PDA

View Full Version : Cain and his descendents



markedward
Apr 20th 2010, 12:50 AM
2 Timothy 3.16: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching.

Okay, cool. What can we learn from Genesis 4.17-24, where we are told about Cain and his descendents.

I've begun studying Genesis recently, and in getting to this section, I honestly can't recall it ever being discussed at length here, or anywhere else. It seems to me that when it comes to Genesis, most people treat it as only a history book. But in that case, this section would be entirely inconsequential to us, because (other than the genealogy in Genesis 5) the next thing we're told about is how God wipes out everyone except Noah and his family. Why tells us about Cain naming a city after his son? Why tell us about Jabal being the father of herdsmen, and Jubal being the father of musicians, and Tubal-Cain being a metalsmith? Why tell us about Lamech killing a man, if, in the end, none of it is relevant to us from a historical standpoint?

Or is it historically relevant? How so?
What theology can we derive from this section?

Gillian
Apr 20th 2010, 01:21 AM
hmm..a guess here, for confirm recorded? first inventer at stuff from some of them? something to do with their names city`s trait of Cain-ish lol? Seem it more of telling us that the knowledgde of that level already there at time, no excuse in bad deeds with obvious avergae intellage . jsut shown make clear they not cavemen.

that the only thing I can think of.

TrustingFollower
Apr 20th 2010, 02:25 AM
This is just my opinion, but in order to understand all that was going on in the days before the flood we have to know about all of the major people who would affect the lives of what the lesson in the book is. Now Cain was the first son of Adam and Seth was the third son of Adam. The world was turning into a very wicked place yet we are told of Seth's son Enoch, which should not be confused with Cain's son Enoch. Seth's son Enoch has not experienced death yet (Gen 5:24) and so he could be a player in the very last of days as the end times play out. As I said this is just my opinion or it could be said it is speculation which I would also except as an explanation, but never the less something more to look at with regard to your OP.

markedward
Apr 20th 2010, 02:47 AM
What does Enoch from chapter 5 have to do with anything from chapter 4? I don't think you really touched on what I was asking about.

nzyr
Apr 20th 2010, 02:49 AM
Yes there's a lesson right there. How in terrible times a person like Enoch can still be godly.

Sirus
Apr 20th 2010, 03:20 AM
I think we see how God dealt with man in mercy, not imputing sin.
Banished from the tree of life was mercy.
Killing all but eight and starting over was mercy.
Preaching the gospel to them 'in prison' was mercy.
Preserving Cain's (a murderer) life was mercy (yet the first to break the law (Sabbath) gathering sticks was stoned)
Cain talked with God just as Adam and Eve did, even to the point that is seems as though hearing God's voice was no big deal to him. He was in God's presence, murdered, lied, and God still reasoned with Him, then not only let him live but protected him. That's mercy.

markedward
Apr 20th 2010, 04:59 AM
Yes there's a lesson right there. How in terrible times a person like Enoch can still be godly.Again... I'm asking about Genesis 4.17-24, not Genesis 5.

markedward
Apr 20th 2010, 05:01 AM
Cain talked with God just as Adam and Eve did, even to the point that is seems as though hearing God's voice was no big deal to him. He was in God's presence, murdered, lied, and God still reasoned with Him, then not only let him live but protected him. That's mercy.This is the closest response to the OP—at least you're in the right chapter—but it's still not a response to the specific passage I asked about.

Maybe this just goes to show how little this passage (4.17-24) is talked about, seeing as how, out of four responses, three of them didn't actually discuss the passage in question.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 20th 2010, 05:41 AM
Mark, without any further context, it just seems inconsequntial to me. If I were to speculate, it could be that it just "finishes" the Cain story by mentioning the fact that he did have a bloodline. But, since they were all wiped out according to gen 6, I guess I don't see the significance other than a footnote.

Sirus
Apr 20th 2010, 05:44 AM
This is the closest response to the OP—at least you're in the right chapter—but it's still not a response to the specific passage I asked about.

Maybe this just goes to show how little this passage (4.17-24) is talked about, seeing as how, out of four responses, three of them didn't actually discuss the passage in question.Well I guess I was a little thrown off by you mentioning the flood, but I see that was part of a point not part of the question of a specific section. Sorry.

I don't know? They were creative, inventive?
Regarding Lamech, he said
"If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."
God didn't say that.

Brother Mark
Apr 20th 2010, 07:58 AM
Okay, cool. What can we learn from Genesis 4.17-24, where we are told about Cain and his descendents.

Hi Mark. I like the verse in Gen 4:16 to start with.

Gen 4:16

16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
NASU

This happened after God dealt with him about the murder of his brother. Cain left the presence of God. The land of Nod means "wandering". So Cain left God and settled in wandering. Is that not what we do when we don't receive the rebuke of the Lord? Does sin not lead us into the "wilderness of wandering"? When Israel refused to obey God, they too went into a state of wandering for 40 years and dwelt there.

Perhaps we can find meaning in the names of Cain's offspring too. Interesting thread.

Grace to you,

Mark

David Taylor
Apr 20th 2010, 03:05 PM
2 Timothy 3.16: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching.

Okay, cool. What can we learn from Genesis 4.17-24, where we are told about Cain and his descendents.

I've begun studying Genesis recently, and in getting to this section, I honestly can't recall it ever being discussed at length here, or anywhere else. It seems to me that when it comes to Genesis, most people treat it as only a history book. But in that case, this section would be entirely inconsequential to us, because (other than the genealogy in Genesis 5) the next thing we're told about is how God wipes out everyone except Noah and his family. Why tells us about Cain naming a city after his son? Why tell us about Jabal being the father of herdsmen, and Jubal being the father of musicians, and Tubal-Cain being a metalsmith? Why tell us about Lamech killing a man, if, in the end, none of it is relevant to us from a historical standpoint?

Or is it historically relevant? How so?
What theology can we derive from this section?


Good topic Markedward.

I think two reasons might apply to Cain's lineage inclusion.

1) It shows the forgiving nature of God. While it is true that Cain is the first murderer, God still loved Cain, and God did not cause that single sin to be a unrepentable, forever damning death sentence to Cain. On the contrary, God protected Cain, and God blessed Cain with a wife from Nod, and as the lineage shows, many children. We find even in that lineage, that grandson Lamech also committed a murder, but found mercy in the eyes of God. So if nothing else, we were shown very early on that any sin, even the sin of murder, wasn't too great for God to forgive, overcome, and/or redeem.

2) We always focus on Seth's lineage as being the one that transcends the Great Flood. However, we do not know that for certainty. However, of the 8 people who lived through the flood, only Noah's parental lineage is provided through Seth.

We do not know the lineages of:

Noah's Mother's lineage...
Mrs. Noah's Father's lineage...
Mrs. Noah's Mother's lineage...
Mrs. Shem's Mother's lineage...
Mrs. Shem's Father's lineage...
Mrs. Ham's Mother's lineage...
Mrs. Ham's Father's lineage...
Mrs. Japeth's Mother's lineage...
Mrs. Japeth's Father's lineage...


That's 9 different lineage's outside of Noah's paternal lineage going to Seth, that we simply do not know, nor will ever know.

It is quite possible that some of those unmentioned lineages came through Cain's line.
It is quite possible that some of those unmentioned lineages came through another unnamed child of Adam and Eve.

We can never know....all we can know, is that of the 8 people on the ark denoting 16 lineages, only Noah's paternal line is known. (Seth)....9 are unknown and will always be unknown.

People often attempt to talk about the evil Cain lineage and the righteous Seth lineage....but that is really an unsound and ungroundable premise.

We know that except for Noah, all of Seth's lineage was also destroyed in the flood for it's wickedness.

So it is unfair and frankly inaccurate (because we don't know the full geneologies) to say one line is righteous (Seth) and one is wicked. (Cain)

It's not beyond the pale of possibilities that there were more Cain lineages represented (but unstated) in the 8 people on the ark than there were of Seth.

What if Noah's Mother was descended from the Cain lineage? That makes Noah half-Seth/half-Cain. What then if Noah's wife was descended from Cain on both paternal and maternal sides? That would have made 7/8th of the lineages on the ark be from Cain and not Seth.

Again all speculative and unknowable, but yet it does make the point that we can't build or base any doctrines or foundations solely on the lineages of Adam's children because....

....there simply isn't enough information given to us about them and who 'all' their descendants were to be able to do this.

This is one of the reasons the 'Serpent Seed' myth is such a baloney mess-job....it assumes and makes up so much out of what simply isn't there, as if it were there; then builds all kinds of false doctrines after an unsound beginning premise.

So in summary, I believe Cain and his descendents give us first and foremost, an understanding that any sin is forgiveable by God and God can bless anyone who has sinned, even if it is murder....and secondly, it is quite possible that the ark-riders not only were descendents of Seth, but quite possibly also descendents of Cain or other later unnamed children of Adam and Eve.

Love Fountain
Apr 20th 2010, 03:06 PM
Mark, without any further context, it just seems inconsequntial to me. If I were to speculate, it could be that it just "finishes" the Cain story by mentioning the fact that he did have a bloodline. But, since they were all wiped out according to gen 6, I guess I don't see the significance other than a footnote.

If Cain's offspring were all wiped out, how come Jesus talks to Cain's offspring in Luke 11?

Luke 11:47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

11:48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.


Just in case there is any question of whose fathers are being spoken to by Jesus, ask yourself who killed Abel?


Gen 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.


Bless you,
Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Apr 20th 2010, 03:13 PM
If Cain's offspring were all wiped out, how come Jesus talks to Cain's offspring in Luke 11?

Luke 11:47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

11:48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.


Just in case there is any question of whose fathers are being spoken to by Jesus, ask yourself who killed Abel?


Gen 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.


Bless you,
Love Fountain



They are builders.

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

They would've built sepulchres with their metal tools.

4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

They are tares amongst the wheat. They are poisonous until this very day and can kill you if you eat of them.

Hope this helps.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

Love Fountain
Apr 20th 2010, 03:21 PM
What if Noah's Mother was descended from the Cain lineage? That makes Noah half-Seth/half-Cain. What then if Noah's wife was descended from Cain on both paternal and maternal sides? That would have made 7/8th of the lineages on the ark be from Cain and not Seth.

Again all speculative and unknowable, but yet it does make the point that we can't build or base any doctrines or foundations solely on the lineages of Adam's children because....



Jesus Christ did not descend from the line of Cain.

There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed in The Revelation of Jesus Christ!

Bless you,
Love Fountain

David Taylor
Apr 20th 2010, 03:27 PM
They are builders.

Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

They are tares amongst the wheat. They are poisonous until this very day and can kill you if you eat of them.


Bless you,
Love Fountain

I'm not gonna throw out 'the builders with the bathwater' here.

I personally know a builder whom I've grown quite fond of, that I wouldn't lump in as a tare, or as someone who is poisonous.

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. " Mark 6:3

Jesus 'the builder' has done some pretty impressive building projects IMO.


Mark 14:58 "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."
Matt 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"
John 14:2 "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Hebrews 11:10 "For Abraham looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. "
Acts 15:16 "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up"
Hebrews 3:1 "Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. "

David Taylor
Apr 20th 2010, 03:35 PM
Jesus Christ did not descend from the line of Cain.

There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed in The Revelation of Jesus Christ!

Bless you,
Love Fountain

I'm not saying Jesus did or Jesus didn't descend from the line of Cain.

(but it doesn't matter one iota if He did or didn't anyway).

I am only saying that the Scriptures themselves only mention one lineage of the 16 lineages contained in the 8 people found on the Ark. Noah's Father's lineage to Seth.

My point is that we have no biblical evidence that all of the other lineages were Seth's who whom they were.

Again, the Scriptures do not tell us who...
Noah's Mother's lineage came from...
Mrs. Noah's Father's came from...
Mrs. Noah's Mother's came from...
Mrs. Shem's Mother's came from...
Mrs. Shem's Father's came from...
Mrs. Ham's Mother's came from...
Mrs. Ham's Father's came from...
Mrs. Japeth's Mother's came from...
Mrs. Japeth's Father's came from...


And "if" any of these lineages did happen to come via a "Cain" lineage, and thereby Jesus' own lineage was partially from that lineage, there is no problem. There is nothing found in the scriptures inherently evil or wicked with the lineage of Cain.
Anyone who says otherwise, is reading eternal myths into the Bible, not ready out of the Bible this notion.

God causes every human being to be individually responsible to Himself....the entire idea of lineage-wickedness is contrary to God's transcendence, love, and mercy to each and every one of His creatures He has created in His own image.

To place the honus of all wickedness on a lineage (aka the "tares" are only comprised of Cain's descendents) is to remove individual responsibility of sin and repentance and place it in material bloodlines. That's quite contrary to what we are taught in the New Testament about individual responsibility of each man to God for repentance available forgiveness from sin.

Brother Mark
Apr 20th 2010, 03:47 PM
Jesus speaks spiritual words. Remember when he said to "eat his flesh and drink his blood" then said his words were spiritual?

Let's look at this killing of the prophets thing.

Luke 13:32-34
32 And He said to them, "Go and tell that fox, 'Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I reach My goal.' 33 "Nevertheless I must journey on today and tomorrow and the next day; for it cannot be that a prophet would perish outside of Jerusalem.
NASU

Jesus said that a prophet could not perish outside of Jerusalem. Then in another passage, he says this.

Luke 11:45-51

45 One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, "Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too." 46 But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them. 48 "So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build their tombs. 49 "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'
NASU

Where was Jerusalem when Abel was killed? For it is not possible that a prophet can die outside of Jerusalem and here, Jesus said Abel was a prophet.

IMO, Jesus is speaking to a religious system. Cain's religious system was not accepted by God any more than the pharisees religious system was. It is that religious system that has slaughtered the prophets from Abel all the way up to Zechariah.

