Steven J said...
But even reading it in the actual Bible, it's not at all obvious how one reconciles God's claim in Exodus that He punishes children to the fourth generation for the sins of their parents, with the command in Deuteronomy that we are forbidden to do this, much less with the promise in Ezekiel that God will not do this. It's not clear how God could show Moses His "back parts" if "God is spirit," lacking both physical location and bodily form, as Jesus tells the Samaritan woman.
@Steven J
That passage in Exodus 33 is really speaking to God's revelation. You ask how God can show His "back parts". You might also ask how God can move His "hand", or show His "face". The emphasis of this passage is not on a description of God's physical body parts (hand, back or face.)
The references to body parts are a metaphor, they are representative of the truth. They paint a word picture which helps us understand the meaning, that not everything has been revealed to Moses, and that God will reveal more of Himself in the future, foreshadowing his revelation in the person of Jesus.
The Bible is a notable work of literature (as Dawkins correctly points out). The Bible, as literature, and makes extensive use of literary figures of speech (such as metaphor, personification, hyperbole, etc.).
To read the Bible only in a woodenly literal way is to miss the real meaning. Jesus mostly taught using parable, a form of metaphor.
As to children inheriting the sins of the father down through N=2,3,4 generations... there are two distinct perspectives we need to take into account in these passages: temporal and eternal.
From a temporal, earthly perspective, we know that a man's actions have consequences, not just on him, but on others. Consider one man that murders another man. The action has consequences on both men, and on their families, on their children, and on their neighbors, on and on.
A man's actions can result in consequences for his children, grandchildren, and generations to come. When a man is sent to prison for murder, one consequence is that a son may not finish school, may not go to college, and that will affect the rest of his life. The son reaps a temporal "punishment" for the sins of his father.
This is in complete accord with the Bible. We note that God makes no promise to insulate children from temporal consequences of their father's actions.
The other, more important perspective that we need to take into account is the eternal. In this regard, God DOES make promise that each individual is responsible for his own thoughts and actions. On the day of judgment, no man will be judged for the sins of his ancestors. That is, no son will be eternally "punished" for the sins of his father.
When we examine those passages in light of those two different perspectives, the Bible more clearly reveals the truth to us, and we see that those passages are not contradictory.
Why should the Bible even talk about the "sins of the father" and subsequent generations? Perhaps it is to address a common misunderstanding, a belief that what happens to us on earth reflects on God's eternal judgment on us. (And there does seem to be a lot of misunderstanding on this by many misguided teachers.)
I'm not in total agreement with that particular quote from Shaw, but he does highlight an important truth. We, as human beings are wont to do, often inject our own meaning into the words of Scripture.
One of the ways we have of recognizing that we have, in fact, injected our own meaning, is by way of the contradictions we "find" in Scripture. When we examine the passages more closely, taking into account the context and purpose, and asking the relevant questions, and give ourselves the freedom to have our initial understanding be incomplete or wrong, then the truth of Scripture can reveal itself to us.
I hope this finds you well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)