To: Topica
Subject: Cain-6
Bcc: All, FreeAmerican, Muriel


It is natural that among pagans he should become a
patron god of Babylon. Babylon's patron god, whose name
appears in your King James Version, usually as Merodach,
although Mardach would be a more accurate translation, is
derived from Marad which means "to rebel," and Cain was
indeed a rebel. He is called in their legends the first born
of Eia.

Other legends say he was the eldest son of Ishtar
and Anu was his father. Cain was the first born of Eve.
Merodach is the god of agriculture. Cain was a tiller of the
soil, whereas Abel was primarily a herdsman.

The legends say that Merodach brought order out of
chaos by separating land from water and founding homes for
men. We say that Sargon, or Cain, reigned in this lower
swamp land, and directed the building of the dikes and
drainage canals that separated the waters from the land,
enough so they could build more permanent cities.

First John 3:12 recognizes that Cain was a son of
the evil one. Your King James Version does not use the word
"son," because the translators had to meet accepted
doctrine. In your King James Version it says (in verse 12),

"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew
his brother."

If you will turn to the third chapter of the Gospel
of Luke, in your King James Version Bible, you will find
that it gives the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It starts with
Jesus Christ and works backwards to Adam. As you know, in
your King James Version, where you find words printed in
italic type, these are words added by translators, which
were not actually written in the original languages and
manuscripts, because they were implied or understood in
those languages.

The English does not imply it, and therefore to make
the English idiom conform to the idiom of the Greek or the
Hebrew the translators have supplied the words in English
which were understood in the earlier languages, and they
appear in italics. Take your King James Version and look up
the genealogy of Jesus Christ (in Luke 3). It begins with
verse 23:

"And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years
of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was
the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the
son of Levi, which was the son of Meichi,"
And so on down through verse after verse. Note that
beginning with "the son of Heli," the words "the son" are in
italic type, indicating they were not written out in the
Greek. In other words, if you said "John was of William" it
meant in the Greek idiom "John was the son of William." I
have heard people try to deny this idiom in First John 3:12,
relative to Cain, stating it meant merely that Cain was
morally bad, like the evil one, not referring to any father
and son relationship.

If that be a true translation of the Greek, and only
referring to morality, let us apply it to Luke and see if it
is correct. We do not think that they developed a completely
new and different Greek language between the writing of the
Gospel according to Luke and the First Epistle of John.
Would it make sense to say Joseph, who was morally no better
than Heli, who was just as bad as Matthat?

Of course not. In the First Epistle of John, it is
the very same Greek language, and it says "Cain, who was of
that wicked one." As a matter of fact, if you look it up in
Weymouth's Modern English Translation, you will find he
translates it correctly: "Cain, who was a child of the evil
one..."

Furthermore, if you will look up the fifth chapter
of Genesis, which gives the descendants of Adam, you will
find that it nowhere lists Cain among them. With monotonous
regularity the Bible says that soandso begat whozis and
whozis begat suchandsuch, and so forth, verse after verse.

You cannot find any place in the Bible where it says
that Adam begat Cain, because he did not. The first time it
says Adam begat anyone is in the fifth chapter of Genesis,
verse 3: "Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat
a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his
name Seth."

People like to bring up verse one of Genesis,
chapter four, and try to make it mean something it does not
say, "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and
bare Cain."

The Bible records things that happen, but it does
not once say that there was a cause in sex relationship. We
could. tell you, with absolute truth, that upon a certain
evening we went to a movie, and the following morning the
sun rose in the east. We could prove it by witnesses, but we
did not say that the fact that we went to the movie was the
thing that caused the sun to rise in the east.