God punishes to the 3rd and 4th Generation! How nice!

by Number1Anarchist 160 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • cameo-d
    cameo-d

    Here is a big clue. What's next? The transformation.

    Twenty-first Century Biology

    Now that a working draft of a sequence for at least a representative human DNA chromosomal complement is finished, biology is moving into a new and dramatic phase. What some believe to be the culmination of a program of research that began in the 19 th century with Darwin, Mendel, and Miescher may be at hand.

    The "modern synthesis" (so named by Julian Huxley in 1942[3]) resulted from the fusing of Darwinian evolutionary theory and Mendelian genetics. When, in 1943, DNA, the substance that Miescher had found in the nucleus of cells, was identified as the chemical that constitutes the gene, the stage was set for the program that has dominated much of biology for the last 60 years.

    At the heart of Darwin's model is the idea of selection of characteristics and the reproductive survival of those that best fit the environmental circumstances. This force of natural selection then drives the evolutionary history of life. In 1859 there was no idea about the “thing” upon which this force would act. However, after the rediscovery of Mendel, the thing at least had a theoretical shape: the unit of inheritance called the gene. Once the chemical identity of the gene was established as DNA, the thing upon which selection acts took physical form. More importantly, the work of Luria and Delbrück demonstrated that genetic variations arise by chance or random events (mutations) that change the sequence of the DNA.[4] Thus, the source of variation in the population that is so essential to the evolutionary model was discovered.

  • hamilcarr
    hamilcarr

    There are several Laws of Inheritance. Environmental is also one aspect. Just because you look up and paste one article does not show that you really have a grasp on the significance of genetic inheritance

    But its importance seems to be larger than predicted by Mendels laws as shown by research quoted. The article suggests more flexibility than thought before which is relevant in the light of this discussion.

  • Perry
    Perry

    Anarchist,

    How is anyone to take you seriously? You question the existance of God. Yet, you assume his existence long enough to hurl accuasations at him. When truth is explained to you, you basically explode into a tirade about how God doesn't exist anyway and that it doesn't matter? Does that seem rational to you? You come off as a spoiled child. I am not trying to pick a fight, just stating how you seem to me.

    You say the bible is inaccurate when it offers verifiable and testable answers to your accuasations, yet you quote it for the purpose of casting doubt on God. Why even quote it if you believe it to be inaccurate? Why is only the parts you don't understand "accurate" and the parts that answer your demonstratable falsehoods then inaccurate?

    You are all over the place when it comes to taking a position. When people answer your questions, as I and others have done, it is courteous to answer theirs, which you have not. What are you afraid of?

    If you are going to assume the existence of God, then you must keep that premise all the way through someone's logical argument. You can't change the premise in midargument just because you don't like the answers. Similarly, if you are going to quote the bible as the word of God, then you must assume that it is the word of God throughout the argument and judge its answers accordingly, as opposed to just saying something like Ha, the bible isn't real anyway".

    The issue of rape that you post about has been covered many times on this board. Surely you must know this...don't you?

  • Perry
    Perry

    5 pages further, everyone still ducks the question and evades the discussion.

    hamilcarr,

    The issue has been squarely dealt with from a biblical standpoint - Gods' Sovereignty; ... several times. Since he is Sovereign, he can do as he wishes in making the rules. Further, he can modify them if he wishes; which in this case he later did:

    The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. - Duet. 24: 16

    Early in Israel's history guilt and punishment were understood to be communal. Their agreement with God to escape the death penalty for their sins was communal. So what? God no doubt had a good reason for this, since he can see the beginning and the end. Maybe he felt it necessary to establish a firm psychological cohesion to the group since he was forming them into a nation. I don't really know.... and it doesn't really matter since I cannot see the beginning and the end myself... which is what I would need to be able to judge God.

    Now please answer my question(s): How do you know right from wrong? If God is not qualified to punish the guilty, who is? 5 pages further, everyone still ducks the question

  • Perry
    Perry

    "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated (anah) her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

    There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs.

    Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the Scriptures a strong case can be made that this citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it being written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author’s intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all.

    With this just said, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:

    taphas -

    # 08610
    1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

    a) (Qal) 1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
    2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
    c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)
    AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)

    Here is one example of how this word is used:

    "The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols." Jeremiah 2:8

    shakab -

    # 07901
    1) to lie down

    a) (Qal) 1) to lie, lie down, lie on
    2) to lodge
    3) to lie (of sexual relations)
    4) to lie down (in death)
    5) to rest, relax (fig) b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
    c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
    d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
    e) (Hophal) to be laid
    AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)

    As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

    "And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘ Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

    Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:

    "If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18

    These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

    If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

    If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

    When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

    When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

    "If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

    If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

    If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

    If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

    If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

    If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

    If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

    Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

    Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

    "But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

    Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

    Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

    This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas with anah. Rather, the authors use the word chazaq with anah to convey this notion:

    "Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done." Genesis 34:1-7 ESV

    And:

    "Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah) her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, "Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. And her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom's house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar ... But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David's brother, said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’" 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV

    Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas, providing additional support that this word in of itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It also demonstrates our point that if the inspired author had rape in view he could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had occurred.(1)

    The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

    "If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

    Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines pathah as:

    # 06601
    1) to be spacious, be open, be wide

    a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
    b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open 2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade a) (Qal) 1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
    2) to be enticed, be deceived b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
    c) (Piel) 1) to persuade, seduce
    2) to deceive d) (Pual) 1) to be persuaded
    2) to be deceived
    AV - entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)

    As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

    "‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me "my husband"; you will no longer call me "my master." I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’" Hosea 2:14-20

    It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn't forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.

    As the following Study Bible puts it:

    22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman's father. It is assumed that the bride's father's rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price. (The New Interpreter's Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha [Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2003], pp. 278-279; underline and capital emphasis ours)

    This concludes our exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

  • Perry
    Perry

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

    Anarchist,

    I notice how you jump around to different translations to find certain words that fit your purposes. I have found it best to just stick with the KJV (textus receptus) when doing serious inquiry.

    That law was designed as an act of kindness toward a woman who was violated. It was designed to try and make a bad situation from being devastating. In middle eastern culture back then, the establishment of paternity was essential to the manifestation of lineage, property rights, etc. A woman who had lost her virginity was not an optimal situation, especially among the more prominent families. A woman might find herself unmarryable because of it. Her whole life could be ruined.

    There was no social security back then. It was up to your children to care for you when you got older. This law was designed to try and give the victum some options that she would not otherwise have.

    So probably the term rape is wrong as corrected by the KJV. But even if she was just "talked into it" she still could opt to exercise the right to marry the guy and make him pay his whole life ...even if he only wanted a one night stand originally . She could make his life miserable if she wanted... he could never divorce her.

    Pretty strong social pressure against exploiting young women wouldn't you say? Isn't God awesome? Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

  • drwtsn32
    drwtsn32

    Sigh...arguing about why an ancient book of mythology is not internally consistent. Sounds pointless to me.

  • snowbird
    snowbird

    I was framing a reply to this earlier in the day, but my nosy JW sister dropped in and I had to leave off.

    What I was going to say about the title was that it may not have been so much about God's punishing to the 3rd and 4th generation, but God's allowing karma to run its course.

    We reap what we sow. There's no getting around it.

    Sylvia

  • Perry
    Perry

    snowbird,

    That was kinda the view of John Wesley in a similar verse in Numbers 14:18 -

    The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

    Wesley -

    Visiting the iniquity - These words may seem to be improperly mentioned, as being a powerful argument to move God to destroy this wicked people, and not to pardon them. It may be answered, that Moses useth these words together with the rest, because he would not sever what God had put together. But the truer answer seems to be, that these words are to be translated otherwise, And in destroying he will not utterly destroy, though he visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation.

    However, we do have explicit examples where God did punish entire families for the sins of the family heads ie. the issue of Mediatorship brought by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. As I pointed out earlier, God later changed this method of accountability.

    It brings to mind that our modern military does the same thing in boot camp and various other training. The group suffers for the transgressions of the guilty ONE. This creates tremendous social presure, cohesion, and a broadening of mental scope. Later after the training, the recruit returns to a personal liability for his actions ... for legal purposes, although in practicality the group would still suffer for the actions of just one in certain situations.

    Because of sin, God still could exercise cold justice whenever he chose.... legally, to suit a larger purpose. The offer of mediator and pardon is a kindness, not a right.

    However, once a person has been born again, at that time he receives certain rights that can never be taken away:

    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God , even to them that believe on his name [Jesus] - John 1: 12

    Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
    For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. - Rev. 22

    Since obedience is linked to "rights" we must have the Spirit of God on the inside which is always obedient. Even though the flesh sins, God says we are justified because of the spirit within and the flesh having been previously crucified on Calvary Hill.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    5 pages further, everyone still ducks the question and evades the discussion.

    What was the question?

    BTS

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit