Any Christians willing to provide the correct interpretation of this passage?
>>18428701Most Christians just pretend it's actually a story about Elisha calling on God to destroy young men instead of boys, ignoring what the actual text says
>>18428701The original word is "na’ar", which ranges between late adolescent and young adult. And there were fucking 42 of them. Thats a literal mob of men harrasing a single helpless man. Something like that could have resulted in his death if it escalated further, and it looks to be going that way by looking at their taunts "Go up, you baldhead". Go up to where? They are asking for him to die, to vanish from the face of the earth. Elisha fearing for his life proceeds to call God for protection from this aggresive mob and God responds by sending those bears. I dont see why that would be controversial. David was also a "na’ar" when he killed Goliath with a sling. The same term of "na’ar" is applied to David in the original verse when he fough Goliath. You think "na’ar" really are as harmless as they look like? Doesnt look like little boys to me. The bible is full of subversive mistranslations like that for nefarious reasons.
>>18428701what is there to interpret? it's jews, they sacrifice kids to baal every other chapter in kings.
>>18428724Take your fucking meds, schizo
>>18428728His analysis is good, this is not an appropriate response.
>>18428728>ad hominemThats it? I accept your concession.
>>18428724Real young men wouldn't make fun of bald men, because in the back of their head, they are afraid they might be cursed with being bald themselves after this.
Already did on another thread:>2 Kings 2:23-25The boys weren't just making fun of a bald man, they were making fun of a prophet, a messenger of God. The teaching here is: there's punishment for those who deny the messengers of God and their authority.
>>18428834>they were making fun of a prophet, a messenger of GodAnd that somehow warrants the wrath of the bears?
>>18428701you should use the kjv, it says 'little children'. much funnier that way>>18428724this is correct
>>18428701obviously this verse was inserted by a bald jew who wanted to rewrite the fact that baldness is a shame which God does not wish to see
>Okay Christians, explain this part of the old testament!How convenient
A good article on thishttps://www.1517.org/articles/the-misunderstood-story-of-bear-attacks-a-bald-prophet-and-forty-two-mouthy-kids
>>18428892The Old Testament is indeed part of Christian canon and is considered the word of God.
>>18428724How dangerous was that "mob" if they couldn't take down or escape from 2 she-bears?
>>18428701What I want to know is did God manifest the bears out of thin air or did he already have them on standby for a situation like this?
>>18428724>The bible is full of subversive mistranslations like that for nefarious reasons.KJV: little children, childrenGeneva Bible: little children, childrenWycliffe Bible: little children, childrenSt Jerome's Vulgate: children, children (pueri, pueros)Douay-Rheims: little boys, boysLouis Segond's: little boys, children (in french of course)only modern cope translations sometimes use "youths" or "lads">David was also a "na’ar" when he killed Goliath with a sling.Yes, with God's help. It wasn't the expected outcome:>And Saul said to David: Thou art not able to withstand this Philistine, nor to fight against him: for thou art but a boy, but he is a warrior from his youth.
>>18428892So you concede that YHWH and Jesus aren't the same person?
>>18428918Where do you get that? I just find it funny how you cowards operate
>>18428918here little buddy, this should help you get the trinity. I dumbed it down for you slow types.
>>18428916Anon, it's objective reality that the original text is na'ar which objectively translates to 'youth', of the kind that's used to hide the race of a violent criminal in headlines.
>>18428924It's objective reality that all the old translations took it to mean "little boys" until modern sensibilities demanded a more ambiguous translations, quite opposite to the conspiracy posited.
>>18428925I'm not the same anon, I didn't say anything about a conspiracy. The original text does mean 'youth' though.
>>18428701I love Christianity now
>>18428724>>18428924>>18428928It's complete bullshit by the way that "na'ar" only means a "late adolescent", it can refer to any boy yet short of adulthood.Baby Moses crying in his floating crib was a "na'ar"
>>18428724>Go up to where? They are asking for him to dieThis interpretation hinges on the idea that Elisha would go up to heaven when he dies. A weird thing to say for a group of people who believe in the UNDERworld.
>>18428935>Baby Moses crying in his floating crib was a "na'ar"Objectively false, na'ar strictly just means adolescent or teenager.
>>18428938Oh I see, you're just a troll.
>>18428935It's also used for the toddler Samuel, whose mother brought him to the temple in Shiloh as soon as she weaned him, "and the child was still young" (literally, the na'ar was a na'ar). He grew up at the temple so "each year his mother made him a little robe and took it to him when she went up with her husband to offer the annual sacrifice" as he continued to "grow in stature"..
>>18428724>Go up to where? They are asking for him to dieOr it might have something to do with Elisha allegedly watching Elijah be carried to heaven in a chariot of fire a little earlier in the same chapter. Gossip travels quickly when there are search parties out looking for Elijah, and maybe the kids think Elisha is probably delusional or lying, so they want to see if he can perform the same miraculous feat he claims to have seen his master perform to validate the claim. Hence, "Go up, baldy!"
