What Do You Make of This About Cain?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I Corinthians 10:13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. I was just reading this verse in reply to another thread when it brought me back to the statement of Cain: Genesis 4:13And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. In fact, when you get right down to it just about everything Cain did was to go directly against God in some way or another. Cain failed to offer God the proper sacrifice. He quested whether or not he was responsible as his brother's keeper. He committed the first murder. The list goes on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

ROS777

New Member
Sep 21, 2006
260
3
0
53
SwampFox, thanks for bringing that up; that reminds me of a question I had.When God spoke to Cain of his punishment for killing his brother, he said," Genesis 4:12....a fugitive and a vagabond....how does that square with Cain building a city??? God said fugitive and a vagabond yet Cain goes and builds a city...interesting...
rolleyes.gif
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
a fugitive and a vagabond....how does that square with Cain building a city??? God said fugitive and a vagabond yet Cain goes and builds a city
I'm not Swampfox but I think this could very well mean his decendants would always be a Nomadic people what do you think Swampfox or anyone?
 

pointer

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
179
0
0
71
(SwampFox;4766)
B]Genesis 4:13[/B]And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
God could have used Cain's own yardstick, and killed him straight away; he could have abandoned him to the risk of the justice of others who would have killed him as a danger to society. But God was merciful to Cain, gave him protection, and loved him, despite his sin. We too must be grateful that we often do not get what we truly deserve.'The Lord... is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.' 2 Peter 3:9 NIV
In fact, when you get right down to it just about everything Cain did was to go directly against God in some way or another. Cain failed to offer God the proper sacrifice. He quested whether or not he was responsible as his brother's keeper. He committed the first murder. The list goes on.
Only Christ is different. For me and for you, the list of rebellions goes on and on. If we harbour hatred, we sin in Cain's way, and we obey the god of this world:'This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous.' 1 John 3:11-12 NIVSo Cain's way is not so much hatred of what is bad, but of what is good. Perhaps hatred of goodness is the only truly culpable hatred.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The design is in how all of this is stated. And pointer, I cannot really agree with you here because there is a big difference between us and Cain. No one is going to deny that we are all flawed and full of sin. However, I must emphasize where our hearts are because we know where Cain's was from Scripture. Every single act he committed literally went against God: - His offering was not what is was supposed to be. Hosea 6:6 is an important verse to know because it's quite clear that God doesn't want the empty act of simply making the offering. He desires love. Cain's offering was devoid of love much more than it was devoid of the proper substance. - Cain slew his brother. That one speaks for itself. - When questioned, Cain defiantly asks "Am I my brother's keeper?" Needless to say, Cain spoke directly to God and received a direct answer here. A far cry from the society of today when a murder is committed. That one on one audience with God won't come until Yeshua returns. - God's punishment - which we all will admit is a lighter sentence than death that is laid out later - meets a reply from Cain that "my punishment is greater than I can bare." when we're instructed that God doesn't give us anything more than he knows we can bare. - As ROS pointed out, he was banished from the face of the earth. However, he again defiantly constructs a city. The connotations of this are very, very deep because this action would have led to earthly riches and Cain again defiantly building himself up. - Cain's line bares many semblences to the Adamic line that would lead to Jesus. It's safe to say, in my mind, that Cain deliberately attempted to construe the names for a reason. Take his son's name - Enoch which means "teaching." Teaching what? I hope through my little list there everyone is seeing where I am going with this. Cain's banishment was something very deep that would lead to the Kenites who deliberately cause trouble just as Cain.
 

