The Bible’s Most Hideous War Crime

It says "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son." It is talking about judgment after death.

 

credible theologians do not believe Moses the first 5 .. Perhaps the 10 commands arrived via divine inspiration .. but that is about it -

 

Naturally, free will and all that.

 

What different does it make .. judgement is judgement .. how does this allieviate the contradiction .. ? other than it doesn't .. it affirms the contradiction either side of the either side of the electric fence ..

 

I dont see a contradiction. According to Jewish and Christian beliefs there is a massive difference between physical death, which everyone will suffer, and eternal death.

 

God says he will not judge you for the sins of the Father in the after life .. but orders the Isrealites to kill children for the sins of the father ...

Think you need to try a bit harder to find the contradiction mate . but if that be a failed effort - use this passage instead as the passage you found from the first link in a google search ... some apologist site guilty of the sin of omission - is not nearly as clear as this one.


Deuteronomy 24:16

“Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin

 

I already explained it to you: They killed the boys because of what they were going to do in the future (and the decedents of the survivors tried to do).

 

That was in the first passage .. not, in the second -- a direct contradiction.

 

@Pro_Line_FL & @Giftedone you're arguing over something neither of you understands. God gave the Hebrew tribes laws and made certain promises. Whether God promised not to punish children for sins of parents, or not, is totally irrelevant. God never made any promises to non-Hebrews, The Midianites were not Hebrews, hence God's promises did not apply to them.

 

You jump into a conversation crying "neither of you understand" .. but it is you who does not understand == as the convo was about "Hebrews" not "Non Hebrews" so why you rambling on about "Non Hebrews" .. nor was the convo about promises yet you are going on about some promise .. deer in headlights the whole trip mate.

 

Im probably not what is commonly thought of as 'pious' or a 'theologian', but there is a school of thought that the Moabites (among others, including the Canaanites) were a genetic threat to all of humanity, being the descendents of fallen angels (the pre-flood 'Watchers') that bred with humans (and animals...) to create Nephilim (and other floabt 'monsters'). This makes a lot more sense of the genocidal campaigns of the Old Testament, as they're actually an attempt to wipe out what are essentially demons that are engagedin their own campaign of replacing/corrupting humanity by breeding their bloodline into it.

This school of thought then leads to another that suggests its still going on today, citing the genetic markers that often link psychopathy, royal bloodlines and inbreeding, and the typically 'monstrous' behavior of the political and financial elite families of more recent history.

 

Yes, Mosaic law was for the Jews. Not sure why you think you are the only one who knew that. There are two verses being discussed and one is about God's judgment and the other us the law God gave the Jews.

 

Well, you're on to something, but you don't go all the way in.

I think that most biblical stories about total wars against other populations are an historicized version of mythical battles between gods, demons, and whatever other creatures roamed the local mythologies, interwoven with real historical conflicts between the Hebrew tribes and other populations. For instance, when the biblical story tells us that the Hebrews killed al women who were not virgins, sounds to me like what they really did was destroy the institution of sacred prostitution, or put an end to the fertility rites they didn't understand (or at least fantasize about doing it).

That the Hebrews didn't really wipe out entire populations becomes evident in Judges. By the way, genetic research proves that Canaanites are alive and well in Lebanon, Arabized, but ethnically distinct from Arabs.

 

The conversation was about why did the Hebrews kill non-Hebrew children for the sins of the fathers, if God himself told them he doesn't punish children for sins of fathers.

 

Yes, but you argued about the text from the Christian perspective of a universal god, whereas events described in the Hebrew bible should be analyzed taking into account that the Hebrew God is a personal god.

 

I was referring to the 'sins of the father' verse Ezekiel, which is not about Mosaic law, but it turned out the other poster was talking about a verse in Deuteronomy and/or parallel verse in Exodus which are about Mosaic law.

 

I understand your argument, and I think you're right, from a Christian point of view. However, the question of whether the Hebrews broke God's law then, or not - assuming events unfolded as described in the text - can only be answered correctly by Judaism, not by Christianity. Christianity didn't exist then.

 

Its not Christian POV and the question is not whether or not Hebrews broke God's law by obeying His command. God ordered them to destroy Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites and take their cities as inheritance. It was done so the Hebrews would not learn "detestable" things from those tribes and turn them away from their God. There is no contradiction with Mosaic law, which was given to govern Jews. Jews failed to obey the command 100%, and ended up learning those detestable ways just like God had warned. Also, the surviving people turned against the Jews and almost managed to commit genocide.

 

That's a perfectly fine defense . . . if we assume that Yahweh doesn't exist, is an idiot, is evil, or is not accurately described in the Bible.

 

Then this same God turns around and orders the Hebrews to kill both Hebrew . and Non-Hebrew children for the sins of parents.

Contradiction defined.

 

In fact there are people

Well I wouldn’t say “assume”, but yeah I don’t believe the supernatural content of the bible.

 

This is mythical history. How much of it is true, we'll probably never know.

I don't understand why you can't accept that your interpretation represents a Christian point of view. This is the Jewish point of view, tell me if it matches yours:

https://aish.com/is-the-torah-literal/

 

There are a lot of contradictions in the Bible. That's why Jews have the oral tradition (Talmud), the Kabbalah, and the writings of scholars. There's no contradiction in the Bible without a lengthy explanation, discussion, debate, and counter-arguments, attached to it.

 

Why would I accept something just because you insist it is so? What I have said is true, so I'll stand by it.

 

I already said I agree with you.

My problem is not if you accept what I said or not. I'm just curious why does it bother you. You don't have to answer me, of course.