Anything Divine in the Bible?

DevilsAdvocate,Aside from some of your lapses you have made your case pretty forcefully and elquently. I take it to be that the references to slavery in the Bible prove God condones it and therefore you feel the Bible does not contain anything Divine.Is that a fair summary of your position?Let me ask you a few questions, hoping you'll give a non sarcastic and honest reply.1.) Do you think that "Thou shalt not have any slaves" should have been one of the Ten Commandments ?2.) When God gives instructions to the Hebrews how to offer the trespass offering do you take that as God's command for them to commit trespasses?3.) When God gives instructions about what to do in the case of Divorce, do you take that to mean that God is commanding the Hebrews to Divorce ?4.) When God gives instructions about what the Hebrews should do in the case of owning slaves, do you take that as God's command for them to have slaves?5.) If slavery in any form was a sin, do you think that the sin offerings, trespass offerings were not designed to atone for such sins in the Hebrew worship ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What good does it do for us to have some exact science by which we can measure degrees of embalance? It makes more sense to receive the salvation of Christ's imparted Spirit of life which puts our conscience at peace with God.This life implanted into the regenerated man, if watered and nourished develops it to its keener and keener. This keeness of conscience is firstly to be utilized personally towards one's self. Then peace in the conscience deepens.Paul said that he sought "always to have a conscience void of offense before God and man." He lived to be aware that there was nothing in his conscience against God which bothered him nor concerning his fellow man which bothered him.He was firstly strict towards himself. He was not firstly strict in applying it to others. He did preach and teach "the unsearchable riches of Christ as the gospel" to the world. But he applied it to himself firstly and spoke out of his own experience so others could find the way also.I wander than about a preoccupation to develop a system by which you can accurately measure the embalance. Perhaps that would be the concern of a Psychologist - to publish a system like a catalogue of mental illnesses to serve as a exhaustive professional manual. I could be misunderstanding the intention of this paragraph.
But any suggestion that man SHOULD sin is unreliably opposed to the revelation of the Bible and really to common sense.I agree that the law was given to expose man's sinning nature. But I hope this is not a cynical leap from that to suggest, that the more sin commited then the better. Early critics of the Christian faith leveled this criticism against Paul's teaching:"What then shall we say? Should we continue to sin that grace may abound? Absolutely not! We [Christians] who have died to sin, how shall we still live in it?" (Rom. 6:1,2)"What then? Should we sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? Absolutely not! (Rom. 6:15) That is the unfortunate case of hardening the heart. The desired result of the Gospel is that the sinner confesses his or her sins, is cleansed totally of those sins in the blood of Jesus, and is impowered by the idwelling Spirit of the Lord Jesus to be free from the power of those sins.That is God's way. We cannot improve upon it. Some sinners will go to their grave unrepentent and having never confessed that they sinned.They will perish forever in eternal retribution. Since it is not known at what time one will have her or is last day, it is best to confess and receive Christ when one becomes aware of His salvation."Seek the Lord while He can be found. Call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord ... And He will abundantly pardon you ..." ( Close paraphrase. The passage escapes me at the moment )." ... the Holy Spirit says, Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts ..." (Hebrews 3:7,8a) "Beware, brothers, lest perhaps there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief in falling away from the living God." (v.12)"He again designates a certain day, today, saying in David after so long a time, even as He has said before, TODAY, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts..." (Heb.4:7)None of us know when our time is cut off on this earth. We are not assured to see the end of this very day. So the time to confess our sins and receive the Lord and Savior is today. Now is the day of salvation.And for those who are already redeemed and save, we need time to allow the Spirit of Christ to saturate our personality, to soak us, to fill us for transformation. How much we are transformed by Jesus effects how much we can enjoy the coming kingdom age after His second coming. God knows that we are addicted. God knows that we cannot stop. God knows that we are led around by the nose to sin. God knows that many of us, after we have commited sin feel stupid not understanding why we did such a thing.God knows that we are slaves of sin. What God needs is for us to admit it and receive Jesus as the Lord and Savior. He is the Great Physician that can heal. But we have to acknowledge that we are sick, sick with sinning and sick with the sin nature.We express Satan. We do it spontaneously with little effort. What God does is crucify that influence in you and saturate you with another Person - Jesus Christ. He became in a form in which He can both enter into man and saturate man's personality. He is the life giving Spirit - "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)This life giving Spirit is the RECEIVABLE Christ. The life giving Spirit is the DIGESTABLE Christ - the Christ in a form in which He can be assimilated into one's being. To be life giving means to be God giving. God Himself is the eternal and uncreated life prepared in Christ to be imparted into man.Then we grow to effortlessly and spontaneously express Christ. This is a matter of growth, transformation, and "metabolic" change