Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Judges 19 - Sickest story in the bible
renaissance guy
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 120 (250527)
10-10-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
10-03-2005 5:38 PM


Re: God doesn't kill little children.
thought this might help [children] Hebrew: na ar (HSN-5288), child”anywhere from infancy to adolescence. It generally implies youth, but not always, for the word is used of Isaac when he was 28 (Genesis 22:5), of Joseph at 39 (Genesis 41:12), and of Rehoboam when fully grown (2 Chron. 13:7). These "little children" were the infidel young men of Bethel who worshiped the golden calf instead of Jehovah. God sent the bears, so we must believe the offenders were worthy of such judgment. And [bald head] According to some authorities, "bald head" didn't refer to a lack of hair, but signified a worthless man; it was a term of contempt. Here it was equal to blasphemy for the young men mocked Elisha as a prophet of Jehovah, in contemptuous allusion to the translation of Elijah, which they no doubt denied. The idea seems to be: "Be translated like Elijah, you worthless man!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 10-03-2005 5:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Funkaloyd, posted 10-10-2005 9:55 PM renaissance guy has not replied
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 10-11-2005 1:01 AM renaissance guy has replied

  
renaissance guy
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 120 (250857)
10-11-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ringo
10-11-2005 1:01 AM


Re: God doesn't kill little children.
Sure I will answer anything you like. And I really appreciate you being nice about it you may never agree with me but that does not mean we need do hateful. Believe me I have seen many hateful Christian trying to argue. So lets just talk.
And you are right on target to ask. We should test every thing to know what is right and what is not.
Here are just the verses that I showed you, the word for lad and young men and children are each translated from the Hebrew na’ar. I can look up how the ages were calculated if you still need but it will take me a lil time.
Genesis 22:5
And Abraham said unto his (young men), Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the (lad) will go yonder and worship, and come again to you,
Genesis 41:12
And there was there with us a (young man), an Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he did interpret.
2 Chron. 13:7
And there are gathered unto him vain men, the (children) of Belial, and have strengthened themselves against Rehoboam the son of Solomon, when Rehoboam was young and tenderhearted, and could not withstand them.
Hebrew is not a simple language. And the style of writing is 2000 years old, which does not help much either. But so far as I can tell it all makes sense. It is kind of like the word love, it can be used in many different ways but we use the same word love . you love your mother, you love your truck and you love your wife. But not in all the same ways. And when you say man I love my truck. We do not think of you physically loving it. Because of the way you use it we know what you mean. As far as I know ancient Hebrew does not have any word for gangs. Just as the author wrote this in ancient Hebrew every one knew what he meant. Now 2000 years later and translated into a different language sometimes we wonder just what was meant so a lil searching in to the text is required. But it all makes sense. The translators for the King James Bible had to translate everything word for word. I believe under penalty of death if it was not. Other more modern translations are idea for idea and may not use the same words
As for using the word children well it is sort of like when we are in high school we think that someone that is 30 is old (I remember that too) and when you are 100 or more some one that is 20 is still a kid. My grandpa calls anyone under 30 a kid. LOL
And we are coming up with new words all the time for things. If we say “hey you KIDS get out of here” to us today that means we are talking about young people. But if it were written down and translated 2000 years from now word for word, they would say that it meant that we were talking about young goats. And not young people.
I hope this helps some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ringo, posted 10-11-2005 1:01 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 10-11-2005 5:38 PM renaissance guy has replied

  
renaissance guy
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 120 (250997)
10-11-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
10-11-2005 5:38 PM


