Bible Discussion

Very low IQ post.

I'm reading The age of reason right now ama

>Was what God did to Job just?
Just? JUST? THE WHOLE POINT OF THE DAMN STORY IS THAT IT'S COMPLETELY UNJUST!

You seem like the kind of man who would cry indignantly when it rains.

Abel was nomadic, Cain was a settler. Urbanization overtook nomadism in humans.
Also, there’s an internal conflict because Cain “can’t let things go.” Consider the Underground Man.

Do you mind expanding on this a little? I'm struggling to see how you came to this conclusion.

>Abel was nomadic, Cain was a settler.
Where does it say this? Is it in the Talmud?

>>What is your favorite story in the Bible?

>At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
>But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
>But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
>How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
>Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
>But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
>But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
>For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Shoot son, even the eastern orthodox disagree. One of the church fathers literally says he likes the trinity so much because it makes no sense.

Ok, can anyone explain what's up with Noah and Ham? The way I read it first, it seemed like Ham accidentally came upon Noah who then cursed him for doing him a favor; getting somebody to cover him. Also why curse his kid, what does he have to do with it?

To "see" nakedness in Genesis means to have sex so it's literally saying Ham raped or molested his father. "Seeing the nakedness of his father" could also be an indirect way of referring to his wife, as in Leviticus 18:7 so Ham could have raped his mother instead. Ham having sex with his mother would explain why the curse falls on Cannan and would explain why they're named immediately afterwards five times. (9:18, 22, 25, 26, 27.)

1. I liked the book of job funny enough. While I was reading through the OT I only knew little about it and didn't expect much going into it but after reading it it was by far my most favourite read. Second to Ecclesiastes of course.

2. Hmmm, I've always seen it as a story about jealousy and how you shouldn't let your feelings overtake you but I haven't thought about it much and I'm sure guaranteed Is a much deeper meaning.

3. What do you mean by just? We are God's creation and God can do to us as he wills. All the blessings that job had from his family, kids, wife, livestock and health was given to him as a gift from God and God has every right to take it away. But I feel like this question gets away from the deeper meaning of the chapter.

Now I have a question. Is Trinitsrianism monotheist? The more I read about it the more I'm convinced that this is something in it's own category like polytheism or henotheism.

Those parts aren't insignificant. They have their own meaning.

What's it about?

I'm a Christian but this is a bit far fetched.

When he looked at his father Noah it could have been in a sexual manner. Christ does talk about it being a sin to even look at a women and think about sex. Also, you should notice that when ham sees his father naked he does nothing to help. Most think that he went to his brother to help but there is no reason to say that he couldn't have helped himself. So it's possible that he went to his brothers to mock or make fun of his father but instead they help by covering him with a blanket. The contrast in the way they react to noahs nakedness isn't something that should be ignored.

What exactly is farfetched? That's the orthodox interpretation.

Cain did nothing wrong.

I'm drunk. Can you help me understand the significance of this story? I will repay the kind gift of your time with a joke.

He did what we are all guilty of: he was indignant. Whether or not he didn't try as hard as his brother is irrelevant. He was dealt his cards and he saw his brother's were better. For that, he murdered him.

I mean sacrifice is wrong and Cain demonstrates it thoroughly. Very Socratic.

Why did God kill Onan? Was it because of coitus interruptus? Or was it because he disobeyed God? Was it both?

>The concept of rights divorced from god
LOCKE IS CRYING

Not him but:
Cain builds a city after he kills Abel and he calls it Enoch. This is per Genesis iirc
He's also a tiller of the soil (farming requires settling) where as Abel has a flock (as do nomads
You could very much argue it symbolises nomadic life vs settlement life

What are Yea Forums's thoughts on the nephalim?

As an agnostic, why should I read the Bible? (I'm not criticizing it)
Just tell me a good reason to, and what should I expect by reading it? Will it change my mind?

