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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
The story is a parable. The Bible is made up of many stories that are actual fact, but are often based on partial facts or legends in order to povide direction. Many Christians take the Bible only as a literal meaning, and that is their right to do so. When taking a look at the Bible, it is easy to assess that it is not all literal. Cain and Able is a perfect example of this. If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman on the planet (and not just the first of God's chosen to live in the Garden), then other people would have to be born of Adam and Eve and be the sisters and brothers of Cain and Able. Giving Christians the choice over other people and incest, I guess they choose..............? I am a Christian, but I believe that things are taken out of context often by many followers.




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
It is all foreshadowing the birth of Jesus Christ.

Whether you agree with the Bible or not the fact is that most people just cannot comprehend the Book. For many people, it is like reading Shakespear or a stero manual.

For Christians, the Bible is all about Christ. Even the Book of Genesis is about Jesus. There is so much symbolism going on in the Bible that it is impossible to write everything in a tiny thread.

Everything is a foreshadowing pointing to the coming of Jesus and his sacrifice.

Follow me for a minute…

Adam and Eve ate the apple and got kicked out of the Garden. They put fig leaves over their privates and when God saw this he told them to remove the plants and kill the first animals to use the skins – symbolism: blood atonement for sin.

God now makes a law that any sacrifice must come from a “clean and pure lamb”. The lamb could not have spots or defects. Symbolism: The clean, spotless and pure lamb represents Jesus. Each time a pure lamb is sacrificed sin is forgiven.

Abel comes to God and scarifies his best lamb and god is pleased. Cain gives God some harvest from the Earth and God is not happy. Cain did not follow God's law. There is an old saying “can’t get blood from a turnip.” Symbolism: God is showing that nothing but the blood of the clean lamb will be accepted.

Later God tells Abraham to take his firstborn son to the top of the hill (where Jesus would be crucified 2000 years later) and sacrifice him. This is a big moment of foreshadowing. Abraham struggles with this order but does what God says and takes his firstborn son to the altar. The son says, father I see the altar and the wood for the fire but where is the sacrifice? And then Abraham says what God has been waiting for…Abraham says, “God will give us a sacrifice.” An angel of the Lord suddenly appears and with a pure lamb for them to sacrifice. Symbolism: God will give the world a pure sacrifice to clean away all sin. It will be the firstborn son of the Lord. The reader can also see how difficult it was for Abraham and how hard it will be for God to watch Jesus on the Cross. It will be a sacrifice and not a murder.

Moving on to Moses…The pharaoh makes the final curse “The curse of the first born son.” All first-born sons will die when the Angel of Death flies into the city. However, God tells Moses that the Angel will pass over the families that put “Lambs Blood” on their door. Symbolism: The first-born son will die, but those who use the Lambs Blood will be saved from death. There is no death with the blood of the Lamb (Christ). Those who die and believe that the Lamb’s Blood was spilled for their sins will live again in Heaven.

The story of Cane and Abel is a foreshadowing event. It was the beginning of many.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Lady V,
First of all I apologize for making this response so lengthy, but you have asked some questions that require some clarification. Here I hope to share with you some answers to your questions.

You asked:


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?


In order to answer your questions it first must be established that the family of Adam had the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at that time. In quoting you..."Cain went from the presence of the Lord." It has been established that the family of Adam enjoyed the presence of the Lord; they were given light and knowledge (Gospel Knowledge), and commandments to follow. Do not assume there were no teachings.
Would God create man on the Earth, communicate with him on a regular basis, and not give him knowledge about life? Do not assume there were only four of them around Adam lived approximately 930 years. How many children can a man father in that length of time? Cain and Abel were not the first children of Adam and Eve. They had many years to procreate and populate the Earth long before Cain and Abel arrived on the scene. Cain and Abel both knew what type of sacrifices would be acceptable to the Lord, they were taught by their parents who were also taught of God. To understand why God accepted Abel's offering and not Cain's it must be understood why they made sacrifices to begin with and what significance (symbolism) sacrifices meant. The people were taught that God would send His only begotten son, (in the flesh, Jesus Christ) who was perfect, pure, without sin, and blemish in the meridian of time to redeem them (and mankind) from their sins, thus saving them from the fall of Adam. They were commanded to make sacrifices in remembrance of the Savior who was to come and redeem them from their sins. The sacrifice of a lamb to God is in similitude or symbolic of the Savior (the Lamb of God) who also was sacrificed on our behalf.
"Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground." (Matt. 23:35; 1 John 3:12) Abel kept the commandment of sacrifice and brought forth the firstlings of his flock to make a sacrifice. Cain was a tiller of the ground and instead of obtaining a lamb from his brother Abel (whom he despised) he offered up the fruit of the ground instead as an offering unto the Lord. In solemn mockery Cain brought forth the fruits of his vanity and laid them on the altar. By some token which is not recorded, Cain discovered that his offering was completely unacceptable to the Lord. At the same time he learned that Abel's offering was sanctified and accepted. Cain must have been outraged! His egotistical vanity was prodded to the quick and passionate anger boiled over, thereby making his mind a fertile field for the seeds of murder which Satan later proposed to plant.
After the murder of Abel, Cain could no longer live in the vicinity. The sight of his father and mother must have been abhorrent to him. Their sorrow-stricken faces and their bodies stooped by grief must have been like fire and brimstone in his brain. Cain therefore announced he was going to move. He took all his possessions- his spoils (from the murder of his brother), his household goods, his wife, his brothers, sisters (remember others existed and were born long before Cain) and the paraphernalia of a secret society he helped establish with the help of Satan (to murder and get gain in secret as he did with the murder of Abel) and moved eastward of Eden. Like a nomad he must have dragged his caravan from place to place. His restless, remorseful spirit probably robbed him of sleep and the will to settle. As a result the whole land through which he passed was named [“Nod” which meant “wandering.” (Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary under “Nod”)] After traveling over many countries he settled down with his wife and those who followed him and built up a city named Nod and began to have children. And the story goes on and on…

Well I hope I have been a help I in assisting you in finding the answers you are looking for.

