The KKK are right

did any of you guys arguing with RL or Intrepid actually even study the verses, including the hebrew?
The hebrew word used here for "children" is r[n
Its used 76 times in the Old testmanent in reference to young men. One example is 1kings 3:7, when solomon tells God he is just a little child r[n (solomon is 20 yrs old right here)

NOw for the context of the scripture. Elisha's mentor, Elijah has just been taken up to heaven by God. He is gone and eventhough this was an awesome event to witness, I imagine Elisha feels some anguish over the loss of his friend and mentor. Servants beg to go look for Elijah. They come back empty handed. And as Elisha is walking to Bethel, YOUNG MEN start taunting him. The ot states that the people were to accept a prophet in Gods name. To reject or scoff a prophet of God was equivalent to scoffing and rejecting God. These young men not only call him bald( isaiah states baldness was a disgrace) but they are taunting him to "Go Up" with his mentor. So Elisha pronounces a curse in the name of the Lord.

0 Replies

Intrepid

Quote:

......and none of them say that God sent the bears!

Intrepid, is it your view that the bears are unrelated to the curse?

Kate

In relation to the age of the boys, their age is obviously somewhat indeterminate, yet the scholars who write different versions of the bible invariably call them young - sometimes little children.

Quote:

To reject or scoff a prophet of God was equivalent to scoffing and rejecting God.

0 Replies

Absolutely amazing how Christians will go into a state of denial when confronted with their God's barbarism.

RL, you asked me where in the Bible your God killed people because of their religious beliefs. Don't you remember that the idol worshippers and unbelievers were to be cast into the lake of fire? When a portion of the Jews under Moses went back to idol worshipping what did your God do?

Quote:

Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

I guess this is an example of God's love. Granted the Bible later contradicts itself and tells us to love all our neighbors. So God can't seem to maintain a straight course and vacillates between slaughtering unbelievers and loving them. This inconsistency of the Bible tells me there is not one author (God) of the Bible but a multitude of authors (all homo sapiens) from different times and cultures.

Quote:

2 Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

This looks pretty evident or would you like to go into another state of denial.

Quote:

Revelation 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

God not only likes to kill unbelievers but torture them as well. If your God wrote this then your God is one sick dude full of hate and anger.

0 Replies

Kate has done a good job showing the usage of na'ar more often meant young man.

Even today, we use words like 'boy' and 'homeboy'which in context often refer to a fully grown man.

Moreover, the word is accompanied by qatan which can be translated 'small'. But if na'ar means 'little child' then 'small little child' is redundant.

Qatan also means 'of low station' as in 'all people great and small' . And the word is used in just this way many times in the OT.

Also, the actions attributed to these do not indicate that they are tots.

Now as to the nature of the taunting, Kate also explained that Elijah the prophet was Elisha's master.

Earlier in the chapter, we see that Elijah was taken away 'from thy (Elisha's) head' :

Quote:

1And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.

2And Elijah said unto Elisha, Tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me to Bethel. And Elisha said unto him, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they went down to Bethel.

3And the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the LORD will take away thy master from thy head to day? And he said, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.

The significance of headship in Hebrew culture would require a long explanation. But even in the NT , the discussion of hair as a symbol of authority is treated extensively.

As Kate detailed, the taunt 'go up, you bald head' refers to the fact that Elisha's master was gone. He had been taken to heaven.

They taunted 'go up'. In other words, 'why don't you ascend to heaven also since the one with authority (Elijah) has gone there? You aren't going to presume to have his authority are you? your authority figure is gone. you are nothing. '

Now as to the nature of the damage done by the bears, what do you think would happen if you turned 2 bears loose among 42 young men. Do you think that the bears would be able to kill them all? How would the men react? The Bible states they were injured, but doesn't say any of them died.

Nice job, kate.

0 Replies

Real Life, some versions of the bible do in fact state the children/youths were torn to bits. That means death.

Other versions state that the the two she bears tore/tare them (or the equivalent) - which appears to mean death. Considering all versions, 90% chance the bears killed them.

When reading this story, have you considered that God has no problems killing people elsewhere in the old testament, and that he wanted people to fear him?

