Who are those being spoken of in Genesis 4

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Genesis 4

Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden.

They have two children, Cain and Abel.

Cain kills Abel.

God sends Cain away but (Genesis 4:15) So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight.

Who are those that would kill him if Adam and Eve were the only other ones around?

Who is Cain’s wife?

I think this can be view along with the idea of evolution being guided by God.

 

[BibleReader]

Genesis 4

Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden.

They have two children, Cain and Abel.

Cain kills Abel.

God sends Cain away but (Genesis 4:15) So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight.

Who are those that would kill him if Adam and Eve were the only other ones around?

Who is Cain’s wife?

I think this can be view along with the idea of evolution being guided by God.

Hi, Dave the Byzantine Catholic.

At the plaintext level, the story is probably a myth.

At the typological (sensus planior) level, it is probably a picture of Christ being sacrificed by mankind.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

BibleReader:

Hi, Dave the Byzantine Catholic.

At the plaintext level, the story is probably a myth.

At the typological (sensus planior) level, it is probably a picture of Christ being sacrificed by mankind.

I do not think that viewing this as a myth only is consistent with Catholic Teaching.

 

[matthew1624]

1 The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.”

2 Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil.

3 In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil,

I would not rule out that in between verse 2 & 3 that Adam and Eve didn’t have any other children. In the course of time (v.2) they could have (and did) have more children.

Hope this helps.

Shalom…

 

[puzzleannie]

1 The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the LORD.”

2 Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil.

3 In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil,

I would not rule out that in between verse 2 & 3 that Adam and Eve didn’t have any other children. In the course of time (v.2) they could have (and did) have more children.

Hope this helps.

Shalom…

of course, they were obeying the command to be fruitful and multiply, the bible doesn’t say Cain, Abel and Seth were there only children, just the only ones who are named. As every parent of a large family knows, there is a point when you start to forget their names, anyhow. Just like the first two have lots of photos and videos, but the baby is lucky if you save one snapshot of him.

 

[BayCityRickL]

The text doesn’t spell all those things out, does it?

1. The mark on Cain could have been for people who were to come along later, not necessarily those who might have already been alive.
2. According to

Gen 1:27 God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
1:28 God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.”
1:29 God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food;
1:30 and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food.” And so it happened.
1:31 God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed–the sixth day.
NAB

…it looks like there could have been other people who had been created earlier. Adam and Eve don’t come along until Chap 2. Isn’t that a radical idea?

1. I think it’s very simplistic to label something a myth and it’s a real show-stopper.
2. The mark could be a literary device so that the readers do not condemn Cain. Another radical idea.
3. Perhaps the mark is typological of baptism where we get that “indelible mark on our souls” (ala Baltimore Catechism). And, the “people” who would kill Cain are really the angels of death.

 

[teevee]

I once quieried this online with some Jewish Hebrew scholars in Jerusalem. It is a peculiarly Christian obsession, but their point was that ‘Adam’ can serve as either a collective noun for man, OR a particular personal name. In other words it could, depending on the context serve as either. They gave me a detailed analysis (which if I can find I’ll dig out and paste it on here some time) which pointed to the word sense changing from the collective to the personal somewhere in chapter 3.

The gist of it was that there is no problem with the existence of Adam and Eve individually, but they weren’t in isolation. Try reading it with that in mind and see if it works …

 

[BibleReader]

ByzCath:

I do not think that viewing this as a myth only is consistent with Catholic Teaching.

“Cain” means “smith,” as in “metal smith.” Abel means “shepherd.” Cain is called “smith” because he is the direct ancestor of Tubalcain who is the ancestor of all metal-smiths. See Genesis 4:22. Eve’s reason for calling Cain “Cain,” “I have produced” which reads “Qayin” in Hebrew, is a pun – a "Dr. Seuss-level joke not to be taken seriously by readers. In reality, Cain was called “Cain” by the storyteller because swords are made of metal, where “sword” is the Biblical type, or symbol, for “the gospel.” See Ephesians 6:17. Cain killing Abel the shepherd is a picture of the sword, the gospel process, killing Christ to atone for man’s sins.

That symbolism really is the reason why this story was included in the Bible.

Whether the story is historical is really not important.

So, I don’t really care if it is historical.

If someone misses the “typological” (“allegorical”) meaning just reviewed, they may as well not have read the story.

