Why is Cain not listed in Adams descendent?

[redhotmagma]

Yeah VB, I don't think so genetically, again, its more about spiritual status.  Imagine a people led by Cain, very primitive, still genetically the same.  Then the sons of God/Seth that had stayed up on the mountain of God, and continued to receive directly from God for their learning, albeit outside the garden, these are the gods.  Or they would have seemed like gods to a more primitive people. 

We see it after the flood, men becoming gods, Nimrod being the sungod, his wife the moon goddess.  Their son, Tammuz the reincarnated father,  who by the way may have been killed by Shem.

[Lazarus Short]

We see it after the flood, men becoming gods, Nimrod being the sungod, his wife the moon goddess.  Their son, Tammuz the reincarnated father,  who by the way may have been killed by Shem.

I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau,  and that is why he came back home in a state of exhausted desperation, thinking Nimrod's men would track him down and kill him.  Jacob thus was able to take advantage of him, demanding the birthright for a bowl of stew, which Esau agreed to, thinking his life was forfeit anyway.

[Molly]

God hated Esau because Esau despised his birthright, for which reason I believe America is currently under judgment.

He sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage.




Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

--Gen 25:34

[Lazarus Short]

God hated Esau because Esau despised his birthright, for which reason I believe America is currently under judgment.

He sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage.

Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

--Gen 25:34

Nice connection, Molly.  Most folks, I'm sure, could not name either the birthright or the current pottage.  We are also like Esau in that Amerika, having sold its birthright, has become nothing but a source of trouble for the rest of the world.

[VineBranch]

I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau ...

What the Book of Jasher?

[Lazarus Short]

I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau ...

What the Book of Jasher?

Joshua 10:13  Is not this written in the Book of Jasher?

II Samuel 1:18  Behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher.

It exists in several editions, some of which are forgeries, and the genuine one (the 1840 edition) is supposed to have been translated from a single Hebrew manuscript.  It is often dismissed as a forgery or a midrash, and I am hesitant to put it anywhere on an even footing with the Holy Bible, but it is sometimes useful in backfilling a Biblical story.  It is more man-centered than the OT, with God more in the background of things.  Still, worth a read.

[VineBranch]

It exists in several editions, some of which are forgeries, and the genuine one (the 1840 edition) is supposed to have been translated from a single Hebrew manuscript.  It is often dismissed as a forgery or a midrash, and I am hesitant to put it anywhere on an even footing with the Holy Bible, but it is sometimes useful in backfilling a Biblical story.  It is more man-centered than the OT, with God more in the background of things.  Still, worth a read.

I thought it was a reference to something which may once have existed.  Is it on the same level as the Apocrypha?  You and redhot actually quote it as historically accurate.  Are we dealing with elite knowledge?

I confess I'm becoming a bit leary of you guys. 

[Lazarus Short]

It exists in several editions, some of which are forgeries, and the genuine one (the 1840 edition) is supposed to have been translated from a single Hebrew manuscript.  It is often dismissed as a forgery or a midrash, and I am hesitant to put it anywhere on an even footing with the Holy Bible, but it is sometimes useful in backfilling a Biblical story.  It is more man-centered than the OT, with God more in the background of things.  Still, worth a read.

I thought it was a reference to something which may once have existed.  Is it on the same level as the Apocrypha?  You and redhot actually quote it as historically accurate.  Are we dealing with elite knowledge?

I confess I'm becoming a bit leary of you guys.

Well, we do have a double witness in the OT as to its historical existence.  If the manuscript had turned up earlier, it might well have made it into the Apocrypha.  Historical accuracy - well, sometimes it follows the Bible, and sometimes it doesn't, and that is why I do not put it on the same level as inspired scripture.  It needs to be given the "Panin Test" to see if it's inspired.  No, it's not elite knowledge, just a bit hard to find - it's probably not in your usual evangelical bookstore.  You just have to read it and make up your own mind.

[VineBranch]

Well, we do have a double witness in the OT as to its historical existence.

No you don't; you have a book which has a similar title to one mentioned in scripture.

The book of Joshua was written around 1400 BC.  To have been quoted in said book, Jasher would have to have been written around the same time as the Torah.  Yet we have no provenance for it?  You're starting to scare me Laz.  Lom will probably be by to tell me to lighten up soon, but I am really a bit antsy here.

