Jack the Bodiless

It doesn't just contradict "original sin", but also the MANY places in the Bible where God punishes (or endorses punishment by others) children for the crimes of their parents. It happened to the Egyptian firstborn, the many children killed in acts of genocide, all those "punished unto the third generation", the sacrificed grandchildren of Saul, the child of David and Bathsheba... I could go on. It is a constant theme throughout the Bible. Culminating, of course, in the execution of Jesus for the crimes of others.
No, it is NOT "clear": this is merely your own contrived interpretation. The original "God" of the OT was one of many Gods (as the Bible clearly states), and was not regarded as "omnipresent" (I'm sure the other gods would resent the constant intrusion). The many authors of the Bible had many notions about God, and they contradict each other.

Oolon Colluphid

Perhaps DaveJes1979 could list for us the ancestry of Jesus back to David please? It's at <a href="http://bible.christiansunite.com/bibles.cgi?v=ylt&b=Mt&c=1" target="_blank">Matthew 1:6-16</a>, and <a href="http://bible.christiansunite.com/bibles.cgi?v=ylt&b=Lu&c=3" target="_blank">Luke 3:21-31</a>.

And while he's making that list, could he please let us know who Jesus’s paternal grandfather was.

There seems to be some confusion on both these issues.

Thanks.

Oolon

Jack the Bodiless

I wonder if the Darby and Young translations were influenced by the translator's desire to have the verse "make sense", based on an erroneous assumption that the Biblical God WAS supposed to be omnipotent?

Though "chariots of iron" certainly isn't required to demonstrate non-omnipotence. God's fallibility is enough for that: a perfect God should never make mistakes, and therefore never have cause to regret any of his actions.

Jayhawker Soule

I don't know about Darby and Young, but certainly no true Scotsman would do such a thing.

Oh, well, enough of this devil's advocacy: the idea of some omnipotent God delivering Canaanite/Perrizite land to some backward tribe that's running around chopping off the thumbs and toes of opposing kings is preposterous.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

DaveJes1979

Someone7
Dave: tactical decision? What about the actual grammatical issues involved? Could THAT have anything to do with it?

Dave: Jesus' geneaologies do not contradict if Luke's geneology is understood to be tracing Jesus' heritage through Mary (where Joseph stands in for Mary, since women were not included in Hebrew geneologies), while Matthew's is through Joseph. This is not exactly an obscure explanation.

ex-preacher

Dave: Bathsheba was not put to death simply because God granted a special reprieve to David, as recorded in the Bible. The death penalty for this crime is not understood by Christians to be universally normative anyway.

The son died primarily and specifically as punishment to DAVID (as the text says), not as a punishment to the child. The fact that the child died without committing actual sin is accounted for in the fact that the child had original sin (as David himself teaches in Psalm 52). Of course, MANY children die in infancy (under God's eternal decree) even if they were sired under godly parents.



Jack the Bodiless
Dave: again, this fails to DISTINGUISH the basis of civil justice and God's justice in the covenant of works with Adam.

Dave: of course, everything you just mention are not decrees that God lays out for civil justice. They are specifically the ways that God deals with men. You are confusing the Creator-creature relationship with the creature-creature relationship.

Dave: where does it "clearly state" this?? And if you think my interpretation is contrived, then you need to at least TRY to rebut the issues I bring up specifically. What brings you to the bizarre conclusion that the word "presence" means the same thing every time it is used?


Dave: gee, thanks for the vague, convenient generalizations without any evidence.

Dave G.

Jack the Bodiless

Dave:
THANK YOU for conceding that point (which, strangely, you are continuing to deny on other threads). God punishes innocents for the crimes of others.

This, of course, plainly contradicts the verses in my original post. Therefore the Bible again fails to provide a consistent standard of morality.
However, as you have conceded, there is no real difference between the two "justices". Both involve the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others: both are consistent with each other (but inconsistent with the concept of "justice" and with other Biblical verses).
Nope, this is "Biblical justice". Sometimes administered by God, sometimes by men on God's behalf. The confusion is in the Bible itself, the so-called "normative standard" that is nothing of the sort.

Besides, you have already shot yourself in the foot by decreeing God to be "perfectly good and just". The problem is simple. If God defines what is "good" and "just", but does not adhere to those principles himself, it is abundantly clear that God CANNOT be described as "perfectly good and just". It's time to stop moronically repeating that phrase and actually THINK about what you are typing.
There is no reason to assume the many authors of the Bible had some sort of special connotation of "presence": some believed God was omnipresent, while others (especially in the earlier books) would have envisioned God as a Zeus-like being with a physical body.

