there is only one plague which strikes the bodies of the Egyptians and that is boils .
There are some addition plagues mentioned in the Psalms that don't show up in Exodus. We don't know if all the plagues are explained in the text. There could be other things that happened that are not recorded. But be that as it may, Exodus says tells us that the LORD would not put on obedient Israel the diseases that He put on the Eygyptians. It doesn't just say 'the plagues.' The Egyptians may have had numerous illnesses that weren't plagues that hit the entire nation at the same time like the plagues mentioned in Exodus. The promise of health of obedient Israel seems to be a lot broader than just the illness mentioned in the passages about the plagues.
. and god put it in the hands of pharaoh to decide whether it would come or not .
pharoah decided to break his own promise of agreeing to let the people go - he decided that , not god .
True. Why do you spell 'God' with lower case, btw? But still, in Exodus, we read that the LORD would put upon the Israelites, if they met the conditions, none of the sicknesses that He put upon the Egyptians. Pharoah didn't go pick up the illnesses and pour them on the Egyptians when he chose to disobey. The boils that came as a result of his rebellion came from an external source.
but let me explore the implications of what you are saying , apart from the fact you seem bold to accuse god of "doing evil" the error that jobs Councillors made .
Be careful that you odn't blaspheme. I quoted what God said through Moses in the Bible. What did I 'accuse' Him of other than what He stated Himself, through a prophet? You are the one who brought up 'doing evil.' Some Charismatics, including many WOFers have a difficult time with understanding what 'good' is. God punishing evil-doers can be a very good thing, for example.
i am led to ask .. who HEALS ? for if you say .. "its god who brings evil on people" then do you not also imply that the adversary brings good on them ? or does your reasoning only apply to what you want it to apply to ?
You might benefit from a course in logic. Nothing I said implies anything about the Devil doing good to people. You are the one with the dualistic reasoning. It doesn't make logical sense that if God makes the wicked sick at times, that the Devil would have to do good things for people. There is no no logical connection.
Are you assuming some kind of yin and yang thing, where the Devil has to do the exact opposite of God? In my belief system, the Devil is not a god or an evil mirror image of God. That's not a Biblical way of viewing things. I'm trying to figure out why you would think that the Lord putting sicknesses on Egyptians would imply that the Devil does good things. That's the only explanation I could think of.
the curse has already come upon all flesh .. god did not sin ..god did not cause the curse .. we did .
do not charge god with evil .
God putting sicknesses on the Egyptians isn't sin. God putting the wicked in Hell is not sin.
It sounds like you hold to an elaborate theology that tries to 'blame shift' to somehow take God out of the equation when it comes to issues of judgment. The problem is, if the Bible has plenty of verses that do away with the whole need to 'blame shift.' God takes credit for drowning the Egyptians. God is good and just, and it is good and just of God to do such things. There is no blame to be assigned. God putting the wicked in Hell doesn't make him any less good. We just don't need the elaborate arguments that try to make God have nothing to do with the wicked going to Hell, since they aren't necessary.