Judges 19 - Sickest story in the bible

quote:

---

Do you think the bears showing up was just a coincidence?

---

Just like it was coincidence that Jesus said grace and the five loaves and two fish fed the multitude! And when Jesus applied saliva laden mud on the dude's eyes, and the dude coincidently began to see again!Edited to add:A better one: God said, "Let there be light," and by coincidence there was light!This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 12-Oct-2005 10:00 PM

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

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.

You mean the way some dude just happened to finish building a boat in the middle of the desert just before it began to rain for 40 days and 40 nights?What a lucky old geezer!

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 senseYou 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 saysBut 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 bothAnd 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

little children, whether all males or mixed, would be ילדים, (yeledim)the singular is ילד (yeled), the female ילדה (yeledah), and the female plural ילדות (yeledot).if it were refering to children it would probably use this word. a lot of the words that get translated "children" are often something else -- for instance "ben" (son of) and "zacar" (male -- man child). now נערים (na'arim), the word in question, literally means "youths." there are a few instance of it being applied to a baby, and to older people. but that's the flexibility of language, i think. it seems to also be used in a slavery sense.just for fun, here's some usages of the word TODAY:

quote:

---

NA'ARIM includes grades 7-8, (co-ed) accompanied by a Senior and Junior Counselors. Program planning, weekly trips, overnight camping and more!

​

WordPress.com

---

quote:

---

user submitted, from "Top 30 signs you are from Jewish Elizabeth, NJ"

​

5. If you had a picture of a boy - ANY boy - it could be your cousin, some kid you babysat for, or your brother's camp Na'arim pictures, it went up on your locker until Ms. Shlomowitz told you to take it down.

​

http://www.bangitout.com/top45.html

---

the best term for נער in english would probably be "young man." "teenager" would work equally well in some circumstances, but it's not exactly the strictest meaning. it's a pretty vague word, imho. why "children?" because they are: well, here's the bit that makes this whole debate ESPECIALLY retarded. while נערים is kind of vague, as i pointed out at the start, ילדים is not very vague at all. and the very next verse says

quote:

---

Second Kings 2:24

​

וַיִּפֶן אַחֲרָיו וַיִּרְאֵם, וַיְקַלְלֵם בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה; וַתֵּצֶאנָה שְׁתַּיִם דֻּבִּים, מִן-הַיַּעַר, וַתְּבַקַּעְנָה מֵהֶם, אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁנֵי יְלָדִים.

​

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.

---

you "kids" happy now? can we all shut up about whether or not they were children? ...well, i'm not in the mood for "lame apologetics." i don't see how it's really important anyways. is it up to us to justify whom god decides to punish and for what? lots of things in the bible are punishable by death, including mistreatment of things holy. also, insulting a prophet is not generally a bright idea -- unless you think that prophet's god isn't real. i suspect this is the issue here: bethel was one of two centers of israel's religion after it split from judah.as for "gang." well, i think it's an attempt to bring scripture into modern perspective, give us something we can relate to. i doubt they wore colors, rolled up a pant leg, had distinctive tattoos, or flashed gang signs. but it's a somwhat fair interpretation of what 42 youths mocking a older man would be today. i doubt they were a gang in the literal modern sense, but it's certainly the author of kings taking a shot at the temple city of other country. "their teenagers don't even respect their elders and prophets!"This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-12-2005 11:31 PM

---

אָרַח

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?) 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). Which is it? Did God send the bears or not? Do you agree that a literal reading implies that He did? 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:

---

2Ki 8:12 And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strongholds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

---

quote:

---

2Ki 15:16 Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

---

Sounds fairly fatal, doesn't it? Especially when coupled with "slaying" and "dashing". 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. 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. 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. Ah, but God didn't care for His own in the story. He didn't protect the children from the bears. 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. So do I.

