Judges 19 - Sickest story in the bible

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. 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?).

---

אָרַח

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

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

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

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

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

yes. clearly, lying in accordance with the will of god. 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.

---

אָרַח

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: 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. 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. 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. read it again. adam doesn't blame eve:

quote:

---

And the man said: 'The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.'

---

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 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. surely, adam did not die the day he ate of the tree. if he had, the rest of the bible doesn't happen. 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. lots of other people seem to in the bible. it's a lie, and one we should be very thankful for. this lie is god FORGIVING people.

---

אָרַח

that's great that you disagree, but the issue is about what the bible says, not what you think it means. 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" ? 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.

---

אָרַח

then you'll love leviticus. seriously, your god-computer could have written it. it sure sounds like a computer wrote it. 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. 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.

---

אָרַח

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. 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.

---

אָרַח

hmm, good eye.

quote:

---

Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

---

quote:

---

Gen 19:14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

---

lot seems to only have two daughters.

quote:

---

Gen 19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

---

i hadn't noticed that before.

---

אָרַח

is there a book called "genesis" in the bible? 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." 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. 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-friendand for the record, i HAVE shown contradiction, in what jesus say saves, and what paul says saves.

---

אָרַח

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

---

אָרַח