xjwsforChrist

TEC SAID



The first thought that occurred to me when i read this, Sab... is that killing his brother is not a good way to make a choice to live without blood sacrifice. That would be more along the lines of offering his brother up as a human sacrifice, so that he could then have his chosen way of life.

Kind of defeating the purpose, if that was his purpose.

You can't really object to blood sacrifice... by spilling blood.

Peace,
tammy

TEC SAID



I must also agree with this.

Consider, Sab, that God does not need fruit, vegetables, meat or gold, or anything else that gets offered. He has even said (through prophets) that it was not the sacrifice of animals that he wanted or was pleased with... but rather that the sacrifice that he was pleased with was from within... humble hearts, showing mercy, loving one another, loosening chains of injustice, feeding/clothing the poor and the hungry.

Do you think that Cain was more moral than God? Or are you thinking that God never asked for those sacrifices, and so Cain was bucking the religion that someone else instituted?

(if either of the above, then I would ask that you again consider that he made his point by spilling the blood of his brother and killing him)

Peace to you, Sab

tammy

SABASTIOUS SAID

First off, I want you to know that I am not trying to say I am right and anyone else is wrong, in fact quite the opposite. I look at the Torah as basically alien technology, but only as a metaphor. I don't actually think extraterrestrials wrote the book, but I cannot help but acknowledge a system beyond my own understanding. The verses seem to be living in a way that they can be interpreted in different ways. That's what I think 2 Tim 3:16 is talking about specifically the word "theh-op'-nyoo-stos". What God writes into the world can be used by any culture and within any time. A truly eternal document. So what I am really saying is that I think we can both we right even though it may appear that such cannot be the case.



I guess I am taking that "intentions argument" and am placing it further back in the Cain story arc. I look at Cain as a brilliant man who was able to conceive God's creation greater than his contemporaries. This gave him pride, which is a double edged sword. Abel's offering was one of personal loss whereas Cain's was one of great beauty. Offering the firstborn of your flock is a big deal as Shepard's had a measure of emotional attachment to their flock (which is a HUGE theme in the whole Bible). Such could be considered an emotional game. Cain worked the soil, he didn't have a flock to pick a first born from. From their perspective trades both offerings were of equal worth. So why did God not favor Cain's? Because Cain had no emotional investment in his fruit.

This could be regarded as not only an insult to Cain, but to people working the soil in general. Prejudice could fester within the heart of Cain towards another way of doing things altogether. Prejudice leads to murder and conquering.

We are given the picture of a sibling rivalry. My little brother always chose the opposite of me because siblings do things like that to create a false sense of independence. The same goes for Cain and Abel. One picked the soil, one picked the flocks. The best decision was made by Abel by choosing to keep flocks and offer up blood sacrifice. Abel would work the soul and offer non living sacrifice. These two men are representative of man driven trades that propelled civilizations.




Yes, intent to change things from the ground up. Not only would fruits be the new sacrament, but such would serve as a precedent for a whole new way of life. A civilized life where the ways of barbarism was left behind. God on the other hand was being called a barbarian for acknowledging the superiority of Abel's trade, rituals and general way of life. No favor would be given to any ideal that snuffed out the Shepard way of life which included blood sacrifice. Our emotions are what all humans hold dearest to themselves. To give them to God would be the only true worthy sacrifice (here God take my hamster! I love him very much, but you can have him!)



Well lets expand the analogy to better fit Genesis 4. Lets say a father takes his two boys fishing. One boy decides that killing fish is too much for his stomach. His brother, on the other hand, is given strong approval for an act that the first boy feels is WRONG. To him it's like they are ganging up and he could act out in fear and jealousy. His father sees this and gives a warning for his son to cool down or else he might do something he regrets. The boy doesn't cool down and ends up murdering his brother in cold blood. He would feel remorseful about it, and the father could pardon the error as he saw the legitimate crisis of conscience. A pardon by reason of temporary insanity.

There is a recurring theme in the Bible of brothers becoming jealous over the perceived doting of a proud father. Jacob hand making a garment for Joseph which crowned him as the new king created burning jealousy from the brothers. Jacob didn't have to do it just then, but he did anyway which is what caused the jealousy. Similarly, God showing favor on Abel's and ignoring Cain's offering sprung forth jealousy and thoughts of murder.



He had no obligation, but he was part of the cause and effect of the situation by choosing to deny Cain's offering. He gave no reason, he simply denied him. God would know the reaction that was coming, and once he saw it he gave warning. When one has the power to stop murder and one does not, one must provide satisfactory reasoning to absorb the moral infraction.


