifested" (WEB), “made” (WYC), others (NABRE, NRSV, NRSVA, NRSVACE, NRSVCE, RSV, RSVCE) opt for the Hebrew version, which makes things even clearer, saying that “God apportioned His great glory” to the heroic ancestors, thus it is excluded the Septuagint translator could mean in the ἔκτισεν any strong sense of creation, to say nothing about the ex nihilo sense, given that "His great Glory" is everexistent just as He Himself is.
Also, κτίζω can mean with a double accusative "to make somebody something", e.g., "to make/set somebody free" (cf. Aeschylus "Choephori" 1060), that is to say, cause somebody's getting free. In this last meaning the adequate literal translation of the Septuagint will be: "Lord caused/made me (brought me forth) to be the beginning of His ways towards His deeds", for there is not an "ἐν ἄρχῃ" in the text, but a double accusative ("[ἔκτισεν] με ἀρχήν"), like in the abovementioned quote from Aeschylus ("ἐλεύθερόν σε [κτίσει]"). Therefore, the translation "He created me in the beginning of his ways" is totally misleading, while "He caused/made me to be the beginning/principle" is grammatically more plausible with the double accusative construction. Thus, the Septuagint suggests that God was necessitated to bring forth, bring about, or cause something to be the principle ἀρχή for doing His deeds (ἔργα); therefore, by logic of this, this something is not included in those ἔργα but is outside of them as the God-derived principle for their coming into being.
The question is whether this something, this God-derived principle was always with God, or God can be imagined without it? And it would mean that God could create the ἔργα without the mediation of this ἄρχη, which is counter-intuitive, for then why on earth He makes things difficult for Himself as to create a middle principle between Himself and the rest of the creation and only later to create through this created middle principle the rest of the creation? Why not to create all creation without this intermediate creation, just directly? But if we take the ἔκτισεν in a looser sense of "made to be", or "caused to be", which grammatically is more precise, then it is very reasonalbe to think that God creates creatures making His intrinsic Wisdom as the necessary and inavodable principle of manifesting Himself in those creatures, for those creatures possess the perceptible and created signs of Him-Uncreated, or more precisely of His uncreated wisdom. Just for an analogy: rays of the sun say: "The sun made us the principle for making visible the mountains and fields", now, as it is impossible for the sun to make visible anything without its rays, in the similar manner, it is impossible for God to make anything without His Wisdom.
The Hebrew version has קָ֭נָנִי "possessed me", so there is no indication of its' being in any situation (I do not say "time", which could not exist without something to be measured by it, i.e. the world) not possessed by God. But why the Septuagint translators put there the ἔκτισεν (of course, if it is not a simple mistake on the part of the translator who put ἔκτισεν instead of ἐκτήσατο - from κτάομαι/"to possess" - which is the more adequate to the Hebrew word, as suggested by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion and Jerome /possedit/)? ..." - Does Proverbs 8:22 say that God's wisdom was the first person/thing that God created?
WOW! all your posts have completey lost me! I am very confused at to what you are trying to say!
