Talk:Lamech (descendant of Cain)

message: The Lamech, descendant of Cain article says the two Lamechs are the same. Should this be a redirect?--Cuchullain 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not necessarily the same person.  The redirect is extremely unfortunate and should be reverted to the what this article was before.  Critical scholarship and Grammatical scholarship are two different views.  --Ep9206 22:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article should remain discussing both Lamechs. It does not say they were the same necessarily, it merely discusses what the Bible has to say about both of them. I merged them together because originally, the Lamech, descendant of Cain was the only developed one; the other Lamech was only mentioned on an unneccessary disambiguation page. There isn't enough information on Lamech, descendant of Seth to warrant his own article, but he needs to be discussed. Would putting this page in :Category:Multiple people satisfy you?--Cúchullain t/c 03:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are countless traditions about both Lamechs.  Personally, I think if we can find enough information about each through traditions, they should be listed on seperate articles. mikey 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't have enough about Noah's father to justify splitting them now. If you can add more, please do, and we can see about the merits of a split then.--Cúchullain t/c 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I thought tubal cain was a sperate person ??? redirect???JUBALCAIN 23:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, I agree, a dash to google suggests that Tubal-Cain was "the son of Lamech and Zillah, 'an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron' (Genesis 4:22; R.V.)". The argument about different translations of the names is not clear, and does not say that Tubal-Cain was the SON of one of the Lamechs, and therefore deserves a separate page. There should not be a REDIRECT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.69 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: Patristic and Medieval Tradition held that both Lamechs were the same person, a tradition of nearly a thousand years. I'll put up info on this when I have gathered it sufficiently, because the Hebraic traditions dominate the page.
This medieval Christian tradition lends support to the idea that the wiki-page should be about both Lamechs together. Sure, some scholars and rabbis have insisted they are separate figures, but others equally "valid" historically, have held that they are only one person. You cannot "disambiguate" something so totally ambiguous! What we have to construct is a page that discusses the curious "Lamech phenomenon" of being simultaneously two people and one, and that clearly separates the different traditions and approaches (rabbinic, patristic, grammatical, genealogical). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.69 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patristic and Medieval Tradition 

message: Cuchullain, given that there is so much discussion on the name and to whom the name refers, it seems to me that it is relevant that the Old English Genesis A chooses 'Lameh' for the one and 'Lamech' for the other--especially if this clarification occurs in what is surely an 'authorized' translation of scripture. As for my note being unsourced, I did provide a source in response to your deletion, and again I note that not a single bit of the other information on the page has a source listed. You also mention that the OE poetic translation of Genesis is late--that may be so, but it is a whole lot earlier than the reference to Mormon sacred text found on the bottom of the page, which would make the Mormon reference a lot more questionable in terms of its relevance. Thank you. 24.214.249.82 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, the fact that nothing else is sourced does not mean this one statement is off the hook. Perhaps the Old English version warrants a mention here, but note that the Mormon interpretation is in a separate section - where you had placed this bit of information, it looked as if   may have had some influence in the development of the Lamech story, which is is not the case. If it is to be kept, it should be in a different section.--Cúchullain t/c 07:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  lameh/lamech 

message: it's footnoted in some bibles the NIV study bible for one, that Lamech of the line of Cain being the 7th generation from Adam (7 symbolicaly meaning completeness) was complete evil, as opposed to Enoch of the line of Seth and also 7th from Adam was completely good, walked with god, was taken up to heaven, etc. For example Lamech not only boasted of himself taking vengence,(an act of wanton murder but also denying god his due; Deut 32:35 "It is mine to avenge;I will repay"), he was the first polygamist; going against the divine intention of monogamy. His self-reliance was an act of rebellion and prideful independence from god; thinking by his own achievements and that of his sons they would redeem themselves from the curse on the line of Cain. Bloodkith (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lamech an evil figure? 

message: You should know that the powers of WP:OR are against you. There is no way for the English Wikipedia to accept unsourced theological claims.
Wikipedians aren't interested in what you know, they are interested in what you can WP:CITE.
Anything resembling WP:OR performed upon the WP:PRIMARY source called the Bible will be knee-jerk rejected.
And gotquestions.org is a self-published website publishing the opinions of anonymous amateur theologians. Fails thus WP:SPS. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research