She-bears and the IFB pastor

[redbeardiam]

(02-09-2012 09:40 PM)Jeremy Wrote:  

(02-09-2012 08:29 PM)redbeardiam Wrote:  I am not sure what to call this. If it was from a Christian perspective, it would be a 'Jesus juke.' What's it called when it's done from the other side of the aisle, so to speak?

We wouldn't be having this conversation if anybody would actually say what the proper context of that verse is and how it's different from the way the fundies use it, which is all I want to know. Why is that so hard?

It's a narrative fragment with no lessons immediately drawn. You won't find me preaching from it soon. Presbygirl suggest the most common explanation. What clearly does not follow from the passage is that any time you question a preacher, God's gonna getcha.

[pastor's wife]

These are my comments on the story of Elisha from an older thread:

Smith Wrote: "I have questions about God sending a "she bear" to kill a bunch of children who razzed Elisha about his baldness. What great lesson did this teach?"

This story bothered me too, but I've come to understand some of it. (Not that I think being mauled by bear is any less horrible. It's awful!)

1. First, I don't believe they were children. The word could mean youths as well. I think this was a bunch of young men - at least 42 of them, probably more - out looking for trouble, a huge gang of hoodlums with the potential for violence against Elisha, not children engaged in childhood insults.

2. Second, I believe they were mocking his position as prophet not so much his being bald. This occurs shortly after Elijah was transported to heaven and transferred his power to Elisha. After that, fifty men called sons of the prophets showed him reverence and agreed that he had taken the prophetic mantle from Elijah. In great contrast, this group of young men come out from the city (did they come out directly to confront Elisha?) and question his authority. "Go up!" were the words they used to mock him. I think this means they were derisively referring to Elijah's going up in a chariot of fire, in the same way that the mockers around the cross laughed at Christ and told Him if He was really the son of God to come down from the cross. Christ could have called ten thousand angels, but He did not. However, in this case, to show that Elisha was indeed the prophet of God, he demonstrated that power by calling a rather distinctive and horrifying punishment on them.

Horrible? Yes. But I do not believe this story was about a grumpy prophet who gave an unbelievably out of proportion punishment to a group of children who were teasing him about his hair loss. (2 Kings 2:24-25)

IN A SECOND POST I DISCUSSED IT MORE AS FOLLOWS:

NIV: "youths"
NASB: "young lads"
World English: "youths"

The Hebrew word translated "little" is "qatan" which could mean "young, small, insignificant, or unimportant." The word for "children" is "na'ar" which could be "boy, lad, servant, youth, or retainer."

Now the God I know does not fill His prophet with His power for him to be oversensitive and kill a bunch of children so I use my knowledge of the God we know from all of Scripture to understand a disturbing passage. These were young lads - teenagers - a group of 42 or more of them.

Yes, they chose to insult his appearance as well as his role as prophet of God, but I believe it is their insulting of His position as prophet that resulted in God's judgment of them.

Preachers today are not equivalent to prophets of God. If they were a prophet, every single prophecy MUST be true; otherwise, they would be invalid and a false prophet. Elijah demonstrably had God's power as he called down fire on Mt. Horeb and prophesied both drought and rain. Elijah passed this spirit of the power of God on to Elisha. Pastors today may pretend they are the same as the OT prophets but they are not.

[FmrMarine]

One finds this story in the Bible because it was written in the Bronze Age by primitive men. Despite some attempts to rationalize the story, it describes a god who is so thin-skinned that some insults hurled at his prophet incited him to a frenzy of violence. Furthermore, attempts to describe the victims as young people instead of children does little to make the story more palatable.

[greg]

When this first came up I didn't really pay that much attention. So today I broke out the bible and did abit of study/reading/contemplating and I completely concur with PW (of course) Please consider the following:

There is definitely a penalty for sin. Mocking/jeering this great OT prophet of God was unacceptable. God decided, in his infinite wisdom to demonstrate His power through this prophet, it also confirmed that Elisha was indeed a prophet of God.

Now it says these "youths" were "mauled" That could mean that they were injured to near the point of death or they could have merely been scratched by a tooth or claw, at any rate none were killed.

So ask yourselves this question. Do you think these "youths" ever again made fun of another of God's prophets? Do you think that they were abit more careful how they treated folks? Do you think they came to a clearer understanding about the power of God?

I submit that the "mauling" they received at the claws/teeth of these bears was perhaps the very best thing that ever happened to them.

