It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Another Biblical question. Cain & Abel

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:30 AM
link   




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Trying to get this straight here guys.....Vall and Dr: So...your saying that there were other "humanoid types "outside" the garden.....if this is what your saying...where do you get that from?


No, I'm not trying to say anything. See, what I'm pointing out is that it is a vast unknown. The biblical account does not state there WEREN'T other people created and living in other areas. It also doesn't state there WERE...so, if you're going to speak to the biblical record you cannot say one way or the other. That's an absolute fact that there is no conclusive statement made on this in the bible. If we are going to take the biblical account literally - then we MUST state there is the possibility there were other people created in other locations.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
As far as I know, the bible doesn't tell why god accepted Abel's offering, but did not accept Cain's? For that matter...How did Cain and Abel know whether their offerings were acceptable? There were no teachings...as there were supposedly only the four of them around.......although god places a mark on Cain so "everyone would know he was marked"
God's says that after this Cain went from the presence of the Lord and founded a city in the land of Nod. How do you build a city with no people? Where is the Land of Nod?


LadyV, I did not read every post on this thread, so please forgive me if I am repeating something...

Genesis 4:3-4
And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof.

In verse three there is a phrase - "in the process of time." When you look up the word 'process' in a Stong's, it tells me that the Hebrew word there is literally translated 'end.' The phrase is referring to the fact that Cain brought his offering to the Lord at the end of the harvest time, whereas Abel brought the Lord the firstfruits of his herd.

I don't believe God's lack of respect for Cains offering had anything to do what was being offered, but with how it was being offered. In other places in the Bible where it talks of tithes and offerings, God always wants to be considered first. God provided us with everything we have, our home, our job, our money, our possessions, all of it. He asks for us to give 10% of what we earn back to him as a tithe. People today see that as money.

In the time we are talking of, what they had to give was Cain's fruit of the earth and Abel's fruit of the animals he was raising. That should have meant, to Cain, that he gave the first and best of his harvest, no matter what. But he didn't, he decided to give God what was leftover at the end of the harvest and God rejected his offering.

As for your question about Nod and it's people? I don't have an answer right now, but I will research it.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
Ok...so I was just reading and it does seem as if man was created twice
Genesis 1; 26 and Genesis 2; 7 also....in Genesis 1; 28 it states as we all know to, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" I may be wrong here...but the word replenish does that not seem as if it saying it was once plentyful and to re plenish the earth?


My Strong's tells me that the literal interpretation for the hebrew word translated as 'replenish' in that verse is 'to fill up' or 'be full.'

So the verse could read, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and 'fill up' the earth"



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Gazrok:- First off, nowhere in the Bible does it state that Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans created...just that they were first.
If you base that on their being no wording specific to stating that Adam and Eve were the only humans created, then you are correct. However, there is no argument that they were identified as the first, and that obviously means there was none before them. We also know that God created Adam, then he created Eve, obviously then, he created only two unless we want to veer off into exercises whereby we can embellish the Bible to our hearts' content. The genealogy in Genesis is presented in such a fashion as to show how earth became populated, and it is not until it begins to focus strictly on a particular lineage that this focus shifts. Consequently, we are told that Adam and Eve had Cain, Abel and Seth, followed by six generations of Cain, and ending with no further note. Eight generations to Noah, where it picks up the generations of his sons, dropping off Ham and Japheth’s line to continue forward with Shem’s. Hence, for face value, it must be assumed that with there being no reluctance to mentioning Cain’s, Ham’s and Japheth’s lines, there would be none to mention any other humans God himself may have created. This is further evidenced by mentioning Lamech's line, specifically with Gen. 4:21:22. While we may very well now know that the story of Genesis is not a correct accounting of the beginning of all of man, the tales were intended to be just that; the story of the beginning of all mankind.

The story of Lillith comes from the very Karbbalah, I previously mentioned.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Ok, so let's then suppose that's correct. That God created no others than Adam and Eve, and so any other humans were the result of them reproducing. How does Cain then meet this other woman to mary? By your logic, she would have to be either his sister, daughter of one of his brothers (i.e. his neice), or possibly even a daughter of one of his nephews or nieces (after all, supposedly they lived a while). In order for this to be the case, you would then have to assume the entire first family inbred like jack rabbits.

If you stick to dogma too closely, you won't like where it ends up...read the book, hehe....



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Ok, so let's then suppose that's correct. That God created no others than Adam and Eve, and so any other humans were the result of them reproducing. How does Cain then meet this other woman to mary? By your logic, she would have to be either his sister, daughter of one of his brothers (i.e. his neice), or possibly even a daughter of one of his nephews or nieces (after all, supposedly they lived a while). In order for this to be the case, you would then have to assume the entire first family inbred like jack rabbits.

If you stick to dogma too closely, you won't like where it ends up...read the book, hehe....


A very different question to the one raised in the initial post, since it goes directly to the myths and legends within The Bible, written during times when not much was known about a world outside of the Middle East, and where ignorance abounded in the masses. These myths I have on many ocassions in ATSNN claimed is what the good book is about. Just like you and LadyV, I too have asked the believers in here to explain this among other things to me, a sample:

08/29/04 www.abovetopsecret.com... along with some other relevant questions, I asked: ” Adam, Eve and Cain were the only three people on this earth after Cain killed his brother, God said to Cain:

(Gen. 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.)


