And yes, I know The Law came way after Cain and Able. I’m just showing that animals were not all that God accepted as offerings or sacrifices.
aaahhh what a difference a pronoun makes. I dont believe in the bloodlust or previous instructions or the cursed ground theory. If you read even the english translation you can tell how the author characterizes Cain’s offering as not that special and mundane. While Abels offering showed some care and thought. Abel took the first born and got the good parts for God. Abel regarded God ahead of anyone so the best parts were reserved for God alone. Cain just gave God an equal share of the harvest. So God liked the intentions of Abel, and because of this example was the tradition of sacrificing animals was started.
“Some” is an adjective, not a pronoun. (and frankly, I think that’s a rather reaching interpretation)
It would be an adjective it were phrased,
“Cain brought some fruits of the soil…”
since it was used
*“Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil…” *
it is a pronoun.
…if you read it with the emphasis on the “some”, my interpretation isnt that reaching.
The both brought some of their product; I don’t see how this pronoun/adjective/whatever is relevant.
I emboldened “Fat portions” on abels offering. If the line had said “Cain brought choice fruits from some of his harvest” then that would equal what Abel did.
In that regard, I would just say…God wanted meat…?
“Some” does not appear in the original Hebrew.
It specifies “fat ones” for Abel and does not characterize Cain’s offering at all. At any rate, I think it’s rather specious to dive on one adjective (“fat”) and cry eureka. It’s far from dispositive.
There was nothing wrong with Cain’s offering. The problem was Cain. Cain did not have a good relationship with God. See (**1 John 3:12 **)— Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.
Cain was just doing it because he had to. Kind of like people who go to church on holidays because that’s what they have always done. They don’t do anymore than that. You know?!
We must feel genuine sorrow for our sins, our relationship with God must be genuine. Read Psalm 51:16 and 17.
To say it was the wrong type of offering would be wrong, because of:
Lev 2:1-4— "'When someone brings a grain offering to the LORD, his offering is to be of fine flour. He is to pour oil on it, put incense on it
{2} and take it to Aaron’s sons the priests. The priest shall take a handful of the fine flour and oil, together with all the incense, and burn this as a memorial portion on the altar, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
{3} The rest of the grain offering belongs to Aaron and his sons; it is a most holy part of the offerings made to the LORD by fire.
{4} "'If you bring a grain offering baked in an oven, it is to consist of fine flour: cakes made without yeast and mixed with oil, or wafers made without yeast and spread with oil.
Abel gave God the best of what he had, also if you read on, into Leviticus, Fat of an animal was special. Read ** LEV 3:16 and LEV 17:6. Cain gave what he thought would be good enough. Besides, God was more concerned what was in their hearts. He knew their hearts and who was true to Him.
TORAH:“Abel became a keeper of sheep, and Cain became a tiller of the soil. In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock. The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed.”
KJV:“And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.”
Given the dearth of information that can be gleaned from these passages, I dont see an alternative. A lot of scriptures (like what Jersey Diamond posted) points to the same conclusion I did. It was more the intention Of Cain that was unfavorable to God rather than his actual offering.
Because the Israelites of the time the story was recorded were shepherds and not farmers.
But if I believed the stories were divinely inspired I would lean toward “because Cain’s sacrifice was not made with a generous a grateful spirit.” Why the Hell would God care whether the atoms were arranged in a breadfruit or a muttonchop.
Well, there’s at least one alternative that sticks out to me, and that’s what Diogenes posted: the anthopological theory that is explained in Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael.
I think Quinn got some stuff wrong in Ishmael, but he makes a very compelling argument about the creation myth of Genesis. It is a metaphor for the conflict between those who work the land (Cain) and those who don’t (Abel).
Cain, the murderer, lives. The agriculturalists, though they do not have the favor of god, inherit the earth.
Quinn says that the story was originally written by the people whom the agriculturalists were killing off, but was later adapted into the agriculturalist tradition.
Quinn makes a good case. You might want to look into it before dismissing it as an option.
Ignoring your rather desultory theological observations and dealing only with the question posed by the topic, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone strain quite so tiny a gnat. 