in our soul as Jesus the life giving Spirit spreads His enfluence into every corner of our heart.God's salvation is to reverse the ingestion of the Satanic spirit and the expression of the Satanic spirit in man, replacing it with the digestion of the Spirit of the Son of God for the expression of Christ, spontaneously in our living.This is salvation in two parts:1.) Judicially - we are justified and forgiven as if we had never sinned before God. We are justified for eternity to receive the gift of eternal life.2.) We are organically tranformed in life by the life of Christ. That is Jesus Christ has been put in a form in which He "organically" can unite and join with man's being. This blends man with God. This mingles man with God until man is saturated with God and expressed Christ spontaneously.God‘s Economy: recovered by Witness Lee, enjoyed by local churches But do not delay to receive forgiveness and the living Lord Jesus.When the light of God comes to a person, it is measured. You may have committed 100 sins today. When God comes He may make you aware of just six or seven of them. His full light would crush you. You are not aware to what degree you have offended His holiness, offended His righteousness, and insulted His glory for which you were created.When you receive Christ the light will grow. And you will become gradually aware of more areas in which you have missed the mark. Not only in action you missed the mark. But in your inner most motive and imagination yoo began to go off. The light of Christ penetrates deeper and deeper. As you obey you gain more insight.It is a process and it takes a lifetime of practice. But any thought that the sinner should hold on and sin more and more is not at all wise.Sinning leave a scar. You may be forgiven by God. But the scar of your sin you may have to live with. Do you understand? You may curse your child in a fit of temper. Yes God will forgive your sin. But the consequences of that sin may not be so easily taken back. You damaged your honor. You damaged your child. God will forgive. Maybe your child will not be so willing to forgive or forget.So another day of sinning for some strange philosophy is not good, is dangerous, and has the possibility to harden your heart. Sin is enjoyable. You have to stop that and enjoy something else. That is living Christ. Living Christ is an enjoyment which surpasses any eartly enjoyment known to man.But if you postpone and procrastinate you run the risk of being "deceived by the deceitfulness of sin".. Satan is a liar. The sinning that one enjoys is a lie which is destroying your soul, corrupting you. And to delay and harden your heart may lead to eternal damnation.So do not listen to advice to postpone being saved by Jesus from the guilt and power of sins. That is true. That passage is spoken by Christ. But He said to hunger and thirst after righteousness. He did not say sin today and hunger and thirst for righteousness tomorrow.Since we know that the sin nature is addicting and compulsive we should fear it as putting your hand into fire. We need the Victor who overcame the world - Jesus Christ. We need Him sooner rather than latter. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That is pretty much the area of one of the other Forums on the reliability of the text. I won't talk much about that now. Well, I sympathize with you some. My early days of Bible reading were had with a big FILTER by which I was going to pick and choose what things were plausible. So I know the road you are on.I would only say two things. In my experience I started with the Gospels. First I got convinced of the integrity of Jesus Christ. He gained my trust. Then I noticed gradually that He seemed to take the Old Testament seriously. Somehow I got convinved that if it was credible to Jesus then it must be Okay. His credentials, for me, were beyond questioning. So I came to the Old Testament THROUGH the New Testament.That worked for me. Now the other thing that helped is to be careful to find out what is actually SAID. What was actually written. But I won't develop that now.My second point to you is that the first sentence of the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)The whole universe was created by His power out of nothing ! What can He not do then ??This establishes that we are dealing with a Being of limitless power. His ability is infinite. His power cannot be measured. That may not mean that at every turn He will do a "magic trick" to tickle our sense of entertainment. But it does mean that He can, if it serves some purpose of His, transcend the laws of His creation and do a miracle.I think that life began with a miracle of God.After studying a book on the miracles of the Bible it was pointed out to me that they usually come in pairs. It is like if there is one hard to believe statement there is another somewhere else which acts as a partner, a confirming second testimony. I saw a deliberate scheme which made me suspicious that something was up with these miracles.It was as if God as saying with the second occurance "That's right. You heard me the first time, the sun stood still." "That's right, You got the first time. I did say that the water of the river parted. Here I do a similar thing.""That's right. You heard it right the first time. An animal spoke. Here I do it again to reinforce what I told you the first time.""That's right. That's what I said. A man was raised from the dead."At any rate this double confirmation of miracles led me to believe that I was dealing with a very wise Mind and not frivolous material. I would only suggest that the some of these are more important than others perhaps.I would hope that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead would be the first miracle of God you could accept if for now you just can't take a lot of the others.I'll have to continue latter. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

IANO I see. I sometimes am too defensive. In this case I went back and read over your post again and thought I misunderstood.