[FmrMarine]

(02-11-2012 02:11 PM)greg Wrote:  When this first came up I didn't really pay that much attention. So today I broke out the bible and did abit of study/reading/contemplating and I completely concur with PW (of course) Please consider the following:

There is definitely a penalty for sin. Mocking/jeering this great OT prophet of God was unacceptable. God decided, in his infinite wisdom to demonstrate His power through this prophet, it also confirmed that Elisha was indeed a prophet of God.

Now it says these "youths" were "mauled" That could mean that they were injured to near the point of death or they could have merely been scratched by a tooth or claw, at any rate none were killed.

So ask yourselves this question. Do you think these "youths" ever again made fun of another of God's prophets? Do you think that they were abit more careful how they treated folks? Do you think they came to a clearer understanding about the power of God?

I submit that the "mauling" they received at the claws/teeth of these bears was perhaps the very best thing that ever happened to them.

And I would submit that those 42 'youths' would disagree.

[Jeremy]

(02-11-2012 02:11 PM)greg Wrote:  When this first came up I didn't really pay that much attention. So today I broke out the bible and did abit of study/reading/contemplating and I completely concur with PW (of course) Please consider the following:

There is definitely a penalty for sin. Mocking/jeering this great OT prophet of God was unacceptable. God decided, in his infinite wisdom to demonstrate His power through this prophet, it also confirmed that Elisha was indeed a prophet of God.

Now it says these "youths" were "mauled" That could mean that they were injured to near the point of death or they could have merely been scratched by a tooth or claw, at any rate none were killed.

So ask yourselves this question. Do you think these "youths" ever again made fun of another of God's prophets? Do you think that they were abit more careful how they treated folks? Do you think they came to a clearer understanding about the power of God?

I submit that the "mauling" they received at the claws/teeth of these bears was perhaps the very best thing that ever happened to them.

Really??? You don't think any were killed? I mean, PW already makes a few assumptions we have no way of proving and which are not indicated by the text at all, but yours is way out there. That's a REAL charitable interpretation of the intentions of she-bears. They don't usually adhere to rules of engagement.

There's rationalization, and then there's denial. This is the latter.

And don't look now, but you just interpreted the passage the same way fundies do.

[oneflewoutofthecuckcoosnest]

(02-11-2012 09:28 AM)FmrMarine Wrote:  One finds this story in the Bible because it was written in the Bronze Age by primitive men. Despite some attempts to rationalize the story, it describes a god who is so thin-skinned that some insults hurled at his prophet incited him to a frenzy of violence. Furthermore, attempts to describe the victims as young people instead of children does little to make the story more palatable.

The story in its present form actually comes from the end of the iron age and was written or redacted by people with a particular theological bent that most call deuteronomist. Primitive men refers normally to stone age people.

This story is not about god being thin-skinned. That misses the point. The prophet curses them in the name of YHWH and then YHWH acts. It is really more of a vindication of Elisha as Elijah's heir than a commentary on what pisses god off. The story belongs to the period in Israel where exclusive montheism and centralization were becoming dominant and Elijah/Elisha were folk heroes that served by way of story to glorify this theology. YHWH acts on behalf of those who are devoted exclusively to YHWH. Doesn't mean I agree with what the story implies, but I think this is closer to the meaning than god being thin-skinned.

[pastor's wife]

(02-11-2012 04:39 PM)Jeremy Wrote:  I mean, PW already makes a few assumptions we have no way of proving and which are not indicated by the text at all,

Jeremy, if you disagree with what I said, please point out what it is. I thought I've proved what I believe from the text quite well.

Here is the passage from 2 Kings 2: "From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. “Go on up, you baldhead!” they said. “Go on up, you baldhead!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria." (NIV)

You may not agree that the Bible is accurate or from God and you may not agree that God exists or is good, but I don't really see why you think my conclusions are "not indicated by the text at all." I've given the Hebrew words which are translated "little children" in the KJV and "youths" in the NIV, and I've made the connection with "go on up" with Elijah being caught up into heaven in a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:11-12).

Clark's Commenary of the Bible (1832) says this:

Quote: Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head - עלה קרח עלה קרח aleh kereach, aleh kereach. Does not this imply the grossest insult? Ascend, thou empty skull, to heaven, as it is pretended thy master did! This was blasphemy against God; and their punishment (for they were Beth-elite idolaters) was only proportioned to their guilt. Elisha cursed them, i.e., pronounced a curse upon them, in the name of the Lord, בשם יהוה beshem Yehovah, by the name or authority of Jehovah. The spirit of their offense lies in their ridiculing a miracle of the Lord: the offense was against Him, and He punished it. It was no petulant humor of the prophet that caused him to pronounce this curse; it was God alone: had it proceeded from a wrong disposition of the prophet, no miracle would have been wrought in order to gratify it.

