Maybe someone can explain to.......

[Dunemeister]

I sure am glad that there's someone around here smarter than God. All praise be to arlanbb.

 

[Arlanbb]

Noah is another prime example. Noah was blessed to live when everybody else died. Cain was punished because of his actions. Abel was blessed for his actions. Abraham parents didnt worship God but God called Abraham out from his family and Abraham became father of many nations. we all are going to be judged according to our actions this is my beliefs. God bless

Noah never built a Ark to float around in because the Genesis deluge never happen and Abraham is another figment of the legends from the bible that was written by man and not God. I have a bridge i want to sell you......

 

[roddio]

Noah never built a Ark to float around in because the Genesis deluge never happen and Abraham is another figment of the legends from the bible that was written by man and not God. I have a bridge i want to sell you......

Well I believe what I believe and you can believe what you believe, no thanks on the bridge. God bless

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

God has absolutely NO problems punishing the children for the sins of the parents.

So sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong!

I refer you to the Jewish scriptures, specifically Ezekiel, which makes it clear that sin is NOT inherited!:

Ezekiel 18
14 Now, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father’s sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, . . .
17 He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live! …
19 Yet say ye, Why? Doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

I don't know what your source is for that statement, but given that Christians (and others) accept the Jewish scriptures as legitimate, too, clearly "original sin" is a man-made fantasy that in fact doesn't happen according to scripture!

Just the facts.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[McBell]

Greetings.



So sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong!

I refer you to the Jewish scriptures, specifically Ezekiel, which makes it clear that sin is NOT inherited!:

Ezekiel 18
14 Now, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father’s sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, . . .
17 He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live! …
19 Yet say ye, Why? Doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

I don't know what your source is for that statement, but given that Christians (and others) accept the Jewish scriptures as legitimate, too, clearly "original sin" is a man-made fantasy that in fact doesn't happen according to scripture!

Just the facts.

Peace,

Bruce

So Deuteronomy 23:2 is an error in the Bible?

 

[Arlanbb]

Greetings.



So sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong!

I refer you to the Jewish scriptures, specifically Ezekiel, which makes it clear that sin is NOT inherited!:

Ezekiel 18
14 Now, lo, if he beget a son that seeth all his father’s sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like, . . .
17 He shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live! …
19 Yet say ye, Why? Doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, [and] hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

I don't know what your source is for that statement, but given that Christians (and others) accept the Jewish scriptures as legitimate, too, clearly "original sin" is a man-made fantasy that in fact doesn't happen according to scripture!

Just the facts.

Peace,

Bruce

OK Bruce Besides Deut. 23:2 where it says to the 10th generation. Please read Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, VISITING THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS UPON THE CHILDREN UNTO THE THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATION."Also it is repeated in Deut. 5:9 and Exodus 34:6-7 says the same thing INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS -- THIRD AND FOURTH GENERATIONS.

Now from reading Ezekiel and Deut. it sure looks like we have a BIBLE CONTRADICTION. First the bible says yes the sins of the father are passed to the 10th generation - then God says No they are not.

Paul tells us "God is not the auther of confusion" [1 Cor. 14:33] if that is true then God did not write Ezekiel or Deut. People who are not blinded by the bible have noticed that the bible contains hundreds of these kind of diecrepancies.

What do you do with these verses Bruce???:yes:

 

[TheKnight]

What do you do with these verses Bruce???:yes:

Perhaps I can answer? I am no Christian, but at the same time, I have heard many bring up that which you have said. Generally speaking, it is thought that when God says that He punishes until the third or fourth generation it means that if X does a sin and X's descendants repeat the sin, the X's descendants will be punished more than if they had committed the sin on their own because they knew (from their predecessors) that it was a sin.

 

[Ba'al]

It doesn't say that though, Knight. Dt (23:2) says "shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD".
That passage means what is says, not what someone wants it to. If people want to add words to the bible they can make any theological point they want.

 

[TheKnight]

It doesn't say that though, Knight. Dt (23:2) says "shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD".
That passage means what is says, not what someone wants it to. If people want to add words to the bible they can make any theological point they want.

And reading the Torah incompletely will lead people to make "any theological point they want." Historically speaking, the Torah is of the Jews for the Jews. And Jews agree that the written Torah is not its only component. Not only that, but there is internal evidence that there is more to the Torah. To ignore that is to be willfully ignorant.

 

[Ba'al]

That passage is blatant. There is no interpretation needed.

 

[Willamena]

That passage is blatant. There is no interpretation needed.

Blatance isn't an interpretation?

 

[Ba'al]

Well if I said "I'm drinking milk right now", and you interpreted it as "I'm drinking milk right now", then I guess you interpreted it correctly.

 

[TheKnight]

That passage is blatant. There is no interpretation needed.

It may be blatant, but it does not mean that it stands alone or provides the entire picture. Having the entire picture, I can tell you that it does not.

But hey, I don't really care if you see a contradiction. Because you skewed view of the Torah (that does not consider the Torah in its entirety) is something I don't believe in.

