system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
A core tenet of the Christian belief is that the Christian God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and most especially, omnibenevolent. Then how can this apply to God's actions in the Old Testament which were often motivated by anger or God sending the sinned to hell?

The main concept of Christianity is that the Christian God prophesized the arrival of his son, Jesus, to save humanity from their sins to guide them to the truth, which is God himself.

The Old Testament is a collection of stories that build up the arrival of Jesus via the use of other prophets who also wanted to guide people towards God and teach them about the name of God.

As Jesus is also technically a part of the Christian God, as stated in the mystery of the Holy Trinity, both Jesus and God (and the Holy Spirit) are powerful and capable of all things and present in all ways and most importantly, benevolent in all ways and more "benevolent" or "closer to the truth" as a Christian theologian would say, than the other deities such as the "false" polytheistic gods, and enemies of God such as the Devil and his followers.

The problem is that if God is meant to be omnibenevolent since the very beginning, then what are the explanations for some of his actions towards humanity that were sometimes motivated by jealousy or anger but later wanted to "repent" for his actions by doing something more benevolent?

For example, the story of Adam and Eve and how he banished them from the Garden of Eden and when Cain killed Abel, God punished him with a mark and condemning him to a life of wandering., 

Or the story of the Tower of Babel where the humans wanted to build the tower to be closer to God but the latter deceived them linguistically and destroyed the tower and made the human confused about one another which later led to the creation of different languages.

Or the story of Noah and how God flooded the Earth and drowned all the sinners and later created the rainbow as a reminder to not killed humans at a mass scale again.

Or the story of Moses and how God wanted to show the Pharoah his might by causing many plagues and later drowning the Egyptians in the Red Sea.

Or the story of Sodom and Gomorrah where God wanted to punish them for their sins. 

&#x200B;

This is a stark contrast to the benevolent God that is implied in the Christian religion and it contrasts with the notion that if God is omnipresent and omniscient, then he would have been capable of knowing the consequences of his actions all along instead of attempting to make amends for his actions or succumbing to his emotions of anger or jealousy.

This is also in contrast with God wanting to save humanity and give them an eternity of paradise after death but if they do not follow his rule or way of life, then they are punished in hell for an eternity which is ruled by the devil and his followers which are technically the enemies of God so allowing the enemies of hell to work well with God and willingly take his creations and give them an eternity of suffering or torment them and warp them into his followers in counter-intuitive to what defines what God is.

So how can a God do all of the things mentioned above but also be capable of doing certain acts?
gpt
The short answer is that G-d as portrayed in the Tanakh is simply incommensurable with the theology of the New Testament.

The earlier books of the Tanakh were written such a long time before the New Testament, in different cultural climates where G-d was understood in a different way. Even monotheism is not always a given in the Tanakh, and many of the authors believed there were multiple gods but only one who they ought to worship (i.e. monolatry). Meanwhile Asherah and the Nehushtan (the bronze serpent Moses erects in the book of Numbers) were still worshipped as secondary deities in the Temple until the time of King Hezekiah (you can see him cast them out in 2 Kings 18:4).

Further, the G-d of the Tanakh is treated as a personal deity who has a specific relationship and covenant with the Israelites and guides those people to prosperity. This G-d is not everyone's God. There is also no Hell, and 'Heaven' is understood in a very different way. G-d rewards and punishes people in this life.

The New Testament, on the other hand, has universalist goals. God is portrayed as a universal God for all people who offers a different covenant (a 'new covenant' - the same new testament in the title). As part of these universalist goals, it was really important for the authors to emphasize his omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. He rewards and punishes everyone, but not necessarily in this life (he has Heaven and Hell to do this *after* life).

In other words, they are two different conceptions of God. It is worth considering that they simply may not be reconcilable (and they may not even have to be). The bible is not a single philosophical argument put forward by a single author that we can critique and find contradictions within. In many ways, it is not surprising at all to find that 7th century BCE Israelites of the Babylonian Exile understood God differently to 1st century CE Hellenistic proto-Christians.