Talk:Curse and mark of Cain

Untitled

For very old discussions see: /Archive001

Mormonism/LDS

This article currently includes two sections in sequence discussing the subject from the perspective of Mormon theology. I suggest these be merged, even if there is some distinction between the larger Mormon movement and its most significant organized body. I am not qualified to write on the subject, but hope someone with a knowledge of the material can condense it sensibly.72.49.66.68 (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are there two sections on Mormonism/LDS on this subject? That seems to be a bit much. Even if they have unique doctrines devoting this much space to the beliefs of one sect seems to be "unbalanced." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leewsb (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the LDS section somewhat. Multiple references making the same point are redundant and I've removed some of those redundancies while leaving the first reference intact. Additionally I've streamlined some of the text and added information. I know that one individual has reverted one of my previous attempts to clean up the Mormonism section which was also redundant. If we are going to talk about the details of LDS/Mormon doctrine I suggest that those finer points be moved to the article on Blacks and The LDS Church. Leewsb (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove the following section as the preceding text in that section has already demonstrated that this was a belief of Mr. Smith and there is really no need to have multiple references. Again, I think that expositions on the details of LDS theology/doctrines should be moved to appropriate articles on LDS beliefs. This article is meant to be an overview of the origin and effect of this particular 19th and 20th century belief.

Further evidence that Smith believed persons of African descent were descendants of Cain is found in his translation of the Book of Abraham, published in 1842 which states:

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden.

When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land. [...]

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

--Leewsb (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the block of text above due to the reasons stated. --Leewsb (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Cain as a Vampire

I heard a long time ago that "the mark" really meant that Cain was turned into a vampire. The furthest text I could find of this dates back to victorian times. The passage "opened its mouth and drunk the blood of thy brother" alongside that he was forced to wander the earth forever was supposed to be evidence that he craved blood and became immortal. It was also argued that since his children were never given dates on how long they lived that they must've lived forever too. Add to the fact that Enoch was destroyed with the deluge gave an explanation that "running water" was a weakness for those affected with vampirism.

Is this where the videogame character Kain originated?

+Here is a good link on that topic:[1]

Funnily enough it ties into Lilith, a widely accepted vampire.

I don't know about "Kain" but the whole vampire origin is the basis for the roleplaying game Vampire: The Masquerade. I've seen in a few unrelated books and novels myself as well. --Goblin 22 December 2005 08:39 (UTC)

Anyone care to make this addition? I'm feeling lazy.

Here is an interesting tidbit from the Life_of_Adam_and_Eve

xxii 1 And Adam carried Eve and the boy and led

2 them to the East. And the Lord God sent divers seeds by Michael the archangel and gave to Adam and showed him how to work and till the ground, that they might have fruit by which they and all their generations might live.

3 For thereafter Eve conceived and bare a son, whose name was Abel; and Cain and Abel used to stay together.

4 And Eve said to Adam: 'My lord, while I slept, I saw a vision, as it were the blood of our son Abel in the hand of Cain, who was gulping it down in his mouth. Therefore I have sorrow.'

5 And Adam said, 'Alas if Cain slew Abel. Yet let us separate them from each other mutually, and let us make for each of them separate dwellings.'

Mhocker (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

YHWH -> God

I have gone through and changed the references to YHWH to God. It seems to me this is langauge is more plain and clear. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker 07:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Other LDS scripture reference

The article currently states:

"Nevertheless, according to other parts of Smith's translation, the descendants of Cain were destroyed in the deluge. This has led some to understand that the black people referred to by Smith were not the same as modern African peoples.

Despite Smith's idea that the descendants of Cain did not "mix" with the descendants of Adam, one of Smith's associates later argued that Cain's descendants did indeed survive the flood via the wife of Ham, son of Noah. ..."

This is further clarified in Abraham Chapter 1, vss. 21-27 where it is not only stated that Ham's wife was of the lineage of Cain, but also preserves the denial of Priesthood to her descendants. --AustinHolloway 2 May 2006.

