Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by a_theistnotatheist: [Re: Elisha cursing the children who had teased him about his baldness, 2 Kings 2:23-24] I get sick of hearing them called kids. The word used meant a "youth" from ages 12-35. They could have been a serious threat, and their words are better taken as a threat(commanding Elisha to "get up from here") rather than a "gentle teasing."

According to Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, the word in question is nah'-ar (transliterated) and it means a boy from the age of infancy to adolescence. Young's literal translation puts it: "little youths."

The word translated "go up" (or something similar) is aw-law (translitereated), and it can mean so many different things, both figuratively and literally, that it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that a threat was intended.

[This message has been edited by Donald Morgan (edited March 16, 2001).]

Perhaps we should add some tantrums by God as well. Remember that the Israelites made the calf before Moses had given them the Commandments, including "thou shalt make no graven image", so it was a bit harsh to kill 3000 of them for breaking a commandment they didn't know about.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I get sick of hearing them called kids. The word used meant a "youth" from ages 12-35. They could have been a serious threat, and their words are better taken as a threat(commanding Elisha to "get up from here") rather than a "gentle teasing."

My ancient Hebrew is admittedly a bit rusty, but the rather conservative, nay fundamentalist, NET bible (available at http://www.bible.org) translates it as "young boys" and adds the following translators note.

"The word run, here translated "boy," can refer to a broad age range, including infants as well as young men. But the qualifying term "young" (or "small") suggests these youths were relatively young. The phrase in question ("young boy") occurs elsewhere in 1 Sam 20:35; 1 Kgs 3:7 (used by Solomon in an hyperbolic manner); 11:17; 2 Kgs 5:14; and Isa 11:6."

So saying they were big strapping men is at best controversial.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The fig tree symbolises Jerusalem. And who here really has a bleeding heart for a "fig tree" of all things?

When you say it symbolises Jerusalem, do you mean that Mark made up the story as an allegory, or that Jesus actually did curse the tree, and that in some strange secondary way it symbolised Jerusalem?

Assuming Jesus really did curse the tree

(1) What kind of idiot looks for figs out of season in the first place?

(2) You don't have to have a bleeding heart to class it as a tantrum.

(3) If Jesus really could work miracles, and if he was that desperate for a fig, a better thing to do, and a more impressive miracle, would have been to cause the tree to grow some figs.

A couple more to add.

* God kicks Adam and Eve out of the garden for eating the fruit of the wrong tree. (Genesis 3:25)

* God drowns the whole world - surely the ultimate tantrum. (Genesis 6-7)

* God tells Moses to kill someone for picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week (Numbers 15, 32-36)

[B] UZZAH !!!!!!

Well, people blow their stack all the time, and just because they were in the Bible doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't get angry. I think the important question is why did they get angry, and was there a good reason for it?

Nope, the fig tree was a living parable for how those of us who do not bear fruit are to be justly condemned by Jesus. The disciples got the message, and that is why they recorded it. It also clearly had the desired impact as a saying of Jesus on those who came after, especially since they knew the fig tree and how it was supposed to "behave".

Allow me to explain:

in the course of my travels, I found a couple of interesting articles on the subject of figs, but I want to say from the start, moral outrage over dead plants does seem a bit extreme. Will we start picketting Vegan Conventions next?

Anyways, here goes. The first article is a pretty boring description on the fig plant itself, and the kind of "fruit" that it bears. Believe it or not, they actually have FURTHER reading you can do on the subject if you like (see the end of the article). Sheesh. What some people won't do for fun. In any event, the most interesting part of the article is the notation that the plant actually bears two crops, one in the spring, the second in the fall. This will be especially important when we look at the second article, which was taken from a visitor's journal entry from a trip he took to Israel.

