TEC said-
Yes, I know, Adamah... but you also use the word 'likely' in what you think should be the translation. (the translation that best fits your hypothesis that God is to blame, the one you want to be true)
Unlike you, I use the word 'likely' without hesitation: I don't claim to have a BFF in Heaven who whispers sweet lil' insights into the meanings of the Bible, telling me what the Yahwist who wrote the account of Cain in Genesis REALLY MEANT to say. Rational people understand that Jesus died a long time ago, and remains dead.
As a result, I have to rely on admittedly more-boring methods such as conducting research, wading thru opinions and discussions amongst ancient and contemporary rabbis, etc, trying to discern the likely intended meaning of the account by considering the function it likely provided to those living in the original societal context in which the story was heard.
TEC said-
However, it follows that his punishment is more than he can bear... because God makes an allowance (shows mercy) regarding that... (his punishement) when Cain says that it is more than he can bear. You really have to twist it to read it as you are saying, and then it makes no sense.
"My punishment (or your version: inclination to sin) is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land..."
You see, your theory falls apart right from the start, even if you want to play around with the translation (and I do agree that often the translation picked is the one that best suits the translators understanding, as you have also chosen to do here)... but the context makes it clear. Because the very next words "today you are driving me from the land"... IS the punishment Cain received for having murdered his brother, regardless of how you want to translate the first part of this verse.
Hey, I agree with YOU.
Although you DO realize that you are contradicting Apostle Paul's explanation now, and telling him that HE is wrong? (I don't agree with Paul, either, as I said, but for a different reason which I explained in my article.)
Read Hebrews 4/5, as you're missing the point of Paul's claim: he introduced the early Christian apologetic argument to excuse God's lax punishment for Cain committing murder with his "no chargeable sin, no punishment". That was Paul's concept, NOT mine. I mentioned it, since the account itself tends to suggest otherwise! In fact, I doubt Paul fully understood the account served as an introduction to the go-el' (avenger of the spilled blood of a relative), so he offered ANOTHER explanation that wasn't even needed. Paul was a Greek; he wouldn't know the about the blood avenger, since it had long since been discontinued (about 500 yrs before his time).
Although God didn't officially prohibit bloodshed until AFTER the Flood, it doesn't change the fact that like so many other accounts in Genesis (eg the so-called rape of Dinah story), the Cain account serves a purpose of touting how much more improved the Mosaic laws are (they're in the same book, after all). The account of Cain is written with the GOAL of showing how much greater the institution of cities of refuge were than Cain's plight of being forced to wander the Earth, with the new, improved concept of a familial 'go-el' who was allowed to chase after killers (whether murderer or accidental manslaughter), and kill them with impunity if they didn't make it to the 'city of refuge'.
See how great God-given justice is? Wouldn't it be COOL to be able to murder someone like, I dunno, say a 70 yr old grandmother who lost consciousness while behind the wheel due to epilepsy (1st time episode), and they killed one of your family members? Just grab the nearest killing implement, and start whacking on her while she's unconscious? Wouldn't THAT be great?
That's God-given justice, Old Testament style.
TEC said-
There is another flaw that you base your article on though. That being that dying was a punishment from God regarding eating of the tree of knowledge of good AND BAD. But that is not so. That is merely your interpretation. God did not say... eat, and I will punish you with death. Or... Eat... and I will kill you. No. It was eat... and you will die. Consequence.
Yeah, we've beaten that horse to death. We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one, since you claim the fruit is poisonous, and death occurred due to natural consequences. Utterly absurd, without any basis in scriptural interpretation to rest on (and in fact, to the contrary: eg "thru sin, death entered the World" Heck, I qoute the same relevant scripture in the article, but for a different purpose).
TEC said-
As for you also thinking that this is sin and punishment: "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed"
My Lord reminds me that He also said: "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword."
But he was not commanding men to kill with the sword any who lives by the sword. Only that living by the sword would bring about dying by the sword. Cause and effect. Action and reaction. Decision and consequence. And it is Christ who shows us the Truth about God.
Thanks, but I'm talking about an account in Genesis 4 involving Cain and Abel; you DO realize that's only like a couple millenia BEFORE Jesus was around, right, to utter his "he who lives by the sword" thing? Are you moving Bible characters around thru time and space?
Adam
