My question is why god being all-knowing favor abel's offerings of meat and fats but when cain offered all he could, which was fruit being that he was a farmer god turned his head and did not accept the offer...would he not forsee cains reaction?

Well, he favored Abel's offereing, because it was plentiful out of love for God. And he knows all, and knows the future of things, but if he intervened everytime someone was going to do something bad, then why give us a choice in the first place? He wants us to live our lives, with our choices. He will tell us how he wants us to be, but he wants us to choose to be that way. Cain decided not too.

1. Abel gave the best he had, Cain gave whatever.
2. Cain killed his brother.

However, even still, God made sure Cain as not killed by anyone, and put a curse out that should anyone kill Cain, his death would be avenged 7 fold.

Of course it could have been because God wants blood..

Now is it just me, or has anybody ever noticed that the old and new testaments seem to be talking about two entirely different concepts of godhood? In the OT, God seems to want sacrifices (on the altar, preferably burnt), is given to humanlike fits of anger, jealousy, and rage, and is generally a vengeful smiting thunder-and-lightning kind of being.
Then, come the NT and the entire message, tone, and flavor of the god changes. "Do unto others...", "Turn the other cheek...", and "Judge not lest...."

So what happened? And before anyone states that this is off topic, in the above parable of Cain & Abel, Cain is slighted by god and his offering rejected. But later in the NT, Jesus tells his followers that the widow who gives what she can has a better chance of entering heaven. Why the change of heart on the part of the big guy?

I have a better question. Why are you trying to make sense out of the Bible and God?

Well, Cain didn't give his offereing with his full heart to God, he just gave it, while Abel gave his offereing with his full heart. The story about the woman is exactly the same. It was never a matter of how much, but a matter of the person's motivation for giving.

As for the Old Testmanet being totally different than the New Testament is wrong.

His word has never changed, it has been the same throughout both Old and New testament. He gave laws to his people, the Israelites, because they were the only people that worshipped him while others worshipped their false God's. Thanks to Jesus, (New Testament), we Gentiles are also saved through belief. If you read through a lot of the Old Testament, his words are all the same as the new, except that some of the old are written for Israelites, while the new is written for everybody. If you really read it, there are a lot of stories, parables, about his loving side. Proverbs is a very good book for wisdom. And, if you read the New Testament more carefully, God is still vengeful (look at Revelations), and he says he is a Jealous God.

Abel gave the best he had and all he had.

Cain gave the bare minimum.

According to the Bible Cain brought "some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock" (Genesis 4:3-4).

The Bible does not say that Cain gave less than his heart. It is implied in that Abel gave "fat portions from firstborn of his flock", but there's no evidence to suggest that Cain gave less than he should have.

The reason why God treated Cain this way is similar to Jacob and Esau - "For Jacob I (that is, God) loved, but Esau I hated" (Isaiah). Jacob, despite being the younger brother, inherited his Father's birthright. If you remember he later became known as Israel and fathered the 12 tribes, and ultimately led to Jesus' birth.

God chose to give His blessing to one, and not the other. The other didn't fit in with His grand plans. He didn't "hate" them in the sense of despising them. He had an agenda, which was the arrival of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and he was working to fulfill that plan.

The God of the Old Testament and the New Testament are exactly the same God.

Throughout the history of the Bible, there is a recurring theme - a cyclical pattern if you will. That pattern is:

SIN - JUDGEMENT - REPENTENCE - GRACE

Sin -
Old Testament: Israel turns away from God to worship other gods.
New Testament: Humanity turns away from God.

Judgement -
Old Testament: examples - Adam and Eve getting thrown out of Eden, Noah and the Flood, Sodom and Gommorah destroyed. Can be summed up in one word. DEATH.
New Testament: Death.

Repentence -
Old Testament: People turn back to God after period of troubles.
New Testament: People turn to Jesus.

Grace -
Old Testament: There is always a remnant that is saved, examples - Adam and Eve still given chance to be in relationship with God; Noah's family saved from the Flood; Abraham and Lot rescued from Sodom.
New Testament: Jesus sent to rescue Humanity from Sin.

The pattern is clear. Not of a God of vengeance in OT and God of Love in NT.
Throughout, a picture of a God who loves His people. And as all loving parents do, must punish their children when they disobey. He would not be loving if he let them (us) continue without that punishment

People were not "more faithful" in the Old Testament than they are now. Look at the examples of people rejection of God - making a golden calf idol shortly after being saved by God and Moses from Egypt (Exodus 32), King David committing adultery with Bathsheba and murdering her husband to cover it up (2 Samuel 11), Solomon taking 700 concubines from "the other nations" (1 Kings 11).

