Panamon777

OP: In my uneducated, illiterate opinion, it is in fact good for the wicked to be punished. A good parent is one who rewards good behavior and castigates bad behavior; God is (allegedly) the perfect parent. I just thought that needed mentioning.

The bears: I will quote Norman Geisler, from The Case for Faith. Trade pback ed., p. 173. (Not y'all's favorite book, I'm sure, but it's what I got. Rebuke him or me, I don't care.)

So, you say, as does author Lee Strobel, They were just making fun of his baldness!
Geisler goes on to say that God sent the bears almost as a warning to the people to repent and turn to God, which, had it been heeded, might have prevented that later fall of Samaria. Additionally, the Hebrew word used to describe these youths - I myself do not know any Hebrew at all - is the same word used to describe men in the army. So it can then be assumed that these men were of a soldierly age, I guess.

I'm not 1% as well read as the major debaters on this board, but I wanted to throw that out there.

Cheers,
Evan

DrJim

2 Kings 2:23 uses the word N'R to refer to the mockers. This may be youths, servants, etc. Anyone of relatively juniour or inferior status (but not as insulting as in English when a boss etc. calls a worker "boy"). It could be soldiers, a teen-age street gang etc.
The very next word verse has very clear indication that the N'RIM were of a young age: N'R is qualified by the adjective QTN, or "small" or "young". so "Small/young lads". Even used alone, however, N'R can "Baby"!

Exodus 2:6 (Baby Moses found in the river)
When she opened it she saw the child (YLD, see below); and lo, the babe (N'R) was crying. She took pity on him and said, "This is one of the Hebrews' children (YLD)."

Now, notice how N'R and YLD are used to refer to baby Moses.
Back to 2 Kings 2:23. There only N'R appears. In v. 24, however, one N'R is NOT used. The bears maul 42 YLD, which is very frequently used of children and infants. In fact, in verbal form, it is refer to childbirths or to fathering a child (see Gen. 4:1 for the verb). The noun as "child" can also be found in 1 Samuel 1:2
"He had two wives: the name of one was Hannah and the
name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children." YLD also refers to babies in Exodus 1:17

"But the midwives feared God, and did not do as the king of
Egypt had commanded them, but let the boys (i.e. newborn boys) live."

YLD might be "young men" as in 1 Kings 12:8
"But he forsook the counsel of the elders which they had given him, and consulted with the young men who grew up with him and served him."

Here, however, it is actually in a context in which Solomon's boyhood friends are mentioned, so, even though these "YLDIM" are now grown, one should not take this particular use of the term as determinitive of how it is used in 2 Kings 2 given the weight of evidence from other attestations. This is especially so given the adjective attached to N'R.

I think Norman Geisler, The Case for Faith, who you quote as saying, "Unfortunately, the King James Version has a misleading translation there. Scholars have established that the original Hebrew is best translated as "young men." is not being completely upfront about it. "Young men" is interpretative, not literal. He has no real basis for accusation of error. Who are these scholars who insist on "Young Men"? I suspect they are concerned with protecting the text from the sort of allegations of injustice that are being presented in this thread (as Geisler himself is doing).

There is NO clear reason why N'R and YLD must refer to men. New American Bible has "young lads", Revised Standard has "small boys". I think the wording of the passage and the use of the words in other contexts supports thier translations rather well.

JRLinville

-DM-

DrJim:

My compliments on your excellent analysis of the situation with regard to 2KI 2:23.

Even without an analysis such as yours to go by, it should be remembered that Bible translators of the more trustworthy versions are generally composed of committees of experts in the languages involved and, not only that, they are often Jews and/or Christians (depending on whether we are talking about the Old Testament or the New Testament). We are much better served by trusting them then we are by trusting the likes of apologists such as Geisler who will do almost anything to attempt to save the Bible even from deserved criticism. (THAT, by the way, is one of the things that I found most disturbing when I, myself, was a Christian. It seemed to me that people whom I had trusted turned out to have been telling half truths, withholding information, selecting information, etc., in order to paint a picture which would support traditional apologetic teaching.)

With regard to 2KI 2:23, it should be noted that many translations make an actual point of emphasizing the relatively young age of the "mockers"--and correctly so, in my opinion:

KJV "little children"
ASV "young lads"
YLT "little youths" (this is a literal translation)
DNT "little boys"
RSV "small boys"
NASB "young lads"

We should probably trust the translators rather than apologists.