DA, Yes. Something like that does occur.I think that you are on the right track to read the Bible for yourself. Many do not. So all that they know is second hand.That fact that some would examine the Scriptures first hand is encouraging. This was my practice from my early life as a believer. Let's look at your list:"Systematically" - Okay, when Joshua went into Canaan God instructed them to systematically wipe out the inhabitants. I have to ask myself a couple of questions:1.) Is it possible that God could have done that and still be righteous, holy, perfect.I am persuaded that the answer is "Yes, He can."Back in Genesis 15 He told Abraham that He would not bring Israel into Canaan yet because the people of had not gotten bad enough yet to merit such a judgement. They were not going to deserving of such a harsh conquest until another 400 years."And He [God] said to Abram, Know assuredly that your seed will be sojourners in a loand that is not theirs, and they will serve them; and they will afflict them four hundred years. ... And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (See Genesis 15:13-16)God was willing to tolerate their steady decline for four more centries. Meanwhile, terrible victimazation of its citizens, oppression, witchcraft, pacts with demons, dedicating animals, children, objects to the darkess occult practices. The crimes were unspeakable. Perhaps some of Canaan's own victims crying out to God in prayer for mercy at the evil of the society.I don't know why the animals had to be killed. I do not like to think about it. Maybe the animals carried diseases dangerous to wipe out the whole human race because of their sex acts with the animals. Maybe they were so devoted to Satan that they were demon possessed.And the babies, why were they killed? I don't know. Maybe they were spared something worse in life by a swift death. These are really tough questions for me to answer.But like Abraham who said when he interceeded for Sodom, challenging God "Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justly ?" (Gen. 18:25)I notice that the Conquest of Canaan is not an act that is repeated throughout the rest of Israel's history. We do not see this kind of harsh national conquest as a continuous practice. Latter the Israelites got a reputation of having merciful kings.So I just believe that this conquest business is a seldomly repeated example of something a righteous God had to do. He does remind Israel that the judgment on Canaan is not because of Israel's goodness but the Canaanites badness: You should have noticed that there was distinction in harshness as to how God told Israel to deal with enemies near and those farther away. If this is just a general genocide of all of Israel's enemies then I would ask why would God make a distinction ? Obviously He thought some were more deserving of slaughter than others: So I have chosen to believe that God can be righteous and have an example of an extreme case of leading Israel in such a slaughering conquest. The book of Joshua is a necessary extreme testimony of God's judgment upon some very bad nations. It is not the regularly repeated norm throughout all of Israel's history.The alternative is to assume that my righteousness exceeds God's. He in that case should have consulted with me before leading Israel into Canaan. Or He needed to get advice from some wise human being He created. Then I guess we'd be in a real pickle with a faulty error prone Supreme Divine Governor of the entire universe.I don't entertain the thought that the biblical account is fictional. I am willing to admit that there are some difficult places in the Bible to understand. I am not willing to throw out the whole revelation of God in the Bible because of some places hard to understand.My own behavior in my life leads me to believe that probably I would not recognize absolute goodness at every instance. Probably at some instances of God's righteous justice I would not agree. If I did I would not have done some of the things which I did.Anyway, my Bible's last book is not Joshua. I have 27 books dedicated to this Man Jesus. He seems to have the last word in the 66 books of the Bible. I want to think about that for a season. Thanks. Excuse me. But when you say some things like "telling them they can sale their daughters off as sex slaves ... I just find that a groundless accusation.Your logic seems flimsy there, again respectfully. With as much faulty reasoning I could rationalize that the institution of marriage is itself a form of sex slavery. All I would have to do is find one incident of a wife who wished not to have sex on some given night and point out that she was in a slavery relationship with some man backed by the state.I refered to a website with a long discussion about the social negative attitudes about masters who took sexual advantage of female servants. Not to say that it was not done. But the ANE socially frowned upon the practice.Why should I accept that God commanded