The flood, and meat eating.

Funny, I always thought thatit was related to the quality of the offering, not the content. From your source: IMHO the differentiation was that Cain brought the "fruit of the Ground" which is a referance to windfalls, the fruit that was overripe and had fallen to the ground instead of the better fruit that would still be on the tree or vine. Able though brought the firstlings of his flock, the most valuable portion.But overall, I think the story of Cain and Abel is more about the transitions and opposition between the sedentary farmer and the nomadic herdsman. It's the story of how the Farm live overcame the nomad life, the end of an era, the arrival of Barbed wire and the end of free range.John Houston could have done wonders with it but who would play Cain, who Abel? Maybe Jimmy Stewart as Abel and Henry Fonda as Cain.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yup, many preachers, particularly those that have never even read the Bible, teach stuff like that. However that interpretation is impossible if they have read the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because every plant grows from the ground. Nobody could ever accept your interpretation unless they were trying very hard to spin a story to meet some propoganda needs. In addition, beliefs or behaviors from a later period do not define beliefs or behaviors from an earlier period.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's so very often the case I'm sorry to say. Your example is a great one, multipurpose and suitable for twisting to fit the needs of the moment. It's used for everything from the Fall to Cain and Abel to original sin.Sad and Depressing.But if you read the section on the curse it takes a slightly different meaning. There's no indication that things grown from the ground will be cursed rather GOD says you're gonna have to work to get stuff to grow instead of simply browsing up and down the aisles like they did in the Garden. Often Preachers quote-mine the passage grabbing out only "cursed is the ground for thy sake" without considering the rest of it, the parts where GOD talks about making Bread and about farming.If one reads the whole book a different picture emerges, a Biblical Just So Stories, an attempt to explain the world that the early proto-Hebrews found themselves in. It's a tale that likely goes back to the very earliest periods, somewhere around the time of the founding of Jerico around 10,000 years ago shortly after the last ice age. It's designed to explain why humans farm while none of the other animals did, why women die in childbirth, cry out in pain, while the other animals didn't, why humans have laws but the other animals didn't.The Bible is wondrous and fascinating, a marvelous epic and moral guidline, but has also been abused by those who simply see it as a way to support some personal agenda.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Let's look at that. "2: That thou shalt take of the first of all the fruit of the earth"Of the FIRST of ALL the Fruit of the Earth.Read all of it.It's saying that you must give to GOD first, that GOD gets the best, the Pick of the Crop.It doesn't mean just any old fruit. It means the best, not the windfalls, not the spoiled.It means exactly the opposite of what you are implying.Read the Bible.Use your head.It certainly blows any idea of GOD wanting a blood sacrifice out of the water.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, that's not at all what I said. I even provided the exact quotes in each case.There is simply no correspondence between the two passages. The Genesis story is saying that the offering was sub-par, that what he brought was literally, the stuff that he didn't want, the windfall. The later passage is saying just the oposite, that the offering should be the FIRST Fruits. I don't doubt for a minute that that is the way you read it. Throughout your history here at EvC you have shown time after time that you are not capable of reading and understanding even the simplist of concepts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're over in the Science side of the board and so over here, you should try to provide evidence that can be independently varified. Things like references to the Flood or Adam & Eve are probably pointless since neither can be shown to have even happened. Which two geneologies?As to the reference in Jude and Hebrews to Enoch, it'salmost certain that they came from the Books of Enoch. They were very popular around the time of Christ.But as a Christian, I can say that most Christian Churches do not think there was a sole author of Genesis. Here's a comment from Bishop Sims form Pastoral LetterThis message has been edited by jar, 10-27-2005 05:49 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion