God wanted Abel to die

[akilae]

If there is a God, and if the Bible is true and this situation occured, then we need to take into account certain 'facts'.

God is omniscient. He knows ahead of time what will occur and as such before he even makes an action knows the outcome. When he asked for an offering he knew who would offer what, and knew before they even did who he would choose. He also knew the repercussion of such action. To clarify, God knew even before he asked them to make an offering that Cain would kill Abel.

God, if he had never asked for the sacrifice, the murder would have never been commited.

Logically therefore,

God wanted Cain to kill Abel.

Hence my additional reasoning the whole situation is silly, and therefore trite.

Ramen.

Another interesting post I came across.

 

[Free]

God knowing something will happen does not mean he causes it to happen or wants it to happen.

 

[akilae]

Good reply, however it is flawed in that you do not acknowledge his decision decided the outcome.

The argument goes like this:

God knows everything ahead of time. He knows that IF he asks for a sacrifice and chooses Abel's over Cain's, then Cain will kill Abel, gauranteed this will happen.

God however, despite knowing this still chooses Abel, knowing that because of that Cain will kill him.

The question presented, is why did God want Abel to die?

 

[Free]

Good reply, however it is flawed in that you do not acknowledge his decision decided the outcome.

It isn't flawed and I am familiar with how the argument works. God knew that Cain would kill Abel but that in no way means that God wanted Abel to die. Knowing is not the same as causing.

 

[cyberjosh]

Good reply, however it is flawed in that you do not acknowledge his decision decided the outcome.

The argument goes like this:

God knows everything ahead of time. He knows that IF he asks for a sacrifice and chooses Abel's over Cain's, then Cain will kill Abel, gauranteed this will happen.

God however, despite knowing this still chooses Abel, knowing that because of that Cain will kill him.

The question presented, is why did God want Abel to die?

That line of logic is predicated on the assumption that it was specifically the sacrifice which contributed to the situation of the murder. The sacrifice was simply an occasion, one that the Biblical text implies had happened before ("in the process of time" Genesis 4:3 - a Hebrew idiom which implies a set, annual time that they understood to be for sacrifice), and any other occasion could have sufficed as well for Cain's jealousy of his brother to rise up murderously within him if it provoked him, say if perhaps Adam and Eve showed favoritism to him (like when Jacob's sons jealously threw their brother Joseph in a pit - "Come now, let's kill him and throw him into one of these cisterns and say that a ferocious animal devoured him").

Secondly God actually never asked for the sacrifices, nowhere in the text does it say that. They just do it, maybe as an act of worship (a freewill offering of sorts), further backing the idea that the "set time" was something that both they understood and had done several times in the past. Only this time the result was different. Cain only reacted when he saw that God did not accept his sacrifice but did accept Abel's, which was Cain's fault alone. God even talked to him about it before he decided to do something rash (Genesis 4:6). God tried offering an alternative, but Cain's evil heart instead took action murderously against his brother. It can hardly be said that God desired it to happen, and God does not ever force someone into a catch22 situation in which they are made to sin, they only do it of their own free will. Reread the account of Cain and Abel and see if you don't come up with a different view on it now.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[akilae]

Knowing is not the same as causing.

True, but you forget that the result was dependant on the fact God asked for a sacrifice, and then a second time the result depended on God when he decided on Cain. Had God not asked for a sacrifice, Cain would not have killed Abel. God knew that Cain would kill Abel if he chose Abel, yet God chose Abel's anyways, knowing it would lead to his death.

God chose the course that would result with Abel's death.

Had God not chosen Abel, God knew Cain would not kill him. But, he chose Abel regardless, knowing this would cause Cain to kill him.

Logically, this is sound.

That line of logic is predicated on the assumption that it was specifically the sacrifice which contributed to the situation of the murder.

Actually, the line of knowledge is predicated based on God's decision on which sacrifice to accept.
The result was based on his decision, not necessarily the situation.

If anything, God offering him a second option seems like taunting him, as he knew what Cain would do regardless.

 

[cyberjosh]

Actually, the line of knowledge is predicated based on God's decision on which sacrifice to accept.

Which by the way was not made arbitrarily or without reason! God is holy and must be approached reverently. They guy who carelessly extended his arm to support the ark of the covenant as it tottered on the wagon bringing it to Jerusalem learned that lesson the hard way.

The result was based on his decision, not necessarily the situation.

God's decision did not force Cain's hand in any way. Man always has a choice. Plus I acknowledged that God's decision was what made Cain (wrongfully) angry at his brother in my last post. I just updated it a bit, and if you didn't read it closely please do so again.

If anything, God offering him a second option seems like taunting him, as he knew what Cain would do regardless.

You have absolutely zero proof of that. You are wildly speculating. God if anything showed concern for Cain - do not twist God's words. Just because God knows we will all eventually die he does not treat our life as worthless from the moment we are born or drive us toward that moment of death. You are trying to pair God's omniscience with His intent, and they are completely separate. If you read the Bible in any depth you will see that God even is many times grieved at His children's decisions. You are leaving out freewill entirely, and making it seem as if God is making people behave the way they do.

If you think you can solidly make your point then quote the story verse by verse and exposit it right here in this thread, backing up your assertions as you go.

~Josh

 

[akilae]

As you wish

God is omniscient- 1 Pet 1:2

So this we can establish as fact. God knows everything that will happen. Period, undeniable.

Now let's jump into the situation, keeping in mind that before it even starts, God knows what will result.

Genesis 4:3 - Cain brings his offering to God
Genesis 4:4 - And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.
Genesis 4:5 - But nto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

I am skipping to 8, as God speaking to did nothing to deter him, as God knew it would.

Genesis 4:8 - And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.


OK, here we will pause. Cain and Abel bring their offering to God. He knows, as he is omniscient, that if he chooses Abel's offering, Cain will kill him. Despite knowing this, he chose Abel's anyway, knowing full well the repercussion. Cain kills Abel, as God knew he would.

That result was based upon God's decision, that is undeniable. Had God NOT chosen Abel's offering, he would have lived.

Had he chosen Cain's, Abel's life would have been even MORE spared.

You are wildly speculating.

no... I am using logic.

You are leaving out freewill entirely, and making it seem as if God is making people behave the way they do.

Very good point. But that is a seperate question entirely, do we have free will? Our free will is dependant on the action of God. We cannot do anything that is impossible for example. Basically our free will, if you can call it that, is based upon causality. Something has to be for us to react to it. It's hard to explain, but basically concerning this situation God chose the path that he knew would result in Cain killing Abel. That is not saying Cain did not have a choice, on a basic level he did, he chose to kill Abel, but his choice was limited to nothing else, as God did know what would happen, and Cain fulfilled that. If Cain did not do as God knew he would, well then God does not have omniscience.

I hope I explained that in a decent manner, if not let me know, and I'll do my best to rephrase it. I'm always slightly off the first time I attempt defining something like that.

 

[cyberjosh]

Evidence of God being grieved at his people's wrong decisions:

"I said, 'Here am I, here am I,'
To a nation which did not call on My name.
I have spread out My hands all day long to a rebellious people,
Who walk in the way which is not good, following their own thoughts" (Isaiah 65:1-2; Quoted in Romans 10:21) This shows God pleading with his people and showing mercy to them despite their disobedience. He does not desire them to walk in self destruction.

"Again and again they tempted God, And pained the Holy One of Israel" (78:41)

"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? " (Ezekiel 18:23)

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem..How often I wanted to gather your children together, just as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!" (Luke 13:34)

Jesus himself wanted to save those in Jerusalem but they were not willing. Contrary to popular opinion God does not get everything he wants (in a manner of speaking) because if it were up to him all would be saved, but those who disobey Him grieve Him. Thus to say that God "wanted Abel to die" does not make any sense, especially in light of God saying that he does not take "pleasure in the death of the wicked", and so how much more so the righteous?

Indeed we can grieve God by our misdeeds.

"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." (Ephesians 4:30)

 

[cyberjosh]

Thank you for the reasonable reply.

OK, here we will pause. Cain and Abel bring their offering to God. He knows, as he is omniscient, that if he chooses Abel's offering, Cain will kill him. Despite knowing this, he chose Abel's anyway, knowing full well the repercussion. Cain kills Abel, as God knew he would.

That result was based upon God's decision, that is undeniable. Had God NOT chosen Abel's offering, he would have lived.

