Elle,

Your definitions do not add up. How could Cain have killed Abel by "striking with deadly intend but with no pre-hatred involved" when the reason Cain killed Abel was that God had accepted the righteous Abel's sacrifice but had rejected Cain's? And, what sort of new term is "pre-hatred" anyhow? Either one has hatred or one doesn't. If by this term you imply that up until this point Cain did not have hatred, but at the moment when he rashly killed his brother he did, why would this not justifiably fit the Bible's definition of "murder"?

I see. You do not wish to admit that Cain was a murderer. To do so, you would necessarily accept that "ratsach" would also describe his act well. There's an erroneous path in which you have entered, that not even APL has arrived at yet, which you must be influenced by in order to create your own definitions like this--that of believing that God will not allow anyone to actually perish in the end, but that all will be saved and none will be lost. Therefore, you must necessarily accept that Cain will be in heaven one day, and his "sin" was not really so evil as it appears. Am I accurately reading your perspective?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think you underestimate how much of the law they knew before it was "fleshed out in great details" by Moses.

This is another assumption many Christian make that the law was only known in Moses times. That's not true. In Moses time, it was the first time the law was written down, before that the law was taught verbally and passed down from generation to generation from father to son.

Abraham kept -charge, commandments, statutes, and laws

AV Gn 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

The Lord taught Abraham via His voice. Actually, this type of teaching is still what the Lord requires for us today. Many think they know the Lord's laws because they have a written form of it that has been interpretated by their Church, or by their pastors, or by their prophet, or by their own minds --- but all of these forms are totally INVALID. We all need to learn the Lord's Laws via His voice. This is what the Pentecost level of faith is all about. By recognizing His voice and receiving His teachings and obeying what we perceived He is saying, and by being corrected until we get it right --- that's how we get the Lord's true interpretation of the law and get it written on our heart.

Esau and Jacob and Isaac Knew that the Birthright went to the Eldest

The law is mentioned in AV Dt 21:17 "But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his."

Rebekah was given a revelation that "the older shall serve the younger". But its interpretation and its fulfillment timing is reserved to the Lord and not by the flesh. Thus Rebekah and Jacob were both wrong to try to fulfill this by the flesh and illegally take the birthright from Esau.


Judah already knew the Levirate Law

The law is found in Deut 25:5-10 by which I won't quote. The story of Judah and Tamar is found in Gen 38. This law was already known by Judah when Tamar's husband who was the eldest and the birthright carrier of the family died childless. So Judah acted according to the law by telling his next son to perform the Levirate duty to give Tamar a son & heir for his eldest brother.

AV Gn 38:6 "And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name [was] Tamar. 7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. 11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren [did]. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

Then years past by and it was obvious Judah wasn't going to give Shelah to Tamar. Then that's when Tamar took off her widow's garment and cover herself with a vail and went to Timnath for she knew that Judah was going to pass there. Judah assumed she was a prostitute and lay with her.


Judah's Judgment to burn Tamar

Then later on it became apparent Tamar was pregnant and everyone assumed she "played the harlot" and told Judah. "And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt" Here again we see Judah is judging her with a law of Moses found in Lev 21:9 "the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

This may reveal that Tamar was a daughter of a priest despite the Bible is silence about it. It's would be desirable to choose a wife with such background for his firstborn son who will be the one to pass on the charge and the laws of the Lord to the following generation. Joseph was given a daughter of a priest also to be his wife. She was a daughter of an Egyptian priest, nevertheless, she was a descent woman whose two children became the leader of two great nation of Israel.


Tamar's "Fire" hotter than Judah's "Fire"

Tamar's fire (application to fulfill the evirate law) was more hot (righteous) than Judah's fire(application of law to burn Tamar).

AV Gn 38:25 When she [was] brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these [are, am] I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose [are] these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. 26 And Judah acknowledged [them], and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.


Moses already taught the Lord's laws before receiving the 10Cs

AV Ex 18:16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make [them] know the statutes of God, and his laws.