Warnings don't work, so why make them? That's a big question that the Torah asks of it's readers. How many times have you been warned to do something you did anyway? Does God have to absolve his responsibility on the matter by giving a warning? There seems to be a grander purpose at work within the story that characters like Cain and Abel are unaware of.


Yes, but why give him protection? Mercy? I don't really buy that explanation. It seems more like to prove a point. What is Cain going to do with his new outlook on life? And if Cain represents a whole type of people that makes a lot more sense. I see the God of the Torah like a master chef expertly crafting a dish fit for a king.

Quote:
So Cain was in essence saying, "I don't like that you have Abel killing animals, God; my offering is actually better because it doesn't involve spilling blood, and your rejection of it is bunk and makes me mad so I'm kill my brother, so you can see what it feels like!"? I mean, that sounds like what you're saying occurred. Please let me know if I have it wrong.


More like Cain is saying that he doesn't agree with the way of life that God favored, which made God an enemy of Cain. Animal death in religious ritual meant the slaughter of countless animals which would be large scale senseless death. I think Cain was trying to move away from blood sacrifice altogether because he didn't believe God to be worthy of it. God should get fruit and we should keep the flock to ourselves.



The Serpent is just using Cain. Cain is being emotional which brings sin (the Serpent) at his door. Once Cain answers the call of the Serpent he is doomed to insanity and death. The Serpent has his own world domination plans, Cain is just a puppet. The window the Serpent sneaks into our minds is through our ego, or our emotions. The heart strings are treacherous!



Cain is quite the victim actually, as are all the Serpent's prey. They are sad stories that can always be turned around simply by stopping the drinking of maddening spirits.

I have quite enjoyed this discussion, Shebly, thank you for putting in the time with me. I will respond more tomorrow. Good night.

-Sab

SABASTIOUS SAID



Hello Tec, it's good to hear from you. You bring up a good point, but I think you are asking too much of the Cain character. I think that these characters, all of them, are not given the proper compassion in many religious theories. The reader is supposed to have compassion for their plight and blunders as they are made up of the same dust as the flawed people they read about.

Just a few verses back the Serpent was cast down to the earth. What did that mean? It meant that the Serpent would serve as an invisible influence upon the population of humanity. That's why God told Cain that sin was crouching at his door. Desire is a charm of the Serpent and we are all susceptible. That's how the Serpent enters the world, when we answer that door of desire and plunge into the mouth of Satan. But how does it all start? A hint, imo, is in the difference between Cain and Abel's offering. What was Cain up to? Why was he so emotional devastated when God, the creator of all things, didn't like his idea? Because he THOUGHT he knew best. The road to hell is paved in good intentions. This gives insight not only to Cain, but Cain's true master the Serpent who he was under the influence of. We are shown a character trait of both the Serpent and Cain: a will to have the power of God. Truly these were the people who eat from the Tree of Knowledge of both good AND bad. The Serpent said that it would make them like God, knowing both good and evil. Cain's devolution was the cost and the Serpent's first victim which he then turned into a civilization (which devolved into HUMAN blood sacrifice *they abandoned the original message and became hypocrites*). So, you are right, Cain was exposed as a complete hypocrite and a fool. It would be like busting into a religious suicide ritual and killing them to save them.

In the world of fiction I see people judge writers when one of their characters does something illogical. But what the consumer doesn't realize is that the character acted on impulse. What they are perceiving as "unrealistic" is actually a fact of life being portrayed in fiction. Our egos will literally turn us insane resulting in what appears to be a "plot hole" in our own lives.

-Sab

BTW: I can't edit my posts, there doesn't seem to be a button anywhere for it?

AGUEST SAID



I totally get what you're stating here, dear Sab (again, the greatest of love and peace to you!) but think you miss a very crucial truth: Cain didn't feel remorse for killing Abel. Ever. At ANY point. He first felt insulted that he was even asked as to where his brother, whom he had killed, was. Then he had a problem with the punishment, banishment. Like HIS "father" before him, Adham, who imitated HIS [chosen] "father", our Adversary, he NEVER took responsibility for his act. He never HUMBLED himself and acknowledged his own flaw of unsubstantiated anger against his brother, nor his heinous act of killing his brother... for no reason other than his own flaw.

As dear tec (peace to you, too, dear one!) stated: you can't really object to blood sacrifice... by spilling blood.

There is a recurring theme in the Bible of brothers becoming jealous over the perceived doting of a proud father. Jacob hand making a garment for Joseph which crowned him as the new king created burning jealousy from the brothers. Jacob didn't have to do it just then, but he did anyway which is what caused the jealousy. Similarly, God showing favor on Abel's and ignoring Cain's offering sprung forth jealousy and thoughts of murder.