---

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

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.

wait, i'm sorry. maybe i mised this, but where does it say the firstborn of the passover were CHILDREN? i think this might be one of those old "adam's apple" kind of things. something we all know, but isn't actually there. what in exodus leads you (or brian) to believe that the firstborns slain had to be under a certain age? it does seem to me like the god is responding to elisha's curse. not in english, it doesn't. you shouldn't expect a 1:1 translation of every word or idea. it's not english spelled differently. but yes, the word [size=3]קטן[size] is there, in plural adjective form. so basically "young youths" or even "little teenagers." think a 13-year-old. would he be a child to you? would he be a teenager? yes, and yes. yes, but i like my reading. i think i get at the motive a little more. that's where you're wrong, ringo. 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. hahahahah oh that makes this all worthwhile. i could in trouble once here for listing every "misdeed" of god's i was able to find in the first two books of the bible. people accused me of blasphemy. i had to point that i'm not judging god, just reporting what the bible says and explaining why people (who CAN read) don't like the concept of judeo-christian god much after reading a bit of the bible.

---

אָרַח

no, not really. you covered a lot of other ground, especially the addition of "little" which i failed to notice the first time through. (i saw it, i dunno why it didn't click)certainly they were children, but they also seem to have been (younger) young men. so find the overlap of those two groups, and that's probably what they were. basically, you're BOTH right. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-12-2005 11:55 PM

---

אָרַח

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? Well, statistically some of them would have been children, wouldn't they? (And yes, I know you can out-math me too.) A-ha! I got one right. 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.

want a REALLY stupid debate? ironically, i don't understand WHY they're SHE-bears. it says שְׁתַּיִם דֻּבִּים which is "shataym dobyim."as far as i can tell, that's masculine and bad grammar. now, if *i* wanted to write "two she-bears" i'd write שתי דבות which is "shatay dobot." you truncate the number 2, for whatever reason, and that's the feminine form of both "2" and "bears."but if i were to use the masculine, it would be שני דבים which is "shanay dobym." curiously, this sentance uses the feminine word "two" independently of the object, and uses the masculine or indefinite plural of "bears."but this is why i come out of my hebrew class every tuesday and thursday with a headache. i just don't get gender and ordinal numbers. it's got all the complications and exceptions that english does, just in a way i'm totally not used to. maybe "dob" is one of those weird one's like "woman" that takes a masculine plural and feminine number -- but that doesn't explain the bad grammar.just goes to show -- i don't pretend i know everything. well, of course. at least that's what someone who doesn't have a predetermined view to defend would read it as seeming to say. it doesn't actually say that god sent the bears, or that the bears killed them -- but does it really have to spell everything out? no argument here, although i'm sure some of it was was written in tribute to someone's idea of a loving god.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-13-2005 12:39 AM

---

אָרַח

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.

Sin, literally, comes from an old archery expression which mean "to miss the mark" or "fall short of the target". When we sin we fall short of the standard that God sets for behaviour/actions. It includes the mosaic code, but also the law of conscience and also the elaboration that Jesus put on the Mosaic code during eg: his sermon on the mount. But so far we are in broad agreement. I have to disagree. The ten commandments were from God. He didn't pattern them after anyone. God didn't do it on a "I did this for you now you do this for me" They were simply commandments. "Do" because he is God and doesn't need to negotiate with us in the least. Neither was he doing so. Firstly, the 10 commandments aren't convenental - there is no "if you do this, I'll do that" God convenants are not necessarily treaties. Not all Gods convenants are consequential on man doing anything. God promising that he wouldn't again flood the whole world was one sided. It doesn't require anything from us. Similarily, his convenant to restore Israel doesn't rely on Israels performance for God to fulfill it. God is held. He can't lie for example. He would be falling short of his own standard (see later). When it comes to "thou shalt not kill", God is talking to man. But he has man kill man elsewhere. Either God is giving mixed messages or there is something different about killing when he does it or has men do it. God is righteous - ie: he is always right (given that he defines whats right). Thus God killing or directing to kill cannot be wrong - according to him. If man kills and it is a righeous (in Gods eyes) killing, then it isn't breaking a commandment. Which seems to me to point to the translations which say "thou shalt not murder" which we all take as being unrighteous killing Could you point these places where God lied for me to have a look at? If God can lie then God can murder and all the rest - so the key seems to lie there. Does God lie?

