^then I don't see how it can come as a surprise that I'm "such an ass" towards you. Either read up or shut up. Blathering on with little factual knowlege (and less willingess to change that) is something I find intellectually quite offensive (and makes you fair game in my book).

---

Well, OP never checked back so I guess it's sort of w/e, but since I'm at the library today, I thought I pull out Exodus Commentaries of two of the leading german commentary series. First is HThKAT. Commentator here is Christoph Dohmen, a widely known and highly regarded OT scholar of Germany. His Commentary is the 2nd referenced in the wiki-page on Ex.
Second is ATD. Commentator is Martin Noth, one of the most influential OT scholars of post-war Germany.

Dohmen translates 20:5 "...for I am JHWH, your God, a jealous God, examining [prüfend] the iniquity of the fathers with the sons ..."
Noth translates "for I am Jahwe, your God, a jealous God, who haunts [heimsucht] the iniquity of fathers in children ..."

Dohmens exegesis of V5-6 take up roughly 6 1/2 pages. Regarding the characterization "jealous" he refers to his discussion of Ex 30,14, noting that insofar as jealous is an adjective from the social sphere (the jealous person - its partner - rival), it characterizes the claim of monolatry of JHWH towards Israel in an anthropomorph fashion. So my caution to quickly associate the notions of jealousness and divine anger/wrath (as I speculated in #143) proved to be with merit.
Given his translation of "examining", most of the outrage of the verse is basically gone. His following discussion focuses mainly on the more general point of the section, the comandment of aniconism. Pre-breakfast posts tend to miss things, so I didn't draw attention to either this context, nor the following verse, which asserts the graciousness of god not only for 4 but 1000s (of generations). It is essentially a similar point than my third: The "examining/seeking out/rooting out" of the iniquity is limited - and dwarfed by the contrasting grace for those who love him.

Noth (who gives a much more cursory treatment - not surprisingly as his commentary is from 1960) asserts what has been controversial itt, i.e. that the text doesn't distinguish between individual guilt and "guilt by association", yet also mentions the lopsided relation between "haunting out guilt" for those who "hate" him and grace for those who "love" him. The jealousness is also taken as an anthropomorph picture of the monolatric claim of JHWH regarding the Israelites.

Ok, so either it's not only apologists but the entire guild of exegets who "besmirch" the name of exegesis, or basically all the claims I made seem to be backed up by what the experts say:

- the translation with "punishing" is by no means necessary,
- the intended message is one of limited retribution, and in that sense dinvine restraint
- the translation by words other than "punishing" make it easier to see that the text doesn't randomly hold future generations accountable but only insofar as they are themselves exemplifying the "iniquity of the fathers".
- Concepts of "association by tribe" have obv. grown less important and relevant in our culture that sports a fairly extensive individualism, yet it is by no means a concept that is entirly alien to us and that we find across-the-board unjustified.

I don't have a problem with that. People's strength don't reside in their hair, so a book that contains stories of this being the case loses credibility.

That doesn't necessarily prove everything else in the book wrong, but given enough similar cases certainly supports the notion to dismiss the work as less than factual.

Even yahoo can do better than that:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...0084803AAOW5mh

Ok ill be an ass to your condescending arrogant ass too. And no i wont shut up. Thanks for your advice.


Read up on why the God of the universe cant communicate with me as well as my dog. lol.


BTW there are more then enough Christians today who think he communicates with them in the way i mentioned in my first post. Hell even the writers bible have thought as Yahwehs way of communicating.

And more importantly, because most of the classic association by tribes (race, gender, religion, ethnicity etc) have been widely agreed to be among the most pernicious human tendencies and it is to the enduring tribute of western democracies to have aimed to vanquish from the law books all such mentions. You are correct that the tendency to apply guilt by association, as Noth believes this verse does, is hardly alien. But it is unjustified and indeed much of social progress has been on stamping down the horrors of excess that this tendency can lead to.

I don't see how this helps you. Asserting a good thing (grace) to far subsequent generations is as ridiculous and unjustified as asserting a bad thing (punishment or not grace or whatever it is that the guilt by association is doing) to far subsequent generations. It seems to be the most vacuous "this isn't as bad as it seems because he also does really nice stuff to people who praise him". No, the bad stuff - whatever it is - is still bad and unjustified regardless of whether he also does good stuff.

Better than what? I was only referencing an actual story in the bible.

from yahoo

from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite

And God gave his strength back so he could pull down the temple AFTER his hair was cut.

My apologies for my casual and simplistic rewrite. Let's clarify the actual claims a bit better:
So God gave Samson superhuman strength, but this magic power vanished when his hair was cut later in life. His superhuman strength didn't reside in his hair, the hair only was a part of of the magical covenant his mother and father made with an angel that represented god.

He also killed a 1000 men with the jawbone of a donkey.

It really doesn't matter what the Bible says, does it?

Do you believe Samson killed a 1000 philistines with the jawbone of a donkey in a single battle?

Considering your wording here, I think it is nothing but fair to expect you to answer this question.

Do you believe it's possible for God to enable someone to kill 1000 with a jawbone?

No.

Now please answer the question. Do you believe Samson singlehandedly killed a 1000 men with the jawbone of a donkey in one battle?

Considering your implicit accusation that I would regard the bible in the same manner regardless of what it contained, it is very reasonable to expect you to answer this question. Talk the talk, walk the walk etc.

Yes. With God's help. Since he created the universe and all, he probably has the power.

Edit:

Since you CAN'T believe the Bible, why should we discuss anything further?

That's a strange wording. I'm not sure how you have reached "can't" from your question that quite specifically used "do".

I don't believe God can imbue anyone with the superhuman strength to kill a 1000 soldiers in melee armed with only a jawbone, no. I'm not sure how "can't" somehow entered the equation. I'm fairly certain I'm equipped with the necessary faculties to form beliefs: I don't believe there is a tree in my garden either, that doesn't mean I can't believe there is a tree in my garden. I don't believe my car is grey, that doesn't mean I can't believe my car is grey. I don't believe I own a dog, that doesn't mean I can't believe I own a dog. I don't believe New York is the capital of the USA, that doesn't mean I can't believe New York is the capital of USA.

Now, I'm aware that defending the story of Samson is tricky stuff... it is rather fantastic story to the point of being cartoonish, but that isn't really my fault. I'm hardly going to feel intellectually guilty for not believing God can enable someone to kill a 1000 trained soldiers when armed only with a bone club.

Are there any fictional stories in the Bible? Not necessarily written only for entertainment, but at least significantly so? For example, some long-haired soldier who was rumoured to have killed a dozen or so men in battle, and so a story was written about him that exaggerated the events of his life, and tied in his notable appearance with the deity of the region.

To clarify, I'd expect that more liberal Christians think this about a lot of the Biblical stories, but I'm asking about any that even fundamentalist / literalist Christians would agree (or could be persuaded to consider) was fictional?

Joke, right?

They're called parables. Jesus told a bunch of'em.

"I don't believe X can Y" is not the same as "I can't believe X can Y".

Now, please stop throwing smoke.

It's not my fault you feel obliged to believe the story of Samson, and the resulting discomfort compels you to argue that me not believing it reveals some irreversible bias towards Christianity. I can pretty much promise you the story of Samson gets no special treatment from me that non-biblical claims of similar nature would not receive.

Is is that hard to accept that this is very fantastic story, and that not believing it is very rational?

Yahweh is a vindictive god, who acts in the language of revenge and disaster--earthquakes, floods, killing of the first born. Sometimes he speaks that way, sometimes he speaks nicely. Best to treat him the way former Attorney general John Mitchell--who had a similar moral code--suggested: watch what he does, not what he says. Even when he's saying nice things as in Ezekiel 18:14-17, he reiterates that if you don't treat him the way he wants to be treated, all bets are off.

So you can believe God can?

That's a strange question. Of course I can. When I was younger, I even believed this story. I'm hardly some unique human being. My faculties are largely similar to those of other humans.

I however, don't believe it.

Yes, there are many such stories in the Bible. The trouble with story of Samson is that he is one of the figures of the bible that traditionally has been claimed as historical, as his story is told in Judges.

This is, I suspect, why it is often such an uncomfortable debate.

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

"The first thing that we notice is that this is not just any old sin, but the sin of idol worship—rejecting God and worshipping a counterfeit."

Not just any old sin--like murder. The 1st commandment is to obey. No other sin is as egregious.

"The context of the verse shows that God does not visit, 'the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generation' without good cause. The justified reason for God's punishment is that those children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren hate God and follow their fathers into idolatry."

Very similar to Stalinism. Worship the supreme leader. If you don't, it's the original Hate Crime and it's the Gulag for you. Justifiable homicide.

Then why don't you believe God can?