Soundsurfr split from Need Feedback for a Project [Archive]

Soundsurfr

October 23rd 2006, 05:00 PM

And completely out of the scope of what I was writing about, all contrivances on your part aside.

Not to your target audience, obviously.

Oh, I see. So if (let's say) YHWH issued a "bear call" then we can't also be sure that there bears were not armed by YHWH with Whoop-o Laser Guns and Plus Ten Hit Point armor. :lolo:

Yep. And for all we know, the Holy Whoop-o Bears of God might not even need 'em. :tongue:

Maybe they even came out wearing ties and hats and making demands for "pick a nik baskets".

I get it now. It's CORRECT for us to believe that the bears appeared out of the woods on God's command to defend a human being from being called "baldy" by a gang of miscreants, but it's RIDICULOUS to even suggest that they could behave in any other way that is not quite normal for bears. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And even if we were stupid enough to suggest it, we should take your word for it that they wouldn't, because YOU are an expert in God Army Bear behavior and capabilities. After all, you do a beautifully documented analysis of how they might fare against 42 gang members in your pamphlet, uniquely distinguishing yourself over any "seat-of-the-pants" types. :hehe:

Maybe you should add your credentials on God-Motivated wild animals to your pamphlet. :lol:

Never mind also that attracting an animal to a location isn't "miraculous" apart from an artificial dichtomy imposed on the situation. :hehe:

OK, so, Elisha asked God to deliver a punishment to these bad guys, and that's exactly what happened. (Your words). And we should expect this because God has already warned people that he's liable to sick wild animals on them if they misbehave. Now the backpedaling implication is that this was not a supernatural occurance at all. The bears were simply "attracted" to the location (maybe the prophet carried some bear pheremones for just such an occasion?), then the bears decided who were the bad guys and who were the good guys, and proceeded from there to attack the bad guys. Could happen to any old prophet on any given afternoon. I'll mention that to my son and see what he thinks. :lol:

Nothing like a credible and informed source for your scholarship. :hehe:

Again, the point sails well over your head. This has nothing to do with scholarship and everthing to do with how a seventeen year old with a brain might read and react to your tract. Of course, since it's not the way you want them to react, you will simply ignore it, label the reader an imbecile, or both. No sweat off my back, JP.

That's OK. I don't expect to sell to 17 year olds with fathers whose brains are kept in glass jars of formaldahyde. :lolo:

What a surprise. He shoots the messenger. It was not his father who reacted to the pamphlet that way, it was him. I didn't even coach him - I just asked him to read it and tell me what he thought.

He thought it was stupid. (And funny.)

Maybe you'll have to come up with some better material if you want to make an impression. Best of luck.

Anyway, I understand that these writeups are really only intended for pre-brainwashed Christian zombie kids. So I guess my son is not part of your demographic after all.

dizzle

October 23rd 2006, 05:22 PM

Sound -

This is NOT written as an owner or staff member of this forum, but a reader. You seem to be in very bad form in this thread. JP didn't specifically ask that comments just be for Christians or those who are in his target audience (which though you may be insulted is NOT your child who is not a conservative evangelical from what you told), but it seems that common sense and courtesy should have informed you that your mocking of our beliefs is not necessarily what was called for in this thread, and that there are plenty of places to do just that freely in other threads. I for one am interested in JP's project and the feedback from like-minded supporters of his and found your intrusion most unwelcome.

Again this is me as an individual Christian not as a staff member. My statement carries no official weight, but I hope it carries weight just as another forum member. I know when there is an A and B conversation that I should C my way out of, have some courtesy and take the anti-Bible (which is how we in this thread are going to view it) comments to the appropriate area. I am not looking for a fight with you, and if you respond, I will simply shrug and say, well I said my piece. I am not looking to defend myself, nor for you to have to do so either.

PS: Your newest response came up when I was posting this. As far as your insulting of the children of my friends and loved ones, I can only say that I am saddened to see you are brainwashing YOUR child with bigotry. I WILL pray that it doesn't sink in, and I WON"T call YOUR child a zombie. Get some class.

Darth Executor

October 23rd 2006, 05:27 PM

What a surprise. He shoots the messenger. It was not his father who reacted to the pamphlet that way, it was him. I didn't even coach him - I just asked him to read it and tell me what he thought.

I guess stupidity is hereditary.

JSDileo

October 23rd 2006, 05:29 PM

I get it now. It's CORRECT for us to believe that the bears appeared out of the woods on God's command to defend a human being from being called "baldy" by a gang of miscreants, but it's RIDICULOUS to even suggest that they could behave in any other way that is not quite normal for bears. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:lol:

Ok. Let's assume a scenario where a man beats his wife, walks outside, then gets hit by a car. It's not improbable to suggest that this was a ghost car, because after all, it's RIDICULOUS to suggest that a car came out of nowhere to punish the man for beating his wife. :rofl: That's the sort of logic that you're using here, Surfr.

Also, that's like saying that because God hardened Pharoah's heart that he also secretly gave Pharoah laser vision :lol: Hello, bears were all over the place in ancient Israel, along with lions and many other predatory animals. Fact is, God uses many other methods in the Bible other than animals in the Bible. If He wanted to, God could have just made all the young rogues who were attacking Elijah drop dead on the dirt, but he didn't. He chose animals. Why? Because the God of the Bible uses natural causes just as often as unnatural ones. You're assuming that it's " not quite normal" for bears in the ancient wilderness to attack people. That's like saying that it's "not quite normal" for a monarch to have his heart hardened in the face of his enemy. :lol: Hey, you know, it's also "not quite normal" for people to be killed by snakes in Australia, and "not quite normal" for people to be killed by spiders in South America.