pointer

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
179
0
0
71
(SwampFox;4777)
His offering was not what is was supposed to be. Hosea 6:6 is an important verse to know because it's quite clear that God doesn't want the empty act of simply making the offering. He desires love. Cain's offering was devoid of love much more than it was devoid of the proper substance.
Which of us has love?
- Cain slew his brother. That one speaks for itself.
That does not mean that he could not be forgiven. Moses, David and Paul were all murderers.
- When questioned, Cain defiantly asks "Am I my brother's keeper?"
That was, imv, not defiance, but evasion.
- God's punishment - which we all will admit is a lighter sentence than death that is laid out later - meets a reply from Cain that "my punishment is greater than I can bare." when we're instructed that God doesn't give us anything more than he knows we can bare.
That applies to Christians rather than pagans, so we can suppose from this that God considered Cain to be 'on side'. God in his mercy relented from his punishment because Cain settled down, raised a family, and the ground did indeed reward him with crops.What we see in Cain is the wish to be accepted by God. Non-acceptance made him angry, and he reacted very badly, but this was better than not caring what God thought.
As ROS pointed out, he was banished from the face of the earth. However, he again defiantly constructs a city.
So God is not Almighty? If Cain acted with impunity, we must conclude that he is the true deity. The only possible conclusion is that God relented, as He did with the Ninevites, and Cain was not defiant, and could not have survived had he been. The value of the mention of God's initial response is, imv, that endless wandering is indeed the proper fate of the stubbornly unrepentant, in the next life- 'wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever' (Jude 13 NIV).
- Cain's line bares many semblences to the Adamic line that would lead to Jesus. It's safe to say, in my mind, that Cain deliberately attempted to construe the names for a reason. Take his son's name - Enoch which means "teaching." Teaching what?
How can it be safe to say that? Scripture does not say it, or even hint at it. Cain named only one person in the descent, and that surely well before the Enoch in the other branch was born. In any case, this name could mean teaching the love and mercy of God. The use of name meanings is, imv, of great value in devotional teaching of facts already established, but I don't think that they can be used to establish a fact. Cain's Enoch shared his name with another who walked with God, so one could argue that Cain had really had a change of mind. But the meaning of the Hebrew word is very uncertain, and nothing can be certainly construed from it. Adam Clarke in his commentary wrote that it signifies 'dedicated', especially in sacred things, and 'may be considered some proof of Cain's repentance, that he appears to have dedicated this son to God'. That seems a welcome, charitable view to me, but Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown take another meaning and a neutral stance, taking the meaning of 'initiating' -a 'suitable name for a first-born son'.
Cain's banishment was something very deep that would lead to the Kenites who deliberately cause trouble
When did Cain's descendants deliberately cause trouble? And if they did, were they any worse than other tribes descended through Seth?
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Which of us has love?
All of us who love God enough to try.
That applies to Christians rather than pagans, so we can suppose from this that God considered Cain to be 'on side'. God in his mercy relented from his punishment because Cain settled down, raised a family, and the ground did indeed reward him with crops.What we see in Cain is the wish to be accepted by God. Non-acceptance made him angry, and he reacted very badly, but this was better than not caring what God thought.
Everything in that book applies to everyone whether they choose to believe it or not. I notice that you question where I pull some things from later - well where exactly do you pull the notion that God suddenly relented and decided to let Cain prosper because he "settled down" somewhere along the way? Cain wished to be accepted yet he offered what he knew was not what God had said to offer? I don't think so. Cain's offering was not right because his heart was not right; there's no mistaking that. God desires the love that it takes to do the offering the right way. Cain didn't supply it because he didn't have it.
So God is not Almighty? If Cain acted with impunity, we must conclude that he is the true deity. The only possible conclusion is that God relented, as He did with the Ninevites, and Cain was not defiant, and could not have survived had he been. The value of the mention of God's initial response is, imv, that endless wandering is indeed the proper fate of the stubbornly unrepentant, in the next life- 'wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever' (Jude 13 NIV).
No need to try and put words in my mouth. Cain survived because he and his line would function as an important part of God's master plan. If God had suddenly decided to relent, we would have been told so. Everything happens with the consent of God, we know this from the blessed book of Job. That includes when and where the enemy is at work. There's nothing new and revolutionary about a bad guy doing quite well.
How can it be safe to say that? Scripture does not say it, or even hint at it.
Sure it does, the Hebrew tells us right then and there. Abel's name means "transitoriness" and the name of Jesus in the Aramaic is "Yeshua" which means "YHVH's Saviour." Names are very important in the Bible. Quite frankly I could care less what Clarke, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown have to say on the matter.
Cain's Enoch shared his name with another who walked with God, so one could argue that Cain had really had a change of mind.
Now that's quite a conclusion to draw. Two guys have the same name so they surely must have believed the same thing. Enoch of Cain's line was a teacher of evil and Enoch of Adam's line was a teacher of righteousness so much so that God took him and did not leave his body. It'd be nothing new to know that Satan knew of something before it happens. He was there in the Garden of Eden to attempt to corrupt the lineage that would lead to Jesus and he was there to tempt Jesus in the wilderness amongst many other things.
When did Cain's descendants deliberately cause trouble? And if they did, were they any worse than other tribes descended through Seth?
All throughout history. They are where they are because they choose to deliberately deceive through malice for God. Afterall, they are the offspring of the Satan.
 

