A question about Cain

[HeisNear]

(Broken Crusader;4662)
I agree with this, throughout this thread we are trying to come to terms with what we understand God should have done. The fact remains, the begining of the bible is meant to illustrate the nature of God and his relationship to man. God showed and shows His infinite mercy on those He choses, when He choses to. It doesn't really have to make sence sometimes, He was mercyful. And in the end I believe what we are to take from that is, if God can be mercyful, even to Cain, then He can also extend His mercy to me. I may be over simplifying, but sometimes I think its necessary.
I do not believe you're over simplifying it. God's character is at stake. We only have to look at some people in the Bible to understand the mercy of God. David commited adultery and murder. We have Jacob, who was selfish, crafty, deceitful. The weakness and idolatry of Solomon. There is the account of Manasseh and his murderous heart. All of them came to repentance! What's even more amazing, Christ came from the offspring of these sinners, and He partook of the very same nature, yet without sin. This is the hope and comfort we have, overcoming all temptation from sin as Christ did. (Rom. 8:1-4). blessings in Christ,John S.

 

[HeisNear]

(kriss;4655)
This is one of those writings where the words sound holy and right but its just somebody's opinion its complete speculation contrary to whats written in Gen.First thing is Cain was the offspring of Satan (the serpent) if you have an deeper understanding what Genisis says, some Hebrew language interpetation is needed
Quote from the thread you linked: "Cain = Born first (serpents son). The rest should read as: "I have gotten a son with the help of the Lord:" ('ish 'eth Jehovah). It's obvious Eve didn't quite know what was going on here. It's also worth mentioning that Cain's name means a possession or acquisition. Not quite the name given to a child of God." End Quote (Softly) Jacob didn't quite have a name to be admired either. ....So Cain was the firstborn. What is the correlation between the first born and the serpent? There is a statement but no connecting explanation. Are you implying that Cain, who was a murderer, nothing good in him, was born with no hope of repentance? The difficulty with this assumption; who else, and how many more were not given the gift of repentance? The implication needs to be followed through, to it's conclusion. Are you saying that some are born into this world predestined for hell? There is a great difference between foreknowledge and foreordination. God has foreknowledge of all who will repent and kneel at the foot of the cross. “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” Acts 15:18. “O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off.” Ps. 139:1, 2. Therefore God can tell what people not yet born will do and say.God has predestined all to repent and come to the knowledge of God. "For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29). Whom did he foreknow? God foreknew all, if there were an exception, then God would not be infinite in knowledge. "And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account" (Heb. 4:13). "....God our Savior, who desires ALL MEN to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). And "was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world" (John 1:9). God counts each soul as of much value as the next. For Jesus is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). "The Son of man came to seek and to save the lost" (Lk 19:10).God has "chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world," and so "He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." (Eph. 1:4, 6). It's certainly sad that so many refuse to recieve, in the heart, the Good News of the gospel.Blessings in Christ,John

 

[HammerStone]

(Softly) Jacob didn't quite have a name to be admired either. ....So Cain was the firstborn. What is the correlation between the first born and the serpent? There is a statement but no connecting explanation.
The connection should be clear without stating it, though thank you for drawing attention to that point. Quoted from the lesson:
This means that this was a continuation of the first verse of Genesis 4. Cain and Abel were twins; one was of Satan, the other of Adam. There's simply no doubts about it when you let the Word doing the talking. Abel's name means "transitoriness" because of his short life. There's a lot of significance in all names in the Bible.
The connection is that the act was first committed between Satan and Eve and then shortly thereafter by Adam and Eve. Cain and Abel's order of birth is important because it confirms this fact through Cain being the firstborn. Cain was of the line of Satan; he had no reverence in his heart for God as witnessed by his offering and then his act of killing his own brother. This certainly wasn't divine mercy in the sense of Jacob, David, Paul, and other figures of the Bible. Cain's heart never turned and God knew his heart as he knows yours and mine. In fact, evidence outside of the Bible suggests that he went on to do everything he could to spite YHVH. I am a firm believer this is where much of our confusion in history comes from. This is why we see stories that so closely parallel the Biblical events and, as historians want to argue, "came first."
Are you implying that Cain, who was a murderer, nothing good in him, was born with no hope of repentance? The difficulty with this assumption; who else, and how many more were not given the gift of repentance? The implication needs to be followed through, to it's conclusion.
I think I can speak for kriss here when I reply with a resounding "no!" The only one, and we know this from Scripture, condemned is the Son of Perdition otherwise known as Satan, Cain's father. Cain has a chance for salvation, but we see from Scripture he passed it up. His sympathies lie elsewhere. He made the choice and God knew the choice even before it was made. Cain was preserved for a reason and I think it far transcends God just being a merciful God.

