Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

Yes it does. Cain did not "do well" (Gen.4:7).

ReverendDG, Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus were all written around 1490 B.C.
I don't think a conspiracy theory of the authors artificially shoehorning in passages to make the history appear what it was not, is a credible theory. "Yenwah" above, no doubt means Yahweh.A strong influence on my coming to believe the Old Testament was by trusting that the integrity of Jesus Christ was beyond questioning. Jesus indicated that Moses wrote Leviticus. Matthew 8:4 is a reference to Lev. 14:10-32. And Christ said this was the writing of Moses.I believe that Leviticus was written in the second year of the Exodus after the tabernacle was erected (Lev. 1:1). It was written in the wilderness, near Mt. Sinai (Lev. 1:1; Exodus 19:2).The book covers one month period. This would be from the erection of the tabernacle on the first day of the first month of the second year after the exodus from Egypt (Exo. 40:17) to the first day of the second month of the same year (Num.1:1), 1490 B.C.However, that doesn't leave me without any questions. I think that Moses's tent probably served as the Tent of Meeting before they actually erected the formal tabernacle.This information I derived from the footnotes of the Recovery Version Bible published by Living Stream Ministry - The Holy Bible Recovery Version.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 08:49 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 08:54 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 08:55 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 08:56 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 08:57 AM

If you belive it was written during that time period, how do you explain the anacrohisms in exodus?

That's not a "why" - it doesn't say why Cain did not "do well".Your claim is that the object sacrificed was wrong - i.e. that Cain should have given a blood sacrifice.But you ignore Jesus' own teaching about the widow and the rich man: it is not the object that counts, but the attitude of "giving something up".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Its not rocket science. Cain did not do well and his offering was rejected. Conversly Abel did do well, so his offering was acceptable. I think that the absence of blood for expiation had something to do with it. Yes. You are among the last people to accuse others of ignoring teachings in the Bible Ringo.There are exhortations in the New Testament about giving liberally. I don't deny that. But these offerings are not foundational for salvation. Of course once a person has accepted the expiatory sacrifice of Christ Himself, there are many instances that they may offer material things, and time, and money for the work of God. And in those times, sure, I agree that the attitude of the heart is more important than the amount given.The Bible says that God loves a cheerful giver. The Bible however does not say that we can be saved from the judgment of God simply because we give cheerfully.So you are wrongly applying a good teaching to cover more area than it is intended to cover. Liberal giving, cheerful offering, generous sacrificing with a good attitude will not justify you before God for redemption. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins:Our generous giving cannot replace the blood of the Sacrifice as far as justification from sins is concerned. The blood of the Sacrifice removes all possibility of human boasting. The blood of the Sacrifice says that we deserve to die for our sins and Another has been slain in our place.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 06:08 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 06:09 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 06:10 PM

The epistle of Jude mentions Cain. He begins his warning to the Christian church that "certain men have crept in unoticed ... unglodly men, perverting the grace of God ... denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). These men Jude says are destructive to the teaching "concerning our common salvation" (v.3) and will make it necessary for the disciples to "contend for the faith, once for all delivered to the saints" (v.3)Jude says that these men have gone in the way of Cain - "Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain ..." (v.11). There seems nothing positive mentioned concerning Cain in the entire Bible. I can only assume that "in the way of Cain" must mean in Cain's way from the initial mentioning of his worship to his murder and lying to God, supressing the normal function of his God given conscience. Cain departed from the presence of God.Although the man expelled from the garden still had some enjoyment of God's presence, Cain forsook this too. As a result of going out from God's presence he became alienated from the face of the earth like a fugative. To forsake God's word for human religion renders Cain a "Nowhere Man" ever lost and homeless on the earth.Refusing to approach God according to the anticipated redemption through blood, Cain also lost his connection with the very earth where he lived."Now You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground, and from Your face I will be hidden; and I will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth ...." (Gen.4:14). Losing God's presence also meant losing his connection to the planet. Cain is now lost and homeless in the universe, not having God's face to shine upon him or the earth as a place of rest."And Cain went forth from the presence of Jehovah and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden ... and he built a city after the name of his son Enoch" (See Gen. 4:16,17)The following passages trace how this first inventor of human religion left the presence of God and started a godless culture. He built the first city. And from this point in Genesis the culture without God begins to emerge. Cain, the religious man and murderer, was a major founder of the godless culture of mankind.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 06:53 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 07:01 PM