>>18428955Taking Elisha himself up and spiriting him away from harm would have been the perfect way to shut up those naysayers by the way, without the need to have bears mauling anyone.Or he could have done that trick where Jesus just phases through a hostile crowd at least.
>>18428969This one:Luke 4:28 All the people in the synagogue were furious when they heard this. 29 They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff. 30 But he walked right through the crowd and went on his way.I guess there were no bears in Galilee.
>>18428955I'm surprised major translations like the NIV and NRSV go against this obvious interpretation of the literal meaning of what the boys said by translating it instead as "go away" or "get out of here." Are the translators autistic?>>18428969>>18428975Maybe the bears volunteered and Yahweh hadn't even got around to checking his text messages before the deed was done.
>>18428849Wait till you see what yahweh does to people who piss him off in other books.
>>18428892The Christian and Jewish interpretations of the same scripture are wildly different.
>>18428705The word in Hebrew is נערים which can include non-infant boys but also male teenagers/adolescents. (Though frankly even if they were only boys, several dozen of them could still pose a serious physical threat.)
>>18429041The same word is used for baby Moses.
Welcome to the /his/ biblical interpretation potluck. Please label your interpretations of 2 king's 2:23-24 in a reply to this post. Help yourselves everyone, have a lovely day.The iron age absolutist: Yahweh is a wrathful, foreskin obsessed tyrant. He is master of the universe and everything he does is just. Don't argue, unless you want bears, too.The gnostic: Yahweh is a wrathful, foreskin obsessed tyrant. Good thing jesus came to teach us how to worship the real god of the universe. The mythicist: the episode is metaphorical, but the version we have received is garbled and hard to make sense of. The evangelical: god is love and always right, and if you can't understand that he was right and loving to kill those kids it is because you are a bad person. The conspiracist: the bits of the bible I like are divinely inspired, the bits I don't were put there by people I hate to make my religion seem stupid.The "just a book": the bible contains wisdom that can direct us on the path of god, but it is a book and was written by humans. Sometimes their quirks sneak in. The allegorical reader: the children represent being cut off from god. The bears represent the danger to the soul off being cut off from god. The prophet tries to reach them and their rejection leads to their doom.
>>18428701>>18428705Yell in the forest and find out what lives there. Boys had it coming. Elisha's 80iq norwood morals were a better predictor of the outcome than the 110iq gang of defenseless twink bullies.
>>18428701You interpret the bible by using the other readings. Such as the Septuagint which Jesus and the authors of the new testament used extensively. It's as clear as it can be that little kids were being offensive so they were torn to shreds by bears.>>18428724>Doesnt look like little boys to me.Pure christarded copium. It uses the words https://biblehub.com/greek/3397.htm and https://biblehub.com/greek/3808.htm to describe them which says "paidarion: Little child, young child, servant" and "mikron: small, little, short">The bible is full of subversive mistranslations like that for nefarious reasons.Yeah to make your death manual look good. It's no surprise that when you go to other sources that aren't as apologetic about the horrors of your holy book it always reads like this. Even modern Hebrew based translations like https://www.sefaria.org/II_Kings.2.23?lang=bi use the words "little boys". Christcucks are the most deceptive people in the world it's amazing
>>18428724>The original word is "na’ar", which ranges between late adolescent and young adult.Religious kikes do this every single fucking time someone points out something in their fantasy kike fairy book. >ermmm ackshually the jewbrew word means thisJust shut the fuck up retard.
>>18428701the bible is the story of a god that gets progressively more chill about shit.
>>18429248The birth of his son calmed him down.
The Bible is entirely allegorical. It's actually an esoteric text encoding its true teaching through symbolism which was (and is) common among the mystery cults and religions.
>>18429246Ah my bad, sometimes I forget the bible was orginally written in shakespearean english. Thanks for reminding me.
>>18429243>There were 42 toddlers just by themselves in the wilderness. No parents or anything around.>Actual gangs of toddlers.>Elisha was somehow intimidated by literal toddlers and asked God for help.>God sent a pair of bears to put an end to the tyranny of the toddlers by mauling them.>I unironically believe this happened.I think you might just be retarded.
>>18429302>nooo please don't listen to the bible it's lying when it calls them little children!lmao>"23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "where is the wilderness you fucking moron? even the pic earlier said CITY, christard reading comprehension always fails for some reason. You're the one who has to explain why the children had to be mauled for a silly joke
>>18429317>na'ar can mean as young as a toddler or as old as 19>it means toddler because I say soUh huh, so in your world roving gangs of unsupervised toddlers are a thing. And you want to be taken seriously for believing this.>where is the wilderness you fucking moron?Its right there anonie, you simply have to read.>From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him.The whole interaction took place on the wild road between Jericho and Bethel. >some boys came out of the townSo Elisha wasnt in the town yet? It clearly says the toddlers came OUT of the town to meet Elisha. Meaning the interaction took place OUTSIDE the town, hence the wilderness. Where the fuck did the bears even came from if they were supposedly in the city? This isnt india where wild tigers randomly kill people in villages all the time. The bears are described as coming out of a forest. The bears being there makes sense if they were in some sort of untended road where wild animals could show up. Seems to me you are the one with reading comprehension issues.