 

[Christina]

Swampfox absolutely can speak for me on the above points The thing that we must remember is that we are debating over a couple of verses here Gods word is an entire book that contains his plan for this entire age. The bible teaches on many levels and fits together much like a 3-D puzzleThe book begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation the beginning and the end the Alpha and the Omega.In between are the details of this plan,the peoples,involved,the places,the rules,the lessons to be learned along the way, ext. ext. Even though each chapter,verse,word is perfect in itself it also plays a role in the whole of the plan. So when interpreting any subject you have to also have it make sense in the big picture(plan) as well as in the chapter and verse. You can not completely understand Revelation without understanding Genesis and visa versa another words you can't understand the ending of his plan without understanding the beginning of his plan or the other way around.My point being that the bible has precepts upon precepts upon precepts and when you think you understand one you soon discover there is another this is why it is referred to as the Living word because it just keeps teaching more the deeper you get.Therefore Swampfoxs last statement above is very profound[ quote] Cain was preserved for a reason and I think it far transcends God just being a merciful God.

 

[pointer]

(HeisNear;4667)
Are you implying that Cain, who was a murderer, nothing good in him, was born with no hope of repentance?
Cain was capable of doing right, and was commanded to repent:'But on Cain and his offering he did not look with favour. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."' Gen 4:5-7 NIV

 

[ROS777]

We all need to agree that Cain was not Adam's son. Are we in agreement on that or not?

 

[ROS777]

I started this topic because I agreed with the angels as let's get rid of the tares but God said to leave them alone until the end of the age because one of the wheat may be hurt. So I assume this means that tares can very well be converted and changed to wheat. I guess most people would think life would be a lot nicer without the tares but God is a merciful and loving God, not willing that any should perish.

 

[Broken Crusader]

Kinda have to address another issue here. Who was on the earth that would kill Cain?Jewish ViewNow, it's not in my bible nor anyone else's here so if some knows where this comes from, tell me. My Orthodox Jew friend explains another reason why Cain was angry with Abel. Eve gave birth to 3 daughters 1 for Cain to take as a wife, and two for Able to take as wives, Cain felt that since he was first born he should get more.Again, some back up on that would be good from someone else, however I trust my source.All that being said, You had Adam, Eve, Cain, 3 women (wives of Cain and Abel) and that's it. According to my Jewish freind, God was protecting him from the wild animals, who would sense Cain's fear and self loathing.Correct me if I'm wrong the Christian view says, this is again, part of a narrative to explain and establish a human condition and God's mercy. Cain merely represents a people(The Kenites) who claim ancestry from Adam and Eve.P.S. I'm no scholar, so if this all sound like nonsense, please forgive me. I'm trying to learn.

 

[ROS777]

(Broken Crusader;4724)
Kinda have to address another issue here. Who was on the earth that would kill Cain?
Adam and Eve were not the only people on earth. There were other raceson the earth. When Cain went out of Eden he established a city. That alone should tell you that other people were living at the time of Adam and Eve,Jewish ViewNow, it's not in my bible nor anyone else's here so if some knows where this comes from, tell me. My Orthodox Jew friend explains another reason why Cain was angry with Abel. Eve gave birth to 3 daughters 1 for Cain to take as a wife, and two for Able to take as wives, Cain felt that since he was first born he should get more.
Again, some back up on that would be good from someone else, however I trust my source.All that being said, You had Adam, Eve, Cain, 3 women (wives of Cain and Abel) and that's it. According to my Jewish freind, God was protecting him from the wild animals, who would sense Cain's fear and self loathing.
All that sounds like a myth. It's certainly not in the word of God.
Correct me if I'm wrong the Christian view says, this is again, part of a narrative to explain and establish a human condition and God's mercy. Cain merely represents a people(The Kenites) who claim ancestry from Adam and Eve.
Do you read in Genesis where Cain is in Adam's genealogy? And Cain's descendents are also not in Adam's genealogy.
P.S. I'm no scholar, so if this all sound like nonsense, please forgive me. I'm trying to learn.
No problem

 

[Christina]

I believe you are correct about Jewish perspective here Crusader although I believe if I'm not mistaken that it comes from Jewish oral account(mens words as opposed to God's word ) and not from Torah (God's word ) however our scripture says Cain married someone from the land of Nod not his sister. This leads to the science verses religion debate on how old is the earth where there men(cavemen creatures)on earth that did not have the spirit of god in them? God breathed his spirit into Adam. Adam meaning "THE MAN" setting him apart, but apart from what is the question, could it be from a more animalistic type of human that didn't have the spirit of God breathed into him? Jewish tradition is that the world is some 6,000 years old. I believe as 2nd Peter tells us of that there are three world ages and it is this age that is some 6,000 years old the First age has passed. Is that why science has found so many discoveries that are much older than 6,000 years old? Are these relics from the first world age? Remember a day with Lord is a thousand years to man did the week of creation cover seven thousand year period of time? Swampfox's study on earth ages might be helpful in answering some of these questions. http://www.christianityboard.com/earth-age...-study-t79.html

