Talk:Cain and Abel/Archive 1

Mormonism reference (again)

I really am not sure why the Mormons (Latter-day Saints) get so much text in this article, just because they have a slightly different take on the Cain-Abel story. Are you going to include any and all variations by different sects (Moon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-day Adventist, etc.)? I think the Pearl of Great Price section and the quote from the Book of Moses should be removed.MaterTerribilis (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the deal with the Alan C. Myers reference?

There's a section that argues against the bible's (or, rather, Eve's) own etymological explanation for Cain's name, with a cryptic reference to Alan C. Myers. Why isn't this reference properly footnoted? 80.178.116.193 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The New Testament reports Caiaphas, the High Priest, saying of Jesus of Nazareth, that it would be "expedient that one man die for the sake of the whole people" (or words to that effect). It makes the point that this was ironic. This was, according to NT interpretation, precisely what Jesus hoped to do himself anyway, but in a very different way to how Caiaphas intended his words to be understood. Importantly, the NT calls Caiaphas' mistakenly understood comment prophetic, by which it means divinely inspired.

In the same way, the accuracy of Eve's "etymology" is irrelevant to assessing it as inspired. It is relevant to assessing certain views regarding what the Bible means by inspired. Many understate, but a few overstate what is meant by this doctrine. Personally, I have a high view of the inspiration of scripture, but not one that is higher than the text itself claims! ;)

I trust recent revisions are placing the footnoting of the article at a more professional level. Best. Alastair Haines 05:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to avoid duplication with Cain and Abel. I suggest merging them all here for the time being. Martin --70.100.232.83 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC) i love lauren ashley masaitis.

Also, like... Cain and Abel have slightly greater importance than just what the good Reverend Moon has to say about them, eh? The Abel article is very complete. I think there is enough to be said about each of them separately that they warrant their own articles, but mayhap this should be the main article to discuss the slaying. Graft

• I agree with Graf... Ammended article to reflect the story, reflecting the text as known to most, minus distortions. IZAK 09:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like IZAK's comment, especially "minus distortions." There's so much literature on the Bible that outlandish and marginal views are quickly perceived for what they are, as long as there is enough responsible interpretation provided as well. My own take on this question is to be quite willing to reproduce such views in an article. Generally readers will see them for what they are, without us needing to "protect" the readers, or feel responsible for the views we quote. Alastair Haines 05:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Why the {} sign/s?

Why were one or more of these sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what the hell does the story means?

In the book Demian, the story of Abel & Cain is told as if Cain was the starter of humankind, as he had "the sign", wich distinct him from the others, making everyone to respect and be afraid of him. But could this sign mean that god is against the death penalty?, as he protected the assasin ( also we must not forget that the son of god, when he was on the death penalty, he invited the 2 thieves to heaven with him). The bibble, specially the criptic and obscure passages, contradicts itselves too much. I wish someone would give a good explanation of what the story really means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.28.199.54 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 November 2004 (UTC).

The sign is an indication of God's sovereign power. That is, God claims the exclusive right to judge and punish, and forbids others to take the right to judge and punish into their own hands. This principle applies to all judicial authority - no properly constituted state will allow vigilante action, double jeopardy, or other departures from the principle of exclusive jurisdiction. But the mark of Cain has an addition significance because Cain represents civil society. So God is really saying that even though civil society is founded on an act of violence ("frozen violence") people must accept the institutions of civil society in their midst... see www.understandinggenesis.com

Not only that, but death, while something we instinctively avoid, would be an instant end to Cain's deserved punishment (he obviously believes in God, so up he goes), and is therefore denied him ~as~ his punishment.

What a great question! What's the point? I hope this article will be able to address some of the significance various commentators have claimed for the passage. The article must have something to this effect, however, I trust readers will understand that we cannot provide a comprehensive treatment in 50kB or less. Alastair Haines 05:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

READ ISHMAEL AND YOULL UNDERSTAND =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.70.82 (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a newby, trying to learn the protocols, etc. Please help. I wish to edit the article as follows, but don't know how to do the linking: From the original article text

"In Daniel Quinn's book Ishmael, the biblical story is interpreted as a tale with roots in the emergence of agriculture, where Abel is seen as symbolic of the hunter-gatherer societies that was in majority, and Cain as the then-new and emerging farming culture[**start the insert here and strike the following letter]s. . . ."

{insert}

of the fertile crescent [** link to wikipedia article].

Quinn’s philosophy explains the story as having been incorporated into the agrarian culture of the west despite its having originated in the hunter-gather culture. By his view, the expansive, and hence murderous to the hunter-gatherer culture itself, nature of the agrarians was a first step in expanding practices that constitute a violation of the universal “law of limited competition” [**include reference to Ishmael], i.e., that one may compete for resources, but not wage war against potential or actual competitors to secure those resources.

By Quinn’s view, as conveyed in Ishmael’s words, it is precisely violation of this law that now threatens the extinction of mankind, and, perhaps, all of life itself.

Incidentally, since the farmers were, according to Quinn (this claim not verified by this editor), occidentals,

{end of insert, original text picks up again at . . .} "Cain represented the pale, Aryan race coming to destroy more peaceful, dark-skinned Semitic peoples. The mark of Cain is therefore speculated as lighter skin."Gwdrake2009 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

qur'an reference

i must point out that the qur'an makes no mention of the brothers' betrothal nor of one's desire for the other's wife. and i am also reasonably certain that there is no mention of either brother's name (as Habil is given in this article). now the traditions, or sunnah, may contain these things, but the qur'an does not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.46.0.13 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

The above is essentially correct. The Qur'an makes NO mention of "desire of women" nor mentions the names.

5:28 And relate to them with truth the story of the two sons of Adam, when they each offered an offering, and it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other. The latter said, `I will surely kill thee.' The former replied, `ALLAH accepts only from the righteous;

5:29 `If thou stretch out thy hand against me to kill me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee. I do fear ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe;

5:30 `I wish that thou shouldst bear the punishment of the sin against me as well as of thine own sin, and thus be among the inmates of the Fire, and that is the recompense of those who do wrong.'

5:31 But his evil self induced him to kill his brother, and so he killed him and became one of the losers.

5:32 Then ALLAH sent a raven which scratched in the ground, that HE might show him how to hide the corpse of his brother. He said, `Woe is me ! Am I not able to be even like this raven so that I may hide the corpse of my brother ?' And then he became remorseful.

5:33 On account of this, WE prescribed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. And our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, Yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

Agriculturalists and shepherds

A very interesting interpretation on the story of Cain and Abel comes from award winning author Daniel Quinn, who in his work "Ishmael" gives a new way to understand the biblical stories like Cain & Abel, Adam & Eve, the fall, and others. The basic premise is that the story is ungraspable to us because it comes from a culture very different from ours, most importantly, it doesnt come from Our culture, instead it comes from a culture talking about us.

The outline is that Cain, the tiller of the soil kills his brother Abel, who is a shepherd. During the time of the storys genesis there was one new emerging culture and we call the place where it emerged the "cradle of civilization". Since people lived in tribes then, the story can be interpreted as a story of two tribes that collide, or rather civilization and other cultures. Where one culture kills or seeks to kill the other. Since Cain was an agriculturalist and a city builder it makes sense to think of his tribe as the one who is beginning to build the civilization.

So who wrote the story? If our ancestors would have written it, it wouldnt make much sense at all. Why would God favour Abel and not Cain who did something "useful" like doing agriculture and building cities? And why did Cain kill Abel in the first place? And why would God punish Cain for this?

But if Abel was the author, the reason why God favours his offering becomes more clear. If Cain is the emergence of the civilization (agriculture), then Abel are all those cultures that made their livelihood by being shepherds or similar. Thus Quinn suggests that this story is ancient war propaganda. God favours Abel, who lives righteously being a shepherd, and hates the murderous aggressor Cain.

So how can this make sense to us in the modern world? As well known, civilization has had a history of conquering and expansion. This is still a function of the civilization. And the ones that has to suffer for it are the people who stand in the way of its form of ever expanding agriculture, wich Quinn calls "totalitarian agriculture".

I think that Civilized man has no real connection with the land or any "roots" and this is what makes him a "wanderer" while Abel, who represents the native cultures are those who belongs somewhere, belongs to a place wich civilized man never really felt that he does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bongoman1 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC).

The pastoral/arable conflict theme is actually subordinate to the theme of conflict between religious and civil society represented by Abel and Cain respectively. We can be fairly sure that the story was written by the proponents of religion, rather than those of civil society, but the point is a well-considered one, i.e. if civil society destroys religion, then civil society will enter into a spiritual void (the land of Nod) - but will never-the-less retain its civil authority (the protective "mark of Cain"). See www.understandinggenesis.com

—==Popular culture== I trimmed down the pop culture section to take out all references not specific to Cain and Abel. I accidentally marked it as a minor edit.--Cúchullain t / c 08:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In Genesis, a created people are given an order from the Creator. Aid the animals in their toils of life, help them. Some interpret it to mean to whip it over them into submission and use them as food. One is to be a companion to them (the animals). The animals were created before that man; does that make that man more important, that he was not created first? Gnostics (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Visit the website www.understandinggenesis.com (The Garden and the Tower)for an explanation of the younger brother/older brother, tiller of the soil/keeper of flocks dichotomies and symbology. All the Genesis 1-11 stories have rational non-historical interpretations, and most of them are to be found in "The Garden and the Tower". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.27.217.117 (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

On Cain and Abel in the Matrix

Cain and Abel were both vampires, Matrix Exiles, old, rogue programs that did the dirty work in the employ of the Merovingian. Persephone, the Merovingian's wife shot and killed Abel with a silver bullet leaving Cain to "wonder" in the Matrix world alone forever. Sxzblu 68.63.210.24 08:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh?! Why?! What does this have to do with the article? Camelbinky (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Apparent" is a presumptuous word...

This article cites: "God's apparent inability to identify the corpse of Abel." I'm guessing this is a conclusion made from the fact that God asks Cain where his brother is. However, the context of the conversation seems to indicate that God knew Cain was dead and asked the question rhetorically, giving Cain a chance to admit what he had done. The point, however, is simply that "God's apparent inability to identify the corpse of Abel" isn't apparent at all and should be rephrased or deleted.--Metricdatabase 21:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree.Guille 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What's more, there's precedent. God had just gotten done asking Adam and Eve why they were hiding, knowing full well why (and mentioning it to them 2 lines later). That guy definitely likes his rhetorical questions.