Moses was already teaching the laws before the event of Mt Sinai came.


The Law being taught Verbally from Father to son

There's many more that can be quoted that shows that the Lord has been teaching His laws to the patriarch Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who were responsible to teach these to their children, so to pass the knowledge of the laws from generation to generation.

For sure I do not deny that the knowledge of the law increased thru generations to generation as the Lord reveal more details of a certain part or how to judge new situation establishing "new" laws (usually it is an extension of a elemental law but applied in different cases). I don't think new laws were ever established after Moses, and it is questionable that Moses established any "new" elemental laws that were not already known in some form in the past at least since the time of Noah & Shem. The sacrificial offerings, the firstfruits offerings, the marital laws, many of the judgments laws, etc... was taught since Adam. Enoch knew quite a bit of the law and I'm sure that knowledge was handed down to his grandson Noah who taught these to Shem and Shem to Abraham and Isaac who were still alive for Shem to teach them.

Sons of Jacob were aware of the Law concerning Rape

No I don't believe that Jacob and his sons were ignorant with the basic law of a man that seduced a woman that he likes and force himself onto her. This type of behavior was quite prevalent in those days. The law acknowledge this and its judgment for such a case is that he marries her but never can divorce her.

AV Dt 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

There's another law that I cannot find right now, but it gives more detail of a case of a man that "seduced" a virgin by saying it is the Father's decision if his daughter should be given as a wife or not.


Sheshem did not Rape Dinah

I went to re-read Gen 34 and I have found that we have all assumed that Shechem raped Dinah. He did not. He loved her from the beginning when he saw her. No where the scripture even says that he forced himself unto her. 34:2 simply says that he lay with her and defiled her. Verse 3 says that his soul cleaved with Dinah and talked to her gently. In verse 4 Shechem ask his father to get him Dinah for his wife. He was willing to give any size of dowry Jacob would ask in verse 12.


We Assume too Often things that the Bible does not say

This "assuming" is quite a huge problem and it is quite typical. Thru the years I have found that I can NOT rely on my memory of what the scriptures says. Even when I read the text, if I don't read slowly by paying attention on every word, my mind will not recall what I just read, and it will recall only what I was taught in the past. There it is, I have read Gen 34 in the past and never paid good attention what verse 1-4 really said and still today in my mind, I had as a memory that Shechem raped Dinah because that's what I always heard and what was shared in Church. But that's not what the Bible says and it is another ASSUMPTION of ours. We need to be very careful because uch of what we deduced as doctrines is often based on assumption or filling the gaps of what scriptures doesn't say.


The Sons of Jacob consented to give Dinah as a Wife

Coming back to Sheshem desire to marry Dinah, the problem the sons of Jacob raised is that they were uncircumcised and both nations couldn't intermarry. Here again we see some knowledge of the law of Moses.

Then the sons of Jacob consented that if every male in their city would get circumcised that they would give Dinah and their people would intermarry and become one(v. 15 & 16). Here I was wrong to assumed that Jacob made that agreement; but the Bible says that it was the sons of Jacob that did so but deceitfully(v.13). Jacob was in agreement with how the conversation went between his sons and Hamor & Shechem for Jacob did not use his authority to overrule his sons' consent. But Jacob was not aware or in agreement with the deceitful layer of the plan beneath that Simeon and Levi had devised.


I made the same assumption as noted above. Dinah was not raped(v.2). She was spoken kindly, loved and Shechem soul cleaved to her(v.3) and he wanted her as a wife from v.4.


The only thing I can see that Shechem did wrong is he slept with her before marrying her. But even Paul doesn't treat this such a case as a sin in 1Cor 7:36.

The only thing that is considered "defiling" is that Schechem was not circumcised. We don't know if Shechem knew this law but that's the only level where he is guilty depending on his previous awareness. However, he and his whole nation were willing to be circumcised and make the situation right. Which was very righteous of them to resolve the situation to that extend to satisfy any part of the law.

