GakuseiDon

That's a good summary! I wasn't seriously trying to explain it away, which I think in this case is impossible for a modern day apologist. But, too often texts are criticised on the basis of what they don't say, like "the bears devoured the children", or "the children died hideously painful deaths". Yet this is never questioned on these sites. Any kind of spin the other way is pounced on, and often any kind of apologetics is denounced as spin. Good apologetics and good skepticism shouldn't require spin.

Secular Pinoy

And yet you prefer to add things to the text that isn't there. If you wanted to correct the others for changing "tare/maul" to "devour", why did you also say that "go up, you baldhead" is supposed to be "meet your maker, baldhead?" Such doublespeak does nothing but make you look desperate and hypocritical.

Normal

This line of question is kind of going against the original question.

I believe Asha'man had it right, it's myth all the way down. If one event lines up with history, why not assume that the writers were trying to derive spiritual truth from grotesque events. If 42 children were mauled by bears, instead of attributing their horrific deaths to chance, they tried to attach a spiritual meaning and learn from the tragedy. The story of Job is all about how misfortune should not be a basis for giving up hope.

Doctor X

Since "tear/maul" versus "devour" seems an important point, I would welcome the textual justification for either translation. One professor of OT--T. Thompson--who states he translates passages from the OT in his book The Mythic Past himself, states the bears "eat" the children--though he does not specifically quote the passage in full.

Thus, I would be interested in the textual criticism of the passage one way or the other.

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy

Matthew Henry, the well-known bible commentator of the 17th to 18th century, had this to say concerning the "mauling" of the little children:

fried beef sandwich

Well, neither is the Trinity. And unless your dictionary defines "maul" as "to lovingly pet and coddle whilst cooing like a proud mother," or "tare" as "to treat to a round of beers at the local pub" instead of "tear you a new one" ... well, it just might make sense to take the plainly stated meaning of those words, especially since the Bible translators took such pains to match up the words in the ancient text to the established vernacular.

Well, if God is all-powerful and he's able to do anything, I am willing to admit that healing grevious wounds straight away would be very much possible. However, if you are willing to believe that, then you must be willing to believe that Jesus enjoyed the occasional fried pork, bacon, and cloven hoof sandwich washed down with a pint of Guinness.

See, that's not in the text either, but with God, anything is possible! Jesus travelled forward in time to grab a bite to eat and then came back to continue his present work. But somehow I don't think you're willing to accept this.

But believe me, if God drank beer, he'd drink Guinness.

Based on this comment, I can tell that you haven't read my post very carefully... I never claimed to subscribe to one version of one text. In fact, I was trying to make 2 points, one of which you *did* pick up on (agreeing that mauling as a punishment is way out of proportion to the crime of mockery by a child).

But let's not worry about what my post actually said. I was basically trying to make 2 universal points which do not rely on the exact translation of the text.

1) Mauling by a bear is waaaay out of proportion to the crime of mockery by a child. Or children. Or teenager(s). (I'm not considering "devouring" or "gentle mauling" here.) We agree here, it seems.

2) Even if it's a group of teenagers threatening a prophet (which GSDon is claiming), and Elisha's life was in danger, horrific maiming by wild animals is not appropriate. If I can think of an alternative course of action that would have achieved the same results (i.e., get the kids off E's back) or better, it stands to reason that God, in his goodness and omnipotence and all-round desire to achieve the best of possible worlds, would have chosen to make a better option happen.

I am not omnipotent or all-knowing, but I just came up with 4 or 5 different alternative endings to this story that would have better object lessons, better results wrt saving souls, and/or more effectively demonstrate the qualities of God than what is currently recorded in the Bible. Surely your God could have come up with more paths of action, and could've actually DONE one of them, since he's omnipotent and all.

Doctor X

Indeed.

Again, from a "what does it mean" standpoint the text stands as a perhaps hyperbolic counterpoint to the previous passages where he is treated kindly by adults of a city and fixes their water-purification plant.

Again the moral: do not piss-off old bald Jewish men!

--J.D.

cpickett

Rule #1: You don't talk about hair club...

Doctor X

Rule #2: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT HAIR CLUB!

--J. "Ikea!" D.

Doctor X

["Poof!"--Ed.]