Maybe he wants to give Adam, Eve, Cain a chance to think about what they have done... This style of conversation proves to me that God it the first psychologist, too ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.9.154 (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes the the rhetorical questions seem not as effective. "Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why are you downcast? If you do right, won't you be accepted?" Obviously not, or we wouldn't have had this story.--Ff11 (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cain and Abel birth time

There is a serious mistake in the article and it should be corrected. Cain and Abel were born BEFORE the Fall of Man. This is accepted and conventional rabbinic position based on thorough Torah translation from Hebrew original. Classic Rashi commentary says on Genesis 4:1 : This had already (occured) before the previous narrative (i.e.), before he sinned and was exiled from Gan Eden. This is also (true of) the conception and birth. Had it said וידע אדם it would imply that after he was exiled children were born to him. 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be clarified that this is the rabbinic POV, and not presented as if common to everyone else. As usual, this argument is not derived from anything whatsoever in the actual text of Genesis, but only from the later Rabbinical and Talmudic writings. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understood Rashi, it derives from actual Hebrew text, from the language grammar. Another argument follows from subsequent Torah chapters, which tell us about Cain tribe and Seth tribe and thus make conclusion about their different descent undoubtful. 16:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

interwiki problem

Currently most of the interwikis are doubled, ex. ca:Abel and ca:Caïm. What's the best solution, removing them and leave only the ones that's about both Cain and Abel --Ugur Basak 11:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism Reference

I would like to see the note that Mormonism adds that Cain made the sacrifice because Satan told him to removed. Being of the faith, I am not aware of this being true. If the author wants to later provide a verifiable source for this comment then it can stay, but I know of no such place where this is said. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does hold that Cain was listening to Satan in the murder of Abel, giving in to the temptation that he might murder and get gain for it, but that is as far as it goes to my knowledge.

     someone new: This is unclear, the Book of Mosus reads: "And Satan said unto Cain: Swear unto me by thy throat, and if thou tell it thou shalt die; and swear thy brethren by their heads, and by the living God, that they tell it not; for if they tell it, they shall surely die; and this that thy father may not know it; and this day I will deliver thy brother Abel into thine hands." 

It could be that Satan told Cain to do it, and that was how he delivered Abel into his hands, or it could be that Cain wanted Able daed, and Satan told him how to do it.

Please define Mormon faith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does teach that Cain was in league with Satan. They teach that men of that time Loved Satan more than God. I fail to understand the referance to O'grady though. This referance seems imposable to follow up on unless you have direct access the deseret news paper archives. Who does?? I have found the same referance made to the wandering Jew. Totaly unrelated topics. I would also like a referance to Cain living until the seventh generation. It just sounds made up.

I will look into these when I get back to this article in about a month. Please feel free to remove unsourced comment you believe to be in error. Personally, I am more gentle and use {{fact}} after comments I believe to be in error. If I know something is in error, I look for a souce that says so, and replace the error with a sourced fact. Thanks for alerting Wiki to this issue. I repeat you are free to delete unsourced errors. You are also free to add comments, and encouraged to add sourced comments. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"And Cain loved Satan more than God. And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord." - Moses 5:18 50.53.98.219 (talk)

Who is Abel?

In Genesis 3:17-19 God say's to Adam "Cursed is the ground for your sake, in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you. And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground. For out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

Is this God's punishment for Adam specifically or all of mankind? If so how does God favor Abel who is a shepherd and brings meat over Cain who is an agriculturist and brings the toil of the land? Is God Contradicting himself? Is Abel the son of Adam, or maybe the son of God? Just a conspiracy

God favours Abel because Abel is "spirit" whereas Cain is a "smith" who is one with the earth, in other words with the material world. Abel's flock consist of living beings or spirits (note the symbolic system familiar to us in the New Testament). So naturally God favours Abel, but note that he also moves to protect Cain. In other words God recognises that humankind is both material and spiritual, and that the religious (spiritual) and civil (material) aspects of our nature must co-exist. See www.understandinggenesis.com

It is assumed (and explicitly stated as well?) that people were not eating meat at the time, having just graduated from eating-bits-of-plants-that-doesn't-kill-the-plant to raising and harvesting plants, therefore as a rancher, all Abel was doing was providing the family with some milk and possibly plow animals. ~Food~ still came out of the ground and was a struggle to raise, as surely animals were a struggle as well. The emphasis was on how hard it'd be to live from now on, to have to work hard in order to live. I think the distinction made between the work the two did is kind of overstated.

Abel/Able is Man Kind. It is somewhat (actually,quite) genetic, as Cain(e) is another. Adam (formed of the mud of Eden)was a (most) (perfect?) Being that contained the Beginning future of all People on Earth; we are but a very tiny, infitesimal portion of what could Be, due to many murders, etc. . .. Even when Abel is the crop tender and Cain the husbandryman, God still favors Abel's offering. Cain still kills Abel. It doesn't seem quite fair to Cain, of course. Some would suggest that the Serpent entered Eve to form Cain while she lay on the ground (why many prefer beds). What is quite interesting is that Abel's body disappears (the Earth, Herself, possibly takes him to Her own or some might suggest that Cain ate the whole fella). There are also allusions to attempted fornication upon Abel (quite handsome) by Cain; as Cain rose up against his brother and then struck him dead with a rock to shut him up (he didn't use any ordinary "military blow," he used a rock). Brother of Sky 216.215.40.1 07:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this prior comment, I don't buy into agrarian vs herdsman. Cain would be human kind (most of you). Adam and Eve held 100% of the future genetic possibilities (less mutations). Cain and Able were different races or even species (genetically). Cain committed genocide when he killed Able. Able is where the term, "Able bodied person" comes from. Although, they do have an argument for schmitten. Gnostics (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arabic version in first line

Talib 72 added "(Arabic: قابيل و هابيل)" to the first sentence of the article. Isn't that only done when the original name was in arabic? Andjam 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, it should be in Hebrew. On the other hand, Muslims believe that the Koran is the literal (and therefore authoritative) word of God - and that word came in Arabic. Since this story appears also in the Koran, it would make sense from that point of view to include these names in Arabic, since that's how they say God spoke them to Mohammed. Rklawton 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cain and Abel as allegory

There are a number of conflict themes in the Cain and Abel story: the conflict between arable and pastoral farmers; between older and younger siblings; and between religion and worldiness. The name Abel references "spirit", and the shepherd is the Biblical "type" for spiritual leadership, a connection which survives to this day in the title of church "pastor". The older/younger brother rivalry is another common Biblical theme, and almost invariably it is the younger brother who is the chosen one of God (recent work by F.J. Sulloway on sibling order effects is relevant). Thus while the story can be read on at least three levels, the most fundamental for the purposes of this text is the conflict between religion, symbolised by Abel the shepherd, and civil society, symbolised by Cain, variously arable farmer, smith, and founder of cities. God favours the spiritual sacrifices of Abel (living creatures having spirit or breath) over the material sacrifices of Cain (inanimate produce of the earth). Cain as representative of civil society then kills Abel. The balance of the story is concerned with God's argument to Cain about his duty to protect (keep) his brother Abel (signifying civil society's "duty to protect" the institution of religion) and God's own decision to protect the civil institutions (Cain) from arbitrary violence (the mark of Cain). The mark, an ancient sign of possession and protection applied to bonded servants, indicates that notwithstanding its own violent origins, civil society functions under God's authority. A detailed allegorical analysis may be found at http://www.understandinggenesis.com

Others?

If Adam and Eve were the first humans with Cain and Abel as their sons then who is Cain afraid of? He says the others will kill him... what others?

In reply: You will only make sense of the Book of Genesis by reading it as it was intended to be read, that is as allegorical comment on, and explanation of, the human condition. If you want some pointers to the interpretation of the Cain and Abel story in particular, visit http://www.understandinggenesis.com

Or to continue with the literal interpretation, surely Cain assumed there would be more people eventually. When you live for nearly a millennium, waiting 15 years or so for more adult humans to show up on the planet isn't beyond the scope of your thinking-ahead-process.

That and the fact that it never states -explicitly- that there weren't other people around at the time. By this point, they could have dozens of siblings in little villages all over the greater Iraq area. Also, I think the mark covered him against animal attack too, to make sure he lived with his guilt instead of escaping it by dying.

Vegetarians vs Meat eaters

The story of Cain and Abel and its interpretations, has triggered some thoughts on me and I can't help it but think of vegetarias vs meat eaters. Cain dealt mostly with vegetables, since he was the farmer and Abel with meat, since he was the shepperd. Cain kills abel, it can be interpreted, because he feels jealous of his brother for offering God something that pleased him more. God appreciated the milk or fat of the lamb and rejected the vegetables. God is being depicted in this story as someone who preffers the product of an animal to vegetables. If we think of Cain as the vegetarian whose food is rejected by others and Abel as that whose food is accepted by most and by God himself, we can start making parallels with the struggles of vegetarians to have their food accepted. The condemnation of some vegetarians and vegans of those who eat animal food has come to extremes in modern society, where the formers have become intolerant of the latters in many cases. If there is a god, I hope for it to be a vegetarian so that no life is taken in the name of vegetables. Pedro Reyna (pedro@thebigtable.net)

Sorry, not accurate though. God did not give license to eat meat until Genesis 9. (Specifically Gen 9:3 - "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.") Before then it was all fruits and vegetables (see Genesis 3.) While Abel raised sheep, they used the milk and wool. But they didn't eat the critters. SunSw0rd 20:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please consider reading "Noah" go to discussion under "Ten and Last." Brother of Sky 216.215.40.1 20:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got a study bible that points out that Abel's offering is clearly described as being the finest he had to offer, while Cain's is only described as "some fruits." God's favor is shown because of greater devotion, not because of an innate preference for animal sacrifice. Schoop (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The animals were ahoof, they were yet alive, when they were presented to God. There was no death offering. Gnostics (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation

cain & abel is also a famous security tool http://www.oxid.it/cain.html

Romulus and Remus

I can't find sources for this, but is there not an evident connection to the Romulus and Remus story of ancient Rome? a secksy consideration i dare say so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.48.46 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Consider this a divorce

What were the names of the proposed wives? Are they known? Palimony 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about the wives of Cain and Abel, they aren't named in the Biblical accounts or (I'm almost certain of this) in the Qur'an. I'm not sure there isn't some sort of tradition that gives them names, but in the main accounts of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam they are unnamed. Mitchell Powell (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Cain, Abel and the half-truth.

