Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.

"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).

Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.

The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.

In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.

Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.

So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.

Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.



Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.

Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol.

But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts?

Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,,



How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because:
1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because:
1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because
1'') Cain carried it out partially

Of course I am just speculating.

You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it.

BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi?

Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view?

He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement.

From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'.

It has become 'much thought'?

It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement.

Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority?