|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Judges 19 - Sickest story in the bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days)  Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
renaissance guy writes: Hebrew: na ar (HSN-5288), child”anywhere from infancy to adolescence. It generally implies youth, but not always.... Okay, I'm going to call you on this -  : Kindly show us how you calculate Isaac's age (28), Joseph's age (39) and Rehoboam's age ("fully grown") when each of them was called na'ar. Then, if you can show that na'ar can be used to refer to "gangs" of youths, you need to show us why the passage in question - 2 Kings 2:23-24 - should be read that way. More specifically, why did the translators use "little children" and "small boys" instead of "gangs"? So far, all we have is wishful thinking that "God wouldn't do anything bad". This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-10-10 11:03 PM People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
renaissance guy writes: I do not know what can be more specific than showing you other verses from the bible that the same Hebrew word is used in different ways. Yes, the word can be used in various ways. I was asking why it is used in a specific way in a specific place - i.e. if it does not mean "little children" in that specific context, why did the translators render it "little children"?
...I never said anything about a gang, as the word “gang” is not used in the scripture. I was responding to christ_fanatic's post, in which he stated:
quote: It was a challenge to back up what he said, not a request for information.
... but I think that you may be right and the word “gang” seems to fit nicely. and again we agree. Sorry, but my whole point was that the word "gang" does not fit - unless you can come up with something in the scriptures to indicate that it does. The translators say they were "little children".
... I never said anything about believing God killed children with or with out provocation. Again, that's the point of this thread: that the Bible says God did kill "little children". And the only provocation mentioned is jeering. Those are the points that nobody has backed up with scripture. Saying that they could have been young men instead of little children doesn't count. You have to be able to show that they were young men and that they threatened Elisha's life. All we have seen so far is a lame apologetic. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
renaissance guy writes: I do not know why the translator used the words he did, do you? I tend to take the Bible more literally than most self-proclaimed "literalists" do. If it says "little children", I tend to think it means "little children" - unless there is some overpowering reason to think otherwise. It isn't up to me to explain why the translators did what they did. If you think they were wrong, it's up to you to explain why.
If you feel that God is the kind of God that would kill little children than that is your belief. No, that is not my belief. I said quite plainly that that is what the Bible says. That is how God is portrayed in the Bible. It was the belief of the people who wrote the Bible that killing children was justifiable. That's just one indication that the Bible was written by humans, not by God Herself.
The God I know would not. Then the God you know is not the God who is portrayed in the Bible.
You seem to be having a hard time with the use of the ancient Hebrew word na’ar. No. I'm giving you a hard time about your unsubstantiated interpretation of it. I think the translators got it right. No hard time at all.
But at least that word is in the scripture verse. No matter how you think it should be translated. It isn't how I think it should be translated. It's how it is translated. I just happen to take the word of the translators instead of yours. If you can show where the translators went wrong, I'll be glad to agree with you.
Now show me where in the passage it says that God did anything. quote: Elisha cursed the children in the name of the LORD. Do you think the bears showing up was just a coincidence? If so, kindly explain to us what the passage means to you. And if it was just a coincidence, then Elisha should have called on God to protect the children. Now, turnabout is fair play: How about you showing us where it says anything in that passage about Elisha being in danger? Anything at all about switchblades or MAC-10s that would justify attacking children? Any reason at all for the attack except Elisha's hurt pride? People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Chiroptera writes: Just like it was coincidence that Jesus said grace and the five loaves and two fish fed the multitude! You may be on to something there: the whole Bible is based on random chance.  People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
renaissance guy writes: You want to read it as God killed little children No. It says God killed little children. (And if this example isn't plain enough, what about Brian's example of the first-born of Egypt? Care to apologize those killings away?)
... I think that it does not make any sense to you or you would not have a problem with the verse. You keep saying that I have a "problem" with the verse. I don't. I have a problem with your interpretation of the verse. And I think it's pretty clear that it is your iterpretation that makes no sense (see below).
... it also goes on to say 2 bears come out of the woods. It does not say the Lord sent them or they were on a mission from God. ... they were mocking him and likely getting out of hand so he cursed them in the name of the Lord and God sent the bears and tore in to the crowd and scattered them and yes some of them may have died. Which is it? Did God send the bears or not? Do you agree that a literal reading implies that He did?