As half-truths go, this is possibly a great example of an unrelated truth, a red herring.'

After Cain kills Abel, God approaches him, and Cains response, "Am I my brothers keeper ?"

Well we all know he was his brothers killer, yet he asks a question of God to deflect his guilt.

Not only is this the first murder, but also a lie of sorts.

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cain(e) is rejecting a Church or Religious Manner. To be one's Brothers' Keeper is to attempt to maintain the Spirit or Soul that is now without Body. Cain(e), if to be his Brother's Keeper, would be a Dwelling Place for Abel/Able in whatever Manner that Cain(e) could muster (in his little toe, might it not be severed). The Earth would be the Keeper, since Cain(e) refused to be. Brother of Sky 216.215.40.1 21:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In culture section.

Tunnels of Set: Not that this is a major issue, but I for one would support adding the RPG Vampire reference back. Unlike most of the other references I removed that were along the lines of "Well, somebody mentions the word Cain once in this book!," I can attest that Caine is a major part of the mythology in Vampire, and Vampire: The Masquerade is a reasonably significant source.

I can't speak to the importance of the comics entry that you also removed, but knowing how zealous some of the comics types are on Wikipedia, I suspect it will be added back shortly. I considered removing it myself as well, but I thought that having one somewhat over-long entry might deter people from adding anything more, perhaps. I suppose we'll see. SnowFire 02:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It belong in the article about the RPG, unless you can find a reputable third-party reference about this particular detail. The game itself cannot be used as a source, except in its own article. Please see WP:V. All this trivia does not belong, unless it has been discussed as significant elsewhere. This is an encyclopedia. It reports on what's been said by others. Does any other encyclopedia give a list of useless trivia in every entry? Tunnels of Set 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. As for the trivia argument, you'll have no objections from me. The inclusions of such sections at all is questionable at best and tends to attract the wrong kind of edits, though there are times in which they are reasonable, and sometimes they can provide interesting details to be merged into the rest of the article later or at least fodder for an article like "X in popular culture." I noticed that you didn't nuke the whole section either, so I presume you saw at least some merit. (If you check my history, you'll see that I have in fact done such nukings in the past when it's bad enough- see this Shadow diff for a recent example. I felt that enough stuff in Cain & Abel was relevant that it might be useful in the future, though.)

That said, I believe your statement about verifiability is incorrect. First-party sources are fine and in fact preferred when discoursing about the subject's text. As an example, saying that The Crucible concerns witch trials in colonial Massachusetts is fine, and you can cite The Crucible itself for it- it's right in the text. Saying that The Crucible was an allegory for the House Un-American Activities Committee and was intended to denounce strident anti-communism would require a source (albeit that would be incredibly easy to source, since the author pretty much said so later). I can cite the Vampire sourcebooks if you want, as it's not an allegory; the story is directly incorporated. SnowFire 03:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, in the article about the subject. Not in other articles. Sources can be found that discuss, for example, The Crucible, we all know that. We also know that there probably aren't such sources for RPG 3 based on Anime episode #13 based on Comic book X. Gotta figure out where to draw the notability line for such trivia. The burden of showing that some individual "factoid" should be considered noteworthy should fall squarely on the shoulders of the editor wanting to add it. They can't themselves assert notability of the factoid, but must show that some published work has found it noteworthy enough to discuss. Otherwise these trivia section will end up three times longer than the article. So, if an editor is persistent in adding, let's tag 'em with a citation request. No third party mention, why should it be mentioned here? Tunnels of Set 06:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to mention the extended allusion to Cain and Abel as seen in Kane (Command & Conquer)? I see that there is a literature section, but as Command & Conquer is a video game series, it doesn't quite fit. Essentially, Kane is implied to be the original Cain or at least he bases himself upon it. The article about him goes into great detail about this, especially in the first paragraph about his origins. So should he be mentioned in this article? Thunderforge 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Book of Wisdom?

is this a deuterocanonical book or vandalism?

The Book of Wisdom, also called The Wisdom of Solomon, is indeed Deuterocanonical book, and can be found in any Catholic Bible.Mitchell Powell (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

who was going to kill him

if theres only supposed to be adam, eve and the kids, whos going to kill him

There are some extra-biblical accounts that say he (Cain) was eventually killed by one of his own descendants, sometimes this is said to be the Lamech who is decended from Cain. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a Manner that the Child(ren) Go Out Before You. Their lives are lived throughout T(t)ime(s) before you. Abel's children can yet be, even though he has died. Part of the problem between Cain(e) and Abel/Able is that they may have opposing philosophies on how to handle "bad" people. Cain(e) might choose to allow the Wicked to live out their lives throughout the entire T(t)ime, eventually (possibly?) coming to terms with their wickedness. In the end, Cain(e) would claim to "own the Earth." Abel/Able's choice might possibly be, after the fact of having been killed (?), to put an End to the wickedness on the Earth. Similar to the Pentagon's philosophy of "First Strike Nuclear Anhilation." I don't mean to imply that the Pentagon is on Abel/Able's side (just an example, as it might be the fact that it is quite the contrary). Brother of Sky 216.215.40.1 21:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Some linguists and literary analysts state that there are two creations of people in Genesis. Could be that the other people could get him for his genocide. Cain would surely kill his own children, for many people wonder why they even had their children. Gnostics (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cain's name

The Good News Bible (which I know has been accused of dumbing down) makes a point of the fact that Cain's name apparently sounds similar to a Hebrew word meaning "acquired". Is this true? Shouldn't we mention it in the section on names? RobbieG 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true, as found in Genesis 4:1 -- "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and gave birth to Cain [Hebrew: Qayin] and said, I have acquired [Hebrew: Qanah] a man from YHWH."Mitchell Powell (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin Section

The "Origin" section is not as clear as it could be and could be better supported.

Cain's Addition

So, Grandfather Cain, as in Cain and Abel comes along and tells me a story. He says, "I have been wandering the earth in spirit form trying to discover what I did wrong with my sacrifice, that God denied it." He seems to be implying that God has made it possible after death for him to figure out what he did wrong, but he is not giving him any help as Cain had his chance to simply ask why his sacrifice was denied and fix it, but he was too prideful to do so. Still, Cain has a desire to please God and has spent all of life since then watching the goings on of humans to come to an understanding of what he should have done. He goes on to say, "here is what it was. When God asked for the "first fruits" as an offering, I gave Him what I thought was best. I gave Him the best vegetables and fruits I had gathered. But, this is not what He meant. What he meant as "first fruits" were the seeds that give new life. I should have gathered the seeds from the crops and taken a tenth of these and made an offering from the plant kingdom to God." He seems to imply that the work of growing is not really complete with the gathering of crops, but instead, with the successful gathering of the seeds and the keeping of them for the next season. Had Cain done this, he implies, God would have been pleased and Cain would have demonstrated that God could trust His work to feed his family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.124.111 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Diablo 2 NPC

The RPG game Diablo 2 features a Non-Player Character called Deckard Cain who is very similar to Cain, so can I suggest adding this information into the Games section of this article?

Adamd1008 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

alternate meaning of Abel

I have this symbolism book which has Abel as meaning 'breath' or 'vapour'. This is a derived general symbolic dictionary so would be good to get other sources and what the 'vapour' means...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorted I see. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Change of Bible Versions

I removed this version, because the particular nature of the sacrifice of fat (which implies death of the animal) is not really worth distracting a reader with right at the start of the article (imo).

"In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought the fat [fat calves, or milk (Josephus) — all plausible renderings the Hebrew consonants] from the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him."—Genesis 4:3-8

I've replaced it with a recent version where the translation doesn't raise issues that aren't contentious in interpretation. Alastair Haines 10:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew word in the bible that is being translated here as "blood" plural. (when G-d confronts Cain with "what have you done? your brother's blood cries out to me") It should be translated as bloods, NOT blood. It has been interpreted as meaning that G-d was hearing the cries of not only Abel but also of all his potential descendants, thereby the plural was needed. Regardless of this explanation of why it is plural, the fact is that it is plural, and should be translated into English as plural. Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting critiques

Might be worth seeing the whole article..: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Tragedy of Cain and Abel: A Case of Depression

Hmm..not sure how I feel about this one but:

• Preventing Violence-Chapter 1: Shame and the Death of Self

Ahaaa more legacy stuff..:

• [http://www.unomaha.edu/jrf/Vol8No1/InvisibleBody.htm Journal of Religion and Film-The Invisible Body of God:

Paul Verhoeven�s Hollow Man]

..and then there's plain old Sibling rivalry....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Weapon

What is the weapon Cain used to kill Abel? A weapon is seen in many of the artworks, but I don't see one mentioned in any of the writings quoted, or anywhere in the article. -- AvatarMN (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting question. At the literary level, it was not important to the point the writer of the story wanted to make. Arguably, the story may not have been intended to document a specific historical event, but to illustrate, in a memorable way, the kind of evil motives that are found in the human heart.

It is very unlikely Jesus had blond hair. However, western art often gives him this. Interestingly, some African churches depict Jesus as black. Visual art must provide more information than the text it is based upon (a picture is worth a thousand words). Some strict religious people avoid pictures of biblical people and incidents for this reason. Others allow more room for common sense. I won't take sides (at least not at Wiki). ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw, come on, Alastair. Calling one side "strict" while claiming the other allows "more room for common sense" is taking sides.Mitchell Powell (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahura Mazda etc

The article ignores the multifarious Middle Eastern origins of the Cain and Abel story, and instead focuses on the Abrahamic religions. Strangerstome (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer I added a link to a Sumerian story that has vague similarities.

The real issue I'm not aware of any scholars who categorically deny that the Genesis account could have been produced independently. On the other hand, I am aware that many conservative Jewish and Christian scholars are comfortable with the idea that "divine inspiration" may have utilized existing literature in conveying its own message. All scholars who believe in divine inspiration consider the Hebrew language to have preceded that inspiration. In other words, evolution of language and literature are not incompatible with divine inspiration. But perhaps I miss what you are suggesting?

If anything is missing in the article, I would propose it is a description of the "divine inspiration" view, which is probably the view of the majority of commentators on this passage, seeing as how they value it most highly, and there are very many of them throughout history. Although I am personally of this opinion, I see no need to present that point of view, as it is not particularly relevant to understanding the story. It is not really significant even to understanding the significance of the story in the context of Genesis, or even the New Testament and other commentary on it, like that of the Qur'an and the Book of Moses.

