Do these two verses contradict each other?

[xspike77x]

I have someone barging in on a number of believers and is proposing that the bible is not the inerrant word of God. He is citing a man by the name of Sol Abrams who is Jewish I believe and he has this to say:

"Hardened readers of the Bible need to focus not on the memorization of scriptures but on determining the true nature of what they read through the use of the brain they have by means of reasonable deduction through logic, points out Sol Abrams. He continues by stating that another glaring contractions within the Bible concerns the topic of sins inherited from previous generations. For the sake of solidarity we’ll continue with the example of illegitimate relationships. He points out two passages of scripture in which inherited sin and God’s reaction to it are surprisingly at odds.

I will compare 2 Samuel 12:13-14 and Deuteronomy 24:16, because these two passages illustrate the contradiction most clearly, and both involve putting someone to death as punishment for sin.

2 Samuel 12:13-14, And David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan said unto David, ‘The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed tho hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall surely die.’

Deuteronomy 24:16, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, everyman shall be put to death for his own sin.’

It is interesting to note that David was not only spared form death even though he had sinned but his son was clearly put ot death because of the sin of his father, thereby contradicting the verse in Deuteronomy. The son, in effect, became the sacrificial lamb to atone for the sins of his father, David."

I am really struggling to find a way to explain the supposed contradiction here. The only thing I can think of is that in Deut. Moses is telling the Israelites of the law that THEY are bound to, not that God is bound to it. From my perspective, there is nothing to say that God must be held bound by what Moses said in Deuteronomy. Shortly after in 2 Samuel God strikes the child with an illness and it dies. Problem is, I know this won’t be a satisfactory explanation to him, with that argument he will then respond with saying that clearly God is not loving and just because of how he punished the child for David’s fault. Additionally, I cannot really use scripture since he does not accept it as being inerrant. Can you help me at all? I don’t know if I should take this in a different direction or if I am completely missing something, I would love to hear back from you, thanks, and God Bless.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I have someone barging in on a number of believers and is proposing that the bible is not the inerrant word of God. He is citing a man by the name of Sol Abrams who is Jewish I believe and he has this to say:

"Hardened readers of the Bible need to focus not on the memorization of scriptures but on determining the true nature of what they read through the use of the brain they have by means of reasonable deduction through logic, points out Sol Abrams. He continues by stating that another glaring contractions within the Bible concerns the topic of sins inherited from previous generations. For the sake of solidarity we’ll continue with the example of illegitimate relationships. He points out two passages of scripture in which inherited sin and God’s reaction to it are surprisingly at odds.

I will compare 2 Samuel 12:13-14 and Deuteronomy 24:16, because these two passages illustrate the contradiction most clearly, and both involve putting someone to death as punishment for sin.

2 Samuel 12:13-14, And David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan said unto David, ‘The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed tho hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall surely die.’

Deuteronomy 24:16, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, everyman shall be put to death for his own sin.’

It is interesting to note that David was not only spared form death even though he had sinned but his son was clearly put ot death because of the sin of his father, thereby contradicting the verse in Deuteronomy. The son, in effect, became the sacrificial lamb to atone for the sins of his father, David."

I am really struggling to find a way to explain the supposed contradiction here. The only thing I can think of is that in Deut. Moses is telling the Israelites of the law that THEY are bound to, not that God is bound to it. From my perspective, there is nothing to say that God must be held bound by what Moses said in Deuteronomy. Shortly after in 2 Samuel God strikes the child with an illness and it dies. Problem is, I know this won’t be a satisfactory explanation to him, with that argument he will then respond with saying that clearly God is not loving and just because of how he punished the child for David’s fault. Additionally, I cannot really use scripture since he does not accept it as being inerrant. Can you help me at all? I don’t know if I should take this in a different direction or if I am completely missing something, I would love to hear back from you, thanks, and God Bless.

