PDA

View Full Version : About Psalm 137



Pages : [1] 2

The Pixie
11-20-2014, 12:49 AM
In particular I am hoping Jesse will clear up what verse 9 actually means:


Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.

Of course, that is in English, and apparently not at all accurate, however, the Hebrew can be seen here:

http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/137-9.htm

I am just an ignorant atheist, but to me the Bible is saying that God blesses people who smash kids against rocks. Not just any kids, of course - there is a right time and a wrong time for everything. But sometimes it is right to smash kids on rocks. I have to confess to being ignorant of ANE languages, and the true meaning of this Psalm eludes me - or so Jesse assures me. Thankfully Jesse is rather more knowledgeable about these things (as he points out here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4380-Animals-Doing-What-Animals-Do&p=123324)), so I am sure he will be able to explain this for me.

whag
11-20-2014, 01:36 AM
In particular I am hoping Jesse will clear up what verse 9 actually means:



Of course, that is in English, and apparently not at all accurate, however, the Hebrew can be seen here:

http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/137-9.htm

I am just an ignorant atheist, but to me the Bible is saying that God blesses people who smash kids against rocks. Not just any kids, of course - there is a right time and a wrong time for everything. But sometimes it is right to smash kids on rocks. I have to confess to being ignorant of ANE languages, and the true meaning of this Psalm eludes me - or so Jesse assures me. Thankfully Jesse is rather more knowledgeable about these things (as he points out here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4380-Animals-Doing-What-Animals-Do&p=123324)), so I am sure he will be able to explain this for me.

This is the sort of verse you quietly skip over when reading Psalms to your son or daughter. It's just as brutish and animalistic whether it happened in ancient Israel or My Lai.

The Pixie
11-20-2014, 02:03 AM
Why was it written?

Perhaps a bit of historical context is in order. When the Psalm was written, the Jews were in exile in Babylon. Clearly they were not happy about it, and what we read in Psalm 137 is the glee one of the captives feels at the thought of the Babylonian children getting bashed against rocks.

However, as this page (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Exile.html) makes clear, a lot of good actually came of the exile.

If Christianity is true, then it was God's decision to allow the captivity to happen. Judaism adopted the idea of an afterlife from the Babylonians during the exile, and a lot of Judaism actually dates from that time or just after. Modern Judaism and therefore modern Christianity would be very different if the exile never happened.


An eye for an eye

One explanation (http://findingtruthtoday.org/bless-those-who-seize-infants-and-dash-them-against-rocks-psalm-1379/) is that the Psalmist was just wanting for the Babylonians what they had suffered. This would fit with the eye-for-an-eye motif of the OT, but the problem is that there is no evidence the Babylonians actually did this.


Just how bad was the captivity?

Probably not that bad, as these pages make clear:

http://www.bible-history.com/map_babylonian_captivity/map_of_the_deportation_of_judah_treatment_of_the_j ews_in_babylon.html
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4012-captivity

That is not to say the Israelites would have been happy about it, I am sure they were not, but things could have been much worse. They could have been treated in the manner they had themselves treated conquered nations.

Joshua 6:20-21
Deuteronomy 2:32-35
Deuteronomy 3:3-7
Numbers 31:7-18
1 Samuel 15:1-9


It was not God's word

Of course, someone might argument that the Psalm is just some guy's opinion; it does not reflect what God wants or thinks at all. Well, yes, I agree. That is exactly what I believe. The whole Bible is just people's opinions. It in no way reflects God's word, because there is no God. From an atheist perspective, this makes perfect sense.

However this is a big problem for anyone claiming the Bible is special, or is God's word. As soon as you say this verse is not really God's word, you loose all authority in the Bible. How many of the other 31,101 verses are you going to decide are inconvenient, and not really God's word? Why not all 31,102 all of them?

Here (http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/job-song-solomon/why-does-psalmist-speak-about-killing-children)is an example:

Nowhere does it say that God approves of the Psalmist’s request or that he fulfilled it. Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn’t mean it was approved by God.
And here (http://www.biblical.edu/faculty-blog/96-regular-content/720-cursing-baby-bashing-and-psalm-137):

The psalmist, not God, is speaking in Psalm 137:9.
Where in the Bible does it say God approved the letters of St Paul? Nowhere, so we can disregard them, right?

Tassman
11-20-2014, 02:36 AM
In particular I am hoping Jesse will clear up what verse 9 actually means:



Of course, that is in English, and apparently not at all accurate, however, the Hebrew can be seen here:

http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/137-9.htm

I am just an ignorant atheist, but to me the Bible is saying that God blesses people who smash kids against rocks. Not just any kids, of course - there is a right time and a wrong time for everything. But sometimes it is right to smash kids on rocks. I have to confess to being ignorant of ANE languages, and the true meaning of this Psalm eludes me - or so Jesse assures me. Thankfully Jesse is rather more knowledgeable about these things (as he points out here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4380-Animals-Doing-What-Animals-Do&p=123324)), so I am sure he will be able to explain this for me.

Just to start you off on a light note. I was always amused in school chapel when Psalm 137 was chanted, ending with:

"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

Followed immediately by the resounding doxology (as is the Anglican custom with the psalms):

"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."

Thus Christianising the brutal sentiments.

Jesse
11-20-2014, 03:33 AM
In particular I am hoping Jesse will clear up what verse 9 actually means:



Of course, that is in English, and apparently not at all accurate, however, the Hebrew can be seen here:

http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/137-9.htm

I am just an ignorant atheist, but to me the Bible is saying that God blesses people who smash kids against rocks. Not just any kids, of course - there is a right time and a wrong time for everything. But sometimes it is right to smash kids on rocks. I have to confess to being ignorant of ANE languages, and the true meaning of this Psalm eludes me - or so Jesse assures me. Thankfully Jesse is rather more knowledgeable about these things (as he points out here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4380-Animals-Doing-What-Animals-Do&p=123324)), so I am sure he will be able to explain this for me.

Good to see that your google skills are in working order. I am not going to waste too much time on this because it's all fairly apparent. Psalm 137:9 is a imprecatory psalm. That is, it's a poematic curse on Edom:


The Psalmist tells Babylon that she will suffer in the same measure she caused Israel to suffer. Thus, her suffering will be, in a sense, self-inflicted. The conqueror of Babylon will hate her and torment her cruelly, exactly as she hated and tormented Israel.


There is, of course, no mention of "God blesses people who smash kids against rocks". This passage is the psalmist speaking in view of a future calamity in Babylon.

You are indeed an ignorant Athiest. Instead of using the oh so unique method of taking a passage out of context, you might want to do some research. Using this in any post without context shows your lack of knowledge. Yes, you are welcome for the brief lesson in how the ANE uses language. Now you may go take this new found knowledge and spread it to other ignorant Atheists.

The Pixie
11-20-2014, 04:56 AM
Thanks for weighing in with your opinion on this, Jesse.

Good to see that your google skills are in working order. I am not going to waste too much time on this because it's all fairly apparent.
If you think putting the Christian position on this verse is "going to waste too much time", that is your choice.

Psalm 137:9 is a imprecatory psalm. That is, it's a poematic curse on Edom:
Ah, so labeling something as "imprecatory" and as a "poematic curse" suddenly makes it morally acceptable. At least in the Christian world. Is that right, Jesse?

There have been a few incidents lately in the news (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2834877/Sick-trolls-threaten-rape-Jessica-Ennis-Hill-athlete-told-Sheffield-United-stand-signs-convicted-rapist-Ched-Evans.html) (in the UK anyway) of internet trolls making posts where they hope someone gets raped. If we label then "imprecatory posts", do you think that makes them morally right? Suppose they did in verse, and we labelled them "poematic curses", would such posts be morally acceptable?

I think not.

Similarly, I think wishing to see someone's kids bashed against rocks is not morally acceptable. However you label it.

Perhaps you think it is okay because they only want it to happen, they are not actually doing it, Jesse?

Matthew 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


The Psalmist tells Babylon that she will suffer in the same measure she caused Israel to suffer. Thus, her suffering will be, in a sense, self-inflicted. The conqueror of Babylon will hate her and torment her cruelly, exactly as she hated and tormented Israel.

Bad on so many counts.

Justice: So God will punish the children for what their parents (grandparents, whatever) did? This is your perfectly just God?

Morality: This is what you consider to be morally right? You are actually saying it would be morally right to bash children's brains out in this scenario? Are you sure about this, Jesse?

God's will: Israel suffered at the hands of Babylon because God allowed it to happen.

Israel deserved worse: Israel wiped out entire nations. Men, women, children, babies. Even livestock. By this reasoning Israel deserved all that hatred and torment. Israel's suffering was, in exactly the same sense, self-inflicted. How then can you justify bashing kids against rocks?

There is, of course, no mention of "God blesses people who smash kids against rocks"....
Read the passage. It says God will bless people who smash kids against rocks. I will quote it again, as you seem unclear on this. In bold, so you can find it.

Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.

... This passage is the psalmist speaking in view of a future calamity in Babylon.
That is right and that is what I said in post #3. It still says God will bless those people who smash the kids against rocks.

In my atheist ignorance, I think that smashing kids against rocks is morally wrong.

You are indeed an ignorant Athiest. Instead of using the oh so unique method of taking a passage out of context, you might want to do some research.
The whole chapter is 9 verses long, and stands on its own. I assure you I read all nine verses. How much context do you imagine there is, Jesse?

Using this in any post without context shows your lack of knowledge.
And of course you are unable to actually explain why context changes it in any way. No surprise there. When all you have is bluster, all you have is bluster.

Yes, you are welcome for the brief lesson in how the ANE uses language. Now you may go take this new found knowledge and spread it to other ignorant Atheists.
Oh, yes, ANE languages. You mentioned that in the other thread. When are you going to give us you great wisdom on that subject? I will not hold my breath.

Jesse
11-20-2014, 06:15 AM
Emotional outburst incoming.


I have no desire to get into a debate on what you consider moral or immoral Pixie. For one, that was not what you asked me. And two, I just really don't care. You asked me to give you the context of the passage. This I did. But yet, you still seem confused by it for some reason.



Read the passage. It says God will bless people who smash kids against rocks. I will quote it again, as you seem unclear on this. In bold, so you can find it.

Psalm 137: 9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.


I don't think you actually read the passage. For if you had, you would see there is nothing of the sort:


1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.

2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,

3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?

5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.

6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.

7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.


I did what you asked and gave you it's context. You may now go into another screed, or learn something by doing a little homework.

The Pixie
11-20-2014, 06:42 AM
I have no desire to get into a debate on what you consider moral or immoral Pixie.
What?

You think it is debatable whether bashing kids on rocks is immoral? Really?

It is. Everyone knows it is.* We do not need to debate that.

For one, that was not what you asked me. And two, I just really don't care.
You do not care whether it is moral in Christianity to bash kids against rocks? Wow. Well, thanks for making that clear, I suppose. Apart from anything else, this came from a discussion on morality, which you joined to comment on that verse, so I find that surprising. But now we know.

You asked me to give you the context of the passage. This I did. But yet, you still seem confused by it for some reason.
I asked you to explain what the passage meant. To me, it is saying that God will bless those who bash kids against rocks in some situations (specifically the children of the Babylonians). I have yet to see anything that suggests another reading of it from you.

I don't think you actually read the passage.
I assure you I did. Look at post #3. I did a fair bit of research of this on the internet. Why would you imagine I did not bother to read all nine verses of the Psalm?

For if you had, you would see there is nothing of the sort there:


1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.

2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,

3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?

5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.

6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.

7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

It is that last verse. Did you see it? I put it in bold for you. The version I had said blessed rather than happy. The Hebrew word here is "esher", which seems to be translated as blessed more often than happy (blessed 41 times, happy 4 times in the NASB).
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/835.htm

Is this your wondrous incite into ANE languages? they meant happy, not blessed?

I did what you asked and gave you it's context. You may now go into another screed, or learn something by doing a little homework.
What I asked is that you "clear up what verse 9 actually means", that you "explain why context changes it in any way". When you planning to do that?

I have researched this. I have done the homework, and looked on the internet how Christians try to excuse this verse. I think what we are seeing here is your bluster failing to convince.


* Everyone not actively trying to defend Psalm 137:9.

Kelp(p)
11-20-2014, 07:14 AM
However this is a big problem for anyone claiming the Bible is special, or is God's word. As soon as you say this verse is not really God's word, you loose all authority in the Bible. How many of the other 31,101 verses are you going to decide are inconvenient, and not really God's word? Why not all 31,102 all of them?In practice, you treat it just like any text by reading it carefully and mindfully. Things that might actually be from God are those that accord to reason and morality.



Where in the Bible does it say God approved the letters of St Paul? Nowhere, so we can disregard them, right?No, we treat them discerningly.

KingsGambit
11-20-2014, 07:17 AM
Where in the Bible does it say God approved the letters of St Paul? Nowhere, so we can disregard them, right?

It is admittedly a bit circular to use the Bible as the standard, but you did ask...

2 Peter 3:16

Jesse
11-20-2014, 07:36 AM
More crazy talk.




this came from a discussion on morality, which you joined to comment on that verse, so I find that surprising. But now we know.


Correct. You used this passage in a morality thread. That is why I commented. You might as well of posted musical lyrics with harsh themes. I bet you find those morally wrong too.



I asked you to explain what the passage meant. To me, it is saying that God will bless those who bash kids against rocks in some situations (specifically the children of the Babylonians). I have yet to see anything that suggests another reading of it from you.


I explained what it meant. But you still pretend it wasn't. I can't help you there. I still have yet to see where God is blessing anyone in that passage. The only thing I can think of here, is that you think the psalmist and God are the same person. Nothing else makes any sense.



It is that last verse. Did you see it? I put it in bold for you. The version I had said blessed rather than happy. The Hebrew word here is "esher", which seems to be translated as blessed more often than happy (blessed 41 times, happy 4 times in the NASB).
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/835.htm


And this proves what? That you still can't read the passage correctly?

Adrift
11-20-2014, 07:41 AM
I have no desire to get into a debate on what you consider moral or immoral Pixie. For one, that was not what you asked me. And two, I just really don't care. You asked me to give you the context of the passage. This I did. But yet, you still seem confused by it for some reason.



I don't think you actually read the passage. For if you had, you would see there is nothing of the sort:


1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.

2 There on the poplars we hung our harps,

3 for there our captors asked us for songs, our tormentors demanded songs of joy; they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

4 How can we sing the songs of the Lord while in a foreign land?

5 If I forget you, Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its skill.

6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth if I do not remember you, if I do not consider Jerusalem my highest joy.

7 Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us.

9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.


I did what you asked and gave you it's context. You may now go into another screed, or learn something by doing a little homework.

John Goldingay makes an interesting point about that passage in his commentary on Psalms,

Yet we should not press the psalm’s metaphorical language. None of the passages that refer to smashing children are simple reports of someone’s action; all come in the words of the prophets, apart from this psalm that appeals to the words of prophets. Zedekiah’s sons were not actually smashed on a crag and neither are the children of Iraq, and it is unlikely that this is what the psalm literally envisages. Middle Eastern writings like to express things concretely rather than abstractly in terms,


which frequently signify a reality far larger than their concrete meaning. . . . We need to consider . . . whether these "little ones" ought not to be understood just as symbolically as "Mother Babylon." The inhabitants of the oppressor-city or the children of the ruling dynasty concretize the continuation of the unrighteous empire. . . . . One might translate: "Happy is he who puts an end to your self-renewing domination!" Stated thus, the sentence would presumably offend no one, though it too implies brutal consequences. Its brutality, however, is cloaked in the broad mantle of abstract formulation. Such an (often dangerous) dissociation of concrete reality from idea is foreign to the ancient Near Eastern mode of perception as the dissociation of body and spirit. Ancient Near Eastern perception usually preserves the continuity between the concretum and its related abstract.*

*Keel, symbolism, 9.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 07:43 AM
The passage was planted there to cause unbelievers to reveal their jackassery

Jesse
11-20-2014, 07:49 AM
John Goldingay makes an interesting point about that passage in his commentary on Psalms,

Yet we should not press the psalm’s metaphorical language. None of the passages that refer to smashing children are simple reports of someone’s action; all come in the words of the prophets, apart from this psalm that appeals to the words of prophets. Zedekiah’s sons were not actually smashed on a crag and neither are the children of Iraq, and it is unlikely that this is what the psalm literally envisages. Middle Eastern writings like to express things concretely rather than abstractly in terms,



*Keel, symbolism, 9.

Thank you for that Adrift. Even if the psalmist really meant children, I do not see a problem. It's a simple poetic curse on Babylon. Not sure what an Atheist could possibly see in that passage that would help their argument in any way.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 07:51 AM
Thank you for that Adrift. Even if the psalmist really meant children, I do not see a problem. It's a simple poetic curse on Babylon. Not sure what an Atheist could possibly see in that passage that would help their argument in any way.

They're "lookin' for loopholes, my boy, lookin' for loopholes" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._C._Fields).

Darth Executor
11-20-2014, 09:36 AM
I can't believe Pixie actually started a thread on this and exposed his gross ignorance and incompetence to an even broader audience than a post buried in an 18 page thread would have.

The Pixie
11-20-2014, 11:20 AM
Correct. You used this passage in a morality thread. That is why I commented. You might as well of posted musical lyrics with harsh themes. I bet you find those morally wrong too.
Sure, but no one around here is saying they should unthinkingly follow musical lyrics with harsh themes.

On the other hand, seer was indicating that he knows what is right and wrong only from God via the Bible. And when the Bible says bashing kids on rocks is okay sometimes, I think that that is a problem.

