go and open church, you will soon buy your own private jet.

bukkyemotions:
If you mould your personal block, can the block argue with you on which house to build with it or what to do with it? God created us, whatever He wishes, He is supreme to do as He pleases..

doesn't that contradict your argument? if God can do anything he wishes to us, that means our actions are subjected to his wishes. Pharaoh's actions were predetermined by God so that God could show his power through Pharaoh. If we are like blocks, then God can influence our choices to agree with his wishes. That is predestination.

What of Pharaoh? God hardened his heart so that he will not let the people go. Jacob and Esau too. Before they were born, God chose Jacob, despite the guy being a cheat

ABCthings:
How can you stage the healing of someone everyone knows was born blind?

Who?

The tree in the garden represented God's tithe
Sakamanje

If you don't pay your tithe, things will be tight for you.

annyplenty:


It does me no harm to believe. On the other hand, I will lose everything if I disbelieve and it comes out real.

Think about that logic.

Believe and search for kryptonite too because superman might exist and he might want to kill you.

when will people realize that this rapture thing is a scam?

god works in mysterious ways

MuttleyLaff:










"And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
- Genesis 6:3

You guys are you all lying down facing the same direction false conclusion sha. Where did you all see and read in Genesis 6:3 that God was setting a lifespan limit per se, huh? How come you all dont recognise that the 120 years in Genesis 6:3 has nothing to do with setting life expectancy limit per se, at all, huh? People just like regurgitating stomached bullshits shoved down their throats by erring and ill-informed persons, pastors, teachers, friends etcetera

Genesis 6:3, is just another prophecy, similar to the Methuselah genealogy flood prophecy, but a better flavour, which this time, is homing in, on the exact time when the flood will happen, which for crying out loud, is 120 years time. So pack in all those your jagbajantis kicking penality to throw in nonsense please

baba, that was what I said later

Talking about crazy things, some sets of people believe in talking snake and donkey. They believe in stars falling from the sky into a river. They believe a prophet ate bread garnished with human sh1t for more than one year.

Ihedinobi3:

Because they were not Chinese or any other race?

Simple genetics will teach you that each successive generation has a combination of genes derived from their parents which manifests itself phenotypically in different ways. So, tall parents may have short children because those children inherited genes that contain information to that effect because the parents inherited them from their own parents. The reverse is also true.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they possessed all the genetic information that resulted in the different appearances that we see in their children even if they themselves looked completely different from those children. Adam was red in color, for example. It is possible that Eve was the same.

Every child inherits half of their parent's combined genetic pool scrambled in a way unique to that child. So, each of Adam's and Eve's direct children inherited half of their parents' gene pool. Each half was scrambled in a unique way so that although the full gene pool may be preserved in the next generation, there are no two similar halves. The grandchildren then are likely to inherit genes that make them phenotypically different in some way from their grandparents, and on and on.

In other words, Adam and Eve can be the source of Asian, African, European and Indian features even without having any of them.

This is what's called Holmesian fallacy. There are two basic fallacies. One is that you've truly eliminated other choices as being impossible and secondly that you've enumerated all of the possibilities. But you've really not. You've eliminated the possibility of humans originating from multiple ancestors (which is more logical) because you base your premise on the bible. Your argument is filled with many deductions that are not substantial. What of the possibility of many first men and women?

Ihedinobi3:

I'm not sure I see how the latter could be understood from what I said. You may be referring to the idea that the Hebrew elements that comprise the name Adam are translatable as earth. That is fair enough, but Adam as a word means red. That was the color of the first man. As I said in that post.

why do you think Adam was red in color?

Ihedinobi3:

Because they were not Chinese or any other race?

Simple genetics will teach you that each successive generation has a combination of genes derived from their parents which manifests itself phenotypically in different ways. So, tall parents may have short children because those children inherited genes that contain information to that effect because the parents inherited them from their own parents. The reverse is also true.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then they possessed all the genetic information that resulted in the different appearances that we see in their children even if they themselves looked completely different from those children. Adam was red in color, for example. It is possible that Eve was the same.

Every child inherits half of their parent's combined genetic pool scrambled in a way unique to that child. So, each of Adam's and Eve's direct children inherited half of their parents' gene pool. Each half was scrambled in a unique way so that although the full gene pool may be preserved in the next generation, there are no two similar halves. The grandchildren then are likely to inherit genes that make them phenotypically different in some way from their grandparents, and on and on.

