Killing of Egypts infants


This is a convenient discussion. Recently, I have been trying to explain this to many people for the last three months, but most of these people do not seem to have patience and tolerance to research this answer properly. So, I can answer this question, but I ask that the persons who want an answer to do the research (or at least show an attempt) because without it, it is a very difficult thing to explain.

The answer speaks of: What was the first lie, Who is the devil, Who are children of the devil, and why Jesus always seemed to speak as if the Books of the Law and Prophets were foreign to Him.


What is the First Lie in Scripture? Hint it is in Genesis 3.



When the devil said to Adam and Eve…“Ye shall not surely die”. Genesis 3:4. He lied. We all died spiritually when Adam fell.(Romans 5:12)…thus we all need to be reborn spiritually by faith to be restored back to the Father.

God bless,


First, there was no Eve in the Garden, only Adam and Woman.
Second, that is not the first lie in Scripture, that is the second lie in Scripture.
Third, I have you on ignore still, so don’t mind me if I don’t respond much to you later on.


A skeptic would ask, to be consistent, why does God allow everyone to die after such a small amount of years? For even a 120 year old has a short life from the perspective of eternity! We are so caught up in our own frame of thinking.


Egypt was not without warning. You would have thought that after 9 plagues Egypt would have wised up. They had plenty of chances to allow the Hebrews to go, but how many times did Pharoah change his mind?

And I would advise that you get some spiritual understanding of the significance of the Exodus.

Let me ask you this Echo, why the concern for Egyptian babies getting killed? Why not ask why anyone dies at all?


If I understand the situation correctly, it’s not just infants who were killed, but all first-born sons. I’d think that would include adults as well.

If you have some insight into the spiritual meanings of this incident, would you care to share?

I have some inklings of ideas, but nothing I’m sure enough of to discuss.



You mean other than that the Passover symbolizes a type of Christ? That Jesus frees us from the bondage of sin, just as this Passover symbolizes Israels freedom from the bondage of slavery (John 8:31-36)? That He in fact instituted Himself as the Passover Lamb on the night in which He was betrayed?


Yes, I meant beyond that fairly obvious basic.



Well, I figured Echo needed some instruction in the basics.

But actually it goes quite deeper than that…


I think you misunderstand my question, put your place in the mind of a skeptic, it appears heartless that God who is loving would kill children. Spiritual matters are easy for believers, so maybe it really is nothing we can say that will hepl a skeptic see the magnitude of the Exodus story. I do however understand how their heart may have trouble with understanding it with the mind. But thanks , its not an issue for me personally.


Or you can answer my questions and I can tell you why.


Yes, but the skeptic has a tendency of isolating incidents and not allow the broad picture to form. Unless one is willing to take what is going on in context to the rest of the scripture, then all one is ever going to focus on are dead Egyptian babies. Several here are attempting to explain things to you, but you don’t seem very open about it.

Your original inquiry was this:

Apologetics is defined as “systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)”. And that is what we are trying to do. But as long as one maintains a purely emotional objection, a reasoned response will not satisfy. Not to say that one should be apathetic about it, but emotional appeals to dead babies becomes a barrier to looking further into the inquiry. You’ve already made up your mind.


Echo’s concern is “How to answer this to a skeptic?” Say an athiest, or someone of another religion. Someone who doesn’t have any interest in giving God the benefit of doubt, or saying “the end justifies the means”.

I take it you’re saying that it’s impossible to do so? You may be right about that. On the surface, it’s hard to justify such incidents.

For me, the answer is the same as “Why does anyone die ‘before their time’?” Or for that matter, why does anyone die at all? God could prevent all deaths, and that fact makes him tacitly responsible for all deaths–whether He actively ‘causes’ them, or merely ‘allows’ them. Time of death is God’s perogative as Maker. Your skeptic may not like that God has that much authority–we tend to ‘presume’ that God owes us a certain amount of time on this earth–but it’s like Mom having authority to tell her kids what time they have to go to bed. Yes, I can send you to bed early!



Presumably you’re referring to the ish-sha’s [woman’s] apparent modification in Genesis 3:3 of the instruction given to the adam in Genesis 2:17 when she replies the Naḥash’s [Serpent’s] question by saying that they may not even *touch *the fruit (or is it the tree in its entirety? - it’s ambiguous as to which, if either one or both, she’s referring to here) of the tree which is in the middle of the garden… Yes?


Sonia, you seem to be saying that there is no essential difference between God causing a death, and simply allowing a death to occur without intervention.

Would you say the same if it were a human being rather than God?

For example, my first wife, in intensive care, was ill in such a way, that the doctor believed she was not recovering. So he removed life support, allowing her to die. If he had actively killed her, he might have been charged with murder. But as it was, according to law, he had done nothing wrong by allowing her to die, even though he could have prevented her death, or at least postponed it, by continuing life support…


Hmmm, you always have wise things to say, but I am unsure on this one. God created the life, and sustains life, hence when he withdraws it, I think it is fair to say he has taken it back. He certainly has the right to do this… I am personally starting to believe this life isn’t as important as we think. I mean, we might think leaving this place is terrible, but God may be waiting to show us the next blessed thing he has planned. Still, God does no wrong by taking life, since he is the author, but he does do wrong if he endlessly punishes us for things done in this life.

Then again, part of me thinks maybe we should just be happy to have existed and taken part in this life and that we may be no more… Does God owe us anything? Yes, he owes us fairness and giving life and taking it away is fair… Though I believe he will raise us again… I hope. But when I am dead and no more, I will care not. Before I was born, I cared not. Up until I was old enough, I cared not. I care now, but perhaps that is an idol… Is it possible?


I respect your opinions, Gabe, but I just don’t believe that whenever a person dies, it’s because “God took him” or “God withdrew life from him.”

Do you think that when a little girl is raped and murdered, that God withdrew life from her? I think it is clear that it was the criminal, and not God, who withdrew life from her.


I deny that God killed any infants when He struck the firstborn of Egypt. Assuming the existence of firstborn Egyptian infants at that time is eisegesis.

It would be bizarre (to say the least) for God to copy Pharaoh on this.


No, I don’t. I think the blame is placed on the humans. In the case of a 9 year old getting cancer and dying, I am more inclined to believe God had a part in that. However, I suppose it could be said that things we have done to our environment (chemicals, carcinogens, etc…) could be to blame for that, and not God. Which is definitely possible. If God created the order of the things and leaves this machine largely untouched, then I think I could swallow that God isn’t to blame in the 9 year old case. But, at this point, we don’t know enough to know why certain people get sick and others don’t. This one is a tricky one for me, to be honest. I mean, Jesus was willing to heal people in his earthly ministry, yet so many still die on their deathbeds with genuine faith asking for healing and never get it. The Calvinist can explain this, but their explanation is vile to me.


Thanks Gabe. I understand your struggle to understand.
I don’t think God is to blame for any deaths. I suppose I’m about 90% Deist.
I think that usually God does not intervene, and people normally die from natural causes (if we can consider earthquakes, floods, disease bacteria, and other human beings “natural causes”). Perhaps we should not call the cause of death and suffering “nature” but rather “fallen nature.”

But what keeps me from being a full-fledged Deist, is the fact that God sometimes does intervene. Sometimes God heals and delivers from suffering. I was once miraculously healed myself from a back ailment. I forget what the condition was, but it was a serious condition, diagnosed by a doctor. The brothers in the Christian assembly where I gather, prayed for me, and the when I saw the doctor in my next appointment, he said, “Obviously I made a mistake in my diagnosis. You don’t have this condition at all!”

My big question is not, “Why is there much suffering and death in the world?” but “Why does God sometimes heal or deliver from suffering, but usually does not?” On the surface, His healing seems to be random. Those healed are no more Godly than those who aren’t—sometimes a lot less Godly. Why does He choose to heal a few, but do nothing at all for the majority of sufferers?