God needed to send Jesus to die for our sins. The laws that God gave show us that we can't hope to make it on our own. We need Jesus. He wasn't sent because we (us today) can't do it, but the people 4000 years ago could. As Skypryer correctly pointed out though, these people were saved through Faith. So are we though.

I think I'm going slightly off topic here, and I apologise. I felt this needed clearing up though.

Regards,

This is my last post off topic here, just to clarify myself, sorry.

Sorry Bobbie, I should have worded myself differently. I do believe that you are right that God needed to send Jesus to die for our sins, and all through history he was planning this of course all along. But I do believe there is a difference between some specific people from the Old Testament, and people today. I will go back and delete some of the stuff I wrote, because I worded it way wrongly, and I'm sorry for that. (usually I look back at what I wrote to make sure, but I didn't this time). And it's true, we are saved through faith today, but belief in Jesus (the trinity), while before it was based on faith and works to God.

On topic. I still believe that Abel gave more heartedly to God than Cain. Cain killing Abel over it, to me, doesn't sound like he would be given God his full attention. And no, I don't think God hated Cain either.

"Now is it just me, or has anybody ever noticed that the old and new testaments seem to be talking about two entirely different concepts of godhood?"

To be completely non-serious for a moment, I like to say that parenthood softened him up. Even the toughest jerk of a guy could go soft seeing his baby child.

Yes cuz that is why the new testament and jesus comes into place. remember that before jesus died for us then you had to be sinless to go to heaven. that is why god sent his only begotten son to die for us so we could be forgive for our sin. so when that sinning part changed and jesus was cruxified then that is when it said something like what is old is old and something about new. the old laws were hung on the cross when jesus died for us. alot of new laws were brought in and alot of old ones were changed.
but yes i see what you are saying. but giving what you can is different perspective from not caring what you give. cain didn't put love and heart into what he gave. abel offered his best flock where else cain could had cared less whether it was a rotten vegtable or not. he had no compassion and love for god when he did it. he had plenty to give for he was a farmer and harvester.he did it because of law, not for love of god.that is why dear!!

[quote=MrScienceGuy,Apr 21 2005, 01:36 AM]
[right][snapback]582118[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have a better question. Why are you trying to make sense out of the Bible and God?
[right][snapback]582286[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

For the same reason you quesiton him? isn't that trying to make sense when you quesiton his being, and exsistence???

i thought you didn't beleive in God? I guess it's like me speaking on the 3 bears. to me the story aint real but i still answer if the question is brought up..do you or do you not beleive in him dear?

I believe God wanted burnt offerings because He enjoys the smell of cooking meat.

However it is a SACRIFICE. Able took his best, most prized animal and put it on the alter before God. Cain merely scooped up some wheat off the chaff floor and threw it on the alter...there was no SACRIFICE on Cain's part so it was not recognized as a 'sacrifice'.

The analogy of the widow is incorrect. Cain didn't give what he had...he gave what he could without any sacrifice on his part. The widow gave 'all she had'...wasn't much compared to the rich offerings...but it was a 'sacrifice' to her because it was all she had.
The rich men in the Temple offered no real 'sacrifice' in offering a portion of their wealth because they had so much to begin with. This is why Jesus told the Rich Man....'Sell everything you have and give it to the poor...then come and follow me'...and the Rich man went away sad.

Out of context dude. The issue with Cain and Abel, and the widow is about generosity. The issue of the rich man had nothing to do with generosity, but with what the man was putting his faith in. That's why Jesus told him to sell everything he had - because the laws that he was keeping weren't good enough on their own. He was putting his wealth in front of service to God.

[size=7] God favored Abel because Abel was Gods only begotten son slain at the founding of the world by the son of Man who was the antichrist. This cause all Mankind to be decendants of the antichrist cain and condemned to eternal death until a replacement from the loins of Man could be found and sacrificed to God to make Mans existance "even Steven" the Mankind would be released from the curse of death from Cain.
An attempt to satisfy God was made by Augstus caesar and his adopted son Jesus. But the sacrifice was unacceptable because no man can equal Abel.
At this point there is an answer. It does not come form any worldly religion. It can only come from Me. If you desire to hear the way that each of use can be positioned to be granted clemency, put on probation from Gods judgement and eventuall receuve a full pardon for our inhetited sin for bring the family of Cain send an email direst to hff_dn@yahoo.com. Your curiosity will be rewarded.

Taking into consideration that the early Church [may have] made Christianity more pagan-friendly, do you suppose it possible they also made it more Jewish-friendly? If they were looking to convert pagans and jews alike wouldnt it have been in their best interest to maintain a certain degree of continuity from Old to New for the jews while incorporating pagan beliefs for the pagans? I think so.