it? Where is your evidence of divinely commanded sex slavery ? The incident of Sarah, Hagar, and Abraham has been disqualified IMO.Miller's website on sale of daughters by dads in ANE (copied by Permission) Killing of the babies in the conquest of Canaan is an example.Why was it not the norm for every war throughout the rest of the OT?There is no divine command to rape. I'll be looking over you posts. But I think you dismiss some things we write also. Would you also say that if a public school hands out condoms to kids it is condoning them to have premarital recreational sex ?God said that if He blessed that land because of their obedience there would be no poverty in the land. The absence of poverty would negate the need for poor to sell themselves into slavery. It would eliminate the need for families to sell members into slavery ANE style.So do you feel that this warning and promise of God covenants that His part will be to eliminate the circumstances which give rise to slavery, if they are careful to obey: I see this as prescriptive. That is what to do in the situation when a man wants out of his obligation as a husband.The certificate of divorce is for the protection of the woman and not for her exploitation. If the husband on some night changes his mind the released woman is protected by a document that she does not have to return to that man. He has divorced her and cannot yo-yo back and forth according to his whims on any given lonely night.You don't see in any of this God's gracious care for the woman? I do.And I certainly do not see God commanding men to get rid of wives. He is making provision for the situation due to their hardness of heart and wanting to break away from thier wives.Is there any other writings throughout the Bible which would suggest that God want them to remain happy together? In Malachi God says that He HATES DIVORCE: So your passage must be God making provision for man's weaknesses in doing something which He hates. It is not God condoneing by any means."Take heed to your spirit" there I believe means to take heed to the still small voice in one's conscience. Yes you have a RIGHT to divorce. But having the RIGHT does not make it RIGHT.It is seen as violent to break up the covenant with the wife of your youth, says God. Take heed to your spirit. But for those who cannot He has made provision. And I see it as just and considerate of the female party and not exploitive.You have to me painted a caricature of God that I would throw stones at myself if it were true. But it is a caricature. What on earth are you talking about now ?Where's the parellel in the Bible. With the same abount of flimsy reasoning I might argue that every marriage is an act of state sponsored sex slavery.Incidently, Deuteronomy 24:1-3 appears to me to be a case when the husband finds that the woman was sexually active with someone before he married her. That seems to be the reason for the discussed displeasure:"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, Is God saying "Thus says the Lord, Divorce her immediately if you find that she has not kept her virginity into marriage." ?Isn't there room here for what the husband is ABLE to tolerate or not ? Isn't there an IF implying that the attitude of the husband is the triggering factor.Does God say that the husband MUST never keep her and love her ? Does God command that she be put out ? No. I don't see that. I see God making provision for something that He clearly states that He HATES - a hard hearted divorcing husband.Enter the words of Jesus: Marriage belongs to God. Divorce belongs to man.And why would God warn Israel that a king would do a negative thing by multiplying wives if God was eager to see a lot of loose rereational sex take place ?"When you enter into the land which Jehovah your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it, and you say, I will set a king over me like all the nations which surround me ... You must set over you a king whom Jehovah your God will choose [reluctantly in the case of Saul] ... And he shall NOT amass wives to himself ..." (See Deut. 17:14-17) Does that sound like God is encouraging unbridled lust or seeking to restrict it ?Your caricture of God commanding sex slaves makes NO SENSE.And if I bring you to the New Testament I will nail your straw man to the wall. Again, no disrepect meant. Well let's see. The last commandment of the ten is "You shall not covet."If it was conceivable that men could eliminate their coveting, their jealous wanting, but being satisfied completely in God, that would eliminate all acts of greediness, for wives, girlfriends, and everything else. Would it not?If the first commandment not to have any other gods before God was kepted, then NOTHING would be exalted to such a high degree as to distract from loving God. Right?Basically, your argument is that the Law of God is NOT GOOD ENOUGH.Oh, Okay. That must mean that you yourself have mastered it and found that keeping it is not adaquate for human morality.How are you on coveting? Have you jealously desired anything in all your life? Have you envied your neighbor for his degree, his car, his house, his money, his vacation, his wife, his girlfriend, his looks, his cloths ... etc.You mean you have kept the tenth commandment your whole life and have no one instance of disobedience to it? You are guiltless
