how does a JW explain this contradiction?

by loosie 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • loosie
    loosie

    Ezekiel 18:20

    The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

    Exodus 34:7

    7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

    So if grandpa was an ass are we punished as well or not. It seems like we would be because we are sinful because of what Adam and Eve did. Sounds like a moody god to me.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    :Sounds like a moody god to me.

    Looks like you answered your own question!

    My favorite Biblical conundrum is this one:

    "God is a god of love."

    "Love is not jealous."

    "I, your God am a jealous God."

    If God is a jealous God, he can't be a God of love and the scripture that says Love is not jealous is a lie.

    If God is not a jealous God, then the scripture that says he is, is a lie.

    If God isn't a God of love, then why bother with him?

    Farkel

  • rocky
    rocky

    I think something like this will be the answer of them:

    ***

    Another seeming contradiction is found by comparing Exodus 34:7 with Ezekiel 18:20. The first text states that God would bring "punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons," while the latter states that "a son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father." Why do these texts appear to be contradictory? Because they are taken out of context. Examine the surrounding material and setting. It then becomes obvious that when God mentioned punishment as coming upon not only fathers but also sons and grandsons, he was speaking of what would result to Israelites as a nation if they sinned against him and were taken into captivity. On the other hand, when mentioning that a son would not be liable for the error of his father, he was speaking of personal accountability.

    Rocky

    w882/1p.6DoestheBibleContradictItself?

    ***

    w882/1p.6DoestheBibleContradictItself?

    ***

    Another seeming contradiction is found by comparing Exodus 34:7 with Ezekiel 18:20. The first text states that God would bring "punishment for the error of fathers upon sons and upon grandsons," while the latter states that "a son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father." Why do these texts appear to be contradictory? Because they are taken out of context. Examine the surrounding material and setting. It then becomes obvious that when God mentioned punishment as coming upon not only fathers but also sons and grandsons, he was speaking of what would result to Israelites as a nation if they sinned against him and were taken into captivity. On the other hand, when mentioning that a son would not be liable for the error of his father, he was speaking of personal accountability.

    Rocky

  • OUTLAW
    OUTLAW

    God is very Old and Confused..Thats why the WBT$ runs things now.............................

    Laughing Mutley...OUTLAW

  • loosie
    loosie

    I was talkign with my husband the other day. He is out as well but still believes the bible. I told him that God says he doesn't hold the son accountable for the sins of the father. He said no it actually says just the opposite. I told him I can show him where it said both. then he says our whole family has to believe in order to be blessed.

    Whoopsie. My bad.

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    The usual historical explanation is straightforward. The oldest view is that of the Yahwist/Elohist law code (conventionally dated to before the eighth century BC) which states: "I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me" (Exodus 20:5). This stance on jurisprudence was common throughout the ANE (cf. Herodotus, Historia 3.119, Esther 9:13-14, Daniel 6:25), and reflects the cultural legacy that Israel inherited from her neighbors. Stories from the time that reflect this theological view can be found in 2 Samuel 21:1-9 concerning the sons of Saul and 1 Kings 21:20-21, 2 Kings 10:1-11 concerning the sons of Ahab. The story of Yahweh taking the life of the child of David and Bathsheba (born in the context of adultery and murder) is another well-known example (2 Samuel 12:14-15).

    The legal reform under King Josiah (seventh century BC), which produced the Deuteronomistic code, emphasized individual responsibility, and thus set aside the earlier stipulations: "Fathers may not be put to death for their sons, nor sons for fathers. Each is to be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16). However portions of the old law-code were incorporated into Deuteronomy nonetheless with some tension between the two (cf. 5:9, which allows Yahweh to reserve the right to exact vengeance). The Deuteronomistic perspective is reflected in later stories in the History, such as 2 Kings 14:6. This doctrine on individual responsibility is adopted by the priestly class in the exilic period (sixth century BC), cf. Ezekiel who was adamant that Yahweh "will no longer require" punishment on children for their fathers' sins (ch. 18), even making the compassionate Yahweh declare: "I take no pleasure in the death of anyone" (18:21). This is a considerable theological development from the "jealous god" of Exodus 20:5. The theme of Yahweh's compassion was carried even further in the post-exilic period; the book of Jonah (fifth-fourth century BC) in particular is notable for portraying Yahweh as repenting from his threat on destroying a Gentile city, showing compassion on little children ("who cannot tell their right hand from their left") and even the animals of the city (Jonah 3:7, 4:11).

  • moshe
    moshe

    A Jew would turn this around and use this as an argument to explain why they don't accept Jesus as a ransom sacrifice for all the sins of every individual man.

  • inkling
    inkling

    Why do these texts appear to be contradictory? Because they are taken out of context.

    This is code-word for "becuase your cognitive dissonance reduction device is broken"

    [inkling]

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    A Jew would turn this around and use this as an argument to explain why they don't accept Jesus as a ransom sacrifice for all the sins of every individual man.

    The problem is, I no longer even believe that there is any such thing as "original sin". Mankind is not inherently morally imperfect--man has to be taught that. And oddly enough, much of that teaching happens when people try and religiously instruct the child--which creates the moral faults in the first place.

  • Perry
    Perry

    Mankind is not inherently morally imperfect--man has to be taught that.

    Can you provide one sociological example of this?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit