Abel 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.

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.

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]

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]

Sorry, Brad, you completely lost me there.

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?

Mr. McFall:I am still having trouble determining exactly what you're after in this thread. The fault is mine because I apparently do not have the patience to work out your peculiar style of writing. That is not meant negatively, because I should be able to make enough heads outta tails to come up with at least one target question to answer. Not to worry, Brad. I will eventually figure out your style.In the meantime, if you are asking about the dietary prohibition against eating "things that creep" meaning obviously those little creepy crawly insects, centipedes, millipedes, or whatever you more scientifically educated forum members call them, I understand that the Law is currently interpreted to wholesale prohibit the consumption of all such creatures as "unclean." I think there was a time when certain "locusts" and "grasshoppers" were allowable as food but since the Diaspora is thought to have dispersed the tribes so widely over the millennia, the rabbis now council the observant against eating any such insects for fear that the crunchy delight on which one munches may not be one of the very few subspecies that in fact were considered Kosher back in the hood. Now I hear it told that there are still a few individuals rumored to live I think in Ethiopia who still know the specific body markings that I.D. the Kosher locusts, but the information is not considered 100% reliable, and therefore the wholesale prohibition. Ah well, no chocolate coated grasshoppers for the observant I guess.Now, as to the two of this kind and the seven of that ... that gets very confusing during the whole embarcation narration, doesn't it, Brad? First, in Chapter 6, it's two of each kind, one male and one female, "from fowl after their kind, from herd-animals after their kind, from all crawling things of the soil after their kind." Then, in Chapter 7 (coincidently maybe) it's "From all ritually pure animals you are to take seven and seven each, a male and a his mate; and also from the fowl of the heavens, seven and seven each male and female."Now Brad, this is very interesting indeed. First of all, as others have pointed out in this thread, there were no "ritually pure animals" at the time of the Deluge, right? So this passage would appear to be a retrofit.But even more interesting, let's assume for a moment that there were "ritually pure" mammals that required secure passage in seven mated pairs each into the post-Deluge world ... why then the requirement for "fowls of the heavens" in seven pairs each? Not all fowls of the heavens are "ritually pure." Eagles, kites, owls, cormorants, vultures, and other birds are specifically classified as traif by Law.Ah, but alas, when the actual bon voyages were said at Chapter 7, Verse 7, "Noah came, his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him into the Ark before the waters of the Deluge. From the pure animals and from the animals that are not pure and from the fowl and all that crawls about on the soil -- two and two each came to Noah, into the Ark, male and female as God had commanded Noah." Now we're back to pairs of each.Brian, what's it all mean? Best I can figure, outside of some sort of Kabbalistic encodification, maybe the editors wanted to make sure that they included all details regardless of apparent conflict from scrap of parchment to scrap of parchment so that just in case any of it is true that all of it was included in the consolidated canon. To err on the side of inclusion apparently indicates devine inspiration.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003][This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-11-2003]

Mr. McFall:Again, I wish I could follow. Alas, I cannot. I can't say yet whether it's the math, the surrealism, or these damned drugstore glasses. Perhaps you can descend to a lower level that is closer to the floor I operate on (picture Japheth ... or is it Yafet ... with a pitchfork attempting to manage the scuttle deck in a hard Nor'eastern blow).Captain to pilot ... captain to pilot ... carry on.Now, I must remember to wind and set my strawberry alarm clock.

Brad:With regard to 4-legged creepers in Leviticus dietary listings, it is my understanding that some of those six-legged insects that would otherwise be declared unfit to eat were declared fit to eat and that there is some indication that their fitness was due to their "hopping" or "flying" methods of locomotion. These particular critters such as locusts and grasshoppers use four of their legs to creep and the two hind legs to hop or become airborne in conjunction with wings. Apparently the dietary powers that be used phrasiology to distinguish the difference between kosher and shagetz creepers that somehow lead to our misinformed translations rendered "four-legged creepers."But rather than depending upon the windings and ramblings of mylobed brain you may rather prefer to wait until the colloidals kick in.

[M]mideen or Midianites , in the Bible, a nomadic Bedouin people of N Arabia in what is S Jordan. They were associated with the Moabites and the Israelites. Moses took refuge with them and married the daughter of their priest Jethro. They were defeated by the Hebrews after they gave refuge to Balaam, whose advice to the Midianites led to the disastrous Baal-peor incident. The defeat of the Midianites by Gideon became the precedent for God's final victory over his enemies.
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, Copyright (c) 2004."The Midianites consisted of a number of semi-nomadic and bedouin tribes, including Ishmaelites. They were connected with Abraham’s other sons (other than Isaac). They engaged in both caravan trade (Genesis 37.28) and despoiling any weaker than themselves, as well as herding sheep and goats (Exodus 2.15; 3.1). They dwelt in, and moved around in, the wilderness and desert from south of the Dead Sea to lands east of the Jordan (Genesis 25.2-6; 37.25 on; Exodus 3.1; Numbers 22.4, 7), and were fairly widespread. Because of what they had done to Israel some suffered at the hands of Israel (Numbers 25.16-18; 31.2, 7-12). Five Midianite chieftains, ‘the princes’ of Sihon, king of the Amorites, and thus his vassals and presumably fairly settled, were defeated by Moses in the approach to the land" (Joshua 13.21). Angelfire - error 403Genesis 25:2 "And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."
However, the Midianites had intermarried with the Ishmaelites, and other nations, and mixed together, and took their heathen gods. These people were a Bedouin people, and it is important to know this, to understand what kind of people it is that conquered the Israelites. As Bedouins and wanderers, they are not soldiers and they were not well organized. When an organized army comes against any massive numbers of these wandering tent people, they will run from the danger. judges6Just some more baseless, sophistic, unsupported folktales for you to ridicule.