and therefore can sit in judgment of the Law of Moses ?Tell me how you are qualified to point out the evil in the law of God. You may say "But I have this knowledge of good and evil." You may have some ethical knowledge. But what did you DO ? Did you resist the evil that you knew not to do? Did you perform that good that you knew to do?If you have sinned how can we trust you to point out the evil in the law which you have yourself broken? How are you to qualified to show us its moral shortages ? Have you put no other gods before God? Do you have any idols in your life, material or otherwise?If you have transgressed the law how can we trust that you can point out its moral failures? Keep the whole law first. Then when you have kept the whole law you can point out to us its moral failures and how you could advize God here and there as to what is more righteous. I see God making provision for the advent that some Israelites may be in a situation of having slaves. My God is stopping evil also makes provision for sinners to be saved from its terrible penalty.If my God only cared about immediatly stopping evil at this moment, no human being alive would like the result. The first to hate the consequences would be the self righteous.How God coordinates His eternal justice and perfect righteousness WITH His great Love for man and desire for man's salvation, that is the balancing act that my God does.If He only cared about love there would be no justice. Yet if He only cared about justice and not love, there would be no mercy and no salvation.At the cross of Christ there is God's justice and God's love working together. He will save us from the terrible penalty of "stopping evil" dead in its tracks. But He will do so in a manner that manifests His love that we be saved from eternal justice.He will show us His undying love and His gift of eternal life. But He will manifest this love in a way that upholds His dignity, His hatred for sin, and His condemnation for all rebellion.I look to the resurrected Christ for the stopping of evil in my life and the erasing of the guilt of my past and the empowering to live godly for my future. You should have read many passages that exposed behaviors, acts, and actions, if done to a slave were sin.Slavery means many things. And I think you may be exploiting one form of it as we are most familiar as 21rst century Westerners to inflame the very word in all of its usages in the Bible and ANE.Do you feel that God condones not wearing seat belts because the ten commandments have no explicit command concerning that?Do you feel that God condones heroin usage because there is no command against that?Do you feel that God condones poisoning the ocean with insectiside because there is not command in Leviticus on that?How about paying sports stars millions of dollars for playing sports. Does God condone that because there is no commandment against such excesses?How many commandments do you think Moses should have brought down from Mt. Sanai? Should he have brought from God 100 more? How about 100,000 more restricting all known evils? How about 100,000,000 commandments to cover every possible human situation of human temptation to do wrong?How about instead of ten commandments God sent Moses down with a trillion commandments to restict every possible human thought to do wrong.You think you could have done a better job at making a righteous law expressing what God wants? How many commandments would your book have ?I better look to Jesus Christ for justification and for life. [qs]Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I can't respond to all your remarks today. Do you have a set of keys on you? How many keys do you have on your key chain?Why don't you just leave everything unlocked ? Are you afraid that somebody may steal something.Go into the world then with your key chain preaching that not everyone will listen to their conscience not to steal. Don't blame me. I just mean to state that we all have a conscience.You will find some hardened serial killers with no remorse, that though I am convinced that they have a conscience, they have totally ignored it to the extreme.Arguing about "the same conscience" is getting fuzzy to me. It was a side point. I agree that this is my interpretation.I think that the killing of the cattle to cloth Adam and his wife was the model upon which Abel knew that the offering of blood of an animal was required. His parents told him. And I think by revelation he and they knew that God required to be approached by the blood of a sin offering.You are right that it does not explicitly state that. We know