Abel and His Flock

Rrhain:First of all let me apologize for not being extremely wordy in my postings ... I think that long post often are boring and not thoroughly read by most readers.Secondly, apparently I need to provide you with more specifics (wordiness) in order that you get the gist of my posts.Do you assume that YHWH is a god that always rewards "hard labor in bad working conditions," "successful alchemy," or "financial success in the face of adversity" in favor of "holding YHVH above all other gods," "treating others with the respect you expect for yourself," or "obedience to the Law?" If so, can you provide me with one of the Ten Commandments that indicates this is so? When Moses smashed the first set of Law, did he forget to re-incribe "Thou shalt squeeze blood from a turnip, thus saith the Lord."Do you deny that within the first four chapters of the Bible that 1) the very soil of the Earth was damned on account of Adam's and Eve's transgressions; 2) That the primary punishment for their transgressions was eviction from paradise and eternal struggle to draw a livelihood from between the thorns and the thistles as tillers of the soil; and 3) That Cain drew the lesser straw as a worker of the soil?With regard to the "fat parts" meaning the "best parts," this is not necessarily substantiated throughout the entire body of scriptural work; and with regard to the "firstlings" representing "Grade A Prime," again this is far from substantiated throughout the Bible. In fact, the "perfect" condition of an animal with regard to "lack of defect" is far more important that the order of its birth.With regard to "Abel's offering being accepted and Cain's not ... and that is all we know of it ..." how does that jibe with an omniscient god? Do you think for a moment that what is narrated regarding YHVH's acceptance of one gift over the other has absolutely nothing to do with the very next series of verses wherein "Kayin became exceedingly upsed and his face fell" and YHVH's subsequent admonishment "why has your face fallen? Is it not thus: that if you intend good, you should bear it aloft?"With regard to it being a waste to throw the rest of the carcass away after using the skins for clothing, that was exactly my point to begin with ... if the purpose was to raise sheep for clothing, a Creator god would certainly provide for the economic and full use of the remainder of the animal.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-09-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-09-2003]

ConsequentAtheist responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that "elohim" and "adonai" aren't references to the same entity?

---

​

As a matter of fact, there is a body of scholarship that clearly distinguishes between El, Elohim, and YHWH.

---

There's a difference between recognizing the evolution of the Hebrew concept of god, its absorption of other cultures and their mythologies, etc. and the final product.So yes, Genesis 1 was written by P and Genesis 4 was written by J, but the claim being made is that the being that Cain and Abel offer their sacrifices wasn't god...simply because two different titles for god were used.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

First, I do not consider Eve's statement blasphemous. She and Adam did indeed create (produce) another human being. That the mechanism of creation was not their own design seems irrelevant to the outcome.It is interesting but I'm not sure why you belabor the meaning of Cain's name. Is there something about it which throws light on our subject?I have no significant investment in the interpretation of "firstling." As you suggest, it could well have a significance other than birth order.You mention burning of the carcase but I see no suggestion of that in the text. My impression from the reading is that the 'sacrifice' was simply a matter of Abel's giving up something of value. It is not until Noah leaves the ark that we read of how YHWH likes the smell of burning flesh. Indeed. I am glad you see that.
Assuming that Abel's 'gift' of butchered sheep was a simple gift, or payment, unadorned with ritualistic rigamarole and 'spiritual' significance; and comparing that to the complexities of Mosaic law regarding blood rituals: I see Noah's simple act of burning animals as a sort of midpoint in the evolution of a religion which may have begun with the simple and practical matter of paying a debt and then, over thousands of years, evolved into the virtually meaningless ceremonies which Saint Paul attempted to spin out of existence.Christians, following the 'reasoning' of Saint Paul, tell us that the blood sacrifices were important because they pointed forward to one very significant human sacrifice. In the case of Abel, that sacrifice was scheduled some four thousand years in the future. I say that this is merely a continuation of the sort of Pagan thinking which attached itself to Abel's simple business deal with some unknown god-king of Mesopotamian antiquity.My opinion, of course.db

Abshalom responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you assume that YHWH is a god that always rewards "hard labor in bad working conditions," "successful alchemy," or "financial success in the face of adversity" in favor of "holding YHVH above all other gods," "treating others with the respect you expect for yourself," or "obedience to the Law?"