pointer

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
179
0
0
71
SwampFox;4803]All of us who love God enough to try.[/QUOTE] said:
Cain's offering was rejected because he acted wrongly. God told him that he had to act rightly if he was to be accepted. We all act wrongly, and we are all like Cain. We have all wished someone dead, if we have lived very long.
Cain survived because he and his line would function as an important part of God's master plan.
If God had a master plan that involved Cain flourishing, why did He tell him that he was banished?
Sure it does, the Hebrew tells us right then and there.
One cannot base theology on mere names. Theology is based on events and principles, names being unofficial confirmation in some instances. Many Hebrew names are completely neutral and without any significance, and this one, having three quite different meanings, must be likely to be one of them. One certainly cannot use it as formal evidence of anything.
Quite frankly I could care less what Clarke, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown have to say on the matter.
That is your prerogative, but others will note that established, respected, conservative scholars do not suppose that Cain's naming signified rebellion, and may even take it to be a sign of his repentance.
Now that's quite a conclusion to draw. Two guys have the same name so they surely must have believed the same thing.
It's as valid as saying they must have believed opposites. One must have corroboration, and there is absolutely nothing written about Cain's Enoch. It is circular thinking to say that Cain must have been evil because he acted because he was evil.
Enoch of Cain's line was a teacher of evil and Enoch of Adam's line was a teacher of righteousness so much so that God took him and did not leave his body. It'd be nothing new to know that Satan knew of something before it happens. He was there in the Garden of Eden to attempt to corrupt the lineage that would lead to Jesus and he was there to tempt Jesus in the wilderness amongst many other things.
That is pure invention.
All throughout history.
Where is the evidence, please?
They are where they are
Where does Scripture say they are, please?
because they choose to deliberately deceive through malice for God. Afterall, they are the offspring of the Satan.
That is not only circular argument again, it is a contradiction of Scripture, which states that God made everything and everyone.There is no evidence whatever for alleging that Cain and his descendants were a 'race apart'. Even the churches were warned not to be like Cain. We are all just a hair's breadth from being like Cain when he killed Abel, if we are not actually like him (and most people, on the broad road to destruction, are like him). The Lord's people must be ever watchful, testing themselves, daily imv. 'So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!' 1 Cor 10:12 NIV'He may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil.' 1 Tim 3:6 NIVEveryone is either 'Cain' or 'Abel'.
 

