Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Abel and His Flock
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 1 of 42 (71472)
12-07-2003 4:54 PM


The following questions arise from a reading of Genesis 4:1-5
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?
These people are supposed to be vegetarians until after Noah's flood; and if the animals are not being raised for food, then what?
db

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by wmscott, posted 12-07-2003 7:54 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 12-08-2003 12:32 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 8 by Abshalom, posted 12-08-2003 12:42 PM doctrbill has replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 2 of 42 (71487)
12-07-2003 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-07-2003 4:54 PM


Doctor Bill; maybe you don't have a flat learning curve after all. Looks like you have discovered the problem with the 'preflood vegetarian theory,' it is a very popular misinterpretation. Here is what I wrote on it.
However many believe that man did not eat meat until after the flood, but this is clearly in error. Even the Bible itself contradicts the preflood vegetarian theory. Abel is reported as being a herder of sheep, and at Genesis 4:4, he offered one of his sheep as a sacrifice to God along with its fatty pieces. The fact that the fatty pieces are mentioned strongly implies that Abel butchered the sheep, he cut it into pieces. This butchering of sacrifices and offering their pieces on an altar was later made into part of the law given through Moses and this is how offerings were made at the temple. Now butchering is a skill as any butcher will tell you. So where did Abel learn to butcher sheep? As a matter of a fact, the main reason shepherds raised sheep was for meat. They were the cattle ranchers of their day, wool was a secondary consideration, and at Genesis 4:20, Adar is even mentioned as having cattle. If our founders were vegetarians at one time, they apparently changed their diet once they were expelled from paradise. Considering the difficulty in getting adequate nutrition in a vegetarian diet, the fact that man ate meat before the flood should come as no surprise.
There is also of course the mention of Noah putting 7 of each clean animal and only 2 of each unclean animal, which are dietary descriptions. Apparently at some point before the flood, God gave man the dietary guidelines that were later incorporated into the Mosaic law code. The command given to Noah at Genesis 9:3 was apparently a restating of earlier expressions of God on the subject and in light of the above references which indicate the eating of animals, does not imply preflood universal vegetarianism.
Why God would prefer the symbolism of a sacrificial lamb over a sacrificial vegetables should be obvious, consider the account of Abraham nearly offering up Isaac. The prophetic symbolism of Abel's sacrificing a lamb for his sins is why at Luke 11:49-51 he is referred to as a prophet.
On Cain's wife, woman are seldom mentioned in biblical genealogies, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Cain's wife was his sister.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-07-2003 4:54 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 12-07-2003 11:31 PM wmscott has not replied
 Message 6 by Brad McFall, posted 12-08-2003 12:26 PM wmscott has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 3 of 42 (71503)
12-07-2003 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by wmscott
12-07-2003 7:54 PM


wmscott writes:
Doctor Bill; maybe you don't have a flat learning curve after all.
And it would seem that you sir, are still fond of not-so-subtle insults.
at Genesis 4:4, he offered one of his sheep as a sacrifice to God along with its fatty pieces. The fact that the fatty pieces are mentioned strongly implies that Abel butchered the sheep, he cut it into pieces.
Which calls to mind my second question, which you have elected to ignore.
What would the LORD want with the best of Abel's flock?
It was, I suspect, this LORD who set Abel up with his flock in the first place and thus Abel's sacrifice was a matter of repayment.
Why God would prefer the symbolism of a sacrificial lamb over a sacrificial vegetables should be obvious,
To you perhaps, but I am not convinced that this sacrifice was "symbolic" at all.
[BTW the word "God" does not appear in this story.]
There is no mention of anyone else sacrificing sheep at the time. If it were a matter of religion, then Adam, the head of the family should be performing blood rituals. But there is no mention of Adam in such a context, and there is no mention of religious ritual. It appears to be a simple straightforward sacrifice. Abel simply gives this guy the best of his flock. That sounds like payment to me.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by wmscott, posted 12-07-2003 7:54 PM wmscott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2003 4:52 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 4 of 42 (71522)
12-08-2003 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by doctrbill
12-07-2003 11:31 PM