OK, so, Elisha asked God to deliver a punishment to these bad guys, and that's exactly what happened. (Your words). And we should expect this because God has already warned people that he's liable to sick wild animals on them if they misbehave. Now the backpedaling implication is that this was not a supernatural occurance at all. The bears were simply "attracted" to the location (maybe the prophet carried some bear pheremones for just such an occasion?), then the bears decided who were the bad guys and who were the good guys, and proceeded from there to attack the bad guys.

Or maybe God just made the bears angry and they happened to be closer to the kids than Elijah was. Because, you know, when compared to the idea of God giving bears super-speed (to kill fourty-two rogues in one attack with them running away) and super-strength (to be able to kill the rogues fast enough to do the above), this explanation totally defies Ockham's razor. :duh:

jpholding

October 23rd 2006, 05:43 PM

Not to your target audience, obviously.

People who don't look for excuses? Yep. :thumb:

Yep. And for all we know, the Holy Whoop-o Bears of God might not even need 'em. :tongue:

An obvious cover for your realizing that you've been caught inserting a red herring into the proceedings.

I get it now. It's CORRECT for us to believe that the bears appeared out of the woods on God's command to defend a human being from being

As was noted here, bears were hardly uncommon in this region at the time. And as further noted, this is no more outlandish than a bear trainer doing the same thing, aside from some idiotic presupposition dividing the natural from the supernatural artificially, as though "man does X" is legit while "God does X" requires some sort of special dispensation against natural law.

After all, you do a beautifully documented analysis of how they might fare against 42 gang members in your pamphlet,

I did no such thing. I pointed out that the very fact that 42 were injured shows that they engaged the beasts themselves rather than running, which is something you obviously have no recourse to actually dispute.

Of course maybe your bears also had Speed-o-matic skateboards with which they chased them all down. :hehe:

Now the backpedaling implication is that this was not a supernatural occurance at all.

Do I care? It's you and your kind who force that dichotomy -- not me.

Again, the point sails well over your head. This has nothing to do with scholarship and everthing to do with how a seventeen year old with a brain might read and react to your tract.

With an alleged brain thoroughly washed by daddy, of course. :thumb:

"Nothing to do with scholarship"....precisely.

So I guess my son is not part of your demographic after all.

No....my demographic is the intelligent. :hehe:

So let's sum up:

Rather than coming up with an answer to what I wrote, Surfy asked his 17 year old expert Biblical scholar for an opinion and together they went fishing for red herring.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 08:28 AM

As was noted here, bears were hardly uncommon in this region at the time. And as further noted, this is no more outlandish than a bear trainer doing the same thing, aside from some idiotic presupposition dividing the natural from the supernatural artificially, as though "man does X" is legit while "God does X" requires some sort of special dispensation against natural law.

OK, so "God does X" is not a supernatural event. Whatever.

I did no such thing. I pointed out that the very fact that 42 were injured shows that they engaged the beasts themselves rather than running, which is something you obviously have no recourse to actually dispute.

You pointed out "the fact"? Based on the account you have, it's a fact that these 42 idiots attacked two bears and lost the fight? Yeah. Right. I guess it's axiomatic. :ahem:

So let's sum up:

Rather than coming up with an answer to what I wrote, Surfy asked his 17 year old expert Biblical scholar for an opinion and together they went fishing for red herring.

OK, here's an answer to what you wrote. This is what I get from your treatise in a nutshell:

The Bible says Elisha was being mocked by children, but they weren't actually children, they were young adult gang members. The Bible says that these gang members were calling Elisha "baldy", but they were actually threatening his life. The bible says the bears came forth and tore up the children, er, gang members, but they didn't really tear them up, they probably only scratched them, and that was because the gang members actually attacked the bears!

I don't see how anyone could question your explanation. It's tight as a drum. And all I can say is, it's a good thing these kids have YOU to tell them what the Bible means, as opposed to what it actually says.

Good luck with your project.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 10:24 AM

:lol:

[quote]Ok. Let's assume a scenario where a man beats his wife, walks outside, then gets hit by a car. It's not improbable to suggest that this was a ghost car, because after all, it's RIDICULOUS to suggest that a car came out of nowhere to punish the man for beating his wife. :rofl: That's the sort of logic that you're using here, Surfr.

Sorry, but your analysis if full of gaping holes, JSDileo. Both the Bible, and Mr. Holding himself SAID the bears were sent by God to punish the wrongdoers. And there were at least 42 of them. So to create an analagous situation using your example, let's say 42 men beat up on a woman, and this woman happened to be a prophet, and she cursed the 42 men and then GOD sent a couple of cars which subsequently ran down all 42 men, we would then be left with a similar question. How do all 42 men get nailed by 2 cars? Well, obviously, it's a FACT that the 42 men were all standing in such a way that the cars could come around the corner and hit them all. In fact, the 42 men would have to have THROWN themselves at the cars. It's a fact. There simply is no other possible explanation.

You're assuming that it's " not quite normal" for bears in the ancient wilderness to attack people.

No, I'm assuming that is not normal for two bears to come out of the woods and attack (and wound) a gang of over 40 bad guys, leaving the one good guy alone. And so is Holding. So, according to him, the ONLY possible explanation is that the 40 bad guys went after the bears. Because that's what people do when they see bears coming after them - they stand their ground, and then pounce, as a group. In fact, this is such an expected reaction on the part of the gang, the bible account doesn't even bother to mention it. It's the only possible explanation. Period. I understand now how this works. Picture me nodding my head like a bobblehead doll.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 10:54 AM

Sound -

This is NOT written as an owner or staff member of this forum, but a reader. You seem to be in very bad form in this thread. JP didn't specifically ask that comments just be for Christians or those who are in his target audience

Exactly right, and if he did, I would have honored it. If JPH was worth his salt, he'd be most interested in the responses from people who would take issue with his material.

(which though you may be insulted is NOT your child who is not a conservative evangelical from what you told), but it seems that common sense and courtesy should have informed you that your mocking of our beliefs is not necessarily what was called for in this thread, and that there are plenty of places to do just that freely in other threads.