Judaism was originally polytheistic (the Jews had monotheism thrust upon them by Zoroastrians during the Babylonian captivity). Early references to God are in the plural (yes, I've heard the desperately contrived excuses by apologists). There are references to other gods which escaped the censors, however. The priests of Egypt tranformed their staves into serpents and reproduced several of the Plagues due to the power of their gods (no, they were not "demon-worshippers": read a book on the Egyptian pantheon). More specifically:
...So will you, the "Biblical inerrantist", AGAIN seek to twist the words of the Bible because they don't say what you want them to say?

Fastfalcon

I think the verses above are saying that Jehovah is the God above all other gods. The strongest God of all.

Someone7

It obviously does…

Like I said, any ludicrous explanation will do. Of course, I should have said any bullshit explanation will do, as in evident in this classic example of inerrantist apologetics.

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Someone7 ]</p>

Someone7

I suggest reading <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2any93.html" target="_blank">Any Loophole Will Do</a> by Farrell Till, Dave, and also the <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2loop93.html" target="_blank">follow up article</a>.

DaveJes1979

Jack the Bodiless
Dave: no one is innocent in this situation. Once again, you have failed to take seriously the fact that the child was tainted with original sin.

Dave: I never coneded any such thing. I specifically noted that they must be differentiated. The basis of Creator-creature vs. creature-creature justice is different. But no innocent parties are punished in either case. Since God's glory is the highest end of the universe, the exercise of Creator-creature justice as well as His decrees governing creature-creature justice find their origin and unifying principle in God, his glory, and goodness.

[quote]
Nope, this is "Biblical justice". Sometimes administered by God, sometimes by men on God's behalf. The confusion is in the Bible itself, the so-called "normative standard" that is nothing of the sort.[QUOTE]

Dave: here you are assuming, without support, that there is only one sense of biblical justice. Giving context its due, one must differentiate the places where God, through special mandate and revelation, give men the authority to exercise Creator-creature justice, vs. the normative, normal rules governing civil justice.


Dave: God adheres to the principles of justice, but He carries out those principles of justice in differing ways than men do. That is because justice has a Godward origin and end. God, being omniscient, can treat men corporately (through Adam's representation). Men, not being omniscient, cannot - thus they cannot have the son pay the debt of the father.

Dave: Moses had no such Zeus-like conception of God. He believed specifically that God did NOT have the "likeness of male or female" (DEU 4:15) Even in places where God does manifest special presence, such as when He visited Abraham near Sodom, we see that the "Lord" on earth calls up to the "Lord in heaven" to bring down fire on the cities- demonstrating both a special and a general presence.

Dave: this assumes, a priori, that Judaism is not older than the Babylonian captivity. You have not presented any evidence beyond your speculative conjecture that would induce anyone to believe that the Babylonians forced any such monotheism on the Jews (especially given the glaring differences it holds to Zoroastrian theology).

I will not take the time to rebut every single verse you bring up, but they all fall under one of the following categories:

Many references to Yahweh in the Torah are indeed in the plural. Elohim is a plural noun, yet it is surrounded with singular modifiers and pronouns- pointing to a singularity in meaning. Any familiarity with early semitic languages would inform you that plurals of majesty were a common literary device (just about any Hebrew grammar will tell you this). This is not an apologetic ploy - it is an informed answer.

There are some usages where the plural forms could conceivably be referring to a plurality of divine PERSONS (thus, the Christian Trinity), as opposed to a plurality of gods.

Lastly, the Bible often uses the word "god" or "gods" with a lower-case "g". That is, in a loose sense. Thus, false gods, rulers, or spiritual powers are in view in many of these places (as the context dictates). This also follows by taking into consideration the plain teachings concerning monotheism (Deut. 6:4). It is a simple equivocation fallacy to confuse the different instances of "el" or "elohim."

Dave: the so-called "gods" of the Egyptians were indeed demons (no matter how the Egyptians themselves conceived of them), because the Egyptians did not worship the one true God, Yahweh.

Dave: this is not a ludicrous explanation, considering the convention that Hebrew geneologies utilized - and considering that Luke narrates the birth story from Mary's perspective in general. You have casually dismissed my explanation as "ludicrous" without being able to take even the first steps in rebutting it.

Dave G.