They all share a similar language construction, which is pretty common with the Hebrew figure of speeches found in the Bible. The modern interpretation of this is that it refers to our actions having consequences to people other than us and the infectiousness of sin, not God punishing someone for someone else's sins.
Sounds more like some really don't like the whole concept of "sins of the father". I don't blame them for that, but it does means ignoring statements from god himself.
I've noticed that your comments talks about modern
interpretation. What about the interpretations of the passages were 4,000-odd years ago? I think that's a bit more relevant.
Maybe for a Bible literalist. The vast majority of Christians are not literalists, and over half aren't sola scriptura.
This is stuff said by god himself
. What more do you need?
No, not everything the historic Jews believed is Christian theology. Abraham's initial polytheistic views are not Christian theology, nor is the early lack of belief in an afterlife, or anything else that's been outmoded.
Again, we're dealing with the words of god himself. Exactly how can that
be outmoded? By... god himself? Wonder how that works...
Original sin is not the same as proportional suffering for one's own sin in one's lifetime.
The point I was making in reply to your comment was that "original sin" is an example of "sins of the father". We have gotten off-track on the whole "proportional suffering for one's own sin in one's lifetime" thing, I'll give you that.
Yes it does. In a world where sin has made suffering probable, the amount of suffering one experiences is simply a matter of probability. A roll of the dice.
In other words, suffering is something that "just happens". Can't say I disagree here, but where does sin enter into the picture here? If suffering "just happens", then you don't need the idea of "sin". Likewise, you don't need the idea that death is punishment for sin.