Another Biblical question. Cain & Abel

My take about the offerings takes into account a matter of faith. Cains offering came from his toiling and labor, and Abel's did not. Cain may have put his faith into his own efforts to please God, where Abel did not. Similarly, we are asked to have faith in being saved not by our own works, but by something we did not do - die on a cross. Does this sound reasonable?

To expand a little on Shadow XIX's reply,

Since Abel's sacrifice was from the best of his flock, it was a large loss and would result in suffering on the part of Abel. Giving this offering, knowing that he would suffer for the loss, was why it was an acceptable offering. As for Cain's offering, he only gathered what basically amounted to scraps from the field which would not have resulted in a suffering because of the loss. This was why the offering was not acceptable.

I think this information comes from some of the Apochryphal scripts and not the actual bible text.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
Why does this God always seem to want Blood?

Why isn't the fruits of the earth good enough for him? Why did he prefer to have some of his own creations sacrificed?

God doesn�t want or need blood. What matters is the level of sacrifice you are willing to give. Livestock was the most valuable thing they could own in those days. It was their money and lifeblood. Abel gave God the firstborn of his flock, the most valuable thing he could offer while Cain gave fruits of the soil. Both are gifts but the firstborn of the flock was a real sacrifice that must have been very difficult for Able to offer. It showed his high level of faith and obedience. I believe it has less to do with the physical offering and more to do with the person�s level of personal sacrifice they are willing to offer the Lord.

As you know God tested Abraham in much the same way . �Genesis 22-2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." God didn�t really want Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac and stopped him just before he killed him ��Genesis 22-12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.". So it was a test, a test of Abraham�s faith and obedience.

We can draw parallels between the two stories that may allow us to better understand the intentions and actions of God.


[edit on 28-12-2004 by kinglizard]