On the original topic, as I've said before, the big guy in the sky has a thing for cooked animal fat, hhhmmmm that savory smell yum!, perhaps he hates vegetarians too lol? If he is all-knowing and preferred Abel over Cain, didnt he foresee that his rejection of Cain's offering would result in Abel's death? God has funny way of showing his preferences. Prefers the one that kills for him, rejects the other causing his favorite one to be killed and then once Cain becomes a killer too like Abel, God protects Cain by cursing he who would kill him.

Sacrifices in the Old Testament were intended to do several things:

1. Simple homage to the Lord
2. Atonement for sins
3. Foretell or foreshadow Jesus's perfect sacrifice

God Himself has said that sin leads to death, so the only proper sacrifice was one in which blood was spilled (death), so Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable because no blood had been spilled.

son you really beleive this???? Sin is mistaken 'beleif', meaning you beleive there are mortal sins, worthy of death, sacrficing each other for these beleifs calling it gods will, thats the mistake.... this belief it leads to blood shed as is pointed out over and over in the bible....Its the beleif that is the mistake that has lead to the outcome ....Maybe there is somethign about gpod that you don't know son that could change everything, try being open to new undesrtatndings the old ones aren't working if you hadn't noticed by now.... i

Cain even had a chance to change the/his outcome Gen4:6-7..the lord came unto cain, why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenace fell.. (7) ."If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door....as been said before...able offered up his best of his herd...he wanted to please god ....since all is the lord and the fullness there in...to give the best and first of his flock was a great thing to give up and as speaking in the terms of scarifiece that is what god expects out of us is our very best..of anykind of sacrifice...Cain knew he had to give up an "offering" but he wanted to give only what he thought he could get away with... kinda like today ppl think they can just offer to god the very minimum and not their whole...its not in the amount as much as the quilty...when u buy something u useuly purpuches what seems to have the best/better or highest quilty of craftesmenship ....kinda like cain and able...god must have loved cain just as much as able for he approached him told him what to do even....he didnt just turn his back and not care...for god is love.
if you look and read you'll see ...the old testament tells bout the alter for burnt offering where they would offerup scarfice for the sins and offering. and there was a special order and way in which it was done...thats why we have the alter..thats where we offer up our scarfice or offerings...only difference is that sin got to great and the best of the best animals no longer could cover the sins of the ppl ...thats why jesus was the ultermite scarific...man with no sin no stain no spot no nothing of this world who was crucified for all man that we might be saved and could return unto him...for all have sined...none are righteous no not one..which also opened the door to the gentiles that we might be drafted in ...which that door will be closed soon and the door to the jews will be opened again.....when we repent then we are offereing up scarfice..

I would like fruit better than a sacrifice.

Is it just me...or is there an abundance of sczitzoidphrenics arriving on the scene? Why bring up an old thread just to post a bunch of mumbo-jumolia?

Sympa. if you will notice, I said "Sacrifices in the Old Testament were intended to do several things"

I do not actually make any sacrifices. Christ's sacrifice is the perfect sacrifice and accepting His death as the sacrifice to pay for my sins took care of my death sentence once and for all.

Son jesus was eliminating the beleif in sacrafice that one must be sacraficed for sin, again its the beleif that is in error..this is symboly , people were crucifying themselves and each other for things they decided were immoral and 'ungodly;' based on primitive understnadings Jesus came to raise the conciousness out of ignorance... darkness , the atonement was to set that right, correct the mistaken beleifs, .... why are you still living the 'old' testament???The new testament means jsut that its a new understanding a new awareness....

What do you base this mythology on, Sympa?

Replying to the OT; Why was god pleased with the blood sacrifice made by Able. Because the scent of roasting flesh pleases the gods senses. Because the god of Abel's old testament is a blood and death monger.

Yet again another telling of a new god from ancient pagan fable. The god of the hunt as opposed to that of the harvest. Nature and history is cyclical and so are our myths. Different names and faces, to communicate the same figments behind our creation.

Here is the best description in modern terms of the "Cain and Able" scenario.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiedjZVhCCw

Luke, chapter 13: 23-29: Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved?

"And he said unto them, strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

"When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

"Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.

"But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

"There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets (Mohamed, Krishna, Rama, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Kuan Yin, Kukulkan, Osiris, Zarathustra, Quetzalcoatl, etc.), in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

"And they shall come from the east (Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto), and from the west (Nahualism, Totemism, Mayan, Aztec, Inca, etc.), and from the north (Odinism, Druids, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, etc.), and from the south (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc.), and shall sit down in the kingdom of God."

