B-Hebrew: The Biblical Hebrew Forum

Karl,

Thanks for your response.

You say:

Actually this is very close to the meaning in Genesis 4, that Cain could no longer be a man of the soil.

Then why doesn't it say that in Genesis 4 but it does elsewhere? Simply saying that's what it means doesn't make it mean that. And what does it mean that it's "very close" to that meaning. It either is that meaning or it isn't.

You say:

Here are examples of where Scripture doesn’t give us details: how far away was Nod? It could have been as close as five miles, a distance which can be walked in an hour and ten minutes. When did he move to Nod? It could have been before he murdered Abel, even by centuries. How many other brothers were born to Adam and Eve before this murder? What was the population of the earth at that time? How old was Cain at the time he murdered Abel? Unanswered question after unanswered question, where Scripture leaves out the details. It’s possible that Cain was about 500 years old at that time, and the population of the earth over 100,000. We don’t know because we haven’t been told.

And since the text doesn't give us these details then Nod could have been 100's of miles away. It could have been after he murdered Abel, even by centuries. There could have been no brothers born to Adam and Eve, etc. Cain could have been very young and the earth could have had a very small population. But then again, we aren't talking about the earth (globe). We are talking about a field.

And since it's so ambiguous, as you admit, the clearer reading of the text would be that there was Cain, there was Abel, offerings were brought, God was favorable toward one and not the other; Cain got mad and murdered his brother, God cursed Cain for the act and banished him from that region/country, hence Cain going to Nod rather than another field.

Dustin E Curlee

Dustin:

What’s your schtick? Why are you making such a big deal about an isolated phrase?

As for me, I’m getting tired of this pilpul that seems to be going nowhere.

seekinganswers wrote:Karl,

Thanks for your response.

You say:

Actually this is very close to the meaning in Genesis 4, that Cain could no longer be a man of the soil.

Then why doesn't it say that in Genesis 4 but it does elsewhere? Simply saying that's what it means doesn't make it mean that. And what does it mean that it's "very close" to that meaning. It either is that meaning or it isn't.

I keep emphasizing that you need to read the context, not just the immediate phrase. The context does give that meaning. The context tells us that Cain was a farmer. The context tells us that Cain could no longer be a farmer. The context tells us that Cain was still alive, on the earth, but a wanderer. The context therefore tells us that the phrase “driven from upon the face of the land” (bad English) that he could no longer be a man of the soil, a farmer. This is one example of why context is so important when analyzing what Scripture says.

seekinganswers wrote:You say:

Here are examples of where Scripture doesn’t give us details: …<skip re-quoting details>… We don’t know because we haven’t been told.

And since the text doesn't give us these details then Nod could have been 100's of miles away. It could have been after he murdered Abel, even by centuries. There could have been no brothers born to Adam and Eve, etc. Cain could have been very young and the earth could have had a very small population. But then again, we aren't talking about the earth (globe). We are talking about a field.

The context tells both about being driven from the field and wandering about on the earth (globe).

seekinganswers wrote:And since it's so ambiguous, as you admit, the clearer reading of the text would be that there was Cain, there was Abel, offerings were brought, God was favorable toward one and not the other; Cain got mad and murdered his brother, God cursed Cain for the act and banished him from that region/country, hence Cain going to Nod rather than another field.

Dustin E Curlee

The details given are not ambiguous — Cain was a man of the soil, but because he murdered his brother, he was cursed never to be a farmer again. Instead he became a wanderer. While the story lack many details that we may have wanted to hear, the details provided are very clear.

Karl W. Randolph.

Karl,

Thanks for your "answer."

Dustin E Curlee

This thread is starting to go nowhere fast. I will permit each participant one final post in the thread, and then I'm closing it down tomorrow.

Therefore, consider this first notice for the END OF THREAD tomorrow.

George,

I agree. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that there's no objectivity within the scrutiny.

If you shut it down will I still be able to view it? I'm working through what Karl responded with even though I won't be responding to his thoughts. It's something I'm doing on my own time.

Thanks,

Dustin E Curlee, the rocket ship man

Dustin,

Yes, you'll continue to be able to read it. Unless a post is offensive and we remove it, closing a thread means that no one can post a new reply.

Best wishes,

Kirk

Time is up for this thread, folks. Discussion here is now closed.