Depictions of Cain and the mark in popular culture

Something that might be of some use for the article is a section on uses of Cain in pop culture. I know that he was a fairly prominent side character in The Sandman and its companion series The Dreaming, and that in those series the mark was depicted as a ring on his forehead that was either darker or more pale than his skin (depending on the story). Just a thought. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any ideas on what the acctual mark was so far horns is the only explanation with a source

It shall be done, that no more of this rhetoric spout by thoughtless fools will be free to tarnish true knowledge within a thought process! In other words who agrees that this "unsigned coward" has obviously fallen of the rocker!

The below text was up a bit but that was some thoughtless banter that if the OP wants it back then they can debate their mind with FACTS to provide reason for such tripe to clutter thoughtful knowledge!

"look the the mark was not black its white thats what drove them north to the woods the thin hair wasnt good under the sun the white skin was getting burnt they had to think of new ways of life since life the way it was meant to be was denied to them. Think about the white race if you harm them isnt the punnishment 7 fold look at the atom bomb. come on poeple we are the descendents of cain and God allowed satan to put thoughts into our minds to create what weve created and make a home for the wicked and allow the evil to dwell amoung us.in the end of times the antichrist will come with the power to fool any who hear his words but he will be in the flesh as Jesus was when He was here so how do you think he will fool the whole world at once the satalites the t.v.s radios God made it hard on him but gave him a fighting chance with the descendents of Cain as his help mates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.47.81 (talk • contribs) "

The Flood

Noah was not a descendant of Cain, so nobody alive today would be affected by the curse. Cains descendants would have perished in the Deluge. All this argument about the mark being black skin is ludicrous. 76.2.48.230 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right, assuming that 1 - Cain's descendants inherited the curse; 2 - Noah's sons didn't marry any of Cain's progeny; and 3 - the mark or curse was black skin. None of which we know or don't know for certain. -Visorstuff 21:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark of protection

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my reading of the passage about the "mark of Cain" (as opposed to the curse) suggests that it signifies God's protection...

"Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold."

i.e. whoever harms the carrier of the mark shall suffer the wrath of god to the power of seven. What am I missing? --Kick the cat 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Eve were black with thick hair and strong genes sorry folks but im white and i can say i firmly believe this.Why would God make Adam or Eve white?? Look at how much time and money we spend on tanning ...why??? because if not we look pale, kinda sick, right?So think about, it in the bible someone was cursed and they were made to be as a leper with skin white as snow. Gods children are thge oppressed they are scattered throught ther nations and were sold into slavery and drivin from there holy land where there scriptures and tablets were beware of the false Jews and you know what beware of alot more then them my name is Steve and ill be more then glad to answer any ?s also prove im right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.47.81 (talk • contribs)

What say you about the light that passes through a prism to prove its true colors? Is this light anything but grey or is your mind color blind? Glamor is the tanning beds best friend! Steve please show us the light... that does not shine bright... deep in the heart of your MIND!

Good point about the mark of protection, therefore it would be illogical to use it to justify killing bearers of it. As for the part about Adam and Eve being dark black, I have been told that they were medium tone, because they had to have had the genes for all the skin tones. Of course that assumes they were the same color. It is possible that skin color genes were lost in the flood, as well as afterwards in prehistoric times. Rds865 (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Overview?

As I read this article, I get the strong impression that we are talking about specific US-centric religious interpretations of the story of Cain, which were used as support for racist practices over the last couple of centuries. Would this be a fair summary? If so, I would think it would be an improvement to put an overview in the leading paragraph to this effect.Trishm 09:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Other Points Of View Snooppy 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia, so if I've made any mistakes posting please let me know. I always look for provocative angles that haven't been explored. I mean no disrespect to Mormonism. I simply want to understand human nature by understanding the historical truth about what happened. Of importance to me is the pressure that Mormonism was under from other religious and political sects and the possible compromises it had to make in order to appease descension within its own group. The following is what I got out of this discussion.

In terms of the support for racist practices, I'd like to know more. For example, was the curse used to support the racist practices we know about, such as slavery of blacks, AND practices that were more severe such as lynching?

I speculate that it doesn't support lynching, given that, it is said in the bible something to the effect that God would condemn anyone who hurt the person designated as the descendant of Cain.

It seems there are protective aspects of the curse that have been ingored in American politics out of fear, thus giving more power to ultra conservative hate groups. But this is mere speculation. In terms of racist practices, I would like to see this fully elaborated, and I'd like to know specifically if people, such as spiritual leaders, maybe even Brigham Young, did or didn't refer to the story of Cain to prevent such extreme things as the lynching of Blacks. Its bad enough that there was a spiritual compromise made in terms of applying the curse of Cain to blacks.

See, my greatest fear is that no one, including the spiritual leaders, uses the bible to save people, unless the people are in their "tribe". This is tribalism or sectarianism. Perhaps the same as we see in Iraq today (Overspeculation). The fear here is that Mormonism was at some point unspiritual, inhumane, hypocritical, because spiritual leaders were merely building up the ego of the tribe at the expense of another group of outsiders. In the spirit of honesty these fears must be addressed, so that all people can lay to rest the controversy.

Another aspect is a more anthropological view of the story of Cain as society perhaps modified its agriculture from producing only crop plants to producing animals for slaughter and consumption. Since this involves the distruction of something sacred (ie. the gift of conscious mammalian life), the new practice needs the blessing of God. The story of Cain thus serves to give praise and holiness to a new agricultural practice that would otherwise be looked upon with elitist derision by farmers who only grew crops. This is mere speculation. I further speculate that the story is trying to admonish those who had nomadic tendencies (Cain) and praising those who were sedentary (Abel). This is the basis of agrarian civilization (before factory farming of course). Again, this is mere speculation, but it rings true to me and I would like it to be expanded upon, by an anthropologist who understood th real history of the people at the time the story was written and would be able to provide sufficient evidence.

If Mormon leaders were only practicing tribalism (as I do fear!), then the problem with expounding any anthropological view, is that, since the new agricultural practice was already integrated into agrarian life, this anthropological angle really doesn't benefit anyone within the tribe in terms of buidling thier ego and/or casting aspersion on others outside the tribe. But to clarify this we need to ask; did the Mormon leaders preach an interpretation of Cain in which no one living was demonized? Snooppy 09:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Abel was a shepherd, which is more nomadic than Cain's pre wandering farming. as far as people never using the Bible to save people of another tribe, consider the Christian Peacemakers. Don't make broad general statements, like people never do this or that. Rds865 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern Christian reactions against racial interpretations

This section has a number of errors in it. Under the list of "black" individuals in the Bible Job is included.Neither Jewish lore or other lore I've ever uncovered lists Job as such. His location in the land of Uz is generally believed to be eastern Israel or Jordan. This should as least have a reference to where it came from. -- Black arrow 09:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Was Neanderthal Man the descendant of Cain, as suggested on www.CreationFoundation.co.uk? Putting aside the question of chronology for the moment, Neanderthal matches well with Cain -- with the author of "In Search of Neanderthal" suggesting that Neanderthal acquired his ferocious look because "Perhaps it provided a signal, even a threat to others" -- i.e. a clear "mark" warning them that here was a violent person, one best avoided.

It seems significant that DNA studies support this theory by showing Neanderthal to be an early and separate side branch rather than a direct ancestor of modern man -- a race that developed apart, on the fringes of the mainstream, just as Genesis suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.92.184 (talk • contribs)

I doubt a discussion on www.CreationFoundation.co.uk is sufficient to show verifiably that this theory is notable within the community of creationism "experts". If notability can be established, it can go in the article. Without really looking into the issue, I kind of doubt whether this theory has yet passed the threshhold from crackpot theory to crackpot-theory-with-a-following, which is required for inclusion in Wikipedia. COGDEN 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

According to some scholars, some early interpretations of the Bible in Syriac Christianity combined the "curse" with the "mark", and interpreted the curse of Cain as black skin. (Goldenberg, p. 180). Relying on rabbinic texts, it is argued, the Syriacs interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis 4:5 ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.") as implying that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color. (Id.) The permanent change could have been leprous or white skin as well. It is peculiar that the the mitochondrial (first woman)Eve has been archeologically proven to be black african features[citation needed], but somehow during biblical times the first people were "white" and cursed to be "black". Maybe the mark of Cain was to be turned "white" in an environment where everyone else was "black". That too would make a person stand out. Sounds awfully speculative there towards the end. I'm dumping the last few sentences, but I think that second viewpoint should be addressed somehow. I just don't know enough on the subject to write it myself. Sameer Kale 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-racial interpretations

