So I was spending some time with the Hebrew under the Cain and Abel narrative in Genesis 4. I noticed a peculiarity in the Hebrew in God's instructions to Cain after his offering was rejected. I think it may challenge the way that the theology of sin is understood since this is the first place we see the term.

I'm focusing on Genesis 4:7

(KJV) "sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

(NIV) "sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”

(NRSV) "sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

(CEB) "sin will be waiting at the door ready to strike! It will entice you, but you must rule over it."

But here is the peculiar thing: Hebrew has gender on its pronouns unlike many english terms, and its nouns are also gendered (also unlike english). You can see this come through in the KJV where the verse ends with "him" but all the others end with "it".

Here is a quick link to the interlinear Hebrew for reference.

The question I have is basically: "What is the "it" which the end pronoun refers to and what does that mean?

The most basic form of my confusion is that "sin" (חַטָּאָה) is unquestionably a feminine noun. But the final "it" that Cain must master is a masculine it. Also "its desire" has a masculine possessive. But again, this is not referring to the noun for sin (which is clearly feminine).

But the word for door is masculine. Is that what one must master? I think trying to trace pronoun genders for meaning is a fascinating way of looking at the text, and this one has me thrown a bit.

  • the truth is that "crouches" (רבץ) is already in masculine form (the feminine form would be רבצת), so you may as well ask why that term is masculine instead of focusing on "it" that's in the end of the verse. I see you already included that in your answer. +1.
    – bach
    Jun 1, 2020 at 16:02
  • Thank @Bach, it's a participle, so "it/he/she crouches," the conjugated subject-verb-action, is a false translation and loses the anthropomorphic image that the author picked as well as the gender split. The participle converts the verb to a noun that is the manifestation of that action.
    – Gus L.
    Jun 1, 2020 at 16:47

9 Answers 9


As normally happens, when articulating this question, the answer seems to have appeared.

The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon says: "noun feminine (Genesis 4:7 no exception)"... It says that the next word, "crouching" is not "sin [is] crouching (e.g. verb conjugated 3fs as all the major translations render it)" but instead is a participle (noun form from verb) which means a better translation is "sin (feminine) [is] a crouching one/creature (masculine)."

So a translation I might make emphasizes the anthropomorphization of sin into a crouching beast at the door. Furthermore, the NIV has a possessive "your door" instead of what the hebrew says as "the door" which the other translations I mentioned capture.

Here's what I have. I would love criticisms on this. I was unclear if the referent of our rule was over the door or over sin, the thing. I also converted "you should rule" (which NIV/NRSV/CEB suggest, but KJV does not) to the future statement of how Cain will live with this beast at the door.

Here's my translation with more clarity on the pronoun references:

Genesis 4:7b, Sin is a crouching being at the door. That being's desire is for you, Cain, and you will rule over that creature.

It appears that sin is a thing that is not in us, but that is outside of us and that we rule over. But that's a whole separate question. There is a verb "to sin" (to miss/to go wrong) but that is not used here. That seems to be capturing the meaning of the Hebrew better.

Does that make sense?

Edit: Found the following in Bereshit Rebbah 22 (c300-500AD).

It is not written here 'she crouches' [chatat is feminine] but 'he crouches' - in the beginning the sin is weak like a lady, and after it strengthens as a male. Said rabbi Akiva: in the beginning it looks like a thread of a spider, and at the end it becomes like the rope of a boat, since it is written...

These ancient Rabbi don't seem to notice the participle and that it is the referent of the pronouns. "The croucher" is clearly a masculine noun and thus the target of the pronouns. It has nothing to do with some sort of gender transition and/or the strength/weakness of females vs males.


In your opening paragraph, you seem? to be making an assumption that some try to assign the ‘it’ to ‘sin’, to fit their theology? The ‘it’ is referring to the ‘desire’, and Cain is told to master that desire. And this view fits the genders of the Hebrew in that text.

