why learning only a little bit about a biblical language is more dangerous than not learning any
l was looking at the Answers in Genesis website to get a bit of a grip on their viewpoint of their six day creation theory and came across this explanation for how they know that Cain's wife was his sister.
A closer look at the Hebrew word for “wife” in Genesis reveals something readers may miss in translation. It was more obvious to those speaking Hebrew that Cain’s wife was likely his sister. (There is a slim possibility that she was his niece, but either way, a brother and sister would have married in the beginning.) The Hebrew word for “wife” used in Genesis 4:17 (the first mention of Cain’s wife) is ishshah, and it means “woman/wife/female.”
"And Cain knew his wife [ishshah], and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son-Enoch"
The word ishshah is the word for “woman,” and it means “from man.” It is a derivation of the Hebrew words ‘iysh (pronounced: eesh) and enowsh, which both mean “man.” This can be seen in Genesis 2:23 where the name “woman” (ishshah) is given to one who came from Adam.
"And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman [ishshah], because she was taken out of Man [iysh]” (Genesis 2:23)."
Thus, Cain’s wife is a descendant of Adam/man. Therefore, she had to be his sister (or possibly niece). Hebrew readers should be able to make this connection easier; however, much is lost when translated.
Now, the first thing is, the logic doesn't flow. All that argument tells us is that she was human. Seriously. Think about how many times the word אִשָּׁה (ishshah) must be used in the Old Testament -- if we're going to understand that the etymology 'aided' the orinal audience, we must be careful to consider all the other occurrences of the word. Clearly we cannot apply this 'hidden meaning' to the other instances in the Old Testament and therefore without some more applicable evidence, the argument falls flat on its face.
(Can I just say here that I am making no comment as to whether or not Cain's wife was his sister -- I am aware of various arguments in this area and feel disinclined and unqualified to comment.)
Furthermore, they have made no effort to back up their assertion. Presumably their etymological claims are based in Genesis 2:23, "Now this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman' for she was taken out of man," but what they don't take into account is that the Bible never sets itself up as a linguistic textbook, and as it turns out the words אִישׁ ('iysh' = 'ish') and אִשָּׁה ('ishshah') are unrelated apart from sounding alike.
I found this helpful post on Balashon (a blog exploring the linguistic interplay between Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and other ancient languages). Note that the author of this blog states quite clearly in his biography that he is not a professional linguist, but what he does in his article is provide references to professional linguists who are licensed to make the claims. He gathers them together to make it more readable, but does not pretend to be someone or something he's not. I find that refreshing. If only so many presumptuous Christians would take a leaf out of his book.
http://www.balashon.com/2008/10/ish-and-isha.html
On a related note, reading this article has made me really reconsider how I view the Answers in Genesis/Creation Science approach to the book of Genesis. I have had grave concerns about their simplistic way of viewing the world and every scientist I know has told me they present scientific evidence from a very one-sided and badly researched point of view, but as I am not myself scientific in the least I have been unable to comment. This however has confirmed everything they've said, but in an area I do know. What they have done in Genesis 2 is to take a statement ("because she was taken out of man") and taking it on face value have applied a whole theory to it. They haven't even considered whether the Bible is really making a true linguistic etymological claim or whether it is more like a pun. I cannot comment on what the author of Genesis is trying to say with that comment, but I would be very careful before I built a whole theory upon it, especially without researching the implications and basis for such a claim.