Regards,
brdbing



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 11:12 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?

[edit on 12/28/2004 by LadyV]


ok, well im not quite sure ALL the answers, but ill answer to what I remember about this.
God accepted Abel's offering and not Canes because Cane took the bad part of his crop, Abel took the good part. God was displeased at Cane, but didnt take that much severe action, untill Cane killed his brother, and like the question "where did Cane, or Seth get their wives?" The Bible doesnt mention the girls born, or the other guys born, so the "city" Cane made may have consisted of his offspring, or others. Cane disobeyed God by building the city, he was supposed to wander as the curse, not set up shop and build a city.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 12:17 PM
link   
The bible says that god had regard for abel and his offering, but for cain and his offering he did not.


it is not the offering, but the actual person making the offering. god isnt displeased with the offering, but with the person making it.
"with cain and his offering", basically, God is saying you and everything you brought are not acceptable. The offering itself had little to do with what occured. Then he goes out and whacks his own brother, so yea, the child was disturbed to begin with. That is why the offering was not acceptable. What we would call today "consider the source."


this can be related to worshipping with an evil heart, or when people are so focused on the details of their religion yet forget to take care of their own neighbor. What is being offered is not as important as the person making it. I think there is a parable about a poor man giving something worthless, and a rich man giving half his kingdom, but the favor falls to the poor man because he gave with a Pure heart and Intentions. The rich man gave to get into heaven. ( something along these lines)


the rest of the questions can be fascinating; where did all the other people come from, Where is the Nod, exactly what was the Mark god left on cain, etc, etc. interesting research



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween

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.


Simply that because the world adam means "man", the truth of your statement that it would require twisting of words to suggest the creation of more than a single man lies entirely with the singularity or plurality of the word "adam" as used in that verse.
In this case however, Strong's indicates that Adam is singular meaning that unless anyone can bring a challenge to Strong's translation, your statement is in fact correct. I'm basically making a strictly academic point. I am making it because if we had someone here who was educated in hebrew language they might be able to check Strong's translation for any assumption or ambiguity.



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.
Then I have presented my arguements on the wrong point out of understanding. Nevertheless they hold water in relation to your actual point as well.



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.

It is indeed a tangent subject, but one that seemed to repeatedly be touched upon, so why not address it just for the sake of conversation. I suspect you believe I am here to challenge you and create another discussion such as we had regarding Eden, but this is not the case. Our last exchange yielded nothing for either of us, so why repeat it?



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   

It is indeed a tangent subject, but one that seemed to repeatedly be touched upon, so why not address it just for the sake of conversation. I suspect you believe I am here to challenge you and create another discussion such as we had regarding Eden, but this is not the case. Our last exchange yielded nothing for either of us, so why repeat it?


I have no issue addressing any topic to which I post, it is just that I don't necessarily like to divert threads with Biblical topics unless the lead poster chooses to do so, because religion is the one issue where analysing any line or verse can lead to never-ending topical issues. I rather enjoy LadyV's threads and views, and even sense a certain peace about her, and would prefer therefore to not alienate her from any exchange we may have in the future.

I have no issue with anyone challenging me, since I do not have all of the answers, nor do I profess to have all the answers. If anyone did, then these discussions would all be moot. And I disagree that the discussin on Eden yielded nothing for me, sad to say, after just having seen two satellite images of Indonesia, where the coastline was redrawn within less than one hour, I am more convinced than ever that I am on the right track with the Nile.



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I have no issue addressing any topic to which I post, it is just that I don't necessarily like to divert threads with Biblical topics unless the lead poster chooses to do so, because religion is the one issue where analysing any line or verse can lead to never-ending topical issues. I rather enjoy LadyV's threads and views, and even sense a certain peace about her, and would prefer therefore to not alienate her from any exchange we may have in the future.


Fair enough. Perhaps at some point in the future we'll have a seperate thread for analyzing seeming contradictions of genesis and their implications.



I have no issue with anyone challenging me, since I do not have all of the answers, nor do I profess to have all the answers. If anyone did, then these discussions would all be moot. And I disagree that the discussin on Eden yielded nothing for me, sad to say, after just having seen two satellite images of Indonesia, where the coastline was redrawn within less than one hour, I am more convinced than ever that I am on the right track with the Nile.

I never considered the change of geography to be the main bone of contention in that thread- there were other problems. Following your lead though, I suppose we ought to stay out of that while we're in this thread.
My point on the "getting nothing" out of that discussion was only that I'm not out for a cyclical arguement over the interpretation of the bible, as you have referred to above.



posted on Jan, 1 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I dont believe that the Bible we have today contain the intent, teachings, and message left by God, and by messengers God has sent over the years. Either by design or default people have corrupted and hidden truths. It takes a few hours of research to understand what is going on in the fews sentences of this story.

Imagine what people in the middle ages must have felt. You are told The Bible is THE path to salvation, and you must rely on someone you dont know, dressed in bizarre robes, lifting themselves above common folk to translate simple issues such as Cain and Abel. Taken as a whole, the history of what men have done with the teachings of God are suspicious at the least, revolting at most.


That being said, the story of Cain and Abel is interesting. In later books God commands the destruction of entire cities, peoples and cultures. So why is Cain spared in this story? who is cain supposed to marry, his sister, his cousin, there are no other choices, if we take the Bible as a Literal work. it is difficult to undestand what the underlying moral of this story is.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join