The flood, and meat eating.

You are not addressing the points I have made. As usual, you are resorting to quotemining and misrepresenting what people post. So I'll simply echo what others have said.Your posts show that you are neither capable of reading or understanding what is presented to you. The thread exists and others can read the exchange.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

randman,I think everybody but you understood that jar was refering to windfalls as an example of lesser-quality fruit.Do you know anything at all about fruit-growing? It takes a lot of effort to choose the fruit at exactly the right time for picking. Too soon and it's underripe - and you tear off the branch trying to pick it. Too late and it's on the ground.Now, if you pick it up as soon as it touches the ground, it might still be the "best" fruit. But it seems that Cain was impatient and brought a sacrifice that was either underripe or overripe.There is nothing whatsoever in the text to suggest that God required a blood offering. If there is, why haven't you quoted it?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Good grief man! I did not "quote-mine". I quoted where you specifically stated and obviously believed that the term "the fruit of the ground" referred to fruit that had fallen on the ground.Are you saying that was not your position?You even stated: Well, you were wrong since the term "the fruit of the ground" refers to fruit from plants including trees that grow from the ground, and not as you claimed, fruit that had fallen to the ground.Do you admit that the term "the fruit of the ground" does not refer what you earlier claimed, fruit that has fallen to the ground, or what?Why not just be honest jar, and say, yea, I was wrong in thinking the term meant fruit that had fallen to the ground?You can still maintain your overall position by just stating you were wrong on that but believe that the context still suggests the offering was rejected because of the quality, not the type.

Ringo, jar specifically stated that the term meant fruit that had fallen on the ground suggesting it was over-ripe.That was clearly what he meant and had ample opportunity to answer and provide textual evidence to clarify. I asked fairly nicely at first, and his response was nothing but an arrogant smear as if the idea was my interpretation.Frankly, I don't have a dog in some fight here as if it really matters to me personally if Cain's sacrifice was not accepted due to being the wrong type (not a blood sacrifice) or the wrong quality. All I asked for was some textual evidence to back up his snide comments towards anyone that believes it was due to not being a blood sacrifice. He claimed anyone that had read the Bible would know that was not the case, and used the phrase "fruit of the ground" as evidence.Well, jar has obviously not read the Bible as much as he claims considering that is a well-known term to refer to any fruit period, and has nothing to do with fruit falling on the ground and being spoiled, and if anything, the phrase has a connotation of being good.For example, Leviticus makes a point of mentioning one should bring "the first" of the fruit of the ground. Jar is right in claiming it should be the best. So the connotation here is that the term "fruit of the ground" in the context of sacrifice means best fruit, and so when Genesis states Cain brought of "the fruit of the ground", if anything, the connotation is he brought the best of his fruit.It doesn't read Cain brought poor quality fruit of the ground. It doesn't say that at all.So in reality, this is an issue open to interpretation.My whole point in even getting on the thread was to point out that the term "fruit of the ground" should not be considered to mean fruit that had fallen on the ground.It can refer, despite jar's idiotic insistence otherwise, even to olives for example that are picked from an olve tree.As far as being familiar with fruit trees, I have both an orange and a fig tree in my yard, which we eat of. So spare me the trite comments with no substance.

Of course you do. Otherwise, you'd address the issue instead of blithering on and on trying to prove somebody made a mistake. Nonsense. In Message 139, you said: You didn't even mention the supposed "error" about windfalls until later posts.Address the issue: where do you think the Bible says that a blood sacrifice was required?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Yep, I always thought and still do that the blood sacrifice was more reasonable, but if you read the rest of my post, you will see that the issue I brought up was the mistake of considering "fruit of the ground" to refer to fruit that has fallen on the ground.Is that your interpretation by the way?I clearly state that the text does not state why Cain's offering was rejected. It does state that Abel's was accepted, and his was a blood sacrifice since it was from his flock, and it does say Cain's was rejected and Cain's was an offering from his crops.That's all it says.I think if one has to choose, considering Genesis and Hebrews commenting on blood sacrifice and Hebrews referring to Abel's sacrifice being better "by faith", that the most likely reason is that Cain was suppossed to make a blood sacrifice but made a sacrifice of works as opposed to works of faith like Abel's.If you want to disagree, that's fine. It's open to interpretation.What is not open to interpretation though is jar's lame claim (and not sure if your's as well) that "fruit of the ground" denotes or connoted fruit that has fallen on the ground.

Ringo, do you believe like jar states that "fruit of the ground" denotes or connotes fruit that has fallen on the ground?simple yes or no will suffice

I would say that you are excessively literalistic in your reading of the text.I had previously read the text the same way as you had, that the requirement was for a blood sacrifice. However, I found jar's version to be a refreshing alternative interpretation. The additional text quoted by jar seems to support his interpretation. What I do like about that interpretation is that it puts God in a better light than the blood sacrifice interpretation. And I think we should be reading the text so as to put God in as good a light as possible (the principle of charity).Still, I'll grant that it still looks a little ambiguous between the two interpretations. It seems to me that the proper thing to do is to investigate the jewish traditions with respect to this text. Which way was it traditionally interpreted. In Message 142, purpledawn says that the jewish tradition does support jar. Now I will admit that I ought to research this for myself, although frankly it is all a side issue to me.My suggestion is that you do some research into the jewish traditions for this text.

