Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GPLindsey · 09-24-2005, 07:22 AM

This is an observation not on the Bible itself, but on some apologetics I've read, such as Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Guys like Archer seem to think that, to get around a Bible difficulty, you only need to come up with some explanation, no matter how wildly implausable or unsupported by evidence, and their work is done. In his explanation of why God would send two she-bears to kill 42 children for mocking Elisha's baldness in 2 Kings, he says that, "A careful study of the incident in context shows...It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in pacts of fifty or more, derisive toward respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course. Perhaps it was for this reason that God saw fit to put forty-two of them to death in this spectacular fashion...in order to strike terror into other youth gangs that were infesting the city and to make them realize that neither Yahweh Himself nor any of His annointed prophets were to be threatened or treated with contempt."

He got all that from these two short verses (KJV, 2 Kings, vs. 23 and 24):

"And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

And he turned back and he looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

How do you get from little children teasing a bald guy to rioting hoodlums threatening to destroy a city? Where does the Bible say anything about other youth gangs infesting the city that needed to be taught a lesson? Don't his caveats--"If...there is no telling...Perhaps"--make clear he is just pulling rationales out of his ass? Also, it is also clear that theologists have a lot of trouble with the "little children" part, so they reinterpret the words. Gleason calls them "young men," not the little children of the KJV. The Amplified Bible calls them "young [maturing and accountable] boys". The North American Standard calls them "young lads." The New International Bible calls them "youths."

The connection of all this to Traffic Court? It just strikes me that the same line of argument pops up time and again when people try to beat a traffic ticket. Come up with a story, any story, and maybe you can get off. Judge says, "You were arrested at 2:00am, going 85 mph the wrong way down the expressway, drunk. How do you plead?" You answer: "Innocent! Your Honor, I was leaving a Midnight Mass when these young [maturing and accountable] youths grabbed me at gunpoint. They made me drink lots of beer and forced me into my car. At gunpoint mind you, they made me speed and drive the wrong way down the expressway, but jumped out of the car just after I pulled over. I'm shocked the officer didn't see them. But that's the truth, SO HELP ME!!!"

Now, does this explanation violate any natural laws? No. Is it within the rhelm of possibility? Yes. Is it believable? HELL NO! But if the judge were a Christian apologist he'd say, "Amen Brother! Any explanation is good enough for me. You are free!" Next time you have an apologist stretching plausibility to the breaking point, point out to him/her that their argument is something you would hear in Traffic Court! That'll shut em up for sure.

PoodleLovinPessimist · 09-24-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Don't his caveats--"If...there is no telling...Perhaps"--make clear he is just pulling rationales out of his ass?

Yes, indeed they do.

Joan of Bark · 09-24-2005, 12:46 PM

When I pointed out (to a pacifist Christian) that God wiped out almost the entire human race in Noah's flood, her apology was: "but he promised he wouldn't do it again!"

rob117 · 09-25-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

When I pointed out (to a pacifist Christian) that God wiped out almost the entire human race in Noah's flood, her apology was: "but he promised he wouldn't do it again!"

:rolling:

FFT · 10-01-2005, 07:34 AM

A few months ago, I debated a Christian to the point where he admitted that the flood was likely just a local flood. I pointed out that God promised not to do it again, yet there are floods every year. He got stuck in a loop at some point and walked off angrily, after repeating about 8 times something to the effect of "The flood happened!"

09-24-2005, 07:22 AM	#1
GPLindsey Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 221	Bible Apologetics and Traffic Court This is an observation not on the Bible itself, but on some apologetics I've read, such as Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Guys like Archer seem to think that, to get around a Bible difficulty, you only need to come up with some explanation, no matter how wildly implausable or unsupported by evidence, and their work is done. In his explanation of why God would send two she-bears to kill 42 children for mocking Elisha's baldness in 2 Kings, he says that, "A careful study of the incident in context shows...It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in pacts of fifty or more, derisive toward respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course. Perhaps it was for this reason that God saw fit to put forty-two of them to death in this spectacular fashion...in order to strike terror into other youth gangs that were infesting the city and to make them realize that neither Yahweh Himself nor any of His annointed prophets were to be threatened or treated with contempt." He got all that from these two short verses (KJV, 2 Kings, vs. 23 and 24): "And he went up from thence unto Beth-el: and as he was going by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back and he looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." How do you get from little children teasing a bald guy to rioting hoodlums threatening to destroy a city? Where does the Bible say anything about other youth gangs infesting the city that needed to be taught a lesson? Don't his caveats--"If...there is no telling...Perhaps"--make clear he is just pulling rationales out of his ass? Also, it is also clear that theologists have a lot of trouble with the "little children" part, so they reinterpret the words. Gleason calls them "young men," not the little children of the KJV. The Amplified Bible calls them "young [maturing and accountable] boys". The North American Standard calls them "young lads." The New International Bible calls them "youths." The connection of all this to Traffic Court? It just strikes me that the same line of argument pops up time and again when people try to beat a traffic ticket. Come up with a story, any story, and maybe you can get off. Judge says, "You were arrested at 2:00am, going 85 mph the wrong way down the expressway, drunk. How do you plead?" You answer: "Innocent! Your Honor, I was leaving a Midnight Mass when these young [maturing and accountable] youths grabbed me at gunpoint. They made me drink lots of beer and forced me into my car. At gunpoint mind you, they made me speed and drive the wrong way down the expressway, but jumped out of the car just after I pulled over. I'm shocked the officer didn't see them. But that's the truth, SO HELP ME!!!" Now, does this explanation violate any natural laws? No. Is it within the rhelm of possibility? Yes. Is it believable? HELL NO! But if the judge were a Christian apologist he'd say, "Amen Brother! Any explanation is good enough for me. You are free!" Next time you have an apologist stretching plausibility to the breaking point, point out to him/her that their argument is something you would hear in Traffic Court! That'll shut em up for sure.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-24-2005, 12:46 PM	#3
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	When I pointed out (to a pacifist Christian) that God wiped out almost the entire human race in Noah's flood, her apology was: "but he promised he wouldn't do it again!"

10-01-2005, 07:34 AM	#5
FFT Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Memphis Posts: 330	A few months ago, I debated a Christian to the point where he admitted that the flood was likely just a local flood. I pointed out that God promised not to do it again, yet there are floods every year. He got stuck in a loop at some point and walked off angrily, after repeating about 8 times something to the effect of "The flood happened!"

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.