Re: God doesn't kill little children.
Sorry I was not able to help. I thought I answered what you had asked.
I thought you ask me.
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"?
And I thought I answered you.
Now you say you would like something a lot more specific. 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. And you say that you “know it is possible” then why did you ask?
But I am glad you did. It is always good to see just what someone thinks or feels or believes. And I am glad we can start to agree. At least on some small things
Also I never said anything about a gang, as the word “gang” is not used in the scripture. And as I said I do not know of a word in the ancient Hebrew for the word “gang”. But what would you call a group of na’ar (in this case I believe young men) coming forth out of the city and mocking, a group of at least 42 . but I think that you may be right and the word “gang” seems to fit nicely. and again we agree.
And also I never said anything about believing God killed children with or with out provocation.
I do however tend to agree with you when you say that you think that “human writers of the Bible claimed that certain events were the will of God”. See we are agreeing more and more!
But once again . . “You seem to be saying . ” I never said anything but the use of the ancient Hebrew word na’ar can be and is used to mean little children, young men and even full-grown men. And some of my ideas of such
I am sorry if my first reply was a little confusing
I hope this helps to clear up just what I did and did not say

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 10-11-2005 5:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 10-11-2005 10:45 PM renaissance guy has replied

  
renaissance guy
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 120 (251232)
10-12-2005 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ringo
10-11-2005 10:45 PM


Re: God does kill little children - Does He have a good reason?
I do not know why the translator used the words he did, do you? All I know is the word was an ancient Hebrew word na’ar that means young men, lads, little children and even once, a full-grown man. If you feel that God is the kind of God that would kill little children than that is your belief. And if you want to think that then that is fine, I personally do not. The God I know would not. But having a different view of the scriptures is what keeps these forums interesting.
You seem to be having a hard time with the use of the ancient Hebrew word na’ar. But at least that word is in the scripture verse. No matter how you think it should be translated. Now just to keep you thinking. (And you are very smart, and asking very intelligent questions). So for just tossing ideas around lets just go and use the translation “little children". Now show me where in the passage it says that God did anything. It certainly does not say God killed the little children. It plainly says bears did!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 10-11-2005 10:45 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 10-12-2005 5:49 PM renaissance guy has replied

  
renaissance guy
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 120 (251308)
10-12-2005 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ringo
10-12-2005 5:49 PM


Re: God does kill little children - Does He have a good reason?
Ok I am not sure just what you want me to say.
It seems very simple to me.
You want to read it as God killed little children . . Ok that is fine read it that way. If that makes any sense to you. That is the wonderful thing about the scriptures you can study them your whole life and always learn more and more. But the simple saving grace of Christ is easy enough for even a baby to understand.
And I think that it does not make any sense to you or you would not have a problem with the verse. And that is the reason for this thread. And I have explained to you what it means to me.
Lets look at it once again. And lets take it word for word literally as you like to do and see if it makes any more sense
You feel that the ones that came out from the city were “little children”. Ok I can agree with that. And yes they were mocking him. And he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Ok so far that is what it says. And it does not say he was in fear for his life and it does not say that the little children posses any weapons as you ask me to show you.
And 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. All it says is they came out of the woods. We are being literal here. Word for word. And it says they “tore”. It does not say they killed. Only that they tore 42 of them. No mention of God doing anything or no mention of anyone being killed. And Elisha went on his way. Now if this makes more sense to you, and as being a word for word account of what was recorded then I have no trouble with it. Because that is just what it says
But I think you want it both ways you want the reading to mean “little children” and then you want it to be that God sent bears . . Which is not anywhere in the text, and then you also want the word “tore” to mean killed which it does not say either.
But once again.
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. At least 42, more likely around a hundred or more. How else could 2 bears tear 42 of them unless there were enough for they’re to be a lot of confusion?
Does it not sound much more reasonable to read it as such. And that 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. And then he went on his way to do the work of God?
Now as you being an intelligent man 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 showing God caring for his own. and i think that eather way may work fine, but not both
And if this does not sound reasonable to you (and we have every right to our own opinions) then I think we have just about wore this topic out. And I will take some time to peruse the rest of the forum. And we may be able to discuss some other topics. And I look forward to it. As you bring out some very good points

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ringo, posted 10-12-2005 5:49 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ringo, posted 10-12-2005 11:31 PM renaissance guy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024