Originally posted by justyc


Finding Nod would get us into a long and unprovable arguement about geographic changes and the location of Eden. The best I can do is lay out a couple of popular theories for consideration/entertainment.
1. If you place Eden in the mediteranean or north Africa then Nod could be Egypt. You could even argue that it was Cain's people who started work on the Sphynx if you subscribe to the theory that very primitive civilizations started the head before Egyptians ever got there. This would be a creationist explanation for water damage on the Sphynx.
2. If you place Eden in the Persian Gulf or Iraq then Nod would probably be somwhere in Iran.
3. If the modern world is impossible to reconcile with the antedeluvian world, we'll never know.

~~~

#4-> 'Eden' has been replaced by the present Dead Sea, thus keeping the promise that man is expelled and will never dwell in Eden again.

everything outside the small area called Eden, was Nod, peopled by indigenous peoples (non-Adamic), the whole mideast was the Land of Nod with that tiny oasis of Eden= 'in its midst', see where Eden [and therefore Nod]
is bounded by the Famous Rivers - as a guidemarker of sorts

but the investors in religions would not find this acceptable or profitable

~i~

Originally posted by kinglizard
What matters is the level of sacrifice you are willing to give. Livestock was the most valuable thing they could own in those days. It was their money and lifeblood. Abel gave God the firstborn of his flock, the most valuable thing he could offer while Cain gave fruits of the soil. Both are gifts but the firstborn of the flock was a real sacrifice that must have been very difficult for Able to offer.

I know we are on opposite ends here...but somehow that sucks big time! It's rather easy to give the "first and best of a live animal...not so of the ground too much...so it wasn't even really his fault....seems petty to me.....and to a live animal....there is no reason for such a thing....because god would of known what was in their heart to begin with...after all...god knows everything does he not? So killing anything to "prove" faith or loyalty..... was all for nothing to start with!

Originally posted by LadyV
It's rather easy to give the "first and best of a live animal...not so of the ground too much...

How do you come to that conclusion? Did you read my post? An animal from the flock is the most valuable thing someone could offer.

Originally posted by LadyV
and to a live animal....there is no reason for such a thing....

Don�t you understand that�s it�s about the level of personal sacrifice you offer to God?

Originally posted by LadyV
because god would of known what was in their heart to begin with...after all...god knows everything does he not?

Most things in life and faith require more than good intentions. Sometimes you actually need to get off your rump and take action.

Originally posted by LadyV
So killing anything to "prove" faith or loyalty..... was all for nothing to start with!

Not if you believe in the Bible.

kinglizard..but it's all for nothing. God knew before who was loyal and who isn't.......I mean, if you get right down to it, he knew everything before
he even created a being.....

My point above was, it's easy to offer the first and best of live stock....it's not as easy when grown from the ground....one is not too much better than another when it comes to wheat and such.

It is obvious from the number of interpretations of this story that we will never know its true meaning with certainty, but here is my take on it:

Cain became a farmer and had to work incredibly hard in the field, tilling the soil and tending to his crops. No doubt, when harvesting time came around, he would have felt less than thrilled by the thought that instead of getting to enjoy the first fruits of his labors himself, he had to sacrifice the best of his first harvest. Even though he did what was expected of him, and brought the first and best of his crop to the altar, he did so with resentment in his heart.

Abel on the other hand, became a shepherd and spent his days watching over his sheep, rather than sweating in the field. When the time came for the sheep to bear their young, all he had to do was pick out some of the fattest, whitest lambs and sacrifice them. Since their birth would have been regarded as a gift of God, and not a result of Abel's hard work and effort, Abel would have had no reason to resent giving them up as an offering.

I think that Cain's offering was ignored by God because it was not offered with a pure heart, since Cain didn't really want to offer the first of his harvest. He only did it because he had to.
God wanted them to WANT to bring Him an offering, and He rejected Cain's because that wasn't true for him.

This is my interpretation anyways, and I may or may not be right, but it makes sense to me.

I have heard there was a connection to Cain's wife with the "sons of God". Here is the Link

There are several interpretations of the phrase.

[edit on 12/28/2004 by Mahree]

[edit on 12/28/2004 by Mahree]

I am not in agreement with the analysis that Cain did not offer his best, since, Genesis makes no reference to this except to the contrary with: �And Abel, he also brought the firstlings of his flock�� where �he also� is taken to mean that he, as did Cain, offered the first of their respective harvests. To come to a different conclusion, one must argue that the translation or grammatical representation is poor in that; �he also� is misused or misplaced within the sentence structure, such that it would have to be; �And Abel also made an offering, the firstling of his flock�� God rebuked animal sacrifices Isaiah 1:11, in fact, in vs.12 he seems to contradict himself in his treatment of Cain. But then again, these are all just part and parcel of the plethora of examples of inconsistency and contradiction within The Bible, not the least of which is the apparent rewriting of the genealogy from Adam through Noah�s father.

I also am not in agreement with animal husbandry being a source of livelihood if we are expected to go on the premise that Cain and Abel were the 3rd and 4th humans on this earth, or even the number of the populace within 200 years, as there would be no reason for barter with such few people and an over-abundance of every commodity imaginable available. However, just as with the question of Cain�s wife, the oral tradition Kabbalah, was forced to come into existence to explain all of these anomalies within the Torah, but it inadequately answers the more pressing questions within Genesis chapters 1 through 5, except to expound on the Egyptian philosophy of creation. It is not that women had no mention of importance within Genesis either, for there is a huge question mark as to why it became necessary to explain why Cain�s grandson 4 times removed; Lamech, his two wives and their children have even been referenced. Only if one looks to find the tampering can one piece together the obvious.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
God rebuked animal sacrifices Isaiah 1:11, in fact, in vs.12 he seems to contradict himself in his treatment of Cain. But then again, these are all just part and parcel of the plethora of examples of inconsistency and contradiction within The Bible, not the least of which is the apparent rewriting of the genealogy from Adam through Noah�s father.