And Genesis still doesn't say why Cain did not do well, no matter what your unsupported opinion is. Neither was Cain's, as far as we know. There is no indication that his offering (and Abel's) were of a different nature than the widow's and the rich man's. Nor does that have anything to do with Cain's sacrifice. I am applying a teaching about offerings to a story about an offering. How is that "wrong"? You have not shown that there is a difference between the two situations. It doesn't say that in Genesis and it doesn't say that in the New Testament. You are wrongly applying Leviticus to cover more area than it is intended to cover. "The way of Cain" was anger and murder instead of trying to do his best. And Cain forsook God by rejecting God's reaction to his sacrifice. I don't know how many times I'll have to repeat this before you "get" it, but we don't know why God had no regard for Cain's sacrifice. Your claim that it had to be a blood sacrifice is pure, unadulterated fiction.Edit: fixed spelunking.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-27 05:39 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thanks to the New Testament we are told very much about the difference between Cain's worship and Abel's. Again I mention that Abel offered his offering by faith."By faith Abel offered to God a more excellant sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying to his gifts ...." (Hebrews 11:4). Two things are mentioned in connection with Abel - faith and righteousness.Cain had neither faith nor righteousness before God. Righteousness as a difference is also mentioned by the Apostle John:"... Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's, righteous" (1 John 3:12).With Cain we must associate:1.) The lack of faith
2.) Unrighteousness
3.) Evil works - ("his works were evil")Cain's invented religion was presumpteous rather than based on faith. Cain's action of worship was unrighteous. The unrighteousness that the Apostle John mentions is that unrighteousness which preceeded his further transgression of murdering Abel - "And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's, righteous." (1 John 3:12). Abel's worship was of faith and righteous. Cain's worship was without faith, from human presumption, a work of evil, and unrighteous.Cain invented the first human religion. But his invention was an evil work. John says that Cain "was of the evil one" meaning Satan. Apparently Cain's invented and presumpteous religion was of his own originality. But actually the source of his thoughts were Satan. His religion came out of the source of Satan.Cain and Abel were both fallen human beings. Within one as well as the other the evil spirit had enfluence - " ... you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience..." (Eph. 2:2) The ruler of the authority of the air who brought man under his control was Satan the evil spirit. Both Cain and Abel were under this enfluence. But Abel escaped its curse through his faith. Cain remained under this evil enfluence because of his refusal to excercise faith. And faith in the Bible has as its object the words of God.Abel acted in faith upon the words of God. Cain acted upon his disbelief in the words of God and invented the first human religion. Just as God counted Abraham's belief in His promise as righteousness (Genesis 14:6 - And he [Abram] believed God, and He [God] accounted it to him as righteousness), so also Abel's belief in God's word was accounted as righteousness.The evil spirit of the authority of the air was operating in these descendants of Adam. But Abel overcame through his faith in God's word. If this I am sure. And I believe that that word was something about propitiation for sins through a blood sacrifice as a substitute. Cain descended deeper under the terrible control of the evil spirit because of his presumption and lack of faith.It is dangerous to refuse to excercise faith in God's word. Cain went away from God's loving exhortation more blind, more hateful of God, and more hateful of his righteous brother. We may call this the second fall of man. Cain continued the downward trend of mankind away from God.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 11:55 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 11:56 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-27-2006 11:59 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-28-2006 12:01 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-28-2006 12:03 AM

jaywill,In your own quote:

quote:

---

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

---

it says that Abel's sacrifice was "more excellent" than Cain's. It does not say that there was anything wrong with Cain's sacrifice, only that it was less EXCELLENT than Abel's. No he did not. As far as the Bible records, there were no "words of God" about how to sacrifice. As far as we know, he figured it out for himself. He made his offering for the right reason, because he wanted to. He acted in faith without any words from God. Once again, there were no "words of God" about sacrifice, as far as we know. There can be no "disbelief" in non-existent words. And the only problem with Cain's sacrifice was that it was "less excellent" than Abel's.Suppose you have two children. One likes to play chess and one likes to play baseball. Both of them want to play with you, but it's too dark to play baseball, so you play chess.Does that mean that you love one child more than the other? No. Does that mean that you won't play baseball with the other child tomorrow? No. Does that mean that chess is "right" and baseball is "wrong"? No.It means that chess is "more excellent" than baseball" for now, under the present circumstances.Now, what if the baseball player throws a tantrum, upsets the chess board and kicks his brother. Do you punish him? Yes. For what? For throwing a tantrum, upsetting the chess board and kicking his brother - not because chess is "better" than baseball.So, why do you expect God to be a worse Father than we are?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I know why I do. God doesn't adequately supervise his children. He lets them play with dangerous weapons. He let's them bully one another. And apparently his best thinking for coming up with a solution is to torture and kill his only son!Certainly by modern standards he qualifies as a negligent and abusive parent. The correlate to that is often children of abusive parents defend the parent believing that they themselves are to blame for the abuse. This is less insecure and more acceptable to them than realizing that they are the helpless victims of abuse.lfen

you are kidding right?, the belief that they were written by moses and in 1490 bc is purely tradition, and not factual, there are too many problems with when things take place and how they act in the bible for it to take place in 1490
did i say that they put in passages that make it differ from history? no i did not, i said they wrote leviticus in reaction to the way the jews acted, and also nudge the jews to follow the laws in genesis gee thanks people really couldn't understand what i was talking about its tradition and belief not fact, the writing doesn't even look like one person wrote it this is a story not history, why would moses care if the jews cut thier hair or burn thier babies for moloch, if they hadn't come in contact with the caanites, you do know why they forbid those things right? it was in reaction to the jews taking up practices of "pagan" cultures around them.
i mean come on they wandered in the desert for 40 years after being slaves in eygpt, when did they come in contact with other cultures?, not during that time or they would have wrote about it, it wasn't until they entered israel and lived therewhy would they have laws having to do with a temple? or dealing with gentiles? or laws on outside cultures?