It's too bad you aren't able to see that it is not your beliefs that I'm mocking. I'm mocking the notion that there is only ONE WAY to read and interpret this Bible passage, and that's the way pointed out in JPH's pamphlet. And you know as well as I do that if you don't see it JPH's way, he'll tell you you're stupid, uneducated or both.

I for one am interested in JP's project and the feedback from like-minded supporters of his and found your intrusion most unwelcome.

I for another, am also interested in JP's project, and I find your intrusion into my right to respond equally unwelcome. If JP wants me out of the discussion, he can either put me on ignore, or move the thread to a place where he has a right to exclude me.

Again this is me as an individual Christian not as a staff member. My statement carries no official weight, but I hope it carries weight just as another forum member. I know when there is an A and B conversation that I should C my way out of, have some courtesy and take the anti-Bible (which is how we in this thread are going to view it) comments to the appropriate area. I am not looking for a fight with you, and if you respond, I will simply shrug and say, well I said my piece.

Shrug away.

I am not looking to defend myself, nor for you to have to do so either.

I see. So you're just looking to point out in a public forum that you think I'm in bad form, and I shouldn't feel the need to defend myself from that. :ahem:

PS: Your newest response came up when I was posting this. As far as your insulting of the children of my friends and loved ones, I can only say that I am saddened to see you are brainwashing YOUR child with bigotry.

LOL. When you start sending your children the message that atheists are neither misguided nor misinformed, then I'll start sending my children the same message about Christians. Deal?

I WILL pray that it doesn't sink in, and I WON"T call YOUR child a zombie. Get some class.

OK. I'll follow JPH's example on that. :wink:

Darth Executor

October 24th 2006, 11:05 AM

or move the thread to a place where he has a right to exclude me.

It IS in a place where he has the right to exclude you. All he has to do is say the word and you'll be flung out like a boil on me uncle's arse.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 11:17 AM

It IS in a place where he has the right to exclude you. All he has to do is say the word and you'll be flung out like a boil on me uncle's arse.

I guess I could always tap Darthy for lessons on how to get some class. :lol:

jpholding

October 24th 2006, 11:31 AM

OK, so "God does X" is not a supernatural event.

For once in his life, gets something right. "Supernatural" is an artificial category. :thumb:

Maybe next week he'll find his own toes, too.

You pointed out "the fact"? Based on the account you have, it's a fact that these 42 idiots attacked two bears and lost the fight? Yeah. Right. I guess it's axiomatic. :ahem:

Of course, any idiot could simply use the same verbiage as an "argument" against any historical account, since posturing is so easy to do:

Based on the account you have, it's a fact that this army of idiots attacked the Roman army and lost the fight? Yeah. Right. I guess it's axiomatic. BURP.

OK, here's an answer to what you wrote. This is what I get from your treatise in a nutshell:

All correct as a summary, except that I'd put it, the gang members actually fought back when attacked by the bears.

I don't see how anyone could question your explanation. It's tight as a drum. And all I can say is, it's a good thing these kids have YOU to tell them what the Bible means, as opposed to what it actually says.

Translation:

"I is too stupid to answer dat." :doh:

Picture me nodding my head like a bobblehead doll.

We can also hear the BB rattling inside.

This from an idiot who thinks a car barrelling at any speed into people is comparable to a bear shambling towards them. 4000 lbs of projectile-force metal vs maybe 500 pounds of shambling bear. Now there's a guy whose experience in the woods amounts to the time he found a tree in a vacant lot and tripped on one of the roots.

. I'm mocking the notion that there is only ONE WAY to read and interpret this Bible passage, and that's the way pointed out in JPH's pamphlet.

It's too bad you don't have any of the requisite knowledge to show that any other reading is valid.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 12:27 PM

It's too bad you don't have any of the requisite knowledge to show that any other reading is valid.

OK good. This really brings us to the crux of my criticism. What, therefore, is the requisite knowledge for people reading and interpreting the Bible? I realize this is very far outside the scope of this thread, so I am going to leave it and start a new thread in Apologetics to discuss it. I hope JPH (and anyone else who is interested) will join me there.

jpholding

October 24th 2006, 12:47 PM

OK good. This really brings us to the crux of my criticism. What, therefore, is the requisite knowledge for people reading and interpreting the Bible?

Whatever it is, you don't get it by eating chips and drinking beer while watching American Idol reruns.

And if you have a problem with that, the church doesn't want or need you anyway.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 01:00 PM

Whatever it is, you don't get it by eating chips and drinking beer while watching American Idol reruns.

Are you planning on answering the question or just tossing off your usual empty bluster? Take it to the other thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1696295&postcount=1)if you're up to the challenge.

And if you have a problem with that, the church doesn't want or need you anyway.

And you'll be the judge of that, I see.

jpholding

October 24th 2006, 01:15 PM

Are you planning on answering the question or just tossing off your usual empty bluster?

I've answered the question numerous times to the satisfaction of all except the impenetrably dense.

But let me give you a hint....

Reading, interpreting PROPERLY and contextually, and criticizing, all require different levels of knowledge.

Simple is as simple does, Gump. And your answers are all like a box of chocolates....brown and somewhat reminiscent of dung.

Take it to the other thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1696295&postcount=1)if you're up to the challenge.

Sorry, I'm on sabbatical right now from Stupid People. So I don't answer questions that have been answered ad nauseaum already.

And you'll be the judge of that, I see.

And I'm certainly more qualified to be the judge of that than you are.

JSDileo

October 24th 2006, 05:18 PM

Sorry, but your analysis if full of gaping holes, JSDileo. Both the Bible, and Mr. Holding himself SAID the bears were sent by God to punish the wrongdoers.

The difference is that you make in your first post you made it sound as if the bears themselves had this on their minds as they attacked the kids, and they didn't. That's what I was pointing out. God didn't have to manipulate them at such a level, they could have just been near the rogues in question and God made them angry. Bingo: bears attack rogues, which leaves Elisha untouched. Not hard to see there.