Dear Friend,
What we are looking at her is an accurate report of someone allocating to God, responsibility for a gross misfortune to some person or people. Insurance companies, in reneging on claims, sometimes invoke the phrase ‘act of God’ for a gross misfortune, usually, events of weather or tectonic shock
So, yes, Lloyds of London would have rejected a claim to rebuild Soddom and Gommorrah because the disaster that befell those places, being a tectonic event, was an ‘act of God’.
Similarly, the disaster that befell New Oreleans, being a result of a gross weather event, was also classified as an ‘act of God’.
In the latter case, I can forsee someone in the far future, relating that God destroyed American cities because America was destroying the Planet. In a very real sense, this would not be a lie, for the profligate consumption of resources by primarily America, is causing a run-away climate problem which will result in more weather events, and possibly an increase in frequency of tectonic events.
Likewise, the sins of the fathers being visted upon the sons, unto thge seventh generation, actually sounds to me like the progress of untreated VD, such as syphillis, whereby several generations of non-presentation of symptoms are required before the disease can be said to have run its course.
It is still now too easy to set aside the consequences of our own stupidity as ‘acts of God’, and there is no reason to believe that in the distant past, it was any different.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

God didn’t kill David’s child–He chose not to intervene to save the child which is very different.

The child didn’t die because of David’s sin but David didn’t earn special intervention from God because of His sin.

There is no contradiciton.

What the story does show though is that even after we are forgiven we sometimes have to pay a temporal price.

God can use the death of a child to mete out that price–that doesn’t mean that the sin caused the death of the child.

 

[xspike77x]

Might I remind you both that I do agree with you. However, shortly after the dialogue in 2 Samuel occurs it says that God struck the child and it became desparately ill, resulting in its death. Granted I do see your point, the person I am trying to explain this to will not accept this as a reasonable answer considering that it was God who gave the child the illness that ultimately killed it, supposedly.

 

[Nita]

Might I remind you both that I do agree with you. However, shortly after the dialogue in 2 Samuel occurs it says that God struck the child and it became desparately ill, resulting in its death. Granted I do see your point, the person I am trying to explain this to will not accept this as a reasonable answer considering that it was God who gave the child the illness that ultimately killed it, supposedly.

Again, when Scripture says “God struck the child…” it doesn’t necessarily mean God Himself directly inflicted death.
As an example, refer the person to the following passages in Exodus:

Exodus 12:23 For the LORD will pass through to slay the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not allow the Destroyer to enter your houses to slay you.
(Note that the Destroyer, who does the actual slaying, is someone separate from the LORD, and cannot act when God does not allow it.)
12:29 At midnight the LORD smote all the first-born…
(Right after making it clear that the Destroyer is the one who slays, it says the “LORD smote”. The writer of Exodus saw no contradiction in this.)

It shows how Jews in OT recognize the degree to which God is in control, the final authority. Nothing happens without His permissive will allowing it and they sometimes expressed it as God Himself “doing” it.

Nita

 

[Angelos]

Hi people

I appreciate your zeal to defend the Word of God more than your posts approaching the question from different perspectives. Since it is unthinkable to claim that there is only one single answer to this charge of contradiction, here I am presenting my totally personal comment on the alleged discrepancy between Deuteronomy 24: 16 and 2 Samuel 12: 13-14.

First, we should keep in mind that the precepts in the 24th chapter of the Torah were primarily meant to defend the rights of the poor and needy in the Israeli community, which God commanded to practice justice and vindicate the oppressed:

24:14.Thou shalt not refuse the hire of the needy, and the poor, whether he be thy brother, or a stranger that dwelleth with thee in the land, and is within thy gates. 24:15. But thou shalt pay him the price of his labor the same day, before the going down of the sun, because he is poor, and with it maintaineth his life: lest he cry against thee to the Lord, and it be reputed to thee for a sin. 24:17. Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger nor of the fatherless, neither shalt thou take away the widow’s raiment for a pledge.

It is likely that the law forbidding the Israelites from killing fathers for the children aimed to decrease the number of fatherless people being oppressed by the mighty rich rulers. But why did the Law forbid Israelites from killing the children for their fathers? The following verse from the same chapter of Deuteronomy gives us the reason:

24:18. Remember that thou wast a slave in Egypt, and the Lord thy God delivered thee from thence. Therefore I command thee to do this thing.

The Egyptians killed Hebrew children for their fathers and strove to exterminate the race by letting only the female Hebrews alive. The law enforced in verse 16 reminds the Israelites of those atrocities and commands them not to do anything that would make them similar to the Egyptians even were it for the punishment of a sin.

Now we can look at the verses in 2 Samuel. It is true that God is not bound to the Law He Himself gave to His chosen nation. However, this is not the only point that debunks the assertion of a contradiction in the Bible. David’s story teaches us that his sin was two-dimensional. First, he committed adultery by lying with the only wife of a soldier in his army. Second, he plotted evil to get rid of Uriah and indirectly murdered him. Of course, David used his royal authority to commit both sins of adultery and murder. Therefore, God’s punishment was two-dimensional. First, He punished David’s crime of adultery by forcing his wives to sleep with other men in daylight:

12:11. Thus saith the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thy own house, and I will take thy wives before thy eyes and give them to thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

Second, God struck the child with an illness and did not let him live more than seven days. It is clear that the death of David’s son was a divine punishment that aimed to destroy the fruit of adultery to the honor of God:

12:14. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.

At this point, God is accused of going against His own Law by killing the child for the father. Nevertheless, it is also true that God did not consider David the father of the child since the child was born of adultery, and it was not known by many people that the child belonged to David until God divulged this truth to David’s face through Nathan. In God’s sight, the child was illegitimate.

Finally, God struck the child to death because David had struck Uriah with the sword for his own sin rather than for Uriah’s, which was against the precept in Deuteronomy 24: 16 (everyone will die for his own sin). More to the point, David had killed Uriah because of the child, who had been conceived before Uriah’s death. In short, as David’s sin of killing Uriah was based on the child’s conception, David’s punishment was based on the child’s death.

Peace to all seeking the truth to embrace it!

 

[xspike77x]

Thank you Angelos, I think that is a very complete and comprehensive perspective.

 

[Angelos]

Hi friend,

I tried to do my best like most of you to defend the Holy Scripture. I am glad to hear that you find it helpful

Peace to you & all seeking the truth to embrace it.

 

[wisdom_3_5]

I will compare 2 Samuel 12:13-14 and Deuteronomy 24:16, because these two passages illustrate the contradiction most clearly, and both involve putting someone to death as punishment for sin.

2 Samuel 12:13-14, And David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan said unto David, ‘The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed tho hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall surely die.’

Deuteronomy 24:16, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, everyman shall be put to death for his own sin.’

Deut is the law given to the people of Isreal on how **they **are to conduct themselves. The people of Isreal are not to put to death the children for the father’s sin etc. God is the creator of all. Life is His to give and take if it is His will.

I can also see a typology of Christ, the innocent victim, dying for the sins of others. Rom 6:23 states “the wages of sin is death”. Through the death of the innocent victim in place of the sinner the sinner is redeemed.

 

[porthos11]

There is a major difference between the two passages.

The Deuteronomy passage forbids the Israelite people from inflicting the death penalty on children or parents for the crimes of their parents or children.

The passage from 2 Samuel is not a contradiction to this. We simply see here that God is punishing David through the loss of his child, but we cannot construe this as a punishment of the child, who was innocent. No, we here see an example of God exercising his absolute right as the owner and master of human life. It was not the Israelite courts that killed David’s son (which would have been a violation of the Deuteronomic law); it was God himself, and the loss due to his son’s death was the penalty David had to suffer.

 

[Angelos]

There is a major difference between the two passages.

The Deuteronomy passage forbids the Israelite people from inflicting the death penalty on children or parents for the crimes of their parents or children.

The passage from 2 Samuel is not a contradiction to this. We simply see here that God is punishing David through the loss of his child, but we cannot construe this as a punishment of the child, who was innocent. No, we here see an example of God exercising his absolute right as the owner and master of human life. It was not the Israelite courts that killed David’s son (which would have been a violation of the Deuteronomic law); it was God himself, and the loss due to his son’s death was the penalty David had to suffer.

I agree with all these precious comments of yours. I am back only to add a few sentences to my previous post.

It is also possible to handle the story in 2 Samuel from a different perspective. God did not kill the son for the sin of the father, but He only removed the sin from David’s family when he repented. Since the child was David’s sin, David was forgiven when the child was taken away! It is not correct to say that God killed David’s son for his sin because David’s sin and his son were identical due to the sin of adultery.

Peace to all seeking the truth to embrace it

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

David was in the lineage of the messiah, this child was not to be in that lineage. David grieved the loss of his child. David was also King and as such his “mistakes” could have grave results. For example, there is a text where David choose to number the people agnist God’s will. God gave David the choice of disaster to come on all of isreal. David as their king was responsible for those deaths. And, David as king was responsible for the death of his child. If an average person in a nation uses fighting words, those words may only put himself in a world of hurt. But, if a leader of that same nation uses the same fighting words it may lead to war with other nations. When looking at David, one can not leave out the level of responsiblity and authority out of the picture.