 

[Benadam]

teevee:

I once quieried this online with some Jewish Hebrew scholars in Jerusalem. It is a peculiarly Christian obsession, but their point was that ‘Adam’ can serve as either a collective noun for man, OR a particular personal name. In other words it could, depending on the context serve as either. They gave me a detailed analysis (which if I can find I’ll dig out and paste it on here some time) which pointed to the word sense changing from the collective to the personal somewhere in chapter 3.

The gist of it was that there is no problem with the existence of Adam and Eve individually, but they weren’t in isolation. Try reading it with that in mind and see if it works …

On that note I’ve developed a model consistent with Catholic teaching and offers the figures in the story realities to represent.

This model didn’t have an agenda to fill or was it concieved as a means to an end. Any purposes it may serve are developemental perks not intended.

This model uses concepts already hammered out in The Church that are applied to the relationship between Christ and His Church.

The first account of Genesis describes the creation of man in collective terms. God made ‘them’ male and female in His image. In this account the image of God seems to be realized in the relationship between persons united in the primary society created by Holy Matrimony and it’s creative likeness to God in the family that results. In this account of the story man is populating the earth and commanded to subdue and rule it. Nature at this time already serves man what is the reason for the command to ruloe and subdue? The word ‘earth’ is figurative for flesh in other places in scripture. This is what I am thinking is meant. The faculties reserved thus far in angels have just entered flesh in Man and have yet ot experience the physical directly. Note that the word man and the name Adam are synonyms(sp). Also note that there are no names in this account. Names are attached to self determined personage. This I am calling the ‘body’ of Adam. They are his body and he is their head and if they could have known they would have been waiting for him just as Christ was and is waited for Himself. He is called the second Adam. What I think possible is that the faculties that constitute personage are operating and functional in man, so each individual is a personal being that is hidden in Adam but require the discipline of the command and the experience it provides to become complete. When these faculties become experienced within the physical environment to a point that they can serve in correctly and faithfully combining the invisible and visible into one reality a self determined will is formed that can direct man male-female as one man Adam. This is the point in man’s developement ( a mist was rising) that God gathered the dust of the earth and formed Adam and breathed into his nostril a ‘living’ soul. God said to Abraham ; I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth. This model even has a ‘takingup’ of the body to meet it’s head into immortality. These people would now end their earthly lives without the seperation of body and soul. No bones left for archeologists, no survival behaviours to recognize. All of them who are the members of Adam’s body are him and he is all of them as one man.
I’ll stop here with a biblical quote this model offers an explanation for.

And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself. 19 And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. 20 And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Benadam:

On that note I’ve developed a model consistent with Catholic teaching and offers the figures in the story realities to represent.

Benadam,
I am sorry but I must disagree. After skimming Humani Generis (On Human Origin) from Pope Pius XII, the model you have developed does not appear to be consistenet with Catholic teachings.

The first account of Genesis describes the creation of man in collective terms. God made ‘them’ male and female in His image. In this account the image of God seems to be realized in the relationship between persons united in the primary society created by Holy Matrimony and it’s creative likeness to God in the family that results. In this account of the story man is populating the earth and commanded to subdue and rule it. Nature at this time already serves man what is the reason for the command to ruloe and subdue? The word ‘earth’ is figurative for flesh in other places in scripture. This is what I am thinking is meant. The faculties reserved thus far in angels have just entered flesh in Man and have yet ot experience the physical directly. Note that the word man and the name Adam are synonyms(sp). Also note that there are no names in this account. Names are attached to self determined personage. This I am calling the ‘body’ of Adam. They are his body and he is their head and if they could have known they would have been waiting for him just as Christ was and is waited for Himself. He is called the second Adam. What I think possible is that the faculties that constitute personage are operating and functional in man, so each individual is a personal being that is hidden in Adam but require the discipline of the command and the experience it provides to become complete. When these faculties become experienced within the physical environment to a point that they can serve in correctly and faithfully combining the invisible and visible into one reality a self determined will is formed that can direct man male-female as one man Adam. This is the point in man’s developement ( a mist was rising) that God gathered the dust of the earth and formed Adam and breathed into his nostril a ‘living’ soul. God said to Abraham ; I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth. This model even has a ‘takingup’ of the body to meet it’s head into immortality. These people would now end their earthly lives without the seperation of body and soul. No bones left for archeologists, no survival behaviours to recognize. All of them who are the members of Adam’s body are him and he is all of them as one man.

It appears to me that you are denying that Adam was an actual individual.