It is worse than that. Presumably the Christian "God," were "he" to exist, would want his earthly representatives to be completely honest and forthright. With regard to that standard, Geisler fails miserably.

The Disciple's Study Bible is a bit more honest about it, although once again we see the effort to speculate away an acknowledged problem:

-Don-

Biff the unclean

The bears, we don't know the circumstances, we don't know if the only thing those kids did was call Elisha a baldy so we can't assume that it is an example of God being unjust.
Didn't you just finish saying that for Bible contradictions you couldn't look outside the Bible? Yet here you go doing exactly that. The story line says the kids made fun of Elisha being bald and bears came and gobbled them up. Cause/effect. Now you want to go outside the Bible because this cause and effect doesn't agree with you vision of what the Bible should say.

To assume that the actions of a God who knows how everything plays out in the world are unjust is extremely difficult if not impossible.
To assume that the monster, called God, depicted in the OT is "just" flies in the face of the narrative of the book.

Cases where infants are killed in the crossfire so to speak are tragic (as any death is) but not necessarily unjust because God knows how things would play out if He didn't intervene.
There was no cross fire in the Elisha story. These bears were "smart bombs" they picked out their targets…naughty children…and attacked only them.

We are in no position to deem the actions of all-knowing, almighty God unjust.
Sure we are. We know right from wrong. Surely you don't think that might makes right?
We are trying to see if the God in the stories is just or unjust. You can't claim that he is just no matter what actions he takes or you discard the meaning of the word "just."

I'm getting the feeling you read part of what I say and stereotype me with an easier argument to ignore.
I'm getting the feeling that you are making assumptions about your arguments based on faith that don't stand up to scrutiny.

-DM-

The Bible also says that "God" sometimes deceives his own prophets, that the scribes falsify the word, that "God" deceives the wicked. Thus, if the Bible is the "word of God" it cannot necessarily be trusted, nor can those who teach about the Bible ("the scribes") be trusted. In other words, without using reason, we wouldn't necessarily know what to believe. Using reason, we can see that the Bible--in spite of what it says about "God" being just--indicates that he is not always just.

A perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient "God" could have, should have, and would have done a better job of it than to inspire a book such as the Bible which allegedly left out details so important that the story frustrates his own alleged goals. The only explanation for a god doing so would be that the god was a nonperfect klutz and/or not omnipotent and/or not omniscient.

If "God" deceives people--for any reason--then neither "He" nor "his word" can be trusted.

Ezekiel 14:9 "If a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."(NRSV) [Emphasis added.]

If "God" deceives people--for any reason--then neither "He" nor "his word" can be trusted.

One of the basic principles of Bible exegesis is that we are not to add to the words what is not there or take away from the words what is there. The Bible says that the author of Ezekiel says that "the Lord" says: I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet." It matters not whom "He" is against or why. Take the words at their face value; the Lord deceives. If "God" deceives anyone, for any reason, "He" cannot be trusted.

Exactly. In other words, the scribes cannot be trusted.

The reason is irrelevant. If "God" deceives anyone, for any reason, "He" cannot be trusted.

With your mindset, you should probably limit your study to apologists and such. On the other hand, if your reasoning facility is in working order, it seems to me that it should be obvious to you that if "God" deceives anyone at all for any reason whatsoever, neither "He" nor "his word" can be trusted.

So far as I can tell, you are not truly open to what does not already coincide with your point of view, and no, I don't forgive you for that. When it comes to who is and isn't open, remember, I was once on your side of the fence.

-Don-

Yahzi

Let's grant all your assumptions. The 42 youths were actually a street gang who worshipped Satan, and they were actively attempting to discredit, mock, and humiliate a bona-fide prophet of God (although they weren't going to do him any physical harm). They were cat-calling, jeering, flashing their buttocks at him while he tried to speak to the people about God.

Do they deserve to die?

If you say yes, then I guess we can just chuck the Constitution and the notion of "Freedom of speech" right out the window. Apparently God doesn't think freedom of speech counts: apparently God is the sort of person who wins his arguments by force instead of by logical debate or appeal to common sense. Apparently God thinks it's ok to kill people for what they say, and our modern notion of "freedom of speech" is just silly.

If you say no, then God was wrong.

