Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Drich]

Ok, now for my commentary on Genesis 4.

Having read this passage just a short while ago, I noticed something about it I never noticed before in any of my prior readings of it, and that is that Genesis 4 does not really flow that well from Genesis 3. There seems to be some disconnect going on, in that (in Genesis 4) Adam and Eve were probably not the only humans directly formed by God as the passage seems to contain references to human outsiders, those not a part of the tribe of Adam and Eve.

this disconnect is usually referred to as a paradox and atheistic 'proof' genesis was made up.. (forgetting people back then understood continuity, they assumed adam and eve and their children were either incestious or God went on an undocumented creating spree. ) when in fact as I pointed out Adam and eve were created day 3 in the garden apart from day 6 man created by the Father who live worked and died outside the garden apart from A&E.

In Genesis 3, however, Eve is deemed the mother of all human beings. Furthermore, it doesn't feel like the fall (depicted in Genesis 3) was a thing in Genesis 4. If anything, it seems like Adam and Eve and their children were all very much "in the presence of the LORD" irrespective of what happened in Genesis 3, whereas other human beings living at the time were not (i.e., they were not in an intimate relationship with God). At least that's how I'm currently seeing it.

personal experience.. when I ws judged for a momet I felt all of the love and completeness and warmth a child of God could feel. which is miles above and beyond the best feeling this world has to offer. just for that moment I felt true bliss. where as now I am in contact with God and don't get me wrong when we sing right or pray it can be awe inspiring.. however it is nothing like being apart creation aware of God. I can only imagine having God over for dinner and walks is as different as knowing a super model from a magazine and being married to her.

As for the story itself, it was a good one. And in fact, you could consider this passage the first indicator of the fall/depravity of humankind. It's just, without much context, it's not really clear what led Cain to kill his brother Abel.

having God's approval/continence shine down upon you.. being allowed to take in his approval verses being a disappointment. Cain was trying to lower the bar rather than meet God on his terms something that alot of you all like to do. you want God to meet you half way when he makes a decree or sets a standard. Without abel cain does not have to work outside of his comfort zone, or so the logic goes..

Was it simply because Abel's offering was accepted by God while Cain's offering wasn't? And was Cain willingly defying some unwritten divine requirement by offering God only some of the fruits? Or was God just not happy with fruits and needed more blood sacrifice to appease his aversion to human sin?

there was no law. whatever deal they made was with God directly so there was no excuse. Cain simply fell short of their deal.

Whatever the case may be, I feel nothing but empathy towards the character of Cain, if only because it feels like there's something more to the story than what's actually written.

i use to feel sorry for cain too then i realized that no matter the deal abel did not have to die.. that was an extreme over reaction no matter what God promise to abel.

I'm doing nothing but projecting here, but perhaps Abel was not as innocent as it seems in the text. He may have been the type of person who did all the right things in God's eyes but went about it in a way that continually provoked jealousy and bitterness in Cain. Or perhaps God accepted Abel's offering simply because he liked Abel, whereas God's like of Cain was conditional on whether or not he did the right thing (Genesis 4:6).

later either jesus or paul says God like abel's sacrifice because it was like that of the one made when their parents first sin. abel gave the best of his flock in blood not having outright sinned as there was no law but knowing the difference between good and evil gave out of knowing at some point he was making up for his own sin. Cain could have traded able fruit for animals but gave what he had. God set the standard when he made the loin cloths.

What Cain eventually did to Abel was extreme, but I can still sort of understand [intellectually] why he would be driven to kill his own brother in a fit of rage, if he felt he was being treated unfairly by everyone especially God.

wow,we are worlds apart on this how can you ever say it is ok to kill your brother? hate to be a member of your household if it were known i voted trump if being killed over a few goats is ok in your mind! when is 100 goat lives equal to 1 person? Especially if he is up standing guy

It may explain why God went easy on him as well, so that instead of imposing a death sentence on him or something like that, he simply banished Cain out of the paradise he was in while making sure Cain was protected from harm by outsiders.

one God crused the ground so nothing would ever grow for cain again, two Cain ran off to a city. God 'marked him' Cain said if you do not protect me these 'evolved men' will hunt me down and kill me.. the God aid if anyone kills you God will kil them 7 generations out. so God marked cain so everyone knew who and what he was. so yes
screw cain.

But anyway ... that's the first depiction of murder in the Bible.

Now for the rest of the passage:

Cain makes love to his wife (hopefully not also his sister), and they give birth to Enoch (not to be confused with the more popular Enoch). A city built by Cain is named after Enoch (probably the first city ever built in biblical mythology). From Enoch, a man by the name of Lamech was an eventual descendant. This Lamech had two wives: Adah and Zillah. Adah, through her son Jabal, was the mother of the people of tents and livestock and, through her son Jubal, was the mother of the people of stringed instruments and pipes (thus, the presence of such people is now explained in this particular genealogical myth). Zillah, on the other hand, was the mother of Tubal-Cain, who was known for forging tools of various kinds out of bronze and iron (the first blacksmith perhaps).

There is also a very brief substory about how Lamech, after killing a young man for injuring him, informed/warned his two wives that "if Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times". I'm not going to pretend to know what the point of all these apparent irrelevancies is supposed to, so I'll leave it at that.

Lemech is showing how the evil root is spreading.. he said he was justified in killing a man for hurting him
meaning if cain could be avenged 7 generations his behind is that much more valuable and should be protected up to 70 generations of death..

Finally, we find out that Adam and Eve have given birth to a third son, calling him Seth, making a happy woman out of Eve once again. Seth grows up and brings forth Enosh into the world.

The last part of the last verse of the passage:

"At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD."

Does this mean not all people at the very beginning relied on the God of the Bible? Or is it supposed to be taken more literally to mean that people finally began to refer to God as the LORD when they didn't before?

The LORD knows ...

no Adam and his family brought yhwh into the world. they may have worshiped some form of the father before (sandscit nonsense) but wasn't till adam did God reach out to the people.