Do Christians believe the Bible when it says that illegitimate children are cursed for 10 generations ?

Question

" A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD. " (Holy Bible) (Deut. 23:2)



.

Answer 1

Please read the entire chapter. This verse is taken out of context. It refers to the descendants of Lot and his daughters.
Lot received blessings with Abraham, because he was faithful and obedient.

Like Noah's sons...his children were not so obedient. They offered no assistance to the slaves as they escaped from Egypt. Many were starving and in need of water..the Moabites and Ammonites turned a blind eye towards them.

I am unsure if they were considered illegitimate because they were children from an incestuous union (Leviticus 18) or because they were repeated law breakers.

The definition of illegitimate is unclear on all counts, because famous and important children were born to several of the patriarchs via concubines and all were allowed to enter the temple/assembly. Jesus was allowed...or wait was he a bastard?

Can't have it both ways.

Answer 2

What ALL previous answers are overlooking is the context of the passage in question. This did not forbid a person of questionable lineage from being an Israelite, it merely forbid him from sacrificing at the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple was a very special case that does not exist today. Much of the Torah relates to the importance of keeping the Worship at the temple spotless. For instance, anyone of any parentage could not go to the temple if they were unclean due to any number of things ranging from contact with a dead body, to a woman on her period. This was to make a point that the Temple was special and should be treated as such.

Now today this does not apply. This is not because (as others have suggested) Jesus did away with the law. This is Because there simple is no Temple standing today. There are no holy things to be defiled. A local church is not The Temple, and so attendance there is not forbidden to a bastard (or a eunuch, or a prostitute, or a leper, etc...) Just as in those days such people could go to a synagogue, just not the Temple.

Some parts of the Law no longer apply simply because the circumstances surrounding them do not exist anymore. NOT because "Jesus did away with all that"

Answer 3

Ouch.

If I were a Christian, I would easily admit that many parts of the Bible are not comprehensible in today's world, and that some appear blatantly contradictory to other parts. Why insist that every part of the Bible is true?

If people want to stick to the NT, that's fine, but I'd like to see Christians stand up to the people who still quote the OT to argue against homosexuality, for example.

Answer 4

You're quoting Old Testament. The Bible also tells us that the child is not responsible for paying for the father's sin. We each are responsible for our own.

Go dig around for another angle to attack Christians. This one won't get it.

And Dialectic (directly above) there are several New Testament passages that also address homosexuality. It is not found only in Leviticus. Read Romans 1:27 for starters.

ROMANS 1:27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is found in Both the Old Testament and the New Testament. It continues to apply to this very day. Neither God nor the Bible have changed, nor will they ever change, nor can they be changed by popular vote or opinion polls.

Answer 5

That's the OT.

Refer to new testament.

Answer 6

That is JUST WRONG!!! It also says "an eye for an eye" but we don't and can't do that.

Answer 7

*yawn*

this is so OLD Testament

Answer 8

Why? Why take it out on the children! Does that mean that they can't go to heaven?? I need an answer here, please!