The flood, and meat eating.

Actually, Cain was a farmer of the vegetable/grain variety. God wasn't happy that Cain would offer his vegetables/grains as offering.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 23-Oct-2005 04:08 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

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

Yeah lack of sleep and a long time since reading the Bible. I said i was a Christian. I didn't say I was a good one. Anyway, Able offered the sheep. I was just saying that meat eating was allowed at least after the apple.

Hmmm...I always thought it was because God required a blood sacrifice and so Cain's offering was unacceptable, and he knew that ahead of time but didn't want to barter for his brother's lamb or something, at least that's the way I've heard it taught.So in that context, there was sibling rivalry, pride, and jealousy prior to the incident, which just got worse as Cain's offering was rejected.

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

jar, why would "the fruit of the ground" not refer to the fruit from the tree that grows from the ground?Do you have any textual evidence from the Bible that supports your notion here?I suppose you could argue that since Cain's error was likened to Baalam's greed, that this meant fruit that had fallen on the ground, but then again, maybe his greed was he didn't want to have to purchase a lamb from his brother.Let me add that despite your comments that only those that have never read the Bible would agree with you, the Bible itself is pretty clear in other places that "the fruit of the ground" is a phrase that simply refers to fruit that has grown from a plant growing from the ground and not to fruit that is old and bad and has fallen on the ground.In fact, it is surprising to hear you claim the Bible indicates otherwise.Can you cross reference the phrase with the rest of the Bible and tell us how you came up with your idea here?This message has been edited by randman, 10-24-2005 01:42 AM

Jar is right in that it was the quality of Cain's offering that was the problem not the content.During the age of offerings and sacrifice, offerings from the soil were proper offerings.In Jewish teaching: Cain and his first brother Abel, the first children of Adam and Eve, both brought offerings to God; Abel from the finest of his flocks and Cain from good, but not the choicest, produce of his fields.Now whether they were "fruits" that fell to the ground which can be good, but are not the best or whether it was from plants on the ground isn't really important. Either one makes the point of the story. Give your best to the Lord.Odds are the "fruit of the ground" changed depending on who was telling the story. We have only one rendition of the story.

---

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

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

Growing up I always thought Cain's offering was rejected because it was grown from the ground and since the ground had been cursed, anything from it would be cursed. That was my own rationale at the time.My churches never clearly taught the lesson of the story. They usually adjusted the reason to fit what they wanted to teach.

---

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

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

Jar, the term "the fruit of the ground" in the Bible means fruit or vegetables. It DOES NOT MEAN fruit that has fallen on the ground.There is absolutely no textual evidence for your interpretation whatsoever.Scholars are thus probably correct that Cain's sacrifice was most likely unacceptable due God requiring a blood sacrifice, although as someone pointed out on the thread, God also required a sacrifice in the Law of "the fruit of the ground" and so it could possibly be that Cain offered less than his best, but the idea that "fruit of the ground" refers to fruit that has fallen on the ground is just wrong, and your arrogance in pretending that anyone that has read the Bible would agree with you is misplaced.For example, Deut 26:2
”...you shall take some of the first of all the fruit of the ground which you harvest from your land...’

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

So "the fruit of the ground", you agree, does not mean fruit that has fallen on the ground?I am not sure what you are saying? I get you feel the issue was Cain brought spoiled or not so good fruit, but it seemed you were arguing that based on "the fruit of the ground" meaning fruit that had fallen on the ground, and now you appear to be saying that the term means best fruit, and the opposite of fruit that has fallen on the ground.It still reads to me, without further explanation, that it is likely that God required a blood sacrifice and therefore Cain's offering was rejected, but the text does not say one or the other. So it could be that Cain tried to short-change God, but either way, the term "fruit of the ground" does not mean fruit in poor or bad condition.

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

jar, you just have a problem admitting when you were wrong, as your following statement illustrates. Clearly you stated that the "fruit of the Ground" refers to fruit that had fallen to the ground.You were shown to be wrong, but rather than gracefully admit your error in the text while still maintaining the overall stance, which is one possible interpretation, you tried to cloud the issue and now spout off smears.too bad jar....irregardless, "the fruit of the ground" does not refer to fruit that had fallen on the ground. You just jumped to conclusions there.The fact that Cain's offering was rejected is substantiated. Exactly why his offering was rejected is not given in the passage and is open to interpretation.