Here is the paragraph from Humani Generis that goes against that.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

 

[Benadam]

ByzCath:

Benadam,
I am sorry but I must disagree. After skimming Humani Generis (On Human Origin) from Pope Pius XII, the model you have developed does not appear to be consistenet with Catholic teachings.

It appears to me that you are denying that Adam was an actual individual.

Here is the paragraph from Humani Generis that goes against that.

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Hi ByzCath,
Thanks for showing interest eneogh to look that up. I know it seems a collective violates the guideline there. If you read the concepts carefully and the guidelines you’ve posted you’ll find that they really aren’t violated. Imagine an entire population of humans that as a collective would have a single mind and will and that oness is manifested and embodied when God forms Adam out of the dust of the earth. They are the dust. I mentioned in the post that God told Abraham he would have descendants like the dust of the earth. So there is a biblical precedent to the concept of dust figuring a population of people. You’ll find many references in the Holy Scriptures of the concept “all of them as one man.” In various forms. the sin was indeed committed by by an individual person named Adam. If you reread a little closer you’ll find that the guidelines of the Church aren’t violated.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Benadam:

Hi ByzCath,
Imagine an entire population of humans that as a collective would have a single mind and will and that oness is manifested and embodied when God forms Adam out of the dust of the earth. They are the dust.

If I read this right, then you are saying that Adam is not an individual but a whole group of individuals. I do believe that this goes against Church Teaching.

 

[Benadam]

ByzCath:

If I read this right, then you are saying that Adam is not an individual but a whole group of individuals. I do believe that this goes against Church Teaching.

Apparently yu read what I wrote correctly. But you read the Church guidelines incorrectly. The concept of a collective isn’t forbidden. Those particular types of collectives are. The collective concept I suggest isone in being with Adam. Also the developement of this model provides solutions for meeting all the other guidelines as well. such as all true humans were generated from Adam and sin began with Adam the generation from male-female Adam in Gen1 and sin from Adam in Genesis 2 Which are both one and the same being, since Adam in gen 2 is Adam in gen 1.

 

[rcjones]

Wow…

Are you suggesting that the original Adam was composed of all men, in a similar fashion that the Trinity is one God? Most theologians would say that all men were certainly represented by Adam, but I don’t think they would go so far as to say he actualized them.

However, the ‘seed’ picture is such that the seed is contained in the very loins of the father, and as such is a physical reality of the father. I have never heard anyone suggest what I think I hear you say.

 

[Benadam]

Wow…

Are you suggesting that the original Adam was composed of all men, in a similar fashion that the Trinity is one God? Most theologians would say that all men were certainly represented by Adam, but I don’t think they would go so far as to say he actualized them.

However, the ‘seed’ picture is such that the seed is contained in the very loins of the father, and as such is a physical reality of the father. I have never heard anyone suggest what I think I hear you say.

The idea is es presented in the NT. The body of Christ. I will draw all men to myself. Humanity subduing the earth is exercising the powers that are not dependent of corporeal organs . Namely intellect. This power of soul has never been experienced in flesh. When this Holy race reaches a maturity as a race over the powers of nature within, God gathers the dust of the earth and forms man and calls him man. Speculation of course

Notice the Samaritan woman’s pattern of life? Samaria had had five vassal kings. the one present was not it’s real king…the pattern of her human experience was the pattern of life experienced by the nation from it’s beginning to then. She was a prophetess and some knew this pattern and that’s why so many conbverted and why they sid they believe not because of hwer anymore but they have heard his words themselves. They were saying their belief isn’t on her authority as the Archetype Woman Samaria… All of them past and present as one person her.

Also notice when Jesus speaks of the second coming in glory …He is called the Son of Man.

 

[rcjones]

With the linear time line, you have to buy into the popular second coming theories. In the methods I am using, I have to believe the words of Jesus. He said he would be with us always, even until the end of the earth. So how can he come again, if he is here?

Obviously I have to reconcile what they said when he left in a cloud, I do this with Stephen"s testimony at his death. He saw Christ returning in the same way he left.

So upon our death we are transformed from time to timeless eternity. We die at different times, but arrive in the air at the same moment. From the perspective of time, he is here like a thief in the night, he takes one from the field and one from the bed. From the perspective of timeless eternity, we are all gathered instantaneously in the air.

Our underlying presuppositions concerning the nature of reality drastically affect our interpretations.