I think your theory that Simeon and Levi were using their vast and detailed knowledge of an unwritten law for their legalistic pursposes is a far-fetched assumption. It is far more likely that they simply thought of a way to incapacitate all the men so they can exact revenge. I think there is more evidence that Jacob's sons were slaves of carnal passion than that they were legal experts.


I think it is possible to defile a woman even while circumcised. Absalom's sister was victimized by her circumcised brother.

I think you are now engaging in the sort of legal gymnastics you envision Simeon and Levi did. It doesn't take hundreds of words to say their sister was defiled so they got revenge.

BTW, I have heard of men killed as the defiled women begged for mercy because she loves him. Sometimes, the woman was killed also. Gentle talk doesn't always fix things.

The only reason the Bible give concerning Cain "wroth" is that the Lord did not accept his sacrifice.

That's my shorter version of the Moses statement of "as he hated him not in time past" in Deut 19:6 & Deut 4:42 and "whom he hated not in time past" in Deut 19:4.


No. That's not what Moses said. There's cases where you murder or kill someone with deadly intend but with no previous hatred of the person involved. Look at all the usage of the word "hareg" by which its definition is " to smite with deadly intent". An example of the usage of this word is killing an animal to eat at the feast of Tabernacle. You do not "pre-hate" the animal that you do "smite with deadly intend".


I have already answered this to you -- but maybe you didn't read it. Let me repeat by re-quoting:



Depends on your definition of murderer --
Cain did not "ratsach" Abel with "pre-hatred involve" -- no he did not.
Cain did "harag" Abel with deadly intend but no "pre-hatred" -- yes he did.


??? I always maintain that Cain did not "ratsach".


I have no idea what you and APL discussed in the pass. But I did witness in this discussion with the study of these words that you have shown yourself to add things that the Bible doesn't say and spin your own definition on words while ignoring what Moses have defined the word to be in the Law.

Up to now I have stuck to what the Bible actually said without adding or assuming(well I did assumed that Sheshem raped Dinah), and looked at how the Lord judged the situation to draw my understanding of the definition of the words.


Bringing another discussion into this???? Trying to shade me with my other beliefs so to pull the reader to your side???

I like the rules in Adventist Online Forum which do not allow this sort of behavior.

If you want to address my other beliefs, address them in the other discussion where I am involve.

I have supplied ample of scriptures and only scriptures for any point of my believes, and have been very detailed that puts me in an vulnerable situation so that anyone could challenge me on any points where I could slightly err in not representing correctly what scriptures is saying. That's my purpose of being so details with what I think by supplying the scriptures that led me to these understandings. No where I'm being general or just saying my opinion without multiple textual support including the law.

Thus is you think I'm in error somewhere, then you can tackle me on any point I have detailed my position. You have the opportunity and I welcome it.


No, not at all. Initially I didn't even want to engaged into such debates as "Does God kill or not" which seems to be the purpose of starting this by choosing such word as "kill" so you could continue with APL your old debates. I jumped in this discussion because I realized I never looked at these words beforehand. So it was for my own purpose of learning what these words meant while studying them with you guys. I'm not afraid to see what the Bible says because I have found it that the truth and character of the Lord is always consistent as I have discovered again with the story of Cain and Dinah with these words. It is when your pre-conceived interpretation doesn't match up with the Lord plan of salvation, that you are confronted with inconsistencies and problems that you need to add things to the Bible, spin it so to say what it doesn't say, or just plainly ignore those texts totally.

You obviously read my perspective totally wrong and have totally forgotten my little protest of your choice of word to kickstart this discussion and my reluctance to enter into it.

To me it looks like you are seeking too hard to find something to shade my motives so to make a strawman(right term?) and deviate the attention on the crucial points brought forth so far.

Don't go that route to attack the person instead of addressing the discussion at hand. OK. That's lame.