 

[trogiah]

Others have answered fairly completely but here is something else to consider.

In the first of the Ten Commandments God says “I am a jealous God punishing children for their fathers sins down to the 3rd and 4th generation…”

The fact is that a parents sins do impact future generations.

But elsewhere in Scripture God says:“My thoughts are not your thoughts nor are my ways your ways.” We should not think that God is bound by the rules that we are told to live by.

Jim

 

[Valke2]

I have someone barging in on a number of believers and is proposing that the bible is not the inerrant word of God. He is citing a man by the name of Sol Abrams who is Jewish I believe and he has this to say:

"Hardened readers of the Bible need to focus not on the memorization of scriptures but on determining the true nature of what they read through the use of the brain they have by means of reasonable deduction through logic, points out Sol Abrams. He continues by stating that another glaring contractions within the Bible concerns the topic of sins inherited from previous generations. For the sake of solidarity we’ll continue with the example of illegitimate relationships. He points out two passages of scripture in which inherited sin and God’s reaction to it are surprisingly at odds.

I will compare 2 Samuel 12:13-14 and Deuteronomy 24:16, because these two passages illustrate the contradiction most clearly, and both involve putting someone to death as punishment for sin.

2 Samuel 12:13-14, And David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan said unto David, ‘The Lord hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed tho hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall surely die.’

Deuteronomy 24:16, ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers, everyman shall be put to death for his own sin.’

It is interesting to note that David was not only spared form death even though he had sinned but his son was clearly put ot death because of the sin of his father, thereby contradicting the verse in Deuteronomy. The son, in effect, became the sacrificial lamb to atone for the sins of his father, David."

I am really struggling to find a way to explain the supposed contradiction here. The only thing I can think of is that in Deut. Moses is telling the Israelites of the law that THEY are bound to, not that God is bound to it. From my perspective, there is nothing to say that God must be held bound by what Moses said in Deuteronomy. Shortly after in 2 Samuel God strikes the child with an illness and it dies. Problem is, I know this won’t be a satisfactory explanation to him, with that argument he will then respond with saying that clearly God is not loving and just because of how he punished the child for David’s fault. Additionally, I cannot really use scripture since he does not accept it as being inerrant. Can you help me at all? I don’t know if I should take this in a different direction or if I am completely missing something, I would love to hear back from you, thanks, and God Bless.

There’s also the issue of God slaying the first born in Egypt. The contradiction lies in the fact, perhaps, that people really believed that if they did something wrong, evil could befall their children. Most of us find that morally abhorrent today and I think you have to look at this passages for what they are, acknowledge that they seem to be contrary to how we view God today, and continue to struggle with these questions.

 

[Georgess]

Howbeit, because by this deed tho hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child that is born unto thee shall surely die.’

.

Thank you O.P and others for a good Sunday Read !

While Angelos has already alluded to this point , thought it could use some emphahsis …
When persons are warned against taking up vengeance on the children , for the sins of the fathers, it would seem God is trying to prevent the never ending cycle of violence that begets violence …in a world with only the sparse presence of The Spirit ( for we had invited in the enemy!)and thus , not much grace , to be able to forgive - unlike in our times !

In the case of David , even through the death of the child , it is God’s mercy that comes through… and not just for David , but for others as well…for it says ’ by this deed, thou has given great occasion to the enemies of The Lord, to blaspheme …’

In those few words, all types of scenarios can be construed …and God intervenes or may be chooses not to intervene ,with His protective armor …as the Father of all Wisdom !

Daivd’s wife Uriah did not seem to have much intercessory power at the time either - unlike our Bl. Mother !

Isn’t it great that yesterday ,The Bishops did the Consecration Ceremony of the U.S , asking for special protection through our Bl. Mother’s powerful and pure intercession - in our times when millions are intentionally killed !

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Others have answered fairly completely but here is something else to consider.

In the first of the Ten Commandments God says “I am a jealous God punishing children for their fathers sins down to the 3rd and 4th generation…”

The fact is that a parents sins do impact future generations.

But elsewhere in Scripture God says:“My thoughts are not your thoughts nor are my ways your ways.” We should not think that God is bound by the rules that we are told to live by.