I was frankly blindsided by the assertion that cursing what the ground produces is not the same as cursing what the ground grows. I must admit I never saw that one coming. I’m tempted to respond by declaring that unclean is not the same as dirty, but then I’d feel silly.
:: agrees with cmkeller ::
That’s exactly the interpretation I always heard in Hebrew School too. (like Sunday School, but on a weeknight)
Notice the “firstling” bit: there’s an emphasis on how Abel brought the best stuff from his flock. Without a similar statement about Cain, one can assume he just picked up some leftover mouldy 'taters (or whatever).
Fenris
I think this story is hopelessly muddled, both in the original and in the various translations.
I don’t think there were any special instructions issued by God that did not happen to be written down in the Bible. Cain tried to do the right thing with what he had, but misinterpreted the signal God assumed everyone understood – ‘I want meat!’.
Cain took his rebuke to heart, and vowed that his next sacrifice would be the best he could muster. Not for him, though, a slab of icky fat from a bullock. He sacrificed the best and most precious piece of meat he could find – his brother Abel.
Much to his dismay, instead of being lauded, he was now in more trouble than he could imagine. You can almost see him shaking his head, saying to himself, ‘Sometimes a dirt farmer just can’t win! Who knew?’ John Steinbeck would have understood.
Another interpreation is that the instructions were, indeed, promulgated by God, but early man was just not used to the horrible details that show up every so often in the Bible, and didn’t get it completely right. It took many generations before man could handle the mind-numbing and -boggling trivia present in Leviticus, for example.
One says “some of the firstborn of his flock” and one says “some of the fruits of the soil”. If the second said “some of the best of the fruits of the soil” there would be a parallel. Since there’s not, there’s a clear message that Abel gave God some of the best stuff while Cain gave just some average stuff.
Fenris
Well, huh. This is fascinating, I had never realized that about grain offerings, and “some” vs. “fat parts”. I’ve been teaching from the same SS curriculum for 10 years, plus being taught myself from various mainstream conservative Protestant curriculums, and always the same take on the story for children is, “Abel followed instructions, Cain didn’t, Cain should have traded.”
Next time they ask teachers for feedback, I’m gonna send it in.
The way I was taught about this was it started in Gen 3:15
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The antagonism between people and snakes is used to symbolize the outcome of the titanic struggle between God and the evil one, a struggle played out in the hearts and history of mankind. The offspring of the woman would eventually crush the serpent’s head, a promise fulfilled in Christ’s victory over Satan, a victory in which all believers will share
- And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
- But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
Check Hebrews 11: 1-4
- Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
- For by it the elders obtained a good report.
- Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
- By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
It was not the sacrifices that displeased God but the manner in which they were offered.
By faith Abel offered a more and greater sacrifice. Thus his offerings were accepted, while those of Cain were rejected; for this, as the apostle says, was done by faith, and therefore he obtained witness that he was righteous or a justified person, God testifying with his gifts, the thank offering and the sin offering, by accepting them that faith in the promised Seed was the only way in which He could accept the services and offerings of mankind.
This reminds me of one of my favorite Stephen King stories:
Well, the OP was a religious question. Quinn calls the Cain and Abel story an allegory, a myth. I am not dismissing Quinns theory for invalidity. I just dont think it answers the OP’s question.
In the pseudepigrapha and other ancient folklore, Cain and Abel were each born with a twin sister. Cain’s was Jumella, who was betrothed to her brother Abel, and Abel’s was Aclima, who was betrothed to Cain. Cain was in love with his own twin and wanted her as his wife, which began his hatred of Abel.
In some versions of the tale, Cain an Jumella were only the half-siblings of Abel. Their father was actually the serpent in the Garden, who evidently gave Eve more than fruit salad recipes, and Cain’s paternity caused God to hate him as well.
Do a google of some combination of the following terms:
Jumella, Aclima, Cain, psuedepigrapha, Sammael, “Lord Byron”
(Byron’s play CAIN is based on the pseudepigrapha.)
This question comes up fairly often so you may want to search the SDMB archives as well.