that Abel's offering was accepted. We know that Cain's was not. When we read on into Exodus, Leviticus, etc. some expositors believe that they can ascertain why.There was no blood in Cain's offering. I think another reason is less likely though I have heard some other's proposed. I mean "Without ther shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" was strongly proclaimed by God in latter records.So is it unreasonable to interpret that that is why Abel's offering was accepted and Cain's was not? That has no real bearing on what was stated - ["God recognized Abel's offering and rejected Cain's ..."]That is simply a reference to Genesis 4:4,5. You have a point about what was and was not said about why He chose one but not the other. You have no point that there was not a discrimination. Again. This is a side point which may be arguable. However, you have so far said nothing which refutes that Cain did not regard the conviction of his conscience.I think that is the main thing you are trying to refute. Right? I am not sure who wrote this sentence, me or you. But I do not mean that he had no conscience. I mean that he would not listen to his conscience. Did Cain argue that he had not done anything wrong? No he did not. Then we can assume that he knew that God was right that it was wrong to murder his brother.His concern was not remorse but only regret that he was going to be punished. What do you think about the murderer in court who when sentenced shows no sign of remorse at his act? I would think that he either is putting on a show that he doesn't care what he did or he really doesn't care.Many times the judge will adjust the sentence based on whether the convicted person shows CONSCIENCE and remorse at his crime.Why you think it should be different for Cain is a mystery to me.The Apostle John says concerning Cain " ... we should love one another, not as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous."I would say that the sight of his brother became hateful reminder to him that his own works were evil while his kid brother's were righteous. Would you say that one who murders his brother lovelessly is not surpressing his conscience?Whose making up stuff on the fly here? Cain knew his works were evil according to the Apostle John. There was a conscience in him. This may be a matter of symantics. Or it may be a problem that you're just being disagreeable on general principle.You don't like the phrase "suppress his conscience?"Ignore? Not take heed? Shut up? Shut out? Cover up with reasonings?I think suppress is appropriate because Paul speaking of the history of mankind talks about "holding down the truth in unrghteousness" Holding down is suppression. Holding down the truth I think includes holding down the truthful conviction in the human conscience that a wrong act has been committed.Something told Cain not to kill. His conscience told him. He held that down and killed anyway. What ground do I have to say this? My ground is Genesis 4:7 - " ... And if you not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and his desure is for you, but you must master him.This appears to be God's warning that his evil temper is about to cause him to sin terribly. The next verse is about Cain luring his brother to the field in order to kill him. He did not master the sin crouching at the door (probably meaning the door of his heart).Any thought that the suppression or resistence of the conscience of Cain is not indicated here I can't take seriously. Yea. Really. I explained that. Did you ever have naughty kids and you asked them about thier behavior, knowing all along what they did? Why? Because maybe your style and God's style are not the same.He did the same thing to Adam you know? He asked Adam where He was when Adam was off hiding.No, I don't think that God was puzzled as to what tree Adam was hiding behind. I think God knew just what happened and just where Adam was off hiding.He certainly knew where I was, that's for sure. I think in this respect Adam was not that much different from most of us who have tried to hide ourselves from God.I am serious and not kidding. As a very little kid I remember hiding under a blacket to God would not see me. It wasn't a whim. It was according to His eternal plan of redemption as symbolized in the offering. It pointed to Christ who was "slain from the foundation of the world" ( Rev. 13:8). I like to keep reading through the rest of the book. That helps me to get a full picture of God's character and nature. I might also. The only people pertinent to the focus of that particular story mentioned are Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel.I don't know that in the course of time there were not other people. They had lots of children. The ones mentioned are important to the development of the history the writer wants to tell.If you have nothing else to say about Cain's conscience, I think I have no need to add anything.You're welcomed to have another interpretation.