It does not say they killed. Okay, let's look at the word "tore" (Hebrew baw-kah). It connotes "tore to pieces" - or, at least, damaged pretty severely. No need to go further afield than 2 Kings to find examples:
quote: quote: Sounds fairly fatal, doesn't it? Especially when coupled with "slaying" and "dashing".
I feel that it was not a group of “little children”. But as the word is used in other places, a group of young men. But you're ignoring the word "little" (Hebrew kaw-tawn). It is in there, you know. A group of "little young men" doesn't make much sense, does it? And the modifier "little" is not there in any of the examples you gave in Message 29 - Gen. 22:5, Gen 41:12 and 2 Chron. 13:7. Interpreting nah-ar as "young men" makes sense in the examples you gave, but not in 2 Kings 2:23.
How else could 2 bears tear 42 of them unless there were enough for they’re to be a lot of confusion? The fact that two bears "tore" 42 children tends to suggest that they were children, don't you think? If they were grown men, most of them would have gotten away in the confusion. But children are more fragile, slower and more likely to freeze in a crisis.
... which way sounds more reasonable to you? word for word a simple story? or with a slight bit of searching and some intelligent prayerful insight... What sounds more reasonable to me is the simple story, as written: Elisha was insulted and God sent bears to kill the children. That's what it says unless you twist it into something else.
... showing God caring for his own. Ah, but God didn't care for His own in the story. He didn't protect the children from the bears.
... I think we have just about wore this topic out.  This is the Bible Study forum, not the Bible Cursory Glance forum. We've hardly scratched the surface. Once again, the point of this thread seems to be that the Bible does describe some pretty horrible deeds, deeds done in God's name. You can try to rationalize them away, but only by ignoring what the scripture says. And once again, my take on it is that this is evidence that the Bible was written by men, not by God.
... we may be able to discuss some other topics. And I look forward to it. So do I. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Well, I'll consider myself told.
And I guess that all renders my last post kind of moot, doesn't it? Anyway, I appreciate your weighing in on the issue. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Note to self: remember that arachnophilia is always waiting to pounce on me like a she-bear.
I should know better. But I don't, do I?
arachnophilia writes: ... where does it say the firstborn of the passover were CHILDREN? Well, statistically some of them would have been children, wouldn't they? (And yes, I know you can out-math me too.)
it does seem to me like the god is responding to elisha's curse. A-ha! I got one right.
god DID care for his own -- elisha. the children were from a country that had (according tor kings) forsaken the lord, and insulted his prophet. Which is why I emphasized that the Bible was written by men. The motivation is parochial - not the motivation of a loving God. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
arachnophilia writes: ... i'm sure some of it was was written in tribute to someone's idea of a loving god. Yes. At one time, a "loving God" was a God who loved us but not them. Hmm... love your friends but hate your enemies. Where have I heard that before?  The New Testament "loving God" is a different breed. "There is neither Jew nor Greek...." Which is why some people have difficulty reconciling the horrible things done in the Old Testament - things done for the benefit of us, to the detriment of them. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: Why should I read Leviticus and ignore Romans
Is Romans the only book you ever read? But seriously, nobody is suggesting that you should ignore Romans. You have to learn to harmonize it with the rest of the Bible. Just starting a sentence "Why should I read Leviticus...?" is a danger signal. Why should you read Leviticus? Because it's there. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: Romans is a very mechanical book. Yes. Pity. On the other hand, the Gospel is not mechanical.
... it just happens to be my favorite. I'm a mechanical engineer. Picking and choosing according to your own tastes, eh? Not exactly the best plan for Bible study.
When someone says the wages of sin isn't death and the bible says the wages of sin is death I fail to see how you can harmonize that. Ah, but even when you quote Romans, you're quoting out of context. Read the whole verse:
quote: We don't collect our wages, because of Jesus Christ. Salvation is a gift, freely given.
Neither is every bit of the bible is saying the same thing in the same context as everything else so there is no need to harmonize every verse with every verse. Actually, yes it is. There is one message and every verse is part of that message. In the broad sense, it is necessary to reconcile every verse with your overall understanding of the Bible.
"The wages of sin" is positioned in a book that is dealing, workshop handbook-like, with the mechanics of the gospel. The trouble is that you're concentrating on the death part and ignoring the Gospel part. That's where the "mechanical" analogy falls apart. From a mechanical standpoint, the Gospel makes no sense. There are no "mechanics" to the Gospel. God is just saying to us, "Here's a gift. Open it and enjoy it." People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