>>18429325Idiot even Tertullian makes the distinction between them being infants and children, and yes he believes little kids being mauled is just and holy because they blaspheme. This is what your sick fuck religion actually teaches. Also you're the one making an idiotic point about random toddlers in the wilderness when the text very clearly says little kids went out of the CITY while he was on the road. Are you surprised that people in cities back then were close to the woods or what moron? To this day you have people in cities being attacked by wildlife imagine thousands of years ago
>>18429325>Uh huh, so in your world roving gangs of unsupervised toddlers are a thing.Buddy if you think that's hard to believe wait until you read the rest of the Bible.
>>18429062You forgot the preferred hermeneutic in this caseThe eisegete: "little" or "young" [קטן] "boy" [נער] means "the most pants-shittingly menacing 19½-year-old" because the story appears to say Elisha cursed children to agonizing death over a slight and it isn't allowed to say that, even if there are comparanda like Leviticus 26:21-22 that indicate the plain reading wouldn't repulse ancient Jews like it does me
>>18428724Absolute cope, we all know if this was some other religion with the same myth you'd be laughing along.
>>18428903Dumb ass, the Bible only says 42 of the jeerers were killed. Obviously Elisha was actually threatened, or God wouldn't deign to effectuate his curse. Those must have been the 42 most feeble and heedless young youths (but not that young) in the mob. We must imagine many more, possibly at least one hundred who were viciously and cruelly saying "go away, baldhead!" to Elisha (the mortally violent implication to the jeer is obvious)
You can only imagine the hissyfit that /his/ would throw if they found out that YHWH in exodus sometimes means what Moses thought and other times it refers to the israelites/Hebrews as a military collective, lol. Do you really think it was "yhwh" threatening Moses because of a circumcision?, lol... he was forced to institute traditions. Yall would be better off reading dune or some other dumb stuff, this goes way above your heads.
>>18428701…. Based? They were going to die anyway, at least now they were immortalized in the Bible.
>>18429325>so in your world roving gangs of unsupervised toddlers are a thing.I see that zoomers literally cannot conceive of the world before their birth.
>>18429330I love the doublethink at work in Tertullian's quote btw.>And as God is good, he so loves infants as to have blessed the midwives of Egypt when they protected the infants of Hebrews...Apparently it doesn't even enter his mind what that same good God did to the Egyptians' own infants a few chapters later.
If this perturbs you in any way you’re just a huge bitch and should probably go back to watching love island or whatever atheists do before you start crying
>>18429533If this doesn't disturb christcucks then you wouldn't be trying so hard to change the meaning of words to fit your modern sensibilities. Say right now that you believe in a God that mauled 42 little children using bears because someone was called "baldy"
>>18429536I do? Using a bear to do it is pretty stylish too.
>>18429536I don’t think he did but if he did that’s pretty hilarious, also means he’s a based anti-norwood patriot
>>18429533I'm pretty sure the audience of Love Island was 99% Christian
>>18429533It perturbs Christians who believe what you do has nothing to do with who you are, and you can sin all you want and no righteous man could possibly curse you and receive God's intercession in your violent death, because God desires you to pray for forgiveness for sins and live forever (even though you constantly sin, perfection is impossible, so it's okay).That's why almost all (modern) Christian discussion of this passage is trying to interpret the text in a way so that it is not the case there is a 'God that mauled 42 little children using bears because someone was called "baldy"' as Anon put it. For Jews, God literally verbally threatened them with the death of their children by beasts. For most Christians, God does not threaten their children axiomatically, they can mock the most holy man on Earth with impunity. You are just a judaizer.
>>18429540No "I do", I want you to say it fully. Tell me how you believe 42 little children being torn to shreds for an insult is justified. Here is a starter from your fellow christcuck. Those small boys were punished to make the parents grieve because they rejected him>>18429551You have no reason to go against the text. But in any case if you're going to reproduce don't go complaining to the cops when an offended bald guy butchers your family
>>18429571I mean there’s plenty of reason we’ve already stated but you just want to hand wave it and keep crying so we’re gonna keep messing with you I’m not an innocent yoof that makes fun of bald men so that won’t happen to me
>>18429582And all of your silly reasons are deboonked as it has been established which is why you cannot defend them. The fact of the matter is you're ashamed of your God and holy book. Augustine was not though and he made it clear that the kids mocking him were mauled to death. In fact he hints that it would have happened anyway even if he didn't pray for it>so that won’t happen to meYeah just your wife's son
>>18429571> Tell me how you believe 42 little children being torn to shreds for an insult is justifiedI’m a Calvinist, I think the idea of god justifying himself to you like some sort of cosmic butler is hilariously retarded.