There are several parts of the Bible that explicitly cite ancient sources other than itself, Proverbs is particularly notable in this. While I sense some justified concern that some religious people consider the Bible to be totally independent of its historical context and that these people may edit at Wiki and need to be called to account, I don't believe that to be justified in this case. I'm also noting that this sort of view is not the view of most conservative religious academics.

Summary Bible scholarship is real, it is not "faith against reason". However, we are allies in agreeing the "faith against reason" view is also real, and has little place at Wiki. But, as it turns out, it also has little place in conservative religious scholarship. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fictional?

Several category tags for this article imply that Cain and Abel are fictional. I doubt this is policy, seeing as how there was a great deal of debate over the Xenu article, I don't think the two should be labeled as fiction. I unless someone objects, I am removing those tags.--Asderoff (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

May I delete the whole bottom section which talks about games, music and television? Isn't this supposed to be about Cain and Abel (the Biblical people)? Where do the rules say we should start talking about television and music and all the rest of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lachash (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Flavius Josephus' works point out the meaning of the two brother's names. Abel signifies sorrow and Cain signifies a possession. Found in the beginning of chapter 2 of book one. --JoshuaMD (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Cain is a Hero

Another misinterpration... Cain must slay (castrate) the breath/solar/ka/A(lpha), so he can be the Fool. In all ancient mythologies the "top must come off" (truncate the pyramid), so one can be anointed. You climb the mountain, and at the top (enlightenment), you get anointed/blessed. Cain is blessed, not cursed, but the myth has been distorted (they did not like the divine masculine "castrated"). The Father/Pahllus must fall to the Ground (The Tower in Tarot) for the Son/Children to be born.

When Ab-el (father god) is empty, the Fool can wander anew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.193.41 (talk) 10:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Cain, the first vampire

In the PC-Game "Vampire - the Masqerade: Bloodlines", Cain is the first Vampire in vampiric History. After being cursed and marked by God, he meets Lilith and continues living with her, as she accepts him, though he bears the "cruel mark". But eventually, Cain again angers God by slaying his companion. So Cain is cursed not only to wander the Earth until Judgment Day, but to feed on the Blood of his own children. Cain also is the founder of the first "artificial" Settlement [the Name escapes me in the moment], where Vampires lived alongside of the Humans, since the best disguise for a Vampire is "to blind himself in the society of mortals." Also, Cain and the Antedeluvians [ancient, very first Vampires] will return to wander Earth once again and to consume the life of every mortal and their own kin, as soon as "Gehenna" begins - the Vampiric Version of "Armageddon".

Though all of this is extremely fictional and also [somehow] sick, it is nonetheless very fascinating how the designers of the game integrated many [mainly Jewish and Arabic] myths and references into the story. But keep in mind; all this is fiction, and no one should believe the tellings of the game; if one is even a little bit religious and stuff, you should rather read the real Bible\Qur’an, 'cause throughout the game the whole plot has a very very "occult" setting...

Cain's wife

This is a request for additional content: this article really doesn't deal with the issue of the origin of Cain's wife from a Judeo-Christian perspective (It covers it from an Islamic position quite well). Could someone knowledgeable examine this? Manning (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Grave of Cain & Abel

Cain & Abel are reputedly buried in the hills on the outskirts of Damascus in Syria. Their grave can be located by travelling on the road from Damascus to Beirut and turning off towards Zabadani. The grave is contained within a mosque built on Jabel Kasiun & its a very steep walk to the top. The mosque is not that pretty but the views from the top are very beautiful. In Syria (as per the Qu'ran) Cain & Abel are known as Qabil and Habil. This is important when you are asking locals for directions (they haven't heard of Cain & Abel!) and there is not a clear sign directing you to the mosque. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNWN9vlJNAw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.162.155 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 May, 2009 (UTC)

The mosque already has a page of its own - Nabi Habeel Mosque. ~ Toushiro 「 話 」 20:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

They also claimn theres a rock inside that gaint black building at Mecca from the Garden of eden. Do we know it is... do we?--Jakezing (Your King) (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of the retarded comment

There's a comment by someone in the "Abel's Death" section that obviously doesn't belong. I tried to get rid of it but it just reverted back to the old edit. Someone should get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.51.29 (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because when I looked at the changes made I couldn't see any problems with the section and you didn't provide an edit summary. I've removed the comment – it was in a template. snigbrook (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This page is in bad need of some copy-editing. 131.107.0.106 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

POV problem, first paragraph

It seems that the first paragraph of this story on Cain and Abel is devoted to proposing that Cain is actually the son of the Nachash, and not of Adam. I object to this because of the way the first paragraph treats a minority-held theory as though it were fact. As the paragraph now stands: "Cain and Abel have long been understood as the first and second sons of Adam and Eve in the religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.[1] Their story is told in the Bible and Torah at Genesis 4:1-16 and the Qur'an at 5:26-32. However the Greek New Testament says of Cain that "he was from the wicked one"[2]. This assertion is also found in Jewish legend,[3] that the serpent (Hebrew nahash נחש) from the Garden of Eden was father to firstborn Cain."

Here's what I'm going to do with it, and why: 1) I'm going to change: "Cain and Abel have long been understood as" to "According to ancient traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Cain and Abel were . . . " This changes this sentence to a mere reporting of facts, and not a set-up for a counterargument. 2) I'm going to note that the Qur'anic account cited does not actually name Cain or Abel, but only refers to them as the two sons of Adam. 3) I'm goin to change the Qur'an reference from 5:26-32 to 5:27-32, because Surah 5:26 deals with the wanderings of the children of Israel. 4) With respect to Greek New Testament quote, I'm going to explain the various ways the verse has been translated, and modify the claim that this verse is exactly the same assertion found in the Jewish legend to be more POV-neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell (talk • contribs) 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

About My Recent Undo

I just undid a bit of work added by a user named Orcades. The reason is that it is deeply POV-pushing, and cites as fact the views of an author with whom as far as I can tell no other author agrees at all. The only citation provided for the added section was a link to a wikipedia article which has since been deleted by others for not meeting notability criteria. That Wikipedia article was also created by this user Orcades, whose work has been published by a nearly unknown group known as Capabel Press which has published only his book, and it appears to be nothing but a front used to hide the fact that an obscure writer with no known qualifications (except the fact that he refers to himself as a 'scholar') is essentially self-publishing. His work just does not belong on Wikipedia, because it has not picked up any signs of notability. I regard the recent edit as equivalent to using Wikipedia for spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(*Applause*) I thought about removing it, but I guess I'm an inclusionist. I couldn't really find anything criticizing Hatfield, just church history that he seemed ignorant of. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest update--my deletion has been challenged by Orcades on my talk page. I've patiently re-explained my reasoning. Hopefully this won't develop into a problem. Mitchell Powell (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Fringe source

Some scholars think that it may refer to the days in which agriculture began to replace the ways of the hunter-gatherer.

Weasel words and a statement in the lead that isn't supported by the body of the article. Sourced to "usbible.com" and a virtually unknown monograph by an unknown author named J.H. Hatfield. Looks like it was self-published as well. Removed. Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Incest

Shouldn't the article mention the implication of incest in this story?

Genesis 3 20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

4 1 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD."

2 And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.

17 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.

In deducting who Cain's wife could be, one could only come up with Eve unless one assumes that some of God's creative actions have been omitted. The latter requires a great deal of flexibility in the mind of the reader, since each creation has been reported explicitly up to this point.

Notice that Cain's son Enoch similarly could not have had a son with anyone else than his mother/grandmother.

--79.160.170.45 (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's exegesis, which is not Wikipedia's job. You need reliable sources that demonstrate that that interpretation is notable (basically that some notable person or group has held it). Also, the Bible says that Adam and Eve were the first humans created, but not the only ones. The Bible actually hasn't been all that explicit, Genesis 1 is pretty vague and Genesis 2 repeats some of the details a little bit more clearly. It doesn't have to go into much detail, it's not a scientific work. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Many articles about stories contain summaries that have no source other than the original text itself. In choosing what information to include in a such a condensed version of a work, a certain amount of subjectivity is inevitable. Nevertheless, I see this as a logical implication and not an interpretation.

Your argument "the bible doesn't say they were the only ones", doesn't seem to hold up in Cain's case as we are told that:

"[Adam] called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

Either this statement is false, or it must be a case of incest. God has not yet expressed objection to any kind of sexual relationship, so what indicates otherwise?

--79.160.170.45 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen sometime a documental about the Cain and Abel story, at the History Channel or some other similar channel. It explained that, like other stories in the Old Testament, the Cain and Abel story was written somewhere else first (I don't remember where) and incorporated later into the Bible. In the original story, Can and Abel were not the second human generation, they were men like any other. This explains things that make little sense when read as a Bible story. The incest thing is a classic, buut there are others. Cain took Abel away from populated places, but which populations existed? He cried that "Whoever meets me will kill me!", but who was "whoever", his parents? MBelgrano (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If there were no pre-Adamites further to engage sexually with men (which the verse about the "mother of all living" seems to indicate), it was a sister: incest now, but no incest then: there simply were no others, the risk of genetical defects was less, and the cognate barrier obviously is a developing one: Abraham married a half-sister, and even someone as late as Adonias could have so too if he had behaved correctly. Still with our own great-grandparents it was (albeit a need of canonical dispense) a matter of no unthinkability at all to marry first-cousins. Yet to marry one's mother would have been incest at any time. As a matter of fact the Bible says that there were other human beings the Bible elsewhere says nothing about (Gen 5,4etc.). --91.34.201.14 (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

vampire rpg

Vampire the Masquerade, which was the biggest vampire roleplaying game ever, said Cain's curse for killing his brother was that he became the first vampire. The things I read in this entry could be seen as lame interpretations on this being true, but if I didn't expect to see something about blood or vampires, then the passages wouldn't have brought them to my mind the way they were written. The rpg setting (world of darkness, now referred to as old world of darkness) was ended, and the new setting is different. From what I heard, I can assume that the new setting doesn't have as much of a history, because giving too much detail to anyone who looks at the book was one of the reasons for the change. So i'm unaware if the new setting is the same, but it shouldn't be.

