Judges 19 - Sickest story in the bible

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.

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 wordsAs 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. LOLAnd 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.

Actually, I was hoping for something a lot more specific. I know it's possible to get certain meanings out of the Bible, but what I'm getting at is why should we read "gang" instead of "little children". All we've heard so far is that you don't want to believe that God would kill children without provocation, so there must have been provocation. Please show us the provocation.The point of this thread (and Yaro can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to be that there are some horrendous events recorded in the Bible, purported to have happened in the name of God. My take on it is that the human writers of the Bible claimed that certain events were the will of God.You seem to be saying that the events really happened and were the will of God, but something was lost in the translation. So, I'm asking you to show us specifically where the provocation is recorded - i.e. show us where it says that Elisha's life was in imminent danger.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

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 thingsAlso 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 suchI am sorry if my first reply was a little confusingI hope this helps to clear up just what I did and did not say

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 was responding to christ_fanatic's post, in which he stated:

quote:

---

... what the Bible makes mention to as "youths" is very likely what we would call a gang. Otherwise, why would Elisha feel his life was in danger and ask God for help?
Message 25

---

It was a challenge to back up what he said, not a request for information. 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". 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.

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:21 AM

What is murder, as opposed to killing? Could we get a working model of the biblical sense from our own experience,ie: murder is unrighteous killing - which is different to taking a life in war or by accident?God by definition, not us, defines ultimately, what is righteous and unrighteous. In order to say God murders (kills unrighteously) then you would have to be in a position to determine (with respect to some absolute standard - outside of God) that God was being unrighteous.But there is no standard above God by which Gods actions can be measured. Or if there you don't know what it is.Brian, you're just using human standards to measure God against. Putting human standards above Gods standards. Which is nonsense.

Are you saying that God uses the "No true Scotsman" defense?

.This message has been edited by Brian, 10-13-2005 02:21 AM

If God cannot lie, then doesn't that suggest that there's a higher standard? If there isn't, then God should have the power to lie and yet remain without sin (by claiming that lying isn't sin when done by God).

But a soldier deliberately killing someone is not considered murder. The idea of unrighteous killing seems to be required in there somewhere. God created us, thus any attribute we have is put into us by him. We might say that what he put into us is equal or usurps what he has/is. But we have no basis for saying that. That we are 'less' than God seems apparent in many ways. There is no reason to think different here. See above - deliberate on it's own is not murder. None of us know. We deal with what we do 'know'. In terms of this discussion God exists. He must in order to kill anyone. In terms of this discussion he created us. In terms of this discussion our standard is derived from his. His is the absolute standard for want of any evidence to the contrary - in terms of this discussion. Introducing other possibles without any evidence says nothing (whereas evidence is produced of his killing people) By what standard do you compare? If they are not innocent in Gods eyes then the killing is not unrighteous in his eyes. The question arises for him: are they innocent. And if he thinks 'no' and we think 'yes' then somebodies wrong. We don't know the whole story with which to weigh up innocence and guilt. He does. He is in a better position than us to make a correct call

God not being able to do something is not the same as God being restricted by something else from doing something. God cannotlie simply because there is nothing evil in him. Something which has no evil can do no wrong - by his own standard of course. God doesn't set the standard as such. He is it.We're just used to somebody else setting the standards for us. That's what it is to be human. But that doesn't mean God has to have the standards set for him. The buck stops with him so to speak.

sin, literally, is to trespass. you trespass against someone -- another human, or in this case god. the boundary you are breaking in your trespass is the law -- the mosaic code. i don't care whether you're a literalist about it, or an intent person (like jesus), but that's what it is.it is therefore important to understand what the law is. the "ten" commandments are patterned after an ancient form of treaty between a great power (say, assyria) and a lesser power (say, pheonecia). such treaties generally start "i am such-and-such, king of assyria. i have done this, this, and this for you, therefor, you owe me:" and a list of terms that the lesser power is bound to. these are usually a lot more extensive and costly than whatever the bigger country did. winning does have benefits.now, if you look at the ten commandments, they are the mosaic covenant. a covenant is an agreement -- a treaty. and it follows this form. god declares who he is, and what he did (the exodus), and demands the following terms from the country of israel in repayment.the important thing to note is that god is not held to these terms himself, just like assyria wouldn't have to do the things it commanded pheonecia to do in the treaty. indeed, if we start reading the list, that simple fact is plainly obvious from the very start: how can god have any others gods before himself?it doesn't make a lick of sense to hold god to OUR end of the covenant. he holds to HIS end, not ours.i'm sure "thou shalt not kill" is the bit that started this (haven't looked back) but it's pretty plainly obvious now the REASON behind that term. deciding who lives and who dies is GOD'S job, not ours. it's not "thou shalt not kill" as much as "thou shalt not play god." god can kill -- murder, some might say -- perfectly in accordance with his own law. it's like a divide by zero error.why is god incapable of lying? i've pointed out a few times before that the bible does indeed depict god speaking untruths (with intent to decieve -- and omniscient being isn't really capable of ignorance). the bible also depicts god using others to lie for him as part of larger plans. what's the problem? we can't do it: he can.it's like playing with fire. you tell your children not to do it, but it's really handy when for the candles on their birthday cake. can you imagine a child calling you on that inconsistency? what do you say when they do?do as i say, not as i do. right? sounds stupid, but there are reasons for it. adults generally know how to handle fire safely, without burning down the house or burning themselves. children generally do not and have to find out the hard way.similarly, god can handle lying and killing.

---

אָרַח

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!

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. 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. Then the God you know is not the God who is portrayed in the Bible. 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. 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.

quote:

---

2Ki 2:24 And he looked behind him and saw them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and tore forty and two children of them.

---

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.