Comments and Criticism, please

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

True meaning actual sacrifice. Putting a quarter in the plate your mom gave you for that purpose is not a sacrifice. Killing and animal is.

this should tell you there is a difference in sacrifice, gifts & offerings.

there are many sacrifice & offerings that were given to God that were bloodless & they were accepted.
i think you are beating around the bush & you should recognize that it was Cains heart that was not right & 'trading' for blood would not have made the difference.

[Bandit]

The scripture tells me, if you do not love your brother then you do not love God.

If we do not love our neighbor, then we do not love God.

Cain killed his brother, which shows me he did not love his brother & he did not love God. PERIOD

…and I do not see him repenting.



I see no law that indicates a blood sacrifice for sin between or for cain & abel. Nor do I see where it indicates this gift/offering had to be a blood offering in order for it to be the best in order to be accepted by God in this case.

It is also clear to me that when the law was made later, that even in the event of giving up a bull and goat for sin, if the high priest had sin or did not offer the sacrifice correctly, he would be struck dead when entering the holy of holies & sins would not be forgiven. This shows me that it is not only the ‘best’ offering/sacrifice, but the heart & spirit of a man, by faith, that God was looking at. (as I have said previously)



There is a difference in that of a sacrifice for sin & that of a gift offering.



Sacrifice for blood offerings

2076 zabach zaw-bakh' a primitive root; to slaughter an animal (usually in sacrifice):--kill, offer, (do) sacrifice, slay.

2077 zebach zeh'-bakh from 2076; properly, a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication, a sacrifice (the victim or the act):--offer(- ing), sacrifice.



The offering made by Cain & Abel

4503 minchah min-khaw' from an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary):--gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.





On the surface, I used to see it the same as you do.

From here we will have to agree to disagree, Oakie.

[Bandit]

i have always enjoyed your writings Oakie, but this one is a flop for me.
the only other criticism (since you asked) that i can offer, would be to read & consider your own writing to others and in this particular case:

This is a risk of studying the Bible in isolation. One can take false turns from which it is hard to recover. We have a tendency to love our own ideas, and many a lone scholar has labored feverishly to light a candle while missing the bon fire right behind him. In there are some cases in which charismatic individuals have convinced others to ignore the bon fire too.

There are some to whom the Bible becomes an idol. It is something you can take, utter a few words, and magically come away with answers, the true answers, the only answers. What’s more is that there are those who set themselves up as a priest of the sacred mysteries. They are the sole interpreter and do their interpretation without listening to the knowledge of the scholars or the wisdom of the saints. If they are pastors, their “knowledge” can be used as a means of power over their flocks. This practice has become so ingrained in parts of the Christian culture that the people doing it don’t realize that’s what they are doing; or worse, they think it’s normal.

thank you for the dialogue.
this is your column, so it does not matter what i say because you are ignoring everything i say.
(i think that is part of your intention with this)

peace to you my brother

[okieinexile]

I made my case in the original piece. That is what you are going to get. You, on the other hand, seem to have some sort of knowledge of what was in Cain's heart that is not in any text you've shown.

I've not even claimed this is offering for sin. That is not in the text. I am reading this text.

Let me say it again. The only model for a sacrifice they had was one performed by God himself. Abel followed the model; Cain did not.

[okieinexile]

Originally Posted by Bandit

i have always enjoyed your writings Oakie, but this one is a flop for me.
the only other criticism (since you asked) that i can offer, would be to read & consider your own writing to others and in this particular case:



thank you for the dialogue.
this is your column, so it does not matter what i say because you are ignoring everything i say.
(i think that is part of your intention with this)

peace to you my brother

I accept the offer of peace. I did request your criticism. My own understand of the text has deepened as a result of our exchange.

In answer to your charge that I need to read my own writing, I think that is a cheap shot. I've not studied in isolation. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am wrong.

[okieinexile]

Originally Posted by Bandit

2077 zebach zeh'-bakh from 2076; properly, a slaughter, i.e. the flesh of an animal; by implication, a sacrifice (the victim or the act):--offer(- ing), sacrifice.



The offering made by Cain & Abel

4503 minchah min-khaw' from an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation; euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually bloodless and voluntary):--gift, oblation, (meat) offering, present, sacrifice.





On the surface, I used to see it the same as you do.

From here we will have to agree to disagree, Oakie.

This actually is something that will make me look over my argument again.

By the way, the name is Okie, not Oakie. I consider the latter to be an insult.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

I accept the offer of peace. I did request your criticism. My own understand of the text has deepened as a result of our exchange.

very good then.

Originally Posted by okieinexile

In answer to your charge that I need to read my own writing, I think that is a cheap shot. I've not studied in isolation. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am wrong.

i dont think of it as a cheap shot, sorry that you do. unless you feel your own writing is a cheap shot.
i did not say you were wrong.

what i am trying to say is, you are not very good at either listening or acknowledging what I am trying to say & you come across as if you are right & I am wrong & all that i am saying is worthless.
if it took what you consider a charge/cheap shot, for me to get your attention on this, then good.

this is all i have gotten from you-
you believe because God made them (Adam/Eve) coats of skins from an animal just before He sent them from Eden, this is the example Cain should follow. If Cain would have made an offering of blood from Abels animals, instead of the fruit from his own labor, that would have made all the difference & he would have been accepted.?.
Correct???

