Your god gave children cancer

[lilpixieofterror]

This proves beyond doubt that you’re the dumbest poster on Tweb. You pretend to yourself and others that you are an informed Christian, yet you say only “a single translator of the NIV calls it “tumors”. You can’t be more wrong, ignoramus. First of all the NIV is translated by a team of scholars. Second, and more importantly, NIV is in good company:

Very good Pitchy, you can do research! Now please prove that a bacteria infection is cancer or are you just going to keep pretending that a growing, caused by bacteria, is cancer.

Not ALL translations say this but meny respected ones do. Now have the honesty and integrity to admit you were wrong that “a single translator of the NIV” calls it tumors!

So what pitchy? How does this prove that this is cancer? Do you know the difference between cancer and a bacteria infection? It seems now all you got left is little games becuase you can't make your point and know it. Growths, in the body, caused by an infection is not cancer because it's not

Yes, all the scholars who wrote the English Standard Bible, American Standard Version, New Living Translation Bible, New International Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible and New International Version, didn’t know what they were doing when they translated this passage. They should have consulted internet apologist lilwitchyorerror before they went to print.

And this comes from the same person that tries to claim that a tumor, that is caused by what we know today as 'plague' is cancer. I notice that you are now dodging the rest of my argument and doing what you do best, ignore what you don't want to hear and dodge arguments you can't answer. Come on pitchy, what doctor would tell you that the plague causes cancer to develop in humans? Can you show this or do you know the difference between cancer and infections?

Question lilwitchyoferror:

1. Why did all the scholars who wrote these Bibles refer to this as tumors?

I’ll be looking forward to your answer.

Who cares, does this prove that God gave people cancer? Nope because again... cancer is caused by the outgrowth of the bodies own cells and an infection is caused by a bacteria. So a growth, in the body, caused by a bacteria infection, isn't cancer. Why are you dodging this issue pitchy and trying to make a huge deal out of this little issue? Why did they decided to call it tumors? I don't know, ask them, but I know the difference between cancer and infections and what you are describing is not cancer at all, but an infection. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this fact pitchy? Are you trying to avoid admitting to your error? Tisk tisk tisk... how dishonest are you going to get?

Actually, the correct wording would be a bacterial infection. Some commentators believe this plague to be the first recorded instance of Bubonic Plague. I stated that Bubonic Plague is caused by the bacteria Yersinia pestis. The relationship between, plague, bacteria, infection, etc, in this passage is not clear. But this misses the point.

My original point was that the Bible says that Yahweh gave the people tumors. Many people died from the tumors. Malignant tumors are cancer.

Yet again, you are wrong, did you bother to read upon cancer before you ranted? A tumor caused by an infection is not cancer. Cancer is the bodies own cells going 'rogue' (so to speak) and attacking healthy tissue and interrupting bodily functions. An infection is caused by bacteria attacking the body and these 'growths' or 'tumors' (as these translators are calling it) are often the bodies immune system attacking the invaders. The two are different and treating one like the other will kill a person or leave them severely disabled for the rest of their life. Do you understand the differences yet or are you working on yet another desperate ploy to salvage your dumb argument from the wrecker? Bacteria infections are not cancer, understand yet?

Here’s your other error and why you appear to deliberately not understand what's being said:

It most certainly can. Malignant tumors = cancer. You should have the honesty and integrity to admit that this is correct.

Sorry pitchy, I didn't make an error, you are just stupid or did you read this:

An abnormal mass of tissue that results when cells divide more than they should or do not die when they should.

Is plague the bodies own cells attacking itself? Yes or no moron or, yet again, are you just too stupid to understand that a bacteria infection is not cancer and just because somebody is growing lumps because of an infection, it is not cancer. Tell me, do you think that pneumonia is cancer because the body is growing lumps in the lung tissue to attack the infection? Just so you are aware, these bumps around the groin area is caused by the lymph nodes swelling because of the bodies immunity response, AKA not cancer. Understand yet pitchy or does your little brain need more time to process this advanced data?