---

Irrelevant. You asked why god would consider Cain's sacrifice a good thing. I gave you a justification.And you haven't shown how becoming a successful horticulturist contradicts holding god above all other gods, treating others with the respect you expect for yourself, or obedience to the Law. After all, "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food," so it would seem that god does have some sort of connection to plants. In fact, man was created to till the ground, "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground." So wouldn't becoming a farmer be right up there with god's plan for humanity?

quote:

---

Do you deny that within the first four chapters of the Bible that 1) the very soil of the Earth was damned on account of Adam's and Eve's transgressions; 2) That the primary punishment for their transgressions was eviction from paradise and eternal struggle to draw a livelihood from between the thorns and the thistles as tillers of the soil; and 3) That Cain drew the lesser straw as a worker of the soil?

---

No, no, and yes. The first two do not lead to the final one. There is no justification to the claim that Cain's sacrifice was refused because it was of "cursed origins." Oh, we know that god didn't like Cain's sacrifice, but we have no idea why.

quote:

---

With regard to the "fat parts" meaning the "best parts," this is not necessarily substantiated throughout the entire body of scriptural work

---

Yes, it is. The specific word used is rooted in "cheleb" which has overtones of the choicest, best parts. It's used 92 times in the Bible. Take this one:Psalms 81:16: He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.The word translated as "finest" is "mekhelev," from "cheleb," meaning "fat" or "best part."

quote:

---

and with regard to the "firstlings" representing "Grade A Prime," again this is far from substantiated throughout the Bible.

---

You're being naive. The word used is directly translated to be firstborn, right of the firstborn, etc., but what do you think that means? What implications are set by it? Why do you think Jacob stole Esau's birthright?

quote:

---

In fact, the "perfect" condition of an animal with regard to "lack of defect" is far more important that the order of its birth.

---

But it doesn't say the lamb was without defect. It says it was the firstling. That makes it better. It has the right of the firstborn. It's what Jacob steals from Esau.

quote:

---

With regard to "Abel's offering being accepted and Cain's not ... and that is all we know of it ..." how does that jibe with an omniscient god?

---

Perfectly. I'm certain god knows why Cain's sacrifice was rejected, but god doesn't deign to let us know what the reason was. Are you god? Were you there? Is there some verse in the Bible that says what the reason was? How does god's knowledge of why Cain's sacrifice was rejected mean that we know what that reason was?

quote:

---

Do you think for a moment that what is narrated regarding YHVH's acceptance of one gift over the other has absolutely nothing to do with the very next series of verses wherein "Kayin became exceedingly upsed and his face fell" and YHVH's subsequent admonishment "why has your face fallen? Is it not thus: that if you intend good, you should bear it aloft?"

---

Not at all! Cain's countenance has fallen because his sacrifice got rejected, but we don't know why. Cain might know why, but the narrative doesn't tell us. And Cain's reaction is understandable...he did his best and got shot down. That's a bit depressing. God tries to buck him up, but he does exactly what god warns against: Wallows in self-pity and leads himself down the path of sin.

quote:

---

With regard to it being a waste to throw the rest of the carcass away after using the skins for clothing, that was exactly my point to begin with ... if the purpose was to raise sheep for clothing, a Creator god would certainly provide for the economic and full use of the remainder of the animal.

---

Then we agree on the claim that humans didn't start eating meat until after the flood is not justified.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Not "two different titles for god", but of two different Gods later conflated into a single Deity, with Elohim often referring to the Divine Council (as in Deut. 32:8).