Of course there are other problems with the story - it would take a LOT of effort for 2 she bears to catch 21 boys each - I doubt they all stayed rooted in one spot to let the bears catch them. Then again, maybe they thought they were bear hunters...rather thick youths if so.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Quote:

......and none of them say that God sent the bears!

Vikkor wrote:

Quote:

Intrepid, is it your view that the bears are unrelated to the curse?

My view does not matter as your view does not matter. Our perception is just that....perception. Scripture does not state such, but you choose to believe it anyhow. I do not.

Who is right? Nobody knows.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Absolutely amazing how Christians will go into a state of denial when confronted with their God's barbarism.

RL, you asked me where in the Bible your God killed people because of their religious beliefs. Don't you remember that the idol worshippers and unbelievers were to be cast into the lake of fire? When a portion of the Jews under Moses went back to idol worshipping what did your God do?

Quote:
Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

I guess this is an example of God's love. Granted the Bible later contradicts itself and tells us to love all our neighbors. So God can't seem to maintain a straight course and vacillates between slaughtering unbelievers and loving them. This inconsistency of the Bible tells me there is not one author (God) of the Bible but a multitude of authors (all homo sapiens) from different times and cultures.

Quote:
2 Chronicles 15:13
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

This looks pretty evident or would you like to go into another state of denial.

Quote:
Revelation 9:3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

9:4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

9:5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

God not only likes to kill unbelievers but torture them as well. If your God wrote this then your God is one sick dude full of hate and anger.

Absolutely amazing how those who abhor the bible and everything to do with it will go into a state of denial when confronted with God's love.

They try to find anything at all that will somehow backup their thoughts and ideas. No matter how unsubstantiated they are.

If they do not believe that God exists....why do they spend so much time trying to prove how bad he is? Seems rather futile.

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not.

Interesting view. So you can only believe the bears were just a bizarre coincidence, even though they occurred immediately after a Prophet of God cursed the kids.

I wonder why the bible mentioned them in the same breath.

If they weren't connected, then why mention them together - it would give people the wrong idea of God, and the bible being inspired by God, I doubt that mistake would be made.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Where did it say that people were killed for their religious beliefs?

You asked the question so I answered it through Bible text.

What's your response?

Intrepid wrote:

They try to find anything at all that will somehow backup their thoughts and ideas. No matter how unsubstantiated they are.

You mean the Bible is not a reliable source of what God is or does? I quote from the Bible and you say it an "unsubstantiated" response?

I agree, the Bible is not a good or reliable source about God. It demeans God. It makes God look vile and evil. I'm amazed that anyone would use that book to try to convince anyone that God is a loving, tolerant and just God who will accept any and all regardless of their beliefs.

But then maybe I'm wrong. Maybe God is not tolerant. Maybe he will reject any one who choose an alternative religious belief.

Matthew 10

Quote:

10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Yup, sounds like a God of pure and absolute love for all of his creation.

What was it you said Intrepid?

Intrepid wrote:

Absolutely amazing how those who abhor the bible and everything to do with it will go into a state of denial when confronted with God's love.

2 Thessalonians

Quote:

1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

Rule by fear is a sign of a false God.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I'm amazed that anyone would use that book to try to convince anyone that God is a loving, tolerant and just God who will accept any and all regardless of their beliefs.

But then maybe I'm wrong. Maybe God is not tolerant. Maybe he will reject any one who choose an alternative religious belief.

So if my religious belief is that theft is ok with my god, then a loving God (in your definition) should simply accept that?

If my religious belief is that sexual torture of others pleases me and my god, then a loving God (in your definition) should just accept that?

Yes you are wrong. God doesn't hold to the mushy concept of 'tolerance' that you do.

0 Replies

No by dog, if you're apostate, the God of Battles wants your children's brains bashed out against a stone. Gee, what a wonderful guy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Nice job, kate.

thanks RL, but it seems my efforts were in vain. Its a complete waste of time to debate with people who refuse to actually look at the context of the scripture and the original language in which scripture is written.

0 Replies

kate4christ03 wrote:

Quote:
Nice job, kate.

thanks RL, but it seems my efforts were in vain. Its a complete waste of time to debate with people who refuse to actually look at the context of the scripture and the original language in which scripture is written.

