by adamah 79 Replies latest watchtower bible
Hello,
I wrote an article on the topic of God's eyebrow-raising lenience shown to Cain after killing his brother, exploring possible reasons why the account was written as it was:
http://awgue.weebly.com/why-did-god-seemingly-allow-cain-to-get-away-with-murder.html
Questions, comments (as well as heads-up on typos, grammar, etc) welcome here, as usual!
Adam
Anything's possible in the long lost mists of time as concocted by Jewish priestcraft.
Cain gets off for murder but thousands of years later poor old Ananias and Sapphira are killed for not donating all the money from the sale of their field during the Christian era - an era when God has remained totally hidden and non-intervening when it comes to even lifting a finger to mitigate all manner of evil and horror. Go figure.
Wow, what a well thought out piece.
Question: who would the potential "avengers of blood" be that endangered Cain, as pronounced by God?
later it was the relatives of the victims racing to the city of refuge, lingering about. but:
Abel was dead! was there a widow? orphans? unmentioned.?
with the phrase: "--SIN crouching at the door--'', did not God (or the spinner of this tale) declare the future or planned action a sin? sin without a law?
may be God realized it was better for Abel to be out of the way and the whole thing forgotten, for
he, the Allmighty (or the ghost writer) had made the mistake of approving a VEGETARIAN offering garbage, meat that had to be discarded, buried, cremated--- and expect to be pleasing by fooling God.
lesson for us: do not be surprised if fraudulent* religion seems to have the claim of temporary approval of the deity (or their creators).
* if there is another kind?
God will let religion get away with murder or any lesser offense.
PS on the depiction of Cain&clan
SCHLEPPEN carcasses in the desert heat: Quick conversion to meat-eating, meat packing without refridgiration, Jumping the gun on being omnivores without God's permission by ~ 1000 years,
they must have put those errors in --to keep us busy and not find the real truth.
simply:
God was lenient, because on second thought he realized that
Abel had conned him by offering offal and really deserved what had happened to him,
Cain turned out to be God's unwitting tool,
just as the nations were unwitting tools of Satan, ultimately of God even, by killing Jesus,-- providing the ransom.
Hi, nice post, but I have seen that it is not commented 1 John 3:12.
seen in that light the bible truly is a literary masterpiece. unfortunately when taken literally, well... you see what we get. talking snakes, auditory hallucinations, and an eternal vacation at lava beach.very nicely written and coherent topic.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001073
No law against murder yet..
Question: does the WTS teach that Cain will be resurrected?
Adam’s firstborn son, Cain, murdered his brother Abel and thereafter lived as a fugitive. The apostle John described Cain as one “who originated with the wicked one.” (1 John 3:12) It is reasonable to conclude that like his parents, he went to Gehenna when he died. (Matthew 23:33, 35)
Thanks for reading, everyone.
I went in and edited the article to clarify some of the points raised.
yadda yadda said: Anything's possible in the long lost mists of time as concocted by Jewish priestcraft.
Yup, and I edited to clarify that this story caused confusion for many rabbis even BEFORE Christianity arose, where the murder vs manslaughter debate had been going on long before and the meaning has been lost to "hoary antiquity", with interpretation and meaning evolving with time.
There's evidence that while the account of Cain seems to have been redacted (as is typical with the Bible), it was originally composed by the Jahwist who seemingly got a bit too clever and subtle for many later readers (including rabbis): instead of explicitly connecting Cain's fate with the institution of cities of refuge for manslaughter, he left enough ambiguity in the account to allow for Cain to be viewed as a murderer.
(The intertestamental literature includes an account of the serpent (Satan, by the time of the apocryphal literature) telling Cain to use a rock (!) against Abel, since Cain may not have known that he COULD cause death of his brother with his fists, alone.)
Point being, a reader can see the confusion over the proper interpretation of the story, and the "murder" camp prevailed with time, despite the problems it introduces.
Prologos said- Question: who would the potential "avengers of blood" be that endangered Cain, as pronounced by God?
I clarified the article to point out that avengers in later laws were limited to ONLY a single family member who born the responsibility and enjoyed immunity for murdering the killer.
The story assumes there were other relatives/siblings, any of whom might avenge Abel's death (since everyone was related: all were the offspring of Adam and Eve, right?), but the improvement in later policy was limiting the pursuit to a single individual to prevent "blood feuds" (ALA Hatfield vs McCoy) from developing.
Cain was given immunity, but it was NOT complete: his avenger risked the seven-fold curse, hence Cain still had to "look over his shoulder".
The later practice described in Numbers seems to be a race to the city of refuge, with the avenger in hot pursuit of the killer of his family member.
with the phrase: "--SIN crouching at the door--'', did not God (or the spinner of this tale) declare the future or planned action a sin? sin without a law?
Yeah, that's exactly the point: Paul referred to 'sin' by name (Greek, hamartia) but said it wasn't a chargeable sin.
I clarified that too, since many readers assume God was warning Cain that killing his brother was a sin, when Paul didn't agree with that reading by introducing the concept of a 'chargeable sin'.
God will let religion get away with murder or any lesser offense.
Well, although likely true, I'm examining what meaning the account may have carried in it's original context of being heard by say, the intended audience who heard the tale in 500 BC.
PS on the depiction of Cain&clan SCHLEPPEN carcasses in the desert heat: Quick conversion to meat-eating, meat packing without refridgiration, Jumping the gun on being omnivores without God's permission by ~ 1000 years, they must have put those errors in --to keep us busy and not find the real truth.
True, but it's funny how many believers are quick to use the "but bigamy and incest weren't outlawed before the Flood" defense to excuse away Lamech's actions (which later were described as "sins"), but then not to use the same principle to admit God's omission of prohibiting bloodshed until AFTER the Flood.
Rubbeng said-
Hi, nice post, but I have seen that it is not commented 1 John 3:12.
The article was long enough, LOL! Actually though, maybe I'll add that, as a PS at the end, since it demonstrates the problems of translation.
1st John 3:12 uses the Greek word, 'esphaxen' which is not specific and is most often rendered as 'slaughter' (slew); thus the translation as 'murder' is questionable, as 'slew' in Biblespeak doesn't carry the element of intent (as murder does). It's interesting to see that many translations render the word as 'murder', and not 'killed', again, with the point of making Cain out to be a murderer.
Blondie, thanks for the info on WT's position: is it surprising that the JWs are seemingly making it up as they go? Would you expect any different, since it would be par for their course?
Adam
So you just continued full-fledged into your article anyway, that bloodshed was not a sin until after the flood... even though God SAYS to Cain that SIN is crouching at his door if he does not get a handle on his anger (you read that part, you understood it, but you somehow do not see that the results of that anger is called SIN, then and there); and even though Cain DID answer for his crime then and there with exile. So that anyone who knew of the account would KNOW that bloodshed was a sin, long long before the account of the flood.
So it wasn't eye for eye... *shrugs*... it was still an accounting for the blood he had shed. He got away with nothing.
Peace,
tammy
