Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Hell...
289 Answers
Justify it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//The life is in the blood. God demands a life for sin//
That is not actually found in the Old Testament. Its a New Testament idea.
The Old Testament is awash with bloodshed but the idea that sin cannot be forgiven without blood is a New Testament doctrine that has no basis in Judaism.
God forgave many people their sins without bloodshed.
(Book of Jonah and the Ninevites for example)
Or king David etc
Bloodshed and the Old Testament go hand in hand, but shedding blood to be forgiven is simply not there.
(Ill hazard a guess at what will be posted next...)
That is not actually found in the Old Testament. Its a New Testament idea.
The Old Testament is awash with bloodshed but the idea that sin cannot be forgiven without blood is a New Testament doctrine that has no basis in Judaism.
God forgave many people their sins without bloodshed.
(Book of Jonah and the Ninevites for example)
Or king David etc
Bloodshed and the Old Testament go hand in hand, but shedding blood to be forgiven is simply not there.
(Ill hazard a guess at what will be posted next...)
Theland - // Ever since animals were slaughtered to provide covering skins for Adam and Eve, it is by example that blood must be shed to provide a covering for sin. //
You will appreciate that as an atheist, I am happy to accept that you know the bible better than I do - can you point to the Chapter and verse where it says that please?
How do you know that Adam and Eve didn't just find a dead cow somewhere and skin that?
Where is your evidence that they killed something for its skin?
You will appreciate that as an atheist, I am happy to accept that you know the bible better than I do - can you point to the Chapter and verse where it says that please?
How do you know that Adam and Eve didn't just find a dead cow somewhere and skin that?
Where is your evidence that they killed something for its skin?
Andy, Adam and Eve, having eaten the forbidden fruit, realised their nakedness, so they wove fig leaves together to cover their modesty. Genesis 3:7
So they were covered.
Yet in Genesis 3:21, God clothed them in animal skins.
So what does this suggest?
It suggests that the fig leaves were inadequate to cover their sin, although they covered their nakedness.
Therefore it was God Himself who slaughtered the animal to make garments that covered both their nakedness and their sin.
There is no other way of weaving a new meaning into this.
So they were covered.
Yet in Genesis 3:21, God clothed them in animal skins.
So what does this suggest?
It suggests that the fig leaves were inadequate to cover their sin, although they covered their nakedness.
Therefore it was God Himself who slaughtered the animal to make garments that covered both their nakedness and their sin.
There is no other way of weaving a new meaning into this.
Zacs - // Could he not have used skin from an animal recently dead of natural causes? //
That's exactly the point I made - and as usual Theland has swerved it.
Theland has read something in a book written by men, and decided that his God killed something, and then he (Theland that is!!!) has made up a reason why, and now he can't defend it, so as usual he simply ignores awkward questions.
That's exactly the point I made - and as usual Theland has swerved it.
Theland has read something in a book written by men, and decided that his God killed something, and then he (Theland that is!!!) has made up a reason why, and now he can't defend it, so as usual he simply ignores awkward questions.
