They could never make me hate Cain. Even when they try to paint him as an underperformer by implying that he "gave leftovers" to god (something that the bible makes no mention of, it just states he gave "mere fruit from the soil"), I couldn't see what cain did wrong.

The whole story is just the harder worker (Cain) being gaslit for no reason while his bum sheepfucking "brother" is rewarded. There is a racialist component to the story: Cain is portrayed as an unmistakable Near Eastern semitic man with wiry hair and dark eyes. Abel is portrayed as a white male, sometimes med sometimes nord. It read like some type of pastoralist steppejeet propaganda, and apologia for nepotism and terrible leadership under an unqualified authority thats typical of indo european society.

In the end, God rewards Cain for splattering Abel's cattle fucker brains all over the ground by giving him immortality. Reading this story as a kid, I couldn't tell if it was told to turn me away from Christianity or of it was just poorly translated.

>>17874747 (OP)
Imagine being this grainfed.

>>17874747 (OP)
We might be missing some of the story.
https://www.thetorah.com/article/why-did-cain-kill-abel

>>17874747 (OP)
Old Israelites at the time of this story made themselves into a pariah nation. They relied on dimwitted steppejeets like the Iranics or the Hittites to protect them because nearby natives like the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Phoenicians were sick of them.
Caine and able was a sad attempt to establish legitimacy in the region. They thought that "God turning Caine away" and "cursing" him with immortality would strike fear into the heart of nearby people and convince them to fear Israelites. It didn't work. This story did lull pastoralist ignoble nations like the Iranics to serve them. Despite Iranics being such good golems, the Israelites still looked down on them.
Caine and Abel is an Abrahamic retelling of the cosmic dualism that's characteristic to Zoroastrianism, hence why they had to emphasize Cain as a bad guy on some weird basis later on down the line with the KJV to make it all make sense because people naturally don't like to be subservient to sadists. It's a heresy that christcucks knowingly tolerate.

>>17874799
What makes you think there is something missing? It seemed very complete to me. The belief that there is a missing component is reaching.
The implication is that god punished Cain for getting mad after goading and vilifying him.
The message was: Cain is wrong because Caine is mad and god is right.
>>17874773
I ate a New Haven style pizza while writing this thread just to spite cattlefuckers

>>17874799
Genesis 4:8
"And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

That by itself seems like a coherent thought to me.

"For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous."
- 1 John 3:11-12

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh."
- Hebrews 11:4

>>17874825
>>17874831
Having looked around a bit I noticed that Biblehub does translate that bit as "talked with," though the article I shared as well as wiktionary say that the word is "said" or "told" implying there should be something after it that's missing, and that's how it's translated everywhere else that I can see from Biblehub's own list
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/vaiyomer_559.htm

And, in the article I shared, it's mentioned that the Samaritan Pentateuch does have something extra there, which would seem to imply that that there ought to be something there that's missing, though what the Samaritan Pentateuch has is so brief that it might be suspected of being added later to fill in the gap rather than being original.

I also had a quick look and it seems like there's a dead sea scroll with the relevant portion of Genesis that is also missing the bit, and the translators there also seem to understand it as there being something missing.
https://dssenglishbible.com/genesis%204.htm#_ftn1

So it seems to me like there is good reason to suspect that we're missing part of the original story, a more detailed account (at least a little more detailed, though conceivably a lot) of the conversation between Cain and Abel before Cain commenced with the murder.

>>17874864
>So it seems to me like there is good reason to suspect that we're missing part of the original story
If so that would mean all of the statements about God's word not being corrupted, and indeed enduring forever, would have to be false. See for example:

Psalm 119:160
"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

Psalm 12:6-7
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Isaiah 40:8
"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Isaiah 59:21
"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

Proverbs 30:5-6
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Of course, the New Testament says the same thing plenty of times, calling God's word "incorruptible" and saying that it will never pass away. Jesus said that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail in Luke 16:17. So you would have to be saying all of that is false in order to suggest that we're missing any part of Scripture.

>>17874881
You may not be, but I'm comfortable with the possibility that a very old collection of texts might be a little corrupted regardless of internal claims to the contrary if there seems to be some evidence to that effect.