I have trouble reading much of the old testament

Jamdoc said:

We don't inherit sin, but we inherit the DNA and biology of Adam and have a tendency to sin because of it.

Click to expand...

That's just paraphrasing the same position. It's not a solution.

Suppose I found a way to spike everyone's food with a drug that increased their libido to an extent pretty much irresistible. I have thereby given them a sinful nature? And who is really to blame for the resulting sexual immorality? And what kind of evil leader would even allow such an atrocity to occur if it could be prevented?

You should know about G.C. Berkouwer. John Murray and S.Lewis Johnson both wrote articles about Berkouwer's 600 page book Sin, praising Berkouwer as the most erudite theologian in church history - greater than even Karl Barth. And their assessment of his book? That even Berkouwer was unable to find a decent solution to the problem of Adam, and they understood the book to be conceding that fact.

As to why God didn't just start over, it's a mystery.

Click to expand...

No it's not a mystery. On my assumptions it makes perfect sense. On yours it contradicts the basic justice, kindness, love, and decency of God. The only 'mystery' here is why people cling irrationally to logically untenable positions.

Why didn't God create a perfect world from the get go? Why have an imperfect world destroyed by sin?

Click to expand...

This is called the Problem of Evil. This is a separate issue, it ANOTHER longstanding contradiction in traditional theology. You're just exacerbating the problem by raising this issue. On that other thread where you and I recently debated, I gave you a link to MY solution to the Problem of Evil. I doubt you read it.

It is possible that this world is not perfect because its imperfection tempers us and shows us the consequence of sin so when in God's presence we now understand why when He tells us to do something, it's not just a whim of His it's for our own benefit more often than not.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not a solution to the Problem of Evil. God is traditionally understood to be infinite and thus infinitely self-sufficient. Why make a world like this, if He already has, in Himself, everything He could ever need or want, self-sufficiently?

If you want a REAL solution to the Problem of Evil, you'll have to abandon some of the traditional assumptions about God.

The burned hand teaches best.

Click to expand...

Nope. Not a solution to the Problem of Evil. Two problems here:
(1) Why would an infinitely self-sufficient God create a world where people can get burned?
(2) It is true that a burn in my youth can teach me a lesson and thus save my life. And if my life got saved this way, my Dad and Mom would be happy for the painful lesson learned at youth. After all, such lessons are valuable because Dad and Mom can't always be around to protect me. But what happens when the 'Dad' in question is God? If He is infinite, He is INDEED always there to protect me. In that case, there is no value in God letting me get burned. It would mean He's simply not doing His job.

Again, you can't rely on traditional dogma to solve the Problem of Evil. You're wasting your time - and mine, it seems.

Jamdoc said:

But because Adam sinned, you will inevitably sin too.

Click to expand...

(1) If Adam's behavior sets in motion a chain of events CAUSING us to sin "inevitably" (your word), that's not real sin. Suppose you're a chef. While the knife is in your hand, I grab your hand and thrust it toward a coworker, stabbing him. Have you sinned? Doesn't make sense.

(2) Your other claim was about DNA. Suppose Jesus had lived in our own generation, injuring Himself in carpentry. He heads into surgery, not realizing that the doctor is going to use a technique that will mutate his DNA. Does He now have a sinful nature?

The logical problem implicit in both 1 and 2 is that sin is volitionally defined, not externally caused, neither by Adam nor DNA.

Wasting time....

I suppose you think you can solve problems that even G.C. Berkouwer couldn't solve. And indeed you can - as soon as you abandon the kind of traditional dogma that he (and everyone else in the church) is still perpetuating.

And consider the basic exegetical problem, namely take a hard look at Gen 3. The curse pronounced in that chapter falls upon the entire human race as a JUDGEMENT FOR SIN. People not yet born are being indicted of sin, and cursed for it? You realize that makes God both a liar and unjust, right?

Whereas in my system, it's not an issue.

Jamdoc said:

Your position is an unjust position, holding people responsible for things they did not do, because someone related to them did something wrong.

Click to expand...

You seem to be misunderstanding my position. I am Adam. I am the one who sinned. I am therefore guilty. How do YOU define guilt? Isn't guilt a status ascribed to the person who sinned?

Standard evangelical response to the Problem of Evil is the delusion that the mere mention of "free will" dissolves the problem.

Jamdoc said:

The problem arises because of free will. God could have created robots without free will if He had wanted to. He wanted beings with free will that would still CHOOSE to serve Him. Because of that, there has to be the choice NOT to serve Him, to disobey Him, which is sin.

Click to expand...

He wanted a world where 100 billion people can freely choose to cast themselves into hellfire? He derives some morbid pleasure from all this? He wanted a world where His own Son could be sent to die on the cross? He is both sadistic and masochistic? And whatever pleasure He might so derive, why did He need to get US involved? An infinitely self-sufficient God can supply His own pleasure. In a word, your God is needlessly cruel. You do realize, don't you, that even temptation itself is suffering (viz. the agony of temptation).

You've just defined the ultimate Sadist.

If the choice to sin carries no consequences...

Click to expand...

No one's claiming such.

Jamdoc said:

You're not Adam though, you didn't make a choice for Adam, Adam made the choice.
We have free will, we are also individuals. You apparently believe in neither.

Click to expand...

I think you're misunderstanding my position. I'm a physical piece of the original Adamic soul in the Garden. Back then we were all joined together as one man (one mind) named Adam. TODAY we have somewhat diverged in traits but in God's eyes, I am still responsible for what I did as Adam.