Explanation: The ‘desire’ is ‘caused’, or is a result of the ‘sin’ [noun]. The ‘fall’ of man resulted in spiritual death, separation from God, separation from the righteousness that God provided/gave to Adam. That ‘sin nature’, (flesh) which essentially works at being, or wanting to be self-righteous. That ‘desire’ to ‘work’ for, or ‘be’, or ‘rely’ on self-righteousness is what Cain was told to master. (Control). And this desire applies to all of us, the ‘flesh’ wants to dominate.

When analysing Hebrew, you need to avoid trying to read any doctrinal foundation into its meaning.

  • But they weren’t separate from God. Cain and Abel were right there cooking offerings and talking with God. It was separation from the tree of life and cursing of the ground and womb that were the consequences of eating the fruit.
    – Gus L.
    Jul 10, 2020 at 9:46
  • They were dead. Death means separation. You are looking at this situation ‘naturally’. They were physically alive, there was a physical presence, but they were spiritually dead. Spiritually separated. THEY had no life, even though their physical bodies did.
    – Dave
    Jul 10, 2020 at 19:30
  • No such distinction is made in that text. Death is not a dualistic concept in the Hebrew Bible as far as I know.
    – Gus L.
    Jul 10, 2020 at 20:11
  • Then .... how do you see the Hebrew Bible defining death?
    – Dave
    Jul 10, 2020 at 21:35

(Genesis 4:7) What is Cain Ruling Over? Sin? The Door?

The question I have is basically: "What is the "it" which the end pronoun refers to and what does that mean?

"it " meaning Sin

Genesis 4:3-7 (NASB)

3 So it came about [a]in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. 4 Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; 5 but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell. 6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, [b]will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

God urged Cain to "do well to doing good.” (Vs7a) .God tells him, "But if you do not to well, sin is crouching at the door"(Vs 7b). Then God asks him, "but you must get the mastery of it" ( "it " meaning Sin)

Obviously God wanted Cain to respond to his warning and to be restored to favor.

  • This is how I understand it as well; which raises the question I've been trying to answer: Why would GOD tell Cain to master sin if he were incapable of doing so (as scripture teaches)?
    – Annette
    Aug 19, 2021 at 13:31
  • Annette; Please give me a scripture. If a person really lives in harmony with Jesus’ teachings, however, he will no longer be a slave to sin. No longer will sin be to him like a dictator who gives him orders that he must blindly obey. He will not be trapped in a way of life that lacks purpose and that leaves him with a bad conscience. He will enjoy a clean conscience before God because past sins have been forgiven on the basis of his faith in the sacrifice of Christ. Aug 19, 2021 at 17:06
  • Gen. 4:7 God tells Cain to "master" sin. In Rom 7:13-24 Paul talks of being slaves to sin... set free by Christ. Cain obviously pre-dates both the law and Christ, yet God tells him to master sin.
    – Annette
    Aug 20, 2021 at 6:58

This is a great question. Thank you for posting this. I have been looking at this verse over and over again. But I interpret it differently, from looking at the KJV. I feel like it says, "If you do not do well, sin (feminine) lieth at the door and unto thee shall be his desires, and thou(the version of ourselves consumed with desire) will rule over him (masculine)." I keep thinking it is talking about the desires ruling over us. I may be wrong on how I am seeing this, but I see the feminine ruling over the masculine. am I wrong here? The negative ruling over the positive. This seems to be what happens when we let our negative thoughts come in.

The very next verse shows that Cain let his desire rule over him and he slew his brother(unless I am mistaken about the meaning behind the verse).

  • Welcome to Bible Hermeneutics SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the tour to understand how the site works and how it is different than others.
    – agarza
    May 19, 2022 at 14:46
  • This does not really answer the question. If you have a different question, you can ask it by clicking Ask Question. To get notified when this question gets new answers, you can follow this question. Once you have enough reputation, you can also add a bounty to draw more attention to this question. - From Review
    – Rajesh
    May 24, 2022 at 16:16

I am a bit disturbed at some of the facile yet confident answers provided here for what is clearly a corrupt MT source text that requires emendation in every translation, and which has puzzled scholars for two thousand years, from the targums to modern bible translators.

Bottom line, no one knows how to translate this passage. There are only speculative theories.

