Steven Carr

Haran wrote '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.'

I pointed out that this was actually a perfectly normal word, used hundreds of times in the Old Testament and was not a threat, as Haran pretended .

Why do I need to back this up with 'scholars', when anybod with a concordance can check this out?

King Arthur

Well, I don't guess they seem very strong on the surface, but then why do several scholars seem to support something close to what he said?

It doesn't seem to me like he was trying to lie or be dishonest or somtihng.

freeeeeeek! edited for UBB whatever that is. why don't they use html?

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: King Arthur ]</p>

King Arthur

Wazzup wit dat, dude?!! Blah blah blah to you too!

<strong>
The words mean 'little children' or 'young boys', as almost all Bibles translate it.</strong>

'Little children' seems like the stupid King James translation which Haran seemed to jumping on. The website he put up had 'young men' and I think some Bibles translate it 'young men' too. Who's right?

<strong>Haran's experts ignored the word 'qatan', as it means 'young' or 'small'. Even Haran himself conceded that it means 'young in years', and that his word 'gang' was nowhere to be found.</strong>

Daniel Wallace left it outta his essay but Haran said the other 'experts' addressed it.

Gang was 'nowhere to be found' in the translation, but it sure does make the text more understandable in interpretation. I don't see why this passage can't be interpreted this way? God 'striking down' a 'gang' makes a whole lot more sense to me than a gaggle of 'little children'.

<strong>
Haran wrote 'The word translated "little children" can mean "young men"' This was a lie,as he later conceded. There are two words, 'small' and 'boys'.
</strong>

Dude! There you go again! First you 'blah blah blah' me for no particular reason, then you call Haran a liar. It's no wonder he took off. He didn't 'concede' that he lied! He said that he miswrote. If he was lying he probably would've tried to cover it up a little better! I think Haran knew quite a bit of stuff and junk like this probably chased him off. Goob! I think you've gotta chip on your shoulder or something.

<strong>
This word 'small' was important, as Haran showed by giving a web page to a 'scholar' who totally ignored the word.</strong>[/QUOTE]

Implying: the 'scholar' lied! Daniel Wallace wrote a widely-used Greek grammar and I read in another thread where he is some kind of respected expert in the texts. I don't think he was trying to cover anything up.

King Arthur

Cause dude Haran stepped it up a notch by actually knowing Hebrew and putting up scholars who backed him.

When he accused you of not knowing the languages, and you never said you did, so I assume you don't. I also took a look at the thread he mentioned on manuscripts and he pretty soundly showed that you couldn't read the Greek either.

Why should we take your word over his?

Steven Carr

Because they are fundamaentalist apologists who will say anything?

As I showed, one of them took the phrase 'qatan naar', (small boys), ignored the word 'qatan', as you do, then said that this showed that they were not small, and could have been much older.


However, I will give you the chance to tell me why ths 'scholar' Haran quoted ignored the word 'qatan' (small)

I agree that if you ignore the word 'small' in the phrase 'small boys', it might be possible that the boys are not small. You've certainly got me there, and I concede your cleverness in pointing this out.

King Arthur

Every one of the scholars he quoted were fundamentalist apologists? How do you know? Is there a website somewhere that says so?

Ok, then this Daniel Wallace is a 'fundamentalist apologist', but what about the others he mentioned?

Who cares then. Eliminate him and tell me about the other guys Haran said did address this word.

How can you KNOW you have the right translation though? I looked probably at the same things you did, online Hebrew dictionariess. The one I looked at said that the second word, the one for boys, could also mean servant/slave or whatever.

For all I know then, I could say the dumb verse was talking about 'midget slaves'. That makes even more sense! These 'midget slaves', man, they were out for blood! They wanted to take out their frustrations on poor 'ol bald-headed Elisha! Now that makes much more sense! Ha!

Whatever, man. I don't care. I just don't think you and a few others were very critical. Obstinate maybe, but not critical.

Skeptical

I would imagine that the scholars in question are biased to try and make it seem like the action is less troubling from a moral perspective. I am also sure that there are scholars who would disagree.

I don't think he was trying to be dishonest, I just think his argument is not very strong. This is based on my reading many different translations of the text in question in context. In any case, as I stated before, even granting the interpretation Haran argues for, it doesn't really help matters much for the inerrantist viewpoint, it's still a horrible act no matter how you slice it.

King Arthur

In case anybody cares, I checked up on one of Haran's other scholars, Kaiser.

Kaiser, in a book called Toward Old Testament Ethics (i think), really does address the Hebrew 'qatan' where Daniel Wallace did not. In this book, he gave a couple of references where 'naar qatan' (or 'small boy') is used of young men around the age of 20! The references were, 1 Kings 3:7 (Solomon) and 1 Kings 11:17 (Hadad), if anyone is still interested.

Kaiser, quoting yet another scholar, also mentioned the deal about the "South Arabic" word being used to understand the Hebrew of 'small boys' better as 'ruffians'.

Man, I think Haran got unfairly slammed. His stuff checks out. Hope he decides to come back sometime.

ax

The fact still remains, God sent bears to kill/maul people!!How is this fair?! is'nt eternal
death enough?!

Steven Carr

Anybody reading 1 Kings 3:7 can see that this use of 'little child' is poetry, and metaphor and it is *still* translated 'little child' in the NIV!


And in 1 Kings 11:17 it is still translated 'boy' in the NIV, and little child in the KJV. (probably because Hadad was a little boy.)

SO even your examples prove that it is should be translated 'little child' or 'boy', perhaps explaining the reluctance of Haran to tell us where in the Bible this phrase 'qatan naar' could be found.