WHOO-HOOO! And your analysis as to WHY this occurred is exactly why you and others don't GET what occurred! YOU blame the fathers, including the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... for creating jealousy in these sons. But that is FALSE - such jealousy is an indicator of what is IN these sons... that SHOULD be rooted OUT... BY such sons! Why? I posted it before but this is perhaps the PERFECT place to reiterate it. Please... I BEG you... to pay attention and LISTEN... so as to get the SENSE of this truth:

"When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, [/i]when it has become fertile[/i], gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, [/i]when it has been accomplished[/i], brings forth death." [b]James 1:13-15

What you and others do is blame God for OUR errors... when the TRUTH is that the error is IN US. Which is why God WARNS us... so that we DON'T let it become fertile and give birth to sin... because when sin is ACCOMPLISHED it brings forth death. We can't always CONTROL the sin in us, though, and so God made a PROVISION: His Son, who gave HIS life... and blood... to COVER our errors. We, though, must PROFESS those errors and ASK for such forgiveness. None of those you named... Cain, Joseph's brothers, Esau, even Adham... copped to THEIR error and felt "remorse". To the contrary, each blamed his brother (and you and others blame their fathers) for HIS own jealousy!

C'mon, dear Sab... surely you must see that what you're insinuating is merely more of the PROBLEM: our refusal, since Adham, to be ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ERRORS. Shoot, today it's almost considered anathema to admit one's errors - at least, in western society. The new mantras are "NEVER apologize!" and "What folks don't know won't hurt them" and "I don't owe anyone anything"... and "I was insane/not thinking, etc.," and things like these.

Please know, I am not yelling - LOLOL! But what we're discussing here is VERY important!



So, he should have accepted Cain's offering so as to prevent Cain from murdering his brother? Ummmm... in every circle I know that's called... extortion. So, you're saying God should have allowed Cain to commit extortion in order to save Abel's life. I must ask you: where would it have ended? If Abel's life was being held hostage by Cain (and that is what you're implying)... what price could the Most Holy One of Israel EVER paid? What "wage" would have EVER "covered" so that Cain would leave off his jealousy? Praise from JAH? If that's what you think then, again, you miss the point: the error was something IN Cain. Nothing JAH could so or say would have changed that. Only CAIN could have changed that!



No, dear one, you are wrong again: the Most Holy One of Israel literally told Cain what the problem was: HIS (Cain's) attitude. And particularly that against his brother who had done him NO wrong. I mean, if, say, dear tec loves YOU more than she loves me (sorry, just using this as an analogy), it's okay for me to kill YOU? Rather than take up my issues with dear tec??

Quote:
God would know the reaction that was coming, and once he saw it he gave warning.


Yes, He would and did... and did... which Cain ignored.

Quote:
When one has the power to stop murder and one does not, one must provide satisfactory reasoning to absorb the moral infraction.

Which, in this case, the "one" would be Cain, not JAH. CAIN had the power to stop Abel's murder - he was the ONLY one who had that power. And now YOU are trying to give "satisfactory reasoning" to absorb HIS moral infraction. And you're doing that by blaming someone else, versus blaming Cain for HIS action.



SURE they do... all the time... just not on everyone... and not on everyone all the time. But I can tell you, they work on me, luv. They work on most "wise" people, too, for the most part. I mean, such ones see a yellow light and slow/stop. They don't work on the stupid, though, those who ignore even red lights. And they sometimes don't work on the wise, but not because of their choice; because of their imperfection (i.e., the person who accidentally runs a red light).



The Most Holy One of Israel had not obligation beyond warning. Otherwise, He would have been denying Cain a CHOICE. He can and will bring Abel back; however, Cain must answer for his CHOICE. And he will, eventually. That is the "grander" purpose, dear one: to allow us to make our own choices... and then giving us the "promise" of those choices: sin --> death.


What NEW outlook? Why do you assume Cain changed? Based on what? If anything, he learned that there was no real serious consequence for what he did, other than banishment. But he was free to start his own civilization, as he saw fit. Right? And given what he'd already shown, what would have been so good about that??



And enemy doesn't issue a decree to protect your life... when you've killed someone dear to him, dear Sab. Cain made himself an enemy of God, not the other way around.
Quote:

Animal death in religious ritual meant the slaughter of countless animals which would be large scale senseless death.


Animal death in relation to the people of God... signified all of the HUMAN lives that would be sacrificed, dear one. By ones' own "brothers". For example, the MILLIONS of lives "sacrificed" by Babylon the Great, through entities and institutions such as the RCC and WTBTS. Can you could the lives "sacrificed" by just these? In the Conquests? Inquisitions? Conquering of the New World? By the false teaching that ones can live... WITHOUT eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ?!! How many, associated with the WTBTS, have died... been "sacrificed"... to the god of THAT harlot? Who will save them, dear one?

Quote:
I think Cain was trying to move away from blood sacrifice altogether because he didn't believe God to be worthy of it. God should get fruit and we should keep the flock to ourselves.


I think you have missed a great many points and truths, unfortunately, so that you can't see Cain's accountability here, which is blinding you to the MERCY shown him BY God. I think you might want to ask yourself why that it, why you can believe Cain is without responsibility for HIS actions, but that they were the result of another's inaction. And then, I think you might want to look at yourself and ask what YOU are doing to save all of the lives being lost... to murder... whether it be through war, crime, abortion, whatever... today. You, personally. Because you can't hold another responsible for not saving a life that you believe THEY could have... if you're doing absolutely nothing, as well. If you do, then that, my dear one, is hypocrisy.



I don't know if you realize this but by this statement you are, in essence, saying that (1) God and the Serpent are one and the same; (2) that God is responsible for the Serpent and his using Cain; and (3) Cain has no responsibility whatsoever. Really, that's what you're implying. Are you SURE that's what you mean?



Sure, all have been bitten, but just as with us there was a CURE for Cain; that he chose to disregard the cure is on him. Just as it is with any of us who refuse it... as it is with any who are PROVIDED with medicine, but refuse to take it. Can't blame the doctor in that case.


OR... by partaking of the CURE... which is much more powerful.


Absolutely no worries, and I, too, have enjoyed it, dear one... as it provides opportunity to set matters straight... as well as to perhaps make a reply to the one who taunts my Heavenly Father and consistently attempts to bring reproach upon Him.
Quote:

I will respond more tomorrow. Good night.


Peace to you!
_________________
Paz a todos!

Su sirviente, compañera de estudios, y un esclava de Cristo,

SA

SABASTIOUS SAID


The account doesn't say that Cain didn't feel remorse for his actions. The very fact that God maintained his existence is evidence that there was remorse that others could not perceive. Mercy should never be blind. Otherwise God would be setting lose a senseless and destructive force upon the world. If you postulate remorse in Cain after his atrocious act, God's decision in his regard makes more sense because Cain wasn't going to go off on a murdering spree. He represents an entire ideology. It was a one time thing, an act of independence that was allowed to progress to the end (HIS choice). He was temporarily insane because of the Serpent who made him build the foundations of his new civilization on sand rather than a rock mass which is why it ultimately failed (Shakespearean Tragedy). The TRUE culprit the Serpent, however, is GOD'S problem, not Cain's, nor any human's because God CHOSE to create him. I understand we disagree on this.



I don't blame the fathers, that would be a misquote. I acknowledge their responsibility in the matter based on the choices they made. God chose to snub Cain and favor Abel. He gave no reasoning when he could have. Cain wanted approval of his father which is not a sin, but that natural tendency can lead to a conflict within the mind. If you approach your father with intention on getting praise, now you have a problem because you may not receive it which would end is catastrophe. Is there a way to mitigate the jealousy? There is, but that's what the story is showing us. That jealousy and murder is PART of the program that had been allowed to take place. The Serpent was created by God to be cunning and provide the necessary resistance for his children. Part of that resistance is jealousy which is a trait that must be refined in order to be useful. This is on the subject of suffering in general which the Torah explains the existence of.



Adam is not accountable for being deceived as he didn't choose to be created. No one did, neither you nor I and that's an important point to keep in mind. A lot of accountability is effectively relieved when your choices are taken away. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1 doesn't mention Adam, Cain you nor I. We didn't have a choice and so the fathers that bring us into the world are extremely culpable for what happens. This is understood by our Creators. I can get my kids taken away from me if I am negligent. Such is the way of righteousness. It appears you may have an emotional attachment to your particular interpretation of the culpability of men in general. If you do, then sin is crouching at YOUR door, my friend.




Oh yes, I know it's important because I am a man. And you see me as suspect to falling in the same trap you feel Adam fell into. I cannot describe this other than a misunderstanding of Genesis. I really don't want to make this about right/wrong, but it may come to that.



You are the one bringing up "should" I am merely bringing up the "could" which establishes the responsibility. I agree with everything God does in the Torah, but I explain it differently than most.



Cain's attitude was going to let the Serpent into his life. Sin = the Serpent's influence on us all through the human ego, a necessary EVIL. God had the ability to curtail the storm, but he allowed it to take place, just as he allowed the Serpent to deceive his original creation. Atheists have already concluded God to be a fool in the story, why? Because they can't see as far as God can, even when they read the rest of the story, they still don't see the fruits of God laboring with us. Cain is a victim, I cannot stress this enough. To develop disdain for this character is to lose sight of the purpose of the Torah, imo.


