Bible Study what are you looking at?

[stovebolts]

That is too much work for me. I am looking for a lexicon that can add to the definitions in the Strong's word database, that I have put together as a search tool: https://adonai-reigns.life/api/strongs/search.html

Yeah, it's a lot of work alright, but the site does contain two lexicons from the Greek biblical texts if you didn't notice. Pick the book, chapter and verse, then click on the word and it takes you straight to the lexicons.

I am actually obligated to do so, if it is of a nature that is contrary to the truth. To suggest that God responded by burning the animals is a heinous mischaracterisation and blasphemy (1 John 4:8) - Ramban's view of God is a god that I do not worship (eg: Mark 12:27).

Slow down there, pull in the claws please. I think your confused and that's ok, we all get a bit confused once in awhile. First, Rashi was the commentator, not Ramban. Rashi sites his source on the matter and does not comment one way or the other as i believe he is referencing other places this word is being used used argue a point neither you nor I are aware of. We are both ignorant to why he draws out this word and what it may mean to other Jewish views that are non- orthodox.

Likewise, (verse 5): “וְאֶל מִנְחָתוֹ לֹא שָׁעָה” means: [And to his offering] He did not turn. Similarly, (Exod. 5:9): וְאַל יִשְׁעוּ means: and let them not turn. Similarly, (Job 14:6): שְׁעֵה מֵעָלָיו means: turn away from him.

and…turned: Fire descended and consumed his offering. — [from Song Zuta 6:2, Sefer Hayashar]

Have you read Song Zuta 6:2 to see if it referring specifically to Cain and Able, or, like the passages he uses above, he is simply citing other places the word is used?
Perhaps and...turned is from 1 Kings 18.

We want to be good students before we make rash judgments, right?

Anyway, i can tell you take offence to Ables offering being burnt up. Can you tell me why. While your at it, help me understand why you quoted the two verses you did. I can't seem to make sense of your train of thought and as a brother, I'd like to understand.

I am not of Apollos or of Paul or of Rashi. As soon as Rashi adds to Genesis 4:4 the view that God does not love His own sheep, but rather burns them to ash, he is inferior to the spirit I know God to be. A student is never greater than his teacher - if you go under his teaching, you will never rise above it.

Please see above. I am not certain that song zuta 6:2 is referencing Genesis 4. Can you confirm this before making accusations please?

God saw all that He had made, behold, it was good. " Obviously God had a great delight in the world He had made. Do you think any one sparrow can be taken from that world without being an assault on His joy? Of course, only a mind of bloodlust that has been bent to think that it increases God's joy to aquit them for having done such things, right? What is my proper part in such things?

Are you building a case that God did not command animal sacrifice or that God never sent his fire to consume an animal sacrifice because I'm really understanding why you take such offence in the idea that a sacrifice was consumed by Gods Holy Fire. BTW, I am not saying Ables was.

1 kings 18:Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood and the stones and the dust, and it licked up the water that was in the trench.

The picture in my mind is the same, except for the fact that in saying He admired, there is no implied dishonour to the other (ie: Cain). A mind that thinks with the fallen mindset (as we we once walked among them), is inclined to view God as having turned toward Abel as though He could choose only Cain or Abel but not both. That is only because of the juxtaposition of the two - where envy is present to give context.

Yes, in your mind because as you have expressed, there is no implied dishonor toward Cain where as you see implied dishonor when the face is used.

Let me ask you, do these verses imply Gods wrath to heathen?

Numbers 6:24 -26 The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.

Psalm 80:3 Restore us, O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved!

Isiah 59:2.
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you,

While i understand you prefer Admire, using the picture of Gods Face deepens my theology and makes Gods presence 'in your face' so to say. I personally don't have a problem with you or others using the word admire, but for me (and I'm not pushing myself on anyone) i "feel" it takes away from the deeper picture.

At the least, this shows how those who love God and have a passion for His word can use two different pictures to describe the same event and God blesses both.

I hope this finds you well.

 

[Shekinahglory]

The Lord came seeking the lost. He provided the only covering acceptable to God. Why would He then need to confirm it by bringing fire down from heaven? The Lord did for Adam and Eve the same thing He did for Abraham only they were not placed in a sleep like they were dead. They were dead, spiritually.

 

[Serving Zion]

Yeah, it's a lot of work alright, but the site does contain two lexicons from the Greek biblical texts if you didn't notice. Pick the book, chapter and verse, then click on the word and it takes you straight to the lexicons.

Ok, well that's way off from what I asked for. You criticised my resource, being strongs, saying that Hebrew is so hard that I have got it wrong (go back and look at what you said, to verify this). Then I asked for a better resource. What you gave me in response is not relevant to what I asked for, and it is not justification for you to criticise my resource.

Slow down there, pull in the claws please. I think your confused and that's ok, we all get a bit confused once in awhile.

It's very important to understand how, in order to put things right.

First, Rashi was the commentator, not Ramban. Rashi sites his source on the matter and does not comment one way or the other as i believe he is referencing other places this word is being used used argue a point neither you nor I are aware of. We are both ignorant to why he draws out this word and what it may mean to other Jewish views that are non- orthodox.

Likewise, (verse 5): “וְאֶל מִנְחָתוֹ לֹא שָׁעָה” means: [And to his offering] He did not turn. Similarly, (Exod. 5:9): וְאַל יִשְׁעוּ means: and let them not turn. Similarly, (Job 14:6): שְׁעֵה מֵעָלָיו means: turn away from him.

and…turned: Fire descended and consumed his offering. — [from Song Zuta 6:2, Sefer Hayashar]

Have you read Song Zuta 6:2 to see if it referring specifically to Cain and Able, or, like the passages he uses above, he is simply citing other places the word is used?
Perhaps and...turned is from 1 Kings 18.

We want to be good students before we make rash judgments, right?

Well, if you can provide the link from where you have copied the words you gave me, I'll look further into the context for how it came to be said. Then I will let you know if I have understood how you think I have become confused by it.

Anyway, i can tell you take offence to Ables offering being burnt up. Can you tell me why.

Why should that be necessary? .. do you not understand how I would be offended if I brought the most beautiful of my flock to give to the king, and he decided to turn it to ash? .. what kind of mind could possibly think that is a way to show gratitude? .. much more, what kind of mind could think that the God of all creation would behave that way toward the most vulnerable of all species?

While your at it, help me understand why you quoted the two verses you did. I can't seem to make sense of your train of thought and as a brother, I'd like to understand.

God is love. What are the qualities of love? Is it to burn beautiful, fluffy critters? God is the God of the living - so, what do you think, that the God of the living is going to take the living things and put them to death? The whole way of thinking that is produced by suggesting that God responded that way, is contrary to the very nature of God that the scriptures tell us He is. Those two scriptures in particular tell us that the god who burns animals is the opposite of who Adonai is said to be according to the New Testament writers.

Please see above. I am not certain that song zuta 6:2 is referencing Genesis 4. Can you confirm this before making accusations please?

I think you'd better provide the link to Rashi's discussion that you have copied from then. The way you presented the material in context of the discussion does lead the reader to understand that he is making that association.

Are you building a case that God did not command animal sacrifice or that God never sent his fire to consume an animal sacrifice because I'm really understanding why you take such offence in the idea that a sacrifice was consumed by Gods Holy Fire. BTW, I am not saying Ables was.

No, that would be a different discussion. I am talking only about Genesis 4:4, and targeting the spirit that projects words upon it that paint God as being the one who would not respond as love or as the giver of life to the sheep.

1 kings 18:Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood and the stones and the dust, and it licked up the water that was in the trench.

Way too different for comparison. Who killed the buffalo here? Why did he do that?

Yes, in your mind because as you have expressed, there is no implied dishonor toward Cain where as you see implied dishonor when the face is used.

No, read more carefully, you have a spirit to oppose me now. I said that those who are too familiar with the fallen nature (as you have said - remember, I am a breath of fresh air), we all once walked among them. That is why I would choose admire rather than turn - it reduces the opportunity for those who are corrupted by a fallen mind to be tempted to misread me. But if you read me right, you will see I have said it means the same to me. As a translator, I am responsible for saying what is going to lead the reader into the right thinking.

Let me ask you, do these verses imply Gods wrath to heathen?

Numbers 6:24 -26 The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face shine on you and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace.

Psalm 80:3 Restore us, O God; let your face shine, that we may be saved!

Isiah 59:2.
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you,

Yes, as being a statement that we hope a blessing will come upon them, by deductive inference we understand the observation is being made that they are in a present state of cursedness. So by not really giving the blessing, but telling them that it would be better for them to have it, it only amounts to a curse (ie: "I know you are lower than me, and I hope that God will grant change for your sake").

While i understand you prefer Admire, using the picture of Gods Face deepens my theology and makes Gods presence 'in your face' so to say. I personally don't have a problem with you or others using the word admire, but for me (and I'm not pushing myself on anyone) i "feel" it takes away from the deeper picture.

To understand your feelings is what will give you strength, through wisdom. To feel is to experience emotions of the flesh. The one who sows to the flesh will reap corruption.

At the least, this shows how those who love God and have a passion for His word can use two different pictures to describe the same event and God blesses both.

Can you explain that? .. I don't understand it well enough to agree or not.

I hope this finds you well.

.. oh, you have a basis to doubt? (it's my sense of humour - irony with reference to the above).

 

[Serving Zion]

The Lord came seeking the lost. He provided the only covering acceptable to God. Why would He then need to confirm it by bringing fire down from heaven? The Lord did for Adam and Eve the same thing He did for Abraham only they were not placed in a sleep like they were dead. They were dead, spiritually.

hmmm, it looks like you haven't understood my question, so I'll make it a bit clearer:

In Genesis 4:4, it says that Abel brought some of his flock to Adonai. It doesn't say that Adonai burned the offering, and it doesn't say that the offering was slaughtered.

You have suggested that it doesn't make any difference whether the offering was burned or not, because The Lord is the One who was doing everything that needed to be done.

I have then asked you what is the thing that needed to be done that The Lord did .. because I can't see that written in the text. The text only shows that Abel brought the offering to Adonai. Where are you seeing in the text that Adonai "did what He needed to do" with the offering?

 

[Shekinahglory]

The first thing He taught them was what would be the acceptable offering. Scripture is a progressive revelation. It didn’t begin with John proclaiming Behold the Lamb. It began in shadow form. There is absolutely nothing that can make man right with God except shed blood. Whether that is overtly stated in Genesis or not it will be revealed it is after the Passover Lamb of God who was slain from the foundations of the world. That is the scarlet thread that runs through Scripture. Acts 15 the further revelation of what we call the New Covenant. Animal sacrifices pointing to the needed shed blood of Christ.

 

[Serving Zion]

The first thing He taught them was what would be the acceptable offering. Scripture is a progressive revelation. It didn’t begin with John proclaiming Behold the Lamb. It began in shadow form. There is absolutely nothing that can make man right with God except shed blood. Whether that is overtly stated in Genesis or not it will be revealed it is after the Passover Lamb of God who was slain from the foundations of the world. That is the scarlet thread that runs through Scripture. Acts 15 the further revelation of what we call the New Covenant. Animal sacrifices pointing to the needed shed blood of Christ.

You seem to be relying entirely upon retrospective projection, to teach that Genesis 4:3-4 says animals were slaughtered to appease Adonai. If you go on teaching that way, I will have no part with you. The scripture simply says what it says, and any conclusions we make must be based upon what scripture says - otherwise it comes from some other origin. I do not see that it is necessary to assume the animals were slaughtered in Genesis 4:4, and you can see I have explained above why I take issue with it.

 

[Shekinahglory]

You seem to be relying entirely upon retrospective projection, to teach that Genesis 4:3-4 says animals were slaughtered to appease Adonai. If you go on teaching that way, I will have no part with you. The scripture simply says what it says, and any conclusions we make must be based upon what scripture says - otherwise it comes from some other origin. I do not see that it is necessary to assume the animals were slaughtered in Genesis 4:4, and you can see I have explained above why I take issue with it.

Sorry but your understanding is limited by the narrowness of your focus. To not see the garments of skin are not a shadow of the true Innocent Lamb’ s sacrifice and covering them with His righteousness is to pretty much deny what happened proclaiming the greater Sacrifice. The claim it was done in the fullness of time is Scriptures claim of the Lord. Everything in Scripture that has to do with sacrifices is about shedding blood. There is no remission without the shedding of blood. What would have happened if Adam and Eve rejected the blood? They have been dealt with any differently than Cain? No. Two cannot walk together a Holy God and an uncovered sinful man.

