The flood, and meat eating.

purple, say what you want. It's pretty clear that the only reason given in the Hebrew scriptures is that one was a blood sacrifice and one was not. Just in case you didn't realize it, the whole blood sacrifice issue is a major one in the Hebrew Law.To be charitable, something generally lost on you evos, the scriptures do not specify some other un-named quality, such as rotten fruit, being the reason God rejected Cain's offering. Since the Bible does not rule it out, I will not begrudge you if you want to believe something else, but please don't pretend I am the one adding to the Bible here. As far as the text, it simply says one is from the flock and another of the fruit of the ground.Perhaps it is you wanting to invent something there to satisfy your own interpretation?

In all the wrangling over "the sacrifice", maybe we're losing track of the real point of the story.It seems to me that it wasn't the sacrifice itself that was important - it was Cain's attitude. The Bible doesn't say why God didn't like Cain's offering - maybe because the "why" wasn't important. What was important was Cain's reaction to God:

quote:

---

Gen 4:5 ... And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Gen 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.

---

All God wanted was for Cain to do better next time, but Cain's reaction was to kill his brother. The reaction was irrational. Sin.That's a more important lesson for us than whether or not the sacrifice had to be blood.

---

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

good point

In this particular case I think we can tell exactly what type of sacrifice we are dealing with. Take yet another look, please at the section: First this is a joint or communal offering and so not one for sins committed as that would be between the individual and GOD and not a joint offering. Also, it is a Spring offering because we see Abel bringing the firstlings of his flock, the new lambs that had just been born. There is also the reference to "in the process of time".These, when considered together, imply that this is a Spring Offering, a first harvest, an offering of Thankgiving.This is an early story, perhaps one of the earliest glimpses available into the origins of civilization. The purpose of this story is not so much the sacrifice itself (although it is a reminder to bring neat stuff) or even Cain killing Abel (it is a oneliner) but rather the Marking of Cain as special and that Cain is under the Lord's protection. First there is the discovery were GOD notices something is wrong and a curse which is basically a repetition of the earlier story when GOD kicks Adam out of Eden; but then the storyline changes.First Cain bemoans his fate: but then the Lord marks Cain as belonging to GOD and swears to Cain that he will protect him... This is the important part of the story. Here GOD first marks Israel as HIS OWN, as special and set apart. To make this clear, Cain departs and moves to Nod in the East of Eden. The Chapter ends up as a prelude to future stories by introducing some of the characters that would show up later as well as a description of the characteristics of this new people.This message has been edited by jar, 10-25-2005 07:37 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Just in case you didn't realize it, the whole blood sacrifice issue is a major one in the Hebrew Law.

---

Really? Hadn't noticed.

quote:

---

scriptures is that one was a blood sacrifice and one was not.

---

One was an offering of fat and the other was not.

quote:

---

To be charitable, something generally lost on you evos, the scriptures do not specify some other un-named quality, such as rotten fruit, being the reason God rejected Cain's offering.

---

I said nothing of rotten fruit. I shared the Jewish teaching that it probably wasn't the best of his crop.

quote:

---

I will not begrudge you if you want to believe something else, but please don't pretend I am the one adding to the Bible here.

---

If you imply that animal offerings were the only acceptable gifts to God, then you are going the wrong direction.

quote:

---

As far as the text, it simply says one is from the flock and another of the fruit of the ground.

---

Exactly.

---

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

quote:

---

To be charitable, something generally lost on you evos,

---

I find it interesting that you tagged me an evo when I don't think I've actually made my thoughts on evolution known. I don't really participate in those threads.What leads you to believe I'm an evo?

---

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

quote:

---

These, when considered together, imply that this is a Spring Offering, a first harvest, an offering of Thankgiving.

---

I agree that it is a thanks offering, but spring would be the wrong time for crops. Firstling doesn't necessarily mean it was slaughtered right after birth. Once it was born it was marked for God. It would not have been slaughtered until big enough to eat.I was trying to get randman away from the idea that all gifts to God were always blood oriented.The Hebrew word for offering in this instance means gift.I think many get tied to the idea that animal sacrifice always deals with sin and it doesn't.Abel only gave the fat portions to God. The meat they would have eaten, which goes along with a fellowship or thanks type offering.

quote:

---

The purpose of this story is not so much the sacrifice itself (although it is a reminder to bring neat stuff) or even Cain killing Abel (it is a oneliner) but rather the Marking of Cain as special and that Cain is under the Lord's protection.