>>18428938https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/2-6.htm
>mob of 42 feral teenagers harassing a prophet of God>get btfo Not sure I see the issue
>>18428975The existence and mention of bears is more interesting than any of this. What are bears doing in the Iron Age Levant? Did the writer of the book know what a bear is? How? Bears existed in the Indian subcontinent, in Europe and the Caucasus, and in Siberia and (presumably at the time) Central Asia. But the Levant has mountains in Persia and Caucasus preventing the migration of bears to its region, and at any rate the bears won't find enough food in the arid regions. So where did the writer get the idea of bears from if they couldn't exist in the region at that time?
>>18429667https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_brown_bearalso>But the Levant has mountains in Persia and Caucasus preventing the migration of bears to its regionwhen the fuck have mountains ever stopped bears lmao
>>18429672further:>Bears remained in the wild in Israel and Palestine until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The last bear in the southern Levant was reportedly killed in the early 1900s, though a small population persisted in the mountains of Lebanon and Syria until the mid-20th century.>In a surprising twist, after being considered "extinct" in the region for decades, a female Syrian brown bear and her cub were caught on camera in the mountains of Lebanon in 2016—the first sighting in over 60 years.
>>18429676well shit, I stand corrected.On a side note, I have heard that the translation of "unicorn" in English Bibles is actually referring to the oryx, an animal that still exists in Arabian deserts today. A one-horned oryx (after losing one of its horns in a mating fight) is essentially a unicorn.
>>18428701Let me see...>From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up, baldhead," they shouted, "go up, baldhead!">The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces.The thing is you believe children were never adults before (in past lives), so you think they have no karma to burn. But if the mind believes in this distorted sort of justice, where you reap what you sow, then if you did evil deeds in your past life, it doesn't matter if you died before paying for what you did. You'll be reborn as a child and you'll have to pay for it anyway.God is Wise. Divine Justice is ALWAYS at play. But we are talking about one specific level only.
The entire argument of Abrahamic Religion is that all power belongs to God and God torments everyone who rejects His decree even if they are young or good people. So, this story is completely consistent with that belief and the age is irrelevant lol.
>>18429607Well then why can't you say it in full? Make sure to include the fact that the little boys are ripped open and you have no problem worshiping a Jesus that orders this to happen
>>18428701>God would totally kill 40 kids to defender my shiny smooth scalpBaldy hands wrote that verse.
>>18428701it's fucking astrology
>>18429700I have no problem worshipping a God who has 42 kids mauled to death by bears, or the fact those 42 kids are now burning in hell for all eternity. We good now?
>>18429725Almost, now we know christcucks love child murder, also admit you have no problem worshiping a deity ordering the rape of little girls and then we are good
>>18429737Is that audience youre trying to prove something to here with us? Seems to me like youre a poor sad little individual trying to get one over the life that has treated him so harshlyBut what does jesus have to do with you having a tiny dick or being repulsive to women?
>>18429744Don't lash out Retard, just admit that a child raping and murdering deity is what your bible teaches. We got the first part done. Now be a man and admit to the rest
>>18429745Are you assuming my gender?, on my religious experiences letter exchange circle of journeymen?I dont think so, maam
>>18429725>I have no problem worshipping a God who has 42 kids mauled to death by bears, or the fact those 42 kids are now burning in hell for all eternity.Least unhinged christcuck
>>18429754Dude we all know you were at least born with cock and balls. That is before you followed the bible and snipped them off. Now answer the question
>>18428701Christ hates your guts. That's my interpretation.
>>18429737>divine rapeI love how the verse is as brief as "spare for yourself" but you immediately jump to the conclusion that it means rape because that seems like something you would do with a little girl.Its like you have this encyclopedic knowledge of the bible yet from all the possible meanings you always go for the one that paints christianity in the worst light. How curious. Its like you enjoy being wrong.
>>18429824>Its like you enjoy being wrong.It just hates Christ and loves sin. It isn't willing to come out and say it.
>>18429330>Idiot even Tertullian makes the distinction between them being infants and children, and yes he believes little kids being mauled is just and holy because they blaspheme.And? I could point to other christians who think otherwise, that there were older than that. What is your logical fallacy of "appeal to authority" supposed to prove?>This is what your sick fuck religion actually teaches.No it doesnt, you are just too midwitted to make a proper exegesis of the bible. Leave it to people smarter than you please. You might risk turning other people into a miserable seething retard like yourself.>Also you're the one making an idiotic point about random toddlers*Gang of toddlers (there were 42, remember). You are the one making the point that those are toddlers, not me.>in the wilderness when the text very clearly says little kids went out of the CITYOut of the city to where? The wilderness? Thanks for conceding. Its clear they are not a city.>while he was on the roadThe road OUTSIDE of the city, yes>Are you surprised that people in cities back then were close to the woods or what moron?No, but the whole point is that the toddlers were OUTSIDE the city. Which makes your insistence of a literal mob of 42 unsupervised toddlers by thenselves, no parents around or anything OUTSIDE of the city look really retarded. Is it not more likely these where young men who were old enough to go OUTSIDE the city by themselves without any issues? What kind of society lets 42 fucking toddlers leave the city just like that? Would YOU not say anything if you saw a gang of unsupervised toddlers?
