Jesus comments on same-sex marriage.

[moreta]

scripture
c.1300, "a writing, an act of writing," esp. "the sacred writings of the Bible," from L.L. scriptura "the writings contained in the Bible, a passage from the Bible," from L. scriptura "a writing, character, inscription," from scriptus, pp. of scribere "write" (see script).
Etymology Online

Wanna try that again?

[RBerman]

Scripture is not the ink on the page, nor the letters and shapes on the page, nor your interpretation, nor mine, nor the commentary’s interpretation. Scripture is the ever-evolviing understand that is developed as the chronological and logical revelation of the scripture unfolds. Every word and sentence in the scripture is subject to interpretation. And no scripture exists until the words are interpreted. And no interpretation is absolutely authoritative.

Our respective understandings of the nature of Scripture are so radically incompatible that further debate about the content of Scripture will be fruitless. A tree that falls in the forest makes sound even if no one hears it. Scripture is scripture even if no one reads it. Away with your postmodern receptor theory.

[John D. Brey]

A tree that falls in the forest makes sound even if no one hears it. Scripture is scripture even if no one reads it.

A tree that falls in the forest puts off waves. These waves, if they are captured by something like an ear, can be used to manufacture what we know as “sound.” But it’s the grossest error to think that those waves put off by a tree falling are in some real, or absolute sense, “sound waves,” since sound is something a living thing does with them, not something they were designed for in an abstract sense.

You can call this sort of logic “postmodern” or whatever you like, but it is the sort of logic that’s required if the scripture is going to be properly interpreted.

Scripture is not scripture if no one reads it. It’s ink on paper, squiggly lines which have been designed, to cause a particular perturbation in the mind which has been taught to interpret the squiggles in a particular way. If no one is reading the scripture, it doesn’t exist. It lives only in a mind, never on a page. The letter really is the “dead letter”; it really is dead as a door nail. The dead letter is resurrected in a mind, but never on the page. It would be a bloody mess if it were ever resurrected on the page of a book.

[RBerman]

A tree that falls in the forest puts off waves. These waves, if they are captured by something like an ear, can be used to manufacture what we know as “sound.” But it’s the grossest error to think that those waves put off by a tree falling are in some real, or absolute sense, “sound waves,” since sound is something a living thing does with them, not something they were designed for in an abstract sense.

You can call this sort of logic “postmodern” or whatever you like, but it is the sort of logic that’s required if the scripture is going to be properly interpreted.

Scripture is not scripture if no one reads it. It’s ink on paper, squiggly lines which have been designed, to cause a particular perturbation in the mind which has been taught to interpret the squiggles in a particular way. If no one is reading the scripture, it doesn’t exist. It lives only in a mind, never on a page. The letter really is the “dead letter”; it really is dead as a door nail. The dead letter is resurrected in a mind, but never on the page. It would be a bloody mess if it were ever resurrected on the page of a book.

I am happy to let your comments on this matter speak for themselves.

[Abigail]

Nevertheless, the context in Luke seems to suggest that the women are “grinding together” in the same bed, in the same sense that the passage has just noted, “two men are in one bed.” Exegesis supports “grinding together” being used this way in passages like Job 31:9-10, where Job claims that if he’s had an extra-marital affair, then let his wife have sex with other men:

If mine heart have been deceived by a woman,
Or if I have laid wait at my neighbour’s door;
10 Then let my wife grind unto another,
And let others bow down upon her.

Using the term “grinding” as a sexual metaphor is secondarily legitimized by the fact that throughout the scripture, “grinding at the mill” is used as a symbol for the sexual congress of the bridegroom and the bride. Deuteronomy 24:5-6 says:

When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife [enjoy conjugal relations with her] which he hath taken. 6 No man shall take the nether or the upper millstone to pledge: for he taketh a man’s life to pledge. 7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

Rabbi Elie Munk comments:

One shall not take an upper or lower millstone as a pledge. The Midrash notes a symbolic linkage between this verse and the previous passage having to do with marriage. After the first sin, Eve was told, your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16). . . [The set of upper and lower millstones are considered to be an analogy for a husband and wife, with the lower millstone, corresponding to the wife.].

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah: An Anthology of Interpretations and Commentary of the Five Books of Moses (Parenthesis is Munk's).