 

[rcjones]

Getting back to the OP. In the rules of Rabbi Eliezer:

Extension: The particles “et”, “gam”, and “af”, which are superfluous indicate that something which is not explicitly stated must be regarded as included in the passage under consideration, or that some teaching is implied thereby.

This rule is used by Rashi to derive from the Hebrew that Cain had a twin sister and Abel has two twin sisters (triplets). Genesis Rabbah 22:2.

So there is manuscript evidence that there were more than just Cain and Abel.

As an illustration of the rule using English, lets pretend an et is the symbol |

Eve bore| Cain… Eve bore|| Abel

The first instance indicates twins and the second triplets. The symbol used in Hebrew is not translated into English but you can observe it still in Hebrew.

 

[Benadam]

With the linear time line, you have to buy into the popular second coming theories. In the methods I am using, I have to believe the words of Jesus. He said he would be with us always, even until the end of the earth. So how can he come again, if he is here?

Obviously I have to reconcile what they said when he left in a cloud, I do this with Stephen"s testimony at his death. He saw Christ returning in the same way he left.

So upon our death we are transformed from time to timeless eternity. We die at different times, but arrive in the air at the same moment. From the perspective of time, he is here like a thief in the night, he takes one from the field and one from the bed. From the perspective of timeless eternity, we are all gathered instantaneously in the air.

Our underlying presuppositions concerning the nature of reality drastically affect our interpretations.

Good point. As an eternal reality at the Incarnation eternity entered time and human history. Everything Jesus was Jesus is eternally. That’s what makes Him and what He merited for man and even the New Creation, the Eighth and Eternal Day present and a reality we can have a taste of even during our earthly lives.

He will return when sin and decepttion have run it’s c ourse and come to a head. When the world has accepted the Peace it has to offer. When man will think he has made this life into the end he wants it to be rather than the means God intended it to be. The fruit of the tree of evil and good will have been eaten and it’s seeds pooped out and germanated a new garden where all the trees are the tree in the middle with a snake that say’s " see God did say you couldn’t eat from any of the trees “.” See, I was not the liar, your eyes were opened and you didn’t die and you are like god’s"" When is this coming they are talking about?"

Thanks RC for the opportunity to discuss these things again.
I might register on your blog if I think I won’t be too controversial. Is that ok?

 

[rcjones]

You are welcome. The purpose of the blog is to use the rules and demonstrate the methods as opposed to bantering different opinions or theories. The primary thesis is that the rules provide a means for self-correcting interpretation. If you can play by the rules (of interpretation here sensusplenior.net/?page_id=379) and come up with a different interpretation, then the theory fails.

Your ability to correlate would be very helpful, and an excellent test of the theory. You have frequently admitted that much of your interpretation is based on speculation. Over there, such speculations cannot be used to build an interpretation for a particular passage. Here it is understood as a framework you have provided to make a unified theology.

I would ask that you start with the about page, go to the rules, then follow them sequentially with the link in the top right so that you get the explanation on how the first century methods of interpreting riddle are applied. Feel free to challenge the methods, and the interpretations.

 

[grannymh]

You are welcome. The purpose of the blog is to use the rules and demonstrate the methods as opposed to bantering different opinions or theories. The primary thesis is that the rules provide a means for self-correcting interpretation. If you can play by the rules (of interpretation here sensusplenior.net/?page_id=379) and come up with a different interpretation, then the theory fails.

Your ability to correlate would be very helpful, and an excellent test of the theory. You have frequently admitted that much of your interpretation is based on speculation. Over there, such speculations cannot be used to build an interpretation for a particular passage. Here it is understood as a framework you have provided to make a unified theology.

I would ask that you start with the about page, go to the rules, then follow them sequentially with the link in the top right so that you get the explanation on how the first century methods of interpreting riddle are applied. Feel free to challenge the methods, and the interpretations.

I simply use the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4
Link to Catechism: www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
for Catholic teaching.

For example. Adam and Eve are the two sole parents of the human species. Original sin is real. It is a “contracted” sin which is transmitted by propagation to all mankind, i.e., Adam and Eve’s direct descendants.

With a bit of common sense one can see that going from Genesis, Chapter 3:24
to Chapter 4:1 does not exclude other offspring of Adam and Eve. Genesis 4:2 does give the idea of succession from Cain. “Next she bore his brother Abel.” Nonetheless, Old and New Testament writers had the annoying habit of including only the important people or events. There still could be lots uninteresting children since Adam and Eve received God’s blessing to be fertile and multiply. Genesis 1 27-28.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.