The Bible contradicts itself when David's son dies because of David's sin

[Valery]

Actually, if you are true to the understanding of the Old Testament and New as expressed in the Qur'an you MUST believe in the Bible. The Qur'an goes out of it's way to describe them both as the 'word of God.'

Are you true to the understanding of the Qur'an?

Tell me something,

Qur'an, surat al-Maidah verse 46 "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah."


Do you think that Allah sent Jesus عليه السلام the New Testament?

 

[Kiwimac]

Are you true to the understanding of the Qur'an?

Tell me something,

Qur'an, surat al-Maidah verse 46 "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah."


Do you think that Allah sent Jesus عليه السلام the New Testament?

Yes, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Valery]

Yes, feel free to prove me wrong.

So you think that the four Gospels, the acts of apostles, the 14 epistles of Paul, the 7 General epistles and the book of revelation were all revealed to Jesus as they are in the new testament, word for word?

 

[Kiwimac]

So you think that the four Gospels, the acts of apostles, the 14 epistles of Paul, the 7 General epistles and the book of revelation were all revealed to Jesus as they are in the new testament, word for word?

Yours is the burden of proof if you believe they were not.

There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.

 

[Valery]

No, it is not. What it is, is a human retelling of something which happened and attempting to make sense of that thing. Much of the Bible / the Qur'an and other holy books are these kinds of midrash. Humans attempting to get a handle on the WHY of things. How correct they are, God alone knows but to assume they are divine revelations is to assume too much, IMO.

So you DON'T think Allah gave Jesus the New Testament?! You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Valery]

Yours is the burden of proof if you believe they were not.

be patient. We are discussing. This is not an interrogation.

 

[Kiwimac]

So you DON'T think Allah gave Jesus the New Testament?! You are contradicting yourself.

Not sure how you got from the OT story of David and Beersheba to the NT. Feel free to explain. Meanwhile I suggest you study the term 'midrash.'

There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.

 

[Valery]

No, it is not. What it is, is a human retelling of something which happened and attempting to make sense of that thing. Much of the Bible / the Qur'an and other holy books are these kinds of midrash. Humans attempting to get a handle on the WHY of things. How correct they are, God alone knows but to assume they are divine revelations is to assume too much, IMO.

Here you imply you don't believe any of the three scriptures are actually revelation as sent by God. Am I wrong?
You didn't verify whether you think Jesus received as revelation the New Testament word for word.

Not sure how you got from the OT story of David and Beersheba to the NT. Feel free to explain. Meanwhile I suggest you study the term 'midrash.'

By you claiming the Quran confirms the Bible... :roll: first you're demanding proof and then you pretend not to know what is going on. Midrash is quite clear. I don't know how that is relevant.

 

[Kiwimac]

Here you imply you don't believe any of the three scriptures are actually revelation as sent by God. Am I wrong?
You didn't verify whether you think Jesus received as revelation the New Testament word for word.

By you claiming the Quran confirms the Bible... :roll: first you're demanding proof and then you pretend not to know what is going on. Midrash is quite clear. I don't know how that is relevant.

Are the scriptures inspired by God? Yes, they are. Do they contain teachings that are solely human attempts at understanding God? Yes, yes they do. Midrash takes something in scripture and retells it in a different context in order to understand the thing more clearly. Jesus did not receive revelation, He was the source OF revelation thus the NT is His without Him needing to author a word of it. Just as Muhammad never wrote a single word of the Qur'an nor Moses the Torah.

 

[tosca1]

Are you true to the understanding of the Qur'an?

Tell me something,

Qur'an, surat al-Maidah verse 46 "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah."


Do you think that Allah sent Jesus عليه السلام the New Testament?

Well - what is the Quran?

Who wrote it?


Why do you assume it's from God?

Let me create a thread for this as this is off-topic. Here:


Why Do Muslims Think The Quran Came From The Abrahamic God?

 

[Valery]

Are the scriptures inspired by God? Yes, they are. Do they contain teachings that are solely human attempts at understanding God? Yes, yes they do. Midrash takes something in scripture and retells it in a different context in order to understand the thing more clearly. Jesus did not receive revelation, He was the source OF revelation thus the NT is His without Him needing to author a word of it. Just as Muhammad never wrote a single word of the Qur'an nor Moses the Torah.

The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم recited every word of the Qur'an as they were written down.

 

[Dayton3]

What's wrong with God doing whatever he wants and not being bound by the rules meant for humans?

After all he is "God".

 

[Kiwimac]

The Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم recited every word of the Qur'an as they were written down.

Not what I said. Muhammad was functionally illiterate, his revelations were written down by a scribe on whatever happened to be handy. It was the first caliph who pulled those together into an edition and then had the originals destroyed.

 

[NotreDame]

That's the contradiction. "Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."
whether you think of it as punishment or as an absolution, the child died for David's sin.
"The child also that is born.--The death of a little infant in the harem of a great Oriental monarch might seem of small significance, and but a light punishment; David, however, saw it in its true light--as an evidence of God's unalterable purpose, and a sign of the greater judgments that must come upon him. The people also, no doubt, saw and felt the appropriateness of this punishment."
2 Samuel 12:14 Nevertheless, because by this deed you have shown utter contempt for the word of the LORD, the son born to you will surely die."

