Toto

It's hardly a rational act - just less insane than what YHWH originally threatened. And the idea that it "foreshadowed" "a more permanent sacrifice" is reading Christianity back into Genesis. There is no hint in Genesis that there would ever be an end to animal sacrifice.

aa5874

The sacrifice by Cain in Genesis appears to reflect an anachronism by the author of Genesis.

sschlichter

Curious why you think that? Cain, and his line seem to reflect the effects of the curse in Genesis 3. the line of Cain is offered to reflect the contrast between the seed of Eve and the seed of the Serpent eventually ending up with the conditions prior to the flood where the sons of God (Godly line of Seth) with the seed of the Serpent (line of Cain) were all intermingled.

Tracking the promise of a seed is a major theme in the entire book. The seed of the woman that will overcome the serpent himself, the seed of Abraham that will bless all nations, all the way to the game of 'find the promised seed' that is played with the sons of Jacob, climaxed in Gen 38.

I agree that the nature of rejection of Cain's sacrifice is hard to follow for me (although others claim it is clear) but how do you see it is out of place?

~Steve

aa5874

My post should have read: The stories of Cain and Abel are all legendary myths and the author of these stories wrote at a time when the author was already familiar with or aware of the sacrificial system.

Solo

I understand the standard rabbinical interpretation is that the threat to A&E was they (on that day) would become aware and fearful of death. After all, it was a tree of knowledge.

Maybe Adam sang to Eve something like:

Oh I, I just died in your arms tonight
It must have been something he said....

Jiri

Equinox

Daga wrote:

Daga, I agree that it’s a pretty obvious case of the text saying that God says one thing then does another. However, I’m a bit surprised that no one has pointed out the obvious here yet. That being that we are approaching this with 21st century ideas of “God is required to be bound by our human judgments of an objective right and wrong that is outside of God”, while we should be looking at this as they would have been doing back in the 1st millennium BCE, which is to see God as an all-powerful ruler who can do what he damn well pleases.

Thus, it’s the writers/copyists would have clearly recognized that God said one thing (you’ll die immediately), but then something else happened instead (Adam & Eve didn’t die from the fruit, but instead were banished from the garden) - as Daga points out. Yes, the writers/copyists would have clearly seen this, and SIMPLY NOT CARED – after all, it’s completely God’s prerogative to lie, kill, torture, steal, and do whatever (as can be seen in all those cases throughout the old testament) – after all, he’s God, and us lowly humans have no right to question God’s actions - it's like questioning if the sun shines or not.

God in Genesis is portrayed over and over as a powerful, but not omnipotent, super-king who who’s actions are above the law. You can see this in passage after passage. For instance – is it fair to punish Adam, even though he was convinced to do this by someone else, and his own (god-given) senses said it was OK to eat the fruit? Is it fair that their punishment from God included a lot of added stuff that God never warned them he would do if they ate the fruit? Etc…. The answer to those is “Of course it’s fair – might makes right, and God is the most mighty, so his actions are right.

Firebug wrote:

Of course you thought of that (since it’s the standard Christian Apologetic for this question). However, as you pointed out, it doesn’t seem to be supported by scripture itself. As you point out, the text itself says the death will happen the same day (yom), and even if one stretches that (unreasonably, it seems to me) to mean a longer time (like the “day of the lord”), then it’s hard to imagine that God really meant “oh, maybe some 930 years later.”.

Plus, in gen 3:9, it says that these trees are all good to eat:

Another clear example is Gen 3:22:

So Adam and Eve started out mortal, because they started out human. Humans have eyes, hands, etc, and are mortal – all assumed by the author. It’s also worth noting that in the verse above God confirms what the serpent says “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.”, compare Gen 3:5 “You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

A simple, straightforward reading of the text makes plenty of sense, especially if we remember that the ancient storytellers would never have considered the idea that we are to judge whether or not God’s actions are “fair” or “good” – they assumed that you don’t question God, period.

Equinox

Bartender

It depends on who you talk to. Only those who believe in god can believe in the bible. Christians (at least those I know) don't care what the bible actually says, they take from it what they want. Many refuse to even think about some biblical passages, much less discuss them. Those who do wish to discuss them will almost always come up with an interpretation they feel will explain away any difficulties. Failing that, they can always fall back to the 'mysteries of god' argument.

Those who believe will do so unless they decide at some point in their lives to truly examine the text realistically. Sadly, those people are far and few in between.

sschlichter

I disagree. Sacrifices (which is all that appears here) existed before Mosaic Law and are prevalent in Genesis and otherwise. However, I was discussing the literary structure of the text and whether the author is back-filling doesn't really matter.

aa5874

So, why did the author of Genesis claim that Cain and Abel, the sons of the first man, Adam, made offerings to God?

Because the author was familiar or was aware of the sacrificial system.

It is anachronistic to claim Cain and Abel made offerings to God, when the fisrt God was not likely to be the God of the Jews, but perhaps, lightining, thunder or just a stone.

sschlichter

well, you started with the conclusion and then back-filled the data. Ie. Since the God of the Jews is unlikely to be the first God, then the author needed a way to prove that he was and he chose foreshadowing of the sacrificial system which would serve no purpose. You found evidence without even having a crime.

Moses spent Gen 1 talking about the creation of the universe using a generic word for God. (elohim, same root as El, the Canaanite God). He then intentionally tied that name for God to the Jewish national name for God in Gen 2. The author is very blatant in telling the tale that the God that just brought us out of Egypt, our National God is also the only God. The author is saying that Cain and Abel made sacrifices to the one true God and this does nothing to promote Mosaic law. He doesn't need tie-ins to the sacrificial system. They serve no value. Sacrifices seem a little more universal than that, don't they?

Are you suggesting that their is no evidence of sacrifices prior to the Jewish sacrificial system in any culture? What am I missing?