WBC has an excellent survey with a few translational theories, which I'll reproduce in full to help understand the many problems with the source text:

“The most obscure verse in Genesis” (Procksch). Because of its grammatical improprieties and its unusual terminology, commentators are forced to choose between emendation and positing a rare meaning for רבץ “crouching.”

To compound the problems, other words are of uncertain meaning. Of the various suggestions the following present the least difficulty:

Ben Yashar (BMik 7 [1963] 116–19; ZAW 94 [1982] 635–37) suggests new meanings for the nouns שאת “forgiveness” and פתח “door.” The former he translates “first-born’s dignity” (cf. 49:3), and the latter, “first-born”; cf. the phrase “to open the womb” (29:31; 30:32). So he translates the whole verse: “Is it not this way? If you do well, there is the honour due to the first-born. If you do not do well, sin crouches [reading תרבץ ] for the first-born.” In other words, Cain, the first-born, has special responsibilities, especially in worship. If he carries them out, he will enjoy the privileges associated with his primacy. Though this interpretation is quite compatible with biblical thinking, it seems precarious in that it postulates new meanings for two words and a textual emendation (תרבץ 3 fem. sg impf. for רבץ).

Then Ben Yashar maintains that “His/its urge … you must rule over him/it” refers to Cain dominating Abel, which does not seem to follow on very easily from the previous clauses.

Ramaroson (Bib 49 [1968] 233–37) observed that the present formulation of the divine speech is rhythmically unbalanced as well as grammatically unsound (see Notes). It falls into three lines:

“Is there not forgiveness, if you do well?” 3 beats
“And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door” 5 beats
“Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” 4 beats

Ramaroson suggests that a scribe has by accident transposed sin from the first to the second line. Originally it read:

הלא אם־תיטיב שאת חטאת
  “Is there not forgiveness of sin, if you do well?”
ואם לא תיטיב לפתח רבץ
  “If you do not do well, the croucher (demon) is at the door.”
ואליך תשׁוקתו ואתה תטשׁל־בו
  “Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

On this rearrangement, there are now four beats per line; the “it(s)” in the third line must refer to “the croucher” (masculine participle) and not to sin which is feminine; and the lack of concord between sin (f) and crouching is eliminated.

In adopting the translation “croucher, demon” from Akk. rābiṡu for רבץ, Ramaroson is following a suggestion first proposed by Lenormant in 1880 and subsequently adopted by many commentators (cf. AHW, 935b). Substantially similar interpretations of the verse’s syntax and meaning are offered by Cassuto, Speiser, Westermann, Gispen, and Vawter, but without rearranging the word order. These commentators argue that רבץ is a masculine noun to which the suffixes ו “it(s)” in the final line refer. However, if the sentence is not rearranged á la Ramaroson, the meaning of שׁאת “forgiveness” becomes uncertain. The word comes from the root נשא “to lift up,” which is a broad term whose precise meaning can only be determined by the context. Here it may refer to

(1) God’s forgiving Cain (Tg. Onq.);

(2) God’s receiving Cain and his offering (Vg, S, RSV, SEB, Calvin, König, Kidner) or

(3) Cain’s subjective feelings, i.e., exaltation as opposed to his fallen face (vv 5–6; so Speiser, Delitzsch, Keil, Dillmann, Driver, von Rad, Westermann)

or (4) Cain’s posture—“upstanding,” not crouching like sin; so Cassuto.

In that the primary contrast in the divine interrogation is between שאת and חטאת רבץ, the traditional interpretations (1 and 2), referring שאת to God’s forgiveness or acceptance of Cain, seem more probable than a mere reference to Cain’s feelings or posture. Nevertheless, there may be a secondary allusion to v 6, “Why has your face fallen?” for if Cain were forgiven or accepted, he might well have felt exalted too. “Sin is crouching.” רבץ “crouching” is frequently and plausibly identified with Akk rābiṡu, denoting various officials and also demons, especially those that guard entrances to buildings. Here then sin is personified as a demon crouching like a wild beast on Cain’s doorstep.

Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 104–106.


Alternative interpretation of Genesis 4:7


I am 'not' a great proponent of the KJV Bible, but I do use it on almost a daily basis in conjunction with a few modern translations mainly because the words in KJV are linked to Strong's concordance and other reference textbooks. However, in many instances, the translation of certain words in the KJV Bible is more accurate than in many modern versions of the Bible, and Genesis 4:7 (KJV) is an example of a more accurate translation.

Despite the accurate 'translation' of Genesis 4:7 in the KJV Bible, most 'interpretations' of the last sentence in Genesis 4:7 are in my opinion completely false!

Genesis 4:7 KJV

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. 

The false interpretation of Genesis 4:7 is in my opinion partly caused by the absence of a verse division in Genesis 4:7 which would potentially enhance the correct interpretation and understanding of the text in this verse.

Specifically, it would be appropriate to include a verse division in Genesis 4:7 so that the last sentence is a stand-alone verse as shown below and indicated by the suffixes 'a' and 'b' in the divided verse:

Genesis 4:7a (KJV)

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. 

Genesis 4:7b (KJV)

And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.


My interpretation of the two parts of Genesis 4:7 which are identified using suffixes 'a' and 'b' (i.e. Genesis 4:7a, and Genesis 4:7b):

In Genesis 4:7a (KJV):

  • The terms 'thou doest' and 'and if thou doest' are the construct of translators in order for the sentence to make sense. However, these two terms could also be replaced with the word 'are' or equivalent.

  • The word 'well' (Strong's H3190), could also be translated as 'good' or 'pleasing' or 'right'.

  • The phrase, 'sin lieth at the door' infers that the propensity to commit 'sin' (i.e. transgression) increases exponentially in a person who is not 'good' or 'pleasing' or 'right'.

In contrast to Cain, Noah walked with God (Genesis 6:9). Why? Because he was 'perfect' and 'righteous' (Genesis 6:9; 7:1).

Although replacing the terms, 'thou doest' and 'if thou doest' with the word 'are,' and replacing the word 'well' with the word 'good' (or equivalent), may appear to be of no significance, the changes would in my opinion correctly reflect that the propensity to commit 'sin' (transgression) is directly proportional to, and totally dependent on, the 'state of the heart' rather than 'doing well' which is the 'outcome' of a 'good or right' state of heart, as distinct from 'doing well'. The difference is only subtle but is highly significant in my opinion.

If the above was adopted an example of the revised Genesis 4:7a (KJV) would read:

Genesis 4:7a (KJV) 

If thou are good, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou are not good, sin lieth at the door.

In today's English, the revised Genesis 4:7a would read, for example:

Genesis 4:7a (Today's English) 

If you are good, will you not be accepted? and if you are not good, sin lies at the door [of your heart].

In Genesis 4:7b (KJV):

  • The words 'thee,' 'his,' thou,' and 'him' are pronouns that in some instances refer to Cain, and in other instances refer to Abel, as shown in the square brackets [Cain/Abel] in the revised Genesis 4:7b (see below). And I am of the strong opinion that none of the said pronouns in this part of the verse refer to sin or Satan.

  • The word 'desire' (Strong's H8669), means longing, which infers that Abel's desire (longing) will be to please Cain.

  • The word 'rule' (Strong's H4910), means to govern or to exercise dominion and infers that Cain and his descendents would govern or exercise power and dominion over Abel and his descendents; and would be dominant and prominent in matters of this life.

If the above elements were adopted, the revised Genesis 4:7b (KJV) would read:

Genesis 4:7b (KJV)

And unto thee [Cain] shall be his [Abel's] desire, and thou [Cain] shalt rule over him [Abel]. 

In today's English, the revised Genesis 4:7b would read, for example: –

Genesis 4:7b (Today's English)

And Abel's desire (longing) will be to please you Cain; and you Cain will govern Abel. 

Combining all of the above elements, the interpretation of Genesis 4:7 is:

  1. If Cain is good (by implication, if Cain's heart is good and right), he (Cain) will be accepted by God.

  2. If Cain is not good (by implication, if Cain's heart is not good or right), 'sin' (transgression) lies at the door; i.e. if Cain's heart is not right, the propensity for Cain to transgress will be magnified, and will inevitably result in Cain committing a 'sin' (i.e. a transgression, which in Cain's case, was murder).

  3. If Cain is good or right, Abel will voluntarily desire to please and submit to Cain's rule or governance. By implication, Abel will honour Cain, and acknowledge Cain's dominance and superiority, and Abel will not in any way challenge Cain, and the descendents of the two will live in perfect harmony (see Note below).

  4. If Cain is good, Cain will rule or govern Abel (and by implication, Cain's descendents will rule or govern Abel's descendents). 

Note: In Genesis 4:7, the terms 'Cain' and 'Abel' are not limited to Cain and Abel, but they also apply to the 'descendents' of the two (until Abel was murdered before having any offspring). Similarly, in the passage of scripture in Genesis 4:11-15, the term 'Cain' is not limited to Cain, but it also applies to the 'descendents' of Cain.

The murder of Abel by his brother Cain is evidence that Cain was not good or right; i.e. Cain's heart was not perfect or right, which magnified the propensity in his heart to commit 'sin' (transgression), which in his case was the heinous crime of murder (Genesis 4:8).

Additional evidence that Cain was not good (i.e. Cain's heart was not perfect), is demonstrated by the fact that he: –

  • Attempted to conceal his murder of Abel by burying Abel's dead body secretly (inferred in Genesis 4:9-10); 

  • Lied to God about not knowing the whereabouts of Abel (or his dead body) (Genesis 4:9); 

  • Brazenly admitted that he did not consider himself to be his brother's 'keeper' (guard, protector) (Genesis 4:9); and

  • Did not express any regret or remorse for murdering his brother, but was totally focused on himself; i.e. self-centred (Genesis 4:13-14). 


Although somewhat speculative, it is highly likely that Cain and Abel were twins because Genesis 4:1-2 explicitly states that Eve conceived and first bare Cain and then she bare Abel. However, the said passage of scripture does not state that Eve conceived again before giving birth to Abel, which infers that there is a possibility that the two were twins, and Cain was the firstborn. 

The Bible theme of the dominance, greatness, superiority, etc, of the younger brother or the younger twin, continues in the descendancy of Adam and Eve, and includes Esau and Jacob (Genesis 25:21-26), Pharez and Zarah (Genesis 38:27-30), Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 48:1-29), King David (1 Samuel 16:1-13), King Solomon (1 Kings 1:13-39).


Literal Standard Version

Is there not, if you do well, acceptance? And if you do not do well, sin [[or a sin-offering]] is lying at the opening, and its [[or His]] desire [is] for you, and you rule over it [[or by Him]].” Genesis 4:7

Another interpretation of this verse is that there is a sin offering available to Cain to offer. The desire of this sin offering is for Cain to basically kill it and offer it to God like his brother Able did. Cain wanted to boast in his own works and to kill an innocent animal like his brother did must of not been acceptable to him. He did not use what was provided and instead rather kill his brother.

Cain would be ruling over the sin offering that was lying right at the entrance to where they went to make their offering. There is no way that Cain was able to rule over sin that was already in him, it was passed to him through Adam. Surely they had been taught what God required as an offering and it looks like there was graciously a sin offering provided for Cain that was lying right at the door. To rule over it must've meant to rule over it's life and probably kill it and use it as his own personal sin offering.

Cain probably could not stand to kill an innocent animal but yet his hatred towards his brother enabled him to kill his brother instead.


In Greek Septuagint the meaning of the passage is this: "Have you not have brought (your offering) correctly, not correctly divided (what's due), have you erred? Relax, yours is the land on which your brother live and you will rule over him."

It has a logical connection thus to the 4:9 "I'm not my brother's guardian" and then 4:10 "the voice of your brother's blood cries to me from the land"

Apostolic Bible Polyglot


Question: What is the "it" which the end pronoun refers to and what does that mean?