---

It reads as most myths tend to. No clear reason for the person getting in trouble, but the person needed to get in trouble for the story to playout. (Of course the reason may have been clearer in its time. )

---

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

It is an intrigueing story, especially the fact God protected Cain, but at the same time, Cain really isn't an ancestor to Israel, is he? Not sure exactly how you tie Israel to Cain here.

Cain is the father of Enoch.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yeah, you're right on seasons and I'm wrong. That's what comes of posting when still near sleep.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Cain is the father of Enoch.

---

Never followed that one through before. Learn something new every day.There seem to be several instances where the nation of Israel is not necessarily off the best of the bunch.And God is surprised that Israel is a stiffnecked nation?

---

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

Well,as is so often the case, the Bible gets downright confusing particularly in the begats and begots. In Genesis 4 Enoch is the son of Cain, but when you get into the begets and begots in Genesis 5, it gets a little murky. There, Enoch becomes the son of Jared.So there really are a couple posible interpretation. One is that we are dealing with two different Enochs. Another possibility, as in the case of the two different Jesus lineages, is that some redaction is being done to fix the geneologies to fit some political or cultural need.Remember, Genesis is not one book but a compilation of stories from a variety of sources that are all then attributed to Moses. There are the two separate Genesis myths and two differing Flood stories. It's likely that the two origins of Enoch comes from two differing family groups or tribes, each claiming lineage from Enoch.There are other idiosyncrasies in this portion. There is the strange comment about Enoch in Genesis 5:24, "24: And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."That's it. That one line. No story, no explanation. Then later in the Bible, for example in Hebrews, an elaborate story of Enoch shows up. What is the source?Well now we know that most of the Enoch story can be found in 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch. Yet neither book was selected for inclusion into most Canons.This message has been edited by jar, 10-25-2005 01:12 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I believe it is two different enoch's since they both stem from different childred of Adam."Remember, Genesis is not one book but a compilation of stories from a variety of sources that are all then attributed to Moses. There are the two separate Genesis myths and two differing Flood stories. It's likely that the two origins of Enoch comes from two differing family groups or tribes, each claiming lineage from Enoch."Really, wow, if you can prove it I can believe it?."That's it. That one line. No story, no explanation. Then later in the Bible, for example in Hebrews, an elaborate story of Enoch shows up. What is the source?"Well, Hebrews was written by Paul when he was jailed. It's nowhere near Moses time and Genesis did make a point of mentioning enoch. Perhaps Paul thought it was time to record the story since he wrote many books in the Bible. As for the ordering, that is too say why you don't hear about enoch for so long, The work bible literally means a small library, but they arn't organized alphabetically or chronologically, but rather they're first seperated into Hebrew and greek, then odered by type. For example all the Gospel are to together, all the prophets are together. Genesis, which even starts with 'In the beginning' is in the beginning, and Revelation, which speacks consistant about the time of the end, is in the end.Edited to add more. Sorry.Sorry, I forgot I wanted to mention something about the meat rule. If a flood truely did occur to the extent it's depicted as, the soil would've been horrible eroded. They may have been aloud to eat meat because they need to. But the blood rule never changed.This message has been edited by Regless, 10-27-2005 04:20 AM

Hi, Any support for this claim, there is certainly nothing in the Old Testament to suggest that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis. Paul didn't write Hebrews. Hebrews and a few other Pastorals have now been taken off Paul, been that way for a long time now. Here A considerable variety of opinions on this subject have been advanced from the earliest times. The epistle makes no internal claim of authorship, which is inconsistent with the rest of Paul's epistles. Also, while many of the letter's ideas are Pauline, the writing style is substantially different from that of Paul's epistles. For example, the Epistle does not open with the preamble typical of Paul. Hebrews has nothing to indicate that an attribution to Paul was ever intended.I cannot think of a mainstream scholar who believes Paul wrote Hebrews. Do you know anyone? Is the Old Testament placed in chronological order? Surely an omniscient God could provide veggies and thus avoid the eating of meat?Brian.

That's fine, you are free to believe that if you wish. As I said, the Bible is very inconsistent when it comes to geneologies (for example, there are two different geneologies for Jesus), often including more than one account of events. And it is certainly possible that there were two Enochs.As to Genesis having only one author, that is nearly impossible and I do know that most Christian Churchs accept not only that it had multiple authors but that the same stories are repeated in Genesis from those different sources and times. And there is nothing in the Bible that I know of that says Moses wrote Genesis. If I missed it perhaps you can point it out.It's also unlikely that Paul was really the author of Hebrews, although it too is possible. Regardless, the information about Enoch found there and in Jude IIRC comes from the Book of Enoch, mostly 1 Enoch. And neither 1 Enoch nor 2 Enoch made it into many of the Canons.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion