Original Sin

[sooda]

Well it's evidence that you didn't do a very good job in reading Exodus 9:3, had you,. You would haved found, that God did not destroy the horses
Notice the word ( Murrain ) which means
Pestilence.
Murrain = Pestilence
Therefore God did not destroy the horses, but put Pestilence on the horses. That's along ways from destroying the horses.
Well it's evidence that you didn't read
Exodus 9:9-11 very good at all.

Had you, You would haved notice in
Verse 9
( Shall be a boil breaking forth with Blain's upon man, and upon beast)
Notice ( beast) beast are not cattle,
Beast are wild animals,
not domestic cattle. Cattle are domestic cows and not wild beast animals.

Maybe you should study whats the difference between Cattle and Beast are.
Cattle are domestic animals and beasts are wild animals.

As for Exodus 12:9,12, had you read this, You would haved notice ( beast) are not consider domestic animals
Beasts are wild animals and not domestic animals.
horses, cows are domestic animals and not wild beasts.
If your trying to show contradiction in the Bible, Your not doing a very good job at it.
So far I have disproved everything that you have given.

You seem to be the one with the reading problem.

3 Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well it's evidence that you didn't do a very good job in reading Exodus 9:3, had you,. You would haved found, that God did not destroy the horses
Notice the word ( Murrain ) which means
Pestilence.
Murrain = Pestilence
Therefore God did not destroy the horses, but put Pestilence on the horses. That's along ways from destroying the horses.
Well it's evidence that you didn't read
Exodus 9:9-11 very good at all.

Had you, You would haved notice in
Verse 9
( Shall be a boil breaking forth with Blain's upon man, and upon beast)
Notice ( beast) beast are not cattle,
Beast are wild animals,
not domestic cattle. Cattle are domestic cows and not wild beast animals.

Maybe you should study whats the difference between Cattle and Beast are.
Cattle are domestic animals and beasts are wild animals.

As for Exodus 12:9,12, had you read this, You would haved notice ( beast) are not consider domestic animals
Beasts are wild animals and not domestic animals.
horses, cows are domestic animals and not wild beasts.
If your trying to show contradiction in the Bible, Your not doing a very good job at it.
So far I have disproved everything that you have given.

No, sir, it is you who didn't read Exodus 9:9-11 "very good at all." (For the record, in English grammar, that should be "very well at all.")

Cattle, in Exodus 9:3 refer to all domestic animals. Do not suppose that is only cows. Horses, asses, camels, oxen and sheep were all domesticated by that time, and the verse is very specific about that: "Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain."

I don't give a rat's tiny hiney about the use of the word "murrain," because that's not the point. The point is that it is directed at those very "cattle" as defined in 9:3.

Second, nowhere in all of Exodus 9:3-6 is the word "beast used." In every verse the word is "cattle." So why do you bring that up? And all the "cattle" of the Egyptians died. There were no "beasts" in the episode. So why do you inject them? Is it to muddy the waters?

 

[sooda]

No, sir, it is you who didn't read Exodus 9:9-11 "very good at all." (For the record, in English grammar, that should be "very well at all.")

Cattle, in Exodus 9:3 refer to all domestic animals. Do not suppose that is only cows. Horses, asses, camels, oxen and sheep were all domesticated by that time, and the verse is very specific about that: "Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain."

I don't give a rat's tiny hiney about the use of the word "murrain," because that's not the point. The point is that it is directed at those very "cattle" as defined in 9:3.

Second, nowhere in all of Exodus 9:3-6 is the word "beast used." In every verse the word is "cattle." So why do you bring that up? And all the "cattle" of the Egyptians died. There were no "beasts" in the episode. So why do you inject them? Is it to muddy the waters?

You can see why the evangelicals and fundies have such a hard time.

 

[Road Less Traveled]

If everything was created/designed, and all of creations/designs possible potential... the original sin would belong to the creator(s)/designer(s).

If the skies lit up and a voice spoke in which all could hear and said, ‘Why are you human beings all sinners, and making me/us look bad?’

What can anyone honestly say other than ‘we are all just mimicking our daddy(s), like daddy(s) like children.

If there were any good liberating force, it would only be sensible that it would be liberating beings from the original creator(s)/designer(s).

 

[Faithofchristian]

No, sir, it is you who didn't read Exodus 9:9-11 "very good at all." (For the record, in English grammar, that should be "very well at all.")

Cattle, in Exodus 9:3 refer to all domestic animals. Do not suppose that is only cows. Horses, asses, camels, oxen and sheep were all domesticated by that time, and the verse is very specific about that: "Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain."

I don't give a rat's tiny hiney about the use of the word "murrain," because that's not the point. The point is that it is directed at those very "cattle" as defined in 9:3.

Second, nowhere in all of Exodus 9:3-6 is the word "beast used." In every verse the word is "cattle." So why do you bring that up? And all the "cattle" of the Egyptians died. There were no "beasts" in the episode. So why do you inject them? Is it to muddy the waters?

I don't care either,
Murrain = Pestilence.
Go the Hebrew translation.

Cattle are not beasts.
Cattle are cows which are domestic animals.
Beast are wild animals. Not domestic animals.

I can see you can't handle the fact that you been defeated. As there is no contradictions, just you taking things out of their context.

 

[paarsurrey]

The doctrine justifies the crucifixion.

But Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived a cursed death with the grace of G-d as he had already foretold. So, Jesus never gave the teachings of original sin. Right, please?

Regards

 

[sooda]

But Jesus did not die on the Cross, he survived a cursed death with the grace of G-d as he had already foretold. So, Jesus never gave the teachings of original sin. Right, please?

