Cain and Able

[e lansing]

why would they have instinctively felt that it was immoral, or wrong, when God was their moral compass, and HE didn't say it was wrong?

you have to remember, at that time, God had only told them to marry, be fruitful and to multiply. there were no other options other than amongst themselves.

This puts a new perspective on fulfilling your marital duities! Also to give of your self unselfishly! euw!!!

[e lansing]

i don't think God changed His mind. He created and implemented a rule once it became necessary to do so. in the beginning, it wasn't necessary... and would have, in fact, made it impossible for the people to have fulfilled God's command to populate the earth.

go back to that analogy of extacy for a minute... originally there was no law against it because it just simply hadn't been necessary to create one. legislators never "changed their minds" about the drug, they just created and enforced a rule (law) that became necessary at some point in time.

this makes since!

[MelodyCat]

We know there were other people on the Earth at the time Cain killed Able and he was being punished by God.

GE 4:10 The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."

GE 4:13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."

GE 4:15 But the LORD said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

GE 4:17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch.

This is all we know. Yes Adam and Eve had other children. Could these people Cain was afraid of be his brothers and sisters? Don't know.

However we do know that there were others on the Earth and all I can say is God obviously created them either through Adam & Eve or some other way. Don't know. Only know every person on this planet is here because God created them. Cain's wife provided by the Lord.

In the End, does it really matter that we can't verify exactly where Cain's wife came from?

Are you saying that Adam and Eve were not the first people on earth?

No I didn't say Adam and Eve NOT the First people God created. The Bible tells us that God made Adam and then Eve.

What I was saying is that we don't have any details about who these people are and where they came from.

[exrockstar]

scripture doesnt say the Adam taught Cain and Able how to do an offering but you can conclude that.

So how can you "not conclude anything" yet still say "no. wrong?" to what i am saying.

You have made a conclusion.

You said that they sacrificed for their families. That is putting a specific condition on the sacrifice. They could have been sacrificing for themselves. They could have been sacrificing a thank offering. Basically, there could be numerous reasons they were sacrificing. To say that they sacrificed for one particular reason is wrong.

Unless you can find something that directly indicates that they sacrificed for their family, you are merely speculating.

Edit to add: If Abel had his own family, why does the Bible not mention his having children?

because there is no significance in it. it does not matter. there is a point in the story and there is a message.

Again, the male family head offered in behalf of his family. If Cain or Abel had no family then Adam would of still been their head therefore

Adam offered in behalf of them.

So digest this:

1 John 3 "11 This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous."

Abel died in a sense as a righteous martyr. His offer had to be in behalf of someone besides himself. It had to be in behalf of his family. Not in behalf of people because the Levitical (sp?)priesthood has not come to existence. now hold that thought....

Heb 12: "You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."

the "word" that the blood of Abel speaks of is vengeance. God did not want vengeance exercised. He said that (Gen 4:15). However, going back to Heb 12:24 the "word" that

speaks a better word in the new covenant is "salvation." A better word than vengeance.

Abel's offering was in behalf of his family because he had to be a male-head of a family (not himself); is like Jesus was offering himself in behalf of his believers. Christ is our "head. (Eph 5:23)"

Both killed. John 1:14 "The Word became flesh...."

[Guest LadyC]

i was under the impression that they were giving their offering to God because that is what God commanded them to do. there were no laws at the time about making offerings on behalf of the family, and furthermore, whether married or not, it's presumable that neither cain nor abel were living as children in the house of adam. they were adult men, self sufficient.

seems to me that this was the beginning of what later became known as tithing. abel gave the first fruits of his flocks, and the fat portions at that. scripture makes it clear that abel gave the first and the best to God. scripture doesn't give us any indication about what cain offered to God, other than he made an offering, of some sort, from his crops. since it is made clear about one offering and not the other, it's a logical leap to assume that there is a strong possibility that cain didn't give the first or the best. but then, on the other hand, maybe he did and God just prefered the animal sacrifice because it more clearly represented the sacrificial lamb that Jesus would become. we really don't know for sure. but we can glean a little insight into it from vs. 6-7, where God indicates that cain's offering was in disobedience and left the door wide open for the sin that was lying in wait. what exactly was the disobedience? it's up for speculation, but i'm speculating that cain kept the best for himself and gave God what was leftover.

nor do we know what the purpose of the offering was, nor is there any indication that either of the brothers was married at that time.

what we DO know for certain is that God was more pleased with cain's offering than abel's, that cain was angry and jealous, that cain murdered his brother, that cain tried to conceal his actions, and that God judged cain. we also know for certain that the first mention of cain having a wife comes AFTER he has murdered his brother and has been driven out of the Lord's presence, and after he settled in nod.

[exrockstar]

i was under the impression that they were giving their offering to God because that is what God commanded them to do. there were no laws at the time about making offerings on behalf of the family, and furthermore, whether married or not, it's presumable that neither cain nor abel were living as children in the house of adam. they were adult men, self sufficient.

if there were no laws of offerings (in this case a burnt offering) then why do you suppose Noah made a burnt offering the first time he got off the ark (gen 8:20)?

Where did he learn that? Why didn't the children do the burnt offering instead of Noah who was the head?

They were passing the offering ritual/ceremony down from Father to son. God accepted the sweet savor from Noah and Cain because it was blood and they were heads.

when i say head i mean head of household.

i actually can't accept that you call this offering a tithing. It's like i tell the JW's that come knocking at my door.

"man, since Adam, has ALWAYS needed a blood covering."

JW's offer works, and reject Christ's blood, so this is no different when it gets rejected.

[MelodyCat]

i was under the impression that they were giving their offering to God because that is what God commanded them to do. there were no laws at the time about making offerings on behalf of the family, and furthermore, whether married or not, it's presumable that neither cain nor abel were living as children in the house of adam. they were adult men, self sufficient.

if there were no laws of offerings (in this case a burnt offering) then why do you suppose Noah made a burnt offering the first time he got off the ark (gen 8:20)?

Where did he learn that? Why didn't the children do the burnt offering instead of Noah who was the head?

They were passing the offering ritual/ceremony down from Father to son. God accepted the sweet savor from Noah and Cain because it was blood and they were heads.

when i say head i mean head of household.

i actually can't accept that you call this offering a tithing. It's like i tell the JW's that come knocking at my door.

"man, since Adam, has ALWAYS needed a blood covering."

JW's offer works, and reject Christ's blood, so this is no different when it gets rejected.

God spoke directly to Noah and Abraham, not everything was recorded. However since God told Noah in detail how to build the Ark you would imagine that at sometime God discusssed Sin and Forgivness with Noah.

YES there is no other covering for Sin than blood. Of course only Christs blood in the end cleanses us, the animal sacrifices were only to teach the Israelites about the Blood of Christ to come.

[exrockstar]

God spoke directly to Noah and Abraham, not everything was recorded. However since God told Noah in detail how to build the Ark you would imagine that at sometime God discusssed Sin and Forgivness with Noah.

YES there is no other covering for Sin than blood. Of course only Christs blood in the end cleanses us, the animal sacrifices were only to teach the Israelites about the Blood of Christ to come.

Blood covering is nothing but saying "take this animals life (innocent one) instead of mine." God accepts it.

So here you have a garden that is perfect for Adam and Eve and they commit the sin.

Why did God not kill them?

Because he took the lives of the animals then used their furs to cover Adam and Eve: a covering

I would even go beyond and give some more nice points to think about but I never like feeling like i'm trying to beat a point to someone.

Hey if someone reads this and gets it then great.

If i'm crazy then so be it.

I never liked the "bible is silent" thing. The bible reveals.

good night

[Axxman]

why would they have instinctively felt that it was immoral, or wrong, when God was their moral compass, and HE didn't say it was wrong?

you have to remember, at that time, God had only told them to marry, be fruitful and to multiply. there were no other options other than amongst themselves.

If God hates incest, which I believe he does, then He would have given them other options...right? Its not like God, the Creator, would have been like "Oh well, this is the best we can do for now." Especially in light of the knowledge that He could create those other options from the very dust off the earth. God initially only created Adam. When God saw that Adam was lonely he didn't say to Adam "Your only option is bestiality." No, He created a female companion. Therefore, logic dictates that when the time came for the sons of Adam to "be fruitful and multiply" that God would not say to them "Your only option is incest" when he could have easily created them companions just as He had done for Adam.

God never changes. If He hates incest now, He hated it then. We have no reason to believe He would have given tacit approval for such sexual immorality, especially when scriptural evidence shows he would have created a solution.

[Guest LadyC]

it wasn't incest then, axxman. God had not declared it as sinful. you are speculating that God created other humans from the dust of the earth... and that's fine, as long as you recognize that not everyone is going to agree with you, and in fact, the majority do not. for the record, and i'd rather not turn this into a lengthy debate but just leave it as it is, leviticus says that to have relations with a close relative (parent/sibling/aunt) dishonors another person. (to have sex with your father's wife dishonors your father... to have sex with your descendant dishonors yourself... etc). only homosexual sex and beastiality sex are referred to as detestable and/or perverse. so does God "hate" it? scripture doesn't say that. so even scripturally, there's nothing that suggests to me that my supposition (which is in agreement with most theologians) is incorrect.

and in general, that whole 'other civilization' theory is the basis for the whole lilith thing.

hey exrockstar, i drew the correlation between a tithe and this offering because of the first fruits. i ALSO drew a much clearer correlation to the blood sacrifice when i said it could be that the animal sacrifice represented the blood of the Christ. i suppose you missed that part.

but, so that i'm not misunderstood, i DO believe this is more likely something similar to a tithe, and certainly not (IMO) a blood covering. why? because of the context. the Biblical account is very clear that this was an offering. when the heads of families offered sacrifices on behalf of their family, it was a blood sacrifice for the atonement of their sins. scripture differentiates between a sacrifice and an offering at all other times... so why would THIS time be called an offering if it was really a sacrifice?

in any case, the bottom line is this. scripture does not tell us that the heads of the household were to give offerings (or even sacrifices) on behalf of their families at the time of cain and abel, nor does scripture indicate that either of the brothers was married at the time of the murder.

and by the way, i'm really not sure why you threw noah into the mix. it may have only been four chapters later, but it was HUNDREDS of years later... years in which generations of family traditions, cultural traditions, and laws of civilization had been put into place.

and besides, do you not know that God instructed individuals what to do back then? we can look throughout scripture at hundreds of examples of God speaking directly or indirectly to His people, apart from traditions.