God is not neutered, my friend. He has the ultimate say on everything so it was within God's power to stop the murder of Abel. But his murder had a purpose.

In the Fellowship of the Ring Frodo tells Gandalf that Biblo should have killed Golem in the cave when he had the chance, but Gandalf rebukes Frodo and says it's not his place to judge good and evil like that. Frodo sees all the horror that Golem brought to the world, but Gandalf sees how he plays a part in the story for both good and evil. He's a needed character and it's GOLEM that ends up ACCIDENTALLY destroying the One Ring by dancing for joy upon getting it from Frodo by biting his finger off in Mount Doom.



You can have 99% of them follow the warning, and 1% will still sink the ship effectively neutralizing both the warning and the people following it.



I agree that he had no obligation, but it's not an easy conclusion to come to because like I said, he COULD do anything. He's the Almighty God of the Universe who can do anything. He is not constrained by what we consider morality or justice, he freely chooses it and can abandon it at any time. If he could not, then the Serpent would be considered a greater creation than himself, which doesn't work because there is only ONE God.



You don't think people get tired of trying to please God in the most creative ways? Cain was allowed to live because he was the foundation for a whole new way of life. A way that was needed to be shown to the world as ultimately a dismal failure which is what happened, but it took time. Time that God was OK with allotting whereas most people would have just KILLED CAIN without a second thought believing they were acting out godly morality, when in fact allowing him to live was the actual godly choice. Proving we have a lot to learn.



If your enemy is your father that will never stop loving you such does and did happen. God loves all both good and bad, because bad is actually just people giving into the wiles of a cunning resistance HE created. We must have more compassion as Jesus said. We must love our enemies as ourselves.



Yes, which is why Abel chose the firstborn of his flock. He understood this because he understood that one must have an emotional connection to God rather than a rational one. Mitigating suffering with calculative rationale is not always the best solution. Sometimes the best solution is to let things play out for good and for evil which would mean enduring suffering.

Q
So we are back to the "warnings work" argument, which they don't as I stated. In actuality Cain has very LITTLE responsibility other than to MAKE a choice for good or for evil. Both come with consequences and we have to live with them. However protection is needed for some that make BAD choices because they will be hunted down prematurely by their contemporaries which will hinder any progress from happening because bad has to be demonstrably bad, not just ideologically.



God and the Serpent are one in the same because God created the Serpent for a purpose and that purpose is to swallow us up if we freely make that choice. This isn't a rigged game, my friend, it's a game that can be won. Feeling anger towards the characters of Adam and Cain is not good and that's what I feel from you when I read your messages about them.

-Sab

PSACRAMENTO SAID

What is written:
Genesis 4

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Cain and Abel

4 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the Lord.” 2 Again, she gave birth to his brother Abel. And (A)Abel was (B)a keeper of flocks, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. 4 (C)Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And (D)the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; 5 but (E)for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So (F)Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “(G)Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 (H)If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? (I)And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, (J)but you must master it.” 8 Cain told Abel his brother. And it came about when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and (K)killed him.

9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “(L)Where is Abel your brother?” And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” 10 He said, “What have you done? (M)The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to Me from the ground. 11 Now (N)you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 (O)When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer yield its strength to you; (P)you will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is too great to bear! 14 Behold, You have (Q)driven me this day from the face of the ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and (R)I will be a vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and (S)whoever finds me will kill me.” 15 So the Lord said to him, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him (T)sevenfold.” And the Lord (U)appointed a sign for Cain, so that no one finding him would slay him.

16 Then Cain went out from the presence (V)of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Going on what is written and nothing else we have two brothers that did an offering to God.
One was will regarded, both person and offering, and the other was not.
Cain became angry and God warned him about his anger and that it would lead to sin.
Cain ignored and killed his brother.
God question Cain and cain lies.
God punishes Cain and Cain complains that the punishment is to severe and that people will kill him.
God makes it so that He is marked and won't be killed.
Cain goes on with his life and starts a family.

Cain showed no remorse and killed out of anger.
Cain was worried aboiut what would happen to him, not what he did.

SABASTIOUS SAID



That's the thing about Scripture Paul, it has to be interpreted. There is no way to "just go off of what is written" because what is written HAS to be interpreted, especially in regards to a parable like that in Genesis 4.



^ These are extrapolations from the text which can be interpreted differently based off approach. The Torah is all about "eye for an eye", so when is mercy applied? Upon repentance. Mercy is not arbitrary and no one is entitled to it. Why, in your opinion, was Cain given Mercy? Also, what if a person killed Cain despite the decree not to? Would they be given Mercy and protection too? Doesn't that rob the people of rightful justice?

-Sab

TEC SAID



Christ is the Truth of God, Sab, and He corrected 'eye for eye'. Who had repented when Christ asked His Father to 'forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do?'