Grace and peace,

Mark

Love Fountain
Apr 20th 2010, 04:02 PM
I'm not gonna throw out 'the builders with the bathwater' here.

I personally know a builder whom I've grown quite fond of, that I wouldn't lump in as a tare, or as someone who is poisonous.

"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. " Mark 6:3

Jesus 'the builder' has done some pretty impressive building projects IMO.


Mark 14:58 "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands."
Matt 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"
John 14:2 "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you."
Hebrews 11:10 "For Abraham looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. "
Acts 15:16 "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up"
Hebrews 3:1 "Christ Jesus; Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house. For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house. For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God. "



Jesus taught "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"

There is a positive and negative in God's plan.

There is a true Jesus Christ and a false one.

They are the wolves in sheeps clothing.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits"

Copy cats, tares amongst the wheat. Builders of babylon.

Hope this helps.

Bless you,
Love Fountain

David Taylor
Apr 20th 2010, 05:04 PM
Jesus taught "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God"

There is a positive and negative in God's plan.

There is a true Jesus Christ and a false one.

They are the wolves in sheeps clothing.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits"

Copy cats, tares amongst the wheat. Builders of babylon.

Hope this helps.



And they are all individuals; -- not pre-ordained evil lineages, with individual responsibility and volition to either be a wheat or a tare.

People aren't tares because of whom their ancestry was; but rather because of where their individual hearts are.

II Chronicles 30:8 "Now be ye not stiffnecked, as your fathers were, but yield yourselves unto the LORD, and enter into his sanctuary, which he hath sanctified for ever: and serve the LORD your God, that the fierceness of his wrath may turn away from you."

Zechariah 1:3 "Therefore say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Turn ye unto me, saith the LORD of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the LORD of hosts. Be ye not as your fathers, unto whom the former prophets have cried, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Turn ye now from your evil ways, and from your evil doings: but they did not hear, nor hearken unto me, saith the LORD. Your fathers, where are they? and the prophets, do they live for ever? But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers? ."

Proverbs 12:20 "Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil"

Revelation 22:17 "Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 21st 2010, 12:58 AM
If Cain's offspring were all wiped out, how come Jesus talks to Cain's offspring in Luke 11?

Luke 11:47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

11:48 Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

11:49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute:

11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.


Just in case there is any question of whose fathers are being spoken to by Jesus, ask yourself who killed Abel?


Gen 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.


Bless you,
Love Fountain

How many of Cain's offspring survived the Flood, and how?

David Taylor
Apr 21st 2010, 01:31 AM
How many of Cain's offspring survived the Flood, and how?

Wouldn't the only accurate answer be: we do not know.

We know of only one person's half-lineage who survived the flood; Noah, through his patriarchial lineage. As far as I know, the Bible nowhere mentions Noah's matriarchal lineage to Adam, nor either lineage of Mrs. Noah to Adam.

Is there somewhere that does show this?

Sirus
Apr 21st 2010, 03:45 AM
Wouldn't the only accurate answer be: we do not know.

We know of only one person's half-lineage who survived the flood; Noah, through his patriarchial lineage. As far as I know, the Bible nowhere mentions Noah's matriarchal lineage to Adam, nor either lineage of Mrs. Noah to Adam.

Is there somewhere that does show this?I agree with what you are saying but the arguement would go something like this. The lineage we know is the lineage. The lineage is not of the woman but of the man. There is no half-lineage.

David Taylor
Apr 21st 2010, 12:15 PM
I agree with what you are saying but the arguement would go something like this. The lineage we know is the lineage. The lineage is not of the woman but of the man. There is no half-lineage.

If the women's lineage isn't important, then Ishmael trumps Isaac. hmmm....we know that's not true.

My only point has been we do not know Seth is the only lineage that traversed the flood...
,,,we only know the Seth lineage is the only one mentioned.

To claim "Seth only" is speculation and unproovable with the info we've been given.
I'll leave it at that.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 21st 2010, 05:16 PM
Wouldn't the only accurate answer be: we do not know.

We know of only one person's half-lineage who survived the flood; Noah, through his patriarchial lineage. As far as I know, the Bible nowhere mentions Noah's matriarchal lineage to Adam, nor either lineage of Mrs. Noah to Adam.

Is there somewhere that does show this?

There isn't anything, to my knowledge, that specifies, which is my entire point. Either the bloodline survived through noah's family, or the flood did not extinguish all life on earth.

David Taylor
Apr 21st 2010, 06:01 PM
There isn't anything, to my knowledge, that specifies, which is my entire point. Either the bloodline survived through noah's family, or the flood did not extinguish all life on earth.

I believe it is a fair and sound assessment to be able to definitively say that:

1) only 8 people, Noah and his wife and sons/daughters-in-laws survived the flood. All other human life was extinguished on the earth.
2) We have been told specifically that Noah's father's bloodline descended down from Adam via Seth; through and beyond the great flood.
3) We have not been told if any of Adam's other children had their bloodline descended down to Noah via Noah's mother, or via Noah's wife or any of his three daughter's in law; through and beyond the great flood.
4) Because we haven't been told anything to the contrary, it is possible but not confirmable, that other children of Adam besides Seth could have passed their bloodlines through and beyond the great flood and their bloodlines might have been represented in the human gene pool beyond the great flood.
5) It is not supportable to take a definitive stance that Seth's bloodline alone, and no other children of Adam, conclusively passed through and beyond the great flood and it alone played the sole part in repopulating the Earth.
6) We can definitively state that at least Seth's bloodline was represented in the human gene pool beyond the great flood.

Would you agree with all 6 statements?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 21st 2010, 08:31 PM
Of course I agree. I already entertained the possibility that it survived through Noah.

Though, I also agree that whether it did or didn't is ultimately meaningless.

markedward
Apr 21st 2010, 08:47 PM
Mark, without any further context, it just seems inconsequntial to me. If I were to speculate, it could be that it just "finishes" the Cain story by mentioning the fact that he did have a bloodline. But, since they were all wiped out according to gen 6, I guess I don't see the significance other than a footnote.So, in this view, the entire second half of Genesis 4 is inconsequential, insignificant and meaningless to us; in one word, it's "worthless". How does this mesh with with Paul's statement that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching"?

BroRog
Apr 21st 2010, 09:04 PM
2 Timothy 3.16: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching.Okay, cool. What can we learn from Genesis 4.17-24, where we are told about Cain and his descendents.

I've begun studying Genesis recently, and in getting to this section, I honestly can't recall it ever being discussed at length here, or anywhere else. It seems to me that when it comes to Genesis, most people treat it as only a history book. But in that case, this section would be entirely inconsequential to us, because (other than the genealogy in Genesis 5) the next thing we're told about is how God wipes out everyone except Noah and his family. Why tells us about Cain naming a city after his son? Why tell us about Jabal being the father of herdsmen, and Jubal being the father of musicians, and Tubal-Cain being a metalsmith? Why tell us about Lamech killing a man, if, in the end, none of it is relevant to us from a historical standpoint?

Or is it historically relevant? How so?
What theology can we derive from this section?Without history, value judgments are baseless. Moral judgments have no real basis outside of human telos. Genesis speaks about the man Lamech, who announced to his two wives, "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold." This escalation of retribution needs to be set against the back ground of other men and women who spent their time in worth while pursuits. This little bit of history seems to bring to light the question of the ultimate good for man and what types of human pursuits are best suited to that ultimate end. Lamach's statement is to be evaluated in light of all the other ways a man might occupy his time: music and metal working for instance. Compare those with Lamach's preoccupation with power, respect, and his fear of other men.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 21st 2010, 09:33 PM
So, in this view, the entire second half of Genesis 4 is inconsequential, insignificant and meaningless to us; in one word, it's "worthless". How does this mesh with with Paul's statement that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching"?

I don't know. I am certainly open to anything you can come up with; I think this is a good discussion, but, there is a complete lack of...anything.

Sirus
Apr 21st 2010, 11:59 PM
If the women's lineage isn't important, then Ishmael trumps Isaac. hmmm....we know that's not true.That is in no way true, and was not the issue. The promise and believing the God of the promise was the issue. You are giulty of the very same thing you accuse special bloodliners of. You are speculating by going outside the confines of scripture and assuming lineage + what you think.


My only point has been we do not know Seth is the only lineage that traversed the flood...
,,,we only know the Seth lineage is the only one mentioned.

To claim "Seth only" is speculation and unproovable with the info we've been given.
I'll leave it at that.We do know Seth is the only lineage that transversed the flood -Luke 3.
Again, you are speculating by going outside the confines of scripture and assuming lineage through woman.

I don't agree with the evil/good seed nonsense but scripture is very clear on lineage through man.

RogerW
Apr 22nd 2010, 12:32 AM
That is in no way true, and was not the issue. The promise and believing the God of the promise was the issue. You are giulty of the very same thing you accuse special bloodliners of. You are speculating by going outside the confines of scripture and assuming lineage + what you think.

We do know Seth is the only lineage that transversed the flood -Luke 3.
Again, you are speculating by going outside the confines of scripture and assuming lineage through woman.

I don't agree with the evil/good seed nonsense but scripture is very clear on lineage through man.

Hi Sirus,

Perhaps instead of evil/good seed we should simply understand that the line of Adam through Cain abruptly ends with Naamah...but the line of Adam through Seth extends all the way to Christ. And it was in the days of Seth that man began to call on the name of the LORD. So to speak of one line as the godly line is not implying that all in the line were of God, but that the line of Adam through Seth can be traced to Christ. Where the other or ungodly line is not ungodly because no one in the line were of God, but that the ungodly line ended abruptly because of the sinfulness of the progenitor, Cain.

Blessings,
RW

markedward
Apr 22nd 2010, 12:52 AM
That is in no way true, and was not the issue. The promise and believing the God of the promise was the issue.Right... and part of that promise explicitly involved Sarah being the mother.


Again, you are speculating by going outside the confines of scripture and assuming lineage through woman.How does the cultural tradition of naming the fathers inherently mean that women have no contribution to lineage? It might just be me, but it takes two to procreate, one of which must be a woman... David Taylor is referring to the physical bloodline of Cain possibly having been preserved in Noah, not the cultural naming of fathers.


We do know Seth is the only lineage that transversed the flood -Luke 3.All Luke does is follow along with the cultural tradition of naming the fathers only... it does not inherently mean that Cain's bloodline wasn't preserved through Noah, his wife, or his sons' wives.

Sirus
Apr 22nd 2010, 12:54 AM
Hi Sirus,

Perhaps instead of evil/good seed we should simply understand that the line of Adam through Cain abruptly ends with Naamah...but the line of Adam through Seth extends all the way to Christ. And it was in the days of Seth that man began to call on the name of the LORD. So to speak of one line as the godly line is not implying that all in the line were of God, but that the line of Adam through Seth can be traced to Christ. Where the other or ungodly line is not ungodly because no one in the line were of God, but that the ungodly line ended abruptly because of the sinfulness of the progenitor, Cain.

Blessings,
RWYes, that is what I am saying except for this


"but that the ungodly line ended abruptly because of the sinfulness of the progenitor, Cain."Is there scripture for this? It ended for the same reason Noah's own brothers, also of Seth, perished. Their own sin and unbelief.

Sirus
Apr 22nd 2010, 01:09 AM
Right... and part of that promise explicitly involved Sarah being the mother.So other than the fact that Sarah was Abraham's wife, she was special? Certainly she was special when she was no longer able to have children, but what do you think your point is here? Her lineage was special? Are you running into the same wall special bloodliners do all because you want to go outside the confines of scripture that says through the man, not through the woman? I wouldn't care if it said through woman or both. It's irrelevant. God made male and female when He created and made man.


How does the cultural tradition of naming the fathers inherently mean that women have no contribution to lineage? It might just be me, but it takes two to procreate, one of which must be a woman... David Taylor is referring to the physical bloodline of Cain possibly having been preserved in Noah, not the cultural naming of fathers.

All Luke does it follow along with the cultural tradition of naming the fathers only... it does not inherently mean that Cain's bloodline wasn't preserved through Noah, his wife, or his sons' wives.Simply your opinion that it was only cultural. Why did it become 'cultural'? None of the line of Seth stood up and said 'hey, this isn't right, we need to include woman'. Strange eh? Also, you promote Cain's bloodline. Why? Is there something in the blood? Was it special in some way? No. Bloodline is irrelevant to the Kingdom. It is not and cannot be preserved. Cain and all his came from Adam just as Seth and all his did.

Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

-SEEKING-
Apr 22nd 2010, 01:14 AM
All Luke does is follow along with the cultural tradition of naming the fathers only... it does not inherently mean that Cain's bloodline wasn't preserved through Noah, his wife, or his sons' wives.

Wow. I learned something new today. When I first starting reading this thread I would have said why worry about Cain's line if it was done away with, not realizing that it may have indeed survived through the females in Noah's life. Very interesting thread Mark.

Sirus
Apr 22nd 2010, 01:18 AM
Wow. I learned something new today. When I first starting reading this thread I would have said why worry about Cain's line if it was done away with, not realizing that it may have indeed survived through the females in Noah's life. Very interesting thread Mark.What is Cain's line, and how does it survive? What does this mean? How is it important?

-SEEKING-
Apr 22nd 2010, 01:35 AM
What is Cain's line, and how does it survive? What does this mean? How is it important?

1. Cain's line is anyone who specifically came from him via Cain's son, grandson, great-grandson, etc, etc.
2. It could possibly survive if either Noah's wife, or any of Noah's sons married a direct descendant of Cain.
3. It means that his line may have survived beyond the flood.
4. How it is important I don't personally know. But I do find it interesting.

