Which only establishes God ignored the later Sins of the Father law.
If someone steels my car and gives it to there son and i go to the son and ask for it back and they refuse saying they should not have to because there dad did the theift, not them, thats no different then the theift itself because they arent willing to make right the wrong when its in there power to do so. So, now the son is guilty.
Between favorites. Remember everyone else but 1 family was dead killed by God.
God did not show unfair favoritism to noah.
He killed the nephilim hybrids and killed the wicked humans. Noah was rightious.
These nephilim wer also back on the scene in the conquest of canaan too.
Genesis 6 NIV
"
4The
Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons
of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5The Lord saw how
great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.
7So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
8But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
Noah and the Flood
9This is the account of Noah and his family.
Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.
Nope. You merely ignored a part of my point namely it is frowned upon to murder ones children to the point it is illegal in most nations. Ergo God would be a criminal in the US.
The USA dont get to decide if God is a criminal. God gets to decide if the USA is a criminal.
Consistence abuse does not make a good parents nor does consistent murder. It is like saying a serial killer being consistent is a good thing.
The only thing is its not abuse and its not serial. God sets down laws. He states the consequences to breaking them. If he does not inforce it when there broken, how can you respect him?
Just because Gods punishments are severe (death) does not make it wrong. In fact, on a logical standpoint if you up the severity of punishment to breaking the law, then you lower incentive to breaking the law. Hence, you have a society whos crime rate is drastically lowered, mayby none existent.
Yes he was as a number of people were not killed for doing evil. Joseph's brothers for example
But look at why Josephs brothers wer not killed. It was because Joseph did not do it. That was not on God. That was on Joseph. In fact, lets go further, God told isreal to destroy ALL the inhabitants of canaan. They destroyed SOME, but not ALL. Well, thats not on God, thats on Isreal. They desobeyed the order to fully exterminate.
Now, going back to Joseph. SOMETIMES God shows MERCY when people show a change of heart. In Josephs case, you know how the story goes, Joseph TESTS his brothers in order to SEE if there hearts had changed. He saw they did, so, he FORGAVE THEM.
Also, to add more to this: God promotes a none hypocritical approuch. In otherwords, Joseph KNEW he was being somewhat cocky with his brothers when he told them his dream that they would bow down to him. Even though Joseph was being honest in that, he was not being wise and that lack of wisdom infuriated his brothers. So, Joseph knew he played a part in FEEDING that fire. So, it made double sense to not only forgive his brothers because they changed, but also forgive there wrong, because he also did a mild wrong as well.
But, gauss what, THERES MORE TO ADD. Joseph needed them to take food home to there family and his father.
So, when mercy is applied, and justice is applied, its all a case by case basis. God weighs the motives.
Double-standards then which merely reflects favoritism. You provided my point.
The law of the child not being punished for the parrent was internal to the kingdom. But, hey, even if it was not, still, the child thats given the stolen property by the father, even though the child is innocent of that theift, there no longer once they find out and refuse to return the property.
The land was abandoned for 4 over centuries. Ownership claims are null.
There not null. The land was not occupied, but that dont mean it was forsaken or thrown away.
Genesis 48
"
21Then Israel said to Joseph, “I am about to die, but God will be with you and
take you back to the land of your fathers."
Genesis 48 NIV
So, they did not throw away the land as there property. In another passage he even instructed to be burried there in the plot of land that they owned. So, he would be taken out of egypt and burried in canaan.
They wer ONLY in egypt for food. Thats it.
Some people today have traveling occupations, there away from home for months, mayby years, who knows.
Would it be justified for squatters to take over there homes and get to keep them just because there away due to there jobs that they do in order to survive?
You brought up a trial. If God is on trial I can question God directly. Ergo your example was weak as God is no defendant that can be forced by law to show. Heck he can not even show on his own accord.
Fair enough, i did bring up the trial didnt I? Lol....so...i will leave that one be.
As per Judges, changing the minds of the individuals as God has zero issue doing so while order genocide
Changing minds takes away free will and thus makes robots.
Since you won't spare children and consider them guilty for the crimes of the father you are an immoral monster no different from Hitler.
Ok, let me explain some justified reasons for why the children wer killed.
1: some of these children wer nephalim (not fully human). God ordered angels not to mingle.
2: the children may have been innocent of the direct thieft of there parrents, but by refusing to give the land back, they now make themselves guilty.
3: alot of these parrents wer sacrificing there fully human babies to moloch, so, very few ACTUAL human babies would be around to kill even if isreal wanted to kill them. God even voiced disdain of baby sacrifice.
4: isreal had there OWN babies to take care of, why burden them with other babies not there own?
5: Isreal had no need to directly kill babies, they would have died on there own.
Now 4 and 5 may seam heartless, but keep in mind, all of nature outside civilization, in a darwinian kingdom is heartless. Its not that way because of evil but because of survival.
It is what it is.
You are misinterpreting what I consider guilt. I am taking about the famine in Canaan.
Im still not understanding then. Explain more for me?
God didn't drive them out. Hebrew swords and slaughter did. So you merely show that God actually didn't fulfill his promise.
Gods method of fullfilling the promise was THROUGH using isreals swords. God still lays on people responsibility.
Genocide is immoral itself as it requires fallacious thinking thus is arbitrary.
Even if the genocide was one big justice/punishment act?
And he never bothered returning to Canaan. Ergo abandoned his land.
I addressed this above. He did not abandon it. I showed the passage. Theres another passage too if you want me get it.
Which only shows they are horrible at their trade and God didn't bother to help with fish sandwiches as per Jesus. I hope you realize the Canaan was not uninhabited thus there were alternative.
Technically they all COULD have done what Joseph did, save in the abundent years. But, perhaps they never knew of the famine comming like Joseph knew.
Property within the kingdom. A sword, a donkey, ect, not the same as land. But even small posessions had to be returned if the owner was found.
Also, this jewish book is not the moses book.
But, all of that makes no difference because the passages that say God allotted the land to shem (which came isreal) was set "forever" per the passages.