[Pitchforkpat]

Yet again pitchy, why are you so stupid? First off, no it doesn't call it tumors, a single translator of the NIV calls it tumors

Lilwitchy, we’re not going any further until you can admit you were wrong, here. The Bible DOES call it tumors and it’s not just “a single translator of the NIV”. Here was your error exposed:

The hand of the LORD was heavy against the people of Ashdod, and he terrified and afflicted them with tumors - English Standard Bible


But the hand of Jehovah was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with tumors – American Standard Version


Then the Lord’s heavy hand struck the people of Ashdod and the nearby villages with a plague of tumors – New Living Translation Bible


God was hard on the citizens of Ashdod. He devastated them by hitting them with tumors. – The Message



The LORD severely oppressed the people of Ashdod, terrorizing and afflicting the people of Ashdod and its territory with tumors – Holman Christian Standard Bible



The LORD's hand was heavy upon the people of Ashdod and its vicinity; he brought devastation upon them and afflicted them with tumors – New International Version

I'm not going to explain anything else to you until you demonstrate that you are capable of admitting you were wrong or you are not worthy of anyone’s time, including mine. Well, lilwitchyoferror, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit this or not?

[Pitchforkpat]

People that performed child sacrifices weren't horrible because they were very ignorant and sometimes did good things?

No, you don’t understand. Fm93 was trying to excuse genocide by saying that a particular ethnic group was the “scum of the earth” and also that anyone who was killed was “truly horrible”. I pointed out a couple of mistakes with these ideas.

1. It’s wrong and ignorant to paint an ethnic group with a broad indiscriminate brush like this. It’s like saying every German person is evil because of what the Nazis did. It would have been wrong to kill every German. This logic is not void because you’re referring to an ethnic group that existed a few thousand years ago. ALL ethnic groups include a variety of people with both altruistic and malevolent tendencies. Human nature is complicated. It's only anthropologic ignorance that would allow such simplistic ethnic smears.


2. I pointed out that ALL the Amalekite infants and babies were killed. If, as he claimed, only those who were “truly horrible” were killed then the Amalekite infants and babies were truly horrible. I asked him what they had done to make these infants and babies “truly horrible”.

If you have good answers for these problems, please present them.

If this is all it takes to admit that they weren't horrible people, then it would follow that just because God killed children with cancer, it doesn't mean that God is horrible.

I didn’t say “God” was “horrible”. I have maintained that the ordering of genocide demonstrates that the Yahweh character in the Hebrew bible is not the all loving, merciful, being that Christians like to claim.

[yo lunch]

Really? So why did Eve say this:

"The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " Genesis 3:1-2, NIV

Sorry Christopher, Eve argued with the snake BEFORE and once they deed was done, they realized what they did and tried to hide it. Just as the child tries to hide the crumbs from the cookie that mommy said he couldn't have. Do you somehow think that a child realized that what they did was wrong after they ate the cookie or did they know this before, but choose to do it anyway and tried to hide what they did after the fact? Adam and Eve both knew what would happen, but choose to do it anyway and tried to hide what they did. I really do wonder if atheist like you were this dense in their Christians days or if they developed this density afterwords.

Can't you see that by Eves' conversing with the serpent with knowledge of good and evil before the "sin," that is proof of the fabulous nature of the tale? How can she argue from a point of knowledge of good and evil before eating the of the fruit of the tree that was supposed to impart that knowledge to her? Wake up, you have been duped!

[Composer]

Yet again, decomposed simply rips the Bible out of context to make his case. Here is the entire chapter, in context:

"If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others."
Philippians 2:1-4, NIV

In other words, decomposed, Paul is saying that we should love one another and be like minded in our joy and love to one another, not that we should walk in lock step. However; I am forgetting, I am talking to the king of fundy atheist and out of context soundbites, so deeper understanding of the text is as beyond you as the top shelf, in the kitchen, is beyond a child.

Story book Jesus - For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: (1 Peter 2:21) KJV story book

Story book Jesus - Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind. (Philippians 2:2) KJV story book

But you prefer to listen to the other story book fraud Paul and his hearsay blather instead of what your alleged God has to say! LOL!

That figures deary!

And I am NOT an atheist either deary!

You are a self proven loser though!

Better luck on another Topic!

[Composer]

Got to love assertions without evidence. Show that they didn't know or is this just an assertion you have made, without evidence, to make your argument look more valid. I'll be waiting and don't give me this, "Duh! They did it so therefore they had no knowledge of good and evil" because guess what... people do bad things when they should know better all the time. Why do you suppose that Adam and Eve tried to hide what they did from God? Could it be because they knew they did something wrong and were trying to cover it up, just as people do today? Keep going decomposed and exposing your lack of thinking before all. Simply put, if they knew nothing of good and evil, why did they lie and try to cover it up?

IF (as you ineptly claim) they already understood what Good & Evil was BEFORE they partook of the Tree of that knowledge, then explain why your God would bother trying to prevent them from obtaining the knowledge YOU foolishly say they already had?

They only understood Good and Evil and their naked shame AFTER they had partaken of the forbidden fruit and obtained the knowledge it gave only AFTER having partaken of it. We also know this because they were naked before with no shame.

Your past trinitarian story book teachers have failed you miserably deary!

[Composer]

Really? So why did Eve say this:

"The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " Genesis 3:1-2, NIV

All the following I have to add is way above your infantile comprehension and past brain-washed teachings but I will state it regardless to further prove your ineptitude and lack of story book comprehension -

Adam & Eve were ill informed and had no understanding of Good & Evil nor what death was before they partook of the forbidden tree and more so, we know that Eve actually lied to the Serpent -

Here's what you quoted Eve said to the Serpent -

"The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " Genesis 3:1-2, NIV (story book) - (italic parenthesis mine)

Here's what the story book says your alleged God said to Adam -

But 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. (Genesis 2:17) KJV story book

i.e. . . . . thou shall not eat of it, . . . ..

If we compare what story book God told story book Adam (Gen. 2:16 - 17 KJV story book) with what Eve was aware and told the Serpent creature (Gen. 3: 3) KJV story book, we see that the words - "neither shall ye touch it", have been added / embellished from the original warning given exclusively to Adam.

#DO NOT ALTER GOD'S WORD : The scriptures advise of the repercussions against those who "add to / alter" God's words. - Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2 cf. Rev. 22:18-19 / Prov. 30:5 - 6) KJV story book

Until they literally partook of the story book Tree of the knowledge of Good & Evil it is absurd of you to claim they already understood what Good & Evil (including lies) were and you mock your God that it would try to prevent them from obtaining knowledge of what they already had knowledge of.

We know that the story book states that death was falsely blamed upon Adam (Romans 5:12) KJV story book, so Eve's lie was not held against her, simply for starters, because she didn't know what a lie (evil) was until AFTER partaking of the forbidden tree of the knowledge of Good & Evil.

Your past teachers really had you duped until yo lunch, I and others came along to rescue you from their false ideology and your own failed research and wasted studies (IF you did any and that doesn't manifest it as being the case? LOL!).

Better luck on another Subject altogether deary!

May be a dress making forum is your forte, for you are out of your depth here, but we are happy to continue to educate you with Truth that you and christianity have lacked from within itself for so long before!

[Kane]

Really? So why did Eve say this:

"The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' " Genesis 3:1-2, NIV

Sorry Christopher, Eve argued with the snake BEFORE and once they deed was done, they realized what they did and tried to hide it. Just as the child tries to hide the crumbs from the cookie that mommy said he couldn't have. Do you somehow think that a child realized that what they did was wrong after they ate the cookie or did they know this before, but choose to do it anyway and tried to hide what they did after the fact? Adam and Eve both knew what would happen, but choose to do it anyway and tried to hide what they did.

Before I answer your last question (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting), I will address your eisogesis. Before Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, she declared what God said about the tree in the middle of the garden. That does not indicate that she knew good and evil. It does, however, indicate that she knew what God had said about the garden and the trees within it. There is a rather sharp difference between knowing what somebody tells you and experiencing the thing you have been told.

So, are you suggesting with your scriptural reference that Eve knew good and evil before she took of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Are you saying that she knew good and evil before she knew good and evil?

Why did they try to hide their deeds afterward? Because after they took of the forbidden fruit, they knew good and evil. Not before.

A third option presents itself here, however. Namely, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and the introduction of sin is specious. But we can examine that later, perhaps.

I really do wonder if atheist like you were this dense in their Christians days or if they developed this density afterwords.

I hope you had a chuckle when you wrote that line, that you felt bigger, stronger, more fulfilled in your faith. If you didn't, I wonder what the value was in writing it out?

[lilpixieofterror]

Because after they did it, they knew good and evil. That's the whole point! They understood their shame after they did what they shouldn't have, not before. After.

Let me break this down for you, since you can't follow along:

1. Snake ask Eve why she should eat from the tree.
2. Eve says that she shouldn't and gives the consequences of what would happen if she did.
3. Snake tempts Eve again.
4. She eats from tree anyway, despite knowing better.

Sorry Chris, you can deny all you want, but it's as clear as day, she knew she shouldn't of taken and eaten from the tree and she knew doing so was wrong, but did it anyway. How does this not prove that Eve knew good and evil, in the case, and chose to do the wrong thing anyway? If you knew what you were doing was wrong, knew the consequences, but did it anyway... how could you argue that you didn't know when you clearly did? Children could understand this, so why can't you?

[lilpixieofterror]

Before I answer your last question (which, by the way, is incredibly insulting), I will address your eisogesis.

So you're going to make a fool of yourself and whine about insults, while dishing them out yourself? You're a walking contradiction, that's for sure. Anyway, time to address what you said below

Before Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, she declared what God said about the tree in the middle of the garden. That does not indicate that she knew good and evil. It does, however, indicate that she knew what God had said about the garden and the trees within it. There is a rather sharp difference between knowing what somebody tells you and experiencing the thing you have been told.

Sorry Chris, but you show, yet again, that you can't read. Eve didn't say, "Because God said so." because she also gave the CONSEQUENCES of what would happen if she were to eat from the tree. It does not take an intense understanding of everything good/evil to understand not to do X because Y consequences will result. Even children know this or are you so ignorant that you don't understand that there's various levels of knowledge on morality? This is no different than why kids shouldn't hit their siblings, why you shouldn't speed, or why it is wrong to beat people up.

So, are you suggesting with your scriptural reference that Eve knew good and evil before she took of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Are you saying that she knew good and evil before she knew good and evil?

I am suggesting that the tree didn't impart anything onto Adam or Eve at all, I am suggesting that the action of disobeying God is the sin. Adam and Eve had some knowledge of good and evil before hand because guess what... the snake asked Eve a question, Eve answered and she said what would happen as a result. How is this not a knowledge of good and evil? Take this example:

Q: Why shouldn't you speed?

A: One it's the law and two, it can kill/injury you or somebody else.

The answer above shows an understanding of good/evil, so why didn't Eve have a understanding of good and evil when the question asked of her was the same type as asked above? Again, the fruit imparted no special knowledge, it is the action of disobedience to God's will, not a piece of fruit, that did it.

Why did they try to hide their deeds afterward? Because after they took of the forbidden fruit, they knew good and evil. Not before.

Do your children use this excuse with you and do you let them get away with it? Yes or no? I bet the answer is no, so why is the answer now any different? By that logic, the murderer didn't know that is was wrong to kill, until they started to hide what they did. I would have a hard time believing this excuse from anybody so I somehow doubt that it works here.

A third option presents itself here, however. Namely, the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and the introduction of sin is specious. But we can examine that later, perhaps.

I don't agree with any of these options because I don't believe that Adam and Eve were stupid and didn't know anything. Sinless doesn't equal stupid or unknowing.

I hope you had a chuckle when you wrote that line, that you felt bigger, stronger, more fulfilled in your faith. If you didn't, I wonder what the value was in writing it out?

Not at all, but one pompous, wind bag statement, deserves another, don't you think? I'm just amazed about how many people seem to get this notion that fruit imparts some sort of special knowledge or that sinless means that Adam and Eve were clueless and knew nothing. The text doesn't support any of these notions and if anything, it's quite against it.