Sirus
Apr 22nd 2010, 02:11 AM
1. Cain's line is anyone who specifically came from him via Cain's son, grandson, great-grandson, etc, etc.
2. It could possibly survive if either Noah's wife, or any of Noah's sons married a direct descendant of Cain.
3. It means that his line may have survived beyond the flood.
4. How it is important I don't personally know. But I do find it interesting.
1. God made male and female when He created and made man.
2. God made male and female when He created and made man.
3. God made male and female when He created and made man.
4. God made male and female when He created and made man.

Cain's line is completely irrelevant. All men are made of one blood, not many. There's nothing special about blood, accept that it keeps us alive.
Lineage was not important until Abraham. Christ was to come in the flesh through Israel (Jacob -Rom 9:5). This was accomplish through men not women. Men were born of a tribe and could not change tribes. Women could change tribes through marriage. Christ had to come through Judah. Mary of Judah, married Joseph of Judah, remaining in Judah fulfilling prophecy. If she married into another tribe, Jesus would not have come from Judah. Christ has come. The only reason tribes are still relevant is prophetically -144,000 -future.

God gave man dominion over all the works of His hands. We see Jesus.



Heb 2:6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
Heb 2:8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 2:11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Heb 2:12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
Heb 2:13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

-SEEKING-
Apr 22nd 2010, 02:14 AM
1. God made male and female when He created and made man.
2. God made male and female when He created and made man.
3. God made male and female when He created and made man.
4. God made male and female when He created and made man.

Cain's line is completely irrelevant. All men are made of one blood, not many. There's nothing special about blood, accept that it keeps us alive.
Lineage was not important until Abraham. Christ was to come in the flesh through Israel (Jacob -Rom 9:5). This was accomplish through men not women. Men were born of a tribe and could not change tribes. Women could change tribes through marriage. Christ had to come through Judah. Mary of Judah, married Joseph of Judah, remaining in Judah fulfilling prophecy. If she married into another tribe, Jesus would not have come from Judah. Christ has come. The only reason tribes are still relevant is prophetically -144,000 -future.

I'm sorry but did I do or say something to upset you? I made my initial comment to Mark since he is the one who started this thread. I don't understand this aggresive post of yours.

Sirus
Apr 22nd 2010, 02:16 AM
agressive? What are you talking about?

-SEEKING-
Apr 22nd 2010, 02:18 AM
agressive? What are you talking about?

Don't worry about it.

Love Fountain
Apr 22nd 2010, 06:42 AM
There isn't anything, to my knowledge, that specifies, which is my entire point. Either the bloodline survived through noah's family, or the flood did not extinguish all life on earth.


What does the word of God say? Who was on the ark?

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Noah's family whom He would establish His covenant with, and.....

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

...And the other people whom He didn't covenant with, "two of every sort", "of every living thing of all flesh" brought into the ark and kept alive, male and female.

Yes, more than eight people on the ark!

There is a big difference to the knowledge of God and the knowledge of men.

Put away the commentaries and doctrines of men, read for yourselves!


But some will say the Bible says only eight souls were saved, does it really say that? Let's have a read for ourselves..


1Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


Some would say, yep, there it is only eight souls were on the ark and saved, yet what does it really say?

Look closer at 1Pet 3:20, "eight souls were saved BY water" not from the water!

For the deeper student of the text, the word BY in the above verse means "through" .

What?? What could eights souls saved BY water mean? How are you saved BY water or "through" water?


Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


Yep, gotta have some of that living water!!

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.


Hope this helps!

Bless you,
Love Fountain

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2010, 11:38 AM
You are speculating by going outside the confines of scripture and assuming lineage + what you think.

We do know Seth is the only lineage that transversed the flood -Luke 3.
Again, you are speculating by going outside the confines of scripture and assuming lineage through woman.



I'm not speculating at all friend.

I'm simply stating we are only told 'one' bloodline that transcend the flood...Seth's via Noah's paternal line.

Luke 3 is not inclusive of all ancestries of the Ark riders.

I'm just saying we cannot claim 'Seth only' in absolute certainty because the scriptures don't supply all of the ark Members lineages. To do so is assuming and speculative.

Seth is probable but not definitive.

divaD
Apr 22nd 2010, 12:31 PM
1Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Noah's family whom He would establish His covenant with, and.....

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

...And the other people whom He didn't covenant with, "two of every sort", "of every living thing of all flesh" brought into the ark and kept alive, male and female.

Yes, more than eight people on the ark!



Ummm... don't forget about context. I noticed you provided verse 19, and seemed to have concluded 'of every sort' perhaps even means humans. First of all, there is only one sort of human. God didn't make different sorts of humans, as he did animals. Regardless of the color of one's skin, regardless which lineage, humans are still all the same, unlike fowls, which could include a variety of different species. For example, an eagle is not a hawk, but both are fowls. When it comes to mankind, there are no different species of mankind. We're all the same. We all came from the same parents, Adam and Eve.





Genesis 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

What does verse 20 state? Does it not tell us what two of every sort? Let's see, there's fowls, there's cattle, there's every creeping thing of the earth. Which of these categories would humans fit into?


The Bible tells us exactly which humans entered the ark. To imply that other humans were on board, is to imply that some humans were of the animal kingdom, because the texts are clear, that the others that were aboard the ark were not of the human kind.


Genesis 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.

These are the only humans recorded that were aboard the ark. There were no other humans onboard.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 22nd 2010, 01:31 PM
What does the word of God say? Who was on the ark?

Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.

Noah's family whom He would establish His covenant with, and.....

Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

...And the other people whom He didn't covenant with, "two of every sort", "of every living thing of all flesh" brought into the ark and kept alive, male and female.

Yes, more than eight people on the ark!

There is a big difference to the knowledge of God and the knowledge of men.

Put away the commentaries and doctrines of men, read for yourselves!


But some will say the Bible says only eight souls were saved, does it really say that? Let's have a read for ourselves..


1Pet 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


Some would say, yep, there it is only eight souls were on the ark and saved, yet what does it really say?

Look closer at 1Pet 3:20, "eight souls were saved BY water" not from the water!

For the deeper student of the text, the word BY in the above verse means "through" .

What?? What could eights souls saved BY water mean? How are you saved BY water or "through" water?


Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.


Yep, gotta have some of that living water!!

John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.


Hope this helps!

Bless you,
Love Fountain

You say to disregard the commentaries of men, but how can I do that and take your post seriously? This entire post is based upon reading more into scripture than what is actually there.

you say:

...And the other people whom He didn't covenant with, "two of every sort", "of every living thing of all flesh" brought into the ark and kept alive, male and female.

And what supports that? Nothing but a misunderstood quotation about animals. If you truly believe this, then I ask you what other sort of humans are there? And your quotation from Peter doesn't do anything to support your idea that there were other people beyond Noah's family; I"m honestly not sure what you're trying to do there, but that's okay. I'm not as "deep a student" as you appear to be. No idea what other random scriptures mentioning water have to do with this, either.

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2010, 02:06 PM
Scripture, not commentary of men, tells us six times, clearly that 8 human beings were taken upon the ark...no more, no less.