This subject is interesting in and of itself, and may require its own thread.At the time Moses is said to have required knowledge of the NAME, he was operating under the theopolitical premises of an Egyptian rather than a Hebrew in that he needed a god-name to evoke power and convey fear when confronting the pharoah and the pharoah's magician-priests.I think the story goes that YHVH said to Moses, "I am YHVH. I was seen by Avraham, by Yitzhak, and by Yaakov as God Shaddai (God Almighty or alternately as El Shaddai)."So, with regard to your "BTW," I would tend to agree with the statement that "no one back then (other than Moses) knew him as (YHVH);" however, I tend to disagree only to a technical point with your premise that "the religion associated with (YHVH) has been layered upon these early traditions whose characters (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) did not recognize him or his religion."The technicality with which I agree is that "religion" in this case would seem to constitute the rigorous ritualistic practice of Mosaic Law as per Leviticus, et seq., which obviously was not observed in its totality by the first three Patriarchs.The point of disagreement is that I think that the first three Patriarchs, at least as the literature portrays them, recognized YHVH albiet by different "names;" and would have at least recognized some of the more basic tenets and commandments of his "religion" although not to the highly stylized, Egyptian-influenced extent to which the sages, rabbis, and scribes attribute to Moses.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-10-2003]

well for one, I am tired of everthing BRAD having to do so in another place- SO I find even in the context of BIBLICAL CREATIONISM I can not find the "correct" place. I had thought the "off topic" issue was only an issue of Creationist's insisting on "religous" things when scientifc evolutionists held a myth in the writing of some such looming doom. Oh well- That's fine If you think a BIOLOGICAL EXCURUS has NO relation to the filial difference of Cain AND Able I now bow down (I mean OUT) to you interest in understanding what the genetics of sheep herding has NOT to do with that part of GENESIS you are interested in. I was making it quite clear by just sticking with the NAMING OF THE KINDS with two kinds one on the ark and one in the first names (NO MATTER THE POSSIBLE ACTUAL misreading of different Hebrew interpretors) that if ONE ACCOUNT FOR The difference of clean and unclean numerically than this could be GOD GIVEN REASON for the non-parents HERDING THE CREEPY SHEEP or beast of the field to stick with the terms in the book. I was able to understand an genetic difference in terms of the LAND which would not have to be water or void and simply wanted to have this availble to the evonaysayers who I am on speaking terms with here to show some MORE REASONS to have this topic or subject discussed at all. I had not said yet how the "psyhe" of this genetics understanding would influence the non-phsyshic appearence of carnivory etc which WOULD BE a follow up that you dont want to consider.I rest- I cant go forward with either side due to what I consider an illusion only. ERGO- there never were two sides of the argument only two sides of the sheep counting to fall asleep...

Sorry, Brad, you completely lost me there.

quote:

---

... The difference of clean and unclean numerically than this could be GOD GIVEN REASON for the non-parents HERDING THE CREEPY SHEEP or beast of the field to stick with the terms in the book.

---

"... paging Mr. Hombre... there is a new signature waiting for you at the front desk... "Brad, I know that you have coherent thoughts in there somewhere, you do make sense sometimes, and I would like to be able to understand. Do you know why you have trouble transcribing what you're thinking about to coherent, readable posts?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I said this based on two pieces of evidence. 1) How the editor(s) of Genesis put "Jehovah" (YHWH) in the mouth of those patriarchs; whilst YHWH (the LORD) himself indicates that it is erroneous:

quote:

---

"And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not know to them." Exodus 6:2,3 King James Version.

---

And 2) Their clearly NON-Mosaic way of life; (which you have already recognized).The editor(s) have 'fudged' to the extent of misquoting the prayers of those patriarchs. I cannot in good conscience expect that they would not otherwise 'layer upon' them whatever hindsight seemed appropriate to the aims of their 'history.'Such an opinion would have seemed blasphemous to me when I was a ministerial student but then: some of my more righteous professors encouraged us to hold truth above tradition; and that is what I perceive myself to be doing. Despite my current lack of confidence in the editor(s) I am pleased that they appear to have been surprisingly honest in many ways. The problem is, I cannot be sure to what extent that is so, or to what degree they were willing to exercise editorial license.I find your awareness of the Egyptian influences quite refreshing and suspect you are more aware of its extent than I. Have you considered the possible Egyptian origin of the term Adon? Adon is one of the alternative transliteration of the sun-god: Aten, AKA Aten, or Adon.Hmmmm. (Trying to recall whether you were party to a thread discussing not so very long ago.)db

doctrbill writes:

quote:

---

I said this based on two pieces of evidence. 1) How the editor(s) of Genesis put "Jehovah" (YHWH) in the mouth of those patriarchs; whilst YHWH (the LORD) himself indicates that it is erroneous:

---

You mean it couldn't be that the text was cobbled together from multiple sources and the one that claimed god had never mentioned his name as Yahweh was from a different tradition from the one that seemed to think god had revealed that name?Indeed, there has been some editing of the text, but what evidence is there that the problem lies in the editor and not the source?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

As far as I know, there is no evidence either way. It doesn't really matter which it is, however, because whether it was erroneous tradition or editorial license, the effect upon its veracity is the same. I cannot be sure how much of it is accurate.db

Dr. Bill:I suspect you are correct regarding the root of "Adonai" as the term was often applied secularly as "adonai" or "adonay" when one would plead his case to a secular judge or earthly "lord." I suspect too that the idea that Pharoah was "Aten" or "God" on earth was the origin of the title "Adon." The Canaanite (and subsequently the Hebrew) equivalent of the secular usage "adonai" (lord) is I believe "baal" which of course has been largely removed from Biblical texts for even remote references to "El Shaddai" due to Baal's most common perception as referring to the mythical son of the Canaanite masculine diety El (The Powerful One) and his feminine consort Astarte (Eoster, Whateverhernameis, etc.). I think Baal usually appeared as a Bullock adorned with a sun disk strung between its horns which brings us back to Aten.With regard to the Tetragrammaton's (YHVH's) revelation to Moses at Genesis 6, Verse 2, my translation of Verse 3 reads, "I was seen by Avraham, by Yitzhak, and by Yaakov as God Shaddai, but by my name YHVH I was not known to them." I believe that this translation should read "El Shaddai" meaning God Almighty.Personally I totally disregard the name "Jehovah" as an adulteration of the Tetragrammaton regardless of where any particular "author" or editor of any particular translation has chosen to insert it.With regard to the obvious Egyptian influences on Israelite religion as detailed in Deuteronomy, Leviticus, et seq, I have a little twitty bird in the back of my mind that tells me this has something to do with a series of "rediscovery" activities and balancing acts by priests and scribes sandwiched between the two great empires of Babylonia/Assyria and Egypt, and beginning with "whoops, here it is" discovery of the Book of Law by good King Josiah, thence up until the completion of the majority of the "historical" work probably sometime around King Hezekiah.With regard to "editorial license," who the heck had the ability, direction, and motivation to exercise more that those scribblers whose patrons held the ultimate secular power of life and death over the entire populace?

Depends on many things.I was backing out of the dicussion because db wasnt interested in my ideas on C&A as the FIRST hybrid generation. That conversation can be conducted in Gentile or Jewish mode.Sheep are not creeping things likely but I am not Hebrew Scholar nor much of a BIBLIOPHILE but the biology I was to address had to do with THINKING of any kind of ground dwellers (on the belly)between cells either dead or alive(due to NS or not)as part of the neutral theory or no...formed for locomotion vs means of dispersal vs migration for any kind of global observation. There has to be first some kind of delimiation of how the environment and the organsism change in sync for the general biological application which I backed down from continuing but if one presumes some knowledge of C&A's family life it would be possible.The different kinds were !min! and !nepesch!. I am not sure I recall how to spell this last one. ANYwho, I was just trying to use the difference of these two words in reply suggesting there is a number cognized in this difference as well. That may be objectionable if a vere by verse analysis is the version preferred in the thread and specifically excludes the order I was trying to uphold. I also can work from a different angle on this back at the void and water AS PART of an arithemetic that is seperate from the clear geometry the BIBLE reads on as so since I got a poor reply to my answer in 2- to where I addressed one on the flipped negativity since I did not want a "most negative" thought I anteriorized my notion instead. Sorry for being so elliptic but it is not negative. Thanks. Maybe I'll see some more to edit but I was supposed to write on plants than humans.

