Cain and Abel: Explanation Please. Pretty Pretty Please!

[Jenny A]

Read your own dang book. Abel doesn't have any decedents but Adam's son Seth does.

Typo, Obviously I meant Adam

You need to read that whole section. It was not Adam and his sons who are referred to as the sons of god, it's the Nephilim i.e. angels.

"When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown."
Genesis 6:1-4

The sons of god referred to were divine beings who took up with human woman.

Wrong, if they were angels, that would mean that they have the ability to create (since angels are spirit beings, they would have had to create themselves bodies capable of procreation), the only creator is God. And also doesn't the Bible state that he made Jesus, God's only begotten son, "a little lower than the angels"? If Christ, who being the beginning of the creation of God and his only begotten son, was lower than the angels by being human, this means angels cannot be "sons of God" because they were never created in his image.

It's talking about carnal begetting between human daughters and divine beings. It isn't even ambiguous. Sorry if it doesn't meet your definition of angels but that is what is says.

You're nuts. Adam was the son of God in that god created him. There's nothing about that that negates the clear statement in Genesis 4 that Cain was the son of Adam. Nor is there any suggestion that the mixing of blood was the reason for the decrease in lifespan. God simply declared that he would reduce man's lifespan.

You have no scripture that states that Cain is Adam's son, what you have is Adam having carnal knowledge of his wife twice and Eve bearing three children, which would make Cain and able twins, and you can find nowhere in the Bible where it states that they were twins.

Actually I do: "Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced[a] a man with the help of the Lord.” 2 Next she bore his brother Abel. " Genesis 4:1-2. Apparently god helped with Cain, but not necessarily Abel. It's much clearer that Cain is Adam's son than it is that Abel is. Though obviously they both were.

What Genesis 3:15 actually says is:

"I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman [Eve],
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel."
Notice the serpent's off-spring and Eve's are separate.

Actually this is what it says. This is God speaking to the serpent.
Genesis 3
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed;

Nope that's the cruddy King James which is a lousy translation. I've quoted the NRVS. But they mean the same thing. Seed is offspring. I agree god is talking to the serpent. But god says Eve's descendants and the serpent's will be enemies because they aren't they same decedents. If your interpretation were right Cain would be the child of both Eve and the Serpent.

---

Um? Are we reading the same Bible? God does not take the life any animal at the moment of the fall, though he did decree that Adam and Eve's life would be hard and that they would be mortal and die. He also curses the serpent and in a just-so sort of passage takes away it's legs. --- Or are you extrapolating from "And the Lord God made garments of skins for Adam and his wife, and clothed them." Genesis 3:21

Extrapolate, uh no. To conclude based on the evidence provided by the net result resulting A&E's new leather digs, yes.

The difference?
To extrapolate more or less means to predict an unknown based on known variables.
1
: to infer (values of a variable in an unobserved interval) from values within an already observed interval
2
a : to project, extend, or expand (known data or experience) into an area not known or experienced so as to arrive at a usually conjectural knowledge of the unknown area <extrapolates present trends to construct an image of the future>
b : to predict by projecting past experience or known data <extrapolate public sentiment on one issue from known public reaction on others>


To conclude
1
obsolete : to shut up : enclose
2
: to bring to an end especially in a particular way or with a particular action <conclude a meeting with a prayer>
3
a : to reach as a logically necessary end by reasoning : infer on the basis of evidence <concluded that her argument was sound>
b : to make a decision about : decide <concluded he would wait a little longer>
c : to come to an agreement on : effect <conclude a sale>

Both definitions were taken from the merrium Webster.

If you do not see the difference in the two, to conclude is to logically come to an end by reasoning. To extrapolate is to make a projection about an unknown based on a know variable.

In this instance reason dictates that if God took the skin of an animal, that animal was sacrificed or died to literally cover the result Of the sin A&E took part in.

To extrapolate is to back into a conclusion starting at the cross and the various texts explaining the importance of a blood sacrifice, and working out way back through the various scripture supporting the stated reasons of God for the blood sacrifice and ending with gen 3:21, by assigning the same meaning that the final sacrifice of Christ, onto the first sacrifice of the animals that gave their skins to cover the sins of the Adam and Eve.

According to the Bible, God made us. How much more like children is necessary?

Ummm like, what bible are you reading?
Most Christian bibles say as much as 'God created man.' That man's name was Adam.
From Adam's rib, produced Eve. After that He stopped. Everyone else is a reproduction of Adam and Eve.

So again, not born God's Children. We are all son's and daughters of Adam and Eve.
We are not considered God's Children till we elect to be. (Through salvation)

Perhaps you ought to discuss this with Huggy who is convinced Adam is the son of god. Apparently so is Luke.

And yes it is a leap to suggest the new leather clothes were a sacrifice. The animals could have died naturally. The could have just been used with no sacrifice intended, like my boots for example. If a sacrifice were intended the author of Genesis would have said so. Not all use of an animal is a religious sacrifice.

And, what the heck do you mean about ebolia patients? If your meaning is that God does not tell people how the world works--I agree, the God of the Bible certainly doesn't do that. But he does tell them how to worship him repeatedly, with emphasis, and occasionally set in stone.

umm, no. I don't mean that at all.
What do we do when someone contract this disease?
We quarantine them, we seperate them from the healthy. (The fall of man the exile from the garden.) we are the diseased. Heaven/God is the healthy population. Now how does one get to leave the quarantine area? They are cured and they go through a sterilization/decontamination process. Christ died on the cross, was the cure. We simply have to accept it and go though the decontamination process/accept Christ and live a life dedicated to God.

Ah, but it's a bad analogy. Separation prevents the contraction of the disease by others. Cures are rather different. And you don't really answer the question of why Cain gets a pass on murder or why his offering is rejected.

---

If you want to argue god is not all loving, more power to you, but you are at odds with many other Christians. You-all can't agree about this god of yours. Hence the Adam is or isn't the son of god problem.