And there were at least 42 of them. So to create an analagous situation using your example, let's say 42 men beat up on a woman, and this woman happened to be a prophet, and she cursed the 42 men and then GOD sent a couple of cars which subsequently ran down all 42 men, we would then be left with a similar question. How do all 42 men get nailed by 2 cars? Well, obviously, it's a FACT that the 42 men were all standing in such a way that the cars could come around the corner and hit them all. In fact, the 42 men would have to have THROWN themselves at the cars. It's a fact. There simply is no other possible explanation.

The massive problem with your scenario is that you're assuming that there were only forty-two rogues there. There were likely many more. As a matter of fact, the text specifically implies this:

2 Kings 2:23-24, NIV:

Kings 2:23-24 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Elisha Is Jeered
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

Here's another translation, if that doesn't satisfy you:

2 Kings 2:23-24 (New American Standard Bible)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

23Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and (A)mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!"

24When he looked behind him and saw them, he (B)cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.

And another:

2 Kings 2:23-24 (Amplified Bible)
Amplified Bible (AMP)

23He went up from Jericho to Bethel. On the way, [a]young [maturing and accountable] boys came out of the city and mocked him and said to him, Go up , you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!

24And he turned around and looked at them and called a curse down on them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and ripped up forty-two [i]of the boys.

If that doesn't satisfy you, go here (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%202:23-24;&version=51;) and flip through all the translations that they have (which is about a dozen).

So, now if there were say, a hundred, and two cars came speeding at 100 mph, it's very likely that forty-two people could be injured by the cars in question. Trust me, if two cars were speeding at 100 miles per hour toward a group of one-hundred people on a street corner, they would be tripping over themselves trying to get away, and if they were all harrassing one person then they would be tightly placed in one spot. So forty-two of them getting injured would be expected. Now, you're probably going to say "Well, yeah, but you just admitted that they didn't throw themselves at the car", but that would be irrelevant. The point would be that the cars being endowed with laser-beam vision isn't necessary here. Furthermore, the main difference in this scenario is that a car can go at one-hundred miles per hour and a bear can't. The problem is that you're deciding that two bears happening to attack the rogues because God made them angry can allow one to believe that God also gave the bears super-speed, which is a massive leap of logic, since one would be possible in a completely natural situation and the other wouldn't. As JP said, you have to realize that "supernatural" isn't even much a category here. There is no bending of the laws of nature required. However, you decide that because God is involved that this immediately means that the laws of nature were distorted and the bears were able to run as fast as "The Flash". And guess what, us zombie Christian teenagers (yes, I'm a teenager) don't buy that.

No, I'm assuming that is not normal for two bears to come out of the woods and attack (and wound) a gang of over 40 bad guys, leaving the one good guy alone.

He didn't leave only "one guy" alone, as is shown from the translations that I gave.

And so is Holding. So, according to him, the ONLY possible explanation is that the 40 bad guys went after the bears. Because that's what people do when they see bears coming after them - they stand their ground, and then pounce, as a group. In fact, this is such an expected reaction on the part of the gang, the bible account doesn't even bother to mention it. It's the only possible explanation. Period. I understand now how this works. Picture me nodding my head like a bobblehead doll.

Red herring, strawman.

I'm bored now.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 05:40 PM

I've answered the question numerous times to the satisfaction of all except the impenetrably dense.

I'll take that as a no.

Sorry, I'm on sabbatical right now from Stupid People. So I don't answer questions that have been answered ad nauseaum already.

And that.

And I'm certainly more qualified to be the judge of that than you are.

Of course you are, JP. You are more qualified than me in all facets of life that are important.

I bow to your greatness.

:yes:

jpholding

October 24th 2006, 05:53 PM

I'll take that as a no.

You'll take that as a "you're dead meat" and like it. :thumb:

Meanwhile, I showed the chapter to my backer and he was thrilled. So I'll work on one for the copycat thesis next, and SoundlyBeatenSurfr can do his usual schtick of going "Huh?" and "Whuh?" and all that good stuff.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 05:59 PM

The difference is that you make in your first post you made it sound as if the bears themselves had this on their minds as they attacked the kids, and they didn't. God didn't have to manipulate them at such a level, they could have just been near the rogues in question and God made them angry. Bingo: bears attack rogues, which leaves Elisha untouched. Not hard to see there.

Not if you're tap dancing.:lol:

The massive problem with your scenario is that you're assuming that there were only forty-two rogues there.

Uh, no. I said "at least". The rest of your diatribe on this point is moot.

Now, you're probably going to say "Well, yeah, but you just admitted that they didn't throw themselves at the car", but that would be irrelevant.

Uh, no it's not. It's relevant from the standpoint that JPH's interpretation might not be the right one. Maybe, instead of having stood their ground and attacked the bears, they were in such a tight crowd that they couldn't run away easily, so 42 of the hundred or so got mauled. I'll buy that. Unfortunately, it sorta messes with the underlying message in JPH's apologetic, if you get my drift.:wink:

The point would be that the cars being endowed with laser-beam vision isn't necessary here.

I never said they were necessary.

The problem is that you're deciding that two bears happening to attack the rogues because God made them angry can allow one to believe that God also gave the bears super-speed, which is a massive leap of logic, since one would be possible in a completely natural situation and the other wouldn't.

So let's recap - the bears were already in the area - they did not have to travel very far to reach the boys and the boys, I assume, were not aware of this. So all of a sudden, these two angry bears are all over these hundred or so kids and 42 of them get mauled in the ensuing melee. Maybe JP should put this scenario in his pamphlet, cause it's not there now. A different one is there. JP?

And we also have to restrain ourselves to a completely natural situation, is what I hear you saying, otherwise we have a massive leap of logic. Is that right?

As JP said, you have to realize that "supernatural" isn't even much a category here. There is no bending of the laws of nature required. However, you decide that because God is involved that this immediately means that the laws of nature were distorted and the bears were able to run as fast as "The Flash".

Nowhere did I say either of those things. I suggested that when God "causes" two bears to go crazy on some kids in retribution for their taunting an old man, that would be considered by most people to be a supernatural occurance. When two bears go crazy on some kids just because they're wild animals and that's what wild animals do, that's not. Maybe I'm wrong about that. So which actually happened here?

I'm bored now.

Me too.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 06:05 PM

Meanwhile, I showed the chapter to my backer and he was thrilled.

Excellent. He must be almost as smart as you. If that's possible. :wink:

So I'll work on one for the copycat thesis next, and SoundlyBeatenSurfr can do his usual schtick of going "Huh?" and "Whuh?" and all that good stuff.

And you'll do your usual alpha-chimp chest-beating routine.

It's a date!

jpholding

October 24th 2006, 06:06 PM

Maybe, instead of having stood their ground and attacked the bears, they were in such a tight crowd that they couldn't run away easily, so 42 of the hundred or so got mauled. I'll buy that.

Whatever you do, don't try hosting your own show on "Animal Planet".

That's one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time.

JSDileo

October 24th 2006, 06:22 PM

Not if you're tap dancing.:lol:

Yeah; if I'm tap dancing, then I'm tap dancing and doing it successfully. You, however, are tap dancing and tripping all over yourself as you do it. :tongue:

Uh, no. I said "at least".

You also worded your later sentences that the car "hit them all", and other statements similar to that. And fact is, saying that the car hit "all" forty-two kids if there were more than forty-two makes is so that you are either intentionally or unintentionally obfuscating. But that wouldn't be surprising, now would it? :tongue:

The rest of your diatribe on this point is moot.

Sure it is.

Uh, no it's not. It's relevant from the standpoint that JPH's interpretation might not be the right one. Maybe, instead of having stood their ground and attacked the bears, they were in such a tight crowd that they couldn't run away easily, so 42 of the hundred or so got mauled. I'll buy that.

:ahem: Right. Because, you know, the bears were able to gain such momentum that they were able to plow straight through forty-two kids in the crowd. Uh huh. Sorry, you can't have this scenario work without endowing the bears with super-speed; the rogues would have been able to get away even if they were in such a large crowd. The difference betweeen your odd car analogy and the bear analogy is that the cars can gain the required momentum while the bears can't.

I never said they were necessary.

You implied that the cars could just as easily have been given a supernatural power in the situation.

So let's recap - the bears were already in the area - they did not have to travel very far to reach the boys and the boys, I assume, were not aware of this. So all of a sudden, these two angry bears are all over these hundred or so kids and 42 of them get mauled in the ensuing melee. Maybe JP should put this scenario in his pamphlet, cause it's not there now. A different one is there. JP?

Because 1). JP doesn't assume that his readers are going to believe that God made the bears appear ex nihilo to attack the people in question, and 2). The bears wouldn't have been going fast enough to plow through forty-two kids and not have them able to get away unless the bears were going so fast as to be bending the normal laws of nature.

And we also have to restrain ourselves to a completely natural situation, is what I hear you saying, otherwise we have a massive leap of logic. Is that right?

Yes, saying that the fact that God made the bears angry means that God also gave the bears supernatural abilities is a leap of logic. You have two possible scenarios here:

A). Imagine that there are one-hundred people. Two bears show up and are on top of a few of them. The rest of the ninety-seven or so rogues think that they can take on the bears because of their large numbers. They all charge at the bears to save those who are being attacked, only to find that they are losing demonstrably. Realizing that they are losing, they stop attacking the bears, and a total of forty-two young men are injured or dead.

or

B). There are one-hundred people. Two bears come out of nowhere after Elisha's curse and are going so fast that, as they are all trying to run away, the bears manage to be responsible for the injury of forty-two of them. Meaning that the bears must have been going at hyper-speed.

Take your pick.

Nowhere did I say either of those things. I suggested that when God "causes" two bears to go crazy on some kids, that's a supernatural occurance.

It's just as supernatural as if a bear trainer made them do it. You're dichotomozing. Again.

When two bears go crazy on some kids just because they're wild animals and that's what wild animals do, that's not.

Oh, so if anything else is involved to make the same event occur, it's in the category of the "natural". When God makes the same event occur, it's "supernatural". Once, again, you are dichotomizing.

Anyway, I have homework to do. See ya later.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 08:12 PM

Whatever you do, don't try hosting your own show on "Animal Planet".

That's one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time.

Then we're even, because one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time is that 42 kids would choose to stand and fight a couple of angry bears. :rofl: :rofl:

I don't know about you, but I don't know of anybody, anywhere, in any culture, who would be stupid enough to stand and fight with a marauding bear. Now you're suggesting that 42 people did it.

But, of course, the idea that there were maybe a lot more than forty two kids, which made it difficult for all of them to get away from the bears is somehow implausable.

Boy, JP - I don't think I'll ever be able to do Bible exegesis as good as you. :duh:

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 08:35 PM

[quote]:ahem: Right. Because, you know, the bears were able to gain such momentum that they were able to plow straight through forty-two kids in the crowd. Uh huh.

I see. My suggestion is too implausible. But the suggestion that a bunch of youths being mauled by bears would stand and fight rather than run away is not. :doh:

Sorry, you can't have this scenario work without endowing the bears with super-speed; the rogues would have been able to get away even if they were in such a large crowd.

Really? What if it were 500 kids? None of them might have panicked and fallen and trampled each other, leaving them vulnerable to the bears? Or is there some reason why there could have been a hundred, but not five hundred? Your position is that the ONLY POSSIBLE EXPLANATION is that the kids stood and fought against the bears? And let me get this straight - you and JP are qualified to insist on this position because you are more educated about these things than I am?

