spamandham

If you read the specific objections, I'll think you'll find they are attacked because they are totally baseless. Even after Jane posted another translation (and likely a superior translation as well) showing it as "go away you baldie", you stick to the insistence that it's a death threat. There is no rational justification for that.

Even worse, neither you nor Jane have even bothered to explain how the group of 'hoodies' would have known who Elisha was or that Elijah had flown off into the sky.

You have failed to distingish that 'younger brother' and 'younger boys' do not both imply youth, but the latter does, preferring instead to insist that even 60 year old men were referred to as 'young'.

There is nothing to your argument whatsoever that is derived from the text (except possibly the size of the group). A straighforward read, applying context, simply does not result in the scenario the two of you have painted.

This has nothing to do with atheism or Christianity, it has to do with how texts should be read and analyzed.

That's because your "analysis" is so contrived and ad hoc, that it indicates some motive on your part beyond merely textual analysis.

GakuseiDon

We've offered analysis. We might be wrong, but we've used the text for support.

1. Had Elijah been taken up? The text clearly says this.
2. Was Elisha in mourning? I think the text suggests this, where he rents his clothes.
3. Was Elisha young at the time? Yes. Did people shave their heads when they were in mourning? Yes, there are several passages in the Bible that indicate this. Here is Job 1:

Job 1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
Job 1:20 Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground

While it may not have been a serious "death threat", I think there is evidence to suggest "go up, baldie" meant "go to heaven and join your friend". Yes, I may be wrong, but to say that there is no rational justification for my reading is not accurate. Are the three points I've raised above accurate, IYO? Do they lend support for my case?

I didn't realise it was a problem. Read the passage for yourself. Elisha and Elijah had passed through Bethel previously.

What age range do you think the expression suggests, then, IYO?

What analysis of mine do you find contrived and adhoc? Can you actually quote me, please?

James Brown

Sorry--I'm not sure if I'm not making myself clear, or if I'm not clear on what you are asking. Let me sum up the situation as I see it.

For who knows how long, I was told that the Bible is truth, and that historical events in the Bible really happened. Adam really woke up as an adult in a garden. Noah really built an ark and saved animals from around the world from a flood. David really defeated a giant in battle with a slingshot (and the giant's own sword). Jesus really was lying dead in a tomb when his eyes fluttered open and he walked out alive.

Along with this, I was also told that the Bible was the source of morality, given to us by a God who inscribed morality in our hearts. So when I see someone in the Bible--a God-approved prophet--acting immorally, then there is a disconnect.

So when someone comes along and says, "Yeah, that part in the Bible that's morally offensive? Meh, it's just a metaphor. You can safely ignore it, but all the rest really happened," well, that's offensive--a cafeteria-Christian-style of situation ethics.

Now, if you are saying that Elisha's bears is just a story akin to Homer's Odyssey and that we shouldn't take it seriously if a fictional god does something that appears offensive, then you have no argument from me. But that's not the impression I've been receiving from you and Jane. What I've been hearing is, "Yes, the events actually happened exactly as they were spelled out--42 real living sets of parents were made childless that day--but the story shouldn't offend you. No, we should all breathe a sigh of relief, because two she-bears were defending their cubs as they charged into a mob of 100 grown adults who were about to kick to death a helpless man for the "crime" of shaving his head in mourning, and so a good man was saved. So let's all take away the lesson here that God protects his own."

If an atheist said, "Calm down, it's just a story," then no, I probably wouldn't have an issue. If an atheist said, "Calm down, Elisha did the right thing here--even though it's just a story," then that I would find strange.

If I've misinterpreted your arguments, I apologize.

GakuseiDon

Ah, I see. It looks like we had been talking at cross-purposes. Thanks for the clarification, James.

spamandham

There is NO evidence of that at all. There is only baseless speculation, and not even very good speculation. If the proper translation is 'go away', you have nothing whatsoever to base that speculation on. If 'go on up' is the best translation, we know from the story Elisha was in fact walking UP to Bethel, and so there is still no justification whatsoever for claiming it means anything other than that.

Proper textual analysis doesn't involve inserting a bunch of speculation.

1. Do we know why Elisha was bald? No. Yet you and Jane insist it's because he was in mourning.

2. Do we know the 'young boys' were actually a gang of thugs? No, but you and Jane insist they were.

3. Do we know the boys meant 'go join your friend up in the sky' when they said 'go on up'/'go away'? No, but you and Jane insist that's what it meant

4. Do we know that the boys knew who Elisha was? No, but your argument rests on that assumption.

5. Do we know that the boys knew who Elijah was? No, but your argument rests on that assumption.

6. Do we know that the boys knew Elijah had flown up into the clouds? No, but your argument rests on that assumption.

7. Do we know that Elisha felt threatened? No, but your argument assumes it.

Yes, but does that mean the boys knew who they were, and also knew that later on Elijah had flown up into the sky, and that Elish was in mourning over it?

na'ar can mean a boy, or a young man, but it is qualified by qatan, which always implies either absolute youth/smallness, or relative youth/smallness. When combined with na'ar, this certainly means 'boy'.

In those days, 12 was the age of manhood, which means it was a group of boys younger than 12.

GakuseiDon

Yes, it's a possibility that he was just naturally bald, even though a young man. Still, he definitely appeared to be in mourning (he rent his clothes), and other passages in the Bible support the idea that people in mourning sometimes shaved their heads.

You are right, we don't know that they were a gang of thugs. They were just moving around in groups of 40 or more.

True. Though "go up, go up" seems a strange phrase to use. But you are right, they might have meant "go up to Bethel, baldie, go up to Bethel". Even though they were mocking him, they also wanted him to visit them.

True, we don't know how much the boys in the story knew about these matters. The Bible says that 50 men searched for Elijah for 3 days, but it doesn't say whether the boys heard about this, or that the boys heard about Elisha or the famous miracle-creating prophet Elijah when they visited Bethel just before.

True, we don't know if Elisha felt threatened. We know that there were at least 42 of them, but the Bible just says "some youths came from the city and mocked him". It doesn't say whether Elisha felt safe with 42 kids or more mocking him. He might have felt perfectly safe out near the forest when they did that, for all we know.

Yes, it's possible that the group of 40 or more kids, that decided to gather together and come out of the city, were 12 or younger. (Please note my earlier disclaimers).