Rashi tells us the lower stone is the "millstone," and the higher is the "grindstone." ----Deut. 24:6, says that neither stone can be taken away, since taking either the lower stone, or the upper stone, would be tantamount to endangering life.

John would you mind to say which translation you are using for the Deut 24:6 quote you give as the NASB reads 'handmill' where you have 'nether' "No one shall take a handmill or an upper millstone in pledge, for he would be taking a life in pledge" To my way of thinking this would better represent a female slave (handmill) and male slave (upper millstone)

Further I do not think the use of grind in Job 31:9-10 is a sexual metaphor in the way you are meaning but rather in the sentence "Then let my wife grind unto another" Job wishes to give the notion of his wife being debased to the level of a slave rather than the status she has with him. Grinding meal was seen as a servile occupation in the ancient world (think of those statues of Egyptian women grinding meal.) In the sentence "And let others bow down upon her" there is the notion that others will have sexual relations with her. Job is saying that for him to let himself be enticed by another woman would be an utterly shameful thing and he should feel as terrible about himself as if his wife had to be taken into slavery and become the property of others. I believe support for this interpretation comes from Isaiah 47:2-3 where Babylon is shown as being humbled 'Take the millstones and grind meal. Remove your veil...' Here it seems the city is symbolically being shown as being conquered - she is shown as a slave grinding meal and all the riches of the city are becoming the property of others.

Abigail

[John D. Brey]

John would you mind to say which translation you are using for the Deut 24:6 quote you give as the NASB reads 'handmill' where you have 'nether' "No one shall take a handmill or an upper millstone in pledge, for he would be taking a life in pledge" To my way of thinking this would better represent a female slave (handmill) and male slave (upper millstone)

. . . I’m not using any one translation. I’m looking at the Hebrew, an interlinear translation, and word studies on each of the words. And once more, I don’t have a problem with what you’re saying. It’s probably legitimate to interpret it like you are, particularly since the passage speaks of taking a life as a pledge. But I’m of the opinion that the text has multiple layers of meaning, and that all the layers are significant, but the layer which most incorporates all the other passages and concepts in the Word of God is the most important, without denying all the other meanings and legitimate interpretations.

For me the word of God is alive . . . figuratively and literally. But the text cannot be thought to be alive in the ink and paper where it resides. It’s alive when it’s taken in by a living organism (you and me), and since the thing that makes us all the same, is that we are all different, it’s fair to say that no two people understand the holy word in the same way.

Further I do not think the use of grind in Job 31:9-10 is a sexual metaphor in the way you are meaning but rather in the sentence "Then let my wife grind unto another" Job wishes to give the notion of his wife being debased to the level of a slave rather than the status she has with him. Grinding meal was seen as a servile occupation in the ancient world (think of those statues of Egyptian women grinding meal.) In the sentence "And let others bow down upon her" there is the notion that others will have sexual relations with her. Job is saying that for him to let himself be enticed by another woman would be an utterly shameful thing and he should feel as terrible about himself as if his wife had to be taken into slavery and become the property of others. I believe support for this interpretation comes from Isaiah 47:2-3 where Babylon is shown as being humbled 'Take the millstones and grind meal. Remove your veil...' Here it seems the city is symbolically being shown as being conquered - she is shown as a slave grinding meal and all the riches of the city are becoming the property of others.

But Job is saying that if he debases himself to the level of a slave to his passions, by having an extra-marital affair, then let his wife be debased to a slave to another man, as he, Job, has been enslaved by his lust for another woman. . . Nevertheless, I still think your interpretation is correct in the sense that your interpreting it. It’s just that I think my interpretation is also correct. And it lends itself to the point of doctrine that is laid out in this thread. I believe it is extremely important to understand what Jesus is saying about sexuality, homosexuality, and how they relate to the overall panorama of the word of God, and the chronology of the word of God.

[John D. Brey]

I'm not aware of any verses that say that about Cain. I have heard some argue that the Anti-Christ is based on Daniel 11:37, which says of the subject in question: "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." While this could indicate homosexuality

In Genesis 3:16, after Adam and Eve have engaged in the sexual tryst which causes the Fall, God says to Eve: "the sexual desire you elicit shall be for your husband alone, and he will rule over you [in that respect]." ----- Amazingly, in Genesis 4:10 we have almost the same identical Hebrew statement made about Cain and Abel. Abel's ability to elicit sexual desire is said to arouse Cain, and Cain is prophesied to "rule over" Abel, in the exact sexual sense (and Hebrew phrase) that Adam is said to rule over Eve sexually.