Regards

Then it was no sacrifice at all just to die for three days.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I believe the forbidden fruit is hate, war, and especially violence.

 

[Dell]

What are your views on original sin? This is both for hard-line literalists and those who believe it's all metaphorical

For the believers in the literal interpretation: I assume you reject evolution - otherwise the Adam and Eve story can't really be a thing. Who's to say when the first 'humans' walked the earth, considering we all have varying amounts of neanderthal DNA still floating around.

For the metaphorical believers: unless Adam and eve literally gave us original sin, jesus' martyrdom was pointless. If you believe Jesus was a mythical character, how can you assume God is different?

Thanks for indulging me

Easy to point out fallacy of the doctrine of death entering into the world by the fall like most protestants still preach. The 5 proven extinction periods millions of years prior to humans basically blow that doctrine out of the water.

 

[Kenny]

The first link, supposedly about archaeology, is from "Ecumenical News." Really?

Frankly, I find medical journals too hard to read because they're so technical, so I get all my medical information from Sports Illustrated. A lot easier to read, and doesn't upset my cherished predispositions.

Really?

This is the sum of your "intellectual review"? If this is the same effort that you put into meeting a person, it's no wonder won't meet them.

 

[sooda]

I don't care either,
Murrain = Pestilence.
Go the Hebrew translation.

Cattle are not beasts.
Cattle are cows which are domestic animals.
Beast are wild animals. Not domestic animals.

I can see you can't handle the fact that you been defeated. As there is no contradictions, just you taking things out of their context.

Cattle would be beasts of the field.

Pestilence - a fatal epidemic disease, especially bubonic plague.

What denomination of Christian are you?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Cattle would be beasts of the field.

Pestilence - a fatal epidemic disease, especially bubonic plague.

What denomination of Christian are you?

Well for one thing Beasts are not cattle.
Domestic cows are cattle, and not beasts.

And what does who I am have to do with what were talking about.
What your trying to do in bring up what
denomination of Christian am I.

What your trying to do, is to avoid the question at hand.
So who I am or what I am has nothing to do with the questions at hand.

So let's stay with the topic at hand. And not on what someone is or isn't.

The main topic of the thread is
( Original sin)
Now how does what your talking about fit into what the thread is actually about
( Original sin)
What does who I am or what I am have to do with what the thread is about?

It seems your going from one extreme to another extreme, just to avoid what the thread is actually about. ( Original sin)

 

[sooda]

Well for one thing Beasts are not cattle.
Domestic cows are cattle, and not beasts.

And what does who I am have to do with what were talking about.
What your trying to do in bring up what
denomination of Christian am I.

What your trying to do, is to avoid the question at hand.
So who I am or what I am has nothing to do with the questions at hand.

So let's stay with the topic at hand. And not on what someone is or isn't.

The main topic of the thread is
( Original sin)
Now how does what your talking about fit into what the thread is actually about
( Original sin)
What does who I am or what I am have to do with what the thread is about?

It seems your going from one extreme to another extreme, just to avoid what the thread is actually about. ( Original sin)

No, sir, it is you who didn't read Exodus 9:9-11 "very good at all." (For the record, in English grammar, that should be "very well at all.")

Cattle, in Exodus 9:3 refer to all domestic animals. Do not suppose that is only cows. Horses, asses, camels, oxen and sheep were all domesticated by that time, and the verse is very specific about that: "Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain."

I don't give a rat's tiny hiney about the use of the word "murrain," because that's not the point. The point is that it is directed at those very "cattle" as defined in 9:3.

Second, nowhere in all of Exodus 9:3-6 is the word "beast used." In every verse the word is "cattle." So why do you bring that up? And all the "cattle" of the Egyptians died. There were no "beasts" in the episode. So why do you inject them? Is it to muddy the waters?

Beast of the field include cattle, oxen, sheep, goats, horses etc.. as opposed to birds and reptiles. Try READING the scripture.

3 Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.

Pestilence is a fatal disease.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't care either,
Murrain = Pestilence.
Go the Hebrew translation.

Cattle are not beasts.
Cattle are cows which are domestic animals.
Beast are wild animals. Not domestic animals.

I can see you can't handle the fact that you been defeated. As there is no contradictions, just you taking things out of their context.

You are apparently having some small difficulty with your reading skills, either that or a predisposition to claim victory too hastily. Here is the full text, from the KJV.

Exodus 9:3-6 King James Version (KJV)
3 Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the oxen, and upon the sheep: there shall be a very grievous murrain.
4 And the Lord shall sever between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt: and there shall nothing die of all that is the children's of Israel.
5 And the Lord appointed a set time, saying, To morrow the Lord shall do this thing in the land.
6 And the Lord did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.

Now, please be so kind as to highlight every instance of the word "beasts" in that text.

Either that, or admit that it says, quite specifically "all of the cattle of Egypt died," when cattle is given in verse 3. (Unless you are going to try to suggest that only the cows were in the field, and the horses, assess, camels, oxen and sheep were in the parlour getting their little hoofies done.)

 

[1213]

Nonsense. There was no original sin doctrine until the 3rd century AD.

Perhaps no doctrine, but the idea is in Genesis that tells how people rejected God and sin came to human life. It is Genesis that tells how people lost the connection with God and that because of Adam and Eve also we are born in separation from God (sin).

 

[paarsurrey]

Then it was no sacrifice at all just to die for three days.

Jesus did not die on the Cross and was delivered from it alive as he had already foretold and for which he had prayed to G-d so fervently.

Regards