Attached: 1564421343254.png (515x286, 207K)

Yeah I read the commentary about it meaning Ham raped someone, but the brothers are clearly literally covering a naked person. So the mocking explanation seems possible, but the punishment still seems excessive, and in either case mis-aimed.

How can you say it makes sense when you admit the punishment for merely covering somebody up is so excessive? There's obviously something more to it and traditional exegesis by both Jewish and Christian scholars accounts for it.

I didn't say it made sense. And even if the rape is true, why make canaan the slave?

You may find God and your way to eternal paradise. (Jesus)

Why doesn't God just, like, tell us he exists?

He literally has.

>muh sekrit bible codes

Attached: download.jpg (210x239, 11K)

Christians don't say the bible was written by God.

Okay?

>scientific inaccuracies
such as?

>crazy calls to genocide
no. in fact, any time a """"""""genocide"""""""" is called it's explained why

>censuses, genealogies, and fucking measurements for architecture
because it was important to the children of Israel

So when has God told me he is real

>expects a theophany.

all you're gonna get is the sign of jonah buddy

When he came to earth and was crucified.

>What are the themes of the story of Cain and Abel?

> Jordan Peterson has entered the chat.

Attached: jordan.png (210x253, 116K)

It's a great read with some fantastic lore. Plus you might even get saved reading it, what's not to love!

Instead of thinking of the Bible as some holy sacred text, you can read it as a proto-psychological guide to life. Wether or not God exists doesn't change the fact that the advice in the Bible is helpfull and important for everyone, if it wasn't, we wouldn't even have heard about it. It's a reason Christianity and Judaism has survived for so long, it's advice actually work.

However, you have think to when reading it. The answers and advice isn't directly written out, it's inbetween the lines like it would be in a good novel. Even when advice and commandments are written out directly, it often has a different meaning as well. Remember to read things in context, Bible verses gets confusing when you look at them in a vacuum.

>such as?
Global flood, humanity only been around 6000 years, contradiction of evolutionary theory, talking donkeys, plants growing before sun created (photosynthesis without the sun), ark containing two of each kind, contradictory accounts of Jesus' genealogy, various other contradictions, etc.
You can say "it's all metaphorical bro you just dont get it" but even if it is (I don't believe that but I'll grant it) it is still an inaccuracy. It would have been a hundred times more amazing if god had been 100% accurate throughout the book and then there would have been less doubt as to whether the author was all-knowing.

>no. in fact, any time a """"""""genocide"""""""" is called it's explained why
Here I cite the UN definition of genocide:
>any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Here I cite what God commanded the Isrealites to do:
>When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.

>16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

DO NOT LEAVE ANYTHING ALIVE THAT BREATHES.

Here I cite what the Isrealites did:
>When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

WOMEN. CHILDREN. OLD PEOPLE. CATTLE. SHEEP. DONKEYS. INDUBITABLY A GENOCIDE.

1/2

And again:
>24 When Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and struck it down with the edge of the sword. 25 And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai. 26 But Joshua did not draw back his hand with which he ustretched out the javelin until he had devoted all the inhabitants of Ai to destruction.2 27 Only the livestock and the spoil of that city Israel took as their plunder, according to the word of the Lord that he vcommanded Joshua. 28 So Joshua burned Ai and made it forever a wheap of ruins, as it is to this day. 29 And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening. And at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree and threw it at the entrance of the gate of the city and zraised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day.

2/2

I don't expect one cause Yahweh is a myth.
Only a small group of people a couple thousand years ago were there for that.

The book literally doesn't say there was a global flood. It says "all the eretz" was flooded and this same exact word was used elsewhere in the same book, such as Genesis 41:57 where it says "all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain. It obviously isn't saying the entire earth went to Egypt to buy land.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old. Some protestants come to that conclusion by counting the years included in the genealogies of the Old Testament. However the genealogies in the bible cannot be used to date the age of the universe because they were not meant to be exact chronicles of history. In some cases generations were omitted in order to make a symbolic point. In other cases the ages themselves may be symbolic and not literal. The genealogies in scripture were primarily focused on showing how different people were related to one another, not how long ago they lived.