. . . The lead up, Genesis 4:7, is as disturbing a passage as we’re likely to find throughout the Torah (and there are no small few disturbing passages). We can’t deny the Torah’s presentation of YHVH's “lust” (if that word is not inappropriate when speaking of YHVH) for blood. At nearly every turn He's requiring blood as something like the coin of the divine realm. --- He desires the blood of Isaac, and only the "angel of the Lord" (and not YHVH Himself) stays the hand of Abraham from delivering on YHVH's demand. He tells the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child (and animal) in the various lands they conquer (spare not a single living soul).

He requires blood sacrifice at the temple. Every liturgical article is to be sanitized with blood. Even the life-giving organ of the male Jew is not sanctified, or sanitized (is not fit for use), until it has been bled. Moses sprinkles the congregation with blood . . . blood here, blood there. . . blood, blood, blood . . . till we see red and it's coming out our ears.

. . . And yet with that said, Genesis 4:7 may take the cake.

Abel offers YHVH the blood of the finest of his flock. Cain offers only agricultural products. No blood. . . YHVH is not impressed. ----- But He's delighted with the blood offering from Abel. ----- Cain is brooding about YHVH's snub of his bloodless offering when lo and behold YHVH appears and raises the hair on the back of our necks:

And YHVH said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted, and if thou doest not do well, well a sin offering lieth just outside the door.

This is pretty incredible even in the context of all the other episodes of blood lust. YHVH tells Cain not to be so upset about not bringing Him a blood-offering the first time. He says you can atone for that deficiency easily enough. There's a perfect blood-offering lying right outside your door. Present me that blood-offering and I'll overlook the yams and sunflower seeds you brought the first time.

Who’s lying right outside Cain's door? Abel.

We know this to be the case since the Hebrew word used for "sin offering" (chat'a) is in the feminine, while "lieth" is masculine, making the correct reading: "At the entrance [a male] is lying, a sin offering."

Furthermore, verse 7, where YHVH claims that a sin offering is lying right outside the door is followed immediately by verse 8 telling us that Cain stepped outside and talked with Abel his brother as they went for a walk . . . at which time Cain required his brother's blood as a “sin offering."

For those who can stomach the R rated version of the text, the picture painted by proper exegesis is indeed stomach wrenching. The Hebrew text is perfectly clear that Abel lies outside Cains door as a "sin offering," and that before Abel is murdered as that sin offering, Cain is going to "rule over" Abel in the same manner that Adam "ruled over" Eve whenever his desire for her was aroused. The R rated Hebrew is very clear that Cain premeditatingly sodomized and then murdered Abel. And since the sexual nature of the passage is not in doubt (in the Hebrew), the Jewish exegetes (who can't fathom the truth of the violence done) use the clear sexual nature of the text to suggest that Cain murdered Abel to have sex with his (Abel's) wife. . . Nevertheless, the clear panorama of the entire scripture allows the careful exegete to say with some assurance that Cain sodomized and then murdered Abel, and found himself banished from the presence of God and man, a roving wanderer, wandering until he fathers sons and daughters who eventually do precisely to the Sethian community what their father did to Abel; they sodomize them, murder them, and lead, eventually, to their annihilation.

[RBerman]

Genesis 4:6-10

The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?” And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.

1) The word for "sin" can in certain contexts refer to the "sin offering," but I'm always wary of interpretations like yours which require that all English Bible translations be wrong. Even the Septuagint knew that this was a reference to sin, thus translating it with ἥμαρτες. That's why you didn't actually quote KJV in your post; you know it doesn't support your idea.

2) Don't assume that Abel was waiting outside the door while Cain had this conversation with God indoors. If all of these events occured in very short succession, then they would have already been outdoors, to offer a burnt offering, which wasn't done indoors due to the smoke generated. But it's more likely that there are time gaps in the text between the offerings being given, God telling them his respective responses, Cain getting mad and getting warned, Cain murdering Abel, and God confronting Cain.

3)God tells Cain that he must "rule over" his sin. If "rule over" is a reference to sex with Abel, then God is telling Cain that he must have sex with Abel, the very thing you rightly note God would have condemned. So your argument lacks internal consistency.