Especially when there are those who think God is a guy just like any of us. If they actually looked at it instead of using websites to cut and paste without regard what what they are actually typing, they may not be so smug.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
I do not.

Interesting view. So you can only believe the bears were just a bizarre coincidence, even though they occurred immediately after a Prophet of God cursed the kids.

I wonder why the bible mentioned them in the same breath.

If they weren't connected, then why mention them together - it would give people the wrong idea of God, and the bible being inspired by God, I doubt that mistake would be made.

Interesting that you picked a few words and then put my entire post out of context and placed your own explanation into it without regard for facts.

Interesting, but not surprising.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Intrepid, is it your view that the bears are unrelated to the curse?

Intrepid wrote:

My view does not matter as your view does not matter. Our perception is just that....perception. Scripture does not state such, but you choose to believe it anyhow. I do not.

Who is right? Nobody knows.

vikorr wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
I do not.
Interesting view. So you can only believe the bears were just a bizarre coincidence, even though they occurred immediately after a Prophet of God cursed the kids.

I wonder why the bible mentioned them in the same breath.

If they weren't connected, then why mention them together - it would give people the wrong idea of God, and the bible being inspired by God, I doubt that mistake would be made.

Intrepid wrote:

Interesting that you picked a few words and then put my entire post out of context and placed your own explanation into it without regard for facts.

Interesting, but not surprising.

There's your entire post for you, and related posts of mine.

Your entire post appears to me to boil down to saying you don't believe God sent the bears, which is summarised in the words of yours that I quoted "I do not". Feel free to correct my impression if of what you believe if it is inaccurate.

Now from your belief as I currently see it - The context of this belief involves denying a connection between Elisha's curse and the she bears, which means one must believe it a 'coincidence'.

Unless you believe that the bears are indeed related to Elisha's curse (in which case my post is mistaken in it's purpose), everything I have said in context.

Certainly on the face of it, God sent the bears. The context places God as the prime suspect for sending them.

0 Replies

I mean nothing of the sort. Your comprehension seems to be lacking.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

I mean nothing of the sort. Your comprehension seems to be lacking.

Then be clear about it. You do or don't believe the bears are connected. Either way, back it up.

The "nobody knows" only works if nobody knows. You don't know, and it would sure be convieniant if others didn't know either.

It would be convieniant.

It would be.

Shame.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

I mean nothing of the sort. Your comprehension seems to be lacking.

We disagree. My comprehension seems fine to me. If you mean something different, from your statements it is not obvious.

Would you care to state plainly what you meant then?

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
I mean nothing of the sort. Your comprehension seems to be lacking.

Then be clear about it. You do or don't believe the bears are connected. Either way, back it up.

The "nobody knows" only works if nobody knows. You don't know, and it would sure be convieniant if others didn't know either.

It would be convieniant.

It would be.

Shame.

T
K
O

My comments were directed elsewhere. I owe you no answer to your incoherent post.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
I'm amazed that anyone would use that book to try to convince anyone that God is a loving, tolerant and just God who will accept any and all regardless of their beliefs.

But then maybe I'm wrong. Maybe God is not tolerant. Maybe he will reject any one who choose an alternative religious belief.

So if my religious belief is that theft is ok with my god, then a loving God (in your definition) should simply accept that?

If my religious belief is that sexual torture of others pleases me and my god, then a loving God (in your definition) should just accept that?

Yes you are wrong. God doesn't hold to the mushy concept of 'tolerance' that you do.

Yes 'mushy tolerance' is evil. Perhaps we need the Christian equivalent of a Muslim sharia ruling this country. Tolerance and freedom go hand in hand in most cases and I suppose, in your opinion, we have way to much of that stuff in America and Europe.

Theft and sexual torture are not religions. Perhaps your too ignorant to understand that. And I may also point out that the Christian religion practiced torture and theft for over a thousand years in the name of God. You should try reading some history on the first settlers in America, their religion and how they treated the indians, all for the glory of God. When it comes to torture and theft the Christian religion has used these two methods much to its benefit.

0 Replies

The KKK are right

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know