This is a complete non starter and I'm not going to go through every one. The problem isn't that there's contradictions in the bible, it's that you're not reading the books in an intelligent way. That may sound harsh but it is the truth. You talk about the genealogies of Jesus, but has it ever occurred to you that they're not recording the same thing because they might have different purposes? Have you ever known any ancient literature from that time and place to include an exact chronicle of lineage? The answer is no but of course you don't allow for that possibility when it comes to the bible because that would get in the way of your half baked attempts to discredit it.

Right, but the question wasn't "why doesn't have a face to face meeting with every individual on earth at all times and place" but you asked why he doesn't tell us he existed. He did. He may not have done it in the way you would prefer but he did.

I'm reading St. Augustine's City of God and he disagrees with you on both those subjects.

No he didn't tell us. He told some people a long time ago then they told us.

Even if that was true why would I care? St. Augustine probably thought a great many things that were wrong because he lived a long time ago.

You should care because St. Augustine is extremely important to Christian theology lol. You told him he's not reading it in an intelligent way so I'm telling you an intelligent guy, a literal saint, who read it in an intelligent way disagreed with you on those things.

Probably one of his worse explanations in general, just teacher's pet pleonastic ramblings, CAIN BAD BECAUSE HE'S BAD1!!

When we're talking about theology I'll listen to what he has to say. This really is an odd appeal to authority for a skeptic.

>why would I care about St. Augustine?
>he was probably wrong cause he lived a long time ago but you have to believe what these Jewish writers said a longer time ago!!

Attached: 1563087145525.png (492x426, 423K)

Are we not talking about theology? It seems important whether the bible said there was a global or localized flood and whether the earth is thousands of years old or not.

The flood and genealogies are a question of history. Theology is the study of God or the divine.

Why does Christianity get all the flak when 95% of the stuff people take issue with is in the Old Testament anyways? I’ve never heard anyone complain about Jewish faith

The genealogies and flood either have theological significance or they don't.

Because Christianity is way more widespread than Judaism and the Old Testament is important to Christianity.

A lot of people don't know what they're talking about but think they do because they grew up around it.

Rather, it's memetic characteristics are well adapted, sticky, to the near East mind for the last couple thousand years. Those ideas are likely helpful to the society at large. This isn't evidence they are particularly good to the individuals of such society.

I've never been on three bus just trying to get home from work stuck next to a Jew who won't shut up about how I should become a Jew. No Hindus either. Buddhists, Muslims and so so many Christians.

Like Christians?

I'm talking about skeptics but you can throw in professing Christians who don't take their religion serious enough to learn what it is. Those types don't usually stay Christian for very long anyway.

Most Christians don't study Christianity.

Watching christcucks squirm when trying to defend even a small aspect of their religion is fucking hilarious. It's not even necessarily Christians, it's just retarded chantard, wannabe converts who only like the superficial aspects of being a Christian.

>The book literally doesn't say there was a global flood. It says "all the eretz" was flooded and this same exact word was used elsewhere in the same book, such as Genesis 41:57 where it says "all the eretz came to Egypt to buy grain. It obviously isn't saying the entire earth went to Egypt to buy land.
We already had this debate. I'll just quickly run over the points I made last time.

1) You're not an expert on Ancient Hebrew. Simply looking at one word in the lexicon isn't sufficient to come to your own interpretation. All languages have their nuances and historical contexts and the Bible has the most English translations of any other book (450!) which are translated by committees of qualified scholars and they all say the same thing. Besides, when I looked at the lexicon for the passage we discussed the previous time the word eretz was not even there.

2) The passage we discussed heavily implies through its imagery that they are talking about a worldwide flood.

3) It logically makes sense that it was a worldwide flood. God says he was pissed with "all of humanity" and he wanted to end "all humanity". We know from scientific evidence that in the times of Noah humanity was scattered about virtually throughout the earth, so to end all humanity god would have had to flood the world.

4) If it was a local flood Noah would not have needed to take two of each kind of animal on the ark.

5) God made a rainbow and said that he will never again kill all creatures that walk along the ground. But if this is referring to a local flood (how he killed all life in a local flood is a mystery) then god lied because there HAVE been local floods since then. Either god is a liar or the flood was worldwide.

>Nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 6000 years old.
I didn't say that. I said HUMANITY is 6000 years old. The reason I make this distinction is because Christians like to get you with the "6 days creation is not literal" sophistry. But we know from the genealogies of Adam (the first man) exactly how long he lived and exactly who his descendants were all the way up till Jesus. If we add up the genealogies we find that Adam lived 6000 years from today. In other words, the Bible claims that humanity has only been around for 6000 years.

>b-b-but the genealogies aren't literal!
Hogwash. Not only is there no precedent for using genealogies in a non-literal sense in Jewish antiquity, we also see very clearly that from Adam we have his son and then his son and then his son all the way down to Jesus. How ridiculous would it be for the genealogies to begin with describing actual father-son lineage and then arbitrarily switch to "metaphorical lineage"?

Do you see the language in pic related? It says "When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh..." if this word "father" means "ancestor" then it makes no sense syntactically; since, Seth would have been the ancestor of Enosh whether he had lived 105 years or 1 year.

Attached: Capture.png (488x801, 63K)

There's no need to repeat old arguments. You had no answers last time and you haven't clearly changed your mind or even updated your beliefs.

Fuck it I'll do it anyway. I agree that language has nuance, but you;re not showing me how eretz in the one instance must mean worldwide when in other instances it clearly doesn't. Merely asserting that language has nuance is not an argument and my belief is consistent biblical scholars like Scott Hahn who are experts in Hebrew. You quoted quite a few verses last time which allude to a worldwide or a large scale flood and God killing all the creatures on the ground and I showed you how they were consistent with my interpretation of eretz. You didn't acknowledge that and you continue you assert these verses as if they prove something.

You make the distinction between the earth and humanity being 6000 years old but it's meaningless because the bible doesn't say either the earth or humanity is 6000 years old. Do you really want to argue that the genealogies in the Torah are an exact chronicle of history even though nothing of the kind has ever existed in ancient literature?

You say there is no precedent for genealogies being non-literal, well I'll give you one. Matthew records 28 generations between David and Jesus and Luke records 41. The reason Matthew describes 28 generations between David and Jesus is because Matthew divided his entire genealogy into 3 parts, each containing 14 generations. Matthew tells us, “all the generations from Abraham to David are 14 generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, 14 generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, 14 generations” (Matt. 1:17). The 3 Hebrew letters that make up David’s name also have a numerical value that adds up to 14. This means Matthew was probably creating a mnemonic device to help his readers understand that Jesus is descended from David.

This sort of thing is incredibly common all throughout ancient literature no matter the place or religion.

Six thousand vs millions of years is a pretty large margin of error. Seems meaningless to list their ages at that point.

>You quoted quite a few verses last time which allude to a worldwide or a large scale flood and God killing all the creatures on the ground and I showed you how they were consistent with my interpretation of eretz. You didn't acknowledge that and you continue you assert these verses as if they prove something.
Last time you repeated your same point about eretz and I felt that your justification for the "all humanity" thing was very weak. My points (3), (4), (5), were left virtually untouched.

I think it is abundantly clear that when the Bible says god was pissed at "all humanity" it means all humanity. We have verses in the Torah where god is pissed with a select group of people and he punishes that select group without any question as to whether he was killing all humanity or just that select group. Sodom and Gomorrah is a good example of this. In fact it is in the same book as the Flood, yet there would be no doubt as to whether "all humanity" was targeted or just the Sodomites.