The entire Good News of Jesus Christ is revealed in Genesis 3. The sheep fall, the Good Shepherd seeks His sheep, he calls them and they respond. When they come the Lamb is slain and it’s skin obtained which are then made into the~ garments that picture righteousness. They then undergo an exodus that points to `Israel laving Egypt after the Passover.
then you miss that they all knew when the offering is to be made, the fullness of time, what is acceptable, the slain Lamb. Where it was to be offered, on the east side of Eden. Where what would eventually be revealed as God earthly throne sat. The throne consisting of the Mercy Seat, two cherubim, and the flaming Sword of God.

one last thing about God and His types or shadows. There was a Rock who supplied Israel with water and Moses was told to strike that Rock to get water. Picturing Christ being crucified. The second time Moses was to pray to the Rock but struck it again. This cost Moses his spot in the promised land. See 1 Cor. 10: 1- 11 now these things happened as types to them and written for our learning.

I will miss conversing but if it is your choice I must continue to do as He is calling me. What ever your choice God bless.

one last thing I never claimed it was animals it is always a Lamb such as in the Passover one Lamb per house.

 

[Serving Zion]

Sorry but your understanding is limited by the narrowness of your focus. To not see the garments of skin are not a shadow of the true Innocent Lamb’ s sacrifice and covering them with His righteousness is to pretty much deny what happened proclaiming the greater Sacrifice. The claim it was done in the fullness of time is Scriptures claim of the Lord. Everything in Scripture that has to do with sacrifices is about shedding blood. There is no remission without the shedding of blood. What would have happened if Adam and Eve rejected the blood? They have been dealt with any differently than Cain? No. Two cannot walk together a Holy God and an uncovered sinful man.

The entire Good News of Jesus Christ is revealed in Genesis 3. The sheep fall, the Good Shepherd seeks His sheep, he calls them and they respond. When they come the Lamb is slain and it’s skin obtained which are then made into the~ garments that picture righteousness. They then undergo an exodus that points to `Israel laving Egypt after the Passover.
then you miss that they all knew when the offering is to be made, the fullness of time, what is acceptable, the slain Lamb. Where it was to be offered, on the east side of Eden. Where what would eventually be revealed as God earthly throne sat. The throne consisting of the Mercy Seat, two cherubim, and the flaming Sword of God.

one last thing about God and His types or shadows. There was a Rock who supplied Israel with water and Moses was told to strike that Rock to get water. Picturing Christ being crucified. The second time Moses was to pray to the Rock but struck it again. This cost Moses his spot in the promised land. See 1 Cor. 10: 1- 11 now these things happened as types to them and written for our learning.

I will miss conversing but if it is your choice I must continue to do as He is calling me. What ever your choice God bless.

one last thing I never claimed it was animals it is always a Lamb such as in the Passover one Lamb per house.

Yep. Well, you will certainly make your own choice then. I do not follow the teachings you put forward here, and I do not appreciate that Christianity is being taught as such.

 

[Shekinahglory]

Yep. Well, you will certainly make your own choice then. I do not follow the teachings you put forward here, and I do not appreciate that Christianity is being taught as such.

Let the Lord lead you He knows best. I guess this brings it to a close. Sorry. All the best

 

[Serving Zion]

Let the Lord lead you He knows best. I guess this brings it to a close. Sorry. All the best

Yes, of course! .. into pastures green! (I will not be a party to your fields of blood).

 

[stovebolts]

, well that's way off from what I asked for. You criticised my resource, being strongs, saying that Hebrew is so hard that I have got it wrong (go back and look at what you said, to verify this). Then I asked for a better resource. What you gave me in response is not relevant to what I asked for, and it is not justification for you to criticise my resource.

Let's stop right here. I don't like the tone this is heading.

Maybe on other sites folk feel the need to fight each other, but we're a pretty good community with very small ego's, and we try and think the best of others.

If I've offended you, please accept my apology. I will try harder to learn how to speak to you, but in the meantime, give me the benefit of the doubt.

If you heard me say you got something wrong, then it was poor, lazy grammar and articulation on my part.

Let me try again.

Strongs is an excellent biblical tool if and when used properly. How you used Strongs in Genesis 4 was impressive and commendable and in part, agrees with Orthodox Jewish Hebrew translators as the first part of your deduction agreed almost word for word with theirs.

As with any tool, it is biased for it's own use. This is not a bad thing. We all have a bias and it's not a dirty word. In the case of Strongs, it's biased toward supporting it's own translation as is seen by each Greek word having all the English words it's been translated as within each definition. This is similar to how Rashi was citing where his word was used.

Earlier, i posted an exhaustive link to Perseus Tufts for the Greek which includes at least two lexicons that are an excellent resource. They used to have the Septuagint, but i did not see it today when i looked. It may take some digging to find it. As a disclaimer, i haven't been to that site for over 10 years.

If your looking to up your Greek to the next level, i recommend Perseus Tufts. You can use Strongs to see the greek spelling and then you can use that to find the greek word of Tufts. I hope this resource is useful to you.

I hope that you get to know me, and my heart. I do get lazy with my words, but most that know me, know that I'm not overbearing unless I'm required to be and be give the benefit of the doubt to most.

With this in mind, i hope to settle this matter with grace and charity. Lord willing, we can clear up any other issues i may have caused between us, but I'll not move forward until we are at ease with this.

Grace and piece.

 

[Serving Zion]

Let's stop right here. I don't like the tone this is heading.

Maybe on other sites folk feel the need to fight each other, but we're a pretty good community with very small ego's, and we try and think the best of others.

If I've offended you, please accept my apology. I will try harder to learn how to speak to you, but in the meantime, give me the benefit of the doubt.

If you heard me say you got something wrong, then it was poor, lazy grammar and articulation on my part.

Let me try again.

Strongs is an excellent biblical tool if and when used properly. How you used Strongs in Genesis 4 was impressive and commendable and in part, agrees with Orthodox Jewish Hebrew translators as the first part of your deduction agreed almost word for word with theirs.

As with any tool, it is biased for it's own use. This is not a bad thing. We all have a bias and it's not a dirty word. In the case of Strongs, it's biased toward supporting it's own translation as is seen by each Greek word having all the English words it's been translated as within each definition. This is similar to how Rashi was citing where his word was used.

Earlier, i posted an exhaustive link to Perseus Tufts for the Greek which includes at least two lexicons that are an excellent resource. They used to have the Septuagint, but i did not see it today when i looked. It may take some digging to find it. As a disclaimer, i haven't been to that site for over 10 years.

If your looking to up your Greek to the next level, i recommend Perseus Tufts. You can use Strongs to see the greek spelling and then you can use that to find the greek word of Tufts. I hope this resource is useful to you.

I hope that you get to know me, and my heart. I do get lazy with my words, but most that know me, know that I'm not overbearing unless I'm required to be and be give the benefit of the doubt to most.

With this in mind, i hope to settle this matter with grace and charity. Lord willing, we can clear up any other issues i may have caused between us, but I'll not move forward until we are at ease with this.

Grace and piece.

Nevermind then Jeff. You do what you want, ok? I will keep on serving where there is an opportunity!

 

[Shekinahglory]

Let's stop right here. I don't like the tone this is heading.

Maybe on other sites folk feel the need to fight each other, but we're a pretty good community with very small ego's, and we try and think the best of others.

If I've offended you, please accept my apology. I will try harder to learn how to speak to you, but in the meantime, give me the benefit of the doubt.

If you heard me say you got something wrong, then it was poor, lazy grammar and articulation on my part.

Let me try again.

Strongs is an excellent biblical tool if and when used properly. How you used Strongs in Genesis 4 was impressive and commendable and in part, agrees with Orthodox Jewish Hebrew translators as the first part of your deduction agreed almost word for word with theirs.

As with any tool, it is biased for it's own use. This is not a bad thing. We all have a bias and it's not a dirty word. In the case of Strongs, it's biased toward supporting it's own translation as is seen by each Greek word having all the English words it's been translated as within each definition. This is similar to how Rashi was citing where his word was used.

Earlier, i posted an exhaustive link to Perseus Tufts for the Greek which includes at least two lexicons that are an excellent resource. They used to have the Septuagint, but i did not see it today when i looked. It may take some digging to find it. As a disclaimer, i haven't been to that site for over 10 years.

If your looking to up your Greek to the next level, i recommend Perseus Tufts. You can use Strongs to see the greek spelling and then you can use that to find the greek word of Tufts. I hope this resource is useful to you.

I hope that you get to know me, and my heart. I do get lazy with my words, but most that know me, know that I'm not overbearing unless I'm required to be and be give the benefit of the doubt to most.

With this in mind, i hope to settle this matter with grace and charity. Lord willing, we can clear up any other issues i may have caused between us, but I'll not move forward until we are at ease with this.

Grace and piece.

Jeff, Merry Christmas to all and to the subject of discussion good night.

 

[for_his_glory]

Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. 2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 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: 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. 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. 9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. 11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; 12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.


1. Abel was a keeper of the sheep and by faith gave the best offering of his firstlings and was counted righteous by God, Numbers 18:17; Hebrews 11:4

2. Cain was a tiller of the ground, but did not give by faith that which God instructed as being his best offering in honoring God for what God gave him, Numbers 18:12

3. Cain was angry as God had no respect for his offering, but gave him room to repent telling him if he did well God would respect his offering. Cain was given a chance to do better and also to rule over Abel as being the big brother setting a good example to Abel, but instead because of his anger towards Abel and God respecting his offering he killed his brother. Because he had no faith and his heart was hardened God cursed him from the earth that it would never yeild Cain any crops.

 

[stovebolts]

Nevermind then Jeff. You do what you want, ok? I will keep on serving where there is an opportunity!

What would i need to say to satisfy you and gain your forgiveness for being lazy with my words and my lack of articulation?

Nevermind then Jeff. You do what you want, ok? I will keep on serving where there is an opportunity!

Since neither of us knew what Song Zuta 6:2, Sefer Hayashi was, I looked it up. Here is what it says.

1 5. And it was at the expiration
of a few years, that they brought an
approximating offering to the Lord,
and Cain brought from the fruit of
the ground, and Abel brought from
the firstlings of his flock from the fat
tlicreof, and God turned and inclined
to Abel and his offering, and a fire
came down from the Lord from
heaven and consumed it.


Now, it may be that Rashi supports this text, or it may be that Rashi is using outside sources to validate "turned and". Because I don't know Rashi's theology very well, I can't judge him. Why? Because what I do know of Rashi is that he stays very close to the text and lets the readers decide. If you become familiar with his work, you will see that he puts much emphasis on words and their meanings and does very little commentary.

 

[Shekinahglory]

2. Cain was a tiller of the ground, but did not give by faith that which God instructed as being his best offering in honoring God for what God gave him, Numbers 18:12

nice piece. The Lord sent Cain to the land of Nod which means Wanderer. If Cain had accepted that the only way to survive would have been to become a shepherd and he would then have the acceptable sacrifice. Instead he killed his brother.

 

[for_his_glory]

nice piece. The Lord sent Cain to the land of Nod which means Wanderer. If Cain had accepted that the only way to survive would have been to become a shepherd and he would then have the acceptable sacrifice. Instead he killed his brother.

What it all boils down to is a lesson about being faithful to God and what can happen to us if there is no obedience to His commands. Because of our wicked ways we become an outcast to God and will have damned our self.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

This is all God wanted Cain to do was to humbled himself and turn from his wicked ways, but Cain choose not to do this and for that he paid the price for his actions.

 

[Serving Zion]

What would i need to say to satisfy you and gain your forgiveness for being lazy with my words and my lack of articulation?

Hi there Jeff, I can already see that you are genuinely trying to help, so that's all I need in order to recognise that you are doing well. There is no need for us to point back at it, AFAIC.

But it still would be helpful to me, since you mentioned it (and I have already known it), that if you do know of a lexicon resource of the same nature as the Strongs (ideal if it uses the Strong's numbering system - but not necessarily), then it would be useful to me as I would implement it in my database of Hebrew words that I search for when I am reading into their meanings.

Since neither of us knew what Song Zuta 6:2, Sefer Hayashi was, I looked it up. Here is what it says.