This just keeps getting better and better.

You implied that the cars could just as easily have been given a supernatural power in the situation.

I did. Are you saying they could not?

Yes, saying that the fact that God made the bears angry means that God also gave the bears supernatural abilities is a leap of logic. You have two possible scenarios here:

A). Imagine that there are one-hundred people. Two bears show up and are on top of a few of them. The rest of the ninety-seven or so rogues think that they can take on the bears because of their large numbers.

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

I guess you forgot to mention that they are EXTREMELY STUPID rogues!

They all charge at the bears to save those who are being attacked, only to find that they are losing demonstrably.

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

Oh please stop. You're killing me.

Realizing that they are losing, they stop attacking the bears, and a total of forty-two young men are injured or dead.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

or

B). There are one-hundred people. Two bears come out of nowhere after Elisha's curse and are going so fast that, as they are all trying to run away, the bears manage to be responsible for the injury of forty-two of them. Meaning that the bears must have been going at hyper-speed.

That's the only way, huh? Hyperspeed bears. There couldn't have been any obstructions in the area, like a fence or a thicket that impeded the escape of these maybe-more-than-42- but-certainly-not-more-than 100 people? Like Holding, you have a very vivid imagination when it suits you, and a very limited one when it doesn't.

Take your pick.

Here's my pick: You HAVE to find some way to prove that the kids weren't simply marauded by bears for berating an old man, because that idea does not fit into your paradigm.

Spheniscine

October 24th 2006, 09:25 PM

Okay enough about how the bears managed to attack 42 people. That is not relevant to the main way the passage has been misused - as an 'argument from outrage', that they were 'just calling him baldy'. The simple fact that there were at least 42 people in the mob means that the situation was graver than that. I'm sure you understand JP's argument (and if you don't, I have nothing more to say), however you prefer to dismiss it out of hand and complain about how it is 'not simple enough' for your artificial concept as to how 'simple' the Bible should be, rather than address it in any direct manner.

Soundsurfr

October 24th 2006, 10:39 PM

Okay enough about how the bears managed to attack 42 people. That is not relevant to the main way the passage has been misused -

I disagree, for two reasons.

First, it goes to plausibility. Just how likely is a scenario where 2 bears manage to maul 42 people? The passage may have been misused in the attempt to take it as a literal account.

Second, it speaks to the idea of justified response, a concept which Holding obviously feels strongly enough about to go out of his way to address with "the only possible explanation" - one in which the youths are on the offensive.

If the purpose of the pamphlet is provide Christian youths with enough background to counter the criticism of nasty unbelievers, then the point is going to come up. And when they respond - "the only possible explanation is that 42 of the youths attacked the bears and were injured as a result", they will have to find a way to make themselves heard over and above the fits of laughter that ensue.

Spheniscine

October 25th 2006, 01:32 AM

Just what is so funny and implausible about that? You expect people, especially those in a riotous mob, to act perfectly rationally all the time?

Frogwarrior

October 25th 2006, 04:50 AM

WHY the HECK do you find it so impossible that a LARGE number of people would not, under any circumstances (let alone when they're already rowdy), stand and fight against a pair of bears? Last I heard, in the "fight or flight" instinct, there was something other than merely "flight." Especially, if there's a, you know, LARGE number of people?
Besides, it's not like bears are some monstrous, 20-foot tall beasts that instill raw terror in all who behold them.

The remainder of this post is meant in a facetious manner, and is not to be taken as debate.

*puts on psychiatrist hat*

I zink the reazon you zink zey vould never fight ze bears is because, under ze same circumstances, you vould definitely run avay, no? Zis is a simple case of you extrapolating your cowardice onto ozer people. I deduce from zis that you are French, and you vant your mother.
I prescribe zat you slam your head in a door tventy times to cure your Frenchness. As for vanting your mother, nothing can cure that, you freak. :tongue:

aikidoka

October 25th 2006, 08:03 AM

and a large crowd, could easily have a number panic, with the ensuing confusion giving 2 bears plenty of time to at least scratch quite a few.

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 09:27 AM

Just what is so funny and implausible about that? You expect people, especially those in a riotous mob, to act perfectly rationally all the time?

Sorry, I must have missed the language in this passage that described a riotous mob.

I expect people who are being torn apart by two wild bears to run away before 42 of them are injured. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.:ahem:

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 09:34 AM

WHY the HECK do you find it so impossible that a LARGE number of people would not, under any circumstances (let alone when they're already rowdy), stand and fight against a pair of bears? Last I heard, in the "fight or flight" instinct, there was something other than merely "flight." Especially, if there's a, you know, LARGE number of people?
Besides, it's not like bears are some monstrous, 20-foot tall beasts that instill raw terror in all who behold them.

This has gone beyond tap dancing and into the Watusi. So much fun to watch.

Why don't you run an experiment, Frog? Release a couple of wild bears into a LARGE group of people and see what happens.

:rofl:

While you've got your dancing shoes on - Do you want to now take a shot at why it would be outrageous to suggest that the crowd was somehow shut off from an easy escape route?

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 09:39 AM

and a large crowd, could easily have a number panic, with the ensuing confusion giving 2 bears plenty of time to at least scratch quite a few.

I agree. In fact, the bears could have mauled quite a few people under that scenario. And mauled 'em good.

But Holding says that's the stupidest thing he's ever heard. I guess you and I do not have the requisite knowledge to interpret this passage, Aikidoka. :wink:

Spheniscine

October 25th 2006, 09:45 AM

Sorry, I must have missed the language in this passage that described a riotous mob.
So if you had a pack of at least 42 strangers calling you names you wouldn't call them a riotous mob?
I expect people who are being torn apart by two wild bears to run away before 42 of them are injured. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities.
:lol: I was supposed to be offended by that? Again, how is the scenario impossible? Do you know those people? Do you know what they were thinking? How would you know how they would react, given a certain situation?