Don't we need some material on earlier interpretations? I think I read somewhere that some ancient or medieval text said the mark of Cain was a horn, and Beowulf includes a bunch of monsters as Cain's descendants. 74.227.173.139 16:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

mormon fundimentalists

The mormon fundimentalists are not I repeate not a small branch of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are not associated with the church in any shape,form,or fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.102.163.132 (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Which translation?

The verses from the Bible were just changed from the King James Version to a more-recent translation. We should decide on which translation should be used before someone reverts it back. — Val42 03:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A thought

Is it possible that the mark of Cain speaks about an emotion rather than a physical mark on the body or color of skin. Consider the fact that no one had ever been killed before. So the mark of Cain has to be any act of aggression, anger, frustration, jealousy, envy, deceit, corruption. Which prior to Cain actions had never been seen before. This transcends race for we are all "Cain until we are Able" literally. Thus any act other than a Godly act is an act of Cain, which is immediately recognized. KiNazir (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC) um, no, but if you have a source of a book or some people believing that then post it up there. Rds865 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Racial Themes?

While it certainly has some relevance here, why is the bulk of this article concerned with the history of racial discrimination by religious groups? Perhaps that should be given an article on its own and only brielfy mentioned, with a link, in this article, which is about the mark of Cain and not the misunderstandings of that mark in regards to race. 74.193.145.25 (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Though this article is quite interesting, it doesn't really deal with the general "Mark of Cain", just one possible version of it. And again, though very interesting, I don't see what the rascist view of the mark has to do with this article at all...this is supposed to be about the mark and curse themselves, where as this article is predominantly about the political aspects of one of the possible marks. This is like writing an article on Richard Lionheart and dedicating 3/4 of the article to his possible homosexuality. Maybe a seperate article for the political aspects of this one possible mark? Wolf 63.76.209.49 (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. While brief statements on the religious implications and their social impacts is acceptable as part of the topic, it seems that this article has lost focus. Perhaps there should be a separate article detailing specifically the religious implications.--Leewsb (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Separate Mormonism and LDS sections

Is there any reason that these are two separate sections? The second (LDS) section seems to rely over strongly on quotations and largely covers the same information as the Mormon section. Im not very familiar with the subject and would prefer not to be the one to the merging, but I might if no one else is willing to do it. Black Platypus (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Article on the Subject

can be found here: http://www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/The_Death_of_Cain._The_Worlds_First_Murder3_Epilogue1.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.112.150 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

About that quote from Bruce R Mconkie from the talk "All Are Alike unto God" #22, I couldn't find that quote anywhere online. Could you give me a link? I searched the LDS.org website and the talk titled "All Are Alike unto God" was by Howard W Hunter and I didn't find that quote anywhere in that talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.7.85 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sagittal keel

Has anyone heard the anthropological concept that Cain was a pre-sapien and that he bore some ancestral trait like a sagittal keel or subnasal prognathism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.45.92 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Include the Mormonism/LDS sections as subsections under the Protestant section

From a religious studies and anthropological point of view the Mormon/LDS sects are branches of Protestantism and should be included in the religious response of that overall section. I realise that adherents and counter cultists will both disagree, but those are statements of faith and these are intended to be NPOV articles so how about we stick with the academic classifications?--Leewsb (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Modern opinion on racial interpretations

The section includes a list of claimed arguments against the racist interpretation of the mark of Cain, but none of these are sourced. While it's obvious that these arguments have been made, in their current form they read like an amateur list from a drive-by editor. The individual arguments need to be sourced and attributed within the prose.99.39.88.159 (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Zohar "easier to read" edits' loss of accuracy

As of now, the article credits the Zohar as the source where the "mark of Cain was the letter vav" theory originated. The wording of the source is that it was one of the 22 letters of the Torah. The only place vav is singled-out on the page is by the commentary added by Berg. Also the commentator is not even sure himself if it was the letter vav at all as indicated by the question mark in his note:

God inscribed the Hebrew Letter Vov ? onto the forehead of Cain.