And who exactly would that whosoever be?

Gen. 4: 17:18 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare ENOCH: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

And unto Enoch was born Irad: and Irad begat MEHUJAEL: and Mehujael begat METHUSAEL: and Methusael begat Lamech.



What wife would that be? There was only Adam, Eve and Cain. Cain had to have slept with HIS MOTHER.

Following along? Cain-Enoch-Mehujael-Methusael

Fast forward to St. Luke:


3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,…

3:35:38(in brief) Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37. Which was the son of MATHUSALA, which was the son of ENOCH, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of MALALEEL, which was the son of CAINAN,
38. Which was the son of ENOS, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Compare then:

Cain- Enoch-Mehujael-Methusael
Seth- Enos [a necessary name twist] -Cain(an) [a necessary insertion]- Malaleel [a necessary name twist]- Mathusala [another necessary name twist].


One of only hundreds of problems within The Bible, the great conspiracy to cover up truths, if there is truth.


So Gazrok, as you can see from the above, by my “logic” or my “dogma,” neither of which your hehes have correctly tapped into, Cain would have to have slept with his mother, for I see no sisters mentioned, and I would only resort to such wild extrapolation if it can be supported by what is written either in The Bible, the Apocrypha, other writings or research. Just so you understand my position, Genesis chapters 1 through 5 and 9, are the myths and fantasy most engrained in modern man to this day, without them, the rest of the Old Testament is worthless. Why even Isaiah understood that some of these had to have been revised, or he would not have had God speak out against live offerings.

Now for interesting reading and a very small glimpse into my logic and dogma:
www.usc.edu...
www.gnosis.org...



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

Gazrok:- First off, nowhere in the Bible does it state that Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans created...just that they were first.
If you base that on their being no wording specific to stating that Adam and Eve were the only humans created, then you are correct. However, there is no argument that they were identified as the first, and that obviously means there was none before them. We also know that God created Adam, then he created Eve, obviously then, he created only two unless we want to veer off into exercises whereby we can embellish the Bible to our hearts' content.


If the rendering of the word Adam as "mankind" were correct then it would require no embellishing to argue that more than a single man was created by God. That rendering is in fact made in my bible. Strong's disagrees with this rendering though.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance gives the meaning of Adam as "an individual of the species mankind". This would make the creation of a single couple explicit and would make other creations of Adam-like men a complete speculation.
Can anyone here tell us how to render Adam (meaning a man) as a plural in Hebrew? Demonstrating the appropriate plural form which has clearly not been used would be the final nail in the coffin for the "multiple adam's" theory.



The genealogy in Genesis is presented in such a fashion as to show how earth became populated, and it is not until it begins to focus strictly on a particular lineage that this focus shifts. Consequently, we are told that Adam and Eve had Cain, Abel and Seth, followed by six generations of Cain, and ending with no further note. Eight generations to Noah, where it picks up the generations of his sons, dropping off Ham and Japheth’s line to continue forward with Shem’s. Hence, for face value, it must be assumed that with there being no reluctance to mentioning Cain’s, Ham’s and Japheth’s lines, there would be none to mention any other humans God himself may have created.

I disagree as to the reason for including the histories of parallel bloodlines. Many of those included seem to have been written in, altered, or assumed upon to form a relationship between other civilizations and Hebrews. Most of the offshoot lines recieved blessings or curses relating to their interaction with the descendants of their siblings who were ancestors to Hebrews.
For example: Cain is made an outcast neither to be accepted not molested and his people built cities. This could be an early example of nomadic Hebrew aversion to dealing with certain settled races. Ham is cursed to be under Shem, and before the story of his line is terminated it is made clear that Cananites are the people of Ham. Japheth is blessed to dwell "in the tents of Shem" and it is clarified that he is the father of the "coastland gentiles". Tarshish and Ashkenaz are listed among his descendants which gives them links to a branch of their people and to an important trading partner in the time of King Solomon.
Races with whom the Hebrew people never had any dealings have little reason to be included. If for example you take the earlier suggestion that earlier species of humanity came before the creation of Adamic man (Homo sapiens) these would have been intellectually, politically, economically etc unimportant and probably not mentioned.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Cain just just grabbed something to give him while Abel gave his very best.




I don't remember ever reading that in any bible...link?









LadyV, You will find the "birth and death" of Cain and Abel in; Genesis Ch 4.

GEN 4:3
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the FRUIT OF THE GROUND AN OFFERING UNTO THE LORD.

As you can see, Cain made an offering of fruit, but it was not stated to be the First & Best of the fruit, nor what type of fruit,........ but as you will notice in GEN 4:4 ,....... description was given as to Abel's offering was of the BEST in his herd.

GEN 4:4

And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS OF HIS FLOCK AND OF THE FAT THEREOF. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering;

GEN 4:5

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Cain did not give of his first and best crop,...... he just gave the Lord whatever he picked without care of it's quailty or timing, where as, Abel gave of the first and best.






