I agree, he is Abel's brother.
The scripture clearly says that Adam was Cain’s father.
I disagree. To me it clearly shows that Adam was not Cain's father.
You must decide that the ABSOLUTE CLARITY of the story narrative of Cain’s conception overrides any other obscure theory. One principle of bible interpretation is that “the clear interprets the obscure.”
There are levels of understanding to scripture. I agree that what some of us have been discussing is not what is commonly taught but when you study at a deeper level it becomes obvious, it becomes clear. Eyes and ears are opened. The scriptures given on these subjects are in His Word, they have always been in His Word. They are there for us to understand.
The question you raise from (Gen.4:1), I will agree, does sound odd if Adam is not Cain's father but, nevertheless, ALL other scripture tells us that he is not. I cannot explain (4:1) any better than has already been given in 2415 and 2234 by Diego1618.
A sidenote in my Bible explains "I have gotten a man from the Lord" should have been translated as "I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord". To me, that makes it much clearer.
.......Ping
There is nothing at all clear about it, friend. One has to ignore the plain reading of the verse and rely on inductive logic to garner support for it.
There are levels of understanding to scripture. I agree that what some of us have been discussing is not what is commonly taught but when you study at a deeper level it becomes obvious, it becomes clear. Eyes and ears are opened. The scriptures given on these subjects are in His Word, they have always been in His Word. They are there for us to understand.
The common term for this rationale is gnosis, as in gnosticism.
The question you raise from (Gen.4:1), I will agree, does sound odd if Adam is not Cain's father but, nevertheless, ALL other scripture tells us that he is not.
So far the only other Scripture I've seen presented in support of it is Scripture that doesn't exist (iow, an argument from silence such as "Cain isn't listed in this geneology"). On the one hand you say it sounds odd, but on the other say it is clear. Hardly a compelling case.
I cannot explain (4:1) any better than has already been given in 2415 and 2234 by Diego1618.
If that's the case then you really do have a problem, because Diego's explanation is sorely lacking. Diego moved quite quickly from "Eve was possibly carrying twins" to "These twins had different fathers" all because of the simple use of a Hebrew word meaning "again." Forgetting just for a moment the obvious context of the verse (in which sex, conception, birth and vocation are run through in the span of a couple dozen words)...which certainly makes plausible the notion that Cain and Abel were NOT twins but were conceived and birthed separately...the fact is that even if Cain and Abel were twins there is NO SUPPORT for the notion that they had different fathers as there is NO INDICATION or even HINT of the notion of Eve's being with someone other than her husband, Adam.
The theory being put forth is simply devoid of anything approaching sound exegesis and does pretty radical violence to fundamental logical and hermeneutical principles.