>>18429330Uh why are you acting like any of this is a surprising revelation? Even the most biblically illiterate knows the story of Noah and the ark. What do you think happened to the rest of humanity, men, women, children in the flood?
>>1842985342 little boys being mauled by God-sent bears is a tragedy. Almost all terrestrial life on earth being destroyed by a God-sent flood is a statistic and/or entirely justified because humans were too loud and annoying for skypapa Enlil to sleep comfortably.
>>18429824No it means rape because it's literally talking about devouring them and that's an idiom for using them for your sexual pleasure. That's without even going into what happens with captured females according to the bible. If I wanted to paint Christianity in a worse light than it paints itself I could have easily said your deity commands the ritual consumption of female children instead.>>18429848Retard I was showing you that Tertullian can make the distinction between little children like the text says and toddlers which is what you are saying for no reason. They came from the city and met him right outside on the road. He wasn't in the middle of nowhere like you're implying and thus it's very understandable that he'd find a bunch of kids there.>b-but the bible is lying bro!! only my cope is the real meaning!Everyone understood it the regular way, only you who are ashamed of your holy book denies this. Be like the other christcuck and admit with pride that you love little boys being mauled by vicious bears. You'll look even more deranged than now (which is a real achievement for a worshiper of Israelite men mind you) but at least you will be honest
>he's arguing with himself now
The Old Testament contains both manlet and hairlet cope, no wonder it resonated so much with men of all races.
>>18429870>No it means rape because it's literally talking about devouring them and that's an idiom for using them for your sexual pleasureHow do you extrapolate that from "saving for yourself"? Thats literally all the bible says on that verse. Lets stay on the bible and not bring other texts into this, since now it seems you want me to refute whatever other texts you are bringing into the conversation. Feels like moving goalposts. It just says "save for yourself" that could mean several things, not necessarily rape.>If I wanted to paint Christianity in a worse light than it paints itself I could have easily said your deity commands the ritual consumption of female children instead. Yes, you can spout all sorts of unfounded nonsense I agree. But I appreciate your restraint with a claim like that.>Retard I was showing you that Tertullian can make the distinction between little children like the text says and toddlers which is what you are saying for no reason.Arent little children usually toddlers?>They came from the city and met him right outside on the road.So the mob of toddlers was hanging out near the city entrance? And you know this how? There is zero indication of this in the verse.>He wasn't in the middle of nowhere like you're implying and thus it's very understandable that he'd find a bunch of kids there.See. The whole thing taking place in the wilderness only makes sense if the mob was actually composed of young men, and not toddlers. Otherwise the agency of the toddlers being in the wilderness where bears could show up makes no sense.>Everyone understood it the regular wayNot really. Like I said, I can show you other voices who disagree. Tertullian is simply someone who shares your vision of the event. Its irrelevant.>Be like the other christcuck and admit with pride that you love little boys being mauled by vicious bears.Dont project on me.>but at least you will be honestYou could also come clean and admit you just simply hate Jesus.
>>18429898Are you confused with how idioms work or what? It's very simple unless you want to accept that little girls are being literally devoured then your only other real option linguistically is them being used sexually. The text you conveniently ignore says what happens with war captives anyway. And yes it's very explicitly rape and forced marriage. Just determining if they were actual virgins involves soldiers checking the hymen of those poor little girls too so you have no way out christcuck.>Arent little children usually toddlers?No, toddlers are "1-3 years" old and a 7 year boy old is also a little child. Toddlers if they can even speak usually form sentences like "Me want cookie" "I play ball" not something like what those little boys said. Tertulian can make the distinction but you cannot. They were capable of hurling insults at the bald man and walking just outside the city to meet him on the road. The text makes it very clear that they went out of the city and that means they saw him from inside the city. That's where they also noticed who he was (otherwise they wouldn't go outside for no reason) therefore they saw him from a close enough distance to recognize him. And well in advance too because they needed to gather the other kids. So unless they had super sight the little children (as the text says as proven) met him very close to the city. Just outside of it in fact>Dont project on me.He's your brother in Christ and he has the holy spirit just like you. Now admit you also love murdering little kids with bears or else you're just being dishonest. I can at least respect the courage of deranged psychos like him who are not ashamed of the man they worship
>>18428724good point, just look at our "urban youth" problem.
>>18428701Reads like a parody
You know when you're walking round a town centre and see those kids in tracksuits hanging outside the McDonalds getting on everyones nerves, this is basically God just wiping them lil niggas out kek. That's based as fuck
>>18430086You mean to tell me they werent literal toddlers?
>>18430072It isn't a good point because he made it up. See the rest of the thread or https://biblehub.com/text/exodus/2-6.htm for crying baby moses being called a na'ar.
>>18430069They may or may not have taken those girls with the intention to do what you are suggesting. But lets humor you. In order to do that, they would have to explicitly marry them first. Random rapes like that are forbidden by mosaic law. You seem to think that they could just do whatever they wanted with the girls but it didnt work like that. And before you start malding at me with your libtard sensibilities, keep in mind people used to marry way, way younger back then. You and I probably have ancestors that married really young. Guaranteed.>No, toddlers are "1-3 years" old and a 7 year boy old is also a little childOkay, so they were seven then. That still sounds really stupid. You are telling me that a group of 7 year olds, not only somehow knew who Elisha was, and his message. But then proceeded to coordinate themselves as a mob to meet a helpless defenceless man in the highway near the city in a premeditated manner in order to harrass and possibly lynch him? I know I mentioned David earlier, but here, have more instances where na'ar means young man. Ishmael at age 14 (Genesis 21:18), Joseph at age 17 (Genesis 37:2), and soldiers in an army (1 Kings 20:15). Literal soldiers where listed as na'ar yet you still insist in your mob (42 of them) of 7 year olds? Why are you so disingenuous?>>18430105B-but muh na'ar baby mosesLol, Lmao even. Hopefully those na'ar soldiers make you see how wrong you are. Man you even see the same shit in English. Older more experienced men calling youngsters in their twenties "kids" and whatnot.
>>18430120>Hopefully those na'ar soldiers make you see how wrong you areThe na'ar in the elijah story aren't just called na'ar but *little* na'ar. https://biblehub.com/text/2_kings/2-23.htmSo first of all the anon mentioned in my previous comment did lie about na'ar only applying to late adolescents to young adult since it *is* applied to an infant, meaning my post wasn't wrong, and second of all, although it can apply to young adults, again, in the Elijah story they are specifically *little* na'ar. If the author wanted to make them out to be a menacing gang of thugs rather than a bunch of taunting kids, he could've done much better than to refer to them more or less as "little boys" who were doing a little boy thing like calling Elijah a baldy. Were they toddlers? No. But given the phrase "little boy" and what they were doing, I think they could hardly be intended to be much older than 16 and probably closer to the 6-14 range.Anyway, from a Christian perspective I think age should be inconsquential, since we're all toddlers relative to God. If God killing a baby is wrong because we think a baby is too young and ignorant to know what's good for it, then God killing a 90 year old man should also be wrong because 90 years is nothing relative to eternity and any finite amount of knowledge is nothing relative to omniscience.
>>18430132>The na'ar in the elijah story aren't just called na'ar but *little* na'ar.Na'ar qatan, yeah. I am familiar with that. But it doesnt mean what you think it means. What it means, in a biblical sense is low-status or youthful person. Its not necessarily about small size. Solomon calls himself a na'ar qatan in verse 1 Kings 3:7. And he was 20 years old by then. How do you reconcile the exact same term of "na'ar qatan" being used to refer to a full grown man in his 20s. And then tell me with a straight face those "na'ar qatan" in Elisha's story were little children? Its obviously figurative. No different from the word "youngster". But it doesnt mean they were literal children.>I think they could hardly be intended to be much older than 16 and probably closer to the 6-14 range.Lets go with that range then. 14 year olds. You dont think a gang of 42 14 year olds could seriously fuck up a defenceless bald man? Every single culture has had young thuggish troublemakers like that, its close to what this anon said here >>18430086.
>>18430153>What it means, in a biblical sense is low-status Source or you made it up.>Solomon calls himself a na'ar qatan in verse 1 Kings 3:7. And he was 20 years old by then. How do you reconcile the exact same term of "na'ar qatan" being used to refer to a full grown man in his 20sIn context, Solomon is emphasizing his total inexperience and ignorance, and to me it looks like he's speaking poetically or metaphorically, in the same way I just did when I said that we're all toddlers relative to God. 1 Kings 3:7, "And now, O Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David, although I am only a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in." Surely he did know how to go out and come in, but speaking as if he had the ignorance of a very small child is his way of expressing how unprepared he feels for the role he's been given, which is why he then asks God for understanding. It doesn't mean he literally meant he was chronologically a little boy. But to my eyes there's no indication of this poetic or metaphorical element in the Elijah story unless you suppose it's there because it just has to be otherwise God sent bears after little kids and that's a no-no.>You dont think a gang of 42 14 year olds could seriously fuck up a defenceless bald man?They definitely could, but there's no indication in the story that the kids intended to do anything other than mock Elijah, so this again looks like people reading stuff into the story that isn't there because otherwise God sent bears to eat a bunch of little kids just for jeering at our dear baldy Elisha and that's a no-no.
I'm not sure why christians are always such liars. Their god states numerous times what kind of evil creature he is, and behaves in this way with regularity. The -best- he can offer you in life is leaving you alone. It's obviously a punishment avoidance based religion in every measurable way, but they keep pretending it's not.
