randman writes:
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.
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.
™ Version 4.2