I know you asked of PSac, but I would also like to answer that God showed mercy because God IS merciful.

God will have mercy upon whomever He wishes to have mercy upon.

Peace to you,
tammy
[/quote]

AGUEST SAID

The Serpent was created by God to be cunning and provide the necessary resistance for his children. Part of that resistance is jealousy which is a trait that must be refined in order to be useful

This statement shows that you entirely miss the point of James' statement that God, the MOST Holy One of Israel, who is JAH... of Armies... does not try us with evil, dear one (again, peace to you!). *ndeed, your statement makes just the opposite claim.

We can go 'round and 'round ,ll day long, dear one... and still I think that what we believe at this point will be significantly different. Which is quite okay, actually. Because he that is not against you is for you. And I am not against you... nor are you against me... so... I think it's perfectly fine for us to agree... to disagree... at this point, as to what is actually depicted... and meant... by this account.

Again, godspeed on YOUR particular journey, MY dear friend!

YOUR servant, friend, and a slave of Christ,

SA

SABASTIOUS SAID



I don't think you are taking into account Isaiah 45:7

Q

The words ra' and shaw-lome' mean adversity and peace, which is showing the progression of God from Chaos to Order (time is linear for us). This directly correlates with the ancient Chinese Adage, "Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be chaos." "Jah", as you call Him, IS both peace and war and Cain and Abel are humanity's reflection of the qualities of God.



I tend to try to progress from point to point. Clearly, you have a strong view on Genesis 4 and do not wish to "stumble" it per se, but I have a grander point of which will take these discussions to reference in order to build it into something coherent (I'm sorry if right now it's not). Like I said any interpretation that has a demonstrably good influence on society is using the device within specifications (2 Tim 3:16). This counts for ALL scripture including the Quran and the Book of Mormon.

However I did make the point succinctly, and I appreciate your challenge as it has opened up this chapter to me even further. You have shown what appears to be the accepted interpretation of the times. These challenges will greatly aid the substance of further discussions on the matter. Do not pull punches, please.




I did acknowledge that the offering was only in PART rejected because it was not correct. I left room for bad intentions and what have you, but you opened up the discussion which had lead us here. I don't think we are disagreeing, I just think I am being misunderstood, which is what I expect when I am not a professional Bible man. My methods are my own and I travel at my own self determined pace. Or maybe a better analogy would be that I have my air conditioning set to a certain temperature. Some people would like it cooler, others warmer, but in the end we all want to feel warm and cozy.

Within my framework Cain would be acting just like Russel and Smith as they sought to rebuild their churches from the ground up. Both had no intention of pursing a secular career, or "settle down" as some might say. Instead, they decided to create wild new churches that made outlandish claims and predictions, basically sorcerers. Russel did fortune telling and Smith did prophecy writing (he did an interesting job at it btw). The question is why were these mad men set lose in our population? Is God simply watching things play out or does he have a more active role?

The organizations that exist today are just money mongers who live off the coattails of these men's ghosts. Their membership blindly follows stale and often laughable doctrine. Could this be called the "way of Cain"?

When I mentioned "Hubard" and "Armstrong" I was referring to L Ron and Herbert the originators of the cults of Scientology and The World Wide Church of God. The former is burning faster than the Watchtower at the moment and latter reformed into the Grace Communion Church.

When I think about Korah and Balaam I see false prophets. When I look at Smith, Russel, Hubard and Armstrong I see misguided lunatics. Why are these misguided lunatics allowed to run free brainwashing the flock of God? What is the purpose of cults? This question is of grave concern to everyone in the world right now because they plague us like boils on our skin. The answer, to me, starts in Genesis and the forth chapter seems a pivotal clue to the mystery. It may not be a mystery to everybody, but it is to me. I need answers, real ones.

-Sab

PSACRAMENTO SAID

Scripture must be interpreted yes, but what is YOUR basis for that interpretation?
Is it the text ( genre?) the whole of the bible? just the OT? the time it was written?
It is important to define where ones interpretation is coming from.
My personal view is that the genre of the text and who it was being written for is what dictates the context.

It is incorrect to say that the torah is an "eye for an eye", it implies that the OT Law is ONLY about direct retribution and that is not always the case.
There is no indication that Cain was repentant, he lies about knowing what happened to Abel and only shows fear when HIS punishment is dealt and never asks for forgiveness.
Why did God forgive him? He didn't he was banished.
Why did God show him mercy? if by mercy you mean why didn't God kill him outright, I would submit that death is a release and not a punishment so God' banishment is far greater a punishment than death ( perhaps).
The text doesn't go into HOW God felt when He banished Cain, only that He did and while we may view the fact that Cain was not killed as punishment and was marked so as to NOT be killed, as some kind of Mercy ( and perhaps it was), it may be simply that God wanted Cain to live with what he did.

The point being that we don't know WHY God showed mercy to Cain, IF He indeed did, but lets never forget that God makes it clear that He will show mercy and who He wants.

MEDEWTYSENU SAID


http://bible.org/seriespage/fruits-fall-genesis-41-26

The article in the link contains a nice overview of all points (or nearly all) being discussed and I think answers the question quite nicely. One must read the entire article to get the greatest impact.

"This account is not simply the record of two men who lived in the long ago and the far away. My Bible informs me that it is the description of two ways, the way of Abel and the way of Cain."
_________________
"Those that matter don't mind and those that mind don't matter"--Dr. Seuss

AGUEST SAID

Greetings, dear Sab (as always, peace to you!). So, okay, let's continue, then:





Actually, I do not overlook Isaiah 45:7; I just don't agree with the "scribes" transliteration of the Hebrew word bara', which THEY translate to mean "create". That's because, per my Lord, it has more than one meaning and, used here, USES more than one meaning. For example, they (the scribes, whose works, by the way, were condemned by my Lord), use the word meaning as highlighted in red below. However, the word of my Lord to me is that both the red term AND the green terms were meant:

1) to create, shape, form
a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1) of heaven and earth
2) of individual man
3) of new conditions and circumstances
4) of transformations
b) (Niphal) to be created
1) of heaven and earth
2) of birth
3) of something new
4) of miracles
c) (Piel)
1) to cut down
2) to cut out
2) to be fat
a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 1254&t=KJV

In which case, the accurate and TRUE translation of Isaiah 45:7 would be:

"I form the Light and cut down the Darkness,
I bring peace [shaw-lome'] and cut down evil/bad[ra'];
I, the Lord, do all these things."

Is there something "written" that can help us "see" this truth, and better understand what was being spoken of here? Yes, there is. It's also in the Genesis account, in the first chapter, as well as in Christ's recorded words:

"And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness."

What is the light that God "created", that "came to be"? Christ himself answers that:

"[Jesus] spoke to them, saying, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk with darkness, but will have the light of life." John 8:12; 14:6

What, then, is the "darkness"... and was it "created"? First, according to Genesis 1:1-4, the "darkness" was NOT created, but was there when the Light came forth ("the darkness was before the face/entry to the abyss/grave") . So, what is this "darkness"? Well, if the Light is... LIFE (John 8:12; 14:6... and the darkness was something that was before the face of the abyss/grave... then the "darkness" must be... Death.

And so, yes, the Most Holy One of Israel (1) caused a division between the Light/Life and Darkness/Death, as well as (2) gave birth to (hence, he is called the “Son”) the Light and cut down the Darkness. Indeed, that is what the entire spirit "war" is about, is it not? The conflict between the Light and the Darkness... Life...and Death... good (God)... and bad (Death)? That was the point of the Trees [of Life and the Knowledge of Good and Bad/Life AND Death], dear one.




Not quite: as used at Isaiah 45:7, ra' means "bad"... evil. Which is death. Even so, it is the mistransliteration of the word bara', NOT the word ra' that causes the misinterpretation of Isaiah 45:7.



Not if you go by the translation you're using. The "order" there is from peace to chaos, if not the two at the same time ("form the light, create darkness" - "bring prosperity[shaw-lome'], create disaster[ra']"). There is no word "and" state in the text, dear one.



Well, if we're assuming the "chaos" to be the darkness... or bad/evil, this is TRUE: the Darkness existed BEFORE the Light. And Death existed BEFORE the Life was brought forth.



Sorry, luv, but this is not true: JAH, for whom my Lord, the Life and Tree of Life, is Chief Agent... is life and peace. DEATH, for whom our Adversary, the one called "Satan/Devil"... and who enticed Adham/Eve to each from the Tree of the Knowledge of Life AND Death (good AND bad)... is bad... and chaos/disaster. HE is "Destruction/Perdition", whose "son" the Adversary is (John 17:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3)... and not the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies. He, JAH, "cuts down" Destruction (Revelation 20:14)... and his agent (Genesis 3:15; Revelation 20:10).



Yes. If only they would heed Joseph’s words, though, rather than leaning upon their OWN understanding and trusting in themselves that they are “wise” (Proverbs 3:5, 6; Jeremiah 8:8). That one rightly and wisely said:

”Interpretation is God’s.” Genesis 40:8

Others reiterated this. (2 Peter 1:20; Ecclesiastes 8:1).



I have to admit that I don’t quite understand what you mean, but please... do what you feel YOU need to do. If I can keep up, I will try and do so. If not... no worries; again, we don’t have to agree.