>>18430161>Source or you made it up. Here, have another one. 1 Kings 11:14-22. The exact same term of "na'ar qatan" is used here. This time referring to Hadad. Someone who was old enough to be a leader of men and marry into an egyptian royal family. Hars to think a 7 yeard old doing that. This compounded with Solomon calling himself a na'ar qatan as well in his 20 means it cant mean "little boy". I cant tell you what it means since that is still debated. But I can tell you what its NOT. Give the evidence. And its pretty clear that "na'ar qatan" doesnt mean "little boy" in all cases. At least not in a literal sense.
>>18430181I don't think it's clearly said that Hadad was a full grown man who was a leader of men at the time that he's called a little boy. It says Joab killed every every man in Edom, but Hadad, being still a little boy, fled with his father's servants. Eventually they got to Egypt, and Pharaoh gave him a house and land. Then, "Hadad found great favour in the sight of Pharaoh" (which imo implies that some considerable time had passed for Pharaoh to come to value Hadad), so he was given the Pharaoh's wife's sister as a wife. Then, some time after that after Hadad heard that David was dead, he told Pharaoh that he wanted to go back home, and from there he became a constant nuisance to Solomon along with some guy named Rezon. None of that is incompatible with Hadad actually being a little boy when it says he was a little boy, and him escaping the mass killing of every man by Joab and him needing to travel with his Father's servants seems to also favor him being literally a little boy. His story is introduced by saying "Then the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad..." But immediately following his story begins as "*For* when David was destroying..." implying that this is his backstory, explaining why he became an adversary to Solomon: because David killed all the fighting men where he lived when he just a little boy he couldn't fight for himself.
>>18430120>hurr if you're against child rape you're a libtarddespicable faggot. There's no may or may not idiot, the text says it as clearly as possible little girls were used by the Israelite men for sex. That's what happened with female captives of war. And they could do whatever the fuck they wanted, the whole thing was supposed to be humiliating to the little girls anyway. btw Deut 22:28-29 requires a man who rapes an unbetrothed child to marry her and never divorce her that's the extent of the punishment they would have gotten here if they stepped over any boundaries.>Okay, so they were seven then.7 isn't the only possible age but it's certainly better than toddlers who could barely talk and walk and unlike your retarded interpretation it actually works. 17 year olds are not "little children" and murdering a bunch of 14 year olds which are also not little children over a slight is no better anyway. And yes it's indeed very possible for a bunch of 7yo kids to swarm around an adult and be mean to him because of his funny bald head. wow it's like you have never attended first grade. christcucks now have to resort to justifying the murder of teens ahahahaha
>>18430168The god of the old testament and the god of the new testament take cognitive dissonance to be held as the same being.
>>18430153>>18430161Just to add to this convo, I don't know where this idea that Solomon was 20 when he became king comes from.Jewish tradition interprets him as being 12 (Rashi, Seder Olam) or 14 (Josephus) for example, though of course they agree that he was exaggerating his youth in the supplication because he felt far too young for the task of kingship.Some modern scholars claim he must have been in his late teens at least because he fathered a son before becoming king but that just seems like wishful thinking.
>>18430168>I'm not sure why christians are always such liarsTheir entire religion is built on lies like what else do you expect? As the guy here >>18429488 said the OT is completely okay with children being eaten by animals to punish their parents and here they are lying to everyone's face that little children actually means 20 year old super warriors that have been raised to annihilate baldy
>>18430220More importantly, all the modern commentators who claim he was around 20 also explain that the expression must have been a figure of speech, none of them disagree that "na'ar qatan" is supposed to mean "little child", they're compelled to explain why their allegedly adult Solomon is using such an expression.
>>18430153>in a biblical sensenew euphemism for 'not really' just dropped. apparently 'spiritually' ran out of steam.
>>18430215>christcucks now have to resort to justifying the murder of teens ahahahahaWhy are you so stupid? Like seriously. Do you unironically believe that boys werent adults until they became 21 or what? Boys became men by age 14 or so, and girls usually became women as soon as they were biologically able to get pregnant. It was a different time with different customs. The only thing you are showing is your profound ignorance on how ancient societies used to function. I already explained to you several times why those na'argers werent little boys. It seems you are conceding now that they were actually teens no? Thats literally an adult in those times. So in other words a young man. An aggresive mob of 42 young men harrasing a single man with the possibility of it escalating violently. How is their end supposed to be controversial?>And they could do whatever the fuck they wantedSo mosaic law wasnt a thing isrealites were bound to then? Also what are you supposed to do then? Leave the poor defenceless girl alone in the raided town? "Save for yourself" means nothing else than "save for yourself" its an act of mercy. You are the one immediatly jumping into rape, even going as far as sex slaves. As if the ancient isrealites werent bound by mosaic law which clearly prohibits that. But dont let me stop you from continuing to make a fool out of yourself.>Deut 22:28-29Irrelevant. Thats procedings of what happens if a rape occurs. It doesnt mean a rape took place.