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by okieinexile

By the way, the name is Okie, not Oakie. I consider the latter to be an insult.

okee dokee, Okie

[okieinexile]

By the way, I am losing faith in my argument. In light of your pointing out the Hebrew, I think the offering was refused simply because he didn't give his best. That is the sense of the plain text.

[okieinexile]

And btw, this portion of the article is just an afterthought. It can be lifted out of the article without changing the thrust at all. I can change a couple of sentences and remove this particular controversy entirely.

[InLove]

Oh my--what am I doing--biting? God help me (and I mean that )

Hi Y'all ---

Ummm, well, first of all (in case anyone is interested) I am thinking that it might be rather difficult for many folks to understand what the argument is actually about.

But to me, it is a good conversation to have--after all (in case anyone is interested) it boils down to whether blood or good intentions mean more to God.

I would just like to interject that I am all for good intentions--and I don't think God has anything against them either, from what I read. However, I also glean from those same readings that man has a hard time having truly good intentions on his own.

I do not think that Cain had good intentions--after all, when he did not win the prize, he got awfully angry, and then he became the first human recorded in the Bible to commit murder. And like someone has pointed out here or elsewhere or in my heart--God was merciful enough to sentence him not to death, but to life, albeit it not a very comfortable one from what I understand.

I believe that sometimes the passages in the Bible foreshadow other passages. After all, if God is the creator of all, than surely he created the elements of great literature (note here that I said literature, not fantasy--even though we could not even have the latter without His design). God's Word is unique, even in its form--people can argue about flood stories, and creatures rising from the ashes and yada-yada-yada, but still, when it comes right down to it, this collection is truly different. ( I mean the Christian collection. Now I am sure someone will want to argue over the denominational interpretations--I will get back to you on that after I have read the Apocrypha. Working on it. If for no other reason than to hopefully shut up all the opposing voices in my head so I can decide for myself--and I think I know that I am going to find that what I have believed is what I believe.)

Anyway, is it possible that God is capable of foreshadowing the blood sacrifice of His Son? Oh, wait, silly me--YES. Shall I begin naming Scripture passages? Just because Moses had not come down from Mount Sinai with the ten commandments yet is not a defense for Cain. Even the New Testament tells the account by Stephen (who, of course, was immediately stoned to death) that the Patriarchs of old had acted first in faith, and were spared to some extent the blood sacrifice. But then the blood is always there, and it is the blood of the Lamb. And His blood means both--the intentions of the heart and the sacrifice.

You both have valid points. The blood will always cry out. It will cry out about the heart.

The God that I believe in would have no interest in the shedding of blood if He was not willing and expecting to shed His own for the sake of His own. There is the intent, and there is the blood. There together.


InPeace,
InLove

[okieinexile]

Blessed are the peace makers.

[InChristAlways]

quote ILove: I believe that sometimes the passages in the Bible foreshadow other passages. After all, if God is the creator of all, than surely he created the elements of great literature (note here that I said literature, not fantasy--even though we could not even have the latter without His design). God's Word is unique, even in its form--people can argue about flood stories, and creatures rising from the ashes and yada-yada-yada, but still, when it comes right down to it, this collection is truly different.

Originally Posted by wil

okieinexile. I thoroughly enjoyed your writing, line of thinking and topic. I liked how you indicated it was broad strokes, that there were many stories many topics involved that could be contemplated.

I challenge you to go deeper, you touched on the surface, and the experiential...the bible is our autobiography, there isn't an instance in our life that we can't find an apropo lessen, (new or old testament). But you indicated that the bible was divinely inspired yet written carefully by men, men that buried stories inside of stories. Lookup the meanings to the names Cain and Abel, and develop yet another story line.

Look up the metaphysical definitions of the words in the story...and replace the place names and peoples names with the meanings...read it again.

Again, very good writing, I say it will be well received. Save it, pull it out, update it annually...you'll see the story and depth grow as you do.

thank you, namaste

Hi will. I also do that in my study of the NT.
For example, have you ever noticed the name "Judas Iscariot"? Judas also means "Judah", the house that betrayed Jesus.

In fact I did an article concerning Judas and the OT prophecies concerning him.
I believe it may symbolic of the priesthood of Judah/Levi that had Jesus crucified and whom God later punished by making their city a "wilderness"[Gene 49/Matt 23]. Just my 2 cents worth. Pretty interesting.
Steve

(Young) Matthew 26:14 Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas [#2455] Iscariot [#2469], having gone unto the chief priests, said,

2469. Iskariotes is-kar-ee-o'-tace of Hebrew origin (probably 377 and 7149); inhabitant of Kerioth; Iscariotes (i.e. Keriothite), an epithet of Judas the traitor:--Iscariot.

2455. Ioudas ee-oo-das' of Hebrew origin (3063); Judas (i.e. Jehudah), the name of ten Israelites; also of the posterity of one of them and its region:--Juda(-h, -s); Jude.

Acts 1:20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms: 'Let his dwelling place be [a] wilderness, And let no one live in it'; and, 'Let another take his office.'

Psalms 69:25 Let their walled places be desolate; Let no one live in their tents. Psalms 109:8 Let his days be few, [And] let another take his office.

Geneis 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him [shall be] the obedience of the people.

Jeremiah 48:24 And on Kerioth [#07152], and on Bozrah, And on all cities of the land of Moab, The far off and the near.