HammerStone

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Feb 12, 2006
5,113
279
83
36
South Carolina
prayerforums.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
'We love because he first loved us.' 1 John 4:19 NIV
Misunderstood your question here apparently. I thought you were referring to "us" as humans, I don't put God in the us category. Either way you'll never find anything I said to dispute the above verse.
So everyone is going to hell?
Now it must be your turn to misunderstand me. Where and how would you draw this conclusion? The Bible applies to everyone and the same Grace and Love that I receive can be applied to everyone. There are just those who choose not to receive it and believe in other religions or are atheists.
Now I don't think that anyone defies God and gets away with it.
Really?? So what happens when we sin? What about the wicked men in history who prospered and continue to prosper? Many of them lived full lives such as Stalin who committed 20 million times the murders of Cain. God is a free will God.From Strong's:
`iyr -- pronounced: eer or (in the plural) `ar awr; or `ayar (Judg. 10:4) aw-yar' from 5782 a city (a place guarded by waking or a watch) in the widest sense (even of a mere encampment or post): KJV -- Ai (from margin), city, court (from margin), town.
Doesn't sound like a little village or settlement to me.
Obviously not. He evidently thought he could do what is wrong but still be acceptable. That is an extremely common characteristic of humanity, as are anger and jealousy of those who are accepted.
Now who's doing the inventing? There is no room to question what God has laid about before Cain. Abel had no trouble getting it right because his heart was right with God. Cain's failure to please God was not just a result of a little laziness. To say so would be absurd given what God said to Cain.
If God had a master plan that involved Cain flourishing, why did He tell him that he was banished?
This is where you have apply a little common sense with all due respect. Cain was banished from being around Adam and his family for obvious reasons.
One cannot base theology on mere names. Theology is based on events and principles, names being unofficial confirmation in some instances. Many Hebrew names are completely neutral and without any significance, and this one, having three quite different meanings, must be likely to be one of them. One certainly cannot use it as formal evidence of anything.
This is something you do in every post pointer and I really grow tired of it because it's not the action of someone who wants to teach and instruct. You carp out every little point that you don't agree with even if you do happen to fundamentally agree with someone (such as you demonstrated in other threads).I'm not basing this on names alone, you have to look at the overall picture. You chide me on inventing this yet you make more assumptions than I do about Cain.Look up the Kenites and you'll find them named throughout the OT after the flood. Kenite means "sons of Cain" which means they are from his line.In Genesis 3:16, the word used for the seed of Eve and of the serpent is the same word. It's the very same word used in Genesis 22:17 which describes the very physical seed of Abraham.Now, let's go to Numbers 33:51-55:Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are passed over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places:And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it. And ye shall divide the land by lot for an inheritance among your families: and to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer ye shall give the less inheritance: every man's inheritance shall be in the place where his lot falleth; according to the tribes of your fathers ye shall inherit. But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.Where do you think the name Canaan came from? Wait! Once again Cain (and his offspring) do something to go against God! Imagine that. He tries to settle into the land that God gives to His people of Israel.It continues on, though. Let's jump to the New Testament now just in case you're one of those who thinks the Old belongs only to the Jews. However, in closing for the OT, let me point out that Cain is not listed in Adam's geneaology of Genesis 5. That's a bit strange, if following your hypothesis, Cain was later allowed to prosper and do well because of God's mercy.Matthew 13 again confirms the existence of the line of Cain. On the surface, it talks about the the good and bad seed which many people regard as spiritual. However, the Greek word used is sperma, which is where we draw our word sperm from. Just is in many other passages, there's some more going on here.Matthew13:38-39The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.Moving right along to John:John 8:43-44Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.I John 3:8-12He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous.Not his own works were slack, but because they were evil!
That is not only circular argument again, it is a contradiction of Scripture, which states that God made everything and everyone.There is no evidence whatever for alleging that Cain and his descendants were a 'race apart'. Even the churches were warned not to be like Cain. We are all just a hair's breadth from being like Cain when he killed Abel, if we are not actually like him (and most people, on the broad road to destruction, are like him). The Lord's people must be ever watchful, testing themselves, daily imv.
Salvation is open to all, including the Kenites. As it stands, there is only one condemned to the pit and that is the Son of Perdition and the Angel of the Bottomless pit otherwise known as Satan. It's not in any way a contradiction of Scripture as you are trying very hard to make it by inserting your own words and assumptions to what I post. God created Satan did he not? God created everything. I've never stated otherwise.The whole purpose of knowing about the Kenites is that there is a whole lot of deceit out there. It doesn't change my salvation with the Lord and it certainly doesn't change the availability of it in any way. It simply acknowledges that there those out there who do more than sin in negligence, they actively work against God and his wonderful message.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
Swapfox you nailed this one great work!Pointer you seem to put much of your interpretation of scripture solely on the doctrine of forgiveness and repentance and although sound doctrine it is the desired end results. It can't be used to properly interpret all scripture this is a false hood of some organized religions, the feel good doctrine, of repent and you will be forgiven this was never God's intentions.This makes for lukewarm Christians which God hates. This thinking allows for you to do anything and then repent an ask for forgiveness. This is an excuse for those who do not want to strive to be as Christ.If repentance and forgiveness were the only doctrine we were supposed to concern ourselves with why didn't Christ just go out an sin up a storm then just repent and ask forgiveness ? Why have an entire book why no a single document Saying Repent, Repent,Ask and you shall be forgiven No! this was not what God intended by the sacrifice of his son.For you to mistakenly believe that God spared Cain because of repentance and forgiveness is to miss 90% of the message of God's word by reducing it one single message.
 