Example #1 of only 8 humans riding in the ark.
Genesis 6:18 "But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou [Noah-human #1], and thy sons[Shem, Ham, Japeth-humans #2, 3, 4], and thy wife[Mrs. Noah-human #5], and thy sons' wives[Mrs. Shem, Mrs. Ham, Mrs. Japeth-humans #6, 7, 8] with thee. "

Example #2 of 8 humans riding in the ark.
Genesis 7:13 "In the selfsame day entered Noah[#1], and Shem[#2], and Ham[#3], and Japheth[#4], the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife[#5], and the three wives[#6,7,8] of his sons with them, into the ark"

Example #3 of only 8 humans riding in the ark.
Genesis 8:15 And God spake unto Noah, saying, Go forth of the ark, thou[#1], and thy wife[#2], and thy sons[#3,4,5], and thy sons' wives[#6,7,8] with thee."

Example #4 of only 8 humans riding in the ark.
Genesis 8:18 "And Noah[COLOR="blue"][#1] went forth, and his sons[#2, 3, 4], and his wife[#5], and his sons' wives[#6, 7, 8] with him: Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark. "

Example #5 of only 8 humans riding in the ark.
Hebrews 11:7 "By faith Noah[#1], being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house[#2,3,4,5,6,7,8]; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. "

Example #6 of only 8 humans riding in the ark.
I Peter 3:20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls[#1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8] were saved by water."

And I've included zero external commentary of man at all to explain anything differently that what the scriptures themselves say.

Isn't scripture beautiful when it can speak for itself and be it's own witness?
II Corinthians 13:1 "In the mouth of two or three (or 6 in this case) witnesses shall every word be established."

God's Word is true....8 humans only; Noah and his wife, 3 sons, and 3 daughters-in-law alone, rode in the ark and survived the flood.





Now back to the OP and the study of Cain, and MarkEdward's quest of the reason for the inclusion of Cain's lineage in the Genesis account.

I believe, it is included to show mercy and forgiveness in the sight of murder, often considered the most heinous sin. Especially considering in that early time, it had never been committed yet...no desensitizing of it...how horrible the people must have reacted; yet the Lord spared both Cain and later Tuvalcain's father Lamech.

markedward
Apr 22nd 2010, 05:00 PM
Well, in the case of Cain's murdering Abel, it was God himself who said that he would be avenged "sevenfold". When Lamech murdered a man, he proclaimed it of himself that he would be avenged "seventy-sevenfold". Is this a legitimate protection held over Lamech by God, or is it Lamech just being arrogant?

BroRog
Apr 22nd 2010, 06:57 PM
Well, in the case of Cain's murdering Abel, it was God himself who said that he would be avenged "sevenfold". When Lamech murdered a man, he proclaimed it of himself that he would be avenged "seventy-sevenfold". Is this a legitimate protection held over Lamech by God, or is it Lamech just being arrogant?I think it is Lamech being arrogant, but I also think the author of Genesis quoted Lamech to make an editorial point about the times.

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2010, 07:19 PM
Well, in the case of Cain's murdering Abel, it was God himself who said that he would be avenged "sevenfold". When Lamech murdered a man, he proclaimed it of himself that he would be avenged "seventy-sevenfold". Is this a legitimate protection held over Lamech by God, or is it Lamech just being arrogant?

I'm not sure I get the context as being Lamech being arrogant, or even if Lamech is the one saying that.
Let's look at a couple of translations to see if we can get a more-clear picture of how that phrase is being presented.

KJV
Cain's scarlet letter verse
4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Lamech's scarlet letter verse
4:23 And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt.
4:24 If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold.

The KJV is pretty archaic. I can't tell if verse 24 is Lamech still talking to Adah and Zillah, or if it is the author making the statement comparing this situation back to Cain's.


Let's try the ESV.

ESV
Cain's scarlet letter verse
4:15 Then the Lord said to him, "Not so! If anyone kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him.

Lamech's scarlet letter verse
4:23 Lamech said to his wives:"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.
4:24 If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-sevenfold."

Now I didn't add any punctuation to the ESV, however, those translators chose to group verse 24 into the words of Lamech to his wives continuing from verse 23.



Let's do one more translation.....let's try the Living.

NLT
Cain's scarlet letter verse
4:15 The LORD replied, "They will not kill you, for I will give seven times your punishment to anyone who does." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain to warn anyone who might try to kill him

Lamech's scarlet letter verse
4:23 One day Lamech said to Adah and Zillah, "Listen to me, my wives. I have killed a youth who attacked and wounded me.
4:24 If anyone who kills Cain is to be punished seven times, anyone who takes revenge against me will be punished seventy-seven times!"

The NLT matches the punctuation of the ESV, grouping 23 and 24 into one statement from Lamech to his wives; so that looks to be the consensus. (although I didn't list them, the NIV and NASB also concur)

So all we really have from Lamech, is one statement to try to interpret his situation, and his circumstances, and his personality, and his intent.

Is Lamech being arrogant in telling his wives to magnify the punishment for anyone who would kill him?
or
Is Lamech lamenting to them, in saying that he is a magnitute more sorrowful for committing the murder of the youth, and admitting he deserves a magnitude worse punishment than Cain did?

At the very least we can read some level of integrity into his willingness to admit to his wives that he did murder a youth...he didn't seem to cover it up or hide it. Whatever specific punishment Cain received, he seems
to be accepting similiarly for himself, if not in a larger magnitude. Would that be because it was a youth perhaps?

We know from the children of Lamech and his wives, that they ended up being farmers and musicians.....doesn't seem to be a particular 'warring' environment foster by Lamech in their upbringing. Farming and music are typically more passive and non-violent occupations.

So little info to go on here. This Lamech is never mentioned again in scripture.

It's also interesting to note, that if chapter four is chronological, that all of this occcurred before Seth was born. It states in 4:25 that Adam knew his wife again, and she bare Seth, and also in 4:26 Enos is born to Seth. How much time spanned between Cain's murder and Lamech's murder?

We know that Seth was born in year 130, per verse 5:3.

Even though Genesis 4 and 5 both give us the geneologies between Cain down to Lamech's sons Jabal and Tubalcain; -- and between Seth and the other Lamech's son Noah....it appears the Cain lineage spanned until Seth's birth; and then wasn't mentioned again. Also Cain's lineage, unlike Seth's, doesn't supply their ages in the begats.

