Haran

Personally, I am beginning to think that many here would find something to argue about with a brick wall...

I have made my points. I have quoted in context from reputable sources. The fact is that if anyone cared to crack open some scholarly books, they would find the same arguments that I am presenting. I happen to find them convincing and logical. Good luck in future studies (that are hopefully as free of 'fundamentalist atheistic brainwashing' as possible)...

Haran

Grumpy

Females listed in the genealogies of Jesus:

Matthew 1:3 -- Tamar
Matthew 1:5 -- Rahab, Ruth
Matthew 1:6 -- "Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife" or, Bathsheba

Everyone else listed in Matthew or Luke is the father or son of somebody else, i.e. male. Mary is not listed anywhere. So naturally we should assume that one (or both?) of the genealogies pertains to her.

Vorkosigan

The NETBible, compiled by a set of conservatives I believe, says:

"23tn 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."

Of the various translations at <a href="http://www.biblegateway," target="_blank">www.biblegateway,</a> they seem to be divided between little boys, youths, and young lads. I don't see that it matters much; the story would be just as heinous whether they were infants or grown adults. To kill people for mocking you is really out of line.

The NIV is clearly doing this in an attempt to ameliorate the evil nature of Ya's act in this case. In other places where this occurs listed in the NETBible, the NIV translates it as "small boy" or "small children" or "young boy." The intent of the NIV "translators" is clear.

Vorkosigan

cloudyphiz

this excludes, of course, the schizophrenic wargod-in-a-box

-gary

Kosh

Of course. It's not you, it's us.

Skeptical

I certainly do not have the requisite linguistic skills to debate the specifics of your claim regarding the words used and their meaning. However, even granting that your translation is reasonable or even the most reasonable, I don't think that really improves the situation much.

It's a little more reasonable to have bears attack a "gang" than it is to have bears attack small boys, but even in the case of a "gang" do you really think that it's morally acceptable behavior to have them attacked by bears for poking fun of someone who is bald? Unless you are positing that they were threatening in a much more obvious manner than seems explicit in the text, I think there is still a serious moral problem even with the translation you posit. Seems like quite an overreaction.

In any case, I'm still curious about your comment about being "close" to an inerrantist. Are there specific passages or stories in either the OT or NT that you find particularly problematic from either a moral or historical/factual perspective that you would be willing to share?

ax

I'm still here, I just havn't the time to respond.
(I'm a student you know!!)
Just quickly, matt and luke is what I meant-sorry.
Oh and the bible explains itself with poetic and historic etc..(The men are like deers leaping through the hills, and 4000 men were killed at the battle of etc..)

Haran

Got it... There is very possibly more to this situation than a literal reading allows.

The cry of this 'gang' was "Go on up, Go on up!". They use the same Hebrew word used about Elijah going up into heaven. It was more than likely a slur against him as a prophet, an insult to God, and possibly even a veiled threat.

Lev. 26:21-21 comes to vividly to mind here: "If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, ...I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children."

I believe they knew what they were doing. They brought the curse upon their own heads.

Nice try... I'll simply say that I am only a man. I do not have all the answers to all questions as I would believe an honest atheist would say of his own world-view.

Haran

Skeptical

I supose we will just have to agree to disagree over the morality of this. I still don't think the event described would be moral, even granting all your premises it still seems like a tremendous overreaction.

I really wasn't trying to be a smartass or goad you, I am genuinely interested, but I understand your position. As for not having all the answers, I readily grant that as well.

yygke

No, but God wasn't concerned with making sure that those things were recorded correctly. His main focus was probably the spiritual matters. To make sure that a certain point or lesson/idea/etc. was understood. Not to say that the Bible has no literal value whatsoever, but simply that such physical things might have some level of intereperative qualities. Just my thoughts, so please don't try to say bad things about God because of my opinion. Thanks.

Also, sorry if this quote was already addressed, but I usually don't want to read throught three pages of posts, and this one stood out.