January - Reading 2

[AF Guy N Paradise]

2 days in a row I have read praise the Lord! I ama little confused about the readings due to seeing 2002 and 2003 dates. Shouldn't we have the readings reflect 2004?

Also, in Genesis, where did Cain's wife come from and why wasn't it explained? It just says Cain's wife had a son and named him Enoch. Thanks.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by AF Guy N Paradise:
2 days in a row I have read praise the Lord!

I am very pleased to hear it, AFG!

I am a little confused about the readings due to seeing 2002 and 2003 dates. Shouldn't we have the readings reflect 2004?

Are you referencing the original post dates on individual posts? If so, there is little we can do. If I were to delete the original post, the entire thread would disappear.

The hope of the webmaster and myself is that as time goes by, the threads will continue to grow. My recommendation is that you adjust to reading just the thread title. I also tried to edit out any reference to years in the reading postings to avoid any confusion.

Also, in Genesis, where did Cain's wife come from and why wasn't it explained? It just says Cain's wife had a son and named him Enoch. Thanks.

Ah, there's an age old question!

You will find much conjecture but zero textual backing in answer to this question. The logical answer, if we assume a literal interpretation of Adam and Eve, is that the wife would have been a sister. The possibilities are, of course, far wider if we do not assume literalness.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia offers these observations, but no real answers:

2. Difficulties:

With few and bold strokes the story of Cain as it stands paints for us the character of the first of murderers and the scene of his detection and condemnation. To the religious purpose of the narrative all other things are made tributary. But if we can not refrain from putting the familiar question, Who was Cain's wife? it is aIso impossible upon close study of Ge 4:1-26, as it stands, to avoid asking what was the nature of the sign of Yahweh's acceptance (verse 4), or of the "sign" appointed for Cain (verse 15); or what we are to think of the introduction in the midst of the narrative, without explanation, of such important institutions as sacrifice (verses 3,4) and blood-revenge (verse 14); who were the persons of whom Cain stood in fear (verse 14); who inhabited the city he built (verse 17); how the wanderer and fugitive could become the city-builder; and why the shepherd life should be represented as beginning with Abel (verse 2) and again with Jabal (verse 20); also whether the narrator means that not only the collection of men in cities (verse 17), but also animal husbandry, music and metal-working (verse 20-22) are to be looked upon with disfavor as having sprung from Cain or from his descendants? Most of these questions find their answers in one consideration: the narrative is not exhaustively complete and is not intended to be so. That a large body of racial traditions existed, from which, with the severest condensation, the author of Gen selected his material, is the conclusion forced by close examination of the Gen narrative and comparison of it with the most ancient extant traditions. "In Ge 4:1-26 these old stories are not told for their own sakes. The incompleteness and the difficulties left unsolved do not allow this assumption to be made. They form simply the material foundation, to which higher ideas and doctrines are attached" (Dillmann)

source

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Blake's questions were answered by Helen way back when he first posted them, but I am unable to locate the thread. Here are some observations:

Originally posted by Blake:
Why was the lineage of Cain necessary here since only the line of Seth (Noah) survived the flood?

Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary

3. His family also was built up. Here is an account of his posterity, at least the heirs of his family, for seven generations. His son was Enoch, of the same name, but not of the same character, with that holy man that walked with God, Ge 5:22. Good men and bad may bear the same names: but God can distinguish between Judas Iscariot and Judas not Iscariot, Joh 14:22. The names of more of his posterity are mentioned, and but just mentioned; not as those of the holy seed (Ge 5:1-32), where we have three verses concerning each, whereas here we have three or four in one verse. They are numbered in haste, as not valued or delighted in, in comparison with God's chosen.

source

Why is specific info given (skills) about three of Cain's decendants (Gen. 4:20-22), if this line was no more?

Matthew Henry's Whole Bible Commentary

That worldly things are the only things that carnal wicked people set their hearts upon and are most ingenious and industrious about. So it was with this impious race of cursed Cain. Here were a father of shepherds and a father of musicians, but not a father of the faithful. Here was one to teach in brass and iron, but none to teach the good knowledge of the Lord. Here were devices how to be rich, and how to be mighty, and how to be merry, but nothing of God, nor of his fear and service, among them. Present things fill the heads of most people. (2.) That even those who are destitute of the knowledge and grace of God may be endued with many excellent and useful accomplishments, which may make them famous and serviceable in their generation. Common gifts are given to bad men, while God chooses to himself the foolish things of the world.

source

[ January 02, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[A.J.Armitage]

The virgin birth also has no direct bearing on Christ's sinlessness. It was Christ's own personal decision when He was tempted in the wilderness to remain sinless. Sin is not genetically transmitted through human sperm. Such a notion is not to be found within the Scriptures.

This looks like a muddled reply to traducianism. But that doctrine doesn't hold that sin is genetic, nor necessarily that the physical substance sperm has to do with it. The idea is that each person's soul is split off or "traduced" from his father's soul, going back to Adam. The Scriptural support for this is the fact that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek while in Abraham. Since salvation isn't inheritable, not all acts and attributes of a father are carried on by his son. Now, the virgin birth didn't just make Christ's sinlessness possible, it made the Incarnation itself possible.

I also don't think I agree with it being "Christ's own personal decision" not to sin, if it means what I think it means. Do you suppose that God might have worshipped Satan? Do you suppose the Trinity might have been permanently divided against itself? No. There was never any possibility Christ would decide otherwise. The point of tempting Him was to demonstrate that He would refuse sin.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Our Scriptures for January 3 are:

Matthew 2:1-12

Acts 2:1-21

Psalm 3

Genesis 5-8

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Our Scriptures for January 3 are:

Matthew 2:1-12

Acts 2:1-21

Psalm 3

Genesis 5-8

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Our Scriptures for January 3 are:

Matthew 2:1-12

Acts 2:1-21

Psalm 3

Genesis 5-8

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Our Scriptures for January 3 are:

Matthew 2:1-12

Acts 2:1-21

Psalm 3

Genesis 5-8