The article on figs is found at: http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/fig.html

"Fruits: The common fig bears a first crop, called the breba crop, in the spring on last season's growth. The second crop is borne in the fall on the new growth and is known as the main crop. In cold climates the breba crop is often destroyed by spring frosts. The matured "fruit" has a tough peel (pure green, green suffused with brown, brown or purple), often cracking upon ripeness, and exposing the pulp beneath. The interior is a white inner rind containing a seed mass bound with jelly-like flesh. The edible seeds are numerous and generally hollow, unless pollinated. Pollinated seeds provide the characteristic nutty taste of dried figs."

Thus we see that, in fact, the plant that Jesus was looking at should have had fruit on it, and since it did not, Jesus also knew that it would not have fruit during the regular fig growing season. The Jewish disciples witnessing this would have known this, since they were from the area. Sadly, the Greek word for fig does not make this distinction, so the fact that there are two different fruits gets lost in the translation.

Now for the journal entry found at: http://www.virtualtravels.com/diary/...rael/pagi.html

"Tom Brimmer's Israel Journal:
If you look at a fig tree in the winter before the leaves cover the branches, you will see an amazing sight. It looks like fruit! You can eat them. They are called "Pagi" in Hebrew and they will later become the figs that you are more familiar with. Since Greek only has one word for the fruit of the Fig tree, you can’t see the difference in the English translation. Try it like this. Jesus looked at a fig tree thinking he might find something to eat. He was really hungry. The leaves had begun to grow so he knew that there should be Pagi hidden among the leaves. He also knew that a fig tree without Pagi would not produce fruit. When he found no Pagi, he cursed the rest of the tree because he already knew it would not bear fruit. It is simple to know the destiny of the tree if you know how that tree grows. The disciples understood the lesson. The master knows his orchard and he can tell if his cultivation will produce a return. He judges with wisdom that comes from a wealth of knowledge. He wants everything he touches to produce fruit. Then Jesus added the punch line, "Have faith in God."

And that's how I learned all about fig trees, and why this lesson is in the Bible.

If I saw a bunch of guys treating my Church like it was Wal-Mart, I'd be pretty choked too.

And since this is a much later invention, and not considered historical by anyone (nor is it in the Bible), it's outside the scope of the thread.

Anyhow, I hope no one here thinks God doesn't have the right to be angry. But if you have a case where you think it is unjustified, please let me know.

Nomad

Granted the Bible is, if nothing else, a story of human behaviors. The example I gave of the Benjaminite near-genocide is one such story -- people do foolish things, after all.

But it is vital to recognize the temper tantrums, and not sweep them under the rug. I'm thinking about apologists who prop up the "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" trilemma by citing Jesus' putative sanity. He was level-headed, they say, so he could not be a Lunatic (therefore, if he claimed to be God, he meant it).

What, then, do we make of the "Get thee behind me, Satan!" outburst I mentioned above? Does that sound like a level-headed dude? It opens the door to the possibility that Jesus was not kin to a deity.

2 Samuel 24:1-17 God causes David to sin by taking a census, then the Almighty kills 70,000 men over it. When he is satiated, he "repenteth" for the evil he has done. David is left scratching his head over the injustice.
1 Chronicles 21 tells the identical story, except Satan causes David to sin by taking the census. Either way, God gets angry way out of proportion to the offense.

I'm probably missing something, but I could never figure out why taking a census was so sinful in the first place. Is this not explained, or are two pages of my Bible stuck together?

Well, reading the Song of Solomon too much is likely to make them sticky



[This message has been edited by Iain Simpson (edited March 22, 2001).]

The census ordered was not according to how a census should be taken according to the Law of Moses. So David was breaking God's laws in the way he did it.

So 70,000 men had to die for that? One version says Satan is to blame.
Even if David is culpable, why do 70,000 others suffer because David didn't do it exactly right? Either David or Satan "deserve" the punishment, but not 70,000 innocents.


[This message has been edited by gravitybow (edited March 22, 2001).]

Who knows? This is a pretty wierd story without much of a "why" behind it.