[John D. Brey]

Genesis 4:6-10

The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?” And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.

1) The word for "sin" can in certain contexts refer to the "sin offering," but I'm always wary of interpretations like yours which require that all English Bible translations be wrong. Even the Septuagint knew that this was a reference to sin, thus translating it with ἥμαρτες. That's why you didn't actually quote KJV in your post; you know it doesn't support your idea.

2) Don't assume that Abel was waiting outside the door while Cain had this conversation with God indoors. If all of these events occured in very short succession, then they would have already been outdoors, to offer a burnt offering, which wasn't done indoors due to the smoke generated. But it's more likely that there are time gaps in the text between the offerings being given, God telling them his respective responses, Cain getting mad and getting warned, Cain murdering Abel, and God confronting Cain.

3)God tells Cain that he must "rule over" his sin. If "rule over" is a reference to sex with Abel, then God is telling Cain that he must have sex with Abel, the very thing you rightly note God would have condemned. So your argument lacks internal consistency.

The orthodoxy in Jesus’ day, the experts in interpreting the law, condemned Jesus based on the most rational and logical interpretation of the law. By the same principle the orthodoxy engrained in the most orthodox interpretations of the scripture will condemn an interpretation given through inspiration and truth, rather than the authority of the letter. Which is not to deny orthodoxy its legitimate place. Jesus loved the law more than the experts in the law. And the faithful exegete loves the authority of the scripture far more than the men sanctioned to do the authorized interpretation.

The most spiritual version of any scripture will never be sanctioned or authorized for the masses. That’s simply the way it must be. But the faithful exegete will always respect the source, and even the authorized version, even more than the men who produce it and slavishly serve the letter in the misplaced belief that it is their only conduit to the Author of the letter.

It is a fact of scripture itself that the Tanakh came through the angelic mediators, while the Christian, who is in Christ, can receive direct enlightenment from the Holy Spirit who lives within him. A believer who is indwelt by the Spirit is closer to the Author of the scripture than the amanuenses (angels and Jews) through whom it was delivered. The Christian is a new creature in Christ. He is higher than any angel, he is higher than any Jew. He is not subject to the misinterpretations which erroneously bow down to angels and Jews as though having served as the amanuensis of God, they are somehow higher than God’s own sons and daughters.

Any believer who is in Christ, should be far closer to the correct interpretation of the Torah than Moses. The fact that they are not is tragic. Moses and Abraham would be unable to hold back the tears they would cry if they saw what Christians have been doing with the freedom purchased through the blood of Christ, which blood they, Moses and Abraham, only glimpsed in the most veiled manner.

[John D. Brey]

2) Don't assume that Abel was waiting outside the door while Cain had this conversation with God indoors. If all of these events occured in very short succession, then they would have already been outdoors, to offer a burnt offering, which wasn't done indoors due to the smoke generated. But it's more likely that there are time gaps in the text between the offerings being given, God telling them his respective responses, Cain getting mad and getting warned, Cain murdering Abel, and God confronting Cain.

Abel is a type of the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus was not burned by the Jews and the Romans. Abel can be a sacrifice without being a burnt offering.

Proper exegesis employs many different tools to help disclose the true intent of any given passage. For instance, the Hebrew phrase stating that Cain’s desire will be for Abel, and that he will rule over Abel (as Adam is said “rule over” Eve) is so outrageous that we would desire something in the text to help us rule that we are interpreting it correctly when we disclose that Abel sodomizes Cain in a sexual manner. The sagely interpreters feel some compunction to include a sexual element in the story since not only is the Hebrew phrase used concerning Cain and Abel’s last relationship nearly identical to the case of Adam taking the topside of the missionary position in his sexual relationship to Eve, but the scripture seals that interpretation by immediately condemning the earth in Cain’s sexual sin, in the same manner that the earth is condemned in the case of the sexual sin that took place between Adam and Eve.

Which is to say that immediately after God says Adam will exert sexual authority over Eve, the scripture condemns the earth that Adam will work. Likewise, immediately after claiming Cain will exert sexual authority over Abel, the scripture condemns the earth. The sagely interpreters know that the identical Hebrew phrase used both in the case of Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel, is justified by the fact that the scripture immediately condemns the earth after each comment on sinful sexuality is given. These passages are parallel. And in both of them, the ground is being condemned because of the misuse of sexuality.