pointer

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
179
0
0
71
SwampFox;4836]Where and how would you draw this conclusion? The Bible applies to everyone and the same Grace and Love that I receive can be applied to everyone. [/QUOTE]But one cannot say that God limits suffering to what is bearable for [i]all[/i] people. He does that for Christians said:
Really?? So what happens when we sin? What about the wicked men in history who prospered and continue to prosper?
They will receive their promised reward in the hereafter. We are discussing a particular person who was promised a particular punishment on earth.
Doesn't sound like a little village or settlement to me.
Indeed. A city takes time to build.
Cain's failure to please God was not just a result of a little laziness.
True. It was due to self-satisfaction, a very common characteristic, as I said.
Cain was banished from being around Adam and his family for obvious reasons.
But he was allowed to bring up his own family.
I'm not basing this on names alone, you have to look at the overall picture.
One needs evidence about Cain's Enoch to know whether his name was descriptive of him, and there is none other than the fact that he 'initiated' the descent of Cain.
look up the Kenites and you'll find them named throughout the OT after the flood. Kenite means "sons of Cain" which means they are from his line.
That is doubtful. Most authorities state that the name describes their trade of smiths; they may or may not have been part of Cain's descendancy.
Where do you think the name Canaan came from? Wait! Once again Cain (and his offspring) do something to go against God! Imagine that. He tries to settle into the land that God gives to His people of Israel.
Canaan was cursed son of the cursed Ham, son of Noah, son of Seth; not of Cain.
Cain is not listed in Adam's geneaology of Genesis 5. That's a bit strange, if following your hypothesis, Cain was later allowed to prosper and do well because of God's mercy.
I can't see why that is strange. Cain's line flourished as livestock farmers, accomplished metal-workers and even musicians, while the children of Israel were slaves in Egypt.
In Genesis 3:16, the word used for the seed of Eve
Cain?
Matthew 13 again confirms the existence of the line of Cain. On the surface, it talks about the the good and bad seed which many people regard as spiritual. However, the Greek word used is sperma, which is where we draw our word sperm from. Just is in many other passages, there's some more going on here.Matthew13:38-39The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
What does that have to do with Cain?
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother.
He was of the devil when he killed Abel, yes. Simon 'Peter' actually was 'the devil' in Matthew 16!
Not his own works were slack, but because they were evil!
Quite so.
Salvation is open to all, including the Kenites.
I quite agree; salvation is available to all who draw breath. (Though I doubt very much that there is a Kenite still identifiable.)'Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine. Then he said to the Kenites, "Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt." So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.' 1 Sam 15:4-6 NIV'The descendants of Moses' father-in-law, the Kenite, went up from the City of Palms with the men of Judah to live among the people of the Desert of Judah in the Negev near Arad. Then the men of Judah went with the Simeonites their brothers and attacked the Canaanites living in Zephath, and they totally destroyed the city.' Judg 1:16-17 NIV'When David arrived in Ziklag, he sent some of the plunder to the elders of Judah, who were his friends, saying, "Here is a present for you from the plunder of the Lord's enemies." He sent it to those who were in Bethel, Ramoth Negev and Jattir; to those in Aroer, Siphmoth, Eshtemoa and Racal; to those in the towns of the Jerahmeelites and the Kenites.' 1 Sam 30:26-30 NIVHurrah for the Kenites, whoever they were.
 

pointer

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
179
0
0
71
(kriss;4849)
If repentance and forgiveness were the only doctrine we were supposed to concern ourselves with why didn't Christ just go out an sin up a storm then just repent and ask forgiveness ?
Because that could not have been repentance, and there would have been no forgiveness.
 

Christina

New Member
Apr 10, 2006
10,885
101
0
15
(pointer;4856)
Because that could not have been repentance, and there would have been no forgiveness.
Sorry pointer don't mean to sound insulting but that's a ridiculous replyhow could anyone but God know whats in someones heart.and second it was a statement made to make a point of how you can't use repentance and forgiveness doctrine to understand the whole of God's word.It would be like reading the first page and last page of a story you miss the How,Why,What of the story.Christ refers to this form of interpretation of scripture as the milk of the word for babes who have not as yet gotten into the meat(deeper understanding)of scripture. The simple concept of Kenites that is fairly easy to pick out by most intermediate Bible studiers shows that you are not yet in level of understanding to debate this subject. Which does not mean you shouldn't keep questioning thats how we learn. But when your questions become pointless nit picking it serves no purpose.
 

pointer

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
179
0
0
71
(kriss;4857)
how could anyone but God know whats in someones heart.
The 'someone' knows, and you have told us what is in this person's heart, so there is no problem.
you can't use repentance and forgiveness doctrine to understand the whole of God's word.
It is not the whole of God's Word that we are dealing with, but just a few verses in Genesis. If you can suggest a plausible alternative to Cain's repentance to explain his escape from a miserable vagabond existence, please do so.
 

n2thelight

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2006
4,048
785
113
60
Atlanta,Ga
Well I was going to respond,but Fox did a great job,so I will leave this one alone.I would like to add however that according to scripture a muderer cannot find forgivness in the flesh
 

pointer

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
179
0
0
71
(n2thelight;5525)
a muderer cannot find forgivness in the flesh
What does that mean?
 

