bible

Why is Cain’s line shown to be so inventive?

In Genesis 4:19-22, we read a short account of some of Cain’s decendents:

Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

It’s noticeable right away that this line is very inventive. They’re seemingly credited for:

  • Nomadic herding
  • Stringed instruments and pipes
  • Bronze and iron working

Possibly also the line is the first to build a city (Cain v. 17) and take two wives (Lamech, v. 19).

Given that the line starts with Cain who murdered his brother and who lives under a curse, and ends in this section with Lamech who is also a murderer, what is the author’s purpose in noting the inventions that came from Cain and his decendents? Is the author trying to somehow ameliorate their reputation? Or perhaps tarnish the their inventions by linking them to their character? Simply recording the history of a few items? Or something else?

Who wrote the Book of Daniel

What does it means to say that “Daniel wrote/Did not write the book of Daniel?” Are we saying: 1. Daniel did not produce the finish product but could have provided the notes 2. Daniel had nothing at all to do with the prod…

What is a "covenant of salt"?

In Numbers 18:19, God says the holy contributions made by the people of Israel belong to Aaron and his descendants forever, as a “covenant of salt”. I’ve never seen this term before. What does it mean?

In Romans 8:35 and 8:39, is it "Christ’s love" and "God’s love"? Or, "love for Christ" and "love for God"?

In Romans 8:35 and 8:39, is it “Christ’s love” and “God’s love” [subjective/objective]? Or, “love for Christ” and “love for God”? I can see it both ways but I think the context is about endurance and Paul is saying that nothing would be able to separate the saints from their love for God and his Christ. Here is the context which I modified from “love of” to “love for”:

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT):

Rom 8:35  Who shall separate us from the love for Christ? shall
tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or
peril, or sword?  Rom 8:36  As it is written, For thy sake we are
killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
 
Rom 8:37  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through
him that loved us [God].  Rom 8:38  For I am persuaded, that neither
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come,  Rom 8:39  Nor height, nor depth,
nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love for
God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

If it is “love for God” then the definite article refers to the love “shed abroad” in the believers’ hearts:

YLT

Rom 5:3 And not only so , but we also boast in the tribulations,
knowing that the tribulation doth work endurance; Rom 5:4 and the
endurance, experience; and the experience, hope; Rom 5:5 and the
hope doth not make ashamed, because the love of God hath been poured
forth in our hearts through the Holy Spirit that hath been given to
us.

Rom 8:28 And we have known that to those loving God all things do
work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose;

Why is the observation that "it was good" missing on the second day?

The account of the first six days of creation as found in Genesis 1 is highly stylized, though with variations. For instance, each day ends, “And there was evening, and there was morning—the (n)th day.”

One variation that jumps out pertains to the statement, “And God saw that it was good.” This phrase is present on each of the first six days, except that it is peculiarly absent on the second day. I do note that on the third day this statement appears twice, with its first appearance being after what feels like a continuation of the separation of waters begun on the second day. It’s absence is conspicuous enough, though, that it feels intentional on the part of the author. But what was the author trying to convey here? Why omit this otherwise repeated refrain?

Does πολιτείας imply citizenship status with Israel?

ὅτι ἦτε ἐν τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας
τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ
ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ

(Eph. 2:12 TR)

Paul makes a statement that “once” the Gentiles, apart from Christ, have no “citizenship” in Israel, and are “strangers from the covenants of promise”-the benefits of citizenship.

Furthermore, in vs 19, he says,

“ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἐστὲ ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι ἀλλὰ συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων καὶ
οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ”
implying, that such rights of citizenship are given in Christ.

Is this an accurate rendering of πολιτείας? Or is Paul simply making a rhetorical comparison, which the syntax allows him to do?

,

Does Revelation 22:5 contradict 1 Corinthians 15:28?

It appears that “so that God may be all in all” is saying “so that God alone will rule and God will rule alone”:

1Co 15:28 ISV But when everything has been put under him, then the
Son himself will also become subject t…