Adam was not originally designed to use Eve as the outlet for his own sexual desires. And Cain was definitely not originally sanctioned to use Abel for his own sexual desires. . . In some manner that is still hidden beneath the surface text, and protected by the authorized version, the scripture reveals a secret concerning the centrality of homosexuality in the overall panorama of the correct decipherment of the scripture. Which is to say that homosexuality is not only a garden variety sexual perversion, but its genesis goes right back to the Garden in Genesis, and its presence is taught to be a litmus test concerning the destruction of every civilization that ever was (the Garden, the antediluvians, and our own) or ever will be.

[John D. Brey]

[verse=Genesis 4:6-10]3)God tells Cain that he must "rule over" his sin. If "rule over" is a reference to sex with Abel, then God is telling Cain that he must have sex with Abel, the very thing you rightly note God would have condemned. So your argument lacks internal consistency.

Even in the KJV, it acknowledges that Cain must rule over “him,” and not “it.”

And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

In the scripture, mundane tasks are imbued with theological meaning. In the same manner that “grinding at the mill” is a metaphor for human sexuality, a man working the “field” (opening the soil and planting his seeds) is used as a metaphor for human sexuality. The great sagely interpreters tell us that the “field” represents the “female” element of sexuality, even as the “grindstone” is male, and the “millstone” is female. ----- When Cain is said to rule over Abel, and the same Hebrew phrase is used which was used concerning Adam forcing himself on Eve, and then we’re told that Cain and Abel are in the “field,” we know that Abel is being called the male aggressor in the sexuality that takes place, while Abel is being used as the “field.”

A rule in proper exegesis is that the Bible is never redundant. It never throws in a statement or phrase that doesn’t need to be there. The statement about Cain and Abel being in the “field” is redundant unless it is relaying important information about why, as was the case with Adam’s sexual sin with Eve, the soil is going to be cursed.

When Adam tills Eve’s soil, he curses her seed so that the plant that is born of that tilling of the soil is born already condemned with the curse of the original sin. Which is to say that the cursing of the ground immediately after noting Adam and Eve’s sexual sin is parallel to the fact that when Adam tills Eve’s soil, when he plants seed in her “field” it will give birth to thorny and thistley offspring: offspring condemned to die at the very point where they stick up out of the soil of their mother. They are not healthy plants, who will grow up toward heaven forever. They are a cursed plant, grown out of soil contaminated by Adam’s sin.

[Cerebrum123]

John D. Brey, do you happen to know a "duh_swami" from islam-watch.org? You have used his same crazy interpretation about Cain and Able, which is really just silly on the face of it.

[John Reece]

Who’s lying right outside Cain's door? Abel.

We know this to be the case since the Hebrew word used for "sin offering" (chat'a) is in the feminine, while "lieth" is masculine, making the correct reading: "At the entrance [a male] is lying, a sin offering."

What RBerman said.

Here is the Hebrew clause that is misconstrued in the quote:

‏לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ (lappetaḥ ḥaṭṭāʾt rōbēṣ).

Reading the Hebrew text (as it is written) from left to right, I will analyze the words.

לַפֶּתַח (lappetaḥ) : preposition ‏לְ (lᵉ) + definite article + ‏פֶּתַח (petaḥ) : in front of the door (HALOT).
חַטָּאת (ḥaṭṭāʾt) : sin (BDB and all other reliable resources).
רֹבֵץ (rōbēṣ) : a substantival participle (GKC § 145u) or noun = [is a] crouching beast (BDB, page 308).

Here is an excerpt from the entry for ‏חַטָּאת (ḥaṭṭāʾt) in BDB:

‏‏לַפֶּתַח חַטָּאת רֹבֵץ Gn 4:7 at the door (of Cain) sin is a crouching beast ; sin of the people is embodied in the golden calf Dt 9:27 ; and the high places of Beth Aven Ho 10:8.

In his commentary on this clause, Victor P. Hamilton (NICOT: The book of Genesis Chapters 1-7 Eerdmans, 1990; page 227) notes that

Little attention has been given to the fact that, in Hebrew, nouns that are feminine morphologically are sometimes treated as masculine. The best example of this point is the title given to the author of Ecclesiastes, certainly a male figure; he is called qōhelet, a feminine noun, and this title is always coupled with a masculine form of the verb.