BARNEY BRIGHT

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2017
4,032
1,119
113
67
Thomaston Georgia
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I Corinthians 10:13There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. I was just reading this verse in reply to another thread when it brought me back to the statement of Cain: Genesis 4:13And Cain said unto the LORD, My punishment is greater than I can bear. In fact, when you get right down to it just about everything Cain did was to go directly against God in some way or another. Cain failed to offer God the proper sacrifice. He quested whether or not he was responsible as his brother's keeper. He committed the first murder. The list goes on.

Cain wasn't the first person to commit murder. It was the Angel who became Satan the devil who committed the first murder. The first human to commit murder was Eve cause when she gave Adam the forbidden fruit when with her she caused his death, not that Adam wasn't responsible too.
 

Webers_Home

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2012
4,611
726
113
80
Oregon
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
.
Gen 4:4-5 . .The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on
Cain and his offering He did not look with favor.

Regardless of whether their offerings were correct, the first thing The Lord
did was look upon the men themselves. He looked with favor upon Abel but
not with favor upon Cain. In other words; Abel was the kind of man whom
God approves whereas Cain was the kind of man whom God disapproves.

Take for example Isa 1:2-15. Moses' people were offering all the covenanted
sacrifices, they were praying up a storm, and observing all the God-given
feasts and holy days. He rejected all of it, even though He himself required
it, because the people's personal conduct was unbecoming.

"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to The Lord." (Prv 15:8)

Perhaps the classic example is the one below.

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure
in burnt offerings." (Ps 51:16)

When David wrote that; he had only just committed the capital crimes of
adultery and premeditated murder. There was just no way that God was
going to accept his sacrifices and offerings on top of that; and David knew it
too.

The principle shows up again in Jesus' teachings.

"Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy and not sacrifice." (Matt
9:13)

Some folk honestly believe that Christ's statement, taken from Hosea 6:6,
practically repealed the entire God-given book of Leviticus. But that's not
what either Hosea or Jesus were saying. They meant that God much prefers
that people be civil to each other rather than religious to their fingertips.

In other words; an ungracious person's lack of things like sympathy,
patience, tolerance, lenience, helpfulness, pity, and common courtesy
causes God to reject their worship just as thoroughly and bluntly as He
rejected Cain's.

It's likely a foregone conclusion that God is deeply insulted when people
whose conduct is unbecoming all during the week come to church on Sunday
actually thinking He's glad to see them show up for some quality time
together.

Gen 4:7a . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain believed in the existence of a supreme being; that was good; but his
piety was flawed, i.e. his personal conduct didn't meet God's standards, viz:
Cain wasn't devout, thus his impious ways tainted his offering and made it
unacceptable. (cf. 1Pet 1:18-19 where it's implied that Christ's blood is an
acceptable offering because the man's ways were acceptable.)


FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?

A: Well, my first guess would be bad blood between him and his younger
sibling.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar,
and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)
_
 

DNB

Well-Known Member
Dec 8, 2019
4,199
1,370
113
Toronto
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
.
Gen 4:4-5 . .The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on
Cain and his offering He did not look with favor.

Cain believed in the existence of a supreme being; that was good; but his
piety was flawed, i.e. his personal conduct didn't meet God's standards, viz:
Cain wasn't devout, thus his impious ways tainted his offering and made it
unacceptable. (cf. 1Pet 1:18-19 where it's implied that Christ's blood is an
acceptable offering because the man's ways were acceptable.)


FAQ: In what way might Cain's piety have been lacking?

A: Well, my first guess would be bad blood between him and his younger
sibling.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your
brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar,
and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and
offer your gift." (Matt 5:23-24)
_
Although you gave a great exposition for your case, I believe that your initial predicate is incorrect.
I personally do not read from Genesis 4:4-5, that there was a prior disposition of indignation on God's part, towards Cain. I believe that God's displeasure was directly, and solely, related to Cain's sacrifice. For this is when the punishment was pronounced, otherwise one could argue that why did God wait to sentence Cain with a punishment, had he been previously in disfavour with him?
The author of Genesis was extremely helpful in giving us the direct cause of both, Cain's murder (jealousy) and his initial warning (irreverent offering). For Cain became angry immediately, after regarding God's reaction to his oblation. For again, it's not implied that Cain's anger was from an circumstance prior to this, but appears explicit that it was entirely contingent upon this recorded event.