If your latter statement is true, can you prove the command was only for man and how would you explain Ezekiel 18:4 "For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child--both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die."

It is your burden to show the verse applies to God. There isn’t any evidence this verse was applicable to God. The context, in which Moses was being given laws to govern the Jews, is evidence the verse was for the Jews, not a rule for God. The verse you reference is but one commands from God to the Jews among many listed. Some of the other commands covered loaning money to a neighbor, a specific punishment for a man kidnapping another person under certain circumstances, leaving part of the harvest on the field for certain people, inter alia. The context is God giving laws govern people in relation to people.

So, it is not a logical contradiction. This was a prohibition applicable to people, in their dealing with people.

 

[stevecanuck]

Deuteronomy 24:16
"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

2 Samuel
12:9 "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites."
12:10 "Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'"
12:11 ""This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight."
12:12 "You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"
12:13 "Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die."
12:14 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die.""
12:15 "After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill."
12:18 "On the seventh day the child died. David's attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, he wouldn't listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.""

Is this not a contradiction?

I've read the rebuttals and hereby declare you the winner, but ONLY if there's a differentiation made between the words 'sin' and 'crime'. The key here is the use of the word 'sin'. Man punishes for crimes, but God for sins. If this verse was meant for Jews as your opponents claims, then it should have used the word 'crime'. I realize the qur'an uses the words interchangeably, but I'll leave it the biblical scholars here to say if the bible does.

 

[stevecanuck]

Not what I said. Muhammad was functionally illiterate, his revelations were written down by a scribe on whatever happened to be handy. It was the first caliph who pulled those together into an edition and then had the originals destroyed.

How is this not an exercise in semantics? Did the words that were committed to writing come out of the mouth of Mohamed or not? How could it possibly matter who actually put quill to parchment?

 

[stevecanuck]

What is your argument to be specific? It helps us understand scripture. You see, I don't want to interpret the scripture as I feel fit. I want the truth.

Btw, you always demand answers to your questions, but when I started a thread about a contradiction in the qur'an, you brushed it off. It's all about you.

 

[stevecanuck]

No, it is not. What it is, is a human retelling of something which happened and attempting to make sense of that thing. Much of the Bible / the Qur'an and other holy books are these kinds of midrash. Humans attempting to get a handle on the WHY of things. How correct they are, God alone knows but to assume they are divine revelations is to assume too much, IMO.

The qur'an has nothing to do with "Humans attempting to get a handle on the WHY of things". It's believed by Muslims to be a verbatim sermon from God. Period.

 

[stevecanuck]

Actually, if you are true to the understanding of the Old Testament and New as expressed in the Qur'an you MUST believe in the Bible. The Qur'an goes out of it's way to describe them both as the 'word of God.'

Correct.

3:119 - "...though ye believe in the whole of the Book...".

 

[stevecanuck]

Yours is the burden of proof if you believe they were not.

There's a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.

Clearly you have no idea how 'burden of proof works'. The person who says something is has the burden of proof. You're up.

 

[stevecanuck]

... Midrash takes something in scripture and retells it in a different context in order to understand the thing more clearly...

That would explain tafsirs, not the qur'an.

 

[Hawkins]

children put to death for their parents

This is about God's Law on the judgment of an adult. God can however leave David alone without blessing, such that his son dies as a result of not being blessed and protected. The Jews used to write in a sense of God's absolute sovereignty. That's why they can take it as God killed David's son.

Similarly, when Pharaoh hardened his own heart, it can be written as God hardened his heart.

Exodus 8:32 (NIV2011)
But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.

Exodus 9:12 (NIV2011)
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

 

[Alfons]

Deuteronomy 24:16
"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

2 Samuel
12:9 "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites."
12:10 "Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'"
12:11 ""This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight."
12:12 "You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"
12:13 "Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die."
12:14 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die.""
12:15 "After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill."
12:18 "On the seventh day the child died. David's attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, he wouldn't listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.""

Is this not a contradiction?

There are not any contradictions in the Holy Bible
Period

 

[phattonez]

Deuteronomy 24:16
"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

2 Samuel
12:9 "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites."
12:10 "Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'"
12:11 ""This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight."
12:12 "You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"
12:13 "Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die."
12:14 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die.""
12:15 "After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill."
12:18 "On the seventh day the child died. David's attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, he wouldn't listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.""

Is this not a contradiction?

That rule applies to human governments, not to God.

 

[jmotivator]

Deuteronomy 24:16
"Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin."

2 Samuel
12:9 "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites."
12:10 "Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'"
12:11 ""This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight."
12:12 "You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"
12:13 "Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die."
12:14 "But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the LORD, the son born to you will die.""
12:15 "After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill."
12:18 "On the seventh day the child died. David's attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, "While the child was still living, he wouldn't listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.""

Is this not a contradiction?

The Old Testament laws are for man, not for God.