What would be the basis for their revulsion to the people accepting the ways of the surrounding nations? Based upon what would the writers be destressed about this so as to want to write Leviticus against it?And what laws in Genesis are you refering to? LOL. I thought it was a kind of catchy typo myself. Do you mean a traditional belief cannot be a fact too? But what was the basis of the priestly cast being destressed at the Jews copying the surrounding pagans? If the pagans had more powerful gods or a better way of worshipping, then why would the priestly cast care?I think the backround of Genesis and Exodus furnishes the answer. But if you say that history is fiction and didn't happen, then what did? And what previous history do you point to which furnishes the basis for a need to write divine commands against imitating the Canaanite nations? They would have come into contact with some of the things in Egypt.And God knew what the people were doing there in Canaan. So God warned them not to go that way. It has always fascinated me that God told Abraham that He could not bring the Hewbrews into Canaan for antoher 400 years because the people there were not bad enough yet."And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (Gen. 15:16)God was telling Abraham that it was not yet time to execute judgment on the Canaanites because they had not yet gotten bad enough - "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete"I also think that some of the stories in Genesis seemed designed to demonstrate that some of the peoples in Canaan yet feared God and listened to their consciences. Notice how Abraham is rebuked by one of the pagan kings for almost allowing that king to fool around with Abraham's wife.After four hundred years the downward trend of the Canaanites was at a point that God was ready to bring in the Jews to execute His judgement. He also gave them another 40 years to disperse or desist their culture. My main point here is that God knew what the people were doing even in Genesis. It was no problem for Him to forewarn the Jews not to imitate what the Canaanites were doing.And I think some of the practices they may have seen while in Egypt. Now if you say Genesis - Exodus is not history then you have to portray an alternative historical backround which would give rise to the writing of Leviticus in reaction to Jewish apostasy.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-28-2006 04:19 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-28-2006 04:24 PM

lfen, He will call every single deed into account. He will call into judgment even every careless word.Could you do that kind of supervising with your kids? You'd prefer to be a robot? God pushes a button and you behave mechanically in such a manner? Is that what you prefer? That is about as perceptive as saying that apparently a judge can't come up with any better solution than hammering down a wooden gavel to make noise. Other then show contempt for the New Testament I don't know what kind of insight you are trying to impress us with. You seem to be wickedly unthankful. When was the last time you turned around at the end of a year and gave thanks to God for anything? Suppose you had a urinary infection. Suppose you had mental retardation. Suppose you had a terminal cancer. Do you have nothing at all that you can turn around and thank God for? At the end of a week can you only turn around and accuse God of being completely negligent to your well being and happiness?You can't think of anything that God has been attentive to concerning your level of comfort and health? It sounds like you're some kind of unthankful and spoiled cosmic brat. As you look around you and observe some of the misfortunes that God has allowed others to have but has spared you, why don't you see if there are some matter for which you are thankful for His supervision.I think that God has regulated some happy things and some sad things to each of us according to His wisdom. It surprises me when a person like you can only level accusations against God with no sense of thankfulness. Haven't you had some amount of happiness in your life? Do you think that God's provision and protection had nothing at all to do with that?Your attempt to place God on the psychiatrist's couch for psychoanalysis tells me more about yourself than it does about God.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-28-2006 05:02 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-28-2006 05:03 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-28-2006 05:04 PM

Hey jaywill,Any response to Message 187 or Message 189?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

because the jews were worshipping other gods along side yehwah, and they didn't want them to. as they considered them false or evilAnd what laws in Genesis are you refering to?
the big ten, read the first one find a traditionoal belief that is a fact and has always been because it wasn't worship of yehwah, and most of the caste wanted the people to worship yehwah. they did incorpirate some things of the other gods, like EL and erinki(sp) i didn't say it was fiction, some of the information could have happened, like some of the kings existed or some of the figures, now a huge number of jews spending 40 years in the desert without leaving any evidence, or a kingdom that leaves none eather, that raises flags there.
I would say it was because the authors saw the jews not worshipping the god they believed in as they should so they condemmed any practice that was from an outside religion. The jews had problems not worshipping "pagan" gods, since god was not a very close god, while the pagans were genetics has found that the jews are related to the caanites, so historians are more and more saying that the exodus didn't happen, and the hebrews were already in canaan and never were in egypt. this just shows like the curse of ham, that the stories about the canaanites was used as an excuse for the hebrews to destroy canaan, "people in canaan are evil, we have the right to destroy them, it is gods will!"
what a load