 

[Arlanbb]

Perhaps I can answer? I am no Christian, but at the same time, I have heard many bring up that which you have said. Generally speaking, it is thought that when God says that He punishes until the third or fourth generation it means that if X does a sin and X's descendants repeat the sin, the X's descendants will be punished more than if they had committed the sin on their own because they knew (from their predecessors) that it was a sin.

Knight ~ i was wondering which bible you might be reading your version of those scriptures from. My bible only talks about the iniquities of the Father onto the sons, not the sons iniquities on their sons etc. What do you mean when you say "Generally speaking, it is thought"? Who are you refering to in "Generally speaking"???:yes:

 

[TheKnight]

Knight ~ i was wondering which bible you might be reading your version of those scriptures from. My bible only talks about the iniquities of the Father onto the sons, not the sons iniquities on their sons etc. What do you mean when you say "Generally speaking, it is thought"? Who are you refering to in "Generally speaking"???:yes:

I say generally speaking because it is more complex than that....I think Ezekiel 18 makes it clear.....And the Torah She Ba'al Peh does as well.

 

[Ba'al]

It may be blatant, but it does not mean that it stands alone or provides the entire picture. Having the entire picture, I can tell you that it does not.

But hey, I don't really care if you see a contradiction. Because you skewed view of the Torah (that does not consider the Torah in its entirety) is something I don't believe in.

First off, I do consider the Torah in it's entirety. In fact, I completed a 6 credit course on the Hebrew bible just last year in which EVERY word of it had to be read and analyzed. Have YOU read the context? If you believe Deuteronomy is God's word, then do you think He would reveal it so people could understand the words as they're written or in such a complex riddle that we couldn't?

 

[TheKnight]

First off, I do consider the Torah in it's entirety. In fact, I completed a 6 credit course on the Hebrew bible just last year in which EVERY word of it had to be read and analyzed. Have YOU read the context? If you believe Deuteronomy is God's word, then do you think He would reveal it so people could understand the words as they're written or in such a complex riddle that we couldn't?

I believe that it can be understood within the Jewish tradition. The Torah does not consist solely of its written component, but also of a vast oral component which accompanies it.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

I see someone has already answered you about these other verses.

And I will point out that the statement in Ezekiel is at least as clear and exacting as the others you quote!

Perhaps you need to ask a Torah expert about this--not my department, I'm afraid.

And in any case, since my own religion is not based upon this book or these passages, for me--at least--they aren't of direct effect. And the scriptures I do follow similarly reject inheritance of sin.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[gnomon]

Maybe someone can explain to me the logic of the following ~ The Hebrew bible states that in Gods creation that everything God created was "Very Good" Gen 1:31. Then after about 1600 years God saw "that the wickedness of mankind was great...and mankind's heart was always evil. So God was sorry he had made mankind so God said I will blot out mankind whom I had created from the face of the earth. But Noah found favor in the eyes of God. So God started over with Noah and now for the last 4000 or so years mankind has not changed in wickedness and doing evil.

If God knows the end from the beginning didn't God know that mankind, that he created, was going to do evil?? Also if God knows the end from the beginning didn't he know that the mankind that developed after the Flood was going to become as evil or worse that mankind from before the Flood?? If the above is so then why was there a biblical flood at all, what good did it do to kill all those people from before the Flood if mankind was going to develope just the same kinds of evil or worse?? It sure sounds like God does not know the end from the beginning or why would he think mankind was going to be any different after the Genesis Flood than before?? Anyone want to answer why there was a biblical flood if people before or after were going to be the same kind of humans??

Congratulations.

You have discovered the paradox of the Omnimax God people associate with the Old Testament.

If God was omniscient then it would have known that Adam and Eve would have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. If God knew this and allowed it to happen then it would have known about the wickedness of mankind. At this point we can reasonably assume an Omnimax would have known about the fall of Man. If it knew about the fall of man and condemned it to destruction then perhaps, just perhaps, we could assume that this God is not all good.

The problem here is the entirely subjective concept of good. Good from a human point of view, a temporal creature, does not imply a philosophical equivalent of good from an eternal point of view, that of a God. It may very well be that from an eternal point of view the Flood would be the greatest good and part of God's vision that is beyond mortal comprehension.

Or, according to more recent points of view regarding the creation stories exhibit in the Old Testament and the fact that the Jews were a polytheistic group converting to a monotheistic culture that much of the old stories are mixed retellings of older mythologies that defy rational comprehension. So what is to be taken from them is not literal interpretations.

I've always viewed the Flood story in the Old Testament as problematic. If you drop literal interpretations and throw in the free will aspect you can understand the Flood story in the Bible as less of an argument against an Omnimax and more of a story of morality on how societies should conduct themselves.

But me. I am definitely no expert on any subject regarding interpretation of the Torah, the Tanakh, etc. I just look for reasonable reasons why a culture of human beings would relate this story and drop the universal, all-knowing aspect, etc. of an eternal God completelly. From that point of view as a morality tale written by humans for humans.

That, or like the Greeks and other cultures prevalent in the Levant, the anthropomorphism of Gods (jealousy, hate, love, kindness) was just as exhibit in the early Jewish mythology as it was elsewhere. The later Omnimax version of God was pasted on later throught the change of cultural views.