doctrbill writes:
quote:
It was, I suspect, this LORD who set Abel up with his flock in the first place and thus Abel's sacrifice was a matter of repayment.
And you find evidence of this in the Bible where, precisely? Chapter and verse, please.
quote:
[BTW the word "God" does not appear in this story.]
Only in the most naive sense. Instead, Genesis 4 talks about the lord. Are you seriously trying to say that god and the lord aren't the same entity? Are you seriously saying that "elohim" and "adonai" aren't references to the same entity?
quote:
If it were a matter of religion, then Adam, the head of the family should be performing blood rituals.
Why? Shouldn't Cain and Abel, adults in their own right, be atoning for their own sins? There is no indication that either Cain or Abel were still living at home. So what makes Adam "head of the family"?
quote:
It appears to be a simple straightforward sacrifice.
And this has relevance how? There was something wrong with Cain's sacrifice to the extent that god didn't like it. Perhaps, as the John Huston movie hinted, Cain kept something back. Perhaps, as some theologians think, the importance of blood sacrifice was an understood concept and since Cain's offering was not of blood, it was insufficient. The truth is, we don't know and the Bible doesn't say.
quote:
That sounds like payment to me.
And the Bible says this where, precisely? Chapter and verse, please.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by doctrbill, posted 12-07-2003 11:31 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Amlodhi, posted 12-08-2003 10:34 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 12-09-2003 12:12 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 14 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-09-2003 7:24 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 42 (71561)
12-08-2003 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rrhain
12-08-2003 4:52 AM


Hello Rrhain,
quote:
Originally posted by Rrhain
Genesis 4 talks about the lord. Are you seriously trying to say that god and the lord aren't the same entity? Are you seriously saying that "elohim" and "adonai" aren't references to the same entity?
It is true that the term God (Elohim) does not occur in the offering pericope of Gen. 4. But also, the term Lord as it appears here is not the small "l" lord which is a common English translation of the Hebrew "adonai". The Hebrew term that appears in these passages is, of course, the tetragrammaton YHWH.
i.e. Gen. 4:3 ". . . brought . . . an offering to YHWH."
Namaste'
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2003 4:52 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 6 of 42 (71575)
12-08-2003 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by wmscott
12-07-2003 7:54 PM


here we go again.
Seems to me we CAN learn this curve#,
If the issue of the Universal Cosmology and any "gaps" be given, givening only Man NAMING the creatures, only MAN,BEASTSand Creepy things perishing in the flood, the kinds of the ARK being different (at least to the Math Matchette could only find (when HE looked) metaphysically)more like human "kinds" THAN ANY MAN ALREADY NAMED and the unclean account of the genes of all the kinds which Jacob had been granted by GOD for heritbility what "the four" could be herding sheep for seems answerable Q:
A:To seperate the monobaramins from the holobaramins. I would suggest that the terms "Creeping" have to do with differences of locomotion and migration as to cell deaths which the min kept by dint of BLOOD being material which lacks genetically in plants for a double voltage-pressure system for any mutation of any rank (1,2,3...)so fileing for me the notion that unclean kinds may be polybaramins.
The criticism would first be about the 'creepers" of Levitucus as to different speciation in turtles (tortosie) vs lizard for any warm blooded CREEPING creature difference IN THE SAME NOTION THAT plants arose from the earth that was given cosmologically PRIOR to the dispute that subsequently arose for cain and abel.
That's what I said, please dont think that you can take this apart without trying to understand that Gould's notion of Paley vs Agassiz can be in HARMONY and not by two colored sands abuting a jagged edge. I did not say that one MUST ALSO deal with the virign birth but only that such SCIENCE as biologically closed electric cirucits SPACE between metals in blood circulation may be being missed in this time of reading natural theology for a simple geological phenomenology that Creationists since Price have always put in question. I was trying to show how creationism ASKS scientific questions that can only be asnwered so far by access (which is generally denied to creationists) to biometric genotype vs phenotype databases OR BY some such source I have suggested eithe from a hertiage of Church or else by a knowledge of the TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF KINDS REMAINING Spaced ouT by DEATHS that NO ARRAGEMENT OF ALREADY COMEPETED FORMS can be biologically retained though trainsently physically constructed they may. The insight comes from putting IT in place of Chemistry in the EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT EXPT while rejecting the TIMES so far that this is horizontally dimensioned. It is not that Darwin added an extra dimension and elimitated an explanation but only we have not brought the metaphysical step into the mathematics that is already available. There is no reason that evolutionary databases can not be updated in this confluence but the objects would also have methods that are not divided a priori into genetypes and phentopes even if some researchers may still want this division for hypothesis testing but rather reflect how 7 is not 2 FROM WHAT counts the NAMES already gave.
There are two issues- One non fuduciary access to bioinformatic databases
and
- database structure able to deal with word disambiguation(of the type contemplated here that does not prima facie remand adpative fitness = diversity as Darwin indiviudally attempted to promote for any connection with said datum).
There SHOULD NOT predominate issues that WIll Provine brought to Stanford. Those were simply chicken eggs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by wmscott, posted 12-07-2003 7:54 PM wmscott has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 7 of 42 (71578)
12-08-2003 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-07-2003 4:54 PM