Either way you slice it, even granting all your made-up assumptions, God violates our sense of morality. God opposes freedom of speech, and He responds to verbal insults with physical violence. How would you characterize a large, powerful adult man who did that? Why does your characterization change when the subject is God?

In the future, please do us all a favor. Before you post an argument, substite "strong man" for "god" everywhere it appears in your argument. Then ask yourself if your argument still makes sense.

-DM-

Exactly! Our alleged ancestors, Adam & Eve, allegedly partook of The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Either one believes that as a literal event, or one doesn't. If one does, then we must know right from wrong. If one doesn't, then there is no "Fall of Man" and no need for salvation and a savior.

-Don-

Panamon777

Thank you to DM and DrJim for their clear, concise, non-hostile replies. Yahzi, if the passage I quoted and referenced offends you, perhaps you should spend your time insulting the author, not me. I clearly stated that I was not and am not an expert on this topic, I had merely read something that stated a position contrary to that which the non-Christians on this board have taken. They're not my assumptions, they're Geisler's. Your response is needlessly hostile and off-topic.

DM: One comment on a passage you quoted.

I'd like to offer an alternative interpretation, based upon that passage: It seems to me the God (Strong Man!) is accepting responsibility for the deception of His prophet, even though said deception has been caused by another agent. "If a prophet is deceived" - there's no indication of who has done the deception, just that the prophet is wrong - "I the LORD have deceived him" - the LORD says it's His fault. It MAY mean that the lord is taking responsibility for an action, a wrong, that He did not commit. (Which would be logically impossible anyway, wouldn't it? Hehe.)

If that is the meaning of the passage, I see a difference between God accepting responsibility for His prophet being deceived, and God deceiving said prophet. Should an all-powerful God be able to prevent the deception of his prophet? Yeah. Should an all-powerful God do lots lots of things that aren't done? Yeah. But that's from our perspective and experience, and we should probably stick to the text. An assumption of responsibility != committing the act, at least in my eyes.

For example, if someone loses control of their car and skids across your lawn, you are able to assume responsibility for repairing the lawn without having caused the damage yourself.

-DM-

"If a vase is broken, I will accept responsibility for having broken the vase" is far different then, "If a vase is broken, it is I who have broken the vase." However, if you--or anyone else--believes that the two statements are equivalent, or nearly so, so be it. To me, the meaning is clear.

--

My POV: An omniscient YHVH would know that verses such as these would prove to be stumbling blocks which would thwart his own alleged purposes. An omnipotent YHVH could have seen to it that such were not the case. A perfect YHVH would have seen to it that such were not the case.

-Don-

Doctor X

Oh my. . . .

Mike(ALT):

Unfortunately, since Big Daddy directed the composition of the passage he must have been happy with the details?

Apologist try to read in "extenuating circumstances" to explain away what is a hyperbolic--if not, frankly comic--counterpoint to what happens to the men who treat the prophet well--they get a sewage treatment plant. The dark humor lesson is "see what happens?"

On the contrary, I have done just that on other threads. I have presented to you real cases of Unjust Suffering and invited you to explain them. You have not. I will not hijack this thread on the discussion, but if you bring up the issue, I am more than happy to revisit it. Furthermore, as others as well as I have demostrated, YHWH himself calls himself unjust.

Panamon777:

Welcome to the forums . . . never mind the hounds, they rarely maul anyone . . . much. . . .

Da Bears!:

Dr.Jim here has summarized the problem with trying to force the language to say something it does not.

Regarding Yahtzi, I do not think he attacked you at all--he simply demonstrated the implications of the references you cited. Indeed, Strobel is to biblical criticism what Velikovsky is to astrophysics and Kevin Costner is to acting--yet, no one has hit you with this, nor have they ridiculed you for it. Thus, when you state:

I will noted it is a position contrary to that which some CHRISTIANS on this board have taken. Also, you must understand you are somewhat responsible for a reference--you cited it, you should know how reliable it is. If you are not sure, simply ask. Nothing wrong with that at all. Yahtzi did not direct an attack towards you at all, nor, frankly, did he engage in an attack directed towords the authors of your references. He merely considered what your refenences actually say.

Now -DM- demonstrates the problem with the passage EVEN if one accept the apologistic reading.

Anyways, have patience with yourself and with others.

Tod:

Yeah, I mean, come on, they were clearly Terminator Bears [Tm.--Ed.]. Sent back from the future to punish those who ridicule alopecia. . . .

--J.D.