In other words, Adam and Eve can be the source of Asian, African, European and Indian features even without having any of them.

when you say Adam was red, are you talking about the color of his skin or the fact that he was allegedly made from sand?

nowhere in Leviticus said you can't marry your cousin.
Some ladies in numbers actually married their cousins. I don't know why some people can't accept that

Numbers 36:11-13 KJV
For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married unto their father's brothers' sons: [12] And they were married into the families of the sons of Manasseh the son of Joseph, and their inheritance remained in the tribe of the family of their father. [13] These are the commandments and the judgments, which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

kiddoiLL:
Nigerians!! Nigerians!!! Nigerians sha!! You'll get money if you share a picture?? Hmmmmm

People believe they can become rich by stealing pants

budaatum:

There's alway been chances and things are constantly removed. However, there's a limit to which we can go now since many have copies of what's available today and further editing discredits it. So we do it in our minds instead, and hence is it called the living word of God. It lives in our minds and as our minds grow so does our capacity to comprehend grow and a new more relevant understanding and interpretation steps forth just as Christ did in the dark.

living word of God

budaatum:

No they didn't! Remember how inadequate, stupid and blind I was when I wrote it so many millenia after the events themselves had happened?

if there's a chance to edit the bible, many things will be removed.

sherylbakky:
It is simple...Their children started looking for how to survive, leaving their region to another n due to climate change n different weather in different regions the skin colour started changing...And we av different race.

It is as a result of environmental factor.
..My take.




Nobody sud quote me ooo

what of changes in facial appearance. e.g Caucasians pointed noses and Asians closed eyes.

asalimpo:

you hav to restrict your sample to post flood people.

they are all post flood

OpenYourEyes1:




I don't think it was a misinterpretion. People lived way long before the flood. It is not a coincidence that after GOD's pronouncement human lifespan began to shrink to this day

I was aware of those lifespan you posted before posting this. I saw alot of online argument for and against that part of the Bible.

I is clear that human lifespan began to shrink after GOD made the pronouncement. The pronouncement was probably for most of humans — more than 99% of humans do not surpass the limit.

another interpretation was that God gave all men 120 years before the flood. That's more reasonable to me.

johnydon22:


Esau was simplg a good guy. I think Jacob was a horrible person, betraying his brother's trust every chance he gets. Very horrible person

but god chose Jacob. God works in mysterious ways

People lived beyond that in the bible. It was probably misinterpreted

Numbers 33:39 KJV
And Aaron was an hundred and twenty and three years old when he died in mount Hor.

Genesis 35:28 (NKJV)
28 Now the days of Isaac were one hundred and eighty years.

Genesis 25:7 NKJV
7 This is the sum of the years of Abraham’s life which he lived: one hundred and seventy-five years

Genesis 47:9 KJV
And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years: few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

asalimpo, only Esau can contend with Samson in your list. how can you be betrayed multiple times by the same person?

asalimpo:
this is not true

who is it then?

Samson was the greatest dumba$$ in the bible

budaatum:
Thank you very much. I promise that I will try harder.

Lord buda

budaatum:

Its a more plausible explanation, surely. And even the second point, in a way, though, not so much that God changed, but I was a child who saw through dark glass and thought as a child. When I become a grownup, I will put away childish [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+13%3A9-12&version=KJV]things[/url], I promise. Yet, even then, I may still only know in part.

If only I knew in a whole from the very beginning. But why blame God for my own inadequacies, stupidity and blindness, TVSA, and not blame me?

I do not blame god in this. I blame the writer of the script that was played in the old testament. They did a bad job. That is why my first question on this thread was if god can sin

budaatum:

I put it to you that you are holding on to the elephants trunk and using it to describe what is really there. If you read the Bible from the beginning and turn page to the end, you would notice how God, as depicted, appears to evolve from a wrathful quick to anger God into a turn the other cheek God. Might it not be that those who describe God in the beginnings also made the error you make in their description, and Jesus had a better understanding?

Consider the chapter from which you got your "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." By the time you get to that page you'd likely notice how unangry and unwrathful God has become to the extent that God no more destroys even though the humans on earth by then were many times more evil prone that when God was turning people to salt, drowning them in floods and just about having them killed on a whim, to a loving God who so loved the world that God sent the only begotten son to be spat on, ridiculed and nailed a two by four. If that were the old God, I'm sure we'd all have been toast, don't you think?

I wonder if you would seriously think a person who does what Jesus taught is as bad as you claim. If I turned the other cheek when you slapped me and loved you because you live next door to me, and gave what I had to those who have not, would you really think I was so bad even if I claimed I learnt to be so from a myth?

I also wonder if you take your notion of God from the depictions and acts of some. Do tell.

so it is either of the two ; 1.) God was misinterpreted by the old testament prophets 2.) he has changed from whom he used to be.

I will like to go with the first option. Looking at the teachings of Jesus as you've said, he never portrayed god in a wicked way or in bad light. And Jesus didn't take after the old testament god in the scripture. Despite the believe that he's the same as god. So I believe all those old prophet didn't really know god and the understanding of some that god can kill has already been flawed by the teachings and deeds of Jesus.

budaatum:

How so?

check the context,

Matthew 5:43-48 KJV
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. [44] But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; [45] That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. [46] For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? [47] And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others ? do not even the publicans so? [48] Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Jesus portrayed god as one gentle and cool guy who doesn't take revenge and fight back. But that was a lie, the god of old was the opposite of what Jesus described.

budaatum:

The image of god being portrayed here by op is a moral standard? I bet you if an ordinary human being behaves like op's god we'd very likely all gang up and bash its head in with a rock!

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." the most hypocritical saying ascribed to Jesus