|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Judges 19 - Sickest story in the bible | |||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What the heck is the point of this tale? it, like genesis 19, is all about ancient standards of hospitality. it is the duty of the host to protect and serve his guest at any and all costs -- including his own wife, daughters, property, etc.
And Why does the asshole husband come out on top with no punishment? because he did what he was supposed to do. i'm not entirely sure why he was allowed to offer his guest's concubine (am i reading that right?).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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. 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.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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. 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: quote: 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.
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. why "children?" because they are:
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 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: you "kids" happy now? can we all shut up about whether or not they were children?
and that they threatened Elisha's life. ...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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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?) 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?
Did God send the bears or not? Do you agree that a literal reading implies that He did? it does seem to me like the god is responding to elisha's curse.
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? 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.
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. yes, but i like my reading. i think i get at the motive a little more.
Ah, but God didn't care for His own in the story. 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.
This is the Bible Study forum, not the Bible Cursory Glance forum. hahahahah oh that makes this all worthwhile.
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Well, I'll consider myself told. And I guess that all renders my last post kind of moot, doesn't it? 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.
Anyway, I appreciate your weighing in on the issue. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-12-2005 11:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
want a REALLY stupid debate?
Note to self: remember that arachnophilia is always waiting to pounce on me like a she-bear. 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, statistically some of them would have been children, wouldn't they? (And yes, I know you can out-math me too.) well, of course.
it does seem to me like the god is responding to elisha's curse. A-ha! I got one right. 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?
Which is why I emphasized that the Bible was written by men. The motivation is parochial - not the motivation of a loving God. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I have to disagree. The ten commandments were from God. He didn't pattern them after anyone. 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?
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. 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."
Firstly, the 10 commandments aren't convenental - there is no "if you do this, I'll do that" let's try this one again, with the book of exodus this time.
quote: 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: here's after the second version of the commandments, on the new slabs of stone:
quote: the word's mentioned throughout the book. let's look at a few others:
quote: does this leave any doubt in your mind? here's another from the same chapter:
quote: that's one of the ten commandments, isn't it?
quote: horeb = mt. sinai, btw.
quote: shall i keep going? there's a really a lot of them.
quote: ever wondered why it was called that? or watch indiana jones? what's in the box?
quote: mosaic law = covenant. shall i venture out of the torah, or are you happy now?
God convenants are not necessarily treaties. similar concept.
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. 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.
Similarily, his convenant to restore Israel doesn't rely on Israels performance for God to fulfill it. see the bit about the mosaic covenant. it's the same thing.
God is held. He can't lie for example. He would be falling short of his own standard (see later). -- his own standard for me. you neglected my metaphor and explanaton, i noticed.
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. 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.
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. agreed.
quote: 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.
Could you point these places where God lied for me to have a look at? here's an old one:
quote: when you eat of the tree, you will die. in that day. didn't happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
In addition to what Yaro said: recall that Arach, in starting this sub-topic, stated that "the bible also depicts god using others to lie for him". yes. clearly, lying in accordance with the will of god.
Except that it's (just another) Biblical contradiction, I don't see why God lying poses a problem for you. It doesn't necessarily mean that "God can murder and all the rest"; that God lied simply means that God can lie. Perhaps, as with killing people, lying isn't bad when God does it? that's really the point. when we kill, it's bad. when god kill's, it's his JOB. why is lying any different? the law is for us, not for god. god is above the law, as i explained earlier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Your using human understanding of death in your thinking. Understandable but not the complete picture...as Genesis will demonstrate. who me any other understanding of death in the book of genesis? or heck, i'll be generous, the entire old testament. you see, god makes extra clear he means DEATH. you know how he does it? the same way you just did:
As far as you're concerned, death means dying, physical death. The one we all know about. repitition. he says "you will SURELY die" but the literal hebrew repeast the word death for emphasis, something that doesn't work in english. he wan't adam to know he means DEATH, as in DEATH, so me makes extra-special care to spell it out.
The full sum of death, the whole show...means separation from God. clearly they are not equatable. first of all, god wasn't around all the time the garden -- otherwise adam wouldn't have HAD the opportunity to eat. so there was some separation from god even then.
What is the first thing that Adam does when he sins? He hides from God. Why? Separation. no, because he knew after he had done that he had done something bad, so he hid in SHAME and FEAR. god, afterall, had threatened him with death.
guilt came in with its usual attendant (excuses, blaming Eve) read it again. adam doesn't blame eve:
quote: it's not MY fault god, the woman YOU gave me made me do it. it's a mistake to think eve is treated with enough respect to assign her blame. no, adam blames god for putting the woman there.
"The wages of sin is death.." Adam earned these wages. the wage of sin is NOT death. read leviticus. and the fundamental irony here is that this is what this debate is about: god said he'd kill adam. god did not kill adam.
God fulfilled his promise - the day Adam sinned surely, adam did not die the day he ate of the tree. if he had, the rest of the bible doesn't happen.