I could go on, but it's really easy to find it all, or it should be. I don't go around changing wikipedia articles, so i'm just mentioning this because I figure someone should put it in the 'media' section, or a different reference section, because it's way more popular than those other things almost no one ever heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.222.113 (talk) 04:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The article "could be seen as lame interpretations of this being true," because White Wolf got Cain from an existing mythology. No, wait, obviously, the book of Genesis ripped off White Wolf publishing... What does the differences between the settings have to do with improving the article? Your knowledge of things does not determine what is noteworthy. I know more people that own Battlestar Galactica on DVD than I do people that own VtM books, and most of my friends and I play RPGs. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Saints

Is Abel recognized as a Saint by someone? MBelgrano (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Cain was not necessarily Adam and Eve's first son

The Bible doesn't really specify that Cain was Adam and Eve's first son. That is just a common assumption because it's the first 'mention' of Adam and Eve's union outside of Eden.

The narrative we have in Genesis is not a complete record of Adam and Eve's children, since we know they had more than three children. Genesis 5:4 tells us that Adam had sons and daughters, but there are no daughters mentioned in the Cain and Abel account. Therefore, it would be just as valid to assume that Cain was not necessarily Adam and Eve's first son, but the first son to distinguish himself in life outside Eden by acting with such unrestrained behaviour to bring about the murder of his brother - the first murder. It is highly likely that Cain, Abel and Seth arrived after quite a few generations of Adam and Eve's children.

The greatest benefit of assuming there were children before Cain is seen when we consider the problem of where Cain got his wife. If there were children a good number of generations prior to Cain, then the existence of the land of Nod as a separate established community would be a natural consequence of the expanding Adamic family.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EnegueT (talk • contribs) 09:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's no way to be sure of whether Cain was the first son, but it is suggested by his name, because Eve "bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD". The name Cain, which means 'gotten' or 'acquired' seems to indicate that she had not received a son before this time (because then she should have named him Cain). However, she may have received daughters before this.

The "land of Nod", was probably called so only afterwards, because the name means 'wandering' and likely refers to the wandering of Cain in that land; that's where it got its name. It is not mentioned, but it seems more likely to me that Cain was already married before he went to the land of Nod (because he went there in order to flee from other people). Lindert (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but 'gotten' or 'acquired' hardly does the word justice. If you look at the use of the Hebrew word 'qanah' (Strong's H7069) that is rendered 'gotten' in Eve's statement, you will see that it is most often translated as 'buy'. The inference, for me at least, is that Cain was a possession that she had bought from God for a price. He was her treasure, if you will. What that price may have been, however, is not revealed in the text.

In regard to the "land of Nod", I agree that it is likely to have acquired that name after Cain arrived. --EnegueT (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up this very important point so that I don't have to. Wikipedia sure does assume a lot of information and it's articles a very biased towards popular conventional thinking which is often times wrong. If we were back in Columbus's day they would allude to the fact that anyone who thought the Earth was round was a whack ball.

Sincerely Anthony Hendren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.92.162.83 (talk) 05:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the above comment, which was a reply to the (original research) comment about 'ganah', to after the post so that it is clear who wrote what. I'll add that no one but perhaps the very ignorant in Columbus's time thought the earth was flat. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Further, Genesis 5:3 tells us that Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born. The assumption that Cain was Adam and Eve's first son, means that they only had 3 sons and some daughters in the first 130 years of Adam's life. That is certainly possible, but highly unlikely.

Population growth is exponential, with the governing equation being N=N₀e^rt. Playing around with this in a spreadsheet generates some very interesting numbers for 130 years. The value for r is the most important factor, it represents the rate of natural increase of a population. In the Mexico example given, the value for r is 0.014 (1.4%) because the death rate and birth rate are close together, in Adam and Eve's day this value would have been much higher. Using a value of 0.9 for r (allowing for some death), and say 10 time periods, there would have been more than 2,000 people alive when Seth was born, and Seth would have been born only a short time after Abel's death.

I believe these values are conservative.

--EnegueT (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Cain's Offering vs. Abel's Offering

I have some ideas on how this story should be interpreted. I decided to start with something small. I don't know if what I added should be in its own section or appended to a different section, but I think it's relevant information. Mattj2 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pastoralists vs. Farmers

The bits about the interpretation that Cain (the Farmer) killed Abel (the Pastoralist) because of a cultural dispute could really be expanded out of the intro by using Daniel Quinn's Ishmael and Paul Shepard's Coming Home to the Pleistocene (pages 122 - 123 http://books.google.com/books?id=5b18NqLB8LMC&lpg=PP1&ots=T_rPtJxv_f&dq=coming%20home%20to%20the%20pleistocene%20shepard&pg=PA122#v=snippet&q=Cain&f=false). Murderbike (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Adam and Eve's offspring

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

If Abel and Cain were the only sons of Adam and Eve, that means that Eve was still the only female on the planet. Then with whom did Abal and Cain have sex to produce more humans?

Although I know the answer to this question, I don't believe that Wikipedia is the place to discuss this because a good encyclopedic editor should already have a basic understanding of Adam's offspring if editing such content. Wikipedians do not philosophize on Wikipedia. If you wish to philosophize this subject, I would suggest you either go to a local Judaism center and ask a rabbi, or go to a local Christian church and ask a minister. If you wish to edit on Wikipedia, I would suggest you pursue a theology degree or go to a local library and research it. :/ Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 15:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would rather advise the editor to read Genesis more carefully. There's no need to go to a religious authority to realize that Cain and Abel were not the only sons of Adam, and that Eve was not the only female, because Adam 'begat sons and daughters' (Genesis 5:4). - Lindert (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not the place of a Wikipedian editor to answer this sort of question. The person who raised this question should research it for themselves. Pointing to Genesis does not advance the Wikipedian editor because that is using a wp:primary source to interpret that question. If the person wishes to edit such content, they must have a proper understanding of an wp:independent WP:THIRDPARTY wp:reliable source that can be wp:verifiable. Genesis 5:4 does not qualify under these policies and cannot be used in an encyclopedic edit without a wp:reliable source, otherwise we would be promoting wp:original research. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 16:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources or original research do not apply to talk pages. Your own suggestion to ask a rabbi doesn't pass the WP:RS criterion either. I never suggested using purely primary sources for the article. Clearly the OP was asking a question from the perspective of the book of Genesis. I don't see any problem with pointing out some things that he/she may have overlooked. - Lindert (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The OP may have inadvertently asked a question that could have led Wikipedian's to philosophize on this talk page which could have led to unnecessary heated discussions. His local rabbi/minister can point out what he might have overlooked. It should not involve Wikipedia. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 16:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The form of the question itself is illogical. It's like saying, "because A+B=C, then D must equal F. There is no logical connection between what is being inferred in the question itself. First it makes an inaccurate assumption (that Cain and Abel were the only sons of Adam and Eve, or for that matter, that Adam and Eve were the only humans that God created), to leap to an illogical conclusion (that Eve was the only female on earth at the time that Cain and Abel were seeking mates). I do, however, agree with both of you that the talk page of this article is the wrong place to seek the answers. The talk page is solely for the purpose of improving the article. The answers one receives to these questions will also depend not only on where one seeks the answers (rabbi, priest, scripture, etc.) but also on how one interprets the sources of information. I would encourage seekers to avoid the Literalists or the answers given may prove more laughable than the question. Instead consider that Scripture was never intended to be taken literally or we Christians would all be of the viewpoint that dinosaurs co-existed with Man, that Creation and Evolution are mutually exclusive theories, and that the Earth is just a few thousand years old. Garth of the Forest (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thus, philosophizing...   — Jason Sosa 06:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You were right, I think we can agree to close this thread. - Lindert (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mythical mythical?

I know that all the religious articles have their own version of the "mythical" argument (as I see it, the "believers" are constantly trying to remove the word from the article while the "non-believers" treat it as though it were absolutely required in every religious article). Regardless, I think the first sentence of this article has reached an unfortunate extreme. It employs the phrase "mythical sons of mythical...." That reads really poorly! Do we seriously need the word mythical used two times within four words? Can't the sentence be revised to read more fluidly? I know a percentage of wikipedians just have to see the word mythical in the first sentence of every religious article, but this is getting ridiculous. It's almost worse than lawyers always using the word egregious in every sentence. The last time I removed the word mythical from a religious article everyone freaked out (though I only removed it from the first sentence--I left all other uses of it in the article!). So I won't make this edit until everyone agrees that the phrase "mythical sons of mythical...." is really poor sentence structure. --wiki user MorbidAnatomy (not signed in right now). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.201 (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the lead sentence doesn't read well as of now, and the previous version was better IMO. I do not object to the use of 'mythical' if it serves a purpose. I don't think it currently does. The edit summary that was given for the current version was It's ancient myth, not fact, so say so. However, stating that Cain and Abel were, according to the Book of Genesis, two sons of Adam and Eve, is not implying that they really were. The best way to retain a neutral POV, I think is to clearly use attribution. I don't think the exact verses need to be mentioned in the lead sentence. I've now edited the sentence accordingly, any suggestions (or disagreements) are welcome. - Lindert (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of the previous change. The wording which you used certainly reads much more smoothly. If somebody feels they need the word mythical in there I'm not going to argue it, I just didn't like seeing it used twice in four words. It's just bad writing. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Eten and Emesh

Cain and Abel is related to "Eten and Emesh."

It should be mentioned.--85.104.53.19 (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You may have meant Enten instead of 'Eten'. Anyway, it cannot be included unless reliable sources are provided supporting your assertion. - Lindert (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So did Adam only has two sons- ABEL & CAIN and where did SETH appeared ?

I want to ask the justice of your case on the write up here. SO who is SETH ?

I hope before you edit this toipc on wiki, please consult ad Orthodox Rabbi- on Abel, Cain and SETH ? Do you know that the scripture said 'that Adam begets sons and daughters.:-)~ This is a plural noun.

So are Abel and SETH , the same person, or a third person ( among his brother Cain & Abel )

Please take note : never in my Jewish text that we omitted the text like you did here in the wiki- Adam was blessed with "SONS and DAUGHTERS "

Cain settled in ,Nod East of Eden , punished for 7 generation and his generation of children, his first born Enoch bu succession in the fashion mentioned below :

1. Enoch - the city builder ( the first born of CAIN) 2. Irad 3.metujael 4. methushael ( NO METHUSALAH as many of you get these personalities confused, Note -Methusalah of of the lineage of SETH. ) 5. Lemech

Note. Cain , Abel and Seth are sons of Adam, as to his daughters (no info recorded) if you have please let me know : -)~ Thanks. Note . the Lineage of the Hebrews are Patriarchal not matriarchal, though both the male and female are created in the LIKENESS of G-d, a little less than the Angels.