[lilpixieofterror]

All the following I have to add is way above your infantile comprehension and past brain-washed teachings b... blah blah blah blah blah space filler...

Can we say, "hot air" and 'non-answer'? This doesn't address a word I said because yet again decomposed:

1. Snake ask Eve why she should eat from the tree.
2. Eve says that she shouldn't and gives the consequences of what would happen if she did.
3. Snake tempts Eve again.
4. She eats from tree anyway, despite knowing better.

Can you actually answer this without ranting and just repeating what I already refuted again? Try again child and BTW I didn't get these from a church or pastor, but from studying and reading the text. Try to answer it this time, ok?

[lilpixieofterror]

Story book Jesus - For even here... blah blah blah blah blah, rant rant rant....

Yet again, he just repeats himself and doesn't answer, run away now and go decompose another thread before you stink this one up anymore with your droppings... I mean 'post'...

[lilpixieofterror]

Can't you see that by Eves' conversing with the serpent with knowledge of good and evil before the "sin," that is proof of the fabulous nature of the tale? How can she argue from a point of knowledge of good and evil before eating the of the fruit of the tree that was supposed to impart that knowledge to her? Wake up, you have been duped!

More examples of your fundy days I see, eh? Sorry dear, but trees do not impart knowledge upon people, actions do or did you ever think that it was the act of disobedience, not eating a piece of fruit, that is the sin?

[lilpixieofterror]

Lilwitchy, we’re not going any further until you can admit you were wrong, here. The Bible DOES call it tumors and it’s not just “a single translator of the NIV”. Here was your error exposed:



I'm not going to explain anything else to you until you demonstrate that you are capable of admitting you were wrong or you are not worthy of anyone’s time, including mine. Well, lilwitchyoferror, do you have the intellectual honesty to admit this or not?

Already admitted I was wrong pitchy, more of your inabilities of reading I see? So when will you admit that an infection and cancer are two different things? Sometime today or will you keep dodging the issue because you don't want to admit to errors, but demand others to do the same, even on tiny ones?

[Kane]

So you're going to make a fool of yourself and whine about insults, while dishing them out yourself? You're a walking contradiction, that's for sure. Anyway, time to address what you said below

Sorry Chris, but you show, yet again, that you can't read. Eve didn't say, "Because God said so." because she also gave the CONSEQUENCES of what would happen if she were to eat from the tree. It does not take an intense understanding of everything good/evil to understand not to do X because Y consequences will result. Even children know this or are you so ignorant that you don't understand that there's various levels of knowledge on morality? This is no different than why kids shouldn't hit their siblings, why you shouldn't speed, or why it is wrong to beat people up.

I am suggesting that the tree didn't impart anything onto Adam or Eve at all, I am suggesting that the action of disobeying God is the sin. Adam and Eve had some knowledge of good and evil before hand because guess what... the snake asked Eve a question, Eve answered and she said what would happen as a result. How is this not a knowledge of good and evil? Take this example:

Q: Why shouldn't you speed?

A: One it's the law and two, it can kill/injury you or somebody else.

The answer above shows an understanding of good/evil, so why didn't Eve have a understanding of good and evil when the question asked of her was the same type as asked above? Again, the fruit imparted no special knowledge, it is the action of disobedience to God's will, not a piece of fruit, that did it.

Do your children use this excuse with you and do you let them get away with it? Yes or no? I bet the answer is no, so why is the answer now any different? By that logic, the murderer didn't know that is was wrong to kill, until they started to hide what they did. I would have a hard time believing this excuse from anybody so I somehow doubt that it works here.

I don't agree with any of these options because I don't believe that Adam and Eve were stupid and didn't know anything. Sinless doesn't equal stupid or unknowing.

Not at all, but one pompous, wind bag statement, deserves another, don't you think? I'm just amazed about how many people seem to get this notion that fruit imparts some sort of special knowledge or that sinless means that Adam and Eve were clueless and knew nothing. The text doesn't support any of these notions and if anything, it's quite against it.

I haven't insulted you, LPOT. I have been entirely civil with you.

But I'm done now. I will not be communicating with you anymore.