*Theological* errors in the Bible? (See example)

[TheOldColonel]

Jesus, in revealing the deeper meaning of the truths of the Old Trestament does not contradict these truths. Rather he, in establishing his Kingdom, is the very fulfillment of these truths. However, with the coming of the Kingdom of God, some new realities replace the older ones so that the old order is no more. In the new order, Marriage will be indissoluble, enemies must be forgiven and loved, circumcision is no longer necessary, all are to be baptized, all foods are declared clean and Gentiles may be counted among the People of God. Going to the Cross and rising from the grave, Jesus establishes a New Covenant. It is a New Covenenat of which all preceding covenants were precursory. This precursory nature does not signify error. Indeed, each covenant is a true covenant. Rather, what is signified is a continuity in salvation history.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

God has caused or allowed the death of many, many people in the Old Testament. I could list dozens of examples. Denying that is pointless. But it is within God’s right to do so.

He is our Creator–our lives are in His hand. We only exist from moment to moment because He wishes it. He gives us our very breath and keeps the atoms of the universe together.

If God chooses to kill wicked, sinful people who rejected or disobeyed Him, that is His perogative. He gives life and takes it away, blessed be the name of the Lord.

Where is it written that we have a RIGHT to a long, happy life and that we don’t die of old age until we reach a minimum of 80 years old? God grants us existence, but we don’t have a RIGHT to decide how long our lives will be.

God knows all things and performs perfect justice. Without faith it is impossible to believe this, so it is pointless to try and convince an atheist of the goodness of God. Without faith, who can know God?

Instead of debating every instance of a time that God took someone’s life, let’s remember that He granted it to them in the first place. It is not for us to question Him.

Many of the people who die will spend eternity with Him. Many won’t because they reject Him, and would have rejected Him even if they had lived to be 100. God knows all this. He knows their hearts.

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be hindered. “Who is this who obscures counsel with ignorance?”
I have spoken but did not understand; things too marvelous for me, which I did not know.
Job 42:2‭-‬3 NABRE

 

[Sean77]

Excellent, your getting very close to understanding. The death of the child was because of David’s sin. Who allowed the child to die as punishment for David’s sin?

As you yourself noted, the death of the child was due to sin. Yes, just as in the garden of Eden we were warned that sin brings death, we are now seeing the outcome of that sin. The causation you are trying to bring in your argument is actually on its head by trying to make God the responsible party for the wages of sin which David committed, which is death. Unfortunately sin is so pervasive that it affects the offender, and everything touched by it. You seem to want to minimize sin without recognizing the all-pervasive consequences that sin has brought into the world. Romans 8 tells us that even creation itself longs for salvation because it too was subjected to corruption by sin.

 

[wkj_123]

As you yourself noted, the death of the child was due to sin. Yes, just as in the garden of Eden we were warned that sin brings death, we are now seeing the outcome of that sin. The causation you are trying to bring in your argument is actually on its head by trying to make God the responsible party for the wages of sin which David committed, which is death. Unfortunately sin is so pervasive that it affects the offender, and everything touched by it. You seem to want to minimize sin without recognizing the all-pervasive consequences that sin has brought into the world. Romans 8 tells us that even creation itself longs for salvation because it too was subjected to corruption by sin.

Correct. The point was an answer to the op is yes. The Bible contradicts itself. The baby died because of David’s sin. Deuteronomy 24: 16 tells us that children will not be put to death for the parents sin. This is a contradiction on the micro level with David’s child and on the macro level with original sin.

 

[guanophore]

You keep sidestepping. Did the baby die because David sinned? It’s a very simple question.

Actually, this is not a question you asked before, so I don’t see how anyone is “sidestepping”. What you have asserted is that God “tortured and killed the child”, which is not consistent with the text.

The baby died because of the Fall. Death entered the world through Adam.

David sinned, and one of the consequences of his sin was that the child would die. This does not equate to God “torturing and killing the child”.

If you think that all sickness in this life is God “torturing” humans, then you have a very warped perception of God.

Most aren’t.

Well, this particular one certainly seems to be quite hostile, as well as suffering from concrete thinking.

Do an internet search: The so-called “New Atheists” are known for being complete jerks (to use a forum friendly word), even amongst their fellow atheists who tend to be embarrassed by them.

I don’t generally bother to interact with atheists. It seems to me that, if a person is so blind as to be unable to see God through His creation, it is not worth my time. I realize this is a prejudice.

Ah yes anyone who has arguments that hurt your religion are now “complete jerks” and should just be quiet. If you can’t win the argument, then name call and ask the other side to shut up.

I think you misunderstand wkj_123. No one here thinks that you have “won” an argument.

I’m honestly a little let down. The level of debate is usually much better than this.

I am not sorry to disappoint you .

I guess it’s hard to defend a lot of what God did in the Bible. I don’t envy having to defend it, I really dont

It is not hard for us, but at the same time, we don’t have a need to defend it. The bottom line is that God is our Creator. He has given us life, and has the right to take it away from us.

Nobody said that, either. You must be responding on the wrong thread. Surely you wouldn’t just make this stuff up.

I wish this were true, but in fact, he makes a lot of stuff up.

 

[guanophore]

The point was an answer to the op is yes. The Bible contradicts itself.

I do agree that it seems to contradict your interpretations.

The baby died because of David’s sin. Deuteronomy 24: 16 tells us that children will not be put to death for the parents sin. This is a contradiction on the micro level with David’s child and on the macro level with original sin.

I am sure it seems that way to you. David’s first son with Bathsheba was allowed to become sick and die because God had a greater plan for both of them, and the constant reminder that the child would bring being the survivor of adultery, covetousness, and murder was not beneficial to His plan.

In the passage you cite, both David and his offspring would have been put to death for the sin. In fact, the entire family was put to death, as well as the servants, concubines, etc. It was a form of ethnic cleansing that does not apply in this case.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Are you even reading what you are posting? Even I can see a hostile tone.

 

[Gorgias]

In the passage you cite, both David and his offspring would have been put to death for the sin. In fact, the entire family was put to death, as well as the servants, concubines, etc. It was a form of ethnic cleansing that does not apply in this case.

That was my impression, too. However, I read a Jewish source online a while back that made the case that David wasn’t guilty of either murder or adultery, but rather, was guilty simply of theft. I wasn’t entirely convinced, but they made a case that seemed logical on its face.

 

[Arkansan]

There’s a reason why Jesus so harshly rebuked the Pharisees.

There’s also a reason why historians don’t generally accept accounts written millennia after the fact by people who weren’t there and who are making stuff up based purely on speculation (which is the case with almost all of that article’s sources).

 

[guanophore]

Are you even reading what you are posting? Even I can see a hostile tone.

It is quite possible that his insight is so poor he is not aware of the hostility that is seeping through the posts. He says he is not angry, so that is a good sign that he is just not conscious of all this unresolved resentment.

making stuff up based purely on speculation (which is the case with almost all of that article’s sources).

I agree. This seems like a load of hooey.