It is possible, but unlikely, that the Zohar specifically singles-out vav elsewhere but if Berg missed it, I doubt such a source exists in the Zohar's Aramaic text. The article shouldn't say the Zohar mentions something when it doesn't.

I am editing the section back to its original 22 letters of the Torah wording to preserve accuracy rather than teach original theories of questionable origin.
         —Thelazyleo (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It originally said 'The Zohar, a Kabbalah text, states that the mark of Cain the letter was vav and that it was was one of the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.' The source quoted says '458. "And Hashem set a mark upon Kayin lest anyone finding him should smite him" (Beresheet 4:15). This is one of the 22 letters of the Torah, WHICH IS THE LETTER VAV that He placed upon him for his protection.' I didn't even add the capitalization there. It does say that it was Vav, and it is not in the commentary by Berg. If you can find another translation of the Zohar that does not say Vav, feel free to point out that this is disputed by different translators, or perhaps we could go with something like "one of the 22 letters, some suggest vav." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, the credit goes to Berg's commentary on the Zohar, not the Zohar itself as the article is mis-crediting! There is no mention of "the letter vav" in the Aramaic only that it was one of the 22 letters. Berg's translation writes "WHICH IS THE LETTER VAV" in caps to separate it from the literal translation (lowercase words). A literal translation can be obtained from Berg's translation and omitting all the capital words:

458. "And Hashem set a mark upon Kayin lest anyone finding him should smite him" (Beresheet 4:15). This is one of the 22 letters of the Torah, that He placed upon him for his protection. Rabbi Yehuda asked: Why is it written, "And it came to pass, when they were in the field"? A field signifies a woman. Thus, he rose and killed. For it is from the side of woman, that he inherited his murderous tendency, which is the aspect of Samael that brought death to the whole world similarly, Kayin was jealous of Hevel because of his wife, Rabbi Chiya said: The reason was as it is written that "Kayin was very angry, and his face fell" (Ibid. 5). It was because his offering was not accepted answered, and all the reasons were before him.

There is no mention of "the letter vav" in the above paragraph so the Zohar cannot be credited for that theory, rather the translator is the one to be credited or another source elsewhere such as the Rashi which states that it was one of the letters of God's name however Rashi never singles out Vav. Here is another source: http://books.google.com/books?id=cc6UlrEpnS8C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA29#v=onepage&q=&f=true. It quotes the Zohar that it was one of the twenty two letters of the Torah and set it upon him to protect him. There is no mention of the letter Vav in the quote since the Zohar never states which letter.

Your compromise of "one of the 22 letters, some suggest vav" would be acceptable.

         — Thelazyleo (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 76.104.33.28

I have put up a sockpuppet investigation for 76.104.33.28, because he is clearly 67.172.216.127 continuing his POV pushing with the racist bullshit verbatim outside of his ban. Just letting everyone know. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Shirik for quickly banning him, and he as offered to semi-protect the page if that anon finds another IP address. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Leading language?

Hi, folks. Been a looooooong time since I've edited at WP (2-3 years) and I'm unfamiliar with the new tagging system for OR, NPOV, citations, etc. But there are quite a few instances of leading language and weasel words in this article, such as "One must note" and "It must be remembered". Must one? Must it? Or how about we just stick to relating the facts and letting people decide what is notable?

I'm not sure what is the currently approved system for tagging and noting these concerns. Could someone please advise me on this? Thanks. Kasreyn (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it Ironic?

It is asserted the "mark" was an "act of irony" by God.

In what way was it "ironic"? It is not self-evident. Justification is required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.36.68 (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually read the rest of the sentence: "As an act of irony, the curse by God focused strictly on neutralizing the benefits of Cain's primary skill, cultivating crops." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent origin of Racial Interpretation

The topic above is subjective, controversial and somewhat "weird" to be in any ecyclopedia.

