That makes a lot of sense. It could also fit the equation. But, isn't there also some discussion about Cain having a "mark" that separated him and made him "noticeable" from others? I seem to remember something like a horn, or a color. To have that type distinction, wouldn't he need to haver a different father? I'll not travel to far down this path here.
Thinking about this a bit further:
If "beguiled" takes on the meaning of seduced, then אָכַל (to eat) wouldn't make sense. Since אָכַל is a root word, in the primitive might take the meaning "to bring into" or to "take into the body", "to nourish", or "to nourish life", then that changes EVERYTHING.
Gen 3:13 And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
The word eat:
אָכַל
'âkal
aw-kal'
A primitive root; to eat (literally or figuratively): - X at all, burn up, consume, devour (-er, up), dine, eat (-er, up), feed (with), food, X freely, X in . . . wise (-deed, plenty), (lay) meat, X quite.
However, the word beguiled can mean deceived or seduced. Relatively similar.
I am familiar with this theory, and it can make sense. The problem is that the words (that we can look up) don't follow closely. I'm not able to read Hebrew so I'm not able to be definitive on this topic. Perhaps someone who can do better than I can.
Isn't there something in the law that says that items can not be classified to cover up another crime?
That items can not be withheld if they coverup another crime or something like that?
This "judge" may have committed a crime by covering or withholding items that cover up a crime.
I don't understand this. With so many cases, it's hard to remember which is which.