Vinnie

Well, the age is important if you cast the account as "God slaughtered little children (8 year olds) for teasing him". Miller argues the account is slightly different than that and he "may" be correct on this (see points 4,5, and 6).

Not one of you has even attempted to dialogue with the interpretation, you merely laughed at it. Like I said, I know nothing about the Hebrew language and cannot decide one way or another.

But you all who use this account may be building straw man arguments based on caricatures. Why not show that a) Miller's framework is wrong or b) The event is immoral from within Miller's framework.

I however, never defended the morality or historicity of this incident and I personally have no intention of ever doing so. The incident also descibes an selectively intervening God which I do NOT believe in.

Vinnie

Amlodhi

Hi Vinnie,

There are two primary difficulties with the above explanation, one of which has already been mentioned in previous threads.

The phrase "One of these words described . . . " is a subtle misdirection. The Hebrew term "na'ar" (from which the plural na'arim is derived) is used to describe Isaac, Joseph and the "young men" of IKg. 20:14-15. As well, na'ar is used to describe an age between adolescence and young adulthood.

But, as was subtly mentioned, only one of the two terms used in IIKg. 2:23 is used in these other passages. The youths described in IIKg. 2:23 are not described as simply "na'arim" but, rather, as "na'arim qetannim". The second term is derived from the Hebrew "qaton" and is a diminutive meaning "least, little or small". Thus, unless the IIKg. 2:23 passage was intended to describe a group of men who were noticeably short in stature, the better understanding would be "little boys".

Further supporting this, the second difficulty is that it entirely ignores the next verse, i.e. IIKg. 2:24 which says: "and tore of them forty-two children". The term used for "children" in this verse is "y'ladim" and is derived from the Hebrew "yeled" meaning "boy, child, offspring". While I haven't yet searched to exhaustion, I have nevertheless found no instances where the term "yeled" is used to refer to "men", young or otherwise. On the contrary, every instance in which I have found it used, it refers specifically to children.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

DrJim

Back in Sept this was hashed out in a couple of threads.

As far as I'm concenred the "na'ar qetannim" must be "little boys" or "young lads" or something like that as Amlodhi argues.

NA'AR and Y'LAD appear together in Exodus 2:6 in reference to the baby Moses:
"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)."


On the other hand, as I mentioned in a previous thread,
YLD (used in 2 Kgs 2:24) can 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, these fellows should not be understood as still children. Yet, even though these "YLDIM" are now more or less grown, one should not take this particular use of the term as determinitive of how it is used in 2 Kings 2. The context is juxtaposing thier lack of experience with the "elders", so the use of the term YLDIM can be seen as a rhetorical choice. It says more about the level of their maturity and political skills than actual biological age. There might be a few more examples of that term referring to people in their teens, but this is the only case I found in a quick search.


I don't see any reason whatsoever to maintain that 2Kings 2 is speaking of people of a morally responsible age, especially given the "young lads/small boys". The bears ate kids. Translations which try to cover this up are estentially rewritting the story in the light of modern sensibilities.

Vinnie

Is it even possible for two bears to maul 42 people? It sounds absurd to me and they would have to be pretty stupid to let it happen.

Vinnie at zoo where two bears break out: "Hey look, a bear is eating that guy over there. Let me jusy stand here and get mauled as opposed to running!"

maybe on an intrinsic probability scale of the event they should be viewed as childen as well given the alleged number eaten?

Vinnie

ms tree

perhaps the question should be: WHY was it ever interpreted this way at all? & then allowed to stand & then allowed to perpetrate - regardless of the original meaning, the verse clearly states (in the king james version) they were kids who teased a man about his baldness & as a consequence a curse was called upon them - a powerful curse - in the name of the lord - many were mauled.

so very often i hear that the bible is the inerrant word of god written by men inspired by god & therefore every word is the truth & cannot be wrong or misinterpreted. without such assertions there is no reason to believe any of the bible. who is going to decide what is & isn't truely biblical. according to this assertion - no one! doubt of any part means doubt of any part is possible & that simply cannot be allowed because then someone would have to be responsible for figuring out which parts are the inspired & therefore correct & which ones are not & therefore incorrect.

so, what is the lesson of this little story? could it be that even a teensy tiny 'offense' is punishable by extreme measures - in the name of the lord ? taking it literally, that's what it says. cause & effect. neat & not a bit confusing!

MortalWombat

Perhaps God hardened their legs so that they couldn't run away.

Toto

What is the meaning of the bears?

Vinnie pointed out that this does not appear to be an actual event, as it seems unlikely that 2 bears would be able to maul 42 young lads.

I bring this up because I recently heard a talk from an ethnographic researcher on his recent trip to northern Greece, where he studied the survival of pre-Christian religious practices in the carnival customs. One of those customs involved a man dressing as a bear, and the researcher noted that bear worship was very ancient, because bears symbolize death and rebirth when they hibernate over the winter and reappear in the spring.

I thought - aha - a dying and rising god. But I have not been able to find any influence of bear worship in Christianity, and this passage is the only mention of bears in the Bible that I know about.

contracycle

Arguably, bears are also worshipped becuase you might accidentally find that that one is hibernating in your cave and you have woken it up. In this sense, its a sort of natural disaster.

offa

You are getting on the right tract. Jesus was born before Herod died and became a one year old child in A.D. 6. The children that Herod slew (ordered but they were not executed) were adults.

The bald head probably has something to do with the nazarites shaving their heads. The 42 children would be one person of some ancient rank called "42" (multiple of seven). The "two bears" is probaly the rank of one person (the nazirite?). This is all some sort of religious ceremony. Question, are their bears and lions in Israel?

Ratel

According to a bible dictionary I once consulted, Asiatic lions and brown bears once lived in the Levant but were driven into extinction in historical times

Hope that helps