this is the part where you lose the whole thing.remember the five paragraph essay? we all had to learn it in school. it's pretty useless in practice, right? one introduction, where you cover your three ideas, the three points elaborated, and then the conclusion that repeats the three points. one paragraph each.now, if i were to write my post like a five paragraph essay, couldn't you tell? similarly, when the commandments follow the EXACT structure of an ancient suzerainty treaty, don't you think we can tell?i'm not saying they're not from god. i'm saying god put it in terms they'd understand -- it's a covenant, and agreement, a treaty, or a contract. when they break it, as they do sometimes in the old testament, there are dire consequences such as the exile.surely you get this very basic principle? it's not negotiation. one side has won, and one side is the stronger (god) and the smaller less powerful side (israel) will damn well do what he says. it's nto a FRIENDLY treaty, like today's kind of treaty. it's not "let be friends and have tea-parties." it's "i let you live, you owe me. do this, do this, do that." let's try this one again, with the book of exodus this time.

quote:

---

Exodus 19:3-6

​

And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, "Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel, 'Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.' These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

---

now i'm sure you know your bible a little, right? this is exodus 19. chapter 19 is god telling moses to prepare the people for something that happens in the next chapter. what do you suppose that is? in case you forgot, here's a sample:

quote:

---

Exd 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

---

here's after the second version of the commandments, on the new slabs of stone:

quote:

---

Exd 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient

---

the word's mentioned throughout the book. let's look at a few others:

quote:

---

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

---

does this leave any doubt in your mind? here's another from the same chapter:

quote:

---

Deu 4:23 Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

---

that's one of the ten commandments, isn't it?

quote:

---

Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
Deu 5:3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

---

horeb = mt. sinai, btw.

quote:

---

Deu 29:25 Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them forth out of the land of Egypt:

---

shall i keep going? there's a really a lot of them.

quote:

---

Deu 31:9 And Moses wrote this law, and delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and unto all the elders of Israel.

---

ever wondered why it was called that? or watch indiana jones? what's in the box?

quote:

---

Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

---

mosaic law = covenant. shall i venture out of the torah, or are you happy now? similar concept. covenants are simply agreements. in the case of the flood, god agreed with man that he would never flood the entire land again. man didn't do anything except suffer a lot of death and hardship. in the case of the ten commandments, if you look above, he did promise to make israel very special in return for israel doing all of these things. see the bit about the mosaic covenant. it's the same thing. -- his own standard for me. you neglected my metaphor and explanaton, i noticed. let's start with the something different that's plainly obvious. HE'S GOD. we're not. so when we kill at our own will, it's wrong. when we do it according to god's will, it's right. the independent variable here is god. agreed.

quote:

---

Deu 32:35 To me belongeth vengeance

---

god can kill, take vengeance, and murder -- because he is right in doing so. why? doesn't it stand to reason that the rules for us don't apply to him? all of the rules -- all of most of the old testament actually -- is "don't play god." when it says "thou shalt not kill" it means don't kill because controlling death is something for god to do, not man. here's an old one:

quote:

---

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

---

when you eat of the tree, you will die. in that day. didn't happen.

---

אָרַח

I've got a busy day today but will come back on your post. Just this piece to start with It sure did. Your using human understanding of death in your thinking. Understandable but not the complete picture...as Genesis will demonstrate. As far as you're concerned, death means dying, physical death. The one we all know about. Death, as far a the full biblical meaning is concerned is somewhat different. The full sum of death, the whole show...means separation from God.Before the fall, Adam and God enjoyed perfect harmony. God walked with Adam in the cool of the evening in the garden. There was no barrier between them. What is the first thing that Adam does when he sins? He hides from God. Why? Separation. The separation brought about by his sin. Shame came in (nakedness), guilt came in with its usual attendant (excuses, blaming Eve). "The wages of sin is death.." Adam earned these wages.God fulfilled his promise - the day Adam sinned. And it rolled on to completeness. Adam and Eve cast out from the garden. Adam and Eve eventually dying. No record of them ever enjoying that same level of intimacy with God again.He did not lie. Not here nor anywhere else