Originally Posted By: Revlgking

SO HERE, LET'S ASK: DOES THE BIBLE TEACH THAT THE SONS ACTUALLY DO BEAR THE SINS OF THE FATHERS? OR NOT? Note: As with many Bible teachings and ideas, the Bible, as you will see when you read on, that it appears that the Bible is not always consistent.

Here is where, in the Bible, the idea is mentioned: Exodus 20:5, Deuteronomy 5:9 and Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20. Here the Bible says, YES THEY DO:

(Exodus 20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

(Deuteronomy 5:9) - "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"

(Exodus 34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in loving kindness and truth; who keeps loving kindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

(1 Cor. 15:22) - "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
============
Now, here is where the Bible says,
NO THEY DO NOT:

(Deuteronomy 24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin."

(Ezekiel 18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."
...but appearances can be deceiving.

Between some Spring cleaning, unexpected snow shoveling, and other apologies, I'll try to keep up. Please continue with any other of my "metaphors" or interpretation from above, which should be more interesting than the example suggested with epigenetics. I do appreciate the cross-referencing work you are providing; using a concordance can be helpful, but somewhat random and laborious.

Epigenetic principles don't seem to conflict with any of the statements you gleaned, at least on my first reading. I'd easily agree with your notion that the first statements support.... But for what you suggest as statements contradicting epigenetics, I saw only more confirmation; if one assumes those statements concerned legal or socioeconomic responsibilities--of Ceasar, so-to-speak, rather than the spiritual/biological wisdom revealed in the "pro" points.

Plus, your "con" points do validate the principle that epigenetics doesn't work "upstream" or backwards; the father isn't affected (genetically) by what the son does. I'm not sure how "grey hairs" from worrying about one's kids wink should be factored in; that seems to be evidence of an "upstream" effect, but I don't think it counts as an epigenetic effect. smile

But seriously, the "con" points speak to "bearing punishment for," which is different from "visiting iniquity" across some generations. To me the latter sounds "fuzzy" or biological, compared with the specifics about legally "bearing" some state-supported sanction. And at the risk of revealing my "fuzzy bearing" logic....

The idea is to find an interpretation that is consistent with scientific wisdom. So after re-reading the quotes you provided, do you see any contradiction; considering the differing genetic or legal interpretations, such as I suggest above? Taken together, the pro-n-con quotes perhaps indicate that while we can be (structurally) forgiven, it can take generations to (biologically) forget. Some "reminders," which visit occasionally, might be a good way to more fully appreciate forgiveness. ...but I'm just speculating....
===

...but just fyi.... I'm no expert on "the theory" specifically, but I've long studied the various sciences that inform the interdisciplinary-based Gaia Theory; so I should be qualified to speak for the Gaia perspective. The main point, aside from my comments about "integrated" and "big-picture" perspectives, is the conclusion that Earth behaves as if it were a living creature--or a living being. But the important qualifier is the "as if" part of the statement; so it remains scientific.
===

So, what do you think about the Creation Care and "Farmer's Almanac" ideas, or the "days" of Creation and the "eighth" day caretakers, or the life everlasting and the afterlife after life ideas, or ...how "Do unto others..." might apply to the planet, as if the planet were an other ...of God's creatures... worthy of being acknowledged and naturally deserving respect, honor, etc....
===

~Thanks

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.