If chapter 4 is truly chronological we would have the following:


Genesis Chapter 4 begins
Adam and Eve created in year 0.
Adam and Eve sin, and are cast out of the Garden of Eden in unstated year.
Adam via Eve begets Cain in unstated year.
Adam via Eve begets Abel in unstated year.
(other unknown Adam/Eve siblings born by now, to have populated Nod at the time of Cain's banishment, including Cain's unnamed wife born to someone unstated also.)
Abel murdered
Cain banishment to the land of Nod, east of Eden
Cain's marries his unnamed wife
Cain begats Enoch
Cain builds a city named after his firstborn Enoch (which would also include people to populate it, that were born prior to but haven't been stated at this point)
Enoch begats Irad
Irad begats Mehujael
Mehujael begats Methusael
Methusael begats Lamech
Somewhere in this era Adah and Zillah (Lamech's later wives) are born to someone unstated.
Lamech via Adah begats Jabal
Lamech via Zillah begats Tubalcain
Somewhere in this era the youth Lamech murders would have been born to someone unstated.
Lamech kills the youth.
Somewhere in this era the wife of Seth is born to someone unstated.
Adam and Even begat Seth but date unstated here.
Somewhere in this era the wife of Enos is born to someone unstated.
Seth and unstated wife begat Enos but date unstated here.
Genesis Chapter 5 begins
Seth is born in year 130. (restated from end of chapter 4 providing the year this time)
Seth begets Enos in year 235. (restated from end of chapter 4 providing the year this time)
Enos begets Cainan in year 325.
Cainan begets Mahaleel in year 400.
Mahaleel begets Jared in year 465.
Jared begets Enoch in year 627.
Enoch begets Methuselah in year 692.
Methuselah begets Lamech in year 879.
Lamech begets Noah in year 1061.
Somewhere in this era Mrs. Noah is born to someone unstated.
Noah begets Shem, Ham, and Japeth in year 1561.
Somewhere in this era Mrs. Shem, Ham, and Japeth are born to someone unstated.
The Great Flood Occurs in year in year 1661.

So all of the blue area above, would have happened in the first 235 years after Adam was created; and to when Enos was born in year 235.
All of the red area above, would have happened in and after year 235 following Enos's birth.

Interesting that quite a bit of populating happened, city building happened (of at least two cities, Nod and Enoch), etc...prior to Seth himself being born.
This tells me that how we think of Seth as commonly being the '3rd born' of Adam and Eve may not be so; just rather, that he was the chosen child to sire the Christ lineage. (kinda like Judah came down in the lineage of Jacob's sons also, not 1st, or 2nd born either).
If Seth really was born in chapter 4 after Lamech killed the youth, then all of the people involved in Cain's lineage, building and populating the cities of Nod and Enoch, then it would have created the following options:

1) Seth is truly the 3rd-born male; and all of Cain's related people in Nod and Enoch were sired by either Adam or Cain only....
2) Seth is not truly the 3rd-born male; and other unnamed sons of Adam and or Cain were responsible for those populations...
3) or the Seth inclusion in chapter 4 after the Lamech murder isn't intented to be venued there chronologically.

Whew MarkEdward....that's alot to think about for a pretty small number of verses, with not much activity going on or recorded....I'll stop there, and see what you think.

markedward
Apr 22nd 2010, 07:47 PM
It seems to me, from the final statement in Genesis 4, that Seth was specifically the third-born son. Assuming that no children were born to Adam and Eve after Cain killed Abel, it seems inherent to the text that Seth was the next son to be born to Eve following Abel's death. If it doesn't go beyond the text itself, it might be possible that Adam and Eve had other sons after the birth of Cain and Abel, but before Cain murdered Abel... in that case, it would certainly be possible that Seth wasn't the third-born, but simply the next son born following Abel's death.

But this might be far-reaching, since Genesis 4 doesn't directly indicate the birth of any children to Adam and Eve besides Cain and Abel. The rest of the people (the people Cain is afraid of, the woman Cain marries, and the presumed residents of Cain's city) appear to simply be assumed by the text; their origin seems to be intentionally unspecific (or perhaps irrelevant), since it would have been quite easy to say who they came from (Adam, Abel before he died, other children of Cain before his murder of Abel, descendants of Seth, descendants of other children of Adam, etc).

David Taylor
Apr 22nd 2010, 08:37 PM
It seems to me, from the final statement in Genesis 4, that Seth was specifically the third-born son. Assuming that no children were born to Adam and Eve after Cain killed Abel, it seems inherent to the text that Seth was the next son to be born to Eve following Abel's death. If it doesn't go beyond the text itself, it might be possible that Adam and Eve had other sons after the birth of Cain and Abel, but before Cain murdered Abel... in that case, it would certainly be possible that Seth wasn't the third-born, but simply the next son born following Abel's death.

But this might be far-reaching, since Genesis 4 doesn't directly indicate the birth of any children to Adam and Eve besides Cain and Abel. The rest of the people (the people Cain is afraid of, the woman Cain marries, and the presumed residents of Cain's city) appear to simply be assumed by the text; their origin seems to be intentionally unspecific (or perhaps irrelevant), since it would have been quite easy to say who they came from (Adam, Abel before he died, other children of Cain before his murder of Abel, descendants of Seth, descendants of other children of Adam, etc).

Let's look at it another way. See what other things we can glean out of the story.

(Assuming the traditional Genesis account, without gap-theory stuff....IOW everyone came via Adam and Eve)

1) Seth was born in Adam's year 130. (per Genesis 5:3)
2) Seth was most definitely born 'AFTER' Cain killed Abel. (per Genesis 4:25).....so at least Cain and Abel were born a reasonable time before year 130.

Now decision time:
3a) If Seth and Enos being mentioned at the end of chapter 4 is not chronological with the Cain-lineage and Cain-descendent activities mentioned in chapter 4,
4) then Seth could be child #3 to Adam and Eve, and all the Cain story could have happened years after Seth was born, and the people that populated the cities of Nod and Enoch prior to Cain's banishment came out of some combination of post-Seth children born to A&E, Cain, Seth, etc...

however:

3b) If Seth and Enos being mentioned at the end of chapter 4 is chronological with the Cain-lineage and Cain-descendent activities mentioned in chapter 4,
4) then Seth could not be the 3rd child of Adam and Eve, but other unnamed children were born to Adam and Eve, possibly also even children born to Abel prior to his death, that were responsible for generating the population of the cities of Nod and Enoch, which Cain's later lineage resided; prior to Seth's birth.

Are there any other options we could have, knowing that Seth was born in year 130, and Seth was born after Abel and Cain?

Sirus
Apr 22nd 2010, 11:01 PM
I'm just saying we cannot claim 'Seth only' in absolute certainty because the scriptures don't supply all of the ark Members lineages.It doesn't? Why would you say that when scripture is explicit on this point.

markedward
Apr 23rd 2010, 06:33 AM
It doesn't? Why would you say that when scripture is explicit on this point.It isn't. Where does Scripture provide the lineages of Noah's wife, or Noah's sons' wives? Since their lineages are not provided in Scripture, then Scripture is not "explicit on this point". Scripture is explicit on Noah's lineage... not the women's.

David Taylor
Apr 23rd 2010, 12:02 PM
Nor does scripture list the lineage of Noah's mother.
nor Lamech mother's lineage,
nor Enoch mother's lineage,
nor Methuselah mother's lineage,
nor Jared mother's lineage,
nor Mahaleel mother's lineage,
nor Cainan mother's lineage,
nor Enos mother's lineage

Scripture doesnt document the lineages of over 12 ancestors who contributed to the 8 ark riders paternity.
So Scripture isn't "Seth-only" exclusive, it simply provides documentation that Noah and subsequently Christ descended paternally thru Seth.
Not that other Adam-Eve children didn't contribute also to that lineage, or the that post-flood DNA poo1 of all human is "Seth only".