In the manner of the "grand scheme of things" perspective you are taking you are correct that the chain of events led to that (which is a neutral point in itself), and that God would have foreknown those events. However the foreknowledege of that fact does not prove any intent to accomplish it, even if it is the unfortunate result (whether direct or indirect - and certainly it was Cain's action only that was directly responsible). You implied "want" in the sense of desire, rather than God realizing that it would the unfortunate and unfavorable (ultimate) result of that chain of events (which in no way obligates God to reconsider his response to Cain - nor should it). I say that the direct object (perhaps thinking of the direct object in grammar might provide a helpful analogy) of God's focus and purpose for responding the way he did is not based on what Cain will ultimately will do but how the situation currently at hand should be responded do.

Cain presented an unacceptable offering (why it was unacceptable we are not told - although some inferences could be made) and God responded accordingly to that, and even took the time to respond to Cain personally about it (which was more than God did for the two sons of Aaron who burned "strange fire" - basically an unacceptable offering/ritual - before God) and told him how he could "do well". I think that is theologically correct to say that God responded to the issue at hand, otherwise God's omniscience truly would get in the way of his interactions with man since He could not make practical decisions in response to man if he only ever responded to the present situation in light of a future one (like God not forgiving me on one occasion because he knows that I will inevitably trip up on another occasion).

Further more I wanted to address something else you said. You said "despite knowing this...", implying that God's decision should have been checked by Cain's reaction, but God cannot compromise what is absolutely true, right, and correct and would not vary His answer based in any case based on Cain's decision. God's decision to reject Cain's sacrifice was between Him and Cain, not between him Cain and Abel. Cain brought Abel into the equation wrongfully when it was his sole responsibility to respond properly to God. Instead Cain thought he could solve his problem by eliminating what he perceived a competition. There are not many factors in this story to allow as much leeway as you might like. God's decision was given for its own sake, not in regards to what would ultimately happen as a result of it.

At any rate as I said above the knowledge of what will happen is separate from intent. I don't see God in light of his foreknowledge of what would happen as wanting it, but rather being grieved by it. If anything I posit that God's desire for Abel was to the contrary, that he wanted him to live, but that God is not at liberty to compromise what is right (his response to Cain) in order to prevent tragedy. This I believe is also proved by the verses I quoted above about God being grieved by deeds perpetrated by His people's disobedient actions out of their free will ("were not willing") against Him. God neither wants or desires it nor is pleased by it. I say the same is the case here as concerns Abel's death.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[akilae]

Thus to say that God "wanted Abel to die" does not make any sense, especially in light of God saying that he does not take "pleasure in the death of the wicked", and so how much more so the righteous?

I have never said he enjoyed doing what he did.

But I'm afraid, concerning the evidence I have given you, it makes a lot of sense.

If by chance we gave an analogy:

A politician is given two gifts by two of his servants, two close friends.
One of the friends is better(A), than the other who is not as good(B).
The politician know that if he chooses the gift from A, then A will be killed by the one he did not choose, B. The politician knows this as a fact, let's say he read the mind of B, and knows this as a fact.

He chooses A anyways, and B kills A, just as the politician knew he would.

Who is to blame? B, sure, but so is A, knowing full well the repercussion of his decision. In a court of law, both would be sentenced to jail. Why would we make an exception to God? We shouldn't.

 

[cyberjosh]

A politician is given two gifts by two of his servants, two close friends.
One of the friends is better(A), than the other who is not as good(B).
The politician know that if he chooses the gift from A, then A will be killed by the one he did not choose, B. The politician knows this as a fact, let's say he read the mind of B, and knows this as a fact.

Please read my post more in depth. I have quite a few points I would like to see you address, if you would be so kind. I stated that God's choice could not be compromised (by Himself especially) and I said why God had to react the way he did to Cain. I cited the example of God's judgment on Aaron's sons for burning strange fire before God. Your analogy here is not parallel to this story, as the gifts here could be arbitrary and/or not necessary. God could only do one of two things with the offerings: accept or reject it. God does this, not arbitrarily, but based upon his Holiness and what is proper in man's relations to God. If you cannot understand God's reactions to Aaron's sons or His reaction to the man who touched the Ark of the Covenant when it was falling, then you cannot understand this situation here. God replied how he did out of necessity from his Holiness and the way that man must approach God (as with sacrifices, like on this occasion with Cain and Abel) and God responded how he should and the only way he could. God cannot lie to Cain and tell him his sacrifice is acceptable when it in fact it not, and plus God addressed Cain directly to remedy it if possible. Since God's response was unavoidable "want" does not come into it.