I hope this helps.
To 2- so far I can only say that it WOULD NOT be what Gould called "good" as to the trying of many things and figureing the good to be by rejecting a certain enurmerable quantity of trys. I have said how COUNTING the clean vs unclean had destroyed by scietific creationism any BIBLICAL Creationism that mIGHT support Gould ethics and I have suggested this might reason back to Cain an Abel as you asked, but I could be wrong since I used unknowns but these were all taken from science and not religion excpet for what the Hebrew names actualy signify or less divergently connote when not properly denoted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-07-2003 4:54 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 12-09-2003 12:16 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 42 (71579)
12-08-2003 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
12-07-2003 4:54 PM


Hevel and His Flock
"To what purpose is Abel herding sheep?"
According to Genesis, humans exercise "free will," acted contrary to a specific warning, and were evicted from Eden. Additionally, the very soil of the Earth was damned on their account, and YHVH commanded that humans, with pains-taking labor, will eat from the (damned) soil all their days. "By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread until you return to the (damned) soil, for from it you were taken" (Gen. 3:19).
Following the eviction, "the human knew his wife, she became pregnant" and the couple created another human being whom the woman named by declaring ("Kanati!") "I have gotten (or created) a man, as has YHVH." Now, from a theological perspective, how blasphemous was that, Dr. Bill?
So, Cain, by his very name "Kayin" is damned to toil among the "thorns and thistles" for his livelihood as a dirt farmer. Ask yourself, Dr. Bill, in this light, with what regard should an offering grown in damned soil by a damned individual created in sin and named as an act of defiant blasphemy be received by an almighty god who suffered total disregard by supposedly his finest creation twice in one generation?
On the otherhand, Abel ("Havel," meaning "vapor, steam, or something transitory")is a shepherd, not a worker of the damned soil, and his offering of "the firstborn of his flock, from their fat-parts" apparently is the more favorable offering. I don't notice anywhere that says it was "the best of Abel's herd," but apparently it was a preferable offering to the produce offered by Cain.
Does this indicate that God is a carnivore or that God "does not like vegetables?" Maybe, maybe not. But it certainly does not prove that Abel ate meat, just that he raised sheep. So let's assume for a moment that Abel also is a vegetarian. He may be herding sheep for the milk and cheese. More likely, he's raising them for the skins for clothing. (See Gen 3:21) Genesis doesn't say anything about Vegans, PETA, or a prohibition against wearing animal hide.
Now, as to the problem of proper disposal of the animal carcasses generated by the loin cloth and sandal industries, it would appear that someone decided early on that at least the "fat-parts" made a favorable burnt offering.
As to your second question, "What does the LORD want with (the offering of sheep?)", I think that is covered in greater detail in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 12-07-2003 4:54 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 12-09-2003 1:08 AM Abshalom has replied
 Message 12 by Rrhain, posted 12-09-2003 3:20 AM Abshalom has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 9 of 42 (71778)
12-09-2003 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rrhain
12-08-2003 4:52 AM


Rrhain writes:
And you find evidence of this in the Bible where, precisely? Chapter and verse, please.
Suspicion is not necessarily based on "chapter and verse" evidence.
Are you seriously saying that "elohim" and "adonai" aren't references to the same entity?
Yes. They do not necessarily refer to the same entity.
Perhaps, as some theologians think, the importance of blood sacrifice was an understood concept and since Cain's offering was not of blood, it was insufficient. The truth is, we don't know and the Bible doesn't say.
Quite right.
And the Bible says this where, precisely? Chapter and verse, please.
My impressions are my impressions. If I had persuasive evidence I would not be saying, "I suspect," or "sounds like."
Why demand proof where none exists? Why not simply consider the opinion and offer a better alternative, if you have one?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2003 4:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Rrhain, posted 12-09-2003 3:25 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 10 of 42 (71779)
12-09-2003 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Brad McFall
12-08-2003 12:32 PM