Egyptians, Turks and Syrians are not black neither were they in biblical times. Wether true, this information has no relevance to the issues discussed in this article.

This passage should not be in the main article and I propose its exclusion.

Popotão (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Cain Was Not the Beginning of the Black Race, Able Was most likely the Beginning of the White Race

Now first of all I will not be so arrogant as many have to proclaim to have all of the answers but this is just a deductive theory. The most likely scenario based on biblical and scientific evidence and based on the Bibles version of the creation of man is that Able was actually the beginning of the white race rather than Cain being the beginning of the black race.

Modern genetic and scientific discovery and the Bible says that life began in Africa in a hot region so if Adam and Eve were born of God in that region most likely they were of dark skin. Because to my knowledge there have never been many caucasians that are native to Africa or the middle eastern region. Therefore it is most likely that Adam and Eve were of darker skin and following that line of logic Able was actually the first white person rather than Cain being the first black person. It has already been proven that Africa is the cradle of the birth of humanity. So if there were some curse based on skin color (which I don't believe) the curse was upon Able not Cain. Afterall think about what a curse it would be to be born with non pigmented skin in a hot region when humans were still hunter-gatherers. Even Jesus was described as having hair like wool, like Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.169.138 (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Being that much of Christianity has been spread throughout the western world primarily by Europeans and White archeologists have been the primary explorers to research these things they over time with racial bias have projected all of the characters as white when in fact most were not caucasian at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.169.138 (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources: www.wikipedia.com, Out of Africa Theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.169.138 (talk • contribs)

You'll want to look over our reliable sourcing guidelines. Wikipedia actually is not accepted as a source for Wikipedia, because it is user-generated and not stable. Also, we don't take original research. We just summarize what is already published. Traditionally, Noah's son Japheth is considered the beginning of the white race, since the names of some of his kids sound kinda like certain Eurasian tribes. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to organize the article.

There are currently three sections about Mormonism; an imbalance by volume alone. This has not been fixed in four years, according to the talk page. There are many unsupported statements related to Mormons and Baptists that should be edited. I intend to merge some sections and delete unsupported statements. --Yammie2009 (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll help...   — Jasonasosa 08:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statue of Cain cover image nudity vs religious audience

Do we really need a picture of protruding gonads on the page? Most of the people looking at this article are religious folks coming here for input on holy matters. Can we keep this article safe for work in respect of our religious audience? If this was an article dedicated to the discussion of the human body, nudity is understandable like on other areas of wikipedia. But on this page, where you have people offended by the presence of porn, it is uncalled for. --Thelazyleo (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Objection: According to the English Oxford dictionary, it defines pornography as "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings." Although Vidal's statue does display gonads, I do not believe that its intention is to stimulate erotic feelings. It is more than just art, it is a historical statue that exists in the Tuileries Garden that was created by Catherine de Medicis after the French Revolution. The Cain statue was inaugurated in 1896. So, I argue that Vidal's Cain is not offensive to mainstream religious audiences and that wikipedia ought not placate to the 1% who might. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 12:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I didn't look into the context enough to understand you painted that green-skirted Neanderthal only to make a point about sculptured genitals, or I would have tried to come up with a more witty edit summary removing it. ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

lol... well at least someone found some humor in it. :)   — Jasonasosa 12:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Religious audiences don't have a problem with nudity, it's prudish audiences do. Since most of our audience would be from nations with at least nominal Christian majorities, I'd guess our religious audiences would be more be worried about helping the poor and oppressed and fighting exploitation by wanna-be religious authorities. Wait, damn, I guess we're not going to have much of a religious audience after all. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

wanderer?

This quote "Modern interpretation of the Hebrew verse 12 suggest that Cain went on to live a nomadic lifestyle as well as being excluded from the family unit.[" should probably be deleted. The fact he lived in a family unit, had kids who developed all kinds of technology & etc. kind of render this "modern interpretation" moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weedmic (talk • contribs) 13:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional reference

I won't add this to a section that needs clean-up, but when it gets cleaned-up, you should add The Skin of Our Teeth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skin_of_Our_Teeth TeigeRyan (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)