BroRog
Apr 23rd 2010, 04:01 PM
Well, in the case of Cain's murdering Abel, it was God himself who said that he would be avenged "sevenfold". When Lamech murdered a man, he proclaimed it of himself that he would be avenged "seventy-sevenfold". Is this a legitimate protection held over Lamech by God, or is it Lamech just being arrogant?

The text hints that Cain feared some kind of retribution or revenge from other people and wouldn't be able to live in peace. We have no evidence that this fear was justified, but only that Cain was concerned. Just as his parents hid from God after disobedience out of guilt, Cain felt the guilt of his crime and feared his exile/punishment would be too great. Lamech's guilt and his fear was that much greater, which was the reason his boast of retribution was inflated seven times beyond the protection God provided for Cain.

You asked about why Genesis takes the time to mention the occupations of certain individuals. We miss the point if we see these as "employment" or "jobs". Beyond the fact that the writer of Genesis gives us the origin of people and families, he gives us the origin of their occupations. Jubal, for instance, was the "father of those who play the harp and the flute." In other words, he invented music. Not only this, but as we read such a simple statement, we must not read it so quickly as to forget that playing an instrament is a skill learned over a lifetime until such time as a man or woman has gained mastery over it. Mastery assumes apprenticeship. To be an apprentice, is to live with a goal in mind. The apprentice is working toward becoming the master, and he or she makes ethical choices based on that goal. The sons of Jubal, for instance, not only had to learn the techniques of music, but had to discover what "good" music sounded like. And they were being taught what a "good" musician was. This is life seen as living toward a goal and evaluation of a "good" life is seen in relation to that life's work. In Jubal and the other "fathers" we see men and women working toward fulfillment, happiness, and significance.

What do we see in the case of Lamech who killed a young man? We see a young man who had his life cut short, not able to reach his potential, not able to reach his life's goal, not able to find fulfillment, happiness, or significance. In the context of the previous verses that describe human potential, we see the tragedy of a life cut short. It isn't until the author of Genesis puts this act into a broader, historcial context in which we see the flourishing of human potential that we understand the grave nature of Lamech's act.

divaD
Apr 23rd 2010, 04:19 PM
Ok, there were only 4 men on the ark, correct? All of these came thru Seth's lineage, correct? Then we have the 4 women, in which we have no clue, in regards to their lineages.

Genesis 4:21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.
22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.


Let's take these 2 verses, for example. These things seem to be specific to those of Cain's lineage, such as, he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ, and an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron.

My point being, these things obviously transended the flood. So, if these
are specific to Cain's lineage, and if the 4 males on the ark were of Seth's lineage, then how exactly was it that folks were still able to handle the harp and organ, and be instructors of every artificer in brass and iron, post flood? Whom did folks learn these things from, after the flood, since Cain's lineage apparently was wiped out in the flood, especially since there is no other record of that lineage after Genesis 4?

Sirus
Apr 24th 2010, 02:08 AM
It isn't. Where does Scripture provide the lineages of Noah's wife, or Noah's sons' wives? Since their lineages are not provided in Scripture, then Scripture is not "explicit on this point". Scripture is explicit on Noah's lineage... not the women's.Where is woman listed in lineage? ....except Eve of course.

Love Fountain
Apr 24th 2010, 05:18 PM
Where is woman listed in lineage? ....except Eve of course.


How many brides are there for the true Bridegroom?

Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

Sirus
Apr 24th 2010, 05:40 PM
How many brides are there for the true Bridegroom?

Eph 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.How does this relate? I'm not understanding the point you are trying to make.

Sirus
Apr 24th 2010, 05:42 PM
Cain and his descendents the "Tares amongst the Wheat" They look like wheat but are known by their spots and are still poisonous to this very day. If you eat of them it will kill you. The genealogy of Cain, the tares even copy names of those in Adam's genealogy and have very similar spellings. Over and over they are written about throughout the whole Bible. As it is written, even a tare can repent and be saved! REPENT!!How are you connecting Cain and his descendants with tares? Where does scripture do this? None of the scriptures you gave do.

TrustingFollower
Apr 24th 2010, 06:29 PM
The text hints that Cain feared some kind of retribution or revenge from other people and wouldn't be able to live in peace. We have no evidence that this fear was justified, but only that Cain was concerned. Just as his parents hid from God after disobedience out of guilt, Cain felt the guilt of his crime and feared his exile/punishment would be too great. Lamech's guilt and his fear was that much greater, which was the reason his boast of retribution was inflated seven times beyond the protection God provided for Cain.

You asked about why Genesis takes the time to mention the occupations of certain individuals. We miss the point if we see these as "employment" or "jobs". Beyond the fact that the writer of Genesis gives us the origin of people and families, he gives us the origin of their occupations. Jubal, for instance, was the "father of those who play the harp and the flute." In other words, he invented music. Not only this, but as we read such a simple statement, we must not read it so quickly as to forget that playing an instrament is a skill learned over a lifetime until such time as a man or woman has gained mastery over it. Mastery assumes apprenticeship. To be an apprentice, is to live with a goal in mind. The apprentice is working toward becoming the master, and he or she makes ethical choices based on that goal. The sons of Jubal, for instance, not only had to learn the techniques of music, but had to discover what "good" music sounded like. And they were being taught what a "good" musician was. This is life seen as living toward a goal and evaluation of a "good" life is seen in relation to that life's work. In Jubal and the other "fathers" we see men and women working toward fulfillment, happiness, and significance.

What do we see in the case of Lamech who killed a young man? We see a young man who had his life cut short, not able to reach his potential, not able to reach his life's goal, not able to find fulfillment, happiness, or significance. In the context of the previous verses that describe human potential, we see the tragedy of a life cut short. It isn't until the author of Genesis puts this act into a broader, historcial context in which we see the flourishing of human potential that we understand the grave nature of Lamech's act.
I think you are on to a point that has been overlooked thus far in this discussion. We are given details of the advances of the area from the point of view of Cain's lineage. The foot note in my bible has an interesting comment on why this is, which I will put here for consideration.


The Cainitic civilization may have been as splendid as that of Greece or Rome, but the divine judgment is according to the moral state, not the material (Genesis 6:5-7). No trace of this advanced civilization have yet been found, nor is the geographical location known. Someday evidence may be uncovered by the archaeologist's spade.

In the note it references Genesis 6:5-7

Genesis 6

5 ¶Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.
7 The LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them."

God brought the judgment because of the state of man's moral behavior. God did not bring judgment because they were advanced, as God knew man would figure these things out. We know that from Genesis 11:6 which is after the flood, but is still incite to the character of God.

Genesis 11

6 The LORD said, "Behold, they are one people, and they all have the same language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them.

God brought the judgment due to man's wickedness that grieved Him. So my thoughts are not so much as to what the lineage has to do with why Cain's line is described in this much detail in regards to who were on the ark, but rather the moral lesson as to who were on the ark with regard to moral righteousness.