I explained what it meant. But you still pretend it wasn't. I can't help you there. I still have yet to see where God is blessing anyone in that passage. The only thing I can think of here, is that you think the psalmist and God are the same person. Nothing else makes any sense.
I was thinking that many Christians think the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, what is written in the Bible is what God wants to be written there.

Now if your position is that the Bible is just people's opinions of what they think God has done and said, that I agree.

And this proves what? That you still can't read the passage correctly?
No, it is okay. I get it now. The Bible is just written by people. It is not God's word, it was not written by God, it was not inspired by God, or at least some of it was not. God was not able to or unwilling to copntrol it so that it only contains what is true.

Adrift
11-20-2014, 11:34 AM
On the other hand, seer was indicating that he knows what is right and wrong only from God via the Bible. And when the Bible says bashing kids on rocks is okay sometimes, I think that that is a problem.

I don't think that's really the trust of his argument. The thrust of his argument seems to be: we all recognize that some things are morally good, and some things are morally bad. Both atheists and theists seem to intuitively realize this. There seems to be something objective about morality. Even when people verbally deny the reality of objective morality, they still act as though they accept objective morality. Why do these objective morals seem to actually exist in the real world? Why is good good, and bad bad? When Seer put this question to you, the best you could offer was something like "because it just is". Seer thinks that theists actually have an answer, and that answer lies in an objective moral law giver who's very nature is morally good.

This whole side derail that you got into about the Psalms passage, and your constant complaint that Seer thinks that killing is good, or whatever, is just a distraction from Seer's main point, which is that, theists have an answer for why morality exists, and atheists don't.

Adrift
11-20-2014, 11:45 AM
I was thinking that many Christians think the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, what is written in the Bible is what God wants to be written there.

When people around here throw around the phrase "fundy atheist" it kinda irks me because its usually just a mindless insult. But the reason the term was coined is because, in their zeal to stick it to the person they're arguing with, some skeptics will quote the Bible in a fashion that only the most narrow-minded King James Onlyist type of fundamentalist might even consider, but even then will probably reject. Most Christians read their Bibles with a little bit more consideration and thoughtfulness than you're giving them credit for. So, you can wipe your brow, and stop being so absurd.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 11:50 AM
When people around here throw around the phrase "fundy atheist" it kinda irks me because its usually just a mindless insult. But the reason the term was coined is because, in their zeal to stick it to the person they're arguing with, some skeptics will quote the Bible in a fashion that only the most narrow-minded King James Onlyist type of fundamentalist might even consider, but even then will probably reject. Most Christians read their Bibles with a little bit more consideration and thoughtfulness than you're giving them credit for. So, you can wipe your brow, and stop being so absurd.

That!

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 02:22 PM
Hmm, you all keep saying how stupid it is to find that verse problematic. I consider myself a reasonable person and none of you have come close to convincing me. Are you saying the verse is prophetic hyperbole? If so, how do you know?

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 02:37 PM
I don't think it's "stupid" to find this verse problematic --- I am not in any way "comforted" by it, but it was, in fact, a record of the reaction of Jews in exile, crying out to God.



C. Imprecating Zion’s destroyers (137:7–9)

The last part of this psalm must be understood in the light of the great mourning of the Jews in exile. As an imprecation (cf. comments under “Theology of the Psalms” in the Introduction), it is a prayer for God to exact vengeance on their captors and those who aided them.
137:7. This is a plea for God to remember … the Edomites (cf. the psalmist’s remembering, v. 6) who had rejoiced while the city of Jerusalem was being destroyed and encouraged the destroyers (cf. Ezek. 25:12; Joel 3:19). So the psalmist wanted God to bring retribution on Edom.
137:8–9. The psalmist addressed his curse to Babylon directly. The Babylonians should note that the Lord would destroy them measure for measure, that is, their little ones would be dashed against the rocks (cf. Isa. 13:16) for the Babylonians apparently had done this to the Jerusalemites. This is perhaps the most painful imprecation in the Book of Psalms. To the exiled psalmist, those who had ravaged the Holy Land deserved no better. Great sadness and bitterness filled the hearts of the Israelites who were in captivity (cf. Lam. 1–2).


Ross, A. P. (1985). Psalms. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 890). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

It is not anything like God telling us to go kill babies. :shrug:

Darth Executor
11-20-2014, 02:44 PM
Hmm, you all keep saying how stupid it is to find that verse problematic. I consider myself a reasonable person and none of you have come close to convincing me. Are you saying the verse is prophetic hyperbole? If so, how do you know?

What do you mean by problematic? It's an emotional expression. Like a certain NWA song whose name I can't quote here. AFAIK Dr. Dre never actually caused a cop bloodbath. You can see this much by reading the whole thing instead of one isolated verse:


By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
How can we sing the songs of the Lord
while in a foreign land?
If I forget you, Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill.
May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 03:00 PM
Herein lies the problem:


I am just an ignorant atheist, but to me the Bible is saying that God blesses people who smash kids against rocks.

It is not God "speaking" telling us to dash kids against rocks, NOR is it God "blessing" us for doing that.

You have to read the whole chapter in context, which includes who is speaking, what is the background, to whom is the speaker speaking, the culture, etc...

You really can't get "God bless(ing) people who smash kids against rocks" out of that text.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 03:18 PM
Herein lies the problem:



It is not God "speaking" telling us to dash kids against rocks, NOR is it God "blessing" us for doing that.

You have to read the whole chapter in context, which includes who is speaking, what is the background, to whom is the speaker speaking, the culture, etc...

You really can't get "God bless(ing) people who smash kids against rocks" out of that text.

Ok, but you can get the 'people of God' in extremis saying how nice it would be to kill their babies. They're angry, I get it. They have an excuse, I get that. But if you believe that God had a guiding hand in selecting and inspiring the texts to be included in the verse, why choose this psalm?

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 03:22 PM
Ok, but you can get the 'people of God' in extremis saying how nice it would be to kill their babies. They're angry, I get it. They have an excuse, I get that. But if you believe that God had a guiding hand in selecting and inspiring the texts to be included in the verse, why choose this psalm?

Why include the account of David having an affair and killing the husband of his sweetie? Quite a dastardly deed. The Bible often records the history of things that happened, whether they were good or not.

Cerebrum123
11-20-2014, 03:23 PM
I found this on the subject over at Tektonics (http://www.tektonics.org/af/ancientmores.php).

Barbaric? As noted above, this is partly answered by noting the frankness and openness of the ancient mind. Actually we do think such things often today (lest it be said, "Well, we're more advanced than those barbarians!"), if only fleetingly, and seldom repeat them in polite company.

At any rate, such are simply typical expressions of Oriental imprecation. Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 92ff) gives more modern examples: "May God burn the bones of your fathers"; "May your children be orphaned and your wife widowed", and so on. Such wishes were expressed in clan fights and quarrels in Rihbany's native Syria; and yet: "...the Syrians are not so cruel and heartless as such imprecations, especially when cast in cold type, would lead one to believe." Such petitions actually serve a purpose as a "safety-valve" through which the Oriental vents his wrath.

Further: "As a rule the Orientals quarrel much, but fight little. By the time the two antagonists have cursed and reviled each other so profusely they cool off, and thus graver consequences are averted." The Anglo-Saxon social order being more complex cannot resolve things so simply; yet the Oriental shudders at the Anglo- Saxon ready resort to fisticuffs.

Given how often you hear phrases like "I'm going to kill him!", from someone who is really upset, even today, I don't see how this is much different. Although, I can see, like the quoted material, how heartless such a verse may seem, especially in print only, and not how it likely* would have originally been understood.

*I think that the argument for the peoples of the OT and NT had a very different society, and therefore would have understood these things differently to be a very strong one.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 03:31 PM
I found this on the subject over at Tektonics (http://www.tektonics.org/af/ancientmores.php).

Barbaric? As noted above, this is partly answered by noting the frankness and openness of the ancient mind. Actually we do think such things often today (lest it be said, "Well, we're more advanced than those barbarians!"), if only fleetingly, and seldom repeat them in polite company.

At any rate, such are simply typical expressions of Oriental imprecation. Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 92ff) gives more modern examples: "May God burn the bones of your fathers"; "May your children be orphaned and your wife widowed", and so on. Such wishes were expressed in clan fights and quarrels in Rihbany's native Syria; and yet: "...the Syrians are not so cruel and heartless as such imprecations, especially when cast in cold type, would lead one to believe." Such petitions actually serve a purpose as a "safety-valve" through which the Oriental vents his wrath.

Further: "As a rule the Orientals quarrel much, but fight little. By the time the two antagonists have cursed and reviled each other so profusely they cool off, and thus graver consequences are averted." The Anglo-Saxon social order being more complex cannot resolve things so simply; yet the Oriental shudders at the Anglo- Saxon ready resort to fisticuffs.

Given how often you hear phrases like "I'm going to kill him!", from someone who is really upset, even today, I don't see how this is much different. Although, I can see, like the quoted material, how heartless such a verse may seem, especially in print only, and not how it likely* would have originally been understood.

*I think that the argument for the peoples of the OT and NT had a very different society, and therefore would have understood these things differently to be a very strong one.

Mmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.

The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?

Jesse
11-20-2014, 03:32 PM
Sure, but no one around here is saying they should unthinkingly follow musical lyrics with harsh themes.

On the other hand, seer was indicating that he knows what is right and wrong only from God via the Bible. And when the Bible says bashing kids on rocks is okay sometimes, I think that that is a problem.

I was thinking that many Christians think the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, what is written in the Bible is what God wants to be written there.

Now if your position is that the Bible is just people's opinions of what they think God has done and said, that I agree.

No, it is okay. I get it now. The Bible is just written by people. It is not God's word, it was not written by God, it was not inspired by God, or at least some of it was not. God was not able to or unwilling to copntrol it so that it only contains what is true.

I see. So you really didn't care for an explanation of the passage. You just wanted a screed thread. I figured as much. It's a pretty typical Atheist tactic of your stripe. You of course knew what the passage was in context but you feigned ignorance in order to get on your soap box. Thanks for showing everyone here how much of a non-serious person you are. It helps others to know what they are getting into if they think they can have any type of meaningful conversation with you.

Jesse
11-20-2014, 03:34 PM
What do you mean by problematic? It's an emotional expression. Like a certain NWA song whose name I can't quote here. AFAIK Dr. Dre never actually caused a cop bloodbath. You can see this much by reading the whole thing instead of one isolated verse:

This is all that needed to be said.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 03:35 PM
This is all that needed to be said.

I'm not sure why you think so. I can see a pretty reasoned conversation going on here with no need for bile or being dismissive.

Zymologist
11-20-2014, 03:38 PM
Mmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.

The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?

Has anybody claimed that here? I don't think I've seen it. I really don't see the problem with the need to understand the text the way it was originally intended. It seems to me that we treat any other text this way.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 03:40 PM
Mmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.

I consider myself an inerrantist. But too many people have the idea that this means that the writers of the Bible were doing some kind of "automatic writing" like God took them over and made them write exactly what He said to write. Additionally, it's the original scriptures which I believe to be inerrant, and most of us recognize there were copying errors. That's why it's always important to go to the earliest manuscripts possible --- but you know this! :smile: I think most of us recognize that "context" includes understanding what the writer was saying to the people to whom he was speaking, and how they would interpret, in their own culture, what was being said.


The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?

I think it was a song -- perhaps like our "singing the blues" -- that reflected the mysery and the angst of God's people in captivity longing for retribution.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 03:42 PM
Has anybody claimed that here? I don't think I've seen it. I really don't see the problem with the need to understand the text the way it was originally intended. It seems to me that we treat any other text this way.

Fair enough. I thought I was summarising at least SOME variations of a Christian view of inspiration. I do often get told that I can't understand the Bible properly without the Holy Spirit. I much prefer your view that the Bible can be understand if one pays attention to its original intended meaning.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 03:44 PM
Fair enough. I thought I was summarising at least SOME variations of a Christian view of inspiration. I do often get told that I can't understand the Bible properly without the Holy Spirit. I much prefer your view that the Bible can be understand if one pays attention to its original intended meaning.

UNLESS, of course, somebody comes at it, as Pixie did, with a preconceived agenda.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 03:45 PM
I consider myself an inerrantist. But too many people have the idea that this means that the writers of the Bible were doing some kind of "automatic writing" like God took them over and made them write exactly what He said to write. Additionally, it's the original scriptures which I believe to be inerrant, and most of us recognize there were copying errors. That's why it's always important to go to the earliest manuscripts possible --- but you know this! :smile: I think most of us recognize that "context" includes understanding what the writer was saying to the people to whom he was speaking, and how they would interpret, in their own culture, what was being said.



I think it was a song -- perhaps like our "singing the blues" -- that reflected the mysery and the angst of God's people in captivity longing for retribution.

Thanks, I can actually agree with that line of thought and find it reasonable. I'm sure you know I was arguing against that other kind of view of Biblical inspiration.

'Singing the blues' I get. I just get a little wary of apologists trying to 'explain away' such verses. And then saying 'typical atheist stupidity' if one should dare bring it up.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 03:47 PM
UNLESS, of course, somebody comes at it, as Pixie did, with a preconceived agenda.

Well, I'm also a little wary of this 'preconceived agenda thing too'. I've seen perfectly reasonable comments dismissed on the basis of who made them. Me, I'd rather deal with the ideas themselves. Here, we've had a good reasonable discussion that basically proves my contention in the 'polarisation' thread.

I rest my case, M'lud.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 03:53 PM
Thanks, I can actually agree with that line of thought and find it reasonable. I'm sure you know I was arguing against that other kind of view of Biblical inspiration.

Yup -- got that.


'Singing the blues' I get. I just get a little wary of apologists trying to 'explain away' such verses. And then saying 'typical atheist stupidity' if one should dare bring it up.

Yeah, I don't think they need to be "explained away", but understood in context.

There's a similar thought going on in Revelation 6:
9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10 They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?”

It is the cry for retribution from those who have been injured / imprisoned / killed.

Darth Executor
11-20-2014, 04:11 PM
I've seen perfectly reasonable comments dismissed on the basis of who made them. Me, I'd rather deal with the ideas themselves.



I think that the likely quality of one's principled stands may be measured by the character of those who attack them. I'm satisfied.

:whistle:

Psychic Missile
11-20-2014, 04:21 PM
There are enough things wrong with the Bible that there's no need to invent controversy. The passage is clearly the feelings of one person and not the command or endorsement of God. The book of Psalms is literally a book of songs.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 04:27 PM
:whistle:

As with anyone else, I shall agree with you when you make a reasonable point. One of the difficulties with that is that your posts are so often filled with provocative and combative tinsel, that it's hard to see the wood for the trees. Like everyone, I am more likely to take seriously points of discussion when a number of people I respect make them. Since you and Epo are the only ones so far accusing me of hypocrisy I'm just letting that sit for a while. I certainly invite others to tell me I'm a hypocrite and keep my trap shut. I'm only hanging here by a slender thread anyway.

Jesse
11-20-2014, 04:30 PM
I'm not sure why you think so. I can see a pretty reasoned conversation going on here with no need for bile or being dismissive.

Then you are obviously not familiar with Pixie's tactic here. This thread was a troll directed at me. And all trolls can be comfortably dismissed. Beyond that, Darth Executor made the same point I did. Just more succinctly. That is the end of it.

Tassman
11-20-2014, 07:21 PM
Mmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.

The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?

There’s no doubt it was very much a case of: “God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action” - as you say. After all he was the tribal God of the Israelites and as such authorized, indeed demanded all sorts of cruel actions and genocides against the perceived enemies of His Chosen People.

shunyadragon
11-20-2014, 08:14 PM
This is the sort of verse you quietly skip over when reading Psalms to your son or daughter. It's just as brutish and animalistic whether it happened in ancient Israel or My Lai.

I believe that the Psalms is basically a Canaanite text, in the early history of the Hebrews they were closely related polytheistic cultures with yes instances of human sacrifice, also noted in other references in the OT.

Cow Poke
11-20-2014, 08:24 PM
There’s no doubt....

Well, that settles it! The debate is over! :lolo:

Jedidiah
11-20-2014, 08:44 PM
But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.

What is the logical term appropriate here? We have a false dichotomy. You have listed two possible positions, but that is in no way an either/or question. It is quite possible that God was preparing a text for maximum use for varying cultures. He could have been giving adequate description that requires intelligent interpretation (this is my choice). Or He may have been doing something beyond human comprehension. There are several possibilities that we can come up with, or we can recognize that God is too far beyond us to be put in a little box.

Jedidiah
11-20-2014, 08:51 PM
There are enough things wrong with the Bible that there's no need to invent controversy.

You know I have heard this so often. And, of course, before I came to Christ I believed the same thing. Since studying the Bible I have not found one substantial problem with the message. They are ALL matters of making false assumptions about it before even trying to understand. You have demonstrated this in the past if I recall properly. Do you have an example of one of those "things wrong with the Bible?"

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 09:25 PM
Then you are obviously not familiar with Pixie's tactic here. This thread was a troll directed at me. And all trolls can be comfortably dismissed. Beyond that, Darth Executor made the same point I did. Just more succinctly. That is the end of it.

But I got something out of it. I asked for some expansion of Christian understanding about that verse and I got it. If you condemn a thread out of hand because you don't like the person who started it, you miss out on those opportunities.

Jesse
11-20-2014, 10:20 PM
But I got something out of it. I asked for some expansion of Christian understanding about that verse and I got it. If you condemn a thread out of hand because you don't like the person who started it, you miss out on those opportunities.