It is from the lineage of SETH derived the shoots of enos,cainan.mahalaleel.Jared,Enoch, methusalah..Lamech to PROPHET NOAH .

And Noah had three Sons - Ham ,Shem and Japhrth.

And through Ham came the Cush,Mizraim ,Phut and CANAAN. ( latet dowm the era of the Judges and Kings of the Hebrews , the lands were claimed by the Children of Shem ).

And the son Japheth were Gomer, Magog.Madai,Javan,Tubal,Tiras.Meshech and tiras.

It is these three Peopel of Hamm Shem and Japheth that buid the 'TOWER of BAble "

So we have :

1. the Hamitic ( Africa and Arabian )

2. Semitic (Assyria UR, Persians,Chaldeans,Aremenians,Syrians... that derived AGRAH, ISAAC,Jacob/ Israel and the twelve tribes.Reuben.Simeon,Levi,Judah,Issachar,Zebulon,Joseph'Benjamin,Dan,Naphtali,Gad.Asher all went to slavely into EGYPT.. tehn you got Moses,Joshua,The ear of the Judges,King Saul, King David, King Solomon-then the revolt Jeroboam and Rehoboam - the Northern Kingdom and Kingdom of Judah.

3. Japhetic. __________________________________________________________________________________________

Note : The Northern Kingdom and Southern Kingdom consist of 10 TRIBES of Israel.

1. The Northern Kingdom ( ten Tribes- their capitol is Samaria. taken captive by ASSYRIA 2. The Southern -Two Tribes = Judah and Benjamin. :-)Taken Captive by Babylon. 3. The Southern Kingdom is recorded in EZRA,NEHEMIAH,HAGGAI,ZECHARIAH,AND MALACHAI. 4. After Malachi, The Persian Period,The Greek period, the period of Jewish Independence.The Roman Period, the Maccabees revolt.

So you see it is through Adam- SETH you see the flow of the whole lineage of Israel that you see in ISRAEL TODAY .

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Prophets of the Northern Kingdom  :

1. Ahijah 2. Elijah 3. Micaiah 4.Elisha 5.Jonah 6. Hosea 7. Amos. 8.Oded

The Prophets of Southern Kingdom -JUDAH :-)

1, Semaiah 2. Iddo 3.Azariah 4.Hanani 5.Jehu 6. Eliezer 7.jahaziel 8.Zechariah 9.Isaiah. 10.Micah 11. NaHUM. 12 jOEL 13.jEREMIAH 14.hABAKKUK 15.zEPHANIAN 16. eZEKIEL 17.dANIEL 18.oBADIAH 19.hAGGAI 20. zECH 21. mALACHI

tHANKS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.179.147 (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Most of this is not really relevant, this article is not about all the sons, daughters and descendants of Adam, but only about Cain and Abel. However, I would agree that the opening sentence currently suggests that they were Adam and Eve's only sons, so I'll remove the "the". - Lindert (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

im genuinely sory for this. it will be all i think of if dont add this.. egypt. egypt was well over three thousand years old in jesus' time, even alexander the great was like 'yeah egypt is ancient dudes'. you say jewish texts? well i dont give two fig bars about the history involving that religion but i bet you my two fig bars you can look at a king from cleopatras the great's time ( theres one in particular im thinking of? idk what his name was though. one of octavian's client kings.) and trace his lineage back to times that were ancient even back when alexander the great decided egypt would be a nice vacation kingdom. again, this thread is old and irrelevant but u dont mess with egypt. io saturnalia ;D Applejuiceandpeachh (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

French interlanguage link

The best corresponding French article is fr:Caïn. I was trying to add the link to that article to the interlanguage links, but I get the following message:

An error occurred while trying to perform save and because of this, your changes could not be completed.

Clicking on "Details gives me further:

Edit not allowed: Site link [[frwiki:Caïn]] already used by item [[Q205365]].

This message gives the editor no idea what to do about it. Despite the appearance, Q205365 is of course not an article, and can not be reached by entering it like an article name in the search box. Since I don't have the time now to further investigate this, I'll just post it here. — Sebastian 16:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that multiple interwiki links cannot point to the same article. fr:Cain and Able already links here so fr:Cain cannot also link here. That has the answer I got at the help desk. Hope that helps. meshach (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there ever has been an article with that mixture of French and English text - and at least now fr:Caïn et Abel is only a short dab, with no iw links whatsoever. On the other hand, fr:Caïn indeed seems to be the best reference here - and it iw-links to the Cain section in this article, bypassing the new iw links system. This seems as one of the occasions where the new iw linkage system isn't totally suitable. JoergenB (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is written to make the story appear non-fiction.

Examples: "Cain was the first human born and Abel was the first human to" "Known for: First murderer in human history" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.18.51 (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The "mythology" notice was removed from the first sentence, in order to make the article more neutral (vide supra). The idea is that that first sentence clearly expresses the context - the narrative in Genesis - and leaves to the reader to decide whether this is a myth and/or facts. However, I fully agree that the text under the picture, declaring him to be the first murderer in history, is rather biased in the other direction. It clearly elevates the Genesis narrative to be considered as covering factual history. In the text proper, similar formulations are not such a great problem; it should be clear from the context that it is the narrative that is described, not the actual independently verified facts.

I'll try to npow the text in the image box. JoergenB (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove paragraph?

Can we remove the following passage? It seems to have been written by someone who was fighting a losing battle with the English language: "In a narrative 'How the hope arise', which is one of the three theological virtues, is reported: 'The heavenly roses and all the birds and butterflies asked: 'Where is a new bloom which pacifies so gorgeously ?"" and furthermore a song for Awan, who later became the wife of Cain, is narrated: 'On the mountain is a small house, in which are two windows. She sits in one of it and waits for her favorite. You're a heavenly flower, the world loves you. I love you and nobody else. Awan, Awan soul and heart I love you and nobody else. And she herself, that mother did not know, picked flowers and gave it to her beloved. And these flowers will never wither what dear gave as a gift to beloved'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.212.17 (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the problem! However, please sign contributions to talk pages, by pushing the "signature" button (if your editor has one), or by writing four 'twiddles' in a row (like this: ~~~~)!

The text was added approximately a month ago, here. As you note, it is written in very poor English. (The contributer is living in Austria, according to the user page.) The text also is unsourced. However, it is not self-evident that it should be removed; if the English is improved and adequate sources added, it could well be a good article contribution.

There is also the question of where to put the text. The editor refers to Christian virtues, but inserted the text in a section about the narrative in the Jewish Midrash.

Either you or I (or someone else) could improve the language - provided there is an adequate source to the passage. Thus, in the first place, we should ask for sources, The most efficient way to do that is by means of a template. JoergenB (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed. The insertion broke up the flow of the sourced material, was itself unsupported by sourcing, and was unrelated to the material it was injected into.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  05:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Cain's response to his curse

I looked through this page and the page on the curse and mark of Cain, and in neither place did I see any reference to Cain's response to God's sentence which led to his being marked. This should appear at least in one of the articles if not both as it is a big point in the story: God placed a mark or sign on Cain in specific response to Cain's fear that anyone who met him would kill him. One particular point is that the word Cain used when he said his punishment is too great can mean both punishment and transgression, leaving uncertainty as to whether Cain was simply complaining that his sentence was unbearably severe or saying that the guilt and weight of his crime is more than he can bear. This has been questioned by theologians, and is a part of the debate as to whether the mark of Cain was meant as a further sign of condemnation to a sinner, or graceful protection to one who repented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.50.240 (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Even God would not kill Cain, that is why he was held as one of the animals on Noah's Ark. A blessing and a curse? Gnostics (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cain as Noah's ancestor

Genesis 4:17-18 - Cain and his wife had a son and named him Enoch. Then Cain build a city and named it after his son (Erech/Uruk/Unuk(sumerian)). Enoch had another son named Irad...

ok, so this passage and those that follow indicate that Cain is the ancestor of Noah, not Seth... it also states that Cain founded Erech, or modern day Iraq...

although, it doesn't specifically mention Noah as the son of Enoch in this passage, it can be inferred from history and is completely contrary to the account of Genesis 5.

the lineage is as such in each case:

Adam/Eve > Cain > Enoch > Irad > Mehujael > Methushael > Lamech > Noah (lifts the curse on the land brought about by Cain)

Adam/Eve > Seth > Enosh > Kenan > Mahalalel > Jared > Enoch > Methuselah > Lamech > Noah

history has been altered/fabricated in the Genesis 5 account... it completely rewrites the Genesis 4 account...

either: Seth (the son Eve never had) is simply a metaphor for Abel... and later Enosh...

or: Cain is simply a metaphor (and the son Eve never had)... this explanation seems unlikely...

why? because we have the entire history of Cain, the founding or Erech, etc... but we have nothing on Seth... no history what so ever...

also, neither do we have a history for Methushael (Genesis 4 version), but we have one for Methuselah (Genesis 5 version)...

70.48.210.219 (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem very confused. Enoch the son of Cain could not be the same Enoch, as Enoch the son of Jared. And your new theory is original research and thus is not to be considered here per site policy, only what sources say can be attributed to those sources here. 71.246.158.36 (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's original research, unless you can find a reliable (secondary, academic) source making this exact argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Digging further (and modifying the Generations of Adam article accordingly), it appears that the Cainite lineage was in the Jahwist source and the Sethian was a modified duplication in the Priestly source modeled after the Sumerian King List. The Cainite lineage probably did not feature Noah, however, being modeled after Ziusudra. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you say whose theory that is? 71.246.158.36 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be a single person, but lots of people. Pretty much anyone connected to Form criticism, as well as Fritz Hommel and Thomas Kelly Cheyne, though the latter two are not the originators of this but merely two notable proponents I found. The idea even appears in more recent but pious commentaries, asserting that the duplication between the lists is meant to show common culture between the two (with members of one line naming their children after cousins from the other line), explain the apparent relationship between the Hebrews and the (not too bad) Kenites, snub the Sumerian king list, or claim that the Sumerian king list was really a corruption of the Sethite lineage. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I support merging Cain tradition to Cain and Abel. It would be a short paragraph there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I will go ahead and merge. It was proposed before and there were no objections then either, but nothing was done. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ghosts of Vesuvius"

I don't how Charles R. Pellegrino's writings have any bearing on the subject. Not to mention how ludicrous that statement is seeing how there were no neanderthals left in the Bronze Age. 67.204.235.22 (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubious: Ethnic imagery in medieval art?