>Do you really want to argue that the genealogies in the Torah are an exact chronicle of history even though nothing of the kind has ever existed in ancient literature?
I think it's clear that they are supposed to be literal. Why would it say "When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh..." if the word "father" means ancestor? Seth would have been the ancestor of Enosh whether he lived 105 years or 1 year.

>Matthew was doing numerology
I've heard this argument before, and I don't buy it. It seems much simpler to me to say that Matthew had his hands on a different genealogy than Luke did, and that's how the discrepancy resulted.
>This means Matthew was probably creating a mnemonic device to help his readers understand that Jesus is descended from David.
This is just a lie though. Matthew was writing in Greek, not Hebrew. The letters in Greek don't add up to anything, so to say that he was trying to "help" his readers do anything with this is disingenuous. Clearly his readers were not helped, even in antiquity, as Eusebius records in his Church History that Christians were having debates over the discrepancy, and if I'm remembering correctly he also said that critics were bringing it up as an objection.

Don't you understand that the authors of the bible are not trying to date the universe? Even the ages of individual people aren't literally reliable because of the near east literary conventions of the time. Like the writers of Sumerian King list and other comparable writings, ages of people were exaggerated according to greatness or impact.

I'm not spending much more time on this. God clearly didn't destroy all people throughout the world because other people existed and interacted with Noah and his descendants right after the flood.

There's two genealogies, one records 28 generations and the other records 41. They both record the lineage from David to Jesus but for some reason you think they're meant to be exact chronicles of history. This is stupid and I have better things to do.

Up until a couple hundred years ago, nobody treated the Bible as a science book. It was always acknowledged as pointing to truths that could not have been expressed any other way.
This fixation on textual literalism was really an outgrowth of the newly rich and lettered society that developed in the renaissance, and hit its full stride in the reformation. Premodern exegetes, be they Jewish or Christian, are explicit that Genesis contains a mix of fact and powerful symbolism, and that the findings of science (natural philosophy) are not to be held as contradicting it.

It had to express truths through lies? You don't think it could be done any other way?

The irony of posting this on a literature board.
Perhaps the fundamental error of today’s atheists is that they view religion as primitive science. Most religious people do not see it this way. Religion answers questions about meaning in human life and death, and satisfies a wide variety of actual human needs.

Meant to add that science cannot answer these questions.

Nobody's treating it as a science book. It makes historical claims which we can test through science. They don't hold up, therefore we can reject those claims. The good thing about inerrant books is you only need one error to dismiss whoever is saying they're inerrant.

If people read the Bible as they read Shakespeare; ie. trying to glean from it the wisdom it offers while recognising that it is fiction, then nobody would have a problem. The problem arises when religious people claim that this is from a divine being, and ask you to believe it on faith.

How do scientifically test historical claims? Give a scientific experiment to prove Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon which is repeatable.

I will make a historical claim
>Alexander the Great found the place where the sun sets, in a murky pool, by which a people lived

Now we know through science that the sun does not set in a murky pool on the Earth, thus we conclude that my claim is wrong.

That's not scientific, it's logical reasoning.

>God was acting no better than a warlord who kills someone's family

You clearly don't understand Biblical Criticism.

Job was an allegory user. He wasn't real and God isnt a sadist, just because your dad beat you.

No it isn't. There was nothing illogical about my historical claim. Nothing in the claim violated the laws of logic. I don't know what you're saying.

FUCKING MORMONS

Attached: f78.png (717x436, 314K)

So would the real God disagree with the way the God in Job acted?

1. Pharisees were hypocrites who followed laws just to follow laws, were greedy, thought they were better than the rest of the jews

2. they literally try to hold Jesus, to food eating laws

Validity isn't the only way to reason logically which is why I didn't say the argument was false because it was logically invalid. What you discovered was a false premise and they can occur in valid syllogisms and they can make an argument false. This is all beside the point anyway because none of it involves the scientific method which is what you claimed and failed to justify.

