I am admittedly almost completely unfamiliar with the Bible. I did not attend church as a child. I went to a couple Sunday School sessions, and that was it. My longtime girlfriend is a Catholic who went to a private Catholic school from kindergarten through HS. I decided to study the Bible so I can better relate to her and her family, but I've run into some problems.

Here is a verse from the two most popular translations that is very troublesome. It is Exodus 20:5.

The New International Version:

King James:

How am I to reconcile myself with a God that would make such a claim? I can't even imagine a human that would be so petty as to punish a fourth generation due to the sins of a relative committed generations prior. It makes no sense on any level to me.

Beyond that, why would a being powerful enough to create all of existence need to punish several generations of offspring that had nothing to do with the original sin?

With this line of thinking, we should sentence several successive generations to death if a person goes on a homicidal rampage. We wouldn't even consider that justice in this realm. It makes even less sense when talking about a gigantically powerful God.

How can I talk to my girlfriend and her family about this when it seems absurd to me logically?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologe...eneration.html

Edit:

If you want to relate to them, don't ask the internet for answers to the questions you have trying to relate to them. It doesn't help your cause.

Hi, on top of what Aaron and NR said - if you're indeed trying to study the bible (rather than just read it), I suggest you read an introductory text on the bible. Just look at amazon for something on "OT, introduction" that has at least 250 pages and has an academic feel to it. There, you should find most questions about how to approach the subject covered - even more so, since your GF is catholic, which is a somewhat special breed.

About the verse - go to a library and pull out a commentary on Ex; see what it has to say.

And just a few additional thoughts:

- That we are responsible for actions of others is not really such a foreign concept: Parents are liable for their children; present-day taxes of Germans are (to a much too small degree) used to pay for pensions of holocaust-survivors etc. So the general idea to hold more than just the offending individual accountable for a crime he committed is in itself nothing particularly alien to us.
- You're missing that the text talks about a very specific sin that elicits this kind of divine response. So your analogy of the shooting spree is precisely the kind of analogy that does not hold.
- While it doesn't make the verse any more "sunshine and roses", the kind of justice proclaimed here is one that actually installs some measure of accountability and restraint: It is only until the fourth generation and only the kids and grand children.

But those are just some pointers I've scribbled down before I even had breakfast - they don't substitute for consulting a book.

Despite the display of god's wonderful magnanimity, that he punishes "only until the fourth generation and only the kids and grand children", I would struggle to worship such a jealous god.

I think it's far more likely that the writers of that passage were simply ensuring a control mechanism to help with the problem of competing religions. Individuals might summon up the moral fiber to stand by their principles and worship an idol in the face of threatened divine punishment, but when the threat is that their sins will be visited on their children and grand children?

If there actually is no god, then it's just another distasteful example of the unethical manipulations and threats used by religions to control followers. If there is a god, then he's petty, jealous and vengeful.

Lose/lose.

The suggestion to consult a book before randomly whipping out suggestions of what you think is "far more likely" does extend to you too.

Let me ask you, using the paradigm that there is no christian god and that the bible is completely fabricated by humans, would you feel differently to me? Would any book that studied the bible, this work of fiction, in a supportive and friendly way be likely to influence your conclusions anymore than a book that put forward various arguments for why Sherlock Holmes was or wasn't a heroin user?

I'm with the OP in struggling to "reconcile myself with a God that would make such a claim", no matter what justifications for his behaviour have been imagined but I would add two further possibilities to consider, that there is no christian god (so it doesn't matter what the bible says) or that there is a god but the bible is not his word (so it doesn't matter what the bible says). I think the OP would be better served reading some books that offer explanations for the religious psyche than books that offers explanations for stories written centuries ago.

If a man hates God, and his son loves God, what happens to the son?

According to Ex20, he will be punished?
According to Ez18, he will not be punished?

Admittedly I am not studying these passages, I am just reading what they say. I am not commenting on what is fair or unfair, but it seems to be contradictory and redundant. I am really only interested from the context of alleged accuracy and infallibility.

The godandscience link did not clarify anything, in fact it attempted to alter the meaning of the Exodus passage: "these children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren hate God and have followed their fathers into idolatry. So, there is a good reason for God's punishment", which is nonsense, the passage says nothing of the sort.

Either someone hates God, and will be punished for it (in which case the 4 following generations are redundant, if a descendant hates God they too will be punished for it), or someone hates God and their 4 following generations are also punished for it regardless (which is surely what the Exodus passage says). The latter seems to be contradicted by another book.

You mean "towards" me? No, because my regard for you is not influenced by your belief but the effort you put into confronting your preconceptions. Of all the things I know nothing about, I either shut up (if I don't feel strongly enough about it) or I read up. You - seemingly - prefer to keep doing neither, while justifying it by the objective irrelevance the bible has if there is no god.
Not entirely sure what you're asking here, but since you bring up Sherlock Holmes - what you're doing in most of your posting is to assert silly sweeping statements of what SH is and means and when called out on them refrain from studying SH in any detail arguing it's fiction either way.

... disregarding/being oblivious to the fact that this view is premised on (a) you understanding the text correctly, (b) you approaching the text correctly (c) you having some general idea of what possible explanations of the verse are even conceivable, etc. All of these qualifications have been pointed out to you before as being necessary before a statement as the quote would seem reasonable, yet rather than choosing one of the two intellectually honest options (either shut up or read up), you apparently prefer the third: remaining willfully ignorant.

You're right, the text doesnt. However, the text also doesn't specifically say "punish", but (as the KJV says) "visit". In many cases, the verb used here does indeed simply mean "to visit someone". So the rendering "to punish" is already an interpretation that is stronger than necessary: Alternatives of "to visit" would include "to seek out", "hunt up". That would enable interpretations such as "seeking out/rooting out the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" - if one holds that the actions of the apostating fathers would have consequences in their children (for example, an idolating father will pass on his idolating ways onto his children), this seems considerably less harsh than "I punish you <in whatever unrelated ways I see fit> for the idolating ways of your grandfather."

Your argument that this would be redundant as then the children would be sinners in their own right is not entirely wrong, but there are at least two counters: For one, the biblical text is not intended to be a strict philosophically logical argument. For example, even the phrase "in the third and fourth generation" has some redundancy in it. For two, the 10 commandments are directed towards jews, while explicitely accepting the fact that there are other religions and "gods". If a father apostates, it's not clear that his kids and grandkids remain jews.

You misunderstood, I meant would you feel differently than I do, not about me.

Regarding your 'suggestion' though, there are many religious books, and many books written about those books and I don't have the time or the inclination to read them all and even if I did I could never achieve the level of expertise of someone who has devoted their life to one book. I have to be more selective. Even if I found a book that explained Exodus 20:5 in a wholly different way, that made god look good instead of petty and jealous, there are books that debunk or counter 'friendly' explanations, which am I to believe?

Whatever, it's irrelevant to my suggestion to the OP that he consider the other options I mentioned, specifically that the bible may be completely fabricated so unless he fails to reconcile this issue and has a problem with his girlfriend worshiping such a jealous, petty god, he might simply sidestep it completely. It's a work of fiction, no problem then. There are plenty of christians who don't accept that the bible is the literal word of god.

Failing that he could cherry pick an explanation that makes it all good. It all seems so arbitrary to the objective observer.

Of course I would. Very likely, I wouldn't spend my time arguing about a book I feel is a historical document with limited relevance. Once I had started to become interested enough in the matter, however, I'd start reading books.

Not sure if it came up before, but I started studying catholic theology in university while still being an atheist. I was more or less decided on focusing my studies on the OT before I was even baptized (which happened somewhere in my 3rd year of university). So most of my engagement with the text and its possible interpretations happened under the assumption that it's "just" a text.

That apparently didn't stop me from approaching it with a fresh mind and the seriousness that it deserved.

Right, and the fact that I, too, have to be selective about the myriad other topics that I encounter on a daily basis, is ample justification to just blather on about any of them in whatever fashion I feel appropriate and justified. :rolleye:

Pretty persuasive then eh. I'm curious about what else you studied that failed to convince you but that will have to wait for another time.

Debatable that it deserves 'seriousness'. Also, it's perfectly reasonable of me to speculate about the motivations of the writers on specific issues like the punishment for worshiping other gods. If there is no god, then there are a limited number of reasons why that would have been written into the bible, one of them is that it would help to prevent people worshiping other gods. Remember that I said "I think it's far more likely", I didn't say 'it IS more likely'.

If there is a god, then it's much more complicated.

If we were talking about a myriad of topics that I know nothing about, I'd shut up and/or read up.

However, this is now dangerously close to being off topic and I've made my suggestion to the OP and there's no benefit in repeating it so I'm going to stop posting now.

We aren't!?

To follow up on that:
Here's a suggestion, though probably a bit much for just an overview.

This one would be an alternative.

Tod Linafeld and Walter Brueggeman are OT heavyweights. Whatever they write is usually pretty good and quite accessible. While also quite the tome, it comes at a pretty reasonable price.


Here is a list of english scholarly commentaries on Exodus.