Jim

Dear Friends,
This looks like God being blamed for the natural course of venereal disease, particularly syphilis, left untreated, as it was in those days, except by abstinance.

 

[trogiah]

Dear Friends,
This looks like God being blamed for the natural course of venereal disease, particularly syphilis, left untreated, as it was in those days, except by abstinance.

Perhaps it is worth finishing the quote from the first of the Ten Commandments.

"I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. 7 You shall not have other gods besides me. 8 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; 9 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation 10 but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. "

It seems clear that a parents’ actions and attitudes have a great deal of impact on future generations. This can be for good or for bad.

In any event, the scope of how a parent’s actions affects future generations goes far beyond sexual impropriety.

Anyway, are we off thread topic yet?

Jim

 

[Georgess]

Perhaps it is worth finishing the quote from the first of the Ten Commandments.

"I, the LORD, am your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. 7 You shall not have other gods besides me. 8 You shall not carve idols for yourselves in the shape of anything in the sky above or on the earth below or in the waters beneath the earth; 9 you shall not bow down before them or worship them. For I, the LORD, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments for their fathers’ wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation 10 but bestowing mercy, down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments. "

It seems clear that a parents’ actions and attitudes have a great deal of impact on future generations. This can be for good or for bad.

In any event, the scope of how a parent’s actions affects future generations goes far beyond sexual impropriety.

Anyway, are we off thread topic yet?

Jim

Yes , good to be reminded that we are not God !

Realised that in post # 15, I had made the mistake of calling Uriah , as David’s wife …( of course , he was the poor husband of Bathsheba )

Well , may be part of the consequence of adultery is, how in the truth of the concept of the husband and wife being of one flesh, adultery destroys the husband as well …

 

[Georgess]

Something indirectly related to the O.P. …and a picture of contradictions …

There is Bathsheba, the mother of the child who died …and later , she is able to intercede with King David, on his deathbed , who has not yet appointed a legal heir …Bathsheba comes to the king, to intercede for her son Solomon after being asked to by prophet Nathan …and barely avoided calamity …

Then there is Bl. Mother , in the wedding at Cana …where even before the steward knew , she had interceded…and the helpers filling in the jars, drawing rope after rope (like Rosary after Rosary ) , the waters of grace - to repent and love again …
and indirectly praised by The Son , for her solicitation , to show His glory …and beThe King of help and salvation, even if the stewards of the world never acknowledge either her role or of The Church !

 

[Georgess]

In reference to the theme of contradictory verses, Mathew 12 , 46-49 also seem like part of The Scriptures that many seem to find contradictory … even to question the Blessedness of The Bl. Mother …like questiong the ways of The Lord …as shown in O.P…

It is the scene where, our Lord is trying to reach out to the scribes and pharisees , after they ’ took counsel’ to put him to death, for healing the man with the paralysed hand , on a sabbath ; then accused The Lord of using demonic powers …The Lord warns them of the tree and its fruits …of sin against The Holy Spirit …of the return of the unclean spirit , with seven worse spirits …

and He warns of what is to come on that evil generation …

Next ,we are told of the episode of our Lord, with His brothers and Bl.Mother … the Mother, who like all good mothers , try to do their best at the domestic front at first …here she is , may be even having been asked by the Son ,(and ready to do whatever He has asked for), has brought the brothers, to be able to listen to The Lord … and thus carrying on her mission of being the missionary …at the home front …both also quit likely having well anticipated how that incident would be misinterpreted , to put doubt …like The Son himself has been facing , in the earlier passages …and knowing as did the Son , that it was only a prelude to her own role in The Passion …to be snubbed, rejected and worse …even by those who should have known better …like she is to this day , like The Church herself , ( who mirror each other, and there for each other )…lumped in and counted , with all - the weak and the willful , who all become part of The Family …where the fall of one of her priest sons would be used to malign the Church as a whole …and so on to this day …

Yet, we come to the next passage , about the parable of the sower …and can we not see that glance of perfect appreciation , from The Perfect Son , to The Perfect Mother …for the infinite yeild of The Field …

How blessed is our Church, that guided on by The Spirit …The Sower … has been able to parttake of more and more of the yield …of the splendor of Truth … of the Glory of The Mother …that , there has to be nothing, to keep us from trusting in her God ordained role !