Answer: "It" is "hattat." For "hattat" as a "sin-offering" allows the masculine third-person pronouns to refer to the feminine noun legitimately. Translation and meaning at the end.

  1. "Hattat" as a root term can refer to "sin" (182 times) or "sin-offering" (116 times) in the OT. See "hattat" for "sin-offering" in Leviticus 4:3, 8, 14,20.

  2. "Hattat", whether translated as "sin" or "sin-offering", is a Hebrew feminine noun.

  3. The masculine participle from the root "robatz" does not refer to "crouching" as a threat to humans but to "lying down". See Genesis 29:2 Jacob saw three flocks of sheep lying (robatz) by a well; Genesis 49:14 Issachar is likened to a strong donkey lying down (robatz) between two burdens; Genesis 49:9 Judah is like a lion that lies down (robatz) after eating prey, like a lionness, and no one dares to rouse it (presumably relaxing after a meal).

  4. The gender discrepancy between the "hattat" feminine noun and the following masculine pronouns that refer to it can be explained if the intended audience for this story were Isrealites familiar with Leviticus 4 on sin-offerings ("hattat"). Lev 4 states if the sinner was a priest (Leviticus 4:1-12), the congregation as a whole (Leviticus 4:13-21), or a ruler (Leviticus 4:22-26), a male sacrificial animal (masculine singular) was to be their sin-offering (hattat = feminine singular). The priest brought a bullock (masculine singular), the congregation brought a bullock (masculine singular), and the ruler brought a male kid goat (masculine singular). In all these cases, the term for sin-offering (hattat) remained in the femninine singular form but all subsequent pronouns referring to that offering changed to the masculine singular form to be consistent with the actual sex of the animal offered (Leviticus 4:8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26). Here are two verses from that chapter with that explicit juxtaposition, Leviticus 4:21 "He (masculine singular) is a sin-offering (hattat - feminine singular) for the assembly" and Leviticus 4:24 "He (masculine singular) is a sin-offering (hattat - feminine singular)". Thus, there is no legitimate problem regarding the gender discrepancy if the hattat is translated as a sin-offering which aligns a feminine noun with masculine pronouns. This also implies Cain is either a priest or ruler. Ruler is more likely as the verb for "rule" (mashal) ends the Genesis 4:7 verse, a ruler must rule. The moral question is how.

5.What is the "it" that the end pronoun refers to and what does it mean?

The traditional candidates for "it" have been suggested as sin or Abel.

a) Preserving the continuity between the two halves of the sentence - if "hattat" is the "sin-offering", one new possibility arises. "It" can refer to the actual "hattat" (sin-offering) prefigured by the sacrificial animal. The actual "sin-offering" is God talking about himself in the third-person, this is labelled "illeism". He does this also in Exodus 34:6 "The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, 'The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious . . yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished, he punishes . . ." In Genesis 4:7 God says to Cain, "His desire is for you" in reference to Himself yearning to reconcile with Cain.

b) The last phrase "rule over (b-) him" can also be grammatically translated as "rule with (b-) him" or "rule in (b-) Him". The preposition "b-" is most often translated as "in" or "with" yet in conjunction with verbs of rulership or authority it is often translated as "over". Thus, it is certainly a flexible preposition that is context-sensitive. To prove "b-" is not always translated as "over" even if found in conjunction with "mashal" (rule), see Psalms 66:7 "He rules (mashal) with (b-) his power forever."

c) Proposed Translation:

"And if you do not do well, the sin-offering is lying at the door,
His desire is for you, and you must rule with Him."

d) Meaning: "and if you do not do well, the sin-offering (male animal) is lying at the door (entrance to Eden), His (divine Seed/Sacrifice) desire is for you (God desires to be reconciled to you),but you must rule with Him (rule like God, self-sacrificially)."

Addressing the core problem that made Cain angry - "the Lord did not have regard for Cain and his offering" - God reassures him that he is not rejected by God but that God actually desires or wants to be reunited with him. But Cain's drive to rule must be aligned with God's mode of ruling, which is benevolently and self-sacrificially not self-centered. Unfortunately, Cain does not listen and destroys his competition.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.