I do agree that Jacob's sons and most people at that time were slaves of carnal passion. As I said in two or three posts before hand, by their actions of killing all the men of that town it displayed another problem -- that Simeon and Levi were "blood thirsty". That doesn't require any "pre-hatred" towards someone to pick a good fight to draw the sword to satisfy such blood thirsty passion. Any reason will do. Plus scriptures gives another reason that we haven't discussed :

AV Gn 34:27 "The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister. 28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which [was] in the city, and that which [was] in the field, 29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that [was] in the house."

Pretty hefty profitable sizable winning and potential ulterior motive if you ask me.

I do not agree that killing the males of the whole town and stealing their wealth and taking the woman and children as slaves is an "exact revenge" for one man sleeping with their sister before marriage and clearly expressing his love and wanting to marry her and be circumcised along with the whole town. Looks like your judgment to properly weight the case righteously is failing you. It was totally without legal cause; and it was to satisfy other personal reasons that we can draw as probable with the info reveal from scriptures.

I never said that Simeon and Levi were "experts of the law" but that they knew these basic laws that were definitely addressed to any young men descendants from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who taught their children the Lords laws. That's what is involved when you "keep the charge" as told about Abraham as I quoted.

These are basic moral laws that is taught to a young man when(or before) their "carnal sex drives" starts kicking in so they know before hand how to properly treat a virgin or other women and how to take a wife when the time comes. The fact the sons of Jacob objected the inter-marriage when Habor and Sheshem came to ask Dinah's hand in marriage -- shows they already knew about the laws to not inter-marry amoungst the uncircumcised. Thus I have no doubt that they also knew very well knew the basic laws about rape, seducing a virgin before marriage, and not commiting adultery that any committed spiritual father would teach their growing young sons.


Well that was a real rape. If my memory is correct, I think the Bible says that this sister was in some sort of distressed about the situation.

Whereas, nothing of the sort is said about Dinah. Who knows, perhaps Schechem swept Dinah off her feet and she might of consented to the sexual act. The Bible is totally silence about Dinah's feeling during or after the incidence. The Bible only expresses the deep love Schechem had towards Dinah and his immediate soul cleaving to her and his request to his father to marry her before they went to Jacob.

The real problem with David's son (name?) and the nature of the defilement is it was his half-sister which the act was totally unlawful at that time and considered incest. There were no chance for him to marry her after the incidence by law -- thus no way to rectify or cleanse what he had done. Thus she remained defiled for life. Whereas, Schechem wanting to take Dinah as a wife to the extend to be circumcised including his whole nation -- thus this removes all defilement from Dinah and her family by he & Dinah fulfilling all matters of the law.


I think you are trying to evade what the Bible says and try to use any thing you can find to say what the Bible doesn't say -- like Dinah was raped(I did the same assumption) and that she was a victim and her brother acted in hatred. All of these things is not in the Word of God.


It does take a hundreds words to show from the Bible what you are trying to say that the Bible doesn't say without laying aside your pre-conceived notion like the Lord commanded us to do in Eze 14:4 when we tackle an inquiry.

??? I have no idea what you are referring to. Please be kind and bring forth Bible referenced so I can check if what you say is so in scriptures.

Elle,

I firmly believe that in these last times more than any other period in earth's history, God's people need the testimonies which He, in His wisdom, has given them through the writings of Mrs. White. You may choose to reject these at your peril, but most here on this forum still profess to accept them. She herself prophesied that many would turn away from them. In doing so, you ironically prove her true. You have misused the statements, as do many these days, saying her writings should not be quoted. If her writings were never to be used, then why were they given? God gave her messages for the church, and if we neglect to pass those messages along to other believers, are we not guilty of hiding our light under a bushel?

Ellen White was not a big stick to hit someone with. The Bible wasn't either. But BOTH do present truth, and sometimes truth conflicts with our established ideas and sinful practices. As we say sometimes in English, "truth hurts." I want to accept truth always, even if it hurts, because in the end it heals.