I also am not in agreement with animal husbandry being a source of livelihood if we are expected to go on the premise that Cain and Abel were the 3rd and 4th humans on this earth, or even the number of the populace within 200 years, as there would be no reason for barter with such few people and an over-abundance of every commodity imaginable available.

There is an arguement to be made that keeping a flock for wool was easier than hunting and catching new sheep every time, however this does not in any way diminish the arguement for alterations to the geneolgies and other aspects of genesis which are glaringly real in many cases.

However, just as with the question of Cain�s wife, the oral tradition Kabbalah, was forced to come into existence to explain all of these anomalies within the Torah, but it inadequately answers the more pressing questions within Genesis chapters 1 through 5, except to expound on the Egyptian philosophy of creation. It is not that women had no mention of importance within Genesis either, for there is a huge question mark as to why it became necessary to explain why Cain�s grandson 4 times removed; Lamech, his two wives and their children have even been referenced. Only if one looks to find the tampering can one piece together the obvious.

Speaking of Cain's descendents, has anybody else found it odd that Genesis conveniently forgets about them 3 generations before the flood?
If I were a religious honcho back then I might want to avoid that subject too, because Genesis chapter 6 says that there were giants then AND afterward. If the Nephilim survived the flood and Cain's line was extended for the full 10 generations there would be an obvious question about the possibility of Nephilim saving the descendents of Cain. You can also notice a close parallel between the names of Cain's people and Seth's. If one didn't know any better he might think that Cain's lineage was made up by somebody who wanted to be cautious about using names appropriate to that era and culture.

The least mystical answer I would give is that early wives in genesis were frequently omitted to gloss over the obvious implication of incest. If there was only one original couple there was incest. If there was not incest then there was not just an original couple but an original race (note the earilier discussion of Adam being referred to in the plural) and although this does not contradict scripture it contradicts the common understanding of scripture as advanced by people in positions of religious authority.

Just to go back and give your statements their due, there was obviously ample motive for doctoring geneologies in the old testament and at times it seems almost painfully obvious.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The creation of more than one starting couple makes MUCH more sense obviously from a genetic standpoint. Isn't there a certain type of DNA which a person gets directly from their mother, and therefore we should all have minimal variation on that if there was only one mother?

Mitochondrial DNA. Supposedly, they should be able to trace it back to the 'EVE'. I saw a great show about this on the Science Channel a while ago. Anyway, that's all I've got.

Originally posted by LadyV

Originally posted by justyc
cain was banished to live with the people of the land of nod.

also, adam & eve also had a 3rd son, seth

Yes. I know this. As I asked above though....where was the Land of Nod? There was no one in the world supposedly at that time other than Adam, Eve, and Cain, as Abel was now dead....and Seth not yet born.

Says who?

Just because something isn't stated in the Bible doesn't preclude it from happening. I see no where in the Bible that it states "and God didn't make ANYBODY ELSE". Nope...it's not there.

furthermore, who said Seth wasn't born yet? Just because the lineage isn't presented until after the Cain and Abel account doesn't mean Seth wasn't born yet.

[edit on 12-29-2004 by Valhall]

If one reads the bible and asks for a little help in the understanding it becomes pretty clear. God created "Man and Woman" long before Adam and Eve. There is no timeline given for the "time" between the end of creation on the Sixth day and Gen. 2 where Adam is formed and placed in the garden. Adam and Eve were a specific genetic line placed in a "protective" garden from the outside world. They are important because it shows a direct line from Adam to David to Christ. The issue is no interferance by other "sons of God" in the gene pool. The original "human" gene pool was compromised when the intermarrage of human and "sons of God" happened. This line of "human" genes is important to establish Christ was born "human".

Cain's wife was from outside the garden. The garden of eden was where the holyland is now (my opinion). The same place where Jesus will return. The same place where Abraham was to sacrafice Issac. "The Garden" was destroyed in the great flood. The location bewteen Ethiopia and the Euphrates would make sense.

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?

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?

In reading the text. Gen 1 creates mankind on the sixth day. Then at sometime after in Gen 2 god creates Adam and puts him in the garden.

I'll have to read up....it's back to work today so it won't be till a later date though.....
hmmmmm

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?

First off, nowhere in the Bible does it state that Adam and Eve were the ONLY humans created...just that they were first. Nevermind the whole idea of the existence of Lilith of course, hehe...but then the Bible doesn't speak of her, just the other books. Most such accounts have Lilith as his first wife. No need to really go there for THIS discussion, so for now, we'll just put that to the side...

As far as I know, the bible doesn't tell why god accepted Abel's offering, but did not accept Cain's?

Simple. Remember that this religion is based on those which came before it. Even in the times of the Old Testament, blood sacrifice was a big deal. Even during the plagues of Egypt, we see the use of blood in ritual. A blood sacrifice was (historically) always seen as a more "worthy" sacrifice. BOTH sacrifices required the work (whether planting/harvesting, or shepherding), but this God demanded blood (until the New Testament mellowed him out a bit).

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"

When they each put their sacrifices on their altars, Abel knew his sacrifice was accepted as a pillar of flame consumed the sacrifice. No such flame appeared for Cain's sacrifice, so he knew it was not accepted. This of course, like most of the stories in Genesis, was designed almost as a subliminal message. As another poster pointed out, this was to plant the seed in the faithful, that they should give only their best to the church.

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?

This goes into what I initially stated. Though Adam and Ever were the FIRST, they were not the ONLY. Others have already pointed out the ideas of Nod.

Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.". So it was a test, a test of Abraham�s faith and obedience. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.". So it was a test, a test of Abraham�s faith and obedience.

No it wasn�t. It was a test of his fear and obedience, not his faith. Agreed, it is a good parallel, but it also shows that like the ancient gods the religion was founded upon, this one preferred blood sacrifices.

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?

Going to study original text about the Re word thingy will be back..