I have seen from your other post above that we can have a reasonable and intelligent discussion about this but I please ask you to quote some of the points I made in my post directly and address them, such as my illustrations and examples that I cite. I think they are key to understanding this issue otherwise I would not have bothered to have written them in my post. I have a very high view of God and I know His grace and how marvelous and how holy He is, and I can state with complete confidence that God reacted how He should have, and the only way He should have, to Cain.

P.S. To be fair, and follow my own expectations for conversation, I too will go back and respond to what you said about freewill when I can. I need to drive home right now though from work, so I will do so later or tomorrow. But I hope you can understand my intent now in this conversation and the points I am trying to make.


God Bless,

~Josh

 

[akilae]

Actually, I think I added this post while you were adding one, hence the clash.

is not based on what Cain will ultimately will do but how the situation currently at hand should be responded do.

I disagree entirely with this. If you are omniscient, you know the result of the future, there is no way at all you do not take that into account when making a decision.

and even took the time to respond to Cain personally about it

The point of which was to assuage him, but is pointless as God knew it would not. I would view this as a waste of time honestly, and if not a waste, than God mocking him.

implying that God's decision should have been checked by Cain's reaction, but God cannot compromise what is absolutely true, right, and correct and would not vary His answer based in any case based on Cain's decision.

If God cannot compromise it, then he is not omnipotent.

God's decision to reject Cain's sacrifice was between Him and Cain, not between him Cain and Abel.

On a basic level yes, but you ignoring the fact God knew that the result would involve Abel.

God's decision was given for its own sake, not in regards to what would ultimately happen as a result of it.

Ah, here we go. My logic on this is simple. Should you know ahead of time something bad will happen, and you have the ability to stop it but choose not to, you therefor are condoning it, wanting it to happen. If you know ahead of time that somebody will die (say violently) and you have the power and ability to stop it (without harming anybody) but you don't, then you want that person dead. You cuold have stopped them, but chose not to. Even a part of you was willing to let said person die, i.e. wanting them to die.

In this fashion it is even simpler for God, the fact Cain killed Abel came as a result of God rejecting Cain. God knew this would happen, and could have stopped it, especially as it was his decision, but chose not to, and instead swung the other way, which resulted in Abel's death.

but rather being grieved by it.

Doubt it, only somebody insane would grieve over something they knowably allowed. And in any sense, grieving wouldn't make much sense as God would know it was coming. The way you refer to it seems as if God was taken by surprise. He wasn't, he couldn't have been, he knew exactly what was coming and when, and most importantly what helped set the chain of events into motion.

If anything I posit that God's desire for Abel was to the contrary, that he wanted him to live, but that God is not at liberty to compromise what is right (his response to Cain) in order to prevent tragedy.

Well now we get into Epicurus' debate over whether or not God is evil.

I posit he is, as he created evil, and anything that creates evil IS evil, but that's regardless. However, if God is not at liberty to do as he wants, he not only does not have free will, he does not have omnipotence, which I agree with.

The point of this is to exhibit biblical contradictions, which you have now done.

This feeds into a bigger argument I make where the Bible should be in no sense be taken literally, but rather metaphorically simply for the reason taking it historically literally causes problems like this.

To continue:

God's decision did not force Cain's hand in any way. Man always has a choice. Plus I acknowledged that God's decision what what made Cain (wrongfully) angry at his brother in my last post.

Why then would God make a decision that would result in Cain killing Abel?

 

[cyberjosh]

Well now we get into Epicurus' debate over whether or not God is evil.

I posit he is, as he created evil, and anything that creates evil IS evil, but that's regardless. However, if God is not at liberty to do as he wants, he not only does not have free will, he does not have omnipotence, which I agree with.

The point of this is to exhibit biblical contradictions, which you have now done.

This feeds into a bigger argument I make where the Bible should be in no sense be taken literally, but rather metaphorically simply for the reason taking it historically literally causes problems like this.

So now you actually reveal that you have had a hidden agenda, and were being quite disingenuous with your intent for this thread from the very start. And here I was being quite sincere and answering you from a biblical perspective and from a perspective of faith and of one who reads the Bible daily and takes its words and meaning quite seriously, worthy of a life of study infact. I'm afraid that if you are not commited to discovering the truth of God's word and only think of it as a metaphor then no amount of biblical truth and sound doctrine will change your mind. Is it then in our best interests that this conversation be ended now that the cat is out of the bag?

P.S. You curiously mention "historical", which brings to mind the topic of Biblical Historicity and Archaeology which I study as a hobby and am quite an avid reader and studier of that subject. If you are truly interested in the Bible's historical and factual reliability you might be interested in the subforum I requested to be created not long ago in Biblical History & Archaeology. It is still in the process of growing but your questions are welcome there. The more I study the Bible's historical setting, context, and culture the more I am convinced that the stories conveyed therein are very accurate. I have also written two papers on the Bible's historical accuracy, which I wrote for college and other school work in literature, if you would like me to send them to you. Actually now that I think about it I think I should upload it to my new website since it is almost completely bare bones right now. You can get the the site by typing in http://www.scholarofgod.com. I'll try to remember to upload them sometime soon, as the entire intent of my site is for Bible study, apologetics, and performing serious works of scholarly investigation via archaeology, linguistics, theology, and other disciplines to exposit and expound the work of the Bible.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[akilae]

So now you actually reveal that you have had a hidden agenda, and were being quite disingenuous with your intent for this thread from the very start.

One wouldn't call it a hidden agenda so much as one similar to what you were doing: intending to show me the truth as you saw it of the Bible. What I am doing is no different, yet somehow this is wrong. How?

P.S. You curiously mention "historical", which brings to mind the topic of Biblical Historicity and Archaeology which I study as a hobby and am quite an avid reader and studier of that subject. If you are truly interested in the Bible's historical and factual reliability you might be interested in the subforum I requested to be created not long ago in Biblical History & Archaeology. It is still in the process of growing but your questions are welcome there. The more I study the Bible's historical setting, context, and culture the more I am convinced that the stories conveyed therein are very accurate. I have also written two papers on the Bible's historical accuracy, which I wrote for college and other school work in literature, if you would like me to send them to you. Actually now that I think about it I think I should upload it to my new website since it is almost completely bare bones right now. You can get the the site by typing in http://www.scholarofgod.com. I'll try to remember to upload them sometime soon, as the entire intent of my site is for Bible study, apologetics, and performing serious works of scholarly investigation via aracheology, linguistics, theology, and other disciplines to exposit and expound the work of the Bible.

I had a professor at one point whose interest was similar to you, intending to validate the Bible by using archaeology, but unfortunately that river goes both ways, and archaeology can also be used to refute it. I am curious as to whether or not you read the articles that do that as well, or only those that back up your beliefs, as my professor sadly did. I am a history major, so I am aware of such types of archaeology, but I place them in the category of uselessness as those Biblical scholars who try, and fail, to show that man existed at the same time as dinosaurs. I can't trust the recordings of any archaeologist or teacher who states how we date things is erred (claiming world is 7 thousand or so years old, while science has proven it to be far older), and hypocritically so. My professor, who was a retired one from another college, was let go shortly after our term for obvious reasons; preaching in a classroom just isn't an intelligent thing to do, career wise, generally speaking.

Anyway, I feel we have gotten of topic. Just because I have expressed that my intentions are similar to yours does not in the least mean the conversation should die. Let it live! By far you have cerainly given the most useful responses, and you are close, I am sure of refuting my points, if you can. So I challenge you to do so.

 

[cyberjosh]

Although your concerns are noted akilae, as moderator I must insist that this thread be kept on topic. If you want to discuss alleged biblical contradictions and discuss the rape issue, etc. please make another thread on it. And if you use the search tool you might even find a thread titled "Biblical Contradictions" where many of these issues have been addressed before. I think I have seen a thread like that before around here somewhere. But please move all off-topic discussion to another thread.

P.S. I left you a PM in your inbox.

Thanks,

~Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Note: David and akilae. You discussion has been moved to its own thread here where you can discuss such matters.

~Josh

 

[wavy]

God: Not Omniscient According to the Biblical Text

Genesis iv.16; xi.5; xviii.20-21
Numbers xiv.11; xxii.9
Deuteronomy viii.2
Jeremiah iii.7; xxxii.35

Thanks,
Eric

 

[david_james]

Go away fool

 

[wavy]

Go away fool

I'm not so sure the moderators will take kindly to this. But you are forgiven, for my part.


Thanks,
Eric