Mrs. White is clear regarding Cain. Personally, I see the Bible as clear too. You don't. We differ. Many churches spring up on the Bible alone, all claiming to follow it. Many apply "private interpretation" to the Bible, which is what the Bible says NOT to do. What kind of definitions of your own making do you feel will benefit yourself or others?

Ellen White does not say more than the Bible says on this issue. She just uses modern words. The Bible story provides ample evidence in saying that Cain was "very wroth." It so happens that "wrath" is the strongest word for anger in the English language--and we have many. Consider the following words:

distracted
bothered
annoyed
irritated
upset
flustered
indignant
frustrated
angry / angered
mad / maddened
irate
enraged
furious
infuriated
wrathful

While some of the words in that list may reasonably be reordered, there is little question regarding the final one. In my dictionary it is defined as "full of or characterized by intense anger," and the similar form of "wrath" is said to be "extreme anger."

If you are extremely angry at your brother, is that sinful?

You said:



In the above, you are rationalizing. I'm being straight to the point here. You are essentially saying there that Cain was innocent. And why? You use God's mercy in sparing Cain's life as evidence. Then are not all of us innocent? None of us, since God permits us to live, is a sinner? Can you see where that logic will lead? At the very least, you are downplaying the degree of sinfulness. Elle, whether you allow yourself to see this or not, I do not know. Once someone has opined something, it is human nature to not go back on it for the sake of pride. We hate to admit that we were wrong. I hope, for your sake, that you are big enough to correct your views when you recognize them to have been made in error.

In Matthew 5:22, Jesus says "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

You have made an attempt, Elle, to paint Abel as culpable for Cain's sin. You would blame the victim for the act of violence of the perpetrator of the crime which ended the victim's life? That sounds like those men of India who raped a woman and killed her and then blamed her for being out late at night and that's what made them do it. I'm sorry, Elle, but we may have to leave off this discussion. I cannot continue to reason so contrary to common decency and to proper Biblical interpretation.

Whether you accept Mrs. White's writings or not, I do. I treasure them. They draw me closer to God every time I read them. And they tell us plainly that Abel was murdered. They tell us plainly that Abel was righteous, not guilty as you would imply in your misguided attempts to justify Cain. But you know what? The Bible tells us the same thing.

Again, these are Jesus' own words: "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35)

Abel was murdered. The Bible tells us he was righteous. The Bible tells us Cain was "very wroth." Even though that word is already the strongest word for anger in English, the adverb "very" precedes it, as if to make it stronger. And Cain was not guilty of murder in your sight? Elle, the Bible is clear enough to me. I pray your eyes will be opened to see the bigger picture. While looking at definitions, it does not follow that a word of a larger category can preclude the meaning of one of its subcategories. True, Moses used a different word than "ratsach" in that story. However, don't you think it just might be that in understating the gravity of the situation by the use of that word, Moses has in reality underscored just how bad it was? In English today, politicians know how to do this, and do it well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I fully agree with you Green, on this post.

1. Most people who accuse EGW of "adding" to the Bible insisting that thus her writings must not be used to help understand truth, like to push her aside so they can add their ideas to the Bible -- it frees them so they can come up with all types of new interpretations (adding their own opinions as to what it says).
I agree, EGW's writings agree with scripture and use scripture in an honest, straightforward manner in which scripture harmonizes with scripture.

2. Lots of maybe's to change the story of Cain and Abel were presented by Elle, to excuse Cain. Yet as you pointed out the Bible is clear that Abel was righteous, and that Cain was cursed.

3. Because God allowed Cain to live is not proof that he was innocent. Was Lucifer innocent? Of course not.
But God allows sin to demonstrate itself, so humans will realize what sin is and where it leads.

Eccl 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
8:12 Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his life be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him:
8:13 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall his life be prolonged beyond this shadow; because he feareth not before God. ,

The righteous blood of Abel, as well as all the righteous slain at the hands of the wicked will be avenged. (see Matt.23:35, Luke 11:51)
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Let's bring this discussion back to definitions.

Reference	Text	Hebrew Word Used
Exod. 20:13, Deut. 5:17	Thou shalt not kill.	H7523, "ratsach", רָצַח
Exod. 29:11	And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, ...	H7819, "shachat", שָׁחַט
Lev. 20:16	And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: . . .	H2026, "harag", הָרַג
Deut. 12:21	If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gate whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.	H2076, "zabach", זָבַח
Exod. 21:12	He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.	H4191, "muwth", מוּת

The word "kill" in the Ten Commandments in the KJV is a mistranslation. The translators did a little better in the New Testament with Matthew 19:18: "He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness."

In any case, it is obvious given these separate Hebrew words for "kill" in a direct command from God that God should not be contradicting Himself. We must pay careful attention to which "kill" it is in the English, because Hebrew has more than one kind, and God Himself commands the majority of them, at least for stated circumstances that go beyond the scope of this brief post. One, and only one, form of killing is prohibited by God among these commands.

Note: Additional commands exist, but I have not found them to use a different Hebrew word, so these are provided as, hopefully, representative examples. I may not have found them all, as other words in English need to be considered still.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, I for one agree with you on the importance of these definitions. I for one have longed believed that people define words how ever they want so they can use the words they want to deceive others. It's not; "How readest thou?", but, How meanest thou? And that can be very hard to impossible to discern because of the person's intent.

What can anyone do about that?!? It's classic Jesuit deception as far as I'm concerned. They are the masters at defining anything and everything the way they want!

By saying so doesn't prove it is so. You need to support your opinions with facts. If you want to pursue this -- open another discussion and we can explore if what I quoted is out of context and what else she has to say about the subject. I have read a few discussion on Adventist Online about this, and seen a SDA historian saying relatively the same....of what I recall, I think the evidence would be against what you think is.


For the Lord to prove you and all of us as said in Deut 13:3 if we would just take the prophets words without testing it ourselve against what was said before.

The light is the Word of God, not the words of Ellen White. It is the Word of God that we ought to study like Ellen & James has repeatedly told us.


Up to now you are the one that pull many things that the Bible doesn't say like :

- Cain pre-hated Abel before the killing

- to arrive at a private interpretation to define the word "hareg" as a "general word for killing" that the Bible doesn't even define that word as such nor does any of the scholars

- to says that Cain committed murder of the definition of "ratsach" when the Bible has employed the word "hareg"

- to try to say that "ratsach" type of murder doesn't necessary involves pre-hatred when Moses has defined that specifically in 3 texts and that Jesus also defined that word in such in the NT.

- since you had no Biblical support from your private interpretation, you used an Ellen White quote to hope that will have authority over what the Bible actually says.


Yes -- and the Bible qualify what the "wroth" was about and it was about Cain sacrifice not being accepted. Nothing more.

AV Gn 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6 . And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

You add to this "wroth" that he was wroth against Abel and jealous of his sacrifice... Nothing of the sort is said in the Bible. This is all your ADDITION -- your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.


The Bible doesn't say or imply that Cain was wroth at Abel. He was wroth at God for the fact the Lord did not accept his sacrifice.



I was not rationalizing, I was responding to your rationalizing of Adding to Scripture that Cain pre-hated Abel before the murder by which the Bible doesn't say.

You said the following :


And I responded with the following that you excluded in my statement above:



So you added a Supposition in the Bible by saying that Cain hated Abel before the murder by which the Bible doesn't say. And I responded with another supposition that is also not said in the Bible by qualifying my statements with "we do not know" and the "if" and the "maybe" in the above. All was relating to the conversation Cain & Abel had before the murder that the Bible doesn't give any details about. Anything could of happened and what I said above I was treating it totally as a supposition. Whereas you treat your supposition that there was a pre-hatred involved in the crime as TRUTH without even one Biblical support for it.

Your supposition and my supposition are both possibilities that exist but are not existent in scriptures. So either of us can use these supposition of possibilities or things not in Scriptures as PROOF to support our interpretation.

