Posted on 07/25/2013 11:51:19 AM PDT by NYer
>> “Is it possible that in these examples the sense of utter destruction was not meant to be understood literalistically, but was used as an expression?” <<
.
No, it is absolutely not possible.
The people and culture of Jerico were immensely evil, casting their infant children into the red hot arms of a bronze idol in the middle of an intensely hot fire, to die in agony as the crowd danced and played loud music to drown out the shrill cries of the dying infants.
The author of this tripe will deserve what he gets at the judgement seat!
>> “why did he kill David’s son?” <<
.
So that David would not profit fron his illicit relationship.
The death of the child didn’t harm the child.
Maybe it’s the sin that punishes the innocent. Like a pregnant woman taking dope.
Who are you asserting is inocent?
Are you saying that Yehova knows not who is his own?
Don’t allow the deceit of this author drive you to questioning Yehova.
And this is what happens when you impose chrstianity (and “natural law”) on the Hebrew Bible.
We all deserve the worst at the judgment seat.
But those that deliberately deceive others get the most severe punishment.
What I think is 1) since the archeological evidence suggests that Jericho had been sacked and abandoned about 200 years before the probable date of the Exodus, the authors of Joshua were not describing a real event, but a symbolic one; 2) the writers of the Bible were quite capable of inserting divine commands into accounts of flawed human actions, in order to justify their ancestors behavior.
The Bible says David’s new born infant son was killed to by God to punish David’s sins.
“The death of the child didn’t harm the child.”
Being made to suffer an illness for seven days and then to die isn’t either harmful or a punishment?
The Bible tells us that David was punished for his sin, but the point of the story was to show David’s willingness to accept this punishment, that he was not above the Law. Nathan foretold what would happen and so it did, and David accepted the judgement of his sovereign Lord.
Yes. God killed the child to punish David for his infidelity. So there were two punishments. Firstly, God killed an innocent party (the new born son) and used that death to punish a guilty one (David) for his infidelity.
However you paint this, it still seems apparent that the idea that God never punishes the innocent is incorrect, right?
If God is the creator, the way he causes anything is not like we cause things, and he certainly is not acting the part of an abortionist. However, even accepting as literal the text, God is no more than cause than Nathan or David and Beethsheba.
I didn’t say that God was acting in any way as an abortionist. How he causes things is also irrelevant.
It’s the effect not the cause which is at the heart of this - God decided to kill an innocent new born infant to punish his father’s sin. The author of the article claims that God does not punish the innocent. One only has to read the Bible to see that that claim is incorrect. God can and does punish the innocent.
You appear to want to dance around the edges of this issue and not grapple with the essence of it. I don’t understand why.
You clearly do not understand how Yehova works!
Remember Shadrach, Mashack, and Abednego?
They walked around in an 1800 degree furnace, and talked with the pre-incarnate Messiach, but suffered no harm.
Yehova has never harmed an inocent person.
When God used Israel carry out His judgement on a nation, it was not evil. His judgements are always righteous.
Only if you assume that a new born infant isn’t innocent or that disease and death isn’t harmful.
Whatever the larger point about David’s sin and/or the prophecies surrounding it, the fact remains that God killed an innocent to punish the guilty. Is that a true statement or not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.