[archibaldJ]

I think the interesting thing here though is the notion of `am a jealous God`.

Note: Exodus 20:5 and Similar Passages: The concept of "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation" is often understood in the context of the collective nature of ancient Israelite society. It emphasizes the idea that the consequences of sin can affect subsequent generations, particularly in a communal and covenantal context. This does not necessarily mean direct punishment, but rather the natural repercussions and influence of one generation's behavior on the next.

So one interpretation is that: these people's descendants are not directly punished bust just less favorable by God given the jealous nature of God (i.e. the jealous nature to the degree that is expressed in Exodus 20:5 if we take Exodus 20:5 at face value as composed by Moses at the cultural-political time when he received the Commandments where God proclaimed that He is a jealous God)

On the other hand, regarding Ezekiel 18:20, it is a verse that is a part of a broader discussion in Ezekiel 18 that emphasizes individual responsibility when it was composed by the prophet Ezekiel ~6th century BCE, during the Babylonian exile. So once again, one good interpretation can be that due to the cultural-political background at that time, God's message to humanity (for the betterment of humanity) was in a tone where He emphasized less on His jealous aspect and more on the individualism of sins - which is interestingly very similar to the idea of karma formulated in Shakyamuni's Dharma, which was also around that time in human history.

[ajuc]

> This does not necessarily mean direct punishment, but rather the natural repercussions and influence of one generation's behavior on the next.

This is a rationalization. If you try to interpret it honestly you can find dozen different places where god punish random people for sins of their relatives (for example "unoborn kids" in cities genocided by Old Testament Israelites either through regular war crimes or direct God's magical intervention).

And then there's the fragment that says that God will not punish a city if there's even one honest man there.

The only way to make it consistent is to ignore contradictions. And I'd say it would be easier to ignore the few ones that are against collective responsibilty (because there's far fewer of them).

[gjsman-1000]

> This is a rationalization. If you try to interpret it honestly

You are proceeding to not try to interpret it honestly; and thinking you are a genius for pointing out a supposed contradiction, because this hasn't been studied and researched for over 3,000 years at this point.

> for example "unoborn kids" in cities genocided by Old Testament Israelites either through regular war crimes or direct God's magical intervention

You seem to forget that Egypt, the land where they came from, was literally putting them to genocide first by ordering them to kill all male children; and any country they relocated to, would also have happily committed genocide against them if possible.

We also know from both the Bible and remaining physical evidence that the exterminated tribes were practicing horrific activities of their own. The Canaanites, for example, practiced child sacrifice to Molek, and (though not in the Bible, but from remaining historical evidence) even practiced ritual cannibalism. A command to exterminate them therefore should not be interpreted as intrinsically immoral or undeserved.