And that is great for you. I am glad you got something out of it. However, since this thread was pointed directly at me, I will treat a troll exactly the way it should be treated. By showing it for what it is then ignoring it. You seem to miss the point of this thread entirely. This was not about Pixie wanting an explanation of a text from me. He wanted to try and play gotcha as anyone can plainly see. Pixie continued to campaigned for an a** kicking, then got elected. No one is to blame for that but him. You can treat him any way you like.

Not even veiled profanity allowed. Violation of Decorum rules.

pancreasman
11-20-2014, 11:13 PM
And that is great for you. I am glad you got something out of it. However, since this thread was pointed directly at me, I will treat a troll exactly the way it should be treated. By showing it for what it is then ignoring it. You seem to miss the point of this thread entirely. This was not about Pixie wanting an explanation of a text from me. He wanted to try and play gotcha as anyone can plainly see. Pixie continued to campaigned for an a**kicking, then got elected. No one is to blame for that but him. You can treat him any way you like.

Thanks.

The Pixie
11-21-2014, 01:53 AM
I can't believe Pixie actually started a thread on this and exposed his gross ignorance and incompetence to an even broader audience than a post buried in an 18 page thread would have.
Ah, the Emperor's New Clothes argument: The answer is obvious, and if you do not get it you must be stupid.

Personally, I do not find that at all convincing. I am old enough that I happy to expose my ignorance, gross or otherwise (it is not like The Pixie is my real name). I am not entirely sure why you imagine people should just know better about this passage.

Interestingly, this was the same argument Jesse used on the original thread, which is what prompted me to expose the debate for all to see.

The Pixie
11-21-2014, 01:58 AM
When people around here throw around the phrase "fundy atheist" it kinda irks me because its usually just a mindless insult. But the reason the term was coined is because, in their zeal to stick it to the person they're arguing with, some skeptics will quote the Bible in a fashion that only the most narrow-minded King James Onlyist type of fundamentalist might even consider, but even then will probably reject. Most Christians read their Bibles with a little bit more consideration and thoughtfulness than you're giving them credit for. So, you can wipe your brow, and stop being so absurd.
Having thought about this, and then reading your post, I realise that this is true.

I was coming at this from a discussion with seer about morality, where seer says he gets his morality from the Bible, and cannot work out why murder is wrong without god saying it is. What I see on this thread, in sharp contrast, is Christians who actually think about what the Bible says. I realised I am arguing against you guys, and really I should be applauding you.

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 03:07 AM
You know I have heard this so often. And, of course, before I came to Christ I believed the same thing. Since studying the Bible I have not found one substantial problem with the message. They are ALL matters of making false assumptions about it before even trying to understand. You have demonstrated this in the past if I recall properly. Do you have an example of one of those "things wrong with the Bible?"

Alright, with the corollary that this conversation is about an example of what I find wrong with the Bible. I don't know if this is the proper place to start a whole side discussion. My example is Exodus 22:18.

Kelp(p)
11-21-2014, 03:53 AM
The word translated "witch" there refers to someone who performs herb based curses and goes around trying to poison people.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 04:09 AM
Ah, the Emperor's New Clothes argument: The answer is obvious, and if you do not get it you must be stupid.

Personally, I do not find that at all convincing. I am old enough that I happy to expose my ignorance, gross or otherwise (it is not like The Pixie is my real name). I am not entirely sure why you imagine people should just know better about this passage.

Interestingly, this was the same argument Jesse used on the original thread, which is what prompted me to expose the debate for all to see.

So, back to the OP --- what is your "take away"? Have you learned anything?

The Pixie
11-21-2014, 04:30 AM
So, back to the OP --- what is your "take away"? Have you learned anything?
1. The way to approach the Bible is as a book written by man, with both good and bad, and we should therefore think about it when we read it and discard the bad.

2. Many Christians do just that.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 04:52 AM
1. The way to approach the Bible is as a book written by man, with both good and bad, and we should therefore think about it when we read it and discard the bad.

A wise and/or prudent man doesn't "discard" the bad, but actually learns from it.


2. Many Christians do just that.

While I'm sure many do, I'm betting you're totally missing the point of what some of us have been saying in this thread. We don't think the Bible was written by man WITHOUT divine inspiration, and we DON'T "discard the bad". :shrug:

I'm thinking you haven't really learned much at all, but I'll consider the possibility I misread your post.

Wanna try again?

The Pixie
11-21-2014, 05:46 AM
A wise and/or prudent man doesn't "discard" the bad, but actually learns from it.
So what have you learnt from Psalm 137:9?

While I'm sure many do, I'm betting you're totally missing the point of what some of us have been saying in this thread. We don't think the Bible was written by man WITHOUT divine inspiration, and we DON'T "discard the bad".
I did not say WITHOUT divine inspiration.

I'm thinking you haven't really learned much at all, but I'll consider the possibility I misread your post.

Wanna try again?
No, I'm good. I guess Kelp said it best in post #9. Most of the rest of the posts seem to be saying I am stupid if I do not just agree with you, without any real content.

Which is pretty much your post, in fact.

Do you wanna try again?

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 05:53 AM
So what have you learnt from Psalm 137:9?

That....
A) It doesn't exist in a vacuum
2) It isn't a command
C) It does not indicate that God approves or blesses "baby smashers"
D) It needs to be understood in the context in which it was written
5) It was written to show the feelings of the Jews in captivity, and their very human desire for retribution
6) It is used in ignorance by antagonists to attempt to make the Bible look silly

And more :smile:


I did not say WITHOUT divine inspiration.

Yeah, you just conveniently left that out, and stated:

1. The way to approach the Bible is as a book written by man, with both good and bad, and we should therefore think about it when we read it and discard the bad.

"A book written by man" is WAY different than "A book written by man under God's divine inspiration". :smile:


No, I'm good. I guess Kelp said it best in post #9. Most of the rest of the posts seem to be saying I am stupid if I do not just agree with you, without any real content.

So, you're willing to be "corrected" as long as it's not by a professing Christian. :thumb:

The Pixie
11-21-2014, 06:27 AM
That....
A) It doesn't exist in a vacuum
I already knew this, and discussed the cultural setting in post #3.

2) It isn't a command
I never said it was.

C) It does not indicate that God approves or blesses "baby smashers"
That follows from rejecting parts of the Bible, so is already covered by what I said I learnt.

D) It needs to be understood in the context in which it was written
I discussed that context in post #3.

5) It was written to show the feelings of the Jews in captivity, and their very human desire for retribution
As discussed in post #3.

6) It is used in ignorance by antagonists to attempt to make the Bible look silly
Cute.

And more :smile:
More stuff I already knew or more stuff I already said I had learnt?

Yeah, you just conveniently left that out, and stated:

"A book written by man" is WAY different than "A book written by man under God's divine inspiration". :smile:
I left it open so it could be taken either way. You want to be awkward about then:

"A book written by man under God's divine inspiration in parts"

Make you feel better?

So, you're willing to be "corrected" as long as it's not by a professing Christian. :thumb:
I am willing to be corrected by anyone. Point me to the post by a professing Christian that you feel better explains the verse than the one by Kelp. It surely ain't post #59.

shunyadragon
11-21-2014, 06:34 AM
I don't think it's "stupid" to find this verse problematic --- I am not in any way "comforted" by it, but it was, in fact, a record of the reaction of Jews in exile, crying out to God.



C. Imprecating Zion’s destroyers (137:7–9)

The last part of this psalm must be understood in the light of the great mourning of the Jews in exile. As an imprecation (cf. comments under “Theology of the Psalms” in the Introduction), it is a prayer for God to exact vengeance on their captors and those who aided them.
137:7. This is a plea for God to remember … the Edomites (cf. the psalmist’s remembering, v. 6) who had rejoiced while the city of Jerusalem was being destroyed and encouraged the destroyers (cf. Ezek. 25:12; Joel 3:19). So the psalmist wanted God to bring retribution on Edom.
137:8–9. The psalmist addressed his curse to Babylon directly. The Babylonians should note that the Lord would destroy them measure for measure, that is, their little ones would be dashed against the rocks (cf. Isa. 13:16) for the Babylonians apparently had done this to the Jerusalemites. This is perhaps the most painful imprecation in the Book of Psalms. To the exiled psalmist, those who had ravaged the Holy Land deserved no better. Great sadness and bitterness filled the hearts of the Israelites who were in captivity (cf. Lam. 1–2).


Ross, A. P. (1985). Psalms. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 890). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

It is not anything like God telling us to go kill babies. :shrug:

The Psalms were most likely Canaanite texts based on the evidence and not written in Babylonian exile, or in reference to the exile. The texts of the Psalms are heavily polytheistic, Persia at the time of the exile was dominantly Monotheistic, and represent the early pre-Kingdom history of the Hebrews who had a close tribal association with the Canaanites and Philistines. Since the Hebrews did not have their own distinctive written language it inherited a large amount of their written scripture from earlier sources. It needs to be understood that much of the Tanakh was not written specifically by Hebrews, but evolved from older texts from different tribes and cultures of the Middle East before the Hebrews had a distinct written language.

Early references originating from older texts have reference to a violent inter tribal conflict and human sacrafice.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 06:35 AM
That follows from rejecting parts of the Bible, so is already covered by what I said I learnt.

Can you please learn that the past tense of "learn" is "learned", and that "learnt" is considered an irregular verb?

Thanks.

KingsGambit
11-21-2014, 06:41 AM
Can you please learn that the past tense of "learn" is "learned", and that "learnt" is considered an irregular verb?

Thanks.

I learnt something new today.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 06:43 AM
I learnt something new today.

Somebody hand me a ball bat! :rant:

Cerebrum123
11-21-2014, 06:46 AM
Mmm. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either God was preparing the clearest text He could for all time, or this the encultured writing of a people which needs to be understood in the way it was 'originally' intended.

Where did I ever claim the first? :huh:

Taking the Bible in it's context, and how it was intended to be understood by the authors[1] is one of the things I try to get as close to as I possibly can.


The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?

Cruel action, seems to depend on the situation, like the Canaanites, or driving the money changers out of the Temple[2]. Cruel words, yes, even Jesus was quite harsh, even to those who were not enemies. He called Peter "Satan" after all.

1.Yes, I do include God as the "primary" author, but acknowledge that men were the ones holding the pens.
2. This is another incident in the Bible that is often attacked as "barbaric" as well.

whag
11-21-2014, 06:58 AM
The Psalms were most likely Canaanite texts based on the evidence and not written in Babylonian exile, or in reference to the exile. The texts of the Psalms are heavily polytheistic, Persia at the time of the exile was dominantly Monotheistic, and represent the early pre-Kingdom history of the Hebrews who had a close tribal association with the Canaanites and Philistines. Since the Hebrews did not have their own distinctive written language it inherited a large amount of their written scripture from earlier sources. It needs to be understood that much of the Tanakh was not written specifically by Hebrews, but evolved from older texts from different tribes and cultures of the Middle East before the Hebrews had a distinct written language.

Early references originating from older texts have reference to a violent inter tribal conflict and human sacrafice.

That's what disturbs me about the apologias for this psalm. I don't consider plunging a knife into a baby (via the sacrificial practices you mentioned) or throwing an infant against a rock (per the psalm) an understandable "human" feeling, even if I had been oppressed by the parents of those babies.

I don't, for example, identify with extremist Muslims who want to get revenge on the west by killing civilians and children.

The Pixie
11-21-2014, 07:05 AM
Can you please learn that the past tense of "learn" is "learned", and that "learnt" is considered an irregular verb?
Looks like yet another unsupported claim by a professed Christian that I reject.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/learnt-vs-learned

KingsGambit
11-21-2014, 07:10 AM
That's what disturbs me about the apologias for this psalm. I don't consider plunging a knife into a baby (via the sacrificial practices you mentioned) or throwing an infant against a rock (per the psalm) an understandable "human" feeling, even if I had been oppressed by the parents of those babies.

I don't, for example, identify with extremist Muslims who want to get revenge on the west by killing civilians and children.

I think the best thing to keep in mind here is Adrift's quotation of John Goldingay in post 12. Much of the biblical language in apocalyptic, prophetic, and poetic books is picture language contributing to an overall impression and not intended to press literal details (note Goldingay's argument that the children may refer to Babylon as a whole and not literally to Babylonian children). Yes, it is disturbing... but that's the very point.

whag
11-21-2014, 07:19 AM
I think the best thing to keep in mind here is Adrift's quotation of John Goldingay in post 12. Much of the biblical language in apocalyptic, prophetic, and poetic books is picture language contributing to an overall impression and not intended to press literal details (note Goldingay's argument that the children may refer to Babylon as a whole and not literally to Babylonian children). Yes, it is disturbing... but that's the very point.

I did see that and forgot to like it. It's really the only apologia that should be offered, not this claptrap about baby-smashing urges being an "understandable" emotion in war.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 07:23 AM
So Pixie, you are against dashing children to death against rocks?

How about killing them in the womb? Whatcha think about that?

whag
11-21-2014, 07:26 AM
John Goldingay makes an interesting point about that passage in his commentary on Psalms,

Yet we should not press the psalm’s metaphorical language. None of the passages that refer to smashing children are simple reports of someone’s action; all come in the words of the prophets, apart from this psalm that appeals to the words of prophets. Zedekiah’s sons were not actually smashed on a crag and neither are the children of Iraq, and it is unlikely that this is what the psalm literally envisages. Middle Eastern writings like to express things concretely rather than abstractly in terms,



*Keel, symbolism, 9.

This is the only apologia that works, IMO, since asking people to accept that baby-dashing/smashing is an understandable "human" emotion--even in war--is beyond the pale.

whag
11-21-2014, 07:27 AM
So Pixie, you are against dashing children to death against rocks?

How about killing them in the womb? Whatcha think about that?

The abortion card. Nice.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 07:30 AM
This is the only apologia that works, IMO, since asking people to accept that baby-dashing/smashing is an understandable "human" emotion--even in war--is beyond the pale.

We do it everyday, in peacetime. Yet it is called "abortion" and "having control of a woman's own body" to make it more palatable.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 07:33 AM
The abortion card. Nice.

Ignoring it. nice.

I agree that the psalm was more about asking God to revenge the deaths of their own people than actually condoning killing children for pleasure. But it seems strange to me that known liberals such as yourself and Pixie want to decry the inhumanity of killing children in war, but have no problem with women killing their own children by the thousands during peacetime for convenience.

Cerebrum123
11-21-2014, 07:38 AM
The abortion card. Nice.

:no:
If anything, it's "The hypocrisy card". :yes:

Cerebrum123
11-21-2014, 07:39 AM
Ignoring it. nice.

I agree that the psalm was more about asking God to revenge the deaths of their own people than actually condoning killing children for pleasure. But it seems strange to me that known liberals such as yourself and Pixie want to decry the inhumanity of killing children in war, but have no problem with women killing their own children by the thousands during peacetime for convenience.

ChaosRain in another thread said abortion is fine so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut. :twitch:

Christianbookworm
11-21-2014, 07:46 AM
ChaosRain in another thread said abortion is fine so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut. :twitch:

So, he'd think partial birth abortion is ok? What difference does cutting the cord make! And :offtopic:

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 08:00 AM
Looks like yet another unsupported claim by a professed Christian that I reject.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/learnt-vs-learned

Well, yeah, that's EXACTLY the site I checked....


These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. ‘Learnt’ is more common in British English, and ‘learned’ in American English. There are a number of verbs of this type (burn, dream, kneel, lean, leap, spell, spill, spoil etc.). They are all irregular verbs, and this is a part of their irregularity.
So, not only is my "claim" supported, it was supported in the very reference you chose! :smug: (emphasis mine)
I had simply ASKED....

Can you please learn that the past tense of "learn" is "learned", and that "learnt" is considered an irregular verb?

Thanks.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 08:06 AM
:no:
If anything, it's "The hypocrisy card". :yes:

Well, yeah, since one of the methods of late term abortion involves piercing the skull of the baby with a pair of scissors (http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/OQ/cat/MzQ/id/MjQ0NA/)..... :eww:

The Pixie
11-21-2014, 08:47 AM
Well, yeah, that's EXACTLY the site I checked....


These are alternative forms of the past tense and past participle of the verb learn. ‘Learnt’ is more common in British English, and ‘learned’ in American English. There are a number of verbs of this type (burn, dream, kneel, lean, leap, spell, spill, spoil etc.). They are all irregular verbs, and this is a part of their irregularity.
So, not only is my "claim" supported, it was supported in the very reference you chose! :smug: (emphasis mine)
I had simply ASKED....
Wrong again, Cow Poke.

Firstly, I said your claim was unsupported, and as I check back at the post I was responding (#62 if anyone else wants to check), yes, it was definitely unsupported. There is no link, no quote, nothing to support it.

Secondly, you have missed sonething fundamental here. I live in the UK.

I use English English, because I am English and live in England. And in England English, we say "learnt". So yet again a professed Christian has failed to correct me. Perhaps the smug smilie was a little premature...

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 08:49 AM
Wrong again, Cow Poke.

Firstly, I said your claim was unsupported, and as I check back at the post I was responding (#62 if anyone else wants to check), yes, it was definitely unsupported. There is no link, no quote, nothing to support it.

Secondly, you have missed sonething fundamental here. I live in the UK.

I use English English, because I am English and live in England. And in England English, we say "learnt". So yet again a professed Christian has failed to correct me. Perhaps the smug smilie was a little premature...

You misspelled 'something'. :blush: Or is that how you do it in Sockland?