Darth Executor

October 25th 2006, 10:23 AM

Then we're even, because one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time is that 42 kids would choose to stand and fight a couple of angry bears. :rofl: :rofl:

I don't know about you, but I don't know of anybody, anywhere, in any culture, who would be stupid enough to stand and fight with a marauding bear. Now you're suggesting that 42 people did it.

Soundbyte, meet John Hirsch, who is something you'll never be: a man.

http://www.stuffmagazine.com/articles/index.aspx?id=965

Summary for those too lazy to read: one man kills a black bear with a pocket knife.

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 10:45 AM

Soundbyte, meet John Hirsch, who is something you'll never be: a man.

http://www.stuffmagazine.com/articles/index.aspx?id=965

Summary for those too lazy to read: one man kills a black bear with a pocket knife.

Darthy, maybe someday your brain will switch to "on".

One man gets suprised by a charging bear. His words: "I just didn't feel I had any place to go."

And he had a weapon.

Do yathink, If he felt he "had a place to go", he would have chosen to fight?

This, thinks Darth Imbecile, is analagous an any way shape or form, to 42 PLUS unarmed youths, being attacked by two bears.

Maybe the 42 youths had no place to go? No wait, that's stupid, says Holding.

The native dance continues.

Darth Executor

October 25th 2006, 10:54 AM

Darthy, maybe someday your brain will switch to "on".

One man gets suprised by a charging bear. His words: "I just didn't feel I had any place to go."

And he had a weapon.

Do yathink, If he felt he "had a place to go", he would have chosen to fight?

This, thinks Darth Imbecile, is analagous an any way shape or form, to 42 PLUS unarmed youths, being attacked by two bears.

Maybe the 42 youths had no place to go? No wait, that's stupid.

The native dance continues.

This is backpedaling. You said :

I don't know about you, but I don't know of anybody, anywhere, in any culture, who would be stupid enough to stand and fight with a marauding bear.

I proved you wrong. Now you're wetting your manties because you've been utterly humiliated. Want some more? Here it comes.

"unarmed youths"

How do you know? I'd imagine any self-respecting gang carried weapons with them. I'd imagine anybody who left a city carried weapons to fend off wild animals and possibly bandits.

Second, if you had read the article (or had any knowledge of wildlife whatsoever, which you don't) is that bears outrun people. If you run from a bear, you're a moron. You can either fight (usually stupid without a big gun) or pretend to drop dead and hope the bear goes away. Given that they were practically a small army, they figured the bears wouldn't be much trouble. They underestimated them and got their behind kicked. What's so spectacular about the scenario, moron?

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 12:50 PM

This is backpedaling. You said : I don't know about you, but I don't know of anybody, anywhere, in any culture, who would be stupid enough to stand and fight with a marauding bear.

Gee, I guess I could have added the redundant "unless he's trapped or already overtaken", but I forgot I was speaking to the human equivalent of a table lamp.

I proved you wrong. Now you're wetting your manties because you've been utterly humiliated.
:rofl:

Darthy, you are utterly incapable of humiliating any living, breathing creature.

Want some more?

YES, PLEASE! I haven't had this much fun in months.

Here it comes.

"unarmed youths"

How do you know? I'd imagine any self-respecting gang carried weapons with them.

:lol: :lol: :lol: OK, so we've progressed from the KJV "little children", on through the other versions of "youths" or "young lads" to "a menacing crowd of young men", and now we're at "armed gang members". Maybe the Hebrew word for "youth" also translates to "Crips and Bloods" in certain usages. Maybe if we keep this going, we'll find out it was actually the entire national army that was jeering the prophet. :rofl: :rofl:

I'd imagine anybody who left a city carried weapons to fend off wild animals and possibly bandits.

Which means that "baldy" was probably armed, too, right? And lemme guess, these gang members carried what? Switchblades? Zip guns? I see now that what probably happened is the 42 kids were superficially scraped in the scuffle, and the bears were totally disemboweled.

This is so much fun.

Second, if you had read the article (or had any knowledge of wildlife whatsoever, which you don't) is that bears outrun people. If you run from a bear, you're a moron. You can either fight (usually stupid without a big gun) or pretend to drop dead and hope the bear goes away.

WAIT - YOU'VE FIGURED IT OUT! The reason the bears were able to maul 42 of the kids, is because they dropped to the ground and played dead!!!

Maybe you're not so dumb after all. :hehe:

Anybody else in the wild speculation, er, Christain apologist business want take a shot at another scenario designed to further the preconceived moral outcome? Join the party.

jpholding

October 25th 2006, 01:11 PM

The sad thing is, he doesn't realize how stupid he sounds. :lolo:

aikidoka

October 25th 2006, 01:32 PM

I agree. In fact, the bears could have mauled quite a few people under that scenario. And mauled 'em good.

But Holding says that's the stupidest thing he's ever heard. I guess you and I do not have the requisite knowledge to interpret this passage, Aikidoka. :wink:

As I read it, Holding wasnt saying that isnt possible but your claim that it was impossible that they chose to fight back is ridiculous. I see no reason that we need to say it must be one or the other as a large group could have a number react differently and end up making the entire group easier prey even though some or a large group fought back. Your argument is really focusing on an irrelvancy and ignoring the typically shoddy manner that skeptics use that passage and that such was responded to in the article.

Darth Executor

October 25th 2006, 01:44 PM

*insert excuse here*

:thumb:

:rofl:

Darthy, you are utterly incapable of humiliating any living, breathing creature.

Not sure how this applies here. Brick walls don't breathe.

:lol: :lol: :lol: OK, so we've progressed from the KJV "little children", on through the other versions of "youths" or "young lads" to "a menacing crowd of young men", and now we're at "armed gang members". Maybe the Hebrew word for "youth" also translates to "Crips and Bloods" in certain usages. Maybe if we keep this going, we'll find out it was actually the entire national army that was jeering the prophet. :rofl: :rofl:

Maybe you can counter some of the scholarship presented in favor of our hypothesis with more than your personal opinion.