What we have as tangible facts is the word "hareg" to describe the crime and the Lord's judgment on Cain's crime and the Lord's prescribed judgment on types of crimes in the law and other information provided in the story.

All of these points to a "hareg" crime and not a "ratsach" crime. That's all I'm saying, but you Green you want to change what the Bible says that it was a "ratsach" type of crime. I don't agree and you do not have anything to support your interpretation.


During this whole discussion, I never imply or even come close to saying that Cain was innocent. I always maintain that Cain was guilty of the "harag" type of murder but not a "ratsach" type of murder.

And I confirmed this with what I said after that statement above in the following statements from my quote you have quoted to mis-represent what I have said:




God's mercy is in His laws. He spared Cain's life because Cain did not "ratsach" (kill with pre-hatred) Abel. Moses used the word "hareg" not "ratsach". If Moses would of used the word "ratsach" to describe the nature of the killing, then we have another problem in our hand for the Lord did not judge Cain for a "ratsach" type of crime according to his law. But since Cain was guilty of a "hareg" type of crime like the Bible says, then the Lord judged Cain according to the judgment in His laws. There's no issues, no conflict, no problem -- the Lord's judgment matches the crime according to His law.


Your loosing your common sense. I never implies nor believe any such things. I believe we are all sinners and we have all received the death penalty since Adam's fall. Anyone that are saved is 100% because of Jesus righteousness.


You have lost touch of the discussion. And you show that you don't even know what I have said during this discussion or have any clue what I believe in.


I do believe that you will be able to correct your errors Green, because I believe in the Lord's abilities and His words.


I have not. I said very clearly and repeated multiple times that we do not know what happened in that conversation between Cain and Abel.

I said the Lord only knows what happened and what was in Cain's heart. The Lord judged Cain according to what He knows and the verdict that He gave to Cain -- a "hareg" verdict and not a "ratsach" verdict -- represents what He knows.

You painting Cain as a "ratsach" murderer is both going against the Lord's word and the Lord's judgment. You are showing yourself as an adversity to the Lord. You are the one who is in disagreement with the Lord chosen words and what He has reveal in the story for us to put our focus on. You want to rewrite the story with your own chosen words and with your own emphasis by adding that Cain hated Abel -- things that the Lord didn't say -- when you weren't even there to witness what really has happened. Don't you think the Lord knows better?


You're loosing it.





If the Bible show us the same thing, why can't you show it.


Yes a "hareg" type(no pre-hatred involved) of murder, but not a "ratsach" type(with pre-hatred involved).


I agree also.


The Bible tells us he was wroth at the Lord not at Abel.


Cain was quilty of "hareg" type of murder, but not of "ratsach" type of murder.


Moses used the word "hareg" in Cain and Abel story, not "ratsach".

And again I need to repeat myself, I think this is the 2nd if not 3rd time I'm correcting you on this, "hareg" does not mean "to kill" in a general sense. It is the word "muwth" that means "to die" and is used in a causative form to mean "to kill" in a general sense. "muwth" was not used in Cain and Abel story -- "hareg" was.

You didn't even studied to see what "hareg" meant. And you haven't studied to see what "ratsach" means either or "muwth" or any other words relating to killing and murder. You are too much in a hurry to draw your own interpretation and conclusion without doing the necessary pre-investigative work required to understand how the Bible uses these words.

Then your feelings gets hurt when someone like me, French no background in English, a poor communicator and writer -- that comes along and points out the obvious that you haven't seen because you plainly didn't do the work of investigating. And you haven't put aside your pre-conceived ideas (opinions & interpretation) like the Lord told us to do in Ezk 14:4 before starting an inquiry-study. These two things plus adding things that the Bible doesn't say is what puts you in trouble.

I'm very sorry to have hurt your pride in the process, but I strongly believe without a doubt that you will overcome these in the future and your gifts will be a great assets to the Kingdom.