Adam and Eve eventually dying. that's not what it says, is it. it says "in the day that you eat" -- "WHEN you eat" as soon as they eat. it says nothing about EVENTUAL death, it describes IMMEDIATE death. adam and eve eventually died because they had the tree or life withheld from them. in that sense, god did sentance them to eventual death, but it's not the same immediate death he threatened them with.
No record of them ever enjoying that same level of intimacy with God again. lots of other people seem to in the bible.
He did not lie. it's a lie, and one we should be very thankful for. this lie is god FORGIVING people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Most of your post goes on this assumption that "you will surely die" means physical death only. I disagree that's great that you disagree, but the issue is about what the bible says, not what you think it means.
Death, death, death, death. How does repeating it affect it's definition? because in biblical hebrew, affirmation is done by repition and elaboration. the correct translation of that in shakespearean english is "surely." the gist of the hebrew is that adam will be "very dead." do you think "very dead" means "sort of dead in a manner of speaking, like anakin skywaler" or "dead as in not breathing anymore, sleeping with fishes, kaput, rigor mortis" ?
Why should I read Leviticus and ignore Romans have you read leviticus? it's a pretty harsh book. most of the LAW that romans refers to is spelled out there. leviticus, in particular, is fun because it demands death as the wages of particular sins. so does exodus, numbers, and deuteronomy. have you read those? i chose leviticus because it's renowned for demanding death for LOTS of stuff. that "kill homos" bit? leviticus. but even leviticus doesn't demand death for EVERY sin. why should you read leviticus and not romans? because leviticus is the word of god, the law as dictated verbatim to moses, according to tradition. so, let's go back to this heirarchy, and add another component: {god > jesus} > paul. got that part yet? if god and paul disagree, god wins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Romans is a very mechanical book. It kind of follows... then you'll love leviticus. seriously, your god-computer could have written it. it sure sounds like a computer wrote it.
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. the problem is that bible describes the wages of sin at length, and paul's statement that the wage of sin is death disagrees with THE BIBLE'S description of the wages of sin.
"The wages of sin" is positioned in a book that is dealing, workshop handbook-like, with the mechanics of the gospel. Leviticus isn't doing that are you sure? the law is central to judaic life, just like the gospel is central to christian life. if you've ever read any of paul's writing, you kind of get the impression that he thinks the gospel is to replace the law. the exodus and the mosaic covenant ARE the hebrew gospel -- everything else is history and epistle and prophecy, just like the nt. and leviticus is part of the outline of that gospel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Third, Lot's action of offering the mob his daughters is reprehensible and inexcusable. Try telling that to a jury. doesn't fly today, but it's pretty standard in cultures concerned with hospitality and protection of guest. it's also a direct precedent of the jesus story. lot offering his precious daughters to the townspeople in place of the valued guests, god offering his only son to the devil instead of us, his valued planet.
The sin of Sodom and Ghamora was not being kind to "Orphans and Widows." That's what the bible says. well, what the talmud says. the bible shows them wanting to abuse the outsiders, or at least break lot's obligation to his guests. but it's the same concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
hmm, good eye.
quote: quote: lot seems to only have two daughters.
quote: i hadn't noticed that before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
First we'll have to sort out what is the bible because elsewhere we have some disagreement about that.. is there a book called "genesis" in the bible?
How does placing an adjective on front of dead affect the definition of 'dead'. Tall is Tall. Very Tall doesn't adapt the meaning of Tall it just emphasizes how tall. The definition of dead biblically must come from the bible. And we're not out there so lets park it no, you didn't answer the question. do you think "very dead" means "dead in a manner of speaking" or perhaps something a little more like "not breathing anymore."
If Paul is in error then John in error. If John in error then his recording of Jesus is in error etc, etc. Discussion becomes farcical. you haven't shown that paul agrees with john, have you? that was my queston, originally. show me something from the gospel that says we are freed from the law, or that the law promises death to everyone for every sin, or anything that paul seems to thing at all. and frankly, if john IS in error, there are still three other gospels. and the fact that john differs from them radically should tell you something.
Unless of course you decide to examine the alleged contradictions with respect to what the whole says. In which case discussion is possible. But in this case all scripture gets equal footing until the contradiction is demonstrated. ie: you show Gods word through Paul is less than Gods word through Jesus. we're talking about god's word, written in stone, by god personally. don't you think that god showing up, and announcing his covenant to all of israel PERSONALLY makes it a little more important than an apostle's take on what a prophet said god was about? i mean, we're talking 1:1 communication, vs friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend and for the record, i HAVE shown contradiction, in what jesus say saves, and what paul says saves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Where does the "full biblical meaning" come from; is death used metaphorically elsewhere (I really wouldn't know)? Here are some of the next instances: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." - Gen 5:5"And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die." - Genesis 6:17 it's really silly to think god meant anything else, just because it didn't come true. especially when the case is that god took extra care to spelly out that he really means death and not something else. god said it, it didn't happen, therefor we misunderstood god. the ironic part is that we're dealing with exactly the same situation as christ here. god is supposed to punish this sin with death, but he lets his creations live. it's not a LIE it's forgiveness, or maybe a commuted sentance. but god certainly meant death. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-20-2005 09:19 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024