 

[ROS777]

Hi Kriss, Today studing with a Bible teacher in Luke, the kenites were discussed. 1 Chronicles 2:55 says: And the families of the scribes who dwelt at Jebez were the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and the Suchathites. These were the Kenites who came from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.The Chief Priests and Scribes ( most ) hated Christ even though he taught the word of God in the temple and he always had crowds of common people around him.In Rev. the two acceptable churches are the ones that know of the kenitesthat pretend to be in Christ.The point of this being: not every Jew or Gentile that claims to be in Christ is truly in Christ.This myth of Cain's sisters marrying Cain or not, seems to validate Cain's anger and make God seem unjust.This is a lie.Hey Kriss, off the topic, why did you close down the topic of the swearing on the Bible in politics ???

 

[Christina]

RosSome very good points you have made aboveHey Kriss, off the topic, why did you close down the topic of the swearing on the Bible in politics ???

It was getting way off the subject of thread and turning into a debate that was not constructive to anything.Anyone wanting to discuss the subject further is welcome to start a new thread on the subject

 

[bluestarwizard]

Your view about Cain is in a minority, as you seem to be well aware
Hi everyone, the only thing I can think of in response to this line of thought is a quote by Mark Twain....."Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." It's been my experiance that truth is seldom found in the way the majority view a particular thing, most especially theology. Christ told us that in the last days the church would not have sound doctrine but would instead be turned to fables(fairytales). When Christ says the church He means the majority off, not the minority, those that are so quick to point out how something is not "orthodox" Christianity and therefore heretical would do good to remember Christ's words. It's easy to see their fairytales in these instances when they replace the truth of what happened in the garden with fairytales about apples and snakes. Our adversary sure has done a good job keeping those fig leaves in place and covering his tracks, as most are just so blind to what is going on in this world and who is responsible for it.

 

[pointer]

(bluestarwizard;5007)
Hi everyone
Hi. Could you give the name of the person quoted, and the post number, please, so that we can see the context? Thanks.

 

[ROS777]

(bluestarwizard;5007)
Hi everyone, the only thing I can think of in response to this line of thought is a quote by Mark Twain....."Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." It's been my experiance that truth is seldom found in the way the majority view a particular thing, most especially theology. Christ told us that in the last days the church would not have sound doctrine but would instead be turned to fables(fairytales). When Christ says the church He means the majority off, not the minority, those that are so quick to point out how something is not "orthodox" Christianity and therefore heretical would do good to remember Christ's words. It's easy to see their fairytales in these instances when they replace the truth of what happened in the garden with fairytales about apples and snakes. Our adversary sure has done a good job keeping those fig leaves in place and covering his tracks, as most are just so blind to what is going on in this world and who is responsible for it.
I agree with you bluestarwizard,Too many fables in the church and if one challenges their fables; they( the keepers of fables) go nuts.And that goes for traditions of men....for example of a tradition; someone here mentioned that babies that die before baptisim go to limbo. Limbo is a theory and has been disregarded by the Catholic church.Here's another traditon; women wearing hats in church on Sunday. That was done away with much to the dismay of the hat industry.Lots of traditions and wastes of times.....

 

[bluestarwizard]

Hi. Could you give the name of the person quoted, and the post number, please, so that we can see the context? Thanks.Reply With Quote
I would be delighted to, it was post #30, and the person quoted was you. The context was that you were pointing out to Ross777 that his/her opinion of Cain's origin is not in line with the opinion held by the masses and their highly educated, purpose driven pastors who make up the vast majority of orthodox Christianity and is therefore in the minority. Frankly, I feel very blessed and grateful to be in the minority and that God has seen fit to open my eyes to what is undeniably true, I see nothing but disaster coming for the biggest majority of the church and I see it coming very quickly, shame that you cannot. If you would prefer something scholarly then you might read Carroll Quigley's book Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. He was Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown and was credited by him in his presidential acceptance speech as well as many other times. He describes in detail the workings of this secret group and their plan to unite the world under one government useing economics and banking. Quigley himself has no aversion to them nor does he seem to know their history, but he spells out in exacting detail what they're doing and how they're doing it. Aside from what's known of Cain's decendents and their goals, what Quigley describes would make no sence from a biblical perspective and one would be forced to be of the opinion of Quigley himself, that what they're doing is for the good of mankind. Pointer, there were only two churches out of the seven that Christ found no fault with in Revelation, so they quite obviously were in the minority about what it was they taught and believed, and this is what set them apart from the majority that was the other five churches Christ was displeased with. It would be wise and prudent considering our late hour to understand the doctrine that was taught by these two churches, because it prepares God's people for what's about to come upon this world, unlike the mass of churches today, embracing the new age doctrines of people like Rick Warren and Thomas Keating and a whole host of others that are going to lead them straight into the arms of antichrist.

 

[Christina]

You are so right bluestarwizard[quote world under one government useing economics and banking.

These are two of the hidden dynasty the bible warns will be used to controll the world/people in end times I need to refresh my memory on this the third is Education cant remember the other this moment will post when I get it

 

[pointer]

(bluestarwizard;5035)
I would be delighted to, it was post #30, and the person quoted was you.
Thank you. It was post #31; close!

The context was that you were pointing out to Ross777 that his/her opinion of Cain's origin is not in line with the opinion held by the masses and their highly educated, purpose driven pastors who make up the vast majority of orthodox Christianity and is therefore in the minority.
That is not even slightly close. I had just been asked if my views were different from 'this forum'. Now, leaving aside the notion that a forum, of all places, can have an official view, the implication was that the minority must be wrong, a classic false argument known technically as argumentum ad numerum. Now I hope I do my best to eschew such 'arguments', but the obvious and ironic point was that, if argumentum ad numerum had to be invoked, my particular argument in this case was to be declared successful, not a failure. So quoting Mark Twain was completely inappropriate to this situation, though it was appropriate to the poster with whom I was dealing. I hope you now see this. Welcome to the forum, btw.That is, if Mark Twain was worth quoting at all. One must remember that Twain (Samuel Clemens) was a humorist, and comic cuts are not always very truthful. In fact, Clemens' crack here is another case of argumentum ad numerum, but inverted from the usual sort. (Not one of his wisecracks, imv.) One must examine arguments on their own merits, not on what others may think of them, although the views of experts are a guide to feasibility of ideas.
Frankly, I feel very blessed and grateful to be in the minority.
Minorities are more often wrong than right, an obvious point, if one thinks about it, and one's feelings are not to be trusted on this score. If one has a point to be debated, one must oneself produce arguments that others hold to be inherently substantive, and not suppose that people have time to read whole books or even websites on the recommendation of an unknown and anonymous person. In my experience, initial referral to a book or website is an advertisement for an argument that is a failure from the start. If one is convinced by an argument, one will be able to present it oneself in debate, and not merely refer to it or allege its existence. That is my advice, fwiw.

 

[bluestarwizard]

Quote:And if you're a Christian, are your views different then this forum? Your view about Cain is in a minority, as you seem to be well aware:
You may need to explain your exact meaning here a bit further for me, even with the help of the Latin you provided, I guess I'm just not getting it.As for Mark Twain, I'm well aware that he's a humorist, but in this instance I'm in full agreement with his "crack". If you feel however that the minority are obviously more often wrong, especially as it relates to the subject we're discussing, and that clemens is inappropriate, then maybe you would heed what our Lord Jesus has to say on the subject of church doctrine. This means the majority by the way, and feelings have nothing to do with this.......
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables(fairytales).
Gee, I wonder what fairytales the church uses to replace the extremely plain and obvious truth of Genesis with? Apple anyone?This is the church being referred to here, in case anyone didn't know, so from Christ's perspective, correct doctrine is only to be found with the minority at this time. Once again I would refer you to the two churches in Revelation, you really need to learn what particular doctrine it is that was taught by these two churches that seperated them from the rest thereby preparing them for what lie ahead and putting them in good standing with our Lord.Now, as for book referrals, please forgive me Pointer for recommending a great book by a well respected historian, I thought that since he is considered a world renowned expert his views might prove useful as a quide to the feasibility of the ideas we were discussing. However, the recommendation of Guigley's book was not the only discourse in my post, so your remark about a book referral in your experience being an "advertisement for an argument that is a failure from the start", and it's insinuation of my having nothing substantive of my own to offer on the subject is without merit.After browsing through a few threads I see that this has been discussed before, so I consider it doubtful any argument or amount of documentation I could provide would do anything other than fill pages with posts, it most certainly would not change your opinion on the subject as you're already convinced of your position. In light of that all I can say is that time will eventually prove my position for me, and it shouldn't be to very long coming.-Chris

 

[ROS777]

Excellent Chris!You have noted that Pointer is a big fan of Cain and very established in his viewpoint.Welcome to the forum!!