It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nlouise
How is it no longer the root cause? God gave Adam and Eve dominion over everything on the Earth. He also made it clear that there was only one thing that was off limits and what the end result would be. 2+2=4.
I've already explained this several times over. God gives explicit reasons for those he kills. They are all listed in the OP and none are referenced as being due to satan or Eve.
Originally posted by nlouise
Yes he does (explicit reasons) under the old covenant. If he didn't follow through he would be called a liar.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nlouise
Eve was blamed for her part in it. God laid out what the repercussions would be.
Genesis 3:16 (King James Version)
16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
I see.
So I'm missing the part where god laid out that he would kill people at capriciously and blame it solely on this event.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nlouise
Yes he does (explicit reasons) under the old covenant. If he didn't follow through he would be called a liar.
Please show me where he gives himself license to kill with moral impunity because of the incident with satan and Eve.
Originally posted by nlouise
That's mincing words. He said that if they ate of the tree they would die. Adam & Eve both have since died. If they had not eaten of the tree they would have lived forever because they also had acces to the tree of Life. God closed off access to the tree of Life and this should explain it:
Genesis 3:22 (King James Version)
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Do you recall the very first act of 'murder' in the Bible? It wasn't by the hand of God. This also is important.
Originally posted by nlouise
OP
Why aren't we trying question why Satan tricked Eve to begin with?
Would this not explain the tree in the garden to begin with, and why the wages of sin is death?
Would it not explain why God takes out scores of people in the Old testament, the end result?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nlouise
OP
Why aren't we trying question why Satan tricked Eve to begin with?
Because that's not the topic. It's apparently your argument as to why god is not faulted for his own actions.
Would this not explain the tree in the garden to begin with, and why the wages of sin is death?
No.
Would it not explain why God takes out scores of people in the Old testament, the end result?
No, it doesn't. Especially since god gives the precise reason for his killings and none of them have anything to do with the incident with satan in the garden.
Originally posted by nlouise
I disagree that 'the garden of Eden' is not relevant. It all has to do with what happened in the garden of Eden. God's precise reasons come from the beginning. When we read a book, do we start in the middle, and draw our knowledge from what we read during the climax?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nlouise
I disagree that 'the garden of Eden' is not relevant. It all has to do with what happened in the garden of Eden. God's precise reasons come from the beginning. When we read a book, do we start in the middle, and draw our knowledge from what we read during the climax?
I still don't see in any of the referenced passages where god's killing should be attributed to the incident in Eden. Now have I seen how you've demonstrated that the specific reasons god killed should be ignored and attributed to the incident in Eden.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by nlouise
I disagree that 'the garden of Eden' is not relevant. It all has to do with what happened in the garden of Eden. God's precise reasons come from the beginning. When we read a book, do we start in the middle, and draw our knowledge from what we read during the climax?
I still don't see in any of the referenced passages where god's killing should be attributed to the incident in Eden. Now have I seen how you've demonstrated that the specific reasons god killed should be ignored and attributed to the incident in Eden.
Originally posted by nlouise
That's mincing words. He said that if they ate of the tree they would die.
Originally posted by Greenfly13
Originally posted by nlouise
That's mincing words. He said that if they ate of the tree they would die.
God said they would die the very day they ate of the tree.
They ate, and did not die that day.
God lied.
G
Originally posted by Greenfly13
Originally posted by nlouise
That's mincing words. He said that if they ate of the tree they would die.
God said they would die the very day they ate of the tree.
They ate, and did not die that day.
God lied.
G
God said they would die the very day they ate of the tree.
They ate, and did not die that day.
God lied.
Originally posted by nlouise
Is this what you are referring to?
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
When I make a statement such as 'back in the day.......'
Originally posted by nlouise
Remember this was written in Hebrew and translated to Queens English?
Originally posted by eight bits
No, Kappy. That's an English translation. It's a Hebrew story.
Originally posted by eight bits
Obviously doesn't work in English.
Originally posted by eight bits
So, all that gets lost in the King James Bible.
Originally posted by eight bits
Bottom line, Kappy, God didn't lie, he just needs better translators.
Originally posted by Greenfly13
Originally posted by nlouise
Is this what you are referring to?
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
When I make a statement such as 'back in the day.......'
So?
We are not talking about you using an idiom.
Please don't try and change the subject.
We are talking about the bible making a specific claim :
"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
That's not some vague idiom at all.
It's a clear and specific threat :
"if you eat from the tree, you will die on the very day that you eat."
They did eat of it, and did NOT die that very day.
God lied.
Originally posted by nlouise
Remember this was written in Hebrew and translated to Queens English?
So?
Are you claiming the translation is wrong?
If you believe that, what do you believe is the correct translation?
G
Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
Originally posted by Greenfly13
Originally posted by nlouise
That's mincing words. He said that if they ate of the tree they would die.
God said they would die the very day they ate of the tree.
They ate, and did not die that day.
God lied.
G
Actually since a lot of people seem to take stuff out of context as they choose around here,
Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
I'd like to point out:
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - 2 Peter 3:8