Okay, here's the entire post that I quoted from, Message 139: Nowhere in that post did you mention word one about jar's supposed "mistake". It appears you can't read your own posts either.If you entered this thread just to point out jar's "mistake", you somehow forgot to mention it at the time. Fair enough. So you agree that the Bible says nothing about a blood sacrifice being required.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Simple yes or no? You should know me better than that. "Fruit of the ground", in the broadest sense, means all plants which we use for food. The parts which grow in the ground - e.g. carrots - are included. So are fruit trees which are rooted in the ground but produce thier fruit above the ground.What we know from the Cain/Abel story is that God was not impressed with Cain's offering. Maybe he picked up apples off the ground. Maybe he picked them off the tree before they were ripe. Maybe he bruised a carrot with his spade.Jar was clearly refering to any or all of those situations. I never thought he meant to imply that Cain's offering was only windfalls - only that that was one possible explanation for the rejection. Stop behaving like a three-year-old and drop the issue.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

As is usually the case of Bible studies, you can prove anything you want if you are selective in what you pull out.Sorry but this is a much longer post than I usually attempt.The issue of sacrifice is the primary subject in Leviticus. In there you'll find support for every position including mutually exclusive ones. Look at Leviticus 2. What happens to the meat?That's covered in the next few lines. The priests got it. Again, a symbolic portion is offered, the rest goes to the priests.Leviticus 2 then goes on into the other types of offerings. Again, we see the mention of First Fruits. And meat. ANd the meat doesn't get burned. It's for the priests. A substitute, corn or even dried corn gets symbolicly offered. Guess where the rest goes?This time there's no confusion about the earth part. It's saying as are the passage from Genesis and the later on from Deuteronomy, that the issue is not a blood sacrifice, but the quality of the offering.When we look at all of the Bible we see that when it comes to sacrifice, many things other than blood sacrifice are accepted. Second, we see that when it comes to fruit, it is the quality of the offering that is important.Now returning to the Genesis Cain & Abel offerings. One sacrifice is accepted, one is refused. What might be the difference?If we read it, Here we see two offerings depicted. What is the difference? Why was one rejected? Is there anything in the passage to imply that a blood sacrifice is required? Not that I can see.Is it that only a Blood Sacrifice is acceptable? Well, no, as the passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus demonstrate. SO what is the difference?Looking back at the Genesis excerpt we see that Abel brought the firstlings of his flock while the offering from Cain is only described as the fruit of the ground. Not the First fruit of Earth, as qualified in the passage from Deuteronomy. It also goes on a little ways further in the chapter from Deuteronomy to repeat the qualification: It is the lack of the qualifier "First" in the Genesis account that distinguishes the quality of the offering. Bringing something like windfall or damaged fruits would not be an acceptable offering.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Despite jar's claims to the contrary, the Bible does indicate that blood sacrifices were necessary for "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."That's Bible. I don't think it puts God in a bad light. It puts Cain in a bad light by showing him putting forth what he thought God should accept rather than what God instructed. It serves to illustrate the difference of justification by faith versus justification by man-made religion (sacrifice). It is also the reading most consistent with the overall text.But the text does not rule out the possibility that Cain offered sorry fruit. However, one wonders if that was the case why Cain would be so upset with God. After all, he would know that he offerred to God second best.But if he offered to God his best, that explains why Cain was "very wroth." He would feel it was unfair because he "did his best", and that's a general problem with the nature of mankind in dealing with God. God requires faith, that we follow His opinion in the matter, but people often feel if they do their best in their eyes that God should accept it.That, imo, is the way I and most people I have met read the passage, but it's not something to be dogmatic over.On the issue of fruit of the ground not meaning fruit that had fallen on the ground, I originally raised the issue fairly meekly, but got nothing but scorn from jar. Maybe I shouldn't have pressed the issue, but I felt the misconception should be cleared up, that the phrase doesn't mean spoiled fruit at all, and in all probability refers to the best Cain had to offer.

quote:

---

Despite jar's claims to the contrary, the Bible does indicate that blood sacrifices were necessary for "without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins."

---

Yes it does, but that is not the case with this story. What Cain and Abel gave was not a sin sacrifice, it was an offering. Probably a thanks offering. I'm not sure that the first fruits rule existed at the time of this story.From what I have read, this story would have existed before the sacrificial system for sin.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

I'm not sure if it was a sin offering or not. If it was not, then blood would not be required. If it was, then Cain's offering was of the wrong type, not the wrong quality.The text really never says why God rejected Cain's offering so, as I said before, it is open to interpretation. However, I don't see any good reason to deride as ignorant those that think the offering was rejected because it was of the wrong type, and imo, that is the most likely reason.

So it's not that you wish to understand the Hebrew purpose of the story, but to use it as you wish.Since it is a teaching story, you can adjust it to fit your needs. I would suggest making God's response clearer also.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France