Cain – La Vista Church of Christ

Was Cain conceived by Satan?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 24 Jun 2017 00:48:00 +0000

Question:

[Since the author believes himself wise, I left the original note unedited.]

Who ever said that Cain is Adams' son and not the devil or Satan the Dragon or what ever name you want to use is out of there mind Very simply first check the Hebrew manuscripts and you'll find that Eve had twins one was Adam son. Who was able the other was Cain and further proof check Cains' genealogy you'll find Adam is not there why because he's not Cain's father

Answer:

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground" (Genesis 4:1-2). Notice the order: Adam had sex with his wife, as a result, she became pregnant and the son born as a result was named "Cain" because the couple realized that Cain was a gift to them from God. The New King James Version closely reflects the Hebrew in this verse. Every translation says basically the same thing, so I won't bother spelling out the Hebrew for you.

It is true that some assume that Abel was a twin to Cain because there was no mention of a second round of sex and conception, but you have to realize that this is an assumption and not a necessary inference.

While it is possible for a woman to conceive fraternal twins by two different men, the Bible is quite clear that Cain's father was Adam. Nowhere in the Bible is there any indication that Satan ever has sexual relations with any human.

How did Cain go to another land and take a wife after being cast out of the Garden?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 19:23:00 +0000

Question:

When Cain was cast out of the Garden. How did he go to another land and take a wife? Adam and Eve did have more children but not until after Cain was cast out. Were there people here before Adam and Eve?

Answer:

You are making assumptions that are not in the text. Cain was Adam and Eve's firstborn son. Abel was their second son (Genesis 4:1-2). The events in Genesis 4:3 and following take place after Cain and Abel are older -- most likely adults. Genesis 4:17 implies that he was already married before the incident with Abel. There is no reason to assume that other children had not been born in that time period.

The book of Genesis is a series of eleven records. See the Introduction to Genesis. Genesis 4 falls in Adam's account. Genesis 5 falls in Noah's account. Looking back, Noah tells us, "In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created. And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:1-4). How many other children and when they were born are not mentioned.

There were no other people before Adam and Eve. "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings" (Acts 17:26). We all come from Adam, including Eve who was made from Adam's rib, so we all come from one blood. That leaves no room for anyone else.

Cain married a sister. He left the area of Eden and went to another region called Nod (Genesis 4:16). He was not cast out of the Garden of Eden because he wasn't born until after Adam and Eve left the Garden (Genesis 3:24-4:1). The Garden of Eden did not occupy the whole region of Eden, it was on the east side of Eden (Genesis 2:8). We can assume he walked or rode an animal to Nod since cars hadn't been invented yet.

Is Cain the son of the serpent?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 01:37:00 +0000

Question:

Eve thanks God for buying a child with God. God never talked to Eve, only the snake did. Is she calling the snake God?

Cain built a city, for who? Who did he marry? How did he have the skills?

Chapter 4: Cain’s offspring contributed to society’s advancement, but they are not listed as dead. They are sons of God, smart, and live forever.

Chapter 5: The generation of Adam starts with Seth.

Chapter 6: The line of Cain, the sons of God, marry the line of Seth, the sons of Adam.

If Cain is not the son of God then the Bible is all messed up. If he is, he is then the firstborn of creation. Adam was not born but manufactured.

I am sure your understanding is so different that you will ignore this explanation. What I mentioned means the snake is a God. It then explains how it is that he is speaking and is very smart to have known what would happen to Eve. The Hebrew Messiah and the Hebrew snake are numerically identical.

Answer:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (II Timothy 4:3-4).

There is a flaw in your reasoning: it isn't from the Bible except in a very loose sense.

You claim that God never talked to Eve. That is false: "And the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate" " (Genesis 3:13). Your claims go downhill from here.

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD" " (Genesis 4:1). The Bible is clear that Cain was the result of Adam and Eve's sexual relationship. Eve calls the boy "Cain" because she recognizes the fact that she could not have had a son without God's aid.

The word "God" is used throughout Genesis to refer to the Creator of the world. Genesis 3 makes it clear that God and the serpent are separate beings since God addresses a curse to the serpent. "So the LORD God said to the serpent: "Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life" (Genesis 3:14).

Cain married one of his sisters. "After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4). He gained skills the same way all people do, he learned and he invented.

"And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son-Enoch" (Genesis 4:17). You forget the lifespans of the individuals involved. We aren't told how long Cain lived, but if we assume that it was like Adam and Seth (in the 900-year range), a lot of people can be born and living in that period of time. While it might not be a large city by today's standards, it still was a walled compound, which is what the Hebrew word 'iyr literally means.

Just because a person's death isn't mentioned, it is false to conclude the person did not die.

While Cain was the first human to be born in the world, the title of "Firstborn over all creation" belongs to the Son of God, Jesus. "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (Colossians 1:15). "Firstborn" in a family refers to a position that typically goes to the first in birth order but not always. It refers to a position in the family as the one who is the head of the extended family. See: Was Jesus created since he is the firstborn of creation?

"Sons of God" refers to righteous people and "daughters of men" refers to the wicked in Genesis 6:2. See: Who were the sons of God in Genesis 6:4?

Messiah is משׁיח (mashiyach). Serpent is נחשׁ (nachash). They are unrelated words. Claiming that they somehow add up to a similar numeric value does not make them related.

You did get one thing right: I will reject your claims because they are not of God. And now the rest of the world can know this as well.

Question:

Thanks for your answer.

It is implied that God had a child with Eve. Purchasing a man with God? Kanity Ish et Yhwh …it is true enough that it is suggested that Cain was fathered by Adam as well, but in chapter 5 when Adam is mentioned as his father we are told he was in the image of Adam in his likeness which we are not told about the other two. You are then suggesting that the Bible omitted when Cain and his sons died and mentioned it for everyone else by accident? Why mention how much they contributed to society? While it mentions nothing about Seth except that he lived and die? Accident? You are also suggesting that chapter 5 listing Seth as the first son of Adam is a mistake and as to the sons of God are good people, they were so good that when they married the daughters of Adam God reduced their life expectancy to 120. God was upset!

I know the main event for you is the Jesus is the firstborn of creation. Israel was named my son my firstborn. Neither was actually God’s firstborn. In fact, the reference is clearly to the seed of the firstborn. This is soothing God can insert wirelessly; Saul got it, David got it, Jesus got it.

Unfortunately, since you only read the Bible you are not aware that all major religions start with immaculate conception. Hari Krishna was of immaculate conception. The Egyptians have an identical story and the New Testament also begins a history book of the Son of God with immaculate conception. So does the Torah but one needs to understand all six chapters together.

As to Messiah and Nahash not being related, the word Noh has two-third of Nahash while Shem got the third.

God wrote all the religions and languages, not only the New and Old Testaments. Sorry, Brahma the father of all is married to Sarah- seahoty while Abraham the father of all is married to Sarah.

All the religions tell the same story using Hebrew words and terms

Vatinkan means Bety kan = my house is here.

Torah is the lost book of the god of the Moon god Tho Elohim-Elhayam –god of the ocean (moon controls ocean) who expresses in words the wishes of Ra thus ThoRah. Tho is the god who was capable of resurrection.

As to God being separate from the serpent, he is. There is more than one god. There are two To and Ra Tov and Ra good and bad and together they run the world. Sacrilegious? Let us make a man in our image, let us go down. There is more than one god and they look like God. Psalms has many such references.

As to God having no image, no one sees me and lives means the opposite.

Answer:

Further nonsense, but you did make it clear that you are a follower of idolatry, which explains your view. Genesis 5 lists the lineage from Adam to Noah. It doesn't trace all the side branches, such as Cain, because all these side branches perished in the Flood. Nor does it necessarily follow father to the first-born son, as Adam to Seth clearly demonstrates.

The rest is merely vain attempts to find justification for the world's idolatrous religions in the text of the Bible. It isn't worth discussing.

Why isn’t Cain mentioned in the genealogy of Adam?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:58:00 +0000

Question:

If everything in the original Bible is true, why is Cain not mentioned once in the genealogy of Adam? If we look into the word superinfertation at the three latest I have seen in medical files is there perhaps a way that Cain could have been born just before Abel without Adam knowing Eve again to conceive Abel? It does mention that Adam did go into Eve or knew her and then Seth was born.

Answer:

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD." Then she bore again, this time his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground" (Genesis 4:1-2).

It doesn't require any fanciness to see what happened. Adam and Eve had sex, Eve conceived and eventually had Cain. The Hebrew literally states that Eve then "added to bear" Abel. Most likely what is being described is that Cain and Abel were twins. Cain was born first and then Abel was added to the family. Perhaps that also explains the boys' names. Cain means "acquired" but Abel means "vanity," which seems to hint that he was seen as an extra.

