FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-19-2003, 03:22 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GakuseiDon
What I don't understand is why the bears were sent out in the first place. AFAIK this is usually blown off with "those whacky blood-thirsty Hebrews", but what IS the consensus on this (other than "those whacky blood-thirsty Hebrews")?
Good question.

Peter F. Ellis writes: "baldhead: it is not certain whether the word refers to Elisha's actual baldness or to a tonsure used as a distinguishing mark by the prophets. Bears were not uncommon in ancient Palestine (cf. 1 Sm 17:34; Hos 13:7-8). The story is told to inculcate reverence for the prophets, and, like the two previous miracles, it is introduced as confirmation of Elisha's succession to Elijah's spiritual powers." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 198)

Walter Dietrich writes: "First, however, we are shown that Elisha has the same power to perform miracles as Elijah before him. To this day, one can see the spring named after Elisha at the oasis in Jericho, its wonderfully fresh and abundant water in the heat of the region being attributed to a miracle by the prophet. By stark contrast, another miracle uses incredibly destructive power against teasing children. Apparently Elisha, like his adherents, wore a tonsure which was often the subject of mockery. History tells us that ridiculing prophets can be costly (cf. 2 Kings 1:9-14), but so costly? Another forty-two deaths are mention in 2 Kings 10:12-14, where Jehu orders the massacre of Judean princes. Is this later crime prepared for in order to legitimize its methods in the same way as Jehu's massacre of Baal-worshippers in 2 Kings 10:17-27 is preceded in 1 Kings 18:40 by Elijah's murder of prophets of Baal?" (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 249)

Perhaps the Deuteronomist was simply fond of Douglas Adams and wanted to work in the number 42 somehow.

best,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 09-19-2003, 03:41 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Wouldn't it depend on the context? And isn't that what we are arguing here?
Clearly it was not meant to be friendly. But it is quite a stretch to say that 'go' 'go to' or 'go up' refers to an ascension, rather than just the equivalent of 'p**s' off'

Quote:


The Isaiah quote does lend some support for this. Was Elisha bald?
Does the Isaiah quote lend some support for this?

I've heard that the word 'poth' in Isaiah 3:17 is a very naughty word indeed?

The KJV has 'Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion and the LORD will discover their secret parts.'

What this has to do with 2 Kings 2 is beyond me, unless the boys were not referring to the head as being bald.....

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/brf96bb.html

' The post-biblical term for the female organ pot, or potah, means "socket" (for a doorpost).'

So the word has been cleaned up since it was used by Isaiah.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 09:37 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,762
Default

Quote:
'Too, the expression, ?Go up...Go up,? is held by many scholars to reflect the wish of these young men that the prophet go ahead and ascend (as did Elijah ? 2 Kgs. 2:11), i.e., leave the earth, that they might be rid of him!'
But the phrase "go up" is used three times in the offending passage ALONE... the other two times, it's referring to Elisha's passage along the road. God must think WE'RE divine, to know when he's going to change a meaning of a word in the middle of a verse without any clues as to this impending change.
Calzaer is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 09:42 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Hey Swifter,

They actually let infidels post on RaptureReady? That’s a new one on me.
We have several atheists on RR that are frequent posters. We have no problem with atheists there who abide by the rules. Of course, that means 99% of atheists from this board would be banned since they can't follow the rules, but where did you get the idea we don't have atheists on the board?
Magus55 is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 11:28 AM   #25
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

I wonder if this story had been invented by some priest who had been teased about his baldness by some little boys.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 01:33 PM   #26
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 3,794
Default

Steve:

FYI:

Quote:
One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties.
The age of Isaac depends on the story . . . which does cause some problems with interpreting his sacrifice.

Magnus:

Quote:
Of course, that means 99% of atheists from this board would be banned since they can't follow the rules, . . .
"A touch! A touch!"

"Yes! I do confess it!"

Yes, we pesky atheists here do like support our arguments with something more substantial than ipse dixit--EVIDENCE!

Heavens to Betsy. . . .

The Point of the Passage:

Since the old thread has sort of resurrected itself here, I tend to compare it to the preceeding passages where the men of the town treat him kindly and he rewards them with a Brita® water filter. In contrast to the men is the behavior of the boys. It allows for a bit of hyperbole . . . these are stories folks . . . and even "serious" literature has its moments.

The gynmastics required to support the passage as "true" or consistent with rationality would impress Bela Karoli.

Let us assume . . . then . . . that these 40-odd urchins were really representatives of the local Crips and were about to "do" the poor prophet.

Let us even assume that the bears only scratched up the tykes--despite the textual evidence to the contrary.

So, while two bears move from brat to brat the other . . . like twenty . . . did not run away?

Ah . . . yes . . . Magic YHWH Bears!! [Available at Toys R Us®--Ed.] These can quickly run through something like 40-odd screaming, fleeing kids without really hurting them. . . .

Of course.

Now that that is all settled, I would like to reveal the truth of this. . . .

--J.D.
Doctor X is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 03:23 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Doctor X, do you ever plan on learning how to spell my name write, or is removing the n too difficult?
Magus55 is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 03:40 PM   #28
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 3,794
Default

Unintentional.

I rarely, if ever, play with a poster's name, even posters who think it is the height of wit to do so. Nevertheless, nothing personal, but it would help to know what the "55" refers to.

For what it is worth, I recall a poster on another board who went by the name "GishFarm." I have no idea what that means. For some reason, I saw his name as "GishFish"--perhaps I unconsciously thought he was a Gish fan and the "fish" was the Christian symbol.

Oddly enough he became increasingly irritated and angry as discussions progressed until he finally exploded informing me how pissed off he was I intentionally messed with his name.

I rather looked back and thought, "ooops!"

Perhaps the most hypocritical thing about discussion boards is that everyone knows why their names are sacred and cannot understand why everyone else has a stupid name. Mine is merely an old . . . old . . . nickname.

On yet another board a poster recently appeared proudly proclaiming his real name--and curriculum vitae--and wondered why everyone else was a coward. Leave aside the great "appeal to authority" that is! Unfortunately, truly malicious people inhabit the internet and try to "get even" with those who had the temerity to prefer the old Star Trek to the Lost Generation. Employers really love to be told annonymously that one of the employees is a "known pediphile" or actually voted for Al Gore.

No, Magus55, adding an "n" is a confabulation akin to spelling "deity" as "diety." I know that is not an excuse, but I assure you it is not intentional.

--J.D.
Doctor X is offline  
Old 09-19-2003, 03:52 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
Doctor X, do you ever plan on learning how to spell my name write, or is removing the n too difficult?
Know way!

(too frickin' funny)
Kosh is offline  
Old 09-20-2003, 02:39 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4,656
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
We have several atheists on RR that are frequent posters. We have no problem with atheists there who abide by the rules.


Oh.

Quote:

but where did you get the idea we don't have atheists on the board?
I heard from someone it was a haven—an infidel-free board for saved Christians only. I suppose I was misinformed.
Heathen Dawn is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:57 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.