Presently a passage reads: "In medieval Christian art, particularly in 16th century Germany, Cain is depicted as a stereotypical ringleted, bearded Jew, who killed Abel the blonde, European gentile symbolizing Christ." It is accompanied by an image from 15th century Germany image depicting a bearded Cain and unbeared Abel. The source for this is supposed to be a Dutch dictionary of symbols and imagery. This may be dubious. While such depictions are common enough in later centuries, I can't find an examples medieval Christian art. The accompanying image, which I take it is supposed to substantiate the passage, does not look like a "Jew" killing a "European" but an older brother slaying a younger one. Furthermore "medieval Christian art" from "16th century Germany" is arguable oxymoronic since the medieval period is almost always deemed to end before the 16th century. A better source or at least a single unambiguous medieval example would seem to be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.218.2 (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Family Tree

The section entitled "Family Tree" gives a family tree that includes a variety of characters taken from both biblical and extra-biblical texts. For several members of the tree, a variety of alternatives are possible. As it stands, the Family Tree could give the impression that it includes an undisputed family tree. I suggest deleting it or else adding footnotes at the relevant points indicating alternate traditions. I'm not sure what the norms are on Wikipedia for something like this, and I'm not sure how I'd go about adding footnotes, because the Family Tree is based on a template (is that the right word?). Any suggestions for how to fix this are welcome. Alephb (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of Holman Christian Standard Bible

I'm not really happy about using this version. Why not something like the NRSV? Doug Weller talk 14:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's better to use one than the other. At present, the HCSB is more popular than the NRSV. StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Outside of academic settings, maybe. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you pick a random university not specifically associated with the Southern Baptist convention and sit in on random biblically-oriented classes, that you'd see someone quote from the NRSV before the HCSB. The NRSV was produced by a group of scholars from a wide range of religious backgrounds. The HCSB is a specifically Southern Baptist production. I'm going to go off to JSTOR and see if I can get some rough data to confirm or deny my instinct on this.Alephb (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The link you've got there is from an evangelical booksellers association. For the most part, those aren't the people who buy NRSVs. NIV, NLT, followed by KJV are the top three they list. Outside of specifically evangelical contexts, academics usually won't quote any of those three at present.Alephb (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I see the Holman Bible is sold in various versions aimed at various groups of people. I don't know if that helps their sales or not. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

All right here's what JSTOR gives when you search various terms related to the NRSV and HCSB. “New Revised Standard Version” (550 hits). “Holman Christian Standard Bible” (10 hits). “Christian Standard Bible” (11 hits). “Holman Bible” (12 hits). NRSV (1326 hits). HCSB (21 hits). So while I personally tend to like a lot of what I see in Holman (especially compared to the NIV or NLT), it does look like its position is marginal in the academic world. Alephb (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And I have to be honest, @StAnselm:, so far as I know you're an inerrantist so you've got an interest in this that I don't. And are all Bibles published by the EPCA? Because your link only lists those they publish. The KJV seems to be the most popular US Bible. Bible translations into English but that shouldn't sway us as this isn't a US site. We need one that is as much as possible not biased towards a particular religious group. And given Alephb's search, I still say NRSV. Do you have a strong objection to it? Doug Weller talk 21:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, lots of things here:

1. Alephb's search was just HCSB vs. NRSV: in terms of popularity of modern English translations, the NIV dwarfs both of them, and would be a more sensible choice.
2. The NIV is not as well regarded in the academy - e.g. when I did theology exams, we had a choice between RSV, NRSV, and ESV.
3. If I understand correctly, the usual practice here on WP has been to leave Bible translation to editorial discretion.
4. There have been questions raised about copyright violations in relation to quoting large chunks of the Bible. I don't know if there has been any consensus on this issue, but this article quotes a block of seven verses, seemingly unnecessarily.
5. The other problem is that there are two Bible quotes, and they are different translations: HCSB and KJV.
6. I'm not sure the mention of the Septuagint of Gen 4:7 adds anything to the article

StAnselm (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify, StAnselm, the search I did was of JSTOR, so it was comparing academic use of HCSB vs. NRSV. If you add the NIV to that mix, it doesn't "dwarf them both." Total book sales might, but in JSTOR mentions a quick search shows NRSV and NIV running neck-and-neck, depending on what exact search parameters you use. And while I can't give you hard numbers on this, the first page of search results for each do show an interesting pattern. Searching for "New Revised Standard Version" mostly turns up results in journals that look like academic biblical scholarship. Searching for "New International Version" shows a bit more randomness: first, a journal called "Social Justice," an entry in the British Medical Journal, another entry in the British Medical Journal, the Accounting Historians Journal, a journal called Leonardo, Political Theory, BioScience, and some articles specifically dedicated to reviewing the NIV. Now, don't get me wrong, there's actual academic biblical scholarship showing up in both searches. But, as far as I can see, the results more or less agree with your observation about theology exams. The NRSV looks like it's preferred in academic settings that study the Bible specifically, while it looks the the NIV leans somewhat in the direction of being the Bible that happens to be handy when a doctor happens to quote a Bible verse in a medical journal article.Alephb (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"a journal called "Social Justice,"" That is probably Social Justice (journal), a political science journal covering various aspects of social justice. I do not think it has any connection to Social Justice (periodical), the defunct Roman Catholic periodical published by Charles Coughlin. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

no sisters?

Currently, the article has this: "The motive for Cain's crime is typically assumed to be jealousy, but the narrative never states this, nor does it provide a reason for God's rejection of his sacrifice, nor does it explain where he found a wife (later commentators decided she must have been his sister, although Genesis mentions no sisters).[2]" However, Genesis does in fact mention sisters of Cain and Abel (Genesis 5:4). Nevertheless, I didn't want to overwrite what is in a cited source on the basis of my own reading of the Bible, so I went and read the relevant reference (John Byron). It turns out Byron does not go as far as to say that the Bible doesn't mention Cain's sisters. So, because that part of the sentence is unreferenced and at odds with a pretty clear reading of the Bible, I'm going to remove the claim that the Bible doesn't mention Cain's sisters. Alephb (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me :) PiCo (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

My recent partial revert

I want to thank User:Camino1 for an edit which partially improved the article, and then explain why I did a partial revert. A few edits ago, the second sentence in the Origins section read:

Like almost all the persons, places and stories in the Primeval history (the first eleven chapters of Genesis), they are mentioned nowhere else in the Bible, a fact that indicates that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5] The source cited was making an argument about the date of the Primeval History on the basis of the fact that the rest of the Hebrew Bible was unaware of it. Unfortunately, "Bible" means different things to different people.

User:Camino1, noticing that the New Testament does in fact refer to to these two, changed the text to:

Like almost all the persons, places and stories in the Primeval history (the first eleven chapters of Genesis), they are mentioned in Matthew, 1 John, Jude and Hebrews. It is possible that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5] This corrected was seemed like a mistaken claim, but obscured the argument being made by the Wikipedia article. So I changed the text again, to this more accurate reading that reflects the reasoning in the source cited. Camino1 then noticed that he'd accidentally introduced a faulty claim into the text and revised again:

They are mentioned in Matthew, 1 John, Jude and Hebrews. It is possible that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5]

However, I think we can restore the previous state of the text as long as we are careful to disambiguate what "Bible" is being referred to, in order to more clearly reflect what Sailhamer, the cited source, is getting at. So I changed the text partially back to the original form, but incorporated Camino1's insight about the previous text being not quite right:

Like almost all the persons, places and stories in the Primeval history (the first eleven chapters of Genesis), they are mentioned nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, a fact that indicates that the History is a late composition attached to Genesis to serve as an introduction.[5] Alephb (talk) 06:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's restore some older material (then keep improving)

Hello all,

The article at present seems, to me, very deficient—lacking in classical commentary on this vitally important story. I was gathering some sources to make additions when I checked the history and saw that User:PiCo deleted several sections in a single edit on 23 February 2017. Respectfully, I disagree with such a sweeping deletion of relevant sourced material and propose to restore most if not all of the former text.

Admittedly some things in the old text could be improved. One crucial addition should be the oft-suggested connection between Cain (קין) and get/obtain (קנה) in Genesis 4:1. This and other ideas about the name of Cain are part of the tradition and belong on this Wikipedia article—maybe even more than do the Indigo girls. I hope people will agree that it's worth trying to get this right, even if the former version was not perfect.

Also, the presentation of the text of Genesis 4 could be improved.

• Currently, the section contains translations of verses 1–9 and 15–17, with verses 10–14 summarized. (It's been this way for a while.) Why not give the whole translation uninterrupted? Why not maybe even present the whole thing side by side with the Hebrew? The whole thing is short enough and important enough to justify giving our readers the best possible presentation.
• The notes from Robert Alter interspersed with the text are more distracting than helpful. For example he's probably right that "האדם" should not be translated as a proper name but does it really make sense to call the reader's attention to this fact three words into the passage, and without other points of view to compare? I'm not against using this translation but maybe these notes could be gathered together with the first footnote which goes to Alter 2008. And the issues they address should be discussed at greater length in the article. (Restoring the earlier material is the first step.)

Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As for האדם, what other points of view are there? Are there seriously any mainstream qualified scholars of Hebrew who think it should be translated as a proper name here? Alephb (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

For reasons unclear to me, Christian bibles mostly use "Adam". Most other translations from Hebrew I've seen use "the man". A web search indicates that Alter is not alone in using "the human". I hope it is clear from my comment that I am not objecting to use of the latter translation.

An ideal version of the article would, I think, enlighten the reader about such nuances of translation, different etymological possibilities, and other ideas which connect closely to the original text. groupuscule (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. My personal opinion would be to leave the haadam note alone unless we can find any reliable commentators (as opposed to translations) that hold to a proper name interpretation (I don't think there will be any). In general, I'd lean towards restoring at least some of the deleted material as well, although I'd be interested to see what PiCo says about the deletion. PiCo does a lot of shortening articles, and in some cases that's been a godsend, because some articles get really excessively long and disorganized. In this specific case, though, I'd be interested to see things like the etymologies of the names included in the article. As to why the whole translation isn't given uninterrupted, I wonder if that might have something to do with copyright. I'm not sure where exactly Wikipedia draws the line on long quotations. Alephb (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a worthy goal would be a Wikipedia-native translation side-by-side with Hebrew and with textual commentary from multiple sources. Just throwing it out there.

