I disagree with the following, and I will show why.
 Eve thought she had given birth to the Messiah: “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have acquired a man from (or, with) the LORD.”” (Gen.4:1NKJ). The transliterated Hebrew reads as follows (names in bold): ve.ha.a.dam ya.da et-kha.va ish.to va.ta.har va.te.led et-ka.yin va.to.mer ka.ni.ti ish et-YHWH ( הוהי-תא) The Hebrew kanitish (gotten or acquired) is a play on kayin (Cain) –the Canaanites were merchants and smiths. Note that the ‘et’ (תא) that proceeds each name is not translated with the exception of the last name where the participle is erroneously translated as ‘from’ or ‘with’ [the help of], however, it is a demonstrative pronoun similar to the Greek autos (self, this same) –according to Gesenius this primitive word lost its demonstrative power when set before nouns and pronouns that are already definite and thus became superfluous. It is the context which determines how the prefix is translated the phrase [with]….the help of is a translators guess. A more suitable translation would be: And the man knew (even or the same) Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore (even or the same) Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man (even or the same) YHWH.’ Eve had been promised that she would give birth to the Messiah (Gen.3:16) and therefore it was only natural that she would see her first child as a manifestation of the promised Yahweh. The Hebrew ‘et’ (תא) represents the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet (the Alpha and Omega of the Greek alphabet).
I recognise this idea: Harry Whittaker made the same claim, and perhaps you've picked it up from him. But the problem is that he failed to mention a critical fact: if Eve meant that the man she had gotten was (in some sense) Yahweh - "I have gotten a man (that is), Yahweh", she would not have said what she said, but something different. Picking up from your transliteration of the Hebrew of what Eve said in Gen 4:1:
ka.ni.ti ish et-YHWH
for Eve to mean that the man she had gotten and Yahweh were one and the same, she should have said:
ka.ni.ti et-ish et-YHWH
that is, she should also have prefixed the word 'ish' ("man") with 'et', as she did for the name Yahweh.
For proof of this, we only need to look to the very next verse, Gen 4:2, where we are told that she went on to bare "his brother, Abel". Now this statement of the narrative, just as in verse one, uses the 'et' object marker before "Abel", as in v1 it was used before "Cain". But it does so, not only there but also before the word for "his brother"
. It is this dual application that shows that "his brother" and "Abel" are one and the same, and if Eve had said 'et-ish et-yhwh' then what you claim about her statement in verse 1 would be true. But she didn't, and it isn't.
Some further examples where two or more apparently distinct objects of a verb are both/all prefixed by the 'et' object marker to show that they are one and the same include:
Ge 22:2 (AV) And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest ...
where the Hebrew terms for "thy son", "thine only son
" and "Isaac" all have the object marker to show they are all the one thing that Abraham is to take. The same occurs in verse 12, for the first two of those phrases.
Ge 50:2 (AV) And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father:
where "his servants" and "the physicians" are both marked by 'et' to indicate a single group of people that fits both descriptions.
De 26:15 (AV) Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel,
where "thy people" and "Israel" both have the object marker because Israel is God's people - the two terms refer to the same thing.
(In fact it's not only repetition of the 'et' object marker prefix that shows two adjacent noun-terms to be parallel ways of speaking about the same thing: there are plenty of examples of this where a preposition is repeated in the same way. I can easily supply examples on request.)
The fact that Eve does not use the prefix 'et' before the word "man" ('ish'), yet it does come before "Yahweh", completely breaks this pattern, and requires that we see 'et' here as serving a different purpose. Eve is not saying she has gotten a man that is Yahweh. She is saying that she has gotten a man "with" or "by" Yahweh, a saying which does not equate Yahweh with Cain or consider Yahweh the father of Cain, but rather refers back to God's words to Eve (in context speaking also of her desire towards her husband) that he, Yahweh, would multiply her conception and she would bring forth children (Gen 3:16), the very thing that had just happened, for the first time ever.
Finally, to show that 'et-Yahweh', as it comes in Gen 4:1, does not require the 'et' to mean Eve thought she had given birth to Yahweh, or that the word 'et' is serving as an object marker at all, but can indeed perform a different purpose, consider these passages:
1Sa 25:29 (AV) Yet a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul: but the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the LORD thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a sling.
Isa 49:4 (AV) Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God.
In both instances of 'with the LORD", the Hebrew is 'et-yhwh' - the 'et' is translated as "with" (as it is in plenty of other places, but these cases use it with Yahweh, hence the particular relevance). Quite clearly it does not serve as an object marker in either case. Additionally the phrase "with my God" at the end of the second example again has 'et' translated as - and clearly having the sense of - "with" .
Edited by Mark Taunton, 22 July 2012 - 12:29 AM.