[edit on 12/28/2004 by LadyV]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by nanna_of_6

GEN 4:4

And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS OF HIS FLOCK AND OF THE FAT THEREOF. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering;

GEN 4:5

But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Cain did not give of his first and best crop,...... he just gave the Lord whatever he picked without care of it's quailty or timing, where as, Abel gave of the first and best.


I dunno...I don't really see it that way....And Abel, he also brought of the FIRSTLINGS OF HIS FLOCK AND OF THE FAT THEREOF. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering;

it reads as..he too meaning did the same....?



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
If the rendering of the word Adam as "mankind" were correct then it would require no embellishing to argue that more than a single man was created by God. That rendering is in fact made in my bible. Strong's disagrees with this rendering though...
I have no idea what you are trying to convey.


SIB:-
The genealogy in Genesis is presented in such a fashion as to show how earth became populated, and it is not until it begins to focus strictly on a particular lineage that this focus shifts...

I disagree as to the reason for including the histories of parallel bloodlines. Many of those included seem to have been written in, altered, or assumed upon to form a relationship between other civilizations and Hebrews.
You may disagree, however, I gave no reason for the inclusion of bloodlines, rather I gave a reason as to why any other humans created by God, prior to, or before Cain's marriage to some woman, would not have been excluded from Genesis. Where you venture thereafter with your hypothesis is another subject altogether. It is obvious in my response to Gazrok that this path you take is one I contemplate, and I have no issue with the nomadic claim, as I have already said this elsewhere, yet none of that has anything to do with the brothers' offerings, n'est pas? It is also obvious that I initially stayed on topic of this thread, without trying to sideline same with what I think is incorrectly portrayed in all of the OT.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Forgive me for stating the obvious, not to mention something which has only minimal application to the truth, but in Christian theology it is generally taught that
1. It's the thought that counts, and Cain's offering was not made from faith and reverence as Abel's was.
2. That sacrifice in the old testament all points forward to the necessity of attonement for sin by death, which makes this an illustration that you can never give enough to attone for sin- the wages of sin (death) must be borne by something else in your stead.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond

2. That sacrifice in the old testament all points forward to the necessity of attonement for sin by death, which makes this an illustration that you can never give enough to attone for sin- the wages of sin (death) must be borne by something else in your stead.


There is just something that is not right with that! Leaves a very bad taste in the mouth....the killing of anything doesn't' wipe away sinful deeds...it's ridiculous to think you can go kill something and make everything all right...god or no god....why would a loving god have to have something killed when he could wipe it away himself...it makes absolutely no sense at all.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
There is just something that is not right with that! Leaves a very bad taste in the mouth....the killing of anything doesn't' wipe away sinful deeds...it's ridiculous to think you can go kill something and make everything all right...god or no god....why would a loving god have to have something killed when he could wipe it away himself...it makes absolutely no sense at all.


I suppose it is a little disturbing. Frankly I have far deeper problems with my former religion than simply what happens to the poor little lambs who have been slaughtered by the thousands.
I'm not saying its a good thing, I'm just saying the Christian doctrine says that a sinner deserves death and that he will get it if he doesn't accept the death of Jesus in his place.
Christians believe that the sacrifice of valuable living assetts such as sheep in the old testament was intended by God to create a prescendent in Jewish law for for what Jesus would eventually come to do for mankind.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:39 PM
link   
This is not about "poor little lambs who have been slaughtered by the thousands....it is about the idea that anything has to die in order to wipe out anyone's sin...it make no sense at all. Why does a god need blood....? No, something's not right with all of it and I don't mean that in a "right" or "wrong" sort of way.....more like a.....something is amiss...


77

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Don't you think the "blood" sacrifices may be a way of telling some that can see through it to look at the bloodline difference between the people making the offering? It was never about the offering it is about those making them and their fathers (blood). (See my first post on this subject) The Bible has stories within stories that is why all those parables.
That is how I honestly see it.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 77
Don't you think the "blood" sacrifices may be a way of telling some that can see through it to look at the bloodline difference between the people making the offering?

No...I just do not understand any thinking that the spilling of any blood saves anyone....



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel probably ate meat.
When the lamb was sacrificed, it was totally burnt up as a sacrifice
to God and not eaten.
Abel gave up "the best of his herd" because of his faith in God. He had faith that God would provide even better for him in the future.

Cain gave up very little by giving God the last of the harvest. The last of the harvest is not so "quality" as the first or even the middle.
And so Cain showed he had little faith that God would provide for his needs.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine


Cain gave up very little by giving God the last of the harvest. The last of the harvest is not so "quality" as the first or even the middle.




Thr bible doesn't say that anywhere....where are you getting that from?



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Actually, I infer this because of Genesis in the Bible where it reads:

"And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering."

"And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD."

I'm thinking of "firstlings" and "in process of time"

"Firstlings" would probably be the "best of the flock" and also be the greatest sacrifice for Adam's family.

"in process of time"...to me this means that Cain did not give God the first of his harvest.

This is my personal opinion though LadyV.
The Bible can be understood in many different ways by each person who reads it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join