In all honesty, dear one... I am not so sure... but that’s of no account, really...


I mean no challenge at all, dear one, truly! I am only sharing with you what has been shared with me. And I will continue discussing with you to the extent I can but only that. I can’t go beyond what I’ve been given by my Lord... or what has been written (although not necessarily in the Bible). I won’t, of course, pull “punches” except to the extent of trying to state what I am in as mild, loving, and peaceful a manner as I can... and still hold true to what I am sharing.



That very well could be the case (I am misunderstanding you), but it’s not because you are not a professional Bible man. I am not a professional Bible woman – I simply rely on my Lord to tell me what’s true and show me where it is written [in the Bible, if not some other writing]. Your conjectures, however, have no source... or at least none that you have identified... other than your own musings and perhaps that of some others (again, whom you’ve not identified). You admit that they are your own... and that’s totally okay, for me. I can only respond/comment as to what I have been given... and from whom. No one has to believe ME... or take MY word for ANY of what I share, truly.

Q


Which might be why they’re misunderstood; I mean, I can’t be in your head and heart, dear one, so I can’t “see” what you “see”... or why you see it.



Again, you must “do” you; however, you might also want to allow yourself to understand if you DO “do” you... others truly may NOT understand, for the reasons I stated above: we can’t see what’s in YOU... and so where, how, and why your methods... and their product... are as they are.



Since the framework is yours alone, I truly cannot comment as to your hypotheses. I can say that the reason “why” these men were set loose in our population is the same as for those before them: the world belongs to the one they “follow,” who appears to be the “ruler of THIS world,” our Adversary. That one has an agenda... and false christs are a significant part of it (Matthew 24:24; Revelation 12:17).



Could be... but you’re... mmmmmm... “justification” for it, both them and Cain... is wrought with error.



Oh. Again, my apologies: while I have heard of Mr. Hubbard (and as to, from my Lord), I really have no knowledge of Mr. Herbert. Neither is of any more significance to me than, say, Mr. Smith, Mr. Russell, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Benedict, Mr. Luther, Mr. Calvin, Mr. Darby... or any others. If their name isn’t “JahEshua”, and that name distinguished by being the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah), I don’t really pay very much attention any more. No reason to; no benefit. They’re just another name in a long, long list of names... of men/women who can’t give me eternal life.



See, now, that’s not my thought; mine is “Israel”... or “contenders/fighters with/rebels against God.” Typical and predictable.



I am not sure about lunatic, but misguided, certainly. By WHOM, though? The same one who misguided Eve, perhaps Cain, certainly Judas... and many others. Unlike the WTBTS, I don’t assume that everyone who disagrees with me... or teaches another “Christ”... is “mentally diseased.” To the contrary, I think they are quite sane but see a way to CONTROL others... because they are control-freaks themselves and believe that God chose them... personally... TO institute more CONTROL. When the TRUTH is that He sent His Son to preach a RELEASE... and LESS control... by means of LOVE... which “control” exceeds all other and wonderfully so. Because it only binds the one who covenants to be led by it, and not others... nor does it compel such ones to try and control others. It states that there is no NEED to control others, but only oneself, in love.

Why are these misguided lunatics allowed to run free brainwashing the flock of God? What is the purpose of cults?

“To mislead, if possible, EVEN the chosen ones,” dear one. Mislead them where? Into the pit. Why? Because our Adversary stupidly believes that if he can do that, he will not only prevail but also gain access to the Tree [of Life] himself. He is a fool, however, as is those who follow him... because that will never occur!

Q

Ah, yes, but does everyone TRULY want the answer? The answer to that is... a resounding, no.



The answer... to EVERYTHING you would ask about God, us, scripture, what’s “written” to explain these things, etc., can be found in One: Christ. HE is the answer, dear one, and if you could only cultivate enough FAITH to ask him, HEAR him... SEE him... you would have your answers. To virtually everything, as it relates to our lives.

But, again, I will continue discussing these things with you to the extent I can keep up and that I understand what you’re saying. Please forgive me, then, if I fail to respond... or even bow out... at some point. It will not be a reflection on you as much as one on me and my inability to grasp what you’re meaning.

Again, peace to you!

YOUR servant, friend, and a slave of Christ,

SA

AGUEST SAID

Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:56 pm Post subject:
I just want to say that I LOVE how this thread has "evolved" and hope many do so! That's what discussion is about and staying "on topic" isn't always possible as some discussions have several "layers".

Thank you all for your kind patience will we... mmmmmm... try and get to the bottom of some things - LOLOLOL!

As always... peace to you ALL!
_________________
Paz a todos!

Su sirviente, compañera de estudios, y un esclava de Cristo,

SA