They are being raised to calculate the HAUPZHAL for later selective purposes.

quote:

---

Background:

​

There are, at this time, only four (4) people on earth: Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel.
Cain - #1 son, first murderer, subsequently runs away and gets married.
Abel - #2 son, is murdered before having children.
These four are supposedly vegetarians. In fact, number one son is growing vegetables. Strangely, number two son is raising sheep. Fortunately, for number two son, the LORD likes sheep. Unfortunately for number one son, the LORD doesn't like vegetables.

​

Questions:

​

1).To what purpose is Abel herding sheep?
2).What does the LORD want with the best of Abel's herd?

---

I was trying to point out that my understanding in biology raised a "red flag" for me about the perception (in Genesis at the issue of interpreting the words haveing to do with "creeping" (close to the ground(could be herps vs sheep vs plants in this case etc)) kinds)of the psychology of the geological horizon and my, now I can say, suggestion new about how to figure the time molecular clocks give (mind you I thought this up after I got the negative response. I fully expect that if I am saying something one hasnt heard or even I havent thought up yet or just thought up is not to get the cold shoulder among friends...I was reading Morris on 'flesh' at the time) which would have had to appear between the the first ADAM and the first child of god's children hence not using but BLOOD when discussing these humans' hybrid full of molecules we understand or could understand today. We were not "dealing" with populations at this generation and I was not trying to say much about that then but now I could if you were interested but perhaps I still need some space while I dont need time as work out my latest brainstorm less on line than at home alone..) I have in my own way found a very small possiblity of reading that Gould is correct but instead I think that a molecular clock is composed of d-numbers that are Hauptzahlen both additive and multiplicative (which being part of a defintion of exponention I dont doubt that it could be reframed to fit Fisher's guessing on the relation among cousins) WHERE not while (that is the psychology of the plant landscape vs the failure of biologists to keep up to Croizat's rigor the difference of zoogeography and phytogeotraphy)polybarmins ARE (if they are-that is something for baraminologists as a whole and not one crying wolf to decide)constructable e-numberings of Pascal's use of mathematical induction of (in the Arithemetical Triangle) onto any Galton 0-give( as a NEW, i said nEw biometric practice I could start to appened onto the baraminiology thread).I could be wrong by scientific creationism as to if the baramins are to be concived this way between the kinds NAMED (say if box turtles are the same named ones as sea turtles) and those HUSBANDED (on the Ark OR BY CAIN AND ABEL, Regardles I could still address THE 4 individuals only I found that first I would be figureing the clean vs unclean in my idea that polybaramins are also unlcean. That is not but creation science as of yet. db may have wanted only the NUMBER 4 to begin with his idea of any dissemniation if past...Now with this idea on the molecular clock I thinking past GOULD can probably get ANY population (Family) number as my starting value so..back to baraminiology thread for me.I do not know the time but however much it represents it would have to occur in ADAM&EtoC&A and this is just the prelimiary to continue or discuss with db.Yet this IS NOT Something you will find in NATURAL HISTORY or Science News. Yet it answers many questions for me. And incidentally now that I have thought up the clock as well, there is time for the last Adam as well. Just so that you do not think I am making this all up as I go along in 1992 I entered a legal"trade name" of what I trade in as spelled AEXION CLOCKS in Providence RI CITY HALL and this may rather than the technical mumbo jumbo be rather in answer. DOnT know for sure. BYE--