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 09:05 AM
The word translated "witch" there refers to someone who performs herb based curses and goes around trying to poison people.

I can't read ancient Greek or Hebrew. I cannot verify whether or not you are correct. Every English Bible I know of translates the word as witch or sorcerer/ess. If your issue is that all English Bibles are translated incorrectly and should say "poisoner" then the problem is not with my reaction to the accepted translation, the problem is with your interpretation clashing with all Bible translations. I am sure you can see why I am inclined to disbelieve you. Even assuming you are correct, the passage advocates the death penalty, so it is still horrible.

One Bad Pig
11-21-2014, 09:39 AM
So Pixie, you are against dashing children to death against rocks?

How about killing them in the womb? Whatcha think about that?
Pixie did not start the thread because he's against dashing children to death against rocks. He started the thread because he thinks the verse is inconsistent with what Christians tend to profess.

Whag, on the other hand, is indeed playing the hypocrite in the first response to Pixie.

shunyadragon
11-21-2014, 09:55 AM
So Pixie, you are against dashing children to death against rocks?

How about killing them in the womb? Whatcha think about that?

Respect for human life should be uniform and consistent. There are contradictions here that are not resolved.

Adrift
11-21-2014, 10:23 AM
I can't read ancient Greek or Hebrew. I cannot verify whether or not you are correct. Every English Bible I know of translates the word as witch or sorcerer/ess. If your issue is that all English Bibles are translated incorrectly and should say "poisoner" then the problem is not with my reaction to the accepted translation, the problem is with your interpretation clashing with all Bible translations. I am sure you can see why I am inclined to disbelieve you. Even assuming you are correct, the passage advocates the death penalty, so it is still horrible.

Its been awhile since I've looked into the subject, but I believe Kelp's going by the Septuagint Greek translation for "witch" or "sorceress" in that passage which is φαρμακοὺς = pharmakos, which is where we get our English words like pharmacy, and pharmacist. In the ancient world, this would have been someone who worked with drugs, herbs, remedies, and poisons. The Hebrew is כָּשַׁף = kashaph, and I believe simply refers to somebody who practices divination and talking to the dead. Actually, here, let me just quote from OT scholar Victor Hamilton's commentary on the subject,

The feminine word mekassepa ("sorceress") is the feminine counterpart of masculine mekassep in Deut. 18:10 (NIV, "[one who] engages in witchcraft"). The difference between the two scriptural references, apart from gender, is that Deut. 18 only condemns the practice of sorcery, while Exod. 22 punishes its practice with death.

One cannot be certain why the text singles out the "sorceress," and in lead position in the sentence at that, and not the "sorcerer"; see A. Brenner 1997: 84-86. Both females (Exod. 22:18 [17]; 1 Sam. 28; Isa. 47:9, 12; Ezek. 13:18; Nah. 3:4) and males (Exod. 7:11; Deut. 18:10; 2 Chron. 33:6; Jer. 27:9; Dan. 2:2) were practitioners of magic. It might be, to use a modern example, that one sees more "palm readers" who are women rather than men, more Berthas than Berts. The same situation existed in Mesopotamia. Sefati and Klein (2004: 180) note that in the K volume of CAD the entry for kashshapu ("sorcerer") fills up about two-thirds of a dictionary column, while the entry for kashshaptu ("sorceress") fills nearly two full columns. Like the OT, Mesopotamia texts frown on the practive of "black magic," such as sorcery, but unlike the OT, Mesopotamian texts are more accepting of the practice of "white magic," such as divination.

The two main forms that magic assumed in the biblical world were divination and sorcery. Milgrom (1990:471) helpfully observes that the two differ in their objective. The purpose of divination, through whatever means the diviner uses, is to predict the future. The purpose of sorcery is to alter the future. Says Milgrom, "The magician who claims to curse or bless is a sorcerer, whereas the one who tells events but cannot affect them is a diviner." Such a distinction, if on target, puts the practice of sorcery in a more reprehensible position than the practicing of divining. The divining person reaches conclusions passively. The practicing sorcerer reaches conclusions actively. One reports; the other programs. One prognosticates; the other manipulates.

The penalty phase of this law might have used stronger language, such as "She shall surely be put to death." Instead, it uses the softer "You shall not let [her] live." The Hebrew verb tehayyeh can be parsed as a Piel second-person masculine singular imperfect ("You shall [not] let live") or as a Piel third-person feminine singular imperfect (see Eccles. 7:12 for the form); hence it can mean "A sorceress--she shall not cause [the dead] to live," shall not engage in magic like necromancy (Bretherton 2005). The verb is similar to that used by Jacob to Laban about the alleged theft of Laban's gods: "But if you find anyone who has your gods, he shall not live" (Gen. 31:32). The difference between the two verbs is that Jacob uses the Qal of "live" (yihyeh) while this law about the sorceress uses the Piel of "live" (tehayyeh).

Also, OT scholar Douglas Stuart reminds out that sorcery led people astray from placing their faith in the divine knowledge of Yahweh alone (for example, Saul and the witch of Endor), which was forbidden to the Israelites.

whag
11-21-2014, 10:41 AM
Ignoring it. nice.

Conflating both. Nice.


I agree that the psalm was more about asking God to revenge the deaths of their own people than actually condoning killing children for pleasure. But it seems strange to me that known liberals such as yourself and Pixie want to decry the inhumanity of killing children in war, but have no problem with women killing their own children by the thousands during peacetime for convenience.

Which is where your naked hypocrisy comes in. If even hundreds of newborn babies were being smashed against rocks in the US, you and I would take up arms to save them if police refused to get involved. As long as we're presuming and assuming about me, I'd wager you've spent more time playing video games than lifting a finger to combat the horror you just described.

Kelp(p)
11-21-2014, 10:44 AM
I can't read ancient Greek or Hebrew. I cannot verify whether or not you are correct. Every English Bible I know of translates the word as witch or sorcerer/ess. If your issue is that all English Bibles are translated incorrectly and should say "poisoner" then the problem is not with my reaction to the accepted translation, the problem is with your interpretation clashing with all Bible translations. I am sure you can see why I am inclined to disbelieve you. Even assuming you are correct, the passage advocates the death penalty, so it is still horrible.I looked but I couldn't find my source that said it was mostly a command against people who cursed others (which would have been seen as a serious threat to public safety) so I guess I'll have to withdraw the point. Though since you reject the idea that the death penalty can ever be justified, there isn't much I can prove to you regarding the passage, anyway.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 10:50 AM
Conflating both. Nice.



Which is where your naked hypocrisy comes in. If even hundreds of newborn babies were being smashed against rocks in the US, you and I would take up arms to save them if police refused to get involved. As long as we're presuming and assuming about me, I'd wager you've spent more time playing video games than lifting a finger to combat the horror you just described.


Still avoiding the hypocrisy card you played? You are for abortion, yet you think killing children is abhorrent. I think both killing born and unborn children is abhorrent. As others have said, that is not what the verse was claiming God wanted, or blessed.

As far as what I do to "combat the horror"? That is between me, my church and God. I have helped with money, direct support (in the case of friends) and make my views known publicly.

Kelp(p)
11-21-2014, 10:51 AM
Conflating both. Nice.



Which is where your naked hypocrisy comes in. If even hundreds of newborn babies were being smashed against rocks in the US, you and I would take up arms to save them if police refused to get involved. As long as we're presuming and assuming about me, I'd wager you've spent more time playing video games than lifting a finger to combat the horror you just described.
Yeah, Sparko, this is kind of a point on which I actually have to agree with Epoetker, of all people. If abortion really is murder, then aren't the abortion clinic bombers right? We rightly disparage those who hoped to stop the Holocaust with non-violent solutions, after all.

Note to readers and the friendly NSA man: Nobody here in this thread is advocating bombing abortion clinics. This is strictly hypothetical.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 10:54 AM
Yeah, Sparko, this is kind of a point on which I actually have to agree with Epoetker, of all people. If abortion really is murder, then aren't the abortion clinic bombers right? We rightly disparage those who hoped to stop the Holocaust with non-violent solutions, after all.

Note to readers and the friendly NSA man: Nobody here in this thread is advocating bombing abortion clinics. This is strictly hypothetical.

We are not soldiers or police. We don't have any legal right to go around murdering murderers. Our only legal recourse right now is to fight the legality of abortion and get it banned. Trying to prevent one evil with another is never the answer.

whag
11-21-2014, 10:54 AM
As far as what I do to "combat the horror"? That is between me, my church and God. I have helped with money, direct support (in the case of friends) and make my views known publicly.

Sure you do. And thanks for demonstrating the conflation is absurd.

whag
11-21-2014, 10:56 AM
We are not soldiers or police. We don't have any legal right to go around murdering murderers. Our only legal recourse right now is to fight the legality of abortion and get it banned. Trying to prevent one evil with another is never the answer.

Translation: I'd sit on my hands during a rash of newborn baby smashing.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 10:58 AM
Sure you do.

yeah, I do.


And thanks for demonstrating the conflation is absurd.

You are still avoiding the question. Why do you think it is OK to kill a baby in the womb but think that it is abhorrent to kill a child who belongs to your enemy by bashing him against a rock? Or killing a child for any reason?

Sparko
11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
Translation: I'd sit on my hands during a rash of newborn baby smashing.

huh? reading comprehension problems? I was talking about bombing abortion clinics. As much as I dislike it, they are legal. Now if someone came into my home and tried to "abort" my pregnant wife's baby, I would have the right to defend her and it's life by any means necessary. Or if someone were to try to bash in the head of a child with me there able to protect them. Sure, there is hypocrisy there, but not by me, by people such as yourself and our government that says it is OK to kill a child in one situation but not another.


So, how do you explain your opposing views? Why is killing a child in the womb OK but not after it is born?

whag
11-21-2014, 11:05 AM
yeah, I do.



You are still avoiding the question. Why do you think it is OK to kill a baby in the womb but think that it is abhorrent to kill a child who belongs to your enemy by bashing him against a rock? Or killing a child for any reason?

You'd have to demonstrate a smidgen of understanding of the issue before I engage you on that. Obviously, the two aren't the same, since you aren't doing anything about the current holocaust that would indicate you take it as seriously as you expressed.

Am I presuming too much? How does it feel?

Sparko
11-21-2014, 11:08 AM
You'd have to demonstrate a smidgen of understanding of the issue before I engage you on that. Obviously, the two aren't the same, since you aren't doing anything about the current holocaust that would indicate you take it as seriously as you expressed.

Am I presuming too much? How does it feel?

If feels like you realize that you are a hypocrite and can't explain why and so you are avoiding it and trying to play the "I am rubber you are glue" kindergarten game here.

whag
11-21-2014, 11:14 AM
If feels like you realize that you are a hypocrite and can't explain why and so you are avoiding it and trying to play the "I am rubber you are glue" kindergarten game here.

A good clue that you shouldn't go on "feeling." I "feel" like you spend more money and time on entertainment than combating the horror you described.

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 11:15 AM
I looked but I couldn't find my source that said it was mostly a command against people who cursed others (which would have been seen as a serious threat to public safety) so I guess I'll have to withdraw the point. Though since you reject the idea that the death penalty can ever be justified, there isn't much I can prove to you regarding the passage, anyway.

To clarify, my main problem with the passage is that someone is being put to death for practicing make believe/their own religion. A passage that said "Thou shalt not suffer a murderer to live", while ordering a death penalty, is understandable as a punishment in ancient times. I would take no particular issue with such a passage considering the context. My mentioning of my objection to the death penalty was to illustrate that even though my main concern would be alleviated if you are correct, the passage would still be problematic. My attitude would not take a 180, so to speak.

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 11:15 AM
Its been awhile since I've looked into the subject, but I believe Kelp's going by the Septuagint Greek translation for "witch" or "sorceress" in that passage which is φαρμακοὺς = pharmakos, which is where we get our English words like pharmacy, and pharmacist. In the ancient world, this would have been someone who worked with drugs, herbs, remedies, and poisons. The Hebrew is כָּשַׁף = kashaph, and I believe simply refers to somebody who practices divination and talking to the dead. Actually, here, let me just quote from OT scholar Victor Hamilton's commentary on the subject,

The feminine word mekassepa ("sorceress") is the feminine counterpart of masculine mekassep in Deut. 18:10 (NIV, "[one who] engages in witchcraft"). The difference between the two scriptural references, apart from gender, is that Deut. 18 only condemns the practice of sorcery, while Exod. 22 punishes its practice with death.

One cannot be certain why the text singles out the "sorceress," and in lead position in the sentence at that, and not the "sorcerer"; see A. Brenner 1997: 84-86. Both females (Exod. 22:18 [17]; 1 Sam. 28; Isa. 47:9, 12; Ezek. 13:18; Nah. 3:4) and males (Exod. 7:11; Deut. 18:10; 2 Chron. 33:6; Jer. 27:9; Dan. 2:2) were practitioners of magic. It might be, to use a modern example, that one sees more "palm readers" who are women rather than men, more Berthas than Berts. The same situation existed in Mesopotamia. Sefati and Klein (2004: 180) note that in the K volume of CAD the entry for kashshapu ("sorcerer") fills up about two-thirds of a dictionary column, while the entry for kashshaptu ("sorceress") fills nearly two full columns. Like the OT, Mesopotamia texts frown on the practive of "black magic," such as sorcery, but unlike the OT, Mesopotamian texts are more accepting of the practice of "white magic," such as divination.

The two main forms that magic assumed in the biblical world were divination and sorcery. Milgrom (1990:471) helpfully observes that the two differ in their objective. The purpose of divination, through whatever means the diviner uses, is to predict the future. The purpose of sorcery is to alter the future. Says Milgrom, "The magician who claims to curse or bless is a sorcerer, whereas the one who tells events but cannot affect them is a diviner." Such a distinction, if on target, puts the practice of sorcery in a more reprehensible position than the practicing of divining. The divining person reaches conclusions passively. The practicing sorcerer reaches conclusions actively. One reports; the other programs. One prognosticates; the other manipulates.

The penalty phase of this law might have used stronger language, such as "She shall surely be put to death." Instead, it uses the softer "You shall not let [her] live." The Hebrew verb tehayyeh can be parsed as a Piel second-person masculine singular imperfect ("You shall [not] let live") or as a Piel third-person feminine singular imperfect (see Eccles. 7:12 for the form); hence it can mean "A sorceress--she shall not cause [the dead] to live," shall not engage in magic like necromancy (Bretherton 2005). The verb is similar to that used by Jacob to Laban about the alleged theft of Laban's gods: "But if you find anyone who has your gods, he shall not live" (Gen. 31:32). The difference between the two verbs is that Jacob uses the Qal of "live" (yihyeh) while this law about the sorceress uses the Piel of "live" (tehayyeh).

Also, OT scholar Douglas Stuart reminds out that sorcery led people astray from placing their faith in the divine knowledge of Yahweh alone (for example, Saul and the witch of Endor), which was forbidden to the Israelites.

Thank you very much for this commentary. Very educational.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 11:16 AM
A good clue that you shouldn't go on "feeling." I "feel" like you spend more money and time on entertainment than combating the horror you described.

Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy. Your avoidance just confirms it for everyone reading it.

KingsGambit
11-21-2014, 11:22 AM
Its been awhile since I've looked into the subject, but I believe Kelp's going by the Septuagint Greek translation for "witch" or "sorceress" in that passage which is φαρμακοὺς = pharmakos, which is where we get our English words like pharmacy, and pharmacist. In the ancient world, this would have been someone who worked with drugs, herbs, remedies, and poisons. The Hebrew is כָּשַׁף = kashaph, and I believe simply refers to somebody who practices divination and talking to the dead.

Isn't one of the words on the "sin list" in Galatians 5:20 related to pharmakos somehow? Some people have used it to argue against the practice of pharmacy but I think the common translations of sorcery or witchcraft are closer to the mark.

whag
11-21-2014, 11:23 AM
Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy. Your avoidance just confirms it for everyone reading it.

I will grant you that the ProLife Activism forum is positively hopping with activity and pregnant with innovative ideas. Last post 10/30.

You should let the evil ones participate. You exposed the glaring need.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 11:26 AM
In particular I am hoping Jesse will clear up what verse 9 actually means:

Of course, that is in English, and apparently not at all accurate, however, the Hebrew can be seen here:

http://biblehub.com/text/psalms/137-9.htm

I am just an ignorant atheist, but to me the Bible is saying that God blesses people who smash kids against rocks. Not just any kids, of course - there is a right time and a wrong time for everything. But sometimes it is right to smash kids on rocks. I have to confess to being ignorant of ANE languages, and the true meaning of this Psalm eludes me - or so Jesse assures me.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Much of Psalms is Messianic prophecy, this referring to people like Paul who was "dashed" against Jesus stumbling over him at first, then "broken" and coming to believe.

Where others who stubbornly resist, Jesus will crush them.

It's not about smashing babies to death against rocks.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Psalms 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

Psalms 118:23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

Adrift
11-21-2014, 11:27 AM
Yeah, Sparko, this is kind of a point on which I actually have to agree with Epoetker, of all people. If abortion really is murder, then aren't the abortion clinic bombers right? We rightly disparage those who hoped to stop the Holocaust with non-violent solutions, after all.

Note to readers and the friendly NSA man: Nobody here in this thread is advocating bombing abortion clinics. This is strictly hypothetical.

Don't we have a parallel in history for that? Throughout the Roman empire the practice of infant exposure to the elements was a widespread practice. Christians didn't take up arms against the Roman empire or the societies they ruled, rather they took the children in and raised them as their own.

