Vorkosigan

Originally posted by Haran:
This is the kind of stuff that ax and I are referring to...things like this is Isaiah. The "little children" mauled by the bear comes from an English translation. The word used can refer to young men...think gang. Do you know the Hebrew here? Yet again, this is what I'm talking about. If you want to criticise the Bible, you had better learn more about it.

Yes, I can see where it is much better to have youths mauled by bears than children

(P.S. - It is never too late to learn. There is no such thing as being past your prime.)

At last, an area where we share agreement.

Vorkosigan

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Haran

Ha! I wasn't very clear, then...

The word translated "little children" can mean "young men". That's why I said think of a gang who was bent on destroying the prophet's authority and possibly the prophet. God got them first.

Haran

nogods4me

the words used can refer to young men, think gang, why think gang instead of just young men? where would you get that from? many of the old words have multiple meaning depending on their context, why should I accept your translation as "well the bloods was gonna waste the dude so god helped him out by sending some crip bears to save his ass" instead of the more widely used translation of "children" and what difference does it make if 40 18 year olds are mauled for mocking a bald man, as opposed to 40 children?

beachbum

My turn.

I can see where having a bear maul a "gang" would be much more acceptable than a group of small children. Being a bald man myself I sure would like for god to send something down and maul all the people who ridicule me, point fingers at me, call me names like 'chrome dome' or 'baldy' or 'hey you, the guy with some hair and no hair' because these words are very painful. I cry myself to sleep oftenb because I was cursed with 'male-pattern baldness'. See my story is just as stupid as the one about bears eating people (and I do not care how old they were) just for making fun of a bald man.

Haran made a comment that those of us who disagree with his/her opinion need to study and read. Well the problem here is that the start of this whole thread had to do with archeologists not finding something. There didn't seem to be any discussion origionally about interpretation or mis-interpretation that I racall. And when the link to the minimalist was presented you were also able to go to the maximalist page if you wanted, So no one was slighted.

Thanks for listening now lets go make fun of fat people.

HelenM

Originally posted by Haran:
I've never understood those who say the Bible 'deconverted' them (it has nice rhetorical power though).

You haven't?

That's amazing because people are continually saying that here and they generally explain specifically what passages and why, if you ask them.

And I've found their explanations quite clear and therefore quite thought-provoking.

What aspect of those many explanations here have you not understood? Or haven't you read any, yourself?

I know many, including scholars who have read the Bible innumerable times, that do not 'deconvert'.

Including scholars, huh? Well, then, that makes all the difference...

love
Helen

Skeptical

I think we're in violent agreement, at least on principles.

I completely agree with your general statements about time and human error, and I would state further that in the particular case of Christian origins, the 2,000 years that have passed and the information we have regarding the human errors that we know of during this period weigh strongly against a literal interpretation of the accounts in the NT. (for example, there are many "miracle worker" accounts during this period of time, often non-Christian, and I think almost everyone would grant that at least some of those accounts are based on various sorts of human error)

I am "sure" of little with regard to the NT accounts, but I have many significant doubts based on the research I have done, taking both sides into account. I am not _certain_ that the NT accounts are allegorical or mythical, but I think the evidence that we do have strongly points to this conclusion. Unfortunately, it is difficult to be certain of much WRT ancient history.

My point was/is that there is plenty of room for reasonably doubting the NT accounts.

nogods4me

ok so i did me a little looking around:
a)
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!"
NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson
b)
Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. "Go away, you baldhead!" they chanted. "Go away, you baldhead!"
NLT Copyright 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust
c)
Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead !"
NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation
d)
He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!"
RSV copyright info
e)
And he went up from thence to Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, thou bald-head; go up, thou bald-head. (Webster's)
f)
And he goeth up thence to Beth-El, and he is going up in the way, and little youths have come out from the city, and scoff at him, and say to him, `Go up, bald-head! go up, bald-head!' (Young's)
g)
And he went up from thence to Bethel, and as he went up by the way, there came forth little boys out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, bald head; go up, bald head!(Darby's)
h)
And he went up from thence unto Beth-el; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou baldhead; go up, thou baldhead. (ASV)
i)
He went up from there to Beit-El; and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city, and mocked him, and said to him, Go up, you baldy; go up, you baldhead.(HNV)
j)
and the hebrew: qatan (little) and na`ar (children)
-------------------
So where's the gang, or is it Spanky and Our Gang? I mean it turns out Robert Blake is kinda dangerous, but Alfalfa?

A gang of toughs that might, maybe, could have been threatening the prophet. Now who is reading something into the words that isn't there?

Grumpy

This tangent is veering rapidly from the original topic, but I thought I'd add something.

Is God telling us that it is alright to kill (or ask God to kill) anyone, regardless of age, because they mock you?

In the most extreme case, Elisha's life was threatened by a gang of violent hoodlums. God's power protected him, like Superman. But 42? Granted, just because the boys were torn up doesn't mean they were killed. But wouldn't mauling one or two of the gang have done the trick?

So God was able to influence the she-bears, inciting them to attack where they presumably would not have on their own. Why couldn't he use the same mind-bending power on the youngsters themselves? Why not a rain or hail storm to drive them away? Why not give Elisha the power to flee, or make him invulnerable to harm?

Surely you've seen this discussion before, lpetrich. SAB tends to grasp at every questionable verse, without regard to quality. That dilutes the impact of legitimate criticisms. I also think SAB's objection to certain verses on moral grounds is weak (as an example, my above indictment of God as a bloodthirsty thug would not win many arguments). Despite those flaws, I still value SAB as a resource.

Wasn't this about <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html" target="_blank">science</a>?

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

godfry n. glad

In response to a cite of Israel Finkelstein as a scholastic source of information by another poster, Haran intimated that he was excessively amused and posted this:

I'm curious as to how he determined that the scholastic work of the chairman of the Tel Aviv University archeology department qualifies as "junk scholarship". Or, for that matter, the leading scholars in endowed chairs at the University of Sheffield, the University of Copenhagen, or the University of Rome, all of whom have added to the debate currently raging over the ancient history and archeology of Palestine/Israel. Perhaps he can explain?

godfry n. glad

Buchananeer

By godfrey n. glad

Bah! Don't you know universities are nothing but "hotbeds of liberalism"?!? (to steal a phrase from Berke Breathed) At least, that's what my father always accuses University of Florida of being. Sheeooot! There really aren't many 'libruhls' around here. I ain't found 'em yet.

Sorry, got off track...

I think I can legitimately string these two quotes together. If not, let me know in polite terms how I can't argue along these lines.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand....

I remember reading something along these lines. Now, I certainly have no good Hebrew background. Try me in Yoruba in a couple years, but not Hebrew. Anyway, aren't the words 'qatan' and 'naar' used here? 'qatan' means something like 'a few' or 'young' and 'naar' means 'kids from infancy to adolescence?

While I can see it makes it look like a bunch of teenagers, drivin' their 'hoop-d' Caddilac asses lookin' for someone to rough up, I do believe that the NIV is the version that uses 'youths', as opposed to the KJV and others which say 'children'. Also, naar is both male and female, so teenage girls, with their mackdaddies are cruisin' around, lookin' for trouble with a prophet...

Gender probably plays no role in the interpretation of morality, but hey...

Anyway, someone's probably beaten me to all this.

Take care,
Buchananeer

P.S. Interestingly, I've not found any defenses for John 7, where Jesus lies. That was the start of me becoming more and more of a 'doubting John Thomas'... Is that right?