[Lazarus Short]

When I first read about the Book of Jasher, per the OT verses I quoted, I thought well, the book must have been lost centuries ago.  When I found it was not lost, I devoured it.  I introduced it to my dad, who decided it was hokum, until he read the double witness himself.  After that, he defended the book against all my doubts.  With that said, I've hinted that it is controversial, and I am not completely sold on its genuineness.  It does not follow the OT 100%, and for that reason maybe I should not have mentioned it, but it does give some backstory information, as with the early life of Abram.  You have to make up your own mind, but I think yours is.  For me, my opinion of the book has declined over the years, and I now realize that God does not speak to me through its pages, but then, I find that God is very much in the background of this book.  Maybe that's the whole crux of the matter. :dontknow:

[VineBranch]

You have to make up your own mind, but I think yours is. :dontknow:

It's not made up.  What troubles me is that the provenance is not meticulously stated.  You and red stated that the things said were true:  "We see it after the flood, men becoming gods, Nimrod being the sungod, his wife the moon goddess.  Their son, Tammuz the reincarnated father,  who by the way may have been killed by Shem."  Not mentioned anywhere else, yet treated as true.  Nimrod somehow has a history, and we believe it because some book we didn't validate says so.

Later on Laz you yourself wrote:  "I hadn't heard about Tammuz having been killed by Shem, but the Book of Jasher relates that Nimrod was killed by Esau,  and that is why he came back home in a state of exhausted desperation, thinking Nimrod's men would track him down and kill him.  Jacob thus was able to take advantage of him, demanding the birthright for a bowl of stew, which Esau agreed to, thinking his life was forfeit anyway".  In My Humble Opinion, this is how people come to believe 'new' old scripture:  the 'lost' Gospels, the new lineages of Christ.  I've seen Pagels and Earleman, and Williamson, accepted without so much as a 'prove it'.  The Jesus seminar takes away Jesus' divinity and there is no 'wait, how do you figure that'. John Shelby Spong takes Christ away from Christianity, and he's still a Bishop of the Anglican Church.

According to the Book of Mormon we must ... no wait, I can't use that, no one will believe me.  yet an equally specious book in which we have faith can be quoted as if true.  Oh well, it's okay, it's one of which we approve.

[Molly]

John Shelby Spong takes Christ away from Christianity

So, he's the guy that destroyed the Anglican church!  :laugh:

Thanks for the info.


John Shelby Spong: Anglican Nightmare



https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/735-john-shelby-spong-anglican-nightmare



PS I don't think you have any worries about RHM and Lazarus, VB.  This is actually a very conservative board religiously speaking, or I wouldn't be here.  That doesn't mean we don't talk about all kinds of things, from time to time though. But I don't think anyone is in danger of being led astray by extra-biblical writings.   :2c:

[redhotmagma]

Actually VB I wasn't referring to Jasher. I was referring to much more profane sources. These are legends myths stories passed down. I don't consider any of it fully reliable. I find it interesting but it doesn't affect my faith whatsoever.

But there is biblical witness that backs up some of the assertions.

[ded2daworld]

 :2c: :2c:I guess it is sinful man that states or believes the Bible ripped off pagan sources for their ideas. To me, it makes much more sense that Pagans ripped off the Bible stories. I mean, is God likely to copy satan to decieve or is satan likely to copy God to decieve. Many cultures have a flood story, a "first man" story, a "trinity" in the form of Father, Son and Mother, a rising from the dead, a little guy overcoming a huge opponent, etc. :Peace2:

[redhotmagma]

Check out this thread.  I go over a lot of these things in there.  Unfortunately I started another thread that was lost in the big shutdown/hack, that has some more of my research into these things.

http://tentmaker.org/forum/lounge/signs-symbols-and-pagans-oh-my/msg121698/#msg121698

[lomarah]

Well, we do have a double witness in the OT as to its historical existence.

No you don't; you have a book which has a similar title to one mentioned in scripture.

The book of Joshua was written around 1400 BC.  To have been quoted in said book, Jasher would have to have been written around the same time as the Torah.  Yet we have no provenance for it?  You're starting to scare me Laz.  Lom will probably be by to tell me to lighten up soon, but I am really a bit antsy here.

:laughing7:

[Molly]

Jesus was in the faces of the religious leaders of his day.  He called them vipers and sons of the devil.  I personally believe the ones he was addressing were Satanists, and that they brought their Satanic religion [the mystery religion of the antichrist] back from the Babylonian exile.