Re: I hope this helps.
Actually Brad, this is quite off topic. I appreciate your response, but I had no intention of considering genetic implications here and see no opening for that. It is clear that you do, however, and if anyone finds it worth exploring I suggest you open a thread to that effect.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Brad McFall, posted 12-08-2003 12:32 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Brad McFall, posted 12-10-2003 12:46 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 11 of 42 (71785)
12-09-2003 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Abshalom
12-08-2003 12:42 PM


Re: Hevel and His Flock
Abshalom writes:
... another human being whom the woman named by declaring ("Kanati!") "I have gotten (or created) a man, as has YHVH."
I like that but the translations I study most read differently. The King James Version reads, "I have gotten a man from the LORD." Revised Standard Version reads, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD. Living Bible reads, "With God's help I have created a man!" I see none of these, including the one you quote, as blasphemous. It reminds me of the earliest religions, in which it is the goddess who creates all life. That idea is more reasonable than the one where a male deity gives birth to sons without the benefit of a female.
I don't notice anywhere that says it was "the best of Abel's herd,"
Many translations say, "firstlings" of the flock. The New English Bible renders it "first-born," and the Living Bible gives it as, "his best."
He may be herding sheep for the milk and cheese. More likely, he's raising them for the skins for clothing.
That is, of course, reasonable but it leave me wondering why YHWH is interested in animal fat, or whole carcasses.
... as to the problem of proper disposal of the animal carcasses generated by the loin cloth and sandal industries, it would appear that someone decided early on that at least the "fat-parts" made a favorable burnt offering.
Reasonable, but it presumes a pagan-style religion is already in place, a religion based on blood sacrifice; but I see nothing in the text which suggests that this is a religious thing. The word 'offering' given here (minchah) is elsewhere translated 'present' in the context of gifts given to appease kings. On more than one occasion YHWH proudly declares that he is a "great King." It follows that kings are given 'presents,' and 'gifts,' or payments and taxes.
"What does the LORD want with (the offering of sheep?)", I think that is covered in greater detail in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers.
Please note that this delineation of the sacrificial system comes approximately two millenia later; and considering how much that system evolved in the subsequent two millenia, I am inclined to suspect that it had evolved considerably during the previous two. Most religious ceremonies begin as timely and relevant practices, which, over time, evolve into something entirely different; something which may be characterized as meaningless ritual. This is how many Jews (AKA Christians) came to view the rituals of animal 'sacrifice.' Even so, see no persuasive evidence that Abel was practicing a Mosaic-style Judaism.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Abshalom, posted 12-08-2003 12:42 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Abshalom, posted 12-09-2003 1:03 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 12 of 42 (71791)
12-09-2003 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Abshalom
12-08-2003 12:42 PM


Re: Hevel and His Flock
Abshalom writes:
quote:
So, Cain, by his very name "Kayin" is damned to toil among the "thorns and thistles" for his livelihood as a dirt farmer. Ask yourself, Dr. Bill, in this light, with what regard should an offering grown in damned soil by a damned individual created in sin and named as an act of defiant blasphemy be received by an almighty god who suffered total disregard by supposedly his finest creation twice in one generation?
Hmmm...someone who accepts his punishment and through his hard work and effort manages to bring forth something beautiful, nourishing, and sustaining from the most base of starting materials.
Yeah...why would anybody ever think that's a good thing? I mean, you take a lump of coal and spend a great deal of energy heating it and compressing it until it turns into a diamond...what a disgusting and horrible thing!
Are you saying god doesn't appreciate those who take seriously the adage, "When life hands you lemons, make lemonade"?
quote:
I don't notice anywhere that says it was "the best of Abel's herd,"
It says the lamb brought was a firstling, which generally means the best of its kind, and makes a point to say that it was the fattest. The Hebrew word is "umechelvehen" which primarily means "fat" but has overtones of "best part."
quote:
but apparently it was a preferable offering to the produce offered by Cain.
Indeed. And that's all we know: Abel's sacrifice was accepted while Cain's was not.
quote:
But it certainly does not prove that Abel ate meat, just that he raised sheep.
Actually, it does. What was the point of raising sheep if not to eat them? What do you think they did with the sacrifice when they were done? There's a reason you eat of the lamb shank during Pesach.
quote:
More likely, he's raising them for the skins for clothing.
And just throwing the rest away? What waste!
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Abshalom, posted 12-08-2003 12:42 PM Abshalom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Abshalom, posted 12-09-2003 1:34 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 13 of 42 (71792)
12-09-2003 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by doctrbill
12-09-2003 12:12 AM