To expand a little on the content of the deleted text: The old version encompassed both "Cain" and "Abel" as solo identities (each with an infobox, which is like ensoulment on Wikipedia ;-) ). They're just about the only major characters in Genesis lacking their own private Wikipedia pages, so they should at least get their own sections and artwork describing them individually. Also essential is the theme of agricultural vs. nomadic conflict which is pervasive in the secondary literature and ought to be elaborated further. groupuscule (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I can see a case for adding individual sections back in. But I'm guessing that the Wikipedia-native translation with textual commentary would turn into a real swamp. Wikisource has a project along those lines [1], and it needs all sorts of work still. Especially given the WP:RS and WP:V policies, we'd need to source all the claims made in those notes. Alephb (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Alephb here. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the link to the wiki-bible. Very interesting if a little weird in parts. I would still recommend quoting the whole passage (verses 1–18), and including line numbers (which Alter does have, in the margin, in his original version). As far as the Alter footnotes go maybe there is a way to include them right at the bottom of the blockquote so its clear to readers that they're part of the quotation. Meanwhile I've restored the old material with minimal editing, grouped under "Jewish and Christian interpretations". Clearly a lot more could be done, and maybe some of the material which is currently in the long "Cain" section actually belongs at the top of the Interpretation section. groupuscule (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture

The Body of Abel Found by Adam and Eve by William Blake, 1826

What's wrong with the picture I addded?The New Classic (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

So, so much! It only shows one of them for a start. It isn't very clear, and shows an obscure subject from Blake's personal mythology. Why do you always think Blake the best choice for lead pic? Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but it clearly shows BOTH of them, and no it does not show an obscure subject from Blake's mythology, it shows the Biblical scene of Cain fleeing from the Garden if Eden after his murder.The New Classic (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Or have I misinterpreted the picture? Could you please explain?The New Classic (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)y

No, I did not. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. All your arguments are nonesense, as anyone with clear sight can detect. For this reason, I will put the picture backThe New Classic (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Abel is a corpse at the time, not clearly shown and largely hidden by his parents. The lead image should show the best-known moment, the fight. I have moved the Blake lower down. This mania for inserting Blake images at the top of articles will continue to lead you into trouble if you persist. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

TNC, I cannot fathom your urgency to keep this image on the page, after two editors have reverted your change and asked you nicely to discuss it here. If you are right that the image belongs, why not convince them that you're right? Haste may prove counterproductive for your own ends.

That being said, I must admit to agreeing that the Blake illustration belongs here, and indeed to considering it the best of the images currently on the page. It has all four characters (no twin sisters, though) and it depicts more of the story, showing the body and the grave from the murder, as well as Cain's fear and subsequent flight.

By the way, there are many artistic representations of Cain and Abel and in my opinion it would not hurt the page to display a tastefully curated gallery of them somewhere in the cultural portrayals department. Cheers, groupuscule (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)God

Thanks for both the advice and support, groupuscule.The New Classic (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod, ost editor shere agree that it is best to keep it on the talk page. The New Classic (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod, why move it down to Etymology? it has nothing to do with etymology, and it Abel being a corpse is not a hindrance or a negative quality, like, at all. The New Classic (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, anyone can see that he is not hidden by his parents, he is in front of them.The New Classic (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The only parts of Abel that are hidden are the ones covered by arms, and they barely cover him.The New Classic (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a great fan of Blake, but the Rubens painting seems better for the lead pic since it shows the struggle.

The Blake is now appropriately in the section "Jewish and Christian interpretations," which is exactly what it is--a Christian interpretation of the aftermath of the slaying. YoPienso (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, with User:Finnusertop's edit summary (22 May), we now have 3 editors who don't believe it belongs at the top, one who does (User:The New Classic), and groupuscule, who likes the picture, but expresses no view on the right position. So I hope this is finally settled. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both the above editors, even though, were it up to me personally as grand vizier of the Cain and Abel Wikipedia page, I might have chosen to use Blake's illustration in the lead. Actually I hope that even as grand vizier I would have the sense to respect the judgment of others in cases like these. It's partly a matter of taste — and it's not that big a deal — and placing the image in the Interpretations section seems like an excellent compromise. TNC, you are clearly a passionate and intelligent person, and I hope you will direct your energies into some more harmonious and fruitful Wikipedia editing activities. Sincerely, groupuscule (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks groupuscule, I promise I will.The New Classic (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The mormon wild cain

I was also puzzled by this recent addition then noticed that the article already included some information on the Master Mahan, with only the primary source "Moses 5:31". On the other hand the article itself has more sources. I still think that having one of the rare images of the article dedicated to this would be undue, thus I agree with Doug Weller about the revert. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Cultural portrayals and references

Someone has recently added actors to some tv-series/film here. I think this is not needed, that info is in those articles, and the popculture-section needs to be kept small-ish. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Got impatient, trimmed section [2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, probably the right call. I'd say, let the trivia sections grow indiscriminately, and then when they start looking too long, cut 'em by 2/3. Alephb (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I might try to change this from list to text (but there´s not a lot I want to cut), similar to Otto_Skorzeny#In_fiction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Metallurgy and Agriculture

There's a problem in our article. Here's the text I'm thinking of:

<<Abel is thought to derive from a reconstructed word meaning "herdsman", with the modern Arabic cognate ibil now specifically referring only to "camels". Cain is thought to be cognate to the mid-1st millennium BC South Arabian word qyn, meaning "metalsmith". This theory would make the names descriptive of their roles, where Abel works with livestock, and Cain with agriculture—and would parallel the names Adam ("man," אדם‬) and Eve ("life-giver," חוה‬ Chavah).>>

Here's the problem as I see it. If Cain is named qyn for "metalsmith", then how is this descriptive of his role as an agriculturalist? I have two guesses as to what might have happened here. First, maybe there's some kind of subtle association between metalworking and agriculture that should be spelled out here. Second, maybe someone's worked up a synthesis of multiple sources in a way that turns out incoherent.

I might get back and try to sort through this, but for now I thought I'd at least mark the problem in case someone else wanted to take a crack at it.Alephb (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Speculation: Agriculture is easier with plows and other tools of metal, and there might be some connection with Tubal-Cain, "forger of all instruments of bronze and iron". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

True. But there's a completely different direction one could just as easily take. Take tinkers, Romanies, and even Kenites (and as spelled in Hebrew "Kenite" is just "Cain" plus a vowel; and the name "Cain" is even used as a collective for the group) have all been described as nomadic groups with a penchant for metallurgy. I think a lot of this comes down to whether "nomads" are viewed as a pre-agricultural people who just haven't gotten into technology yet, or as a people pursuing a parallel lifestyle that intersects economically and otherwise with sedentary folk. I hope I'm not wandering too far off topic here.Alephb (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies

Recent additions of text to this article include an entire section called "Discussion with God", which is sourced solely to "Youjin, Chung (2011). Conflicting Readings in the Narrative of Cain and Abel. pp. 248, 249." The formatting suggests that this is a book -- though it doesn't give the publisher.

As a matter of fact, the reference is to an article, which interested editors can find here: [3]. The article appears in the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, which, though it calls itself "peer-reviewed", isn't an academic journal in the ordinary sense, as one might guess from the oddities that got past proofreading on the first page ("double-burden", "double-betrayals", "reverse-drama", "Ancient Near Eastern Literature").

For a sample of the kinds of things this journal publishes, consider Baptism in the Holy Spirit vs Spirit Possession in the Lowland Philippines: Some Considerations for Discipleship, which contains an error at the very beginning where it begins a sentence without the quotation mark that ought to begin it. The article, to put it bluntly, sets out to create a framework for making sure that lowland Filipinos experience the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" without accidentally winding up "demon-possessed".

Here's some enlightening excerpts:

(1) "Many respondents said that the demon possessed walk and talk differently, describing such things as removing their clothes, talking incoherently with bad words, becoming stronger than normal, mental derangement, loss of consciousness, and going crazy. I personally witnessed this kind of behavior once when a lady at an evangelistic rally we were conducting came up to me, started tugging on my shirt and continually repeating John 14:6 in flawless English. I sensed that there was demonic activity going on, but felt I should wait until later in the evening to deal with it."

(2) "Also, as Roger Stronstad notes, the activity of the Spirit in the OT was mainly prophetic in nature, whereas demonic spirits possess Filipino spiritual practitioners mainly for healing and divination.

(3) "People that have been involved in animistic practices, especially if they have experienced actual demon possession, need to be set free. Amulets, talismans and other animistic paraphernalia need to be destroyed by the user (Acts 19:18-19)."

(4) "Only recently has it dawned on me that this falling to the floor is what often happens when spiritual practitioners become demon possessed."

I don't think it needs to be said that this kind of journal isn't what Wikipedia uses for building its articles. Alephb (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Relationship with the Ground

The section "Relationship with the Ground" needs some attention. Unfortunately, I don't have my usual access to the required journal article right this moment, but the section is filled with vague references and seems to be suggested something unclear -- is it saying the earth literally assisted Cain in killing Abel?

If I remember, I'll look back at this once I get access restored, but for the moment I'm out of luck. Alephb (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't access it through the Yale alumni portal, but the 1st para says:

"It has almost become a truism that the ground in Gen 1-11 is a character in its own right.1 While many scholars repeat this insight, few consider the underlying rationale. What is gained by presenting the ground as a character, an agent capable of interacting with others? What motivates the writer of Genesis to make the ground a third party in the human-divine drama? In this article I address these questions by looking closely at the story of Cain and Abel in Gen 4:1-16, with particular attention to verses 9-12. I begin by relating Cain to the characters of Adam and Noah in order to highlight the way in which themes and issues appear

'See,e.g., Kristin M. Swenson, “Care and Keeping Hast ofEden:Gen4:l-16in Light of Gen 2-3,” Int 60 (2006): 373-84,here 381,http://dx.d0i.0rg/l0.1177/002096430606000402: Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville: Abingdon. 2005), 38; Michael Welker, Creation and Reality, trans. John F. Hoffineyer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 42. For a premodern example of this line of interpretation, see Bruce N. Fisk, “Gaps in the Story, Cracks in the Earth: The Exile of Cain and the Destruction of Korah in Pseudo-Philo (Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum 16)," in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jnvish Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture, ed. Craig A. Evans. 2 vols., LSTS 50-51 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 2:20-33."

The author is a Duke PhD student although a bit more than that.[4][5] But I still don't think this is enough - maybe we should use her sources. Doug Weller talk 19:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a House episode.

The URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_and_Able" redirects here from the List of House Episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.84.179 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, that particular episode doesn't seem to have a separate article. Will fix the wikilinks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)