Its obvious son, why not try and interperet the scrips yourself, instead of what you have been told they mean... have you ever read anything other than the bible on jesus???

"And they shall come from the east (Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto), and from the west (Nahualism, Totemism, Mayan, Aztec, Inca, etc.), and from the north (Odinism, Druids, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, etc.), and from the south (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc.), and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." "loges' quote



Loge, again i agree Thats sort of the idea i'm sharing in we are all one....

I must disagree with this, Iams. Grain/fruit offerings are just as acceptable in Old Testament times, depending on what form of sacrifice is needed. Only for sin-offerings was the blood of an animal required, and Cain and Abel were not making a sin-offering.

I've probably answered this question already, but I don't remember (who brought up a thread from April 2005?), so I'll repeat my answer. We don't know why Cain's offering was rejected. One possibility is that Cain did not bring the best of his fruits, but instead second-rate food, rotting fruit and mouldy grain, that kinda thing. The Bible does not say this, I'll be absolutely clear on that. But it does seem to make some fuss about Abel's offering. The writer states that Abel brought the best he had, the pick of the herd. Concerning Cain it just says he brought some grains. The ommission of the phrase "best of his grains" has led many to infer that Cain did not bring the best he had, and so because his heart was not really in it (God cares more about what's in the heart, than the offering itself) the sacrifice was rejected.

edit: I just went back to the first page to read the question properly. Another point to mention is that God did foresee the reaction. the OP asks if this is so, why did God do it, knowing Cain would murder Abel. Well, there's no easy answer to that question. It can be expanded to any event in history. If God knew hitler was going to kill 6 million Jews (his chosen nation, after all), then why did God allow Hitler to do that. If the OP is looking for a satisfactory answer, then he's not going to get one.

Regards, PA

Sympa, you are making some incredible assumptions just in that statement. I do read the scriptures for myself. I've been doing that since before I accepted Christ as my Savior. The Bible encourages believers to question and learn on their own and I take that very seriously.

Interesting PA, I guess I have always assumed it was a sacrifice, not just an offering. I stand corrected, Sir *bows*

I asked you i didn't assume, but your understandings are very rote biblical as thousands of other relgious people, questioning that already has the answers...

No, Sympa, this is what you said:


You tacked a question afterwards, but you had assumed that I have not read the Scriptures on my own.

Maybe the fact that I arrived at the same understandings while reading and studying on my own,, as so many others have, is simple indication that despite what you believe it is not just "rote biblical" belief, it's what the Scriptures are actually saying.

no son you asked me where did i get this mythology, i said its obvious to me by reading, i was addressing your inquiry, it seemed as if yours sounded taught , rote....the same old same old..Its not an insult its a inquiry??? i guess there aren't much threads to showcase your investigative tendencys, PA, Irish, BM etc they have their own ideas on things...I wondered if you do too??? Just a question... I guess the medium of words only leaves one to jsut assume teh other must be insulting and i never am, its not my style....

It is simple and I will say this just once for those who have ears to hear. Cain brought budweiser and Abel brought Heineken.

Well that tells ya right there god isn't Irish, else he'd have smote both for forgetting the Guinness!

On the eigth day God created Guiness..." That is of course my translation. I better stop this or I will get yelled at.

Sympa, I never said you insulted me, I said you made assumptions about me.

It's like this, Abel and Cain both have 100 dollars. Abel gave god 100 dollars and Cain gave him $2.50.

God was mad because he was planning on buying a two hundred dollar iPod but because Cain only gave him $2.50 he had to buy a iPod shuffle instead.

This is because the FRUIT that was offered came from offspring of the same Tree that that caused the FALL of Adam and Eve!

That FRUIT is the fruit of sin!

We have to remember that Genesis is a symbolic work of Kabbalah and Alchemy.

Cain = the ego, the demon, the sinner.
Abel = the spirit.

The answer is simple.
The animal sacrifice was better, because the nomadic hebrews were shepherds and cattle raisers, not farmers.

This is why they also changed the original Sumerian Eden story. In a nomadic society women need to be treated as slaves. So the story was rewrittten to have eve seduced, so women could be blamed for the fall of man, therefore deserved to be treated as slaves. In the original story, the serpent-dragon is good, and offers adam eternal life to become an angel of the lord.

Would love to read the original story, could you reference it please?

And to think, they do it all without hands!




It's not hard to find the story. As for the original, that's an entirely different task given the bible is in no wise the same one that was originally prescribed to be the word of god. Here's a link via Yahoo. http://www.bible-truth.org/GEN4.HTM

Here's another question , after reading that story. Where did Cain's wife come from!?