Steven Carr

You don't need expertise to decide if Haran's translation of 'gang' was reasonable.

Haran denied that 'gang' was a translation of the words in 2 Kings 2:23. He says that a translation of 'gang' is a strawman constructed by me.

Steven Carr

Haran writes '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.

What is he on about?

This is a perfectly normal word, used 895 times in the Old Testament , according to the Bible Gateway, and is just a normal word for one person going to another place.

It could be a veiled threat, but if it is, it is very well veiled.

Christian apologists need such a vivid imagination to sleep at nights when there Holy Book describes how their beloved God sent a bear to rip 42 children to pieces.

Alexis Comnenus

Gotta say it Haran, but I think you're losing this one. Valient effort, though.

Regards

Alex

[edited for speling]

[ May 16, 2002: Message edited by: Alexis Comnenus ]</p>

Vorkosigan

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."

Ah...so that's what that squirrel was doing in my yard the other day....

Haran, you don't really, in your heart of hearts, believe that people deserve to be ripped to pieces for mocking an old man, do you?

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr

Leviticus 26 is certainly vivid, but a God who
can issue such threats would think nothing
of ripping people to pieces.

Haran

May I ask why you think so? I must admit I am at a loss as to why people are so hardened against the information I am presenting (except for atheistic biases)... Since the whole topic has changed over to the bears, what is your take on the issue then? Do you believe it happened or not?

Haran

Alexis Comnenus

Well, Haran, I don't think it happened but assume your nearly inerrantist view means you think it did. Hence, if I didn't like the idea of God sending bears after children, I'd just say it was fiction or else the bears just turned up at that moment without divine intervention.

Anyway, I thought the argument was over the translation and whether we were dealing with a gang of dangerous yobbos or a playgroup of innocents. Presently the playgroup looks closer based on what I've seen (and I have not a word of Hebrew) especially based on the RSV translation which I understand to be quite good. I've got an image of a group of thirteen year olds emboldened by numbers and shouting abuse at all comers.

Regards

Alex

ex-preacher

I am at a loss as to why you feel compelled to argue that the incident involved hooligan teenagers rather than rude children. If it we could show definitively that it was children, would that present a problem for you? Of course not, since God commanded the murder of babies in the conquest of Canaan. Indeed, God killed everyone (but 8) in the Flood and murdered all the firstborn of Egypt to make a point with Pharoah. Why is the murder of 42 children and/or teenagers such a big deal to you?

Haran

To me, this kind of thought borders on Marcionism. Perhaps there is something to progressive relelation (if that is what you are suggesting), but I have a hard time with it. Jesus seemed to believe in the Old Testment and in the people and prophets mentioned therein. It causes some serious problems, in my opinion, to deny the OT. Perhaps you don't deny the whole thing, but you are on a slippery slope when you deny particular stories because they offend your modern sensibilities, don't you think? Oh well, that's just my take...

I never mentioned an acutual age anywhere. I think you Carr's unrelenting rhetoric is causing problems here. You can't just look up the Hebrew words online... You must know the context and the way the words work together in the syntax of a sentence. Aside from that, I never said that "gang" should be the translation.

The whole thing was originally brough up because the original poster mentioned the KJV "little children" which I think is a poor translation that leads one to think that an innocent group of 5 year olds were mauled by bears. This was what I was objecting to. I never gave a translation of "gang", that was Carr's interpretation of what I said. I have maintained "young lads" or "young men" for the actual translation.

I have also present scholarly resources from TWOT (by Harris, Archer, and Waltke), also from <a href="http://www.gcts.edu/facl/kaiser.html" target="_blank">Walter Kaiser, Jr</a>..

Here is another from another scholar, <a href="http://www.bible.org/docs/ot/character/elisha/elisha-04.htm#TopOfPage" target="_blank">Dr. Daniel Wallce</a>, who mentions the same things, the translation young lads and includes many things I have already said.

Does everyone deny the works of these excellent, well-respected, and well-learned scholars and yet allow "points" from highly biased non-scholars such as Acharya and Earl Doherty?? How very biased... Believe what you will, I suppose...

Haran

Haran

Read my above post, ex. I don't care to stretch the subject that much more. Besides, one can see you leanings already in the tone of your post..."murdered", etc.

Haran