doctrbill responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And you find evidence of this in the Bible where, precisely? Chapter and verse, please.
Suspicion is not necessarily based on "chapter and verse" evidence.
Then you're making stuff up.
Why should we take the stuff you made up out of thin air over the direct statements of the Bible?
quote:
quote:
Are you seriously saying that "elohim" and "adonai" aren't references to the same entity?
Yes. They do not necessarily refer to the same entity.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
By the way...as Amlodhi said, it uses the tetragrammaton. Are you seriously saying that the true name of god is not a reference to god?
quote:
My impressions are my impressions.
But your impressions are your impressions and not the Bible's.
Why should we take your word over the Bible's?
quote:
Why demand proof where none exists?
I'm not the one making the claim. You are. Therefore, it is your responsibility to justify it. "My impression" isn't justification...it's wishful thinking.
quote:
Why not simply consider the opinion
Because when the issue is, "What does it say," there isn't much room for opinion. There's a little more room in, "What does it mean," but even there, not all opinions are valid.
quote:
and offer a better alternative, if you have one?
I thought I did just that. That's why I contradicted you and quoted from the Bible, after all.
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by doctrbill, posted 12-09-2003 12:12 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 14 of 42 (71812)
12-09-2003 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Rrhain
12-08-2003 4:52 AM


Yep
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. See, for example, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic by Frank M. Cross.
[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-09-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Rrhain, posted 12-08-2003 4:52 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 12-09-2003 9:11 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
Abshalom
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 42 (71865)
12-09-2003 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by doctrbill
12-09-2003 1:08 AM


Re: Hevel and His Flock
With regard to Havva ("Life-giver" and mother of all mankind) and her declaration ("Kanati") at the birth of Kayin (Adam and Havva's first son), Doc. Bill writes, "The King James Version reads, 'I have gotten a man from the Lord' as opposed to the translation I supplied from the Shocken Bible, Vol. One, "I have gotten (begotten or created) a man, as has YHVH (an obvious blasphemous reference to Adam and Havva's ability to create human life, an act previously reserved for YHVH):
a) Kayin, traditional Eng. "Cain," means "smith" as in "one who creates weapons, wagon wheels, wrought iron, etc."
b) See also, Gen. 4:22 (or there-abouts in whichever translation you may use as reference) wherein "Tzilla bore as well Tuval-Kayin (Tubal Cain), burnisher of every blade of bronze and iron" indicating again that Kayin or Cain is "Smith" or a creator or forger of weapons, machinery, etc.
c) Havva's (Eve's) bold declaration that she has equaled YHVH's accomplishement regarding the creation of a man or man-child is certainly not outside the bounds of her personality profile considering her earlier disregard for explicitely prohibited actions.
With regard to Dr. Bill's inclination to accept interpretations from the New English Bible, the Living Bible, and other sources that equate "first born" with "the best of the flock," please allow me to draw attention to the numerous accounts in Genesis wherein the "second-born" sons, or "subsequently born" are invariably favored over the first-born. Abel is favored over Cain, Isaak was favored over Ishmael, Jacob was favored over Esau, etc. This is a very frequent theme throughout the early Bible and carries into Samuel I and Samuel II.
Dr. Bill asks, "why is YHVH interested in (burning) animal fat or whole carcasses?" Could it be that God is a conservative ecologist? Or does his declaration in other parts of the Bible that the sacrificial burning of animal fat makes a pleasing odor to him indicate that such complimentary declarations to his earthly subordinants was originally required to get primitive man accustomed to proper disposal techniques (cremation) that are still practiced today in India in order to deliver the dead via smoke and ashes to their final reward, sanitary considerations aside.
I agree, Dr. Bill, that all the extreme, highly stylized, ritualistic blood splattering, burning, sacrificial disposal, and subsequent K.P. instructions especially in Leviticus indicate highly developed rituals particularly reflective of pagan and Egyptian cults ... proving that even God and the worship thereof appears to evolve.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by doctrbill, posted 12-09-2003 1:08 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by doctrbill, posted 12-09-2003 9:23 PM Abshalom has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024