What do you mean? Validity is the only logical part of a syllogism; we discover the soundness of the premises through alogical means.

soundness of the syllogism*

I’m a little unclear on this? By why did God deem to New Testament to be necessary? What was it about the Old Testament that made God say “maybe I should revise this and use my son to get the word out”?

You say nobody’s reading it as a science book, but then in the next sentence proceed to treat it as if you were reviewing some academic paper.
If you are interested in how Genesis has been traditionally read (and what is meant by inerrant), a summary may be found in the link below. As a rule, any issue you might have found in Sacred Scripture has been debated within the Sacred Tradition, which should be consulted. Yanking out quotes and running with them independent of the deposit of Faith that has been handed down is called prooftexting, and it’s a dumb thing that people, atheist and Christian alike, sometimes do to justify whatever it is they want to think anyway. Don’t do it.
catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/genesis

>Was what God did to Job just?
The entire point of the book of Job is the argument Job makes that God doesn't punish the wicked or spare the good. Anyone who asks this hasn't read it.

A very mad revolutionary deconstructing the bible

>story
Right now the dart through the liver one

>themes
That you shouldn't use something good (sacrifice) as an excuse for doing something evil... others

>Job
Yes, it was. It made Job an even better person because he went through that and still respected God, his reward in Heaven (and even on Earth luckily for him) would have been even better. It also was another point where humans conquered the devil, which might have bought us all something on the other end of life and taught the devil a lesson as well if he is capable of such

Such blasphemy in the Christian threads here

Some books are great works of literature, others are myths that predate written history, some are contemporary myths and histories of an ancient people. Even if there is no God, the Bible is one of the single most influential texts in human history and the stories within it have inspired people for thousands of years. It's one of the greatest historical texts ever assembled.

The Lord needed to fulfill the promise of a messiah. God needed to appear as man and be sacrificed in order to save man from sin. Why an omnipotent being with unlimited power needed to go through this song and dance is something you'd have to ask a Christian.

>defending something using methods literally anyone else on 4channel would use is squirming
Wow

What do you people think about Heaven and Hell? do you think it's as simple as believing in God will grant you a place in Heaven? or do you think you have to live life in a certain way? are you afraid that due to the environmentally destructive way everybody lives we're all doomed to go to Hell?

maybe only people who don't touch plastic will get a spot in Heaven? the ones who leave no trace of their existence on this earth. but each of us has got a massive legacy. every toothbrush, wrapper, and plastic bottle we've used is floating in the ocean, or polluting the earth.

what do you think about the afterlife?

absolutely based

>tacitly admitting every faggot on 4channel squirms like a bitch whenever they have to defend their retarded beliefs

what do you think is the limit on to what things can be blessed and the blessing given to the thing?

Suggested order to read the Bible? Should I read the old testament before the new?

Am I my brothers keeper?

You are your brother's keeper.
old testament before the new

>The Father
The superordinate ethic of mankind, ultimate truth personified. The idea of the ultimate good that exists interdependently of people. People who fall to far from this ethic pay for it from nature.
>The Son
The individual who aims to live out the ethos of the father as best they can (Jesus did it best but we all posses and act out fragments of his personality).
>Holy Spirit
The ethos/personality of god as its passed through each generation and inherited by the next, they same way you possess some aspects of your father's personality and thus some of your grandpa's and so on. Whatever portion of that inherited personality/ethic contains the True ethos of God is the Holy Spirit.

>interdependantly
Independently* I'm not English

He says something like "Cain and Abel is the archetypal story of humanity's two potential reactions towards self-consciousness", which seems pretty good to me, especially as he puts it into context by explaining Adam and Eve as the story of humanity's awakening to self-consciousness.

>humanity only been around 6000 years
The bible doesn't actually claim that. Fundamentalists claimed it by estimating the ancestral timeline through each character.