If I asked you to list your ancestors, most likely you would trace your direct lineage back several generations. You wouldn't bother with all the siblings in each generation because they don't directly relate to your own existence. The genealogy that starts in Genesis 5:1 runs through Genesis 6:9. The phrase "these are the records of" or "this is the genealogy of" is the same wording in Hebrew. It is a signature line for whose records are recorded before. The genealogy from Genesis 5:1 to Genesis 6:9 is Noah's. Since he descends from Seth, only Seth is mentioned. He doesn't mention either Cain or Abel directly. He only notes that Adam "had sons and daughters" to let us know that Adam and Eve had more than just the three sons mentioned by name in Adam's records. In every generation, there is likely to have been multiple siblings, but only the one that directly leads to Noah is mentioned each time.

If God doesn’t show favoritism, then why was Abel’s sacrifice accepted and Cain’s was rejected?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 14 May 2010 00:33:00 +0000

Question:

The Bible says that God does not show favoritism toward anyone. So how is it that He favored Abel over Cain, and accepted Abel's offering while rejecting Cain's?

Answer:

By saying that God is impartial (Romans 2:11), what is being said is that God doesn't favor one person over another based on external attributes. He doesn't give exceptions or passes to one group of people over another. The rich don't have an "in" with God (Matthew 19:23-25). God doesn't prefer Jews to Gentiles, which is what Paul was discussing in Romans 2. Men aren't treated differently than women. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). The same rules and the same judgments are applied to every person equally.

We do the same in our courts. We want judges to make decisions based on a neutral position. When a judge decides in Sam's favor, that doesn't mean he was biased toward Sam. It meant that the judge determined that Sam acted in accordance with the law and this was accepted as being correct.

God wasn't against Cain. He even went out of His way to warn Cain that he was going in the wrong direction. "So the LORD said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it'" (Genesis 4:6-7). God is stating that He uses one set of rules to decide who is acceptable to Him. There isn't one set of rules for Cain and another for Abel.

The plain fact of the matter is that Abel was doing what God commanded and Cain wasn't. Cain grew up and became a farmer. Abel became a shepherd. Somewhere along the line, God must have required sacrifices. A sacrifice served several purposes. It reminded the person offering the sacrifice about the consequences of sin. Sin brought death into the world and the death of an animal served as a frequent reminder. Sacrifices also caused a person to give a valued possession up to God. Later, under the Law of Moses, God required the Israelites to give the best lamb of their herds. They could not give a damaged or blemished lamb that did not have much value to the owner. We do not know the conditions God placed on the sacrifice, but we can see a difference in the offerings of Cain and Abel.

Abel offered the best cuts of meat from the firstborn of his flocks to God. Such an offering showed that Abel wanted to please God. Cain chose to bring some produce from his farm. The wording in Hebrew is that of a casual offering. Cain brought some of his grain when he got around to doing it. Unlike Abel, he didn't even select the first grains of his crop or the best selection from his harvest. Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable to God. Consider as well that while the vegetables were the product of Cain's labor, they could not serve as a reminder of the consequences of sin. Plants do not have life within them. Therefore, a plant does not die in the same sense as an animal or a man dies. In Hebrews 11:4, the writer said that Abel's sacrifice was better because it was offered in faith. Faith is not just a belief in God, but it is a conviction that moves a person to do what God said (James 2:14-26). Abel believed God and was obedient to him. Cain chose to sacrifice in his own way.

God laid out the same rules for both Abel and Cain. Abel followed them and Cain did not. Abel was accepted by God and Cain was rejected. We can further see the corruption in Cain because Cain blamed Abel for his rejection instead of seeing it for what it really was, a problem in himself.

Was Cain the son of the Devil?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:24:00 +0000

Question:

My Sunday school teacher says that Cain is the son of the Devil. I don't see where in the Bible this is true. Is it?

Answer:

If your teacher means physically, then it is time to find a better teacher.

"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, "I have acquired a man from the LORD."" (Genesis 4:1).

The word "knew" is a Hebrew idiom for having sex with. We still use the same idea in English when we say that Joe was intimate with Mary. The word "intimate" is to be a close acquaintance, to know someone really well. The result of Adam's sex with Eve was that she conceived a child who was born and named "Cain." Eve even declared that she received her son from God; Satan wasn't involved in this in any way.

To give your teacher a benefit of a doubt, there is a way we can say that someone is a child of another when that person closely follows the practices of another. Jesus accused the Jews of imitating Satan in their life. "You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it" (John 8:44). John later takes that concept further by dividing the world into two classes of people: those who follow God and those who follow Satan. "In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother" (I John 4:10).

Just as a Christian is a child of God, even though God was not his immediate physical father, so are the wicked children of the Devil. It is a father-son relationship in the spiritual sense.

