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.

 

Biblical Deaths: How Many Did God Kill? How Many Did Satan Kill?

page: 39
55
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

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.


Yes he does (explicit reasons) under the old covenant. If he didn't follow through he would be called a liar.




posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

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.



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.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   

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.


Please show me where we can blame lung cancer in a smoker's system, and not blame the act of smoking?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

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.


None of this provides any blame on satan for god's acts of killing.

Adam, Eve, mankind in general received quite specific punitive damages from that act. This does not address the later actions of god's killing. If you make this argument you'll have to provide direct support of it.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
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?

Under the new Covenant (Why Jesus came) God does not arbitrarily kill people because of sin. Proof? I'm still here I have committed scores of them, as has everyone else that has ever breathed. Death under the New Covenant is spiritual in this life. Proof? Many do not have any spirituality whatsoever.

In the garden of Eden, two types of death were created by sin; spiritual and physical. Murder came on the scene as a result of sin, thus Cain.

If we allow murders in our society to roam the streets, instead of being incarcerated, would we not have the ultimate caos going on? If there were no penalty for murder, how much larger do you think the numbers would grow? I think many, look it all the idots on these forums who spout out blanket statements (even to you) who lack communication skills. Do you not think they would commit murder if there were no penalty? My bets are they would.



edit: had to fix some spellings and words.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by nlouise]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by nlouise]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   

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.




The topic is How many did God kill, how many did Satan kill. I am telling you that everyone that has been killed is because of Satan and not God. I am attempting to show you why I draw this conclusion that all that glitters is not gold.

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?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

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.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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.


I'm not ignoring anything. When I read something, such as the Bible, I have the need to know.... why, how, when, where, and what. Unless I know for certain why I believe what I believe, I can't justify the belief to begin with.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   

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.


Thats why one has to read the book cover to cover. When read it in its entirety the answers become evidently clear. Picking random quotes and expounding on them without any knowledge of the facts goes against critical thinking. I would think critical thinking with knowledge of the facts would be tantamount to drawing a final conclusion. Such is with everything else in life.



Edit: I have an 'ankle biter' so-called Christian on another thread that is twisting everything I say because I exposed his heresy on a Christian topic. I KNOW this person has never read cover to cover to because unraveling his 'argument' (his choice of words) has become so easy, I almost feel guilty about it (it's too easy).

All I have shown him is scripture, and kept my own words few. Yet this person is becoming unraveled at the seams and making mild personal threats.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by nlouise]

[edit on 30-8-2010 by nlouise]

edit: sorry to keep editting. Adding to last edit; I know this person is not a true believer, the evidence is there. What I find most interesting is that I recognize 3 of the others on that thread that are 'Christian bashers' from previous posts. None of them are saying boo, but this ankle biter claims to be a Christian.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by nlouise]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   

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



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

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, 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


so since Adam lived for 930 years....

And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.- Genesis 5:5


it would appear that God was pretty spot on that Adam only lived a day, at least in God's eyes.

This is fun!



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

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


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.......' I am talking about a time period and using an idom. Old and New Testaments are full of idioms. Remember this was written in Hebrew and translated to Queens English?

Other examples:

Genesis 2:4 (King James Version)

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens (We know that it took more than one day, this is suggesting a time period)



Here is another time period example:

Exodus 8:22 (King James Version)

22And I will sever in that day the land of Goshen, in which my people dwell, that no swarms of flies shall be there; to the end thou mayest know that I am the LORD in the midst of the earth.




This verse is specifying the 'same' day also as a time period:

Genesis 15:18 (King James Version)

18In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:



This verse is a precise day example:

Exodus 12:51 (King James Version)

51And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the LORD did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.



Here is another precise day example:

Exodus 13:3 (King James Version)

3And Moses said unto the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall no leavened bread be eaten.


In conclusion I will add that the moment Eve ate the apple, there was a 'spiritual' death. Which is the whole point of why Jesus came to this earth.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

God said they would die the very day they ate of the tree.
They ate, and did not die that day.
God lied.

No, Kappy. That's an English translation. It's a Hebrew story.

God says something like "Dying you die," idomatic, and symmetric with what Serpent says, which is something like "Dying you do not die," also idiomatic. Obviously doesn't work in English.

So, all that gets lost in the King James Bible.

Bottom line, Kappy, God didn't lie, he just needs better translators.

When's your suspension up?



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

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



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
No, Kappy. That's an English translation. It's a Hebrew story.


So, the translation is wrong?
You speak Hebrew, do you?
Will you tell us the correct translation then please?


Originally posted by eight bits
Obviously doesn't work in English.


Now you seem to be claiming that the story cannot even be expressed in English at all? ("doesn't work in English".)


Originally posted by eight bits
So, all that gets lost in the King James Bible.


So, you're saying the KJV is wrong?
So what is the correct translation please?


Originally posted by eight bits
Bottom line, Kappy, God didn't lie, he just needs better translators.


So, your argument is that the translation is wrong?
So, what is the correct tranlsation then?
You keep repeating that the translation is wrong but you fail to give us the correct translation? Why is that?


What exactly IS your argument :
1. the translation is wrong ?
2. it CANNOT be expressed in English ?


If it's 1 - then what IS the correct translation?

If it's 2 - why NOT?


G



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

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



Ok Greenfly, what is your point? That God is a liar here? I suppose if I tell you to 'break a leg' you would take that out of context too? Would I be lying to you if I told you it meant 'good luck'?



edit: Quote from Greenfly


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.



The reason they didn't die on that 'VERY' day is because you are the one adding the word 'VERY. Looks like you lied.

[edit on 30-8-2010 by nlouise]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
hello


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,


Out of context?
So, you are going to quote the surrounding text (the 'context') and show that God did really say that?

Because that's what "out of context" means.



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


Pardon?
That's the "context"?
Another book, written centuries later?

That's not context - it's an excuse from completely OUT of context - a book from far away from another time and place and religion and person.

Anytime there is some problem with timing, this passage gets trotted out.

Your argument seems to be that when God said :
"you will die the very day you eat thereof"
He really means :
"you will die in the very 1000 years you eat thereof"
Seriously? That's your argment?

Does that 1 day = 1000 years apply generally then does it?


So, when Jesus was in the tomb for "3 days" that really means "3000 years" ?
wheee - this is fun !
:-)


G



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Greenfly13
 


out of context applies to any and everything posted in this thread. you go ahead and take your pick.

I chose to take whatever I wanted out of the bible (out of context, mind you)
to prove a point, that anyone can do this, all day long.

Sure enough, you proved my point, thank you

J




top topics



 
55
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join