He also called them "imposters," meaning they may not even have been tribe of Judah or Levite priests at all in many cases.   They were able to buy that position at that time, and it evidently was a prosperous position to hold as witnessed by the money changers [bankers!] in the Temple.

As always, they laid terrible burdens on the people, moreso than even the Roman Empire which Jesus largely ignored.   Could we deduce from this that the greater sin is pretending to be a man of God while worshipping the enemy of God,  than merely being a secular power?




When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

--Sinclair Lewis

[VineBranch]

PS I don't think you have any worries about RHM and Lazarus, VB.  This is actually a very conservative board religiously speaking, or I wouldn't be here.  That doesn't mean we don't talk about all kinds of things, from time to time though. But I don't think anyone is in danger of being led astray by extra-biblical writings.   :2c:

I agree Molly.  The only reason I feel comfortable talking so openly to these guys about things which trouble me is because I have come to trust them implicitly.  I know I can say what is on my mind and express it in frank terms because I know they will take it as me questioning.  I have no answers, just observations and queries:  these guys have shown they are willing to listen and take what I say seriously.  I therefore try to be honest as I can with my reactions.  I wouldn't write in this manner if I didn't trust everyone her as Christian brothers and sisters, who accept each other just the way they are.  Otherwise what's the use?

[Molly]

PS I don't think you have any worries about RHM and Lazarus, VB.  This is actually a very conservative board religiously speaking, or I wouldn't be here.  That doesn't mean we don't talk about all kinds of things, from time to time though. But I don't think anyone is in danger of being led astray by extra-biblical writings.   :2c:

I agree Molly.  The only reason I feel comfortable talking so openly to these guys about things which trouble me is because I have come to trust them implicitly.  I know I can say what is on my mind and express it in frank terms because I know they will take it as me questioning.  I have no answers, just observations and queries:  these guys have shown they are willing to listen and take what I say seriously.  I therefore try to be honest as I can with my reactions.  I wouldn't write in this manner if I didn't trust everyone her as Christian brothers and sisters, who accept each other just the way they are.  Otherwise what's the use?

Sounds good to me. :thumbsup:

[Lazarus Short]

VB, I agree totally with your healthy skepticism about this-or-that ancient book.  I have myself defined the Holy Bible as a reference standard of Truth, and have explained how I have backed away from my enthusiasm for the Book of Jasher.  It is useful here and there, but far short of perfect or perfectly reliable.  Can we lay this issue to rest?  I'm tired of getting beat up over it.  :punish: >  :friendstu:

[ded2daworld]

But Laz, I was waiting till you were totally down before I kicked you :laugh: :HeartThrob:

[Lazarus Short]

But Laz, I was waiting till you were totally down before I kicked you :laugh: :HeartThrob:

Careful!  I'm not totally down, I kick back, and I know that there K. Ratey!  :laughing7:

[Molly]

So Cain was sent out of the presence of God and he became a city dweller and builder.

Who was teaching Cain and his progeny all the arts and scientific trappings of 'high culture'?

Some say it was the fallen angels mentioned in Gen 6, also known as the sons of God.

But, Abel was righteous, as was his father, Adam, and Seth likewise, made in the image of his father who was made in the image of the one to come.

Because when God made Adam, God made a farmer.  :winkgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sillEgUHGC4

[ded2daworld]

Why would Cain being a builder and a city dweller imply that he was taught special knowledge??

[Molly]

Well, generally speaking, civilization sprang full blown out of nowhere.

There was nothing leading up to it in fits and starts.  It's just there--all of a sudden--around 3500 BC--in the area of the garden, also known as Mesopotamia and the birthplace of civilization.

The Bible tells us the second from Adam, Cain, is sent off from the farm where he just grew vegetables and he built a city.   How does that work?   Who taught him to build a city?

If we were blown back to the dark ages today, how long would it take groups of us to rebuild the civilization we now enjoy?   Does the average person know how to do any of it?  Or does the average person just enjoy the benefits, having no idea why the lights turn on when he flips a switch?

There is also the book of Enoch, but I'm loath to mention that given the current mood in here. :winkgrin:

But let's just say this, occult knowledge gave the leaders of civilization an edge then, as it does to this very day, over the rest of us.