"But was it not a cruel thing to destroy forty-two little children, who, in mere childishness, had simply called the prophet bare skull, or bald head?" I answer, Elisha did not destroy them; he had no power by which he could bring two she-bears out of the wood to destroy them. It was evidently either accidental, or a Divine judgment; and if a judgment, God must be the sole author of it. Elisha's curse must be only declaratory of what God was about to do. See on 2 Kings 1:10 (note). "But then, as they were little children, they could scarcely be accountable for their conduct; and consequently, it was cruelty to destroy them." If it was a judgment of God, it could neither be cruel nor unjust; and I contend, that the prophet had no power by which he could bring these she-bears to fall upon them. But were they little children? for here the strength of the objection lies. Now I suppose the objection means children from four to seven or eight years old; for so we use the word: but the original, נערים קטנים nearim ketannim, may mean young men, for קטן katon signifies to be young, in opposition to old, and is so translated in various places in our Bible; and נער naar signifies, not only a child, but a young man, a servant, or even a soldier, or one fit to go out to battle; and is so translated in a multitude of places in our common English version. I shall mention but a few, because they are sufficiently decisive: Isaac was called נער naar when twenty-eight years old, Genesis 21:5-12; and Joseph was so called when he was thirty-nine, Genesis 41:12. Add to these 1 Kings 20:14 : "And Ahab said, By whom [shall the Assyrians be delivered into my hand?] And he said, Thus saith the Lord, by the Young Men, בנערי benaarey, of the princes of the provinces." That these were soldiers, probably militia, or a selection from the militia, which served as a bodyguard to Ahab, the event sufficiently declares; and the persons that mocked Elisha were perfectly accountable for their conduct.

You actually are the one making assumptions when you stated earlier that "his god brutally murdered the children", but the text does not say "murdered"; the KJV says "tare" and the NIV says "mauled." This story from 2011 shows how a bear attack is not always fatal:
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-24/us/al...s?_s=PM:US

I have chosen to believe that God is and that He is good. Thus, when I read a disturbing story like this, I can decide "God isn't good; He's a big mean bully" or I can try to evaluate the story based on the assumption that God is good and that He wants everyone to repent (2 Peter 3:9); with that understanding, He may have used something as extreme as this to cause those young men who didn't believe in Him to repent.

[Jeremy]

(02-11-2012 07:27 PM)pastors wife Wrote:  Jeremy, if you disagree with what I said, please point out what it is. I thought I've proved what I believe from the text quite well.

First assumption: that this childish insult against Elisha was everything you say it was. All we have from the text is four words. You're taking four words and imputing the worst possible motives to them because you want to make God look as good as possible.

Second assumption: that they weren't children, they were adults. With this argument you make much of various modern translations that use the word "youths." However, you don't mention that the ESV, a very popular modern translation, uses "small boys."

Third assumption: that the "children" weren't killed. You're grasping at straws here. The very commentary you quoted agrees with me here, seeing as how Clark talks about the "children" being "destroyed." I am well aware that a bear attack is not always fatal, but when she-bears rampage through a crowd and cause 42 casualties, odds are they're not all gonna survive.

And seriously, don't you think citing a news article to prove that bear attacks are not always fatal is a little condescending? Do you really think I'm that stupid?

All of your assumptions may be true. But even if so, all they represent is your effort to understand the story in the best light possible. And the reason you feel this is necessary is because of your view of the authority of scripture, which I don't want to go into here. So you're starting with what you want to believe and making the story say that. That's not intellectually honest.

The root of the problem is what Clark says right here:

(02-11-2012 07:27 PM)pastors wife Wrote:  If it was a judgment of God, it could neither be cruel nor unjust.

OK, so why bother explaining the passage? The fact is that Clark believes it would be just fine if they were really just little kids and they really were just making fun of Elisha's baldness and they really were splattered all over the road by she-bears, because it all happened at Yahweh's behest and therefore is the very definition of good and right. Clark doesn't even think his rationalization is necessary, which makes me wonder why he even goes through with the charade.

This is what religion does. It turns ethics on its head by saying that whatever God does is good and right rather than saying that what is good and right is what God does. We know what's right and this passage falls short. Passages like these are the rationale behind blasphemy laws that carry the death penalty in Muslim countries. We raise hell when Christians are convicted under those laws, as we should, but when it comes to blasphemy against Yahweh we turn right around and say that those people deserve to die. Or at least they did three thousand years ago. That's crap. What is right for Muslims is right for Christians, and what is right today is what was right three thousand years ago. If we keep upholding these double standards we're no better than fundies.

[myotch]

Ya'll are reading way too much into this.

It's simple: don't mock bald people. Or bad things will happen.