GKC § 122r supports Hamilton's comment.

[John D. Brey]

Reading the Hebrew text (as it is written) from left to right, I will analyze the words.

לַפֶּתַח (lappetaḥ) : preposition ‏לְ (lᵉ) + definite article + ‏פֶּתַח (petaḥ) : in front of the door (HALOT).
חַטָּאת (ḥaṭṭāʾt) : sin (BDB and all other reliable resources).
רֹבֵץ (rōbēṣ) : a substantival participle (GKC § 145u) or noun = [is a] crouching beast (BDB, page 308).

It’s important to understand that the word רֹבֵץ (rōbēṣ) simply means to "lie down," or, perhaps, to “crouch." There’s no noun, such as “beast” actually associated with the word. The word “beast” is added in the case of Genesis 4:6 in order to note that the word חַטָּאת (ḥaṭṭāʾt) here should be interpreted not as “sin” but as a “sin offering.” A careful study will show that the word means not just “sin” but also “sin offering.” The “beast” (which isn’t in the text) is added to a word that means “lie” or “crouch,” to insinuate that the “sin offering” crouching at Cain’s door is an animal.

But the “sin offering” is not an animal, and it’s beastly for men who know better to add to the word of God simply because they can’t stomach what God is saying. There is no beast in the text. There is no animal in the text. And verse 6 flows perfectly with verse 7. They are coterminous in time and principle. Abel is the sin offering. He is born unblemished since his pregnancy is affected by YHVH and not Adam (Seth is Adam’s first son).

Cain and Abel are both conceived in the Garden. Cain’s father is the serpent. And Abel’s father is YHVH. The serpent’s son murders the unblemished son of YHVH setting up type and antetype for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, where the Pharisees and Jewish authorities are like Cain, and Jesus is like Abel.

The Masoretes placed a full stop, a period, sof pasuq, in Genesis 4:1 in such a manner that it appears that Cain, rather than Abel is conceived with the help of YHVH. But the sof pasuq is not in the sacred text, and its placement is subject to interpretation, and the interpretation that placed the full stop where it’s placed in Genesis 4:1 is the authorized interpretation the Jews used to crucify Jesus of Nazareth.

In truth the sof pasuq must be placed in such a manner that Genesis 4:1 reads, “Adam knew Eve [had fornicated with the serpent]; and she conceived, and bare Cain [from that tryst].” The full stop belongs right there . . . so that the next sentence reads: “And [Eve] said, I have gotten a man from the Lord and she again gave birth, to his brother Abel."

Abel is a shepherd, like his father, while Cain is said to toil in the dirt like his father the serpent. Cain is a type of the devil. Abel is a type of our Lord. Only the crucifiers of our Lord would be so brash as to place the period in Genesis 4:1 in a manner that makes it look like Cain is fathered by the Lord. And why not. Jesus said these men’s father was the devil. They say it is the Lord. And incompetent Christians who know nothing about the word of God have not had the sense to correct this passage . . . and therein bring the whole panorama of the chapter into perspective, such that since Cain is the devil’s brood, and Abel is born of the Lord, we have our first kerygmatic parable when the son of the devil kills the son of the Lord, such that the very blood of Abel, the unblemished sin offering, cleanses Cain of the very sin by which he murders his brother Abel. If only he, like Israel should, could find the humility to see that although they play an unsavory role in the bringing about of the sin offering whose blood saves, they too can be saved if only they will partake in the saving aspect of that blood.

We know from the Gospel of our Lord that his crucifiers are equated with Cain, and he, our Lord, with Abel. So we should know without any hand-wringing, or corrupting of exegesis, that Abel is the חַטָּאת (ḥaṭṭāʾt), the “sin offering,” lying outside Cain’s door.

[John Reece]

A careful study will show that the word means not just “sin” but also “sin offering.”

"A careful study" is not required to ascertain that ‏חַטָּאת (ḥaṭṭāʾt) also means "sin offering". According to HALOT, the meaning is "sin" 155 times and "sin offering" 135 times in the Bible, depending on context.

When every translation, lexicon, and exegetical commentary that addresses the subject agrees that in the context of Genesis 4:7 the reference is to "sin" rather than "sin offering", the burden is on the idiosyncratic eccentric who argues otherwise to present a persuasive case to the contrary; only in you own mind do you succeed in doing so.