Which means that "baldy" was probably armed, too, right? And lemme guess, these gang members carried what? Switchblades? Zip guns? I see now that what probably happened is the 42 kids were superficially scraped in the scuffle, and the bears were totally disemboweled.

Short swords? Daggers? Crude spears? I don't care if the 42 were superficially scraped. Some probably were. Others were probably seriously injured. Others were probably killed. I don't give a crap.

WAIT - YOU'VE FIGURED IT OUT! The reason the bears were able to maul 42 of the kids, is because they dropped to the ground and played dead!!!

:hrm:

Where did I say that, retard?

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 02:06 PM

Maybe you can counter some of the scholarship presented in favor of our hypothesis with more than your personal opinion.

I see. When you propose a scenario it's "scholarship", and when I propose a scenario, it's "personal opinion".

The ground rules are clear as a bell, guys.

Short swords? Daggers? Crude spears? I don't care if the 42 were superficially scraped. Some probably were. Others were probably seriously injured. Others were probably killed. I don't give a crap.

That's the funny thing. Neither do I. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, the whole story is a myth. But somebody obviously gives a crap. :shifty:

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 02:35 PM

As I read it, Holding wasnt saying that isnt possible

Holding? Was it possible that the kids were trampled as opposed to fighting back? Just checking.

but your claim that it was impossible that they chose to fight back is ridiculous.

That's not my claim. My claim is that it is by far not the most probable scenario.

I see no reason that we need to say it must be one or the other as a large group could have a number react differently and end up making the entire group easier prey even though some or a large group fought back.

Well, let's go back to the sacred words of "the scholar".

There’s no way 42 of them got scratched up unless they decided to go on the offensive against the bears.

See Aiki, there's no way 42 of them got "scratched up" unless they decided to go on the offensive. Are you with me on that? NO WAY. That means, they could not possibly have turned to run and found themselves trapped. They could not possibly have found themselves in a crowd confusion, causing them to trip and fall and be "scratched" by the bears. Some number of them HAD to be fighting against the bears, or this couldn't have happened. This is airtight, you see. He's right about that, isn't he? After all, he is the scholar, and we're the schlepps.

Gee, I wonder how many of them would have to have turned and fought the bears for 42 to be scratched? 1? 5? 25? 50? Anybody know? Holding?

By the way, Aiki, what's your level of requisite knowledge in this matter? I'm not sure I should even listen to you. :wink:

Your argument is really focusing on an irrelvancy and ignoring the typically shoddy manner that skeptics use that passage and that such was responded to in the article.

Well now I'm interested in what's relevant and what's not. Perhaps I'm lacking in my ability to discern this. For instance, Holding's pamphlet specifically addresses this criticism:

Hey, but come on. He’s KILLING these kids.

With this reasoning (emphasis mine):

The word used for what was done to them (“tare”) means to break, rip or open. There’s nothing that says anyone was killed here. In fact, the word used could mean as little as a single scratch.

So, unlike Scholar Darth, Scholar Holding IS concerned about whether anyone was killed. Also, I looked into the word myself, and could not find any reference to it being used to mean as little as a single scratch. "Break", "rip" and "open" do not connotate "scratch" in my limited experience. Maybe Holding would be gracious enough to provide the background on that.

Then, we have this comment:

That sounds like a bad case of overconfidence – and like if it hadn’t been there, there’d have been a lot less than 42 people given some sort of scratch.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but it's important, according to Holding, to recognize that the number of "scratches" sustained was a function of the responses of the youths. Also, I'm curious as to why Holding seems to go out of his way to restrict himself to the use of the word "scratch" when describing what happened to the youths, when the various versions of the Bible use the terms "tare", "tore up" and "maul", but none of them use the term "scratch". Perhaps Holding knows something the translator's didn't?

So Aiki, I am not pulling this focus out of thin air. This is the nature of the "scholarly work".

Darth Executor

October 25th 2006, 02:53 PM

I see. When you propose a scenario it's "scholarship", and when I propose a scenario, it's "personal opinion".

My scenario (that the "kids" were a bunch of thugs) is based on scholarship. I didn't come up with it on my own. You will note that JP uses actual scholars in his original article (on his web site), and the book will contain appropriate references. You will also note that we have given reasons for why this scenario is the one that makes sense based on the facts, reasons at which all you can do is drool at.

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 04:43 PM

My scenario (that the "kids" were a bunch of thugs) is based on scholarship.

Not in dispute. How about your scenario that they were armed? Is that based on scholarship? Provide it.

I didn't come up with it on my own.

Other than lame insults, It remains to be seen whether you could come up with anything on your own.

You will note that JP uses actual scholars in his original article (on his web site), and the book will contain appropriate references.

Maybe JP can provide appropriate references to back up the claim that there is "no way" the youths did not attack the bears.

Maybe he can provide appropriate references to back up the implication that the youths were only "scratched".

Maybe he can provide references to justify his not-so-subtle implication that no one was killed in the incident.

Or maybe he's just spouting out some pure, baseless speculation that is convenient to his apologetic case.

You will also note that we have given reasons for why this scenario is the one that makes sense based on the facts, reasons at which all you can do is drool at.

Happy to oblige. :duh:

Darth Executor

October 25th 2006, 05:33 PM

Not in dispute. How about your scenario that they were armed? Is that based on scholarship? Provide it.

:duh:

Maybe JP can provide appropriate references to back up the claim that there is "no way" the youths did not attack the bears.

:duh: Explained already. Forty Two of them got beaten. If they wanted to run away they could have and the bears wouldn't have beaten as many of them.

Maybe he can provide appropriate references to back up the implication that the youths were only "scratched".

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. Atheists are the ones whining that the