Does the Tanakh teach how Cain killed Abel? A simple case study of contextual analysis and probability.

Spear, knife, club, rock, we know that there was blood for sure. The emphasis in scripture is the heart of Cain. The emphasis in scripture is always about the heart of man. Sin lieth at the door and would master you but you must master it. Jesus Christ was sacrificed and his blood speaks better things than that of Abel which crieth for vengenance, and now we have the strength and power by the Grace of God to master that which lieth at the door.

Hey! It could happen!

Thats the same conclusion I came to several years ago.

A big amen....happens with most of the bible.....it either...

a. Does not mean what it says
b. The words must be changed to git a particular religious creed
c. Contextual honesty is shot down like Japanese Zero over Midway!

For dramatic effect? I don't know.

Sacrifice will test our heart.....it was time for Cain’s and Abel’s heart to be tested and the test was according to their work.

Cain’s heart was “me first” and his work was a tiller of the ground.

Abel’s heart was “God first” and his work was a keeper of sheep.

I cannot stress enough how desperately God desires our hearts - our love for Him.

Note: God didn’t need fruit/grain or dead sheep - God wanted Cain’s and Abel’s heart - their love.

Putting God first and loving Him with all our heart can free us from making decisions that only end in sin.

Our sacrifices say, “God I love You and I choose Your Will, NOT mine.”

If we do that with our whole heart, God will pour out His Presence, His Love, His Favor.....all of His goodness because LOVE desires to love and to be loved.

I don't think the Lord is telling us about Cain and Abel to teach us about their names or whether Cain used a rock, club or spear to kill. He told us about them to teach us something about His ways. We can learn about them even from what was done to Cain when it was known he was a murderer. We can note that it expresses the principle that it is only through blood that we have forgiveness of sin.

I highly doubt it actually has anything to do with a sacrifice. It was more of a jest associating it with the fact that Cain did not sacrifice a life to God but using a animal but then murdered his own brother whose blood, “‘called out” to God.

I would have to say that the names and entire sentence was structured to set up a series of patterns that would be useful for future generations. In the story of cain and Abel it’s not actually clear at that point that blood forgives sins. That’s something we learn later on and attach to it. But what the verse does clearly teach is that Spear murdered Vapor out of wickedness.

We know that the story comes to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Although I disagree with 'spear' as the meaning the author intended because it fails to point at the maternal environment from which the foundation for his perception of reality developed.

Except Jesus wasn't murdered or killed by a spear, He was already dead.

That each story in the Old Testament has a theological intent is pretty clear. After all we know that there were innumerable stories that could have been recorded other than the ones that were so we must pay attention to the overarching theological truth that would be a message to all mankind profitable for doctrine and personal application.
In this case I see the division of the godly and the ungodly societies of men at their origins and the law of first reference is a foundational revelation of the heart of the issue. Literally, the heart of man.
We see the beginning of a city built by Cain named after his son Enosh (human) and their focus on this life only with the inventions of things pertaining to this world and its pleasures and ambitions. There are mentions of the daughters who were lovely, and pleasant, and beautiful, when there is no mention of daughters in Seths lineage though we know he had them this is to point out that these daughters in Cains camp were who is being reference later when the sons of God in Seths Camp start falling away by marrying them and leaving off their faith and expectation of a coming judge who will execute judgment on ungodly sinners. (Enoch's Prophecy).
This division of the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light starts here with Cain and Abel. There will always be a division between light and darkness and those who are Horizontally Minded (this life only) and those who are Vertically Minded (heart set on the Kingdom to Come.)
There is much more theology in these first few chapters that can be traced throughout the rest of the Bible and it is a case in point where knowledge of the rest of the bible is required to see the underlying message.

John writes about Cain in 1John 3:12: We should not be like Cain, who was from the evil one and murdered his brother.

I think based on this statement by John along with the circumstances detailed in Genesis that we have enough clues as to what happened. It seems logical to conclude that Satan influenced Cain in such a way as perform an evil imitation of the sacrifice performed by Abel.

This brings up an important point. Is God eternal with eternal principles or does our kind of time affect how God is. Also, was Adam and Eve given a knowledge of God. Your post indicates that Adam and Eve knew only what we are told they knew, unaware that God set up the sacrificial system for atonement. It also puts knowledge of the Lord into our kind of time. The sacrificial system is based on eternal time, for Christ wasn't crucified until about 4,000 years later.

Our mortal minds make it hard to comprehend eternal time. Yet all prophecies are based on eternal time, not time that unfolds.

Well
For me I believe they are archetypes in a highly symbolic mythological narrative full of hyperbolic language creating an ahistorical tale.

That is a fancy way of saying that you don't believe in the historical accuracy of scripture, only the spiritual. In other words, you don't believe a word of it.

I don't agree at all. I think that the Lord can be trusted to be truthful, and that all our actions reflect the spiritual, as the actual happenings reported in scripture have a spiritual meaning.

Abel killed the first borns. That sent a message to Cain I'm sure. Especially if Cain had guilt suppressed it might unleash that crouching monster. Then God liked the message!

It mentions they talked as they walked to the field. What would they need to talk about? Abel nothing, Cain summoned Abel. Cain had to talk to Abel about something it seems to me. This was for Abel like what Holy week was for Jesus. Maybe it started with Cain asking a question as if he asked it to learn from Abel. Like his father in the tree did to his mother. Did God really say?
As I think about the story and the significance of Blood ......For the forgiveness of sins. I think it was likely a very bloody murder. A couple more reasons. It was the first time anyone had killed anyone. Death was a mystery to them. Also, it seems fitting that the first Christ event in history would emphasize the profound significance of the blood.

God said the earth opened it's mouth to receive Abel's blood. If Cain believed that Abel's life was in his blood.... I think he might have been motivated to spill as much as he could.

You made several false statements that are way off the mark.


Seeing the clearly ahistorical nature of genesis 1-11 based on literary analysis is not the same as not believing it .

Take revelation. is revelation literal? If not then does that mean you doubt it and don’t believe it?

Or what about the verses saying God battles a multi headed dragon? Must we take that literal? No.

There is no theological, historical, or scientific reason for me to believe genesis 1-11 is supposed to be literally interpreted.

Hermeneutics. If you make Cain mythological then why not make Abraham a myth also. On what literary nail do you hang your mythological label and your literal historical label? Because it is an old story? It's really not so old that it is impossible to be a real history. Because you think it was passed down orally until Moses and can't possibly have been preserved accurately? Why is it so hard to take it as literal historical as well as Abraham's story?