Sparko
11-21-2014, 11:29 AM
I will grant you that the ProLife Activism forum is positively hopping with activity and pregnant with innovative ideas. Last post 10/30.

You should let the evil ones participate. You exposed the glaring need.

again this shows you don't even understand the hypocritical position you hold or what my point was. I am not here to discuss abortion, but pointing out how people like you think killing a defenseless and innocent child is perfectly fine or a "horror" (your word) solely dependent on the location of that child.

KingsGambit
11-21-2014, 11:30 AM
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Much of Psalms is Messianic prophecy, this referring to people like Paul who was "dashed" against Jesus stumbling over him at first, then "broken" and coming to believe.

Where others who stubbornly resist, Jesus will crush them.

It's not about smashing babies to death against rocks.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

1 Peter 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

1 Peter 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

Psalms 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

Psalms 118:23 This is the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.

It was almost certainly not written intended to be messianic prophecy, even if the early Christians did later interpret them in that manner.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 11:32 AM
It was almost certainly not written intended to be messianic prophecy, even if the early Christians did later interpret them in that manner.

Why not.

whag
11-21-2014, 11:35 AM
again this shows you don't even understand the hypocritical position you hold or what my point was. I am not here to discuss abortion, but pointing out how people like you think killing a defenseless and innocent child is perfectly fine or a "horror" (your word) solely dependent on the location of that child.

...he said, bristling that his lack of ardor and innovation had been exposed...

Get off your duff and start doing something about the holocaust. Put down your joystick and start engaging the community would be a good start. =)

KingsGambit
11-21-2014, 11:37 AM
Why not.

Referring specifically to the Psalms passages: I don't see any internal (or external) indications that they were immediately understood in that manner and they generally have understandable contexts apart from the messianic implications. The early church appropriated Old Testament scriptures in creative ways for their purpose, and this was considered a legitimate interpretive practice at the time.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 11:40 AM
Referring specifically to the Psalms passages: I don't see any internal (or external) indications that they were immediately understood in that manner and they generally have understandable contexts apart from the messianic implications. The early church appropriated Old Testament scriptures in creative ways for their purpose, and this was considered a legitimate interpretive practice at the time.

You don't believe in prophecy then, and you think Jesus was just being creative?

Right after that we see:

Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

Psalms 138:5 Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

It's talking about the future, hasn't happened yet.

KingsGambit
11-21-2014, 11:42 AM
You don't believe in prophecy then, and you think Jesus was just being creative?

Right after that we see:

Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

Psalms 138:5 Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

It's talking about the future, hasn't happened yet.

I do believe in prophecy, but the full implications thereof don't have to have been something the writers were conscious of when they were writing it.

Adrift
11-21-2014, 11:47 AM
Isn't one of the words on the "sin list" in Galatians 5:20 related to pharmakos somehow? Some people have used it to argue against the practice of pharmacy but I think the common translations of sorcery or witchcraft are closer to the mark.

Yep. I mean, obviously people practicing sorcery or divination were doing things like inhaling vapors, and using/offering poisons (we see this in myths about Circe for instance), but I don't think its necessarily an anti-drug passage. :smile:

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 11:47 AM
I do believe in prophecy, but the full implications thereof don't have to have been something the writers were conscious of when they were writing it.

Do you believe they were written after the Babylonian exile, or were they about the future? Who do you think wrote that section?

KingsGambit
11-21-2014, 11:50 AM
Do you believe they were written after the Babylonian exile, or were they about the future? Who do you think wrote that section?

I honestly am not familiar with the background of those particular Psalms so anything I came up with would be random speculation. Maybe I ought to read the Goldingay commentary mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 12:21 PM
You don't believe in prophecy then, and you think Jesus was just being creative?

Right after that we see:

Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

Psalms 138:5 Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

It's talking about the future, hasn't happened yet.

There's a huge error in your logic.
Psalm 137 and Psalm 138 are two totally different psalms, or hymns.
That's like saying "Joy to the World" must be about Santa Clause because it followed "Here Comes Santa Clause" on my Christmas CD. :huh:

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 12:29 PM
Look at Psalm 136. It is more like Psalm 138. Psalm 137 is more like "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen" while Psalm 136 and Psalm 138 are like "River Dance". :smile:

(I know, cause I'm a Psalm Psinger! :wink:)

Jedidiah
11-21-2014, 02:14 PM
Alright, with the corollary that this conversation is about an example of what I find wrong with the Bible. I don't know if this is the proper place to start a whole side discussion. My example is Exodus 22:18.

So by what you find wrong with the Bible simply means you don't like it?

Jedidiah
11-21-2014, 02:18 PM
You'd have to demonstrate a smidgen of understanding of the issue before I engage you on that.

This has to be a joke. No one can be that much of a hypocrite.

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 02:48 PM
So by what you find wrong with the Bible simply means you don't like it?

That's a very blunt way of talking about a nuanced issue. I like the Bible as literature and mythology. It's commands and decrees are often morally repugnant. There are other issues that arise when it is claimed to be inerrant or modern Christian practices are compared to the original word.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 02:53 PM
That's a very blunt way of talking about a nuanced issue. I like the Bible as literature and mythology. It's commands and decrees are often morally repugnant. There are other issues that arise when it is claimed to be inerrant or modern Christian practices are compared to the original word.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "inerrant"? Or, what do you think we mean when we say that?

Christianbookworm
11-21-2014, 02:58 PM
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "inerrant"? Or, what do you think we mean when we say that?

I wonder if he's confusing reporting an event and condoning an event? Or thinking Psalms have commands?

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 03:00 PM
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "inerrant"? Or, what do you think we mean when we say that?

Inspired by God so as to avoid the mistakes and falsehoods non-inspired mortal writers may or would make. Plainly, without error in moral judgment or historicity and without contradiction.

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 03:02 PM
I wonder if he's confusing reporting an event and condoning an event? Or thinking Psalms have commands?

I'll direct you to reply #40 in this topic for my feelings on Psalms and the topical passage.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 03:11 PM
Inspired by God so as to avoid the mistakes and falsehoods non-inspired mortal writers may or would make. Plainly, without error in moral judgment or historicity and without contradiction.

Wow.... where'd you get that definition?

Kelp(p)
11-21-2014, 03:16 PM
Don't we have a parallel in history for that? Throughout the Roman empire the practice of infant exposure to the elements was a widespread practice. Christians didn't take up arms against the Roman empire or the societies they ruled, rather they took the children in and raised them as their own.
I guess you're right. I didn't think of that.

Christianbookworm
11-21-2014, 03:26 PM
I'll direct you to reply #40 in this topic for my feelings on Psalms and the topical passage.

Okay, so at least you aren't one of those people that don't understand that Psalms are songs.

Jesse
11-21-2014, 04:31 PM
And that is great for you. I am glad you got something out of it. However, since this thread was pointed directly at me, I will treat a troll exactly the way it should be treated. By showing it for what it is then ignoring it. You seem to miss the point of this thread entirely. This was not about Pixie wanting an explanation of a text from me. He wanted to try and play gotcha as anyone can plainly see. Pixie continued to campaigned for an a** kicking, then got elected. No one is to blame for that but him. You can treat him any way you like.

Not even veiled profanity allowed. Violation of Decorum rules.

Sorry about that TWeb. I was tired and grouchy. But that is no excuse for the language. My apologies.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 04:42 PM
There's a huge error in your logic.
Psalm 137 and Psalm 138 are two totally different psalms, or hymns.
That's like saying "Joy to the World" must be about Santa Clause because it followed "Here Comes Santa Clause" on my Christmas CD. :huh:

No, it's like saying it's talking about the future. Meaning neither had happened yet.

Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.
Psalms 138:5 Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

Where in the Bible does it talk about destruction of a Babylon, Jesus crushing enemies, and all the kings of the earth praising God?

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 04:44 PM
No, it's like saying it's talking about the future. Meaning neither had happened yet.

Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.
Psalms 138:5 Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

Where in the Bible does it talk about destruction of a Babylon, Jesus crushing enemies, and all the kings of the earth praising God?

So, you're into cafeteria theology, eh? :lolo:

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 04:55 PM
So, you're into cafeteria theology, eh? :lolo:

No I'm into Jesus among others referring to Psalms as relating to things explained in the NT. You know they did right?

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 05:00 PM
No I'm into Jesus among others referring to Psalms as relating to things explained in the NT. You know they did right?

Not everything in the Psalms is a prophecy, you know that, right?

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 05:03 PM
Not everything in the Psalms is a prophecy, you know that, right?

What are these, just guesses? They are talking about things that haven't happened yet (hadn't happened, rather, in the case of Psalms 137:8. Psalms 138:4 has never happened yet).

Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

Both those things do happen in Revelation, however, as well as Jesus as a stone crushing enemies.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 05:15 PM
What are these, just guesses? They are talking about things that haven't happened yet (hadn't happened, rather, in the case of Psalms 137:8. Psalms 138:4 has never happened yet).

Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

Both those things do happen in Revelation, however, as well as Jesus as a stone crushing enemies.

Luby's. I love the fried fish.

Kelp(p)
11-21-2014, 05:20 PM
I don't see anything wrong with a typological reading (along side the literal, historical meaning) of the Psalms as long as you don't go crazy with it. He's just making simple, Christ-centered interpretations- not saying that the breasts of the woman in the Song of Solomon represent the inner and outer man (a la St. Gregory of Nyssa) or anything like that.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 05:25 PM
I don't see anything wrong with a typological reading (along side the literal, historical meaning) of the Psalms as long as you don't go crazy with it. He's just making simple, Christ-centered interpretations- not saying that the breasts of the woman in the Song of Solomon represent the inner and outer man (a la St. Gregory of Nyssa) or anything like that.

And they are actually prophecies/predictions/guesses of the future, as they are presented. Since Revelation discusses another Babylon falling, who's to say 137 isn't a dual prophecy? I'm pretty sure that all the kings of the earth haven't praised God yet, if they did I must have missed that one.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 05:27 PM
They make pretty good salads, too! :yes:

whag
11-21-2014, 05:58 PM
This has to be a joke. No one can be that much of a hypocrite.

No it's not a joke; no i'm not a hypocrite; and, yes, Sparko doesn't have a smidgen of understanding, as evidenced here:


most of us feel that ANY abortion, at any stage of life, is state-sanctioned murder.

In fact, many Christians have a more moderate pro-life view and don't consider ANY abortion, no matter the circumstance or stage of pregnancy, 'state-sanctioned murder."

The irony is that, as long as that extreme view persists, the movement won't reduce the amount of abortions. Catholics pushing hard against birth control serve as a perfect example of how far off the rails the movement has gone. Pro-birth has replaced pro-life.

Cerealman
11-21-2014, 06:01 PM
And they are actually prophecies/predictions/guesses of the future, as they are presented. Since Revelation discusses another Babylon falling, who's to say 137 isn't a dual prophecy? I'm pretty sure that all the kings of the earth haven't praised God yet, if they did I must have missed that one.

Besides your own words can you provide a source?

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 06:02 PM
A similar view to mine:

The key to understanding the prophecy "against" Babylon in Psalm 137:8-9 is to remember who the Rock is in the psalter. The Rock is God. Dashing the children’s heads against the Rock is an image not of utter destruction but of salvation. (This is a great verse to preach on when doing an infant baptism.) Either a man falls upon the Rock and is saved, or the Rock falls upon him and crushes him (Luke 20:18). (In Psalm 137:9 "rock" is singular, not plural, contrary to the old King James and the NIV.) -Source (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-3-the-problem-of-psalm-137/)

Christianbookworm
11-21-2014, 06:04 PM
How about a SCHOLARLY source?

Jedidiah
11-21-2014, 06:40 PM
That's a very blunt way of talking about a nuanced issue. I like the Bible as literature and mythology. It's commands and decrees are often morally repugnant. There are other issues that arise when it is claimed to be inerrant or modern Christian practices are compared to the original word.

Blunt but completely accurate it appears.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 06:58 PM
How about a SCHOLARLY source?

The old argument from authority, ok.


James Burrell Jordan (born December 31, 1949) is an American Protestant theologian and author. He is the director of Biblical Horizons ministries, an organisation in Niceville, Florida that publishes books, essays and other media dealing with Bible commentary, Biblical theology, and liturgy.

After his 1982 ordination in the Association of Reformed Churches, Jordan served for five years alongside Ray Sutton as associate pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, in Tyler, Texas. He was also the director of Geneva Ministries and Geneva Divinity School.

Since 1988, Jordan has carried out his teaching and writing work full-time through Biblical Horizons, a Niceville, Florida-based research and publishing ministry. Biblical Horizons emphasizes the Trinity and biblical absolutism with a covenant-historical approach to interpretation and a focus on biblical theocracy, eschatology and worship.

Jordan has also served since 2000 as head of the Department of Biblical Studies at the Biblical Theological Seminary, St. Petersburg, Russia, where he teaches Old Testament and Eschatology. -Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Jordan)

Would it help if I added a scholarly-looking image?

2769

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 07:11 PM
Would it help if I added a scholarly-looking image?

2769

You should have LED with that! I'm SOLD!!!!!

pancreasman
11-21-2014, 07:17 PM
The old argument from authority, ok.


James Burrell Jordan (born December 31, 1949) is an American Protestant theologian and author. He is the director of Biblical Horizons ministries, an organisation in Niceville, Florida that publishes books, essays and other media dealing with Bible commentary, Biblical theology, and liturgy.

After his 1982 ordination in the Association of Reformed Churches, Jordan served for five years alongside Ray Sutton as associate pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, in Tyler, Texas. He was also the director of Geneva Ministries and Geneva Divinity School.

Since 1988, Jordan has carried out his teaching and writing work full-time through Biblical Horizons, a Niceville, Florida-based research and publishing ministry. Biblical Horizons emphasizes the Trinity and biblical absolutism with a covenant-historical approach to interpretation and a focus on biblical theocracy, eschatology and worship.

Jordan has also served since 2000 as head of the Department of Biblical Studies at the Biblical Theological Seminary, St. Petersburg, Russia, where he teaches Old Testament and Eschatology. -Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Jordan)

Would it help if I added a scholarly-looking image?

2769

Um, asking for a scholarly source is not an argument from authority. It's not even an argument.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 07:31 PM
Also worthy of note is that it's daughter of Babylon. Zechariah was after Babylon fell to Persia. Who is the daughter, and who are her children?


Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Revelation 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Zechariah 2:7 Deliver thyself, O Zion, that dwellest with the daughter of Babylon.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 07:32 PM
I'm thinking this is what we call eisegesis. :shrug: Or, maybe shoehorning.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 07:34 PM
Um, asking for a scholarly source is not an argument from authority. It's not even an argument.

I would have expected someone to argue how it can only be talking about First Temple Babylon and had nothing to do with the Babylon in Revelation, but I guess nobody wants to touch that one.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 07:36 PM
I'm thinking this is what we call eisegesis. :shrug: Or, maybe shoehorning.

Then I assume you think the Babylon in Revelation is all about First Temple Babylon and nothing was said about any other Babylon by OT prophets. Ok.

Kelp(p)
11-21-2014, 07:44 PM
Catholics pushing hard against birth control serve as a perfect example of how far off the rails the movement has gone. Pro-birth has replaced pro-life.The Catholic Church has always been against birth control for reasons that don't have much to do with abortion.

There is arguably a danger that it will spread to their Protestant and Orthodox fellow travelers, though.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 07:45 PM
Then I assume you think the Babylon in Revelation is all about First Temple Babylon and nothing was said about any other Babylon by OT prophets. Ok.

Johnny, you're trying too hard. Some things fit, others don't. When something doesn't fit, it doesn't mean that all others do not. :glare:

Your assumptions about my thinking are about as valid as your assumptions about prophecy in general.

Seriously, you're trying too hard.

Kelp(p)
11-21-2014, 07:47 PM
And they are actually prophecies/predictions/guesses of the future, as they are presented. Since Revelation discusses another Babylon falling, who's to say 137 isn't a dual prophecy? I'm pretty sure that all the kings of the earth haven't praised God yet, if they did I must have missed that one.Hyperbole? Using the king as metonymy for the believers of all nations (if it has to be literal kings, there's also a problem reconciling it with modern democracies)?

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 07:59 PM
Johnny, you're trying too hard. Some things fit, others don't. When something doesn't fit, it doesn't mean that all others do not. :glare:

Your assumptions about my thinking are about as valid as your assumptions about prophecy in general.

Seriously, you're trying too hard.

Jordan agrees with me about Psalms 137:9. What about that section makes you think it should be limited to wanting revenge after the Babylonian exile? You've not really argued anything about it yet, kinda danced around it. What doesn't fit?

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 08:05 PM
Hyperbole? Using the king as metonymy for the believers of all nations (if it has to be literal kings, there's also a problem reconciling it with modern democracies)?

That's why I'd place it yet in the future:


Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

Psalms 138:5 Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Seems kind of silly to me for Christians to believe some parts of Psalms are prophetic and Messianic but dismiss others out of hand without a good reason.

Adrift
11-21-2014, 08:06 PM
The Catholic Church has always been against birth control for reasons that don't have much to do with abortion.

Their resistance to birth control is explained by their adherence to Aquinas' Natural Law theory to some degree, isn't it? I imagine that both the abortion and the birth control issue find a common denominator in Natural Law.


There is arguably a danger that it will spread to their Protestant and Orthodox fellow travelers, though.

Arguably. I don't think it will though.

Adrift
11-21-2014, 08:09 PM
I'm thinking this is what we call eisegesis. :shrug: Or, maybe shoehorning.

Gotta admit, he's got some really...unique...theories. I don't think many of his theories have much in the way of foundation, but they are unique!