Cain did not start evil. Even before Cain killed his brother in a fit of jealousy, God warned him, "So the LORD said to Cain, 'Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it'" (Genesis 4:6-7). Cain could have done well if he kept control over himself, but sadly he gave in to sin. Since there isn't anything to indicate that Cain later improved, we conclude that Cain became a child of Satan because he entered into sin and stayed there. "For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous" (I John 3:11-12).

Question:

His words were that Eve had sex with the devil and Cain was the outcome of it.

Answer:

You see that God says differently, so I would suggest finding a teacher who respects the Word of God.

Is there a connection between the mark of the beast and the mark of Cain?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:53:00 +0000

Question:

I would like to ask you a question concerning the 'mark' of Cain. In Genesis 4:15, it talks about the 'sign for Cain.' I understand this was something God did. In Revelation 20:4, it talks about the 'mark of the beast, on the forehead and hands'. My question is: Is there a connection or relationship between these two verses? I realize that the book of Revelation uses a lot of symbolism, so maybe these two verses are each talking about something separate from each other. Please, would you clarify this?

Answer:

In the past marks on a person's body were used to signify who a person belonged to. Thus in Israel, a permanent slave was marked by a pierced ear. "But if the servant plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever" (Exodus 21:5-6).

Marks were also used in pagan religions to denote whom a person worshiped. This is why making scars and tattoos were forbidden in Israel. "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor tattoo any marks on you: I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:28).

But the spiritual concept of marking who belonged to whom is used frequently. "Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb" (Revelation 14:9-10). A mark on the forehead or hand is something in plain sight. Everyone notices who this person is declaring to serve. So Revelation is not talking about a physical mark but the behavior of people which marks them as followers of Satan's false religions.

It was used in a positive sense in Ezekiel. "And the LORD said to him, 'Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it'" (Ezekiel 9:4). Here people were marked because they did not like the immorality around them. God had them marked to spare them from the upcoming destruction. It is used in this way also in Revelation. "Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads" (Revelation 14:1). Again, the placement makes it a declaration for everyone to see.

The sign placed on Cain is not specified. The Hebrew word is one typically used for a miraculous sign of some sort. Whether it was a brand, or something else, we are not told. We only know that the sign was to warn people that Cain was under God's protection. "And the LORD said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him" (Genesis 4:15).

Question:

Thank you for your help in this matter. I remember when I was quite young, I had read this part in Leviticus about not cutting yourself or doing tattoos. It affected me to the point that I have never gotten a tattoo, even under peer pressure.

But I do think what you have pointed out is true today as well. Many people are seen with tattoos, i.e. gangs, bikers, etc. It obviously identifies them as being associated with a particular sub-culture or group. Which makes me even more glad I never did this.

I wonder, could we see baptism as a mark? Baptism is a commandment from Jesus, and maybe this is our mark? And the sin that is done and not repented of would be the mark for those who do not worship God? Does this sound like the right track to be on? Or am I thinking of this in the wrong manner?

Answer:

Baptism is a mark or witness to a person's changed life. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11-12).

Paul makes the interesting claim, "From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus" (Galatians 6:17). At first, you might think he was talking about the scars from the beatings he took for being a Christian, something that Paul was willing to bear (Colossians 1:24), but Paul talks about marks in his body, not on his body. He is talking about the changes in his life seen by others which mark him as a servant of Christ.

Where did Cain get his wife?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:21:37 +0000

Question:

Where did Cain get his wife?

Answer:

Genesis 5:3-4 tells us, "And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters." Though Cain and Abel were Adam and Eve's first sons, the Scriptures are clear that Adam and Eve had at least 3 more sons and 2 daughters. In all likelihood, they had many more than this. Hence, the obvious answer is that Cain married one of his sisters.

This answer upsets some people because they immediately assume that it advocates incest. The reality is that incest was forbidden for a very practical reason: the genetic diseases that can occur when two near relatives marry. When the world was brand new, mutations that create genetic diseases had not yet started to enter the gene pool. There was no practical reason that a man couldn't marry his sister. It is for this same reason that Adam was able to marry Eve even though she was formed from his rib (Genesis 2:21-22). Even though Adam and Eve shared DNA, there wasn't a concern about children being born with genetic defects at the beginning.

Over time, you see this changing in the Bible. By Abraham's day, people assume that a brother and sister wouldn't marry, but Abraham was married to his half-sister and this was considered to be fine (Genesis 20:1-12). Jumping further ahead in time, by Moses' day marriages to people closer than a cousin was forbidden (Leviticus 18:6-18). Today, it is not recommended for first cousins to marry.