>>18430458>but muh age of adulthood bro that means it's okay to murder teensIrrelevant and no such thing in the ancient world. Everyone falsely went by puberty alone to determine who was an adult. You know who else couldn't be an adult? 42 people who used childish insults like baldy and were described as "little children" I already explained why your shit tier reasoning makes no sense. The only early commentaries that don't agree are those that still concede it is talking about "little children" but they say it's not to be understood literally. That's a much better cope! At least it's not twisting the clear meaning of words.>So mosaic law wasnt a thing isrealites were bound to then? Also what are you supposed to do then? Leave the poor defenceless girl alone in the raided town?Mosaic law permits them to rape and humiliate their child war captive that's the whole point you idiot, even forcefully make them enter the marriage just like they entered them in other ways. You're supposed to not murder their parents and brothers that's what you are supposed to do. This is not an act of mercy it's an act of genocide and forced impregnation.
>>18430458>Irrelevant. Thats procedings of what happens if a rape occurs. It doesnt mean a rape took place.It means that if a rape took place you have nothing in the bible that forbids this because they were unbetrothed virgins. In fact the bible barely punishes those that rape children. Oh no you pay 50 shekels and are forced to marry your victim so you can rape her officially every single day.
>>18428701God is trying to warn you that you should fear him and respect his holiness.
>>18430473Actually god told them to do it so it was a morally good act.
>>18428701the bald man is the moon, the bears the two ursus starsigns and the 42 youths are thesurrounding stars
>>18429678Unicorn refers to rhinos.
>>18428701What happened literally happened. Based on the text they were not only mocking Elisha but verbally threatening him, because they were telling him repeatedly to "go up" -- a reference to what had just happened to Elijah in the previous passage of 2 Kings, essentially meaning they wanted Elisha to die (i.e., they probably didn't believe the claim that Elijah had been taken up into heaven by God, if they were showing up to harass and jeer menacingly at Elisha). This is reinforced by the fact there were at least 42 of them who had gone out for this specific purpose.The hostility of the crowd was met by God. Two bears showed up immediately and they were powerless to stop 42 children from being mauled.This isn't any more discordant than the general problem of evil, and that is explained easily by the fact that, according to the Bible, God gave us life and is actively keeping all of us alive every second. He has every right to end our lives at His discretion, since He doesn't owe us anything. We are not owed the right to live, that's something explicitly given to us by God.Pretending to be self-sufficient while in actuality relying on God's provision for the ability to breathe every second and everything else we receive, is the real wickedness here. Thinking to judge God's actions based on one's own flawed understanding and viewpoints is completely and totally presumptuous and utterly worthless. The right way to view all of this is, that God was completely right to have all of this happen for His greater glory. This includes the part where 42 children were mauled by bears because of what they chose to do. It includes what happened in Daniel 6 where entire families were thrown to the lions. God gave each of them life. Without God there is no reason for anything. God provides the reason for everything else existing."For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."- Acts 17:28
>>18431052I'm sorry your dad beat you, or didn't beat you enough maybe, but there's therapy for this.
>>18431091That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
>>18429302A group of 12 year olds heckling some old guy is extremely believable. Just as believable as jews failing to see anything wrong with killing children.
>>18428891I unironically own this kippa. Also have one in gold.
>>18431052>Based on the text they were not only mocking Elisha but verbally threatening him>they were telling him repeatedly to "go up" >essentially meaning they wanted Elisha to die Telling someone to "go up" or "ascend" because they claim to have seen their master do it doesn't obviously mean they want him to die even if they didn't believe it. They could just be demanding evidence from Elisha for the fun of enjoying Elisha's inability to provide that evidence.>This isn't any more discordant than the general problem of evil>He has every right to end our lives at His discretion, since He doesn't owe us anything.Right, so there's no need to play up the threat to Elisha from the little boys. God does whatever he wants and we just have to accept it. If God wants to send bears to maul 42 little boys just for making fun of a prophet, that's within his rights.
>>18429725Now say it in front of a church full of people in real life.
>>18431135>God does whatever he wants and we just have to accept it.Not only that, but we have to respect anything God does as being just and right, and the fact that there is evil and that evil had to exist is entirely our own fault due to our own disobedience and rebellion, not anything God did - which is always right and just. Anything less is a disrespect. See the following:"Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment."- Job 34:10-12"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."- James 1:17
>>18428724>>18428955>>18431052>>18431135The verb `alah can be translated multiple ways.>He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldheadAs you can see from the NRSVUE text, they translate it to the Hebraism "go up" except in the jeer, apparently to militate against the interpretation the Anglophones ITT prefer where it's supposed to be tantamount to "die!". In the previous intances - "went up", "was going up", the same verb clearly means basically "go", "journey". So if your interpretation relies on the kids saying "ascend!" rather than "go away" or "beat it", you are on shaky ground.
>>18431169Your attempt to make a point is noted, but you're missing the point.>As you can see from the NRSVUE textTerrible translation made by woke/DEI/etc.
>>18428701What's the use? You don't give a fuck, Atheist.