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 08:10 PM
Seems kind of silly to me for Christians to believe some parts of Psalms are prophetic and Messianic but dismiss others out of hand without a good reason.

Johnny,

If you look at an ink blot and see a P-51 Mustang, it's not up to ME to prove there's NOT one -- it's up to you to show there is.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 08:11 PM
Gotta admit, he's got some really...unique...theories. I don't think many of his theories have much in the way of foundation, but they are unique!

I kinda like the one about smashing your children into God! :idea: Glad my parents didn't know about that when I was going through my rebellion. :egad:

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 08:13 PM
I never even heard of the psalms being considered prophetic until you said so.

Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 08:14 PM
You guys hang around with Holding too much blurting out snarky nonsense, try discussing the actual issue.

:huh: I have interacted with Holding maybe TWO TIMES in all my times on Tweb, and don't follow him. :tongue:


Why would it only apply to First Temple Babylon, when other parts of Psalms are considered prophecies of Jesus?

Hey, wait..... I think that's Mother Mary on my tortilla! :stunned:

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 08:15 PM
Oh no no. I learned my lesson from our time on tweb. I'd be stupid to even care to consider anything you say after that.

And you never heard of Psalms being prophetic of Jesus? Ok.

Cerealman
11-21-2014, 08:15 PM
Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

.............you connected that with the psalms? No, never mind I'm just gonna go back to lurking the chat. I'm not getting into this again.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 08:17 PM
.............you connected that with the psalms? No, never mind I'm just gonna go back to lurking the chat. I'm not getting into this again.

Psalms 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

Bye.

Cow Poke
11-21-2014, 08:28 PM
Johnny: Hey, look, that ink blot is a picture of a P-51 Mustang!
Cow Poke: [looking carefully] meh... I'm just not seeing it.
Johnny: Prove to me there's NOT one!
Cow Poke: Umm... dude, show me the wings, the propeller, the tail....
Johnny: So, you believe NO ink blots EVER represent things other than ink blots!!!!


:lolo:

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 08:35 PM
Johnny, the problem with your theory is that your author just quote mines 9 while ignoring what precedes it.


"Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."


8 says happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us (and "what you have done to us" is not a blessing), but 9 does a 180 and is actually a blessing in an otherwise mournful psalm that just expressed a desire for vengeance in the previous verse? Not a plausible interpretation.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 08:39 PM
I kinda like the one about smashing your children into God! :idea: Glad my parents didn't know about that when I was going through my rebellion. :egad:

How would you interpret this verse?


Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

I'd interpret it to say, Paul was an example of being dashed into the stone by Jesus himself, broken but finding the way:


Acts 9:1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

Acts 9:4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Acts 9:8 And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

These guys are not:


Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Daniel 2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Matthew 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

What are your ideas about being dashed into the stone, versus it falling on you? Who are little ones that don't need to be dashed against stones, but their belief is interfered with? And what happens to the one who interferes with it?


Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Revelation 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

Psalms 137:8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

What does this mean?


Matthew 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.




2770

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 08:42 PM
Johnny, the problem with your theory is that your author just quote mines 9 while ignoring what precedes it.

8 says happy is the one who repays you according to what you have done to us (and "what you have done to us" is not a blessing), but 9 does a 180 and is actually a blessing in an otherwise mournful psalm that just expressed a desire for vengeance in the previous verse? Not a plausible interpretation.

I didn't even know about his theory until asked for another source (edit/add: and then yeah Google was my friend). How doesn't it fit in with this?

Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Another add: who are the children of Babylon?

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Adrift
11-21-2014, 09:08 PM
Psalms 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.

Bye.

You'll notice that, while yes, this is the passage that Jesus most likely had in mind, its not the same as the one in the OP which is Psalm 137:9. Completely different context.

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 09:13 PM
I didn't even know about his theory until asked for another source (edit/add: and then yeah Google was my friend). How doesn't it fit in with this?

Revelation 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Another add: who are the children of Babylon?

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Where do you see God blessing Babylon in those verses?

Psychic Missile
11-21-2014, 09:25 PM
Wow.... where'd you get that definition?

Through the various historical definitions as well as common parlance among Christians. Care to explain the true meaning?

Tassman
11-21-2014, 09:26 PM
Well, that settles it! The debate is over! :lolo:

Are you denying that the biblical deity was the tribal God of the Israelites and as such demanded all sorts of cruel actions and genocides against the perceived enemies of His Chosen People?

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 09:31 PM
Are you denying that the biblical deity was the tribal God of the Israelites and as such demanded all sorts of cruel actions and genocides against the perceived enemies of His Chosen People?

Seems to have worked out for them, Jews are the richest ethno-religious group in the US (and probably Europe too) and Judaic offshoots rule most of the planet.

Tassman
11-21-2014, 09:47 PM
Seems to have worked out for them, Jews are the richest ethno-religious group in the US (and probably Europe too) and Judaic offshoots rule most of the planet.

Apart from a few inconveniences along the way, such as the Assyrian conquest, the Babylonian conquest destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt and assorted pogroms throughout history, not to mention the Holocaust - to name a few. Yep, it "worked out OK for them".

And now we have the likes of ISIS using the same tactics as Moses in taking over land, inconveniently occupied by Infidels, in the name of the one true God. Yep, it may well "work out" OK for them too.

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 09:51 PM
Apart from a few inconveniences along the way, such as the Assyrian conquest, the Babylonian conquest destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt and assorted pogroms throughout history, not to mention the Holocaust - to name a few. Yep, it "worked out OK for them".

Jews are still around. I don't see any Assyrians, Babylonians or Romans though.


And now we have the likes of ISIS using the same tactics as Moses in taking over land, inconveniently occupied by Infidels, in the name of the one true God. Yep, it may well "work out" OK for them too.

There you go.

Meanwhile, dysgenic atheistards are busy trying to come up with Swedish words for female masturbation.

Tassman
11-21-2014, 10:55 PM
Jews are still around. I don't see any Assyrians, Babylonians or Romans though.

Ah you're advocating the Machiavellian approach: “The end justifies the means” regardless of the methods used - whether legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil or merely genocidal as per Moses with the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. And fair enough too; they were in the way. ISIS does the same.


There you go.

Meanwhile, dysgenic atheistards are busy trying to come up with Swedish words for female masturbation.

Well let’s hope that they manage it before ISIS, following Moses’ theocratic example, incorporates Sweden into their Caliphate.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 11:02 PM
Where do you see God blessing Babylon in those verses?

I don't, those dashed against the rock are those like Paul who were unbelievers, children of the Whore of Babylon which is unbelieving Jerusalem, broken but came to believe. Jesus himself dashed Paul against the Rock of himself when he went blind but then Paul saw the light. On the other hand those who don't, Jesus comes down on them in the end.

For a "real-time" interpretation post-exile, Ezra played a key role in "dashing" the Jewish children of Babylon -- eg Ezra 10:16 And the children of the captivity did so -- against the "stones" of the Laws of Moses teaching them what they had forgotten or had never known, as Moses had to reintroduce Israel to God, sometimes harshly.

So if an apologetic about that verse seems stretching a bit too much for Jesus, it can also be applied to Ezra without resorting to interpretations of Jewish applause about blood-curdling screams from infants being smashed against rocks. Which as applied there, would seem to be "shoehorned" in considering what Jews should have been hoping for, reconciliation with God after a long exile, rather than revenge against Babylonians that God chose to be punishers of Jews in the first place.

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 11:31 PM
Ah you're advocating the Machiavellian approach: “The end justifies the means” regardless of the methods used - whether legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil or merely genocidal as per Moses with the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. And fair enough too; they were in the way. ISIS does the same.

I'm not advocating anything. I am wondering why so few atheists advocate it though, considering the huge fitness advantage it provides. Most likely atheism itself is severely dysgenic which is why it only springs up voluntarily in prosperous countries it subsequently wrecks, followed swiftly by its adherents taking credit for the accomplishments of the civilizations they emasculated.


Well let’s hope that they manage it before ISIS, following Moses’ theocratic example, incorporates Sweden into their Caliphate.

It makes no difference to me if fatwas are issued by muslims or liberals. In fact I'd get quite a kick out of watching ungrateful feminists like Amanda Marcotte having burkhas slapped on their heads then getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh.

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 11:38 PM
I don't,

Ok, then Revelation has no business in this discussion, I'm glad we agree.


So if an apologetic about that verse seems stretching a bit too much for Jesus, it can also be applied to Ezra without resorting to interpretations of Jewish applause about blood-curdling screams from infants being smashed against rocks. Which as applied there, would seem to be "shoehorned" in considering what Jews should have been hoping for, reconciliation with God after a long exile, rather than revenge against Babylonians that God chose to be punishers of Jews in the first place.

This isn't an "interpretation", it is explicitly worded as a desire for vengeance. Again, your post completely ignores the rest of the psalm in favor of obsession over a stupid rock, which you then shoehorn everywhere you can find.

Adrift
11-21-2014, 11:41 PM
Most likely atheism itself is severely dysgenic which is why it only springs up voluntarily in prosperous countries it subsequently wrecks, followed swiftly by its adherents taking credit for the accomplishments of the civilizations they emasculated.

? Atheism didn't spring up in prosperous countries like Cambodia, China, Vietnam, N. Korea, Russia, or Cuba.


It makes no difference to me if fatwas are issued by muslims or liberals. In fact I'd get quite a kick out of watching ungrateful feminists like Amanda Marcotte having burkhas slapped on their heads getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh/

Christians don't take glee in the suffering of their enemies. They take glee in the repentance, and salvation of their enemies.

Darth Executor
11-21-2014, 11:43 PM
? Atheism didn't spring up in prosperous countries like Cambodia, China, Vietnam, N. Korea, Russia, or Cuba.

voluntarily

The totalitarian atheism of the east was hitched to a pseudo-religion and avoided some (but not all) of its dysgenic traits.


Christians don't take glee in the suffering of their enemies. They take glee in the repentance, and salvation of their enemies.

I'm pretty sure Christians DO take glee in the suffering of their enemies. Maybe you mean shouldn't?

Adrift
11-21-2014, 11:47 PM
voluntarily

The totalitarian atheism of the east was hitched to a pseudo-religion and avoided some (but not all) of its dysgenic traits.

Oh, so the rebellion of the masses in Russia was not voluntary? What do you mean by voluntary?


I'm pretty sure Christians DO take glee in the suffering of their enemies. Maybe you mean shouldn't?

Do you think you should?

Paprika
11-21-2014, 11:55 PM
Oh, so the rebellion of the masses in Russia was not voluntary? What do you mean by voluntary?
So the Russian Orthodox masses voluntarily suppressed their own religion in favour of atheism? :lolo:


Do you think you should?
I think I should pray for justice to be done, which would involve judgment. I see no reason not to be happy when my prayers are answered.

JohnnyP
11-21-2014, 11:57 PM
Ah you're advocating the Machiavellian approach: “The end justifies the means” regardless of the methods used - whether legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil or merely genocidal as per Moses with the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. And fair enough too; they were in the way. ISIS does the same.

Well let’s hope that they manage it before ISIS, following Moses’ theocratic example, incorporates Sweden into their Caliphate.

How do you feel about atheist Jews like Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Dayan, Meir? They followed the example of Moses too in order to conquer the Gentiles of the Promised Land, but they didn't believe in any God.

Many atheists have also used that approach there, the end justifies the means, when they don't even believe in any religious beginning of it.

Don't you think that's worse, to intentionally use religion for an atheist goal, than it is for some poor nut who actually believes in God to use religion for a theist goal?

Adrift
11-22-2014, 12:15 AM
So the Russian Orthodox masses voluntarily suppressed their own religion in favour of atheism? :lolo:

Seems that way. Its not like the Reds had no support from the masses. Its through indifference of the populace that mass persecution typically flourishes.


I think I should pray for justice to be done, which would involve judgment. I see no reason not to be happy when my prayers are answered.

Would you rather not see your enemy repent of their sins than be punished for them?

pancreasman
11-22-2014, 12:22 AM
I'd be interested in knowing whether I am viewed as an enemy or just a guy who disagrees with another guy about some stuff?

Darth Executor
11-22-2014, 12:32 AM
Oh, so the rebellion of the masses in Russia was not voluntary? What do you mean by voluntary?

Voluntarily = people adopt it of their own free will rather than having it crammed down their throat by the state.


Do you think you should?

It's an involuntary reaction.

Darth Executor
11-22-2014, 12:32 AM
I'd be interested in knowing whether I am viewed as an enemy or just a guy who disagrees with another guy about some stuff?

You are too insignificant to view as an enemy.

Darth Executor
11-22-2014, 12:34 AM
Would you rather not see your enemy repent of their sins than be punished for them?

I also prefer cheesecake to regular cake but I'll eat regular cake if that's all I've got.

Adrift
11-22-2014, 12:35 AM
I'd be interested in knowing whether I am viewed as an enemy or just a guy who disagrees with another guy about some stuff?

We were all enemies at one time.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

I always have hope.

Darth Executor
11-22-2014, 12:36 AM
The ends justify the means gets a bad rap as a philosophy because few of the simpletons launching screeds against it actually think through the implications properly. The ends are the only things that justify the means.

JohnnyP
11-22-2014, 12:38 AM
So the Russian Orthodox masses voluntarily suppressed their own religion in favour of atheism? :lolo:

The overwhelming evidence is that many Jews pretended to be Christians until the Tsar was killed and then they came out of the woodwork leading Lenin's new government.

Tassman
11-22-2014, 02:36 AM
I'm not advocating anything.

Yes you are. You said in #172: “Seems to have worked out for them, Jews are the richest ethno-religious group in the US (and probably Europe too) and Judaic offshoots rule most of the planet”, strongly implying that “The end justifies the means” regardless of the methods used.


I am wondering why so few atheists advocate it though, considering the huge fitness advantage it provides. Most likely atheism itself is severely dysgenic which is why it only springs up voluntarily in prosperous countries it subsequently wrecks, followed swiftly by its adherents taking credit for the accomplishments of the civilizations they emasculated.

Atheism doesn’t just “spring up”. It seems that religious belief tends to decline as a by-product of the good education available in the countries ranking high in the Human Development Index.

There’s no evidence that the largely non-theist HDI countries are being “wrecked”, quite the contrary. They’re prospering. Conversely, the much more religious USA has more gun violence, the highest rates of incarceration and greatest wealth inequity of any equivalent nation.


It makes no difference to me if fatwas are issued by muslims or liberals. In fact I'd get quite a kick out of watching ungrateful feminists like Amanda Marcotte having burkhas slapped on their heads then getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh.

Your love of humanity is touching. <sarcasm> You gotta love Christians. :lol:

Paprika
11-22-2014, 04:21 AM
Seems that way. Its not like the Reds had no support from the masses. Its through indifference of the populace that mass persecution typically flourishes.
I think you need to read up on the history; this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union) should be a good start for you.



Would you rather not see your enemy repent of their sins than be punished for them?
Oh yes. But if they're not willing to repent I'll be glad when God finally judges them and ends their evil.

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 05:20 AM
You'll notice that, while yes, this is the passage that Jesus most likely had in mind, its not the same as the one in the OP which is Psalm 137:9. Completely different context.

Context? CONTEXT you say? What a SMASHING idea!!!!!

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 05:26 AM
I'd be interested in knowing whether I am viewed as an enemy or just a guy who disagrees with another guy about some stuff?

Yes, definitely.

The Pixie
11-22-2014, 10:48 AM
It makes no difference to me if fatwas are issued by muslims or liberals. In fact I'd get quite a kick out of watching ungrateful feminists like Amanda Marcotte having burkhas slapped on their heads then getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh.
Wow.

Kind of ironic, given the verse we are discussing. The Israelites were thinking with glee about the children of their emenies being bashed on rocks. Modern Christiand are thinking with glee about their enemies "getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh". Good to see humanity has come so far.

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 10:51 AM
Wow.

Kind of ironic, given the verse we are discussing. The Israelites were thinking with glee about the children of their emenies being bashed on rocks.

That's not just ignorant, it's profoundly ignorant.... the Jews were weeping -- the psalm begins with weeping. "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion."


Modern Christiand are thinking with glee about their enemies "getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh". Good to see humanity has come so far.

Not Modern Christiand [sic], just our beloved Darthy.

The Pixie
11-22-2014, 11:06 AM
That's not just ignorant, it's profoundly ignorant.... the Jews were weeping -- the psalm begins with weeping. "By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion."
My bad, I should have said antipating being happy when the kids were bashed on the rocks and the ungrateful feminists having burkhas slapped on their heads then getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 11:06 AM
My bad, I should have said antipating being happy when the kids were bashed on the rocks and the ungrateful feminists having burkhas slapped on their heads then getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh

Yeah, that makes you look less ignorant.



NOT

Cerealman
11-22-2014, 11:37 AM
My bad, I should have said antipating being happy when the kids were bashed on the rocks and the ungrateful feminists having burkhas slapped on their heads then getting married off to some fat greasy sheikh

anticipating*

The Pixie
11-22-2014, 01:21 PM
Yeah, that makes you look less ignorant.
NOT
But that is what they said. The author of the Psalm was anticipating (thanks Cerealman) someone being happy (or blessed depending on translation) and Darth E. was anticipating getting a kick out of something. What are you objecting to?

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 01:40 PM
But that is what they said. The author of the Psalm was anticipating (thanks Cerealman)

Ah, so not only can you not SPELL anticipating, you're ignorant as to what it entails! :idea:


someone being happy (or blessed depending on translation)

They were asking for retribution. :shrug: That's clear from the context -- the entire psalm.

The Pixie
11-22-2014, 01:50 PM
Ah, so not only can you not SPELL anticipating, you're ignorant as to what it entails!
Do you mean that in the Psalm they are anticipating happiness for someone else, while DE anticipates his own happiness?

They were asking for retribution. :shrug: That's clear from the context -- the entire psalm.
Yes, I know. Did they expect that retribution to happen? If so, they were anticipating someone's happiness at that point.

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 01:57 PM
Do you mean that in the Psalm they are anticipating happiness for someone else, while DE anticipates his own happiness?

Yes, I know. Did they expect that retribution to happen? If so, they were anticipating someone's happiness at that point.

Pix,

Do not be afraid of this shark, cause it's not really a shark. It can't bite you or harm you in any way. It is only a PICTURE of a shark.

2773

Kelp(p)
11-22-2014, 03:09 PM
That's why I'd place it yet in the future:


Psalms 138:4 All the kings of the earth shall praise thee, O LORD, when they hear the words of thy mouth.

Psalms 138:5 Yea, they shall sing in the ways of the LORD: for great is the glory of the LORD.

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

Seems kind of silly to me for Christians to believe some parts of Psalms are prophetic and Messianic but dismiss others out of hand without a good reason.
So you think that in the future, every nation on earth will become a monarchy with a male head so popular and powerful that the people actually care what his religion is? :shifty:

Kelp(p)
11-22-2014, 03:13 PM
Their resistance to birth control is explained by their adherence to Aquinas' Natural Law theory to some degree, isn't it? I imagine that both the abortion and the birth control issue find a common denominator in Natural Law.Mmhm. Wasting sperm was a big deal to him.




Arguably. I don't think it will though.I hope it won't, yeah.

whag
11-22-2014, 03:34 PM
The Catholic Church has always been against birth control for reasons that don't have much to do with abortion.

They're definitely related. There's a reason Mother Theresa often addressed both topics together, essentially fusing them into one movement. Also, you're missing the fact that the best way to reduce abortions is by giving women reproductive control.

Adrift is correct that it's rooted in their adherence to natural law:

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)


There is arguably a danger that it will spread to their Protestant and Orthodox fellow travelers, though.

In calling the expulsion of a zygote "murder," Sparko seems awfully close. I'd say the Catholics have put the movement behind another 20 years with their course-grained approach.

Darth Executor
11-22-2014, 03:40 PM
Yes you are. You said in #172: “Seems to have worked out for them, Jews are the richest ethno-religious group in the US (and probably Europe too) and Judaic offshoots rule most of the planet”, strongly implying that “The end justifies the means” regardless of the methods used.

Saying something works well is not the same as endorsing it.


Atheism doesn’t just “spring up”. It seems that religious belief tends to decline as a by-product of the good education available in the countries ranking high in the Human Development Index.

The same countries were vastly superior to the rest of the planet before even though they were overtly Christian. Comparing different populations and pointing out that one is better because of X is stupid. You want to control variables as much as possible, which is why comparing Europe today with Europe 200 years ago and seeing how it fares relative to the rest of the world in each instance is a vastly superior measurement. Since liberals have hijacked educational institutions it's not surprising that their deranged offshoots are more popular among the more educated. The reason why they got hijacked in the first place is because Christianity acquired the abnormal degree of tolerance that you preach, probably as a product of economic success. They allowed outgroups into their institutions in good faith and those outgroups used their power to wreck them. Of course, that philosophy is now biting you in the behind since other outgroups (like fundamentalist muslims) are benefitting from your own abnormal degree of tolerance.


There’s no evidence that the largely non-theist HDI countries are being “wrecked”, quite the contrary. They’re prospering.

They're stagnating at a high point built on the bones of better men. And that's just financially. Culturally and socially they are at the worst they've ever been.


Conversely, the much more religious USA has more gun violence, the highest rates of incarceration and greatest wealth inequity of any equivalent nation.

Yes, thanks to particular minorities with grossly disproportionate crime rates. And while those minorities may be Christian (at least nominally), most pledge fealty to the atheist progressive machine, so the blame for their failure falls on people like you.


Your love of humanity is touching. <sarcasm> You gotta love Christians. :lol:

Love is a modern invention. My charity certainly is vast though, thanks for noticing.

Kelp(p)
11-22-2014, 03:54 PM
Do you mean that in the Psalm they are anticipating happiness for someone else, while DE anticipates his own happiness?

Yes, I know. Did they expect that retribution to happen? If so, they were anticipating someone's happiness at that point.Happy for what? Happy at the dead babies or happy that their enemy Edom has been brought low? In that time of very limited resources and care options, killing the children was a common part of ancient warfare. It wasn't personal, it was just assuring that they didn't grow up and start a blood feud against you and your own children. Arguably, it was even kinder than letting them live to die of starvation or get captured by slavers.

As much as we might wish it was not so, it was a dog eat dog world back then.

whag
11-22-2014, 05:15 PM
Happy for what? Happy at the dead babies or happy that their enemy Edom has been brought low? In that time of very limited resources and care options, killing the children was a common part of ancient warfare. It wasn't personal, it was just assuring that they didn't grow up and start a blood feud against you and your own children. Arguably, it was even kinder than letting them live to die of starvation or get captured by slavers.

As much as we might wish it was not so, it was a dog eat dog world back then.

Tell that to the Midianite boys Moses ordered killed AFTER they'd been seized. I'd argue the kinder thing would've been to raise them, not strangle them (or however they were dispatched).

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 05:19 PM
We're getting WAY off the topic....

Psalm 137 is about Jews in captivity. being mocked by their captors to "play the songs of Zion".
In frustration, they cry out to God for retribution.
They want payback.

It is NOT about God blessing baby killers.

pancreasman
11-22-2014, 05:21 PM
Settled. Next thread.

Kelp(p)
11-22-2014, 05:59 PM
Tell that to the Midianite boys Moses ordered killed AFTER they'd been seized. I'd argue the kinder thing would've been to raise them, not strangle them (or however they were dispatched).Same principle. Here's a very good article on that. http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

To summarize, they would not have been able to raise them. They were not a big enough population to effectively raise the boys (you need a lot of manpower to take in a bunch of male war captives right after a costly battle, the expectation is that even male slaves would rebel at the first sign of being able to get away with it. Moses would have had to blind them or break one of their legs or something). Again, quick death now, or slow death out in the desert.

Even taking in the prepubescent girls would have been difficult for the families involved that had to raise them until marrying them off at puberty. At least girls were less likely to slit your throat.

Cow Poke
11-22-2014, 06:05 PM
At least girls were less likely to slit your throat.

I had five younger sisters, I had to sleep with one eye open! :glare:

Cerealman
11-22-2014, 06:42 PM
I had five younger sisters, I had to sleep with one eye open! :glare:

My cousins used to paint my nails.
In a thread I mentioned before, I am(was) a very pretty lady.:blush::hehe:

whag
11-22-2014, 06:47 PM
Same principle. Here's a very good article on that. http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

It's not a good article. It's a mishmash of painful rationalizations, most of which amount to "the parents were so evil, the kids needed to die." And any article that randomly bolds phrases throughout is immediately suspect, IMO.


To summarize, they would not have been able to raise them.

A lack of resources is a silly excuse for a culture whose God provided for them when they lacked.

The thing I always found odd about the article is that the author lacks the courage of his conviction at the end, eventually planting the seed in the reader's mind that the little boys were spared. If they weren't, the heck's the point of citing Philo?


7. The remaining people were the non-combat age boys (sub-12?). Philo asserted that the Israelites actually spared the little boys, although the Hebrew text doesn’t provide much support for this (Moses 1.57):

“And they led away a perfectly incalculable number of prisoners, of whom they chose to slay all the full-grown men and women, the men because they had set the example of wicked counsels and actions, and the women because they had beguiled the youth of the Hebrews, becoming the causes to them of incontinence and impiety, and at the last of death; but they pardoned all the young male children and all the virgins, their tender age procuring them forgiveness.

Either the absorption of babies was possible within the culture or it wasn't. I say it would've been relatively easy and especially humane to take in a small amount of boys, and so does Philo.


According to the text, though, the number of these boys present at this scene would have been very minimal. According to 31.9, they had already killed “every male (kal zkr—not the normal word for adult male, or ‘man’)”. This would mean that the reference in verse 17 to kill kal zkr (‘every male’) “among the children” would likely be a reference to any boys who had somehow ‘hidden’ or been unnoticed among the group of captive children. Given the general statement of verse 9, this would imply that this would have likely been a very small number of boys left.

So much for "they were not a big enough population to effectively raise the boys." The use of the word "effectively" is suspect here, as that's up to one's interpretation.


the expectation is that even male slaves would rebel at the first sign of being able to get away with it. Moses would have had to blind them or break one of their legs or something). Again, quick death now, or slow death out in the desert.

That's absurd. Cultures adapt. Cultures led by the one true God, even moreso.


Even taking in the prepubescent girls would have been difficult for the families involved that had to raise them until marrying them off at puberty. At least girls were less likely to slit your throat.

This is a great argument not to let ANY war-time baby survivors live, lest they slit your throat later. Raising boys without that bent would be a doddle in a culture overseen and provided for by the one true God of infinite mercy.

MaxVel
11-23-2014, 06:37 AM
Raising boys without that bent would be a doddle in a culture overseen and provided for by the one true God of infinite mercy.


God doesn't exist because He won't wave His magic fairy wand and make every problem go away right now! And it NEVER rains gumdrops and jellybeans. Such a big meanie can't possibly exist. :ahem:

whag
11-23-2014, 07:55 AM
God doesn't exist because He won't wave His magic fairy wand and make every problem go away right now! And it NEVER rains gumdrops and jellybeans. Such a big meanie can't possibly exist. :ahem:

Absorbing a few innocent boys into a culture wouldn't require a constant rain of resources. Some cultures, the Mexicans, for example, crowd whole families into one-bedroom apartments to accommodate kids and infirm parents.

KingsGambit
11-23-2014, 09:25 AM
Absorbing a few innocent boys into a culture wouldn't require a constant rain of resources. Some cultures, the Mexicans, for example, crowd whole families into one-bedroom apartments to accommodate kids and infirm parents.

And these still exist in much more of an unlimited good society than what existed at that time.

shunyadragon
11-23-2014, 10:06 AM
And these still exist in much more of an unlimited good society than what existed at that time.Native American cultures pretty much universally adopted captured women, children and infants into their families, regardless of lean times or bountiful times.

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 10:07 AM
So you think that in the future, every nation on earth will become a monarchy with a male head...

Kings meaning world leaders.


...so popular and powerful that the people actually care what his religion is? :shifty:

I don't see where those verses say anything about that, it's more about everyone having no choice but to acknowledge the reality of God. Which hasn't happened yet.

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 12:11 PM
We're getting WAY off the topic....

Psalm 137 is about Jews in captivity. being mocked by their captors to "play the songs of Zion".
In frustration, they cry out to God for retribution.
They want payback.

It is NOT about God blessing baby killers.

I still wouldn't rule out some dual fulfillments.

In Psalms 137 there's a theme of being exiled and not wanting to sing, in Revelation exile is over forever and the righteous sing:


Psalms 137:1-6 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Revelation 15:2-3 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.

Edom is often considered to be Rome in Scripture:


Psalms 137:7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

Many Jewish writers, as Aben Ezra observes, interpret this of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. -Source (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/psalms/137.htm)

Finally we can see some indications in Isaiah that children of Babylon are dashed against stones in similar conditions described in the Olivet Discourse:


Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Isaiah 13:13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

Isaiah 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

So once again, if dual fulfillments are in play -- we know for sure there are dual "Babylons" according to Revelation -- then it makes sense that the final one has to do in some way with Jesus. As I said with agreement by Jordan, he would be the Stone that either destroys those it falls on, or breaks those who fall on it. Like Paul dashed and broken against the goad/prod that was Jesus:


Acts 9:5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

whag
11-23-2014, 01:03 PM
And these still exist in much more of an unlimited good society than what existed at that time.

A limited good society governed by God wouldn't strangle war orphans (or however they were finally slaughtered).

There's an incident in Numbers, I believe, where God complains about the Jews and entertains the idea of killing the whole tribe but appears to change His mind after Moses explains why it wouldn't be a good idea. There are two interpretations of this: 1. Moses actually changes God's mind. 2. God is testing Moses to "talk Him out of it." I see no reason why this shouldn't be a similar test. Can you imagine God getting angry if Moses objected to the systematic slaughter of war orphans? I can't.

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 02:39 PM
I still wouldn't rule out some dual fulfillments.

Of course you wouldn't.

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 03:07 PM
Of course you wouldn't.

Gill's Exposition also raises the possibility as I cited. Jewish Sages have long identified references to Edom as being of Rome, and see dual fulfillments with First and Second Temple destructions. It would be rather odd to see nothing about the Roman Siege mentioned in the Tanach, don't you think?



Psalms 137:7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

Many Jewish writers, as Aben Ezra observes, interpret this of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. -Source (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/psalms/137.htm)

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 03:09 PM
Gill's Exposition also raises the possibility as I cited...

OK, perhaps you are unaware of what you are doing. Rather than read the text, and allow the context to tell you what's going on, you come up with a possible scenario, and scour then internet for somebody who agrees with you.

It's not "correct" simply because you can find other people with a similar belief. :glare:

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 03:15 PM
Gill's Exposition also raises the possibility as I cited. Jewish Sages have long identified references to Edom as being of Rome, and see dual fulfillments with First and Second Temple destructions. It would be rather odd to see nothing about the Roman Siege mentioned in the Tanach, don't you think?

From what you cited, you have to look at....
The Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions, make it to be David's, and yet add the name of Jeremiah; and the Arabic version calls it David's, concerning Jeremiah: but, as Theodoret observes, Jeremiah was not carried into Babylon, but, after some short stay in or near Jerusalem, was forced away into Egypt; and could neither be the writer nor subject of this psalm: and though it might be written by David under a spirit of prophecy; who thereby might foresee and foretell the Babylonish captivity, and what the Jews would suffer in it; as the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah did, many years before it came to pass; yet it seems rather to have been written by one of the captivity, either while in it, or immediately after it.

Now, slow down a minute and read what you cited.... the name Jeremiah has been added to it, but Jeremiah was not carried into Babylon...... MIGHT be written by David "under a spirit of prophecy".... (then there's that LONG sentence, ending with) "yet it seems rather to have been written by one of the captivity, either while in it, or immediately after it."

There's a WHOLE lot of speculation there, and very little substantiation. :shrug:

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 03:26 PM
OK, perhaps you are unaware of what you are doing. Rather than read the text, and allow the context to tell you what's going on, you come up with a possible scenario, and scour then internet for somebody who agrees with you.

It's not "correct" simply because you can find other people with a similar belief. :glare:

There's no clear context, that's the point.

When Christianbookworm asked me for a scholarly source you amen'd that, now that I'm giving sources you criticize it. If you have your mind made up and don't want to read what anyone else says about it, ok. Doesn't mean others don't.

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 03:31 PM
There's no clear context, that's the point.

I shall leave you to your ignorance, because you seem to be doubling down in it. :shrug:


When Christianbookworm asked me for a scholarly source you amen'd that, now that I'm giving sources you criticize it.

Merely citing a source does not prove a point -- you can Google just bout anything --- it needs to actually back up your point.


If you have your mind made up and don't want to read what anyone else says about it, ok. Doesn't mean others don't.

I'd be happy to read anything that actually supports an alternative view, but I don't believe you can do that with what you're claiming. :shrug:

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 04:13 PM
Merely citing a source does not prove a point -- you can Google just bout anything --- it needs to actually back up your point.

Never said they proved anything, but they do back up my point. A couple of posters asked me for sources and I gave one about Psalms 137:9, now I gave some more about Psalms 137:7. Do you think I should not give sources about the topic under discussion?


I'd be happy to read anything that actually supports an alternative view, but I don't believe you can do that with what you're claiming. :shrug:

If you agree that the Babylon in Revelation doesn't only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, and if you agree that the context of Psalms 137:8-9 refers to future events from the time stated, then my view is already supported in that you don't really know which Babylon it's talking about. Could be one or the other or both.

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 05:28 PM
Never said they proved anything, but they do back up my point.

:no:

Do you actually READ your cites?

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 05:32 PM
Johnny,

Here is a cite that TOTALLY disproves your theory:

(18) At (the) Parbar westward.—See 2Kings 23:11, where a plural Parwārîm occurs. The meaning of the word is unknown. According to Gesenius (Thesaur. p. 1123), “Parwār” is the right spelling; and the term answers to a Persian word denoting “summer-house,” i.e., a building open to light and air. He makes “the Parbar” a cloister running round the court of the Temple, from which the cells were entered. (See Note on 1Chronicles 23:28.) Both spellings occur in Persian. Richardson’s Persian Dictionary gives as many as fifteen variant forms of the word, besides Parwâr and Parbâr. His definition of the meaning is, “an open gallery or balcony on the top of a house, au upper room open on all sides to the air; a summer department or habitation; the roof of a house; a private door or entrance to a house.”

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 06:12 PM
:no:

Do you actually READ your cites?