Got a question for you. Why does Scripture claim that sin entered the world through Adam? Didn't Eve sin first?

In my system, it makes perfect sense. God only created one material soul named Adam - even Eve was a physical section of Adam taken from his ribs. Therefore the claim sin entered the world through Adam is a fully coherent claim.

This proves that God's plan DOES involve the possibility of splitting Adam's soul.

Jamdoc said:

Your "solution" also condemns every stillbirth and miscarriage to hell.

Click to expand...

Yes, for their behavior AS THE ADULT ADAM, not for the behavior AS A FETUS.

Which doesn't Jive with how Job in Job 3 said it would have been BETTER if he'd never been born. Would Job really be thinking it was going to be better if he'd never been born to learn faith and died in Adam's sin and been punished in Hell?

Click to expand...

I rarely base my doctrine on poetic literature. It might be a start but it's generally not enough to go on.

When David said that his son would never come back in 2 Samuel 12 but he would go to his son, was he referring to Hell where your "solution" puts his dead son?

Click to expand...

Why do you assume that children can't have saving faith? John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit in the mother's womb. While I am neither decidedly Calvinist nor decidedly Arminian, I do believe in the power of the Third Person as Inward Witness to move the human heart to saving faith - yes, even in the womb. But yes, if you're asking me whether MOST stillborns goto hell, my suspicion is Yes. (Otherwise mothers could legitimately argue that abortion is the best way to guarantee the salvation of the unborn).

Jamdoc said:

Because Adam was given responsibility over Eve as her husband. He also chose himself to eat when he was told not to.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. You're asking me to take a position that is historically contrary to fact. The passage (Rom 5) is talking about an actual transgression - the first transgression. If my wife sins, it doesn't make sense for a biographer to claim that I am the one who sinned.

Suppose a man finds a way to poison the entire drinking water supply of the USA. After doing so, he is caught and arrested. The President of the USA pronounces this judgment,"You will die for this transgression. And though I have an antidote to this poison, I am going to allow, as part of the judgment, everyone in the USA, and their children, to drink the poisoned water and die."

You would declare this President to be the most evil leader in the history of mankind. And yet, it is precisely your claim that God allowed Adam's sin to infect the entire human race with a sinful nature !!!

hedrick said:

Fortunately, historians (other than evangelical Christian historians) will tell you that it's unlikely that part of the OT is historically accurate, although it's worrisome that the authors apparently thought that's the kind of behavior God would want.

Personally I think what you see in the Bible is people learning over time what God actually wants. The prophets' ideals were for Israel to inspire the nations to worship their God, and of course Jesus certainly never suggested we should kill anyone.

Click to expand...

really? Do you have names or links? Cause like the OP said it’s always bugged me how much genocide is in the Old Testament. Did the Jewish people simply assume that God was backing them and write it into the scriptures? But to me that sounds like such a slippery slope...to say that ‘oh it might say god said this here but he really did not they just wrote it in’.

sorry to bring up such an old post.

Jamdoc said:

Well for the genocide that may be the case but for the punishment of Achan
Joshua 7:15
"all that he hath"
Joshua 7:24-25
and they considered the children not their own people, but rather just possessions of Achan, and stoned them to death and burned their bodies.
God never admonished them for doing that, so was it righteous?

Click to expand...

Deut 25:16 - 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.

That tells us that the 'children' were put to death for their own sin. When the Bible says children it doesn't always mean those under the age of adulthood. When they used the word, the children might be adults.

Deuteronomy 21
A Rebellious Son
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
If you only read verses 18-19 you might think this was a child.
But this is not talking about a little boy but a grown man who is a drunkard.

Here's what Paul said in Romans 5. Note the parallel.

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."

It didn't take multiple souls to save us. One soul (Christ) saved us. Likewise it didn't take multiple souls to make us into sinners. One soul (Adam) made the many of us into sinners, in fact, ONE ACT OF SIN. Look at the preceding verse:

"One trespass resulted in condemnation for all people."

Again the parallel - it's one-to-one parallel.
(1) One act of righteousness (the cross)
(2) One act of sin (Adam's fall).

Thus anyone who claims that we each had to separately and individually sin SUBSEQUENT to Adam, in order to be condemned, is contradicting what Paul taught. Again, the only way to make sense of Paul's teaching is my irrefutable syllogism given a couple of posts back.

A Beloved Servant of God said:

really? Do you have names or links? Cause like the OP said it’s always bugged me how much genocide is in the Old Testament. Did the Jewish people simply assume that God was backing them and write it into the scriptures? But to me that sounds like such a slippery slope...to say that ‘oh it might say god said this here but he really did not they just wrote it in’.

sorry to bring up such an old post.

Click to expand...

It's hard to find a full presentation online, though I'll keep lookinng. You'd need books for that. But Wikipedia gives a reasonable summary of the most likely history: History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia

Here's an interview with the archaeologist William Dever that covers the question you raised: the "conquest" of the land. That's the context for most of the large-scale killing. Archeology of the Hebrew Bible This talks about what I mentioned: that historians now think the origin of Judah / Israel was largely peaceful.

I've spent like an hour in Google and haven't found anything better than Wikipedia as an overall summary. The credible sources tend to be book reviews, course syllabi, etc. I haven't found any overall description with more detail than the Wikipedia article.