While I'm sure theologists, clergy and many can have much to offer when it comes to understanding the bible, it does raise the concern of divine inspiration. Is the bible divinely inspired? Is a book about the bible divinely inspired? Who (if anyone) can/should read and understand the bible for you? Even the bible itself warns that false witness might come in many guises, even people who seemingly are "apostles of Christ".

From a non-spiritual standpoint there is of course the concern that writing a book, said books thickness or style of writing are no guarantees for reliable knowledge.

So essentially, I think this advice is fairly dubious:

I believe the Pharisees who called for the Crucifixion of Christ Jesus assumed responsibility not only for themselves but also for their children who would be responsible.

In a time which the individual man was immersed within his nation or clan or tribe the responsibility for acts accomplished by someone within the tribe fell upon the whole tribe. this is because the individual "Ego' hadn't been released as of yet and the individual correspondingly felt, experienced himself as a tribal member (I and Abraham are One). This was secondary to a natural causal relationship, not a relationship of intellectual choice. the individual identity of the individual man had not yet blossomed forth. Mankind did not fall to the earth running until after the event of Golgotha in which we finally became "Ego Beings" working the earth.

During our times tribal or national identity has on the whole not been held responsible for an invidious act but of course nationalism is the other side of the coin. The reparations of the Treaty of Versailles were onerous, by most accounts, but were directed against the nation of peoples even if those who wrote it disagree(read the Brits here).

Of course following the Second World War individuals were held responsible, Japanese and German. Condemnation of the entire peoples were withheld not because there may have been some who desired this but because in the movement of the individual as an "Ego Being" he sees himself and others in the same light. Democracy is one political manifestation of the development of the "Human Ego".

The term "on us and our children for 3-4 generations" was not unknown throughout the ancient world and it was a call for responsibility for a nation's or clan's or tribe's acts. The nation was responsible and if untoward manifestations of an act were brought forth the nation had to balance justice.

Considered in another light , being responsible as a nation (sons and daughters) for an invidious act is actually is actually liberating. but there is also the question of what does one do in order to right the wrongs of a nation but then I'm speaking as an individual and have not transported myself into the being of the nation of that time; the trials and tribulations of the Hebrew Nation would better answer that question but of this I am not able to say.

cliff notes: the ancient tribesmen were ensconced within their nations in a clairvoyant manner to which they could connect with their progenitors, not as individuals but as a living breathing part of the entire tribe. And so, their children would have their responsibility truncated after 75-100 years which is not a bad deal when the background is considered. After all, if one could not "think or breathe individual" as we do today then where does the responsibility lie?

Here's another good comment on this issue:

http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-...n-the-children

Another observation includes the idea that God often says what he will do as a warning - he told Jonah, for instance, to tell Ninevah that he(God) was about to destroy the city. He didn't tell Jonah to tell them to repent, or if they did repent he wouldn't destroy them. But they did repent and he didn't destroy them.

Jonah 3:

10 When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

This idea is found in virtually all of those "evil" things God does to people. The Amalekites had 430 years to change their ways before God brought destruction on them. The Bible says God is slow to anger and repeats many times his willingness to forgive.

See - here you do it. As it might be a work of fiction it's debatable that it deserves serious study and if it's fiction, a section that's difficult to understand is "no problem". In addition, since it's tough to know where to begin to study it (and how to legitimate a preference for this text over that!?), the only truly fair and unbiased solution is to not begin at all.

That is a piss-poor view on how to deal with literature. Would you also argue that it's "debatable", whether the moral dilemmata of Antigone "deserve serious discussion" because it's all fiction?

If only this were actually true...

Debatable that it deserves 'seriousness' .

Regardless of the veracity of the OT and NT, these works are important for historical, cultural, and literary reasons. The impact of the NT on modern life is tremendous.

Both of these commentaries seem intent on trying to convince us that

really means

Do you think we should buy that?

A grunching answer would be: "That depends on their arguments."

Don't take what the Lord says at face value in the book that he wrote. He almost never means precisely what he says. What you need is context. Context that isn't given, but what is imagined. Really all you have to have is faith.

Yes, it deserves to be studied seriously. I think what I meant was that it's debatable whether it be taken seriously but I was non-specific in my word use and vague in my thinking.

I think you conflated two of my points in your post though, we've just covered one. The other (It's a work of fiction, no problem then.) was advice to the OP and one possible way to deal with his issue, as a way to just sidestep it. It wasn't an argument that the bible is in fact a work of fiction.

I'm sure greater minds have argued this for centuries, but, the question I wonder about is that since there are many holy books, and we accept that they have contradictory views, so they can't all be right. So, which holy books contain, or are completely, works of fiction? Are there any Christians here who believe that the bible at least contains some fiction or that it might be completely fabricated?