Hi Clarkal.
Im sure you’ll agree that it is wrong to place accusations of errors within a document unless the original text is viewed.
Unfortunately, we do not have the original manuscripts available and thus, technically we cannot guarantee the inerrancy of the bibles floating around today.
In addition, as im sure you are aware, there are many different translations of the bible even into just one language. Such it is that some people change little bits here and there to fit their doctrine.
Thus, i feel it is unfair to really criticize the bible on small points, i.e varying number descriptions, different geneolagies, etc…
However, what i do think is appropriate to discuss is the percieved “philisophical errors” so to speak. Such as the one you described pointing out the evident contradiction between God’s command “Thou shall not kill” and his order for other humans to kill.
I think these kind of topics come down to ultimately a simple matter - God, in his inifinte wisdom, always has the trump card. When we read two opposing views in scripture, we may be tempted to discredit the whole thing based on one error. However, not only is it rash to do so, sometimes the answer is even more intriguing than simply dismissing the article.
Thus, let me attempt to expand on the issue concerning Gods command to kill children as being morally acceptable and thus not going against the command “Thou shall not kill”.
Let me begin by pointing out that sometimes we do not see the bigger picture straight away. I feel this is the case here. Man has so changed in the 20th century that we do not regard God as a being whom we must submit to, but one who must conform to our moral standards. Thus, killing a child can and does seem harsh in our modern society (for that matter, it would even have been considered wrong 2000 years ago). However, we are missing many different pieces of the puzzle which are required to see the bigger picture.
First of all, it was held as a universal belief that life was a gift from God. Although we have forgotten that in contemporary times, it was a belief firmly held by every devout Jew. Life was a gift from God that could be taken away at any point.
Secondly, those who followed Gods law were prosperous and those who sinned against God would face his wrath, so to speak. The wages of sin are death.
Once we begin to see life as a gift from God we can begin to understand why he would command his chosen people to destroy all those who were sinning against Him. However, this still leaves problems with killing children, who, were in such a society through no fault of their own, and probably didnt deliberately choose to disobey Gods law.
The answer lies in the NT. When questioned about who had caused a mans blindness the Pharisees asked Christ if his parents sins had caused the illness.
This reveals an important clue. That children were sometimes to receive the effects of their parents sin. Does it seem unfair? Yes. However, God is infinitely wise, such a thing would only be done in order to bring back the children to Him, if you follow.
Thus, we can see that sometimes God punished the children and not the parent for a sin committed by the parent.
And therefore, it can be followed through that the killing of children was an effect of their parents sin.
Now, to an atheist this may seem like a horror, a genocide of pure evil. However, you are off the mark. For Christ Himself taught us that it is not this life that we should prepare for but the next.
And thus, we can conclude two things.
- That life is a gift from God, that can be taken at any point. Technically, since one cannot argue when childhood ends, it is not inherently wrong for God to slay all people. It would be worse if he had killed people according to their age, no? One would be accusing Him of being a favouritist.
- Since life is focused on our eternal life, and not on our earthyl life, God spared the children two things. The horror of offending Him with sin. And secondly the prospect of eternal hellfire for they were not at the age of reason (this changes for different people).
We can conclude therefore that in such a circumstance, the method of killing was brutal yes, but it was Gods will. I am sure you would have had a problem if he given them all aids and let them slowly die. Besides, he wanted them to cease offending Him. And secondly, in the unfortunate circumstance that God would order the killing of a certain people, unless he did order a universal killing, it would have been unfair in itself to allow children to live. When does one cease to become a child? Too many problems associated with this one.
In Christ.
Andre.
p.s I know ive meandered about a little. But if you have any specific questions, shoot.