1 5. And it was at the expiration
of a few years, that they brought an
approximating offering to the Lord,
and Cain brought from the fruit of
the ground, and Abel brought from
the firstlings of his flock from the fat
tlicreof, and God turned and inclined
to Abel and his offering, and a fire
came down from the Lord from
heaven and consumed it.


Now, it may be that Rashi supports this text, or it may be that Rashi is using outside sources to validate "turned and". Because I don't know Rashi's theology very well, I can't judge him. Why? Because what I do know of Rashi is that he stays very close to the text and lets the readers decide. If you become familiar with his work, you will see that he puts much emphasis on words and their meanings and does very little commentary.

Thank you for this clarification, and for patience. Now I can see what has happened. When I clicked on that link you gave, firstly it shows only the scripture without the Rashi's commentary. That is why I have subsequently complained that you didn't provide the link that you were drawing reference from. Today when it is apparent that you are drawing reference from that link, I looked closer and discovered a bug that caused the commentary to be hidden when the button was showing it was available. So by clicking off and on again, the commentary does load as you have intended. Shame that I didn't find that sooner, it might have prevented some escalation.. but, now here we are!

As for judging the content, I accept now that I have seen the context in which you wrote (by copy/pasting even the part you did not particularly intend to say), you aren't suggesting that I should believe fire came down from heaven and consumed the animals. It is ok with me if you do not expect me to believe such a thing, so that also is a thing we can leave behind and not point back to.

Now I can comment on the value I see in the word שע' - that means "turn the eye" - specifically as it talks about moving the direction of looking (the verb).

Whenever I read the Hebrew language, I look to the pictograms as descriptors of the meaning in the word, according to it's given context (the language is divine). In this case, we can see already the context is given in that Abel's offering caught God's attention, and we know that God was pleased by it.

So when we consider this word "Yesha", I see that the [yod (hand)], [shin (teeth)] and [ayin (eye)] in context of the concept to "turn", "look toward", the word shows yod-shin-ayin (I work - I eat - I see) - the word means "The thing that I am doing, is for feeding the eye", and just as you have said that the Hebrew words think as actions, the emphasis is placed upon the yod - saying that "God directed/turned his eye" (that is the element "ye" of "yesha" that says "I do") and the purpose for moving his eye is so that He would see the thing that is fulfilling to Him through the eye (ie: food for the soul - "shin").

That is where your translation "Adonai turned to Abel and to his offering" is a bit more relevant than merely saying that He admired, and as I said, I wouldn't mind using that expression if it weren't for the strong culture of the fallen that is inclined to always think in terms of favourites. I know the way they think, that they would be inclined to read that God turned away from Cain and toward Abel, which actually isn't what the scripture says. The scripture says that God saw a thing in Abel's offering that attracted God's eye - He admired it.

I do think that by saying "Adonai admired Abel and his offering" is sufficient to convey the meaning in the text, (as well as, and to my knowledge as best as, one word can do), wherein it literally means in English grammar that Adonai looked toward Abel with interest/favour - and some translations have used the two words together to convey that meaning "looked favourably" - which I think "admired" does as well.

.. so I don't know whether you still think there is any value in the word "turned" that isn't conveyed by the word "admired", and maybe you do - or maybe you see something conveyed by the word "admired" that makes it a misleading word to use.

All that I was able to see in your complaint, because of what I see in the words, is that you had your favourite in Rashi and you wanted to tell me that I should be like him. So because of that, in order to put things right, you would need to see whether after my explanation here you still think that I should use the word turned rather than admired, then help me to understand why - or maybe you would agree that my use of the word "admired" contains the essence of turning.

 

[for_his_glory]

What it all boils down to is a lesson about being faithful to God and what can happen to us if there is no obedience to His commands. Because of our wicked ways we become an outcast to God and will have damned our self.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

This is all God wanted Cain to do was to humbled himself and turn from his wicked ways, but Cain choose not to do this and for that he paid the price for his actions.

Serving Zion not sure what you mean by the sad emoji?

 

[Serving Zion]

Serving Zion not sure what you mean by the sad emoji?

Oh, OK. Well I am sorry about that, because I know that I still owe you an answer!

This is all God wanted Cain to do was to humbled himself and turn from his wicked ways, but Cain choose not to do this and for that he paid the price for his actions.

I just thought that was sad.