Yeah what about them, they agree with what I said, that the verses may not only apply to Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon:


Many Jewish writers, as Aben Ezra observes, interpret this of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. -Source (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/psalms/137.htm)

The key to understanding the prophecy "against" Babylon in Psalm 137:8-9 is to remember who the Rock is in the psalter. The Rock is God. Dashing the children’s heads against the Rock is an image not of utter destruction but of salvation. (This is a great verse to preach on when doing an infant baptism.) Either a man falls upon the Rock and is saved, or the Rock falls upon him and crushes him (Luke 20:18). (In Psalm 137:9 "rock" is singular, not plural, contrary to the old King James and the NIV.) -Source (http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-3-the-problem-of-psalm-137/)


Johnny,

Here is a cite that TOTALLY disproves your theory:

(18) At (the) Parbar westward.—See 2Kings 23:11, where a plural Parwārîm occurs. The meaning of the word is unknown. According to Gesenius (Thesaur. p. 1123), “Parwār” is the right spelling; and the term answers to a Persian word denoting “summer-house,” i.e., a building open to light and air. He makes “the Parbar” a cloister running round the court of the Temple, from which the cells were entered. (See Note on 1Chronicles 23:28.) Both spellings occur in Persian. Richardson’s Persian Dictionary gives as many as fifteen variant forms of the word, besides Parwâr and Parbâr. His definition of the meaning is, “an open gallery or balcony on the top of a house, au upper room open on all sides to the air; a summer department or habitation; the roof of a house; a private door or entrance to a house.”

You lost me on that one.

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 06:17 PM
Yeah what about them, they agree with what I said,

No, they actually don't but that seems to be the only thing that matters. :wink:


You lost me on that one.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?!?!?! You don't see the correlation between "the rock" and "parbar"? :huh:

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 07:19 PM
No, they actually don't...

Yeah they really do, starting with Jordan agreeing that Jesus is the Rock people are dashed against in Psalms 137:9.


...but that seems to be the only thing that matters. :wink:

It mattered to Cerealman and Christianbookworm when they asked for sources, gripe at them about it. You used NewBibleCommentary HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4433-About-Psalm-137&p=123657&viewfull=1#post123657) to support your view. Don't be such a hypocrite and get to a real argument.

Like, if you agree that the Babylon in Revelation doesn't only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, and if you agree that the context of Psalms 137:8-9 refers to future events from the time stated, explain why Psalms 137 should only refer to Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon. If that's your position, I'm not really sure at this point.


Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?!?!?! You don't see the correlation between "the rock" and "parbar"? :huh:

Nope what do you see.

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 07:22 PM
Nope what do you see.

Nonsense.

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 07:29 PM
Nonsense.


2788

Cow Poke
11-23-2014, 07:30 PM
2788

Yup... that's EXACTLY your tactic! :thumb:

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 07:54 PM
Nope that was referring to you, instead of discussing the topic you just want to whine that I gave sources -- same as you did. Lame.

Kelp(p)
11-23-2014, 08:51 PM
It's not a good article. It's a mishmash of painful rationalizations, most of which amount to "the parents were so evil, the kids needed to die."No, "the parents were so evil, the parents (and their older sons who fought alongside them) needed to die." The whole Baal Peor incident was basically a plot cooked up by Balaam to destroy or forcibly absorb the Israelites by getting God to cast them out.
And any article that randomly bolds phrases throughout is immediately suspect, IMO. That's just the way he emphasizes and is certainly not "random." I tend to italicize in order to emphasize online. Do you consider me "suspect?"




A lack of resources is a silly excuse for a culture whose God provided for them when they lacked.Nowhere does God guarantee manna from Heaven every time the Israelites ask for it. If you want to take issue with that, go ahead, but it's a different issue.


The thing I always found odd about the article is that the author lacks the courage of his conviction at the end, eventually planting the seed in the reader's mind that the little boys were spared. If they weren't, the heck's the point of citing Philo?



Either the absorption of babies was possible within the culture or it wasn't. I say it would've been relatively easy and especially humane to take in a small amount of boys, and so does Philo.You're reading that emotion into it. He brings up Philo to cover all the possible bases in answer to the reader's question. Any scholar writing for a journal would do the same. In the same paragraph he says why he disagrees with Philo, a non-expert philosopher writing 2000 years or so later in Helenized Alexandria and didn't have the anthropological data we do. If you want to agree with Philo, go ahead, but you'll need an argument as to why. At least Miller attempts to calculate how many survivors they were dealing with. Philo does not.




So much for "they were not a big enough population to effectively raise the boys." The use of the word "effectively" is suspect here, as that's up to one's interpretation. That's my word, not Miller's. I apologize for the wishiwashiness picked from my college teachers. "They were not a big enough population to raise the boys at all." What's a "very small number" of boys when there's 32,000 girls left? I think you'd still be talking about the hundreds here, at the very least. And it isn't just size, this was my mistake in my reading. It also has a blood-succesion component (emphasis Miller's:
No ANE land-based and/or blood-succession-based civilization had means for assimilating foreign males into them, except as severely constrained/debilitated slaves (e.g., “prisoners were often blinded en masse. When brought to their captors’ land, they could still perform certain tasks, such as carrying water from a well or canal with a bucket and a rope” [OT:DLAM:237]);
All ANE civilizations recognized the military threat/risk that male slaves (even children) of foreign stock represented. Even the case in which David ‘served’ the Philistines, the Philistine leaders were sensitive to the issue—that David might ‘turn on his Philistine masters’ in the heat of battle (1 Sam 29);
There were no ‘social relief’ institutions in this world [only the largest of empires could afford to take in destitute women and children as temple ‘personnel’—see OT:CANE:445], and the land in which this event occurred was depopulated .(“Those who were able to flee from their conquerors often died of exposure, starvation, or thirst” [OT:DLAM:237])
There would be no practical way to transport these boys to their ‘next of kin’ down south, and there was no guarantee that they would take them in anyway. Even the Kenites, generally loyal to Israel, were divided in policy, as Heber the Kenite’s alliance with Syria in Judges indicates. “The propensity of pastoral nomads for raids, or razzias, both against one another-/B] and against sedentists is [B]well attested in the near eastern historical record.” [OT:CANE:251]
As in the case of the Amalekites, Israel was forced--by the Midianite atrocity--into the difficult situation of selecting the ‘most humane way’ of dealing with the boys, which, in most situations in the ancient world, was killing them very quickly (similar to ‘euthanasia’, perhaps, which was also considered the ‘most humane’ way of doing this, according to ANE testimony—see the discussion/documentation in the case of the Amalekites, at rbutcher1.html)

They'd just lost some 24,000+ men to a plague brought on by the idolatry. The girls were useful to replenish the population (though even taking in the prepubescent ones would still have been a hardship). The boys were just a liability. Indeed, it's likely a case of "kill them now or kill them later."




That's absurd. Cultures adapt. Cultures led by the one true God, even moreso.Adapt to what? As soon as these boys (we're not talking about babies, btw. The babies would likely already have died in the frey. These are 5-12 year-olds, old enough to be relatively independent from their mothers but not old enough to be counted fighting men) find out what was done to them, they'd try to rebel. These were honor based cultures. We're still beating our heads against the wall over that to this day regarding the Mideast. I'm not saying it's right or optimal, but it's how people behaved now and back then. What, do you want God to send Moses into the future to learn some Maoist brainwashing techniques? Because I'm pretty sure that's the only way you're going to keep these boys under control as the grow up.



This is a great argument not to let ANY war-time baby survivors live, lest they slit your throat later. Raising boys without that bent would be a doddle in a culture overseen and provided for by the one true God of infinite mercy.No, because few of the girls would have thought of it (and I only say few because we have examples of women such as Jael that can be counted on one hand). Way different gender politics.

Kelp(p)
11-23-2014, 08:53 PM
Native American cultures pretty much universally adopted captured women, children and infants into their families, regardless of lean times or bountiful times.I'd need to see specific numbers on that. My guess is it's an inapplicable analogy (I don't recall an incident off the top of my head of quite so many assimilated war numbers in any NA conflict). Also, I don't know if any Native American culture outside the Tlingit had quite the same ideas of honor as a limited resource which would have gone into the Midianite boys trying to rebel. Also also, don't forget about the Eskimo practice of straight-up abandoning people who can't care for themselves in times of extreme hardship.

And even if you're right, it really doesn't matter. I'm not trying to say that Moses was perfect or anything like that. I'm even willing to go with the idea that this was all some kind of test that Moses failed, if I have to. I just don't think it need be the case here.

Kelp(p)
11-23-2014, 09:07 PM
Kings meaning world leaders.Ehhhhh, I dunno about that. Every time I see an eschatology writer make the breezy comparison between an ancient king and a modern head of state, my internal bullcrap-o-meter goes off. What makes you think they're comparable? A king or emperor is supposed to represent his people in a comprehensive way (hence the "royal we," in Anglo culture) that modern Presidents, Prime Ministers, and even Dictators don't quite touch (except maybe in the case of North Korea).




I don't see where those verses say anything about that, it's more about everyone having no choice but to acknowledge the reality of God. Which hasn't happened yet.You said it was about kings worshiping God. Ask the average Englishman how important it is to him that the Queen is a Christian.

JohnnyP
11-23-2014, 10:40 PM
Ehhhhh, I dunno about that. Every time I see an eschatology writer make the breezy comparison between an ancient king and a modern head of state, my internal bullcrap-o-meter goes off. What makes you think they're comparable? A king or emperor is supposed to represent his people in a comprehensive way (hence the "royal we," in Anglo culture) that modern Presidents, Prime Ministers, and even Dictators don't quite touch (except maybe in the case of North Korea).

That doesn't hold up, even Israelite kings like David were accountable to priests and prophets. It just means leaders of nations.


You said it was about kings worshiping God. Ask the average Englishman how important it is to him that the Queen is a Christian.

I said it was about all leaders of nations recognizing God. Those who don't as well as their subjects probably aren't going to be around by then, they'll be dead, Revelation confirms that.

Tassman
11-24-2014, 02:18 AM
Saying something works well is not the same as endorsing it.

Indeed! So you agree that Moses was guilty of ‘Crimes against Humanity’ with his genocidal acts against the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites? Moses would not have fared well at the International Criminal Court. The court would not have been impressed with his justification that the LORD God made him do it. ISIS tries on the same "the Lord God commands me" trick to cover their territorial ambitions to this very day.


The same countries were vastly superior to the rest of the planet before even though they were overtly Christian. Comparing different populations and pointing out that one is better because of X is stupid. You want to control variables as much as possible, which is why comparing Europe today with Europe 200 years ago and seeing how it fares relative to the rest of the world in each instance is a vastly superior measurement. Since liberals have hijacked educational institutions it's not surprising that their deranged offshoots are more popular among the more educated. The reason why they got hijacked in the first place is because Christianity acquired the abnormal degree of tolerance that you preach, probably as a product of economic success. They allowed outgroups into their institutions in good faith and those outgroups used their power to wreck them. Of course, that philosophy is now biting you in the behind since other outgroups (like fundamentalist muslims) are benefitting from your own abnormal degree of tolerance.

Given that the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index is a composite statistic of life expectancy, higher education, and income indices and used to rank countries, it is reasonable to argue that countries ranking highly in the IHDI are “better” (your word) than those that don't.

As for your immoderate rant about “liberals [who] have hijacked educational institutions” and “abnormal degree of tolerance” etc you’re way off topic. The only point being made by me is that the overall figures indicate that religious belief tends to decline as a by-product of the good education available in the countries which rank high in the Inequality Adjusted Human Development Index.


They're stagnating at a high point built on the bones of better men. And that's just financially. Culturally and socially they are at the worst they've ever been.
Nonsense! The green arrows pointing upward in the 2014 IHDI indicate that the majority at the top IHDI nations continue to trend upwards and the straight lines indicate that they have maintained their level. However, the USA at 28th is trending rapidly downwards as indicated by the red downward-pointing arrow – it ranked 16th in the 2013 report. To quote you: “Culturally and socially they are at the worst they've ever been”.


Yes, thanks to particular minorities with grossly disproportionate crime rates. And while those minorities may be Christian (at least nominally), most pledge fealty to the atheist progressive machine, so the blame for their failure falls on people like you.

No! The comparatively more religious USA has more gun violence, the highest rates of incarceration and greatest wealth inequity of any developed nation and this can only be attributed to poor governance not “particular minorities” or the “atheist progressive machine” – whatever that is. Or any other bogey man you care to blame. Certainly the US being comparatively more religious than the other developed nations seems to make very little difference to its extensive social problems.


Love is a modern invention. My charity certainly is vast though, thanks for noticing.

You seem to have missed the sarcasm. Why aren't I surprised? :teeth:

Cow Poke
11-24-2014, 06:09 AM
:haha:

Nope that was referring to you, instead of discussing the topic you just want to whine that I gave sources -- same as you did. Lame.
:lmbo:

Kelp(p)
11-24-2014, 06:40 AM
No! The comparatively more religious USA has more gun violence, the highest rates of incarceration and greatest wealth inequity of any developed nation and this can only be attributed to poor governance not “particular minorities” or the “atheist progressive machine” – whatever that is. Or any other bogey man you care to blame. Certainly the US being comparatively more religious than the other developed nations seems to make very little difference to its extensive social problems.Bold and underlinning are mine italics yours.

So much for "less religion as necessary by-product of higher IHDI."

Tassman
11-24-2014, 09:48 PM
Bold and underlinning are mine italics yours.

So much for "less religion as necessary by-product of higher IHDI."

I don't understand your point. Less religion tends to be a by-product of higher IHDI, not a "necessary by-product". But how about addressing the whole post, not just one paragraph in isolation.

Kelp(p)
11-24-2014, 10:13 PM
I don't understand your point. Less religion tends to be a by-product of higher IHDI, not a "necessary by-product". But how about addressing the whole post, not just one paragraph in isolation.
You said the US has the most gun violence, highest rates of incarceration, and (most importantly) greatest income inequality in the developed world and that this can only be attributed to bad governance. In other words, we have a low IHDI despite being a bunch of uneducated Christians, not because of it. Just pointing out your self-contradiction.

And if you didn't think less religion is a necessary or nearly necessary consequence of higher IHDI, you wouldn't keep bringing it up as if it were some antitheist trump card to wipe all our noses in.

Tassman
11-24-2014, 11:32 PM
You said the US has the most gun violence, highest rates of incarceration, and (most importantly) greatest income inequality in the developed world and that this can only be attributed to bad governance. In other words, we have a low IHDI despite being a bunch of uneducated Christians, not because of it. Just pointing out your self-contradiction.

No contradiction! The USA has a relatively low (and descending) rank on the Human Development Index because it doesn't do as well as many other countries in its composite, interrelated statistic of overall life expectancy, broad higher education opportunities and reliable, sufficient income for all. This failure can only be the result of poor governance. What else could it be, bad luck? Come now!


And if you didn't think less religion is a necessary or nearly necessary consequence of higher IHDI, you wouldn't keep bringing it up as if it were some antitheist trump card to wipe all our noses in.

But that’s not what I said. Once again and try to focus: Less religion tends to be a by-product, NOT that it is a "necessary” by-product, of the higher education which is a key component of Human Development Index.

Kelp(p)
11-25-2014, 01:46 AM
No contradiction! The USA has a relatively low (and descending) rank on the Human Development Index because it doesn't do as well as many other countries in its composite, interrelated statistic of overall life expectancy, broad higher education opportunities and reliable, sufficient income for all. This failure can only be the result of poor governance. What else could it be, bad luck? Come now!Why do you start off so many of your posts with an exclamation? It makes you read like a raving loon.

You said the US' problems stem from bad government and not from religion. Norway et al's increasing atheism thus cannot be an argument for the truth of atheism, which is what this entire thing has been about, hasn't it? It's all just the same old snide insinuations that religion is holding the planet back. That seems to be your entire purpose on this forum.

All I'm doing is pointing out that by your own admission, the IHDI is really irrelevant to your larger purpose.

So go back to pointing out all the "seeming correlations and by-products" that you like. It still doesn't imply causation or usefulness of the correlation.

Tassman
11-25-2014, 11:35 PM
Why do you start off so many of your posts with an exclamation? It makes you read like a raving loon.

I was answering your question. You claimed (erroneously) that I was “self-contradicting” and I responded with: “No contradiction!” In what way does this make me a “read like a raving loon”? Next you’ll be picking me up on misplaced apostrophes. :teeth:


You said the US' problems stem from bad government and not from religion.

Not just the US. Most social problems in any country can be attributable to bad governance. E.g. there is gross wealth inequality in the USA. This removes the possibility of quality education for many people. It also creates an underclass which creates its own problems – as we’re seeing in Ferguson today.

Hence, although the US ranks 5th in the Human Development Index, it only ranks 28th (and falling) when adjusted for inequality. By comparison Norway ranks first in both the Inequality-adjusted AND the non-adjusted HDI thus indicating a much more egalitarian and peaceful society than the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index


Norway et al's increasing atheism thus cannot be an argument for the truth of atheism, which is what this entire thing has been about, hasn't it? It's all just the same old snide insinuations that religion is holding the planet back. That seems to be your entire purpose on this forum.

The argument is not about the “truth” or otherwise of atheism per se. The argument is that given higher education and its concomitant critical thinking skills, religion tends to be discarded as irrelevant. This can be seen in Norway, which tops the IHDI and, as well, is 72% Atheist/Agnostic compared to the USA with its overall lower education levels remaining more religious with only 9% Atheism/Agnosticism.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html


All I'm doing is pointing out that by your own admission, the IHDI is really irrelevant to your larger purpose.

So go back to pointing out all the "seeming correlations and by-products" that you like. It still doesn't imply causation or usefulness of the correlation.

The “larger purpose”, your words, is to point out that religion apparently can’t bear close scrutiny and tends to fare poorly in countries with high quality overall education – as can be seen by the figures.