[In response to a post about the OT story about the 42 kids killed by bears -sent by God- for mocking a bald prophet.]
"Kid" can refer to anybody from 5 to 35, I think, in Hebrew.
Maybe the guys weren't just mocking him? Maybe they were carrying weapons. Mocking is just "foreplay" for a personal attack? At least forty-two youths following you, mocking you, maybe even bearing arms...
The situation is a tad-bit different now...
33 comments
Time to break out the SWORD project!
II Kings 2:23 - "And he went up <05927> from thence unto Bethel <01008> : and as he was going up <05927> by the way <01870> , there came forth <03318> little <06996> children <05288> out of the city <05892> , and mocked <07046> him, and said <0559> unto him, Go up <05927> , thou bald head <07142> ; go up <05927> , thou bald head <07142>." (KJV + Strong's numbers)
Strong's 06996 means "abbreviated, i.e. diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance):--least, less(-er), little (one), small(-est, one, quantity, thing), young(-er, -est)"
05288 means "(concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age):--babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man)."
So ... no. Just no. Small or young children showed up and mocked the prophet. He then cursed them, at which point bears showed up and killed 42 of them.
Fundies maintain that the Bible is literally true, right? Well, this is a perfect example of the favorite apologetic tactics of "that's what it says, but that's not what it means," and (stretch) maybe (twist) possibly (stretch) could have (twist) might have been thinking.
If the children were doing more than mock baldy, why didn't the word of the perfect God mention that? Didn't mention weapons either, though I would think if they had weapons that would be important.
Drag, I'd just as soon you keep your kinky methods of "foreplay" to yourself.
<<< The situation is a tad-bit different now... >>>
Yes, it is. Now you just need evidence to suggest that Elijah was about to be attacked, which one would think would be important enough to mention in the Bible if it were true.
That's the point they don't believe the bible. That's why they make up their own versions. If they did take it literally you would find more of them acting like Jesus did. With love. Love is not in their vocabulary. Unless they are saying love the sinner hate the sin. But we all know they hate the sin, hate the sinner and want to stone people who are different than they are.
The Last Conformist said:
"An average life expectancy of 35 years doesn't mean that adults are expected to die at around 35."
True enough. The average life expectancy today is around 76 years old. My mother is 82, so she has definitely exceeded today's "life expectancy", and I hope she lives to be at least 100. But even she would not refer to someone in their mid 70's as a "child." And 2000 years ago, many people lived well beyond 35 years old, although it was not nearly as common as it is today. The point is, the premise of the post by Dragons87 is an attempt to explain away something in a way that defies logic. They would no more refer to someone 35 years old 2000 years as a "child" or "kid" anymore than we would do it in reference to a 75 year old today. (And yes, I know that we sometimes "jokingly" do that today, and if that is what was happening in this Biblical tale, then I would concer and state that it is but one example of what a joke the entire Bible is.)
"The situation is a tad-bit different now..."
Yes, it is. Unfortunately that's not what the story says, now is it?
Wasn't there some sort of prohibition against adding things to the bible and something about hellfire and damnation for those who do so?
Or, maybe it didn't happen at all and was just made up as a neat little story so that children wouldn't mock authority figures.
Or, maybe god is bald and tired of the skinhead jokes?
Either way, you're still a fuckwad retard.
Why can't we interpret this another way?
The "bears" are really just a metaphor for "punishment." The "god" is just a metaphor for an authority figure like a parent.
Fundies do so much "interpretation" of the Bible and twist it in every possible way, yet refuse to modify some bits. It's OK to say that the kids were actually armed old men, but not OK to suggest that the character of God is actually a human parent.
That passage was a favorite of a former Sunday School teacher of mine.
Of course, he was bald, and his kids liked to tease him about it...
"Mocking is just "foreplay" for a personal attack?"
By a bear ? Zoophile, much? But then, just your screename raises a flag or three, Dragons 87. Furry, nay, Herpetophile , much?
Never mind said flags, just this statement alone proves you fail as a Bible apologetic.
But then they all do. One word: Evidence. Or lack of such.
...oh, and as for the Bible, just mere baldness is stretching things, even for the so-called literal 'Word of God'
Telly Savalas was bald by choice , not trichological circumstance Two words: Duncan Goodhew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Goodhew
And he lost all his body hair.
Maybe they weren't kids at all, maybe they were Sharks. Maybe they were staring at him with their eyes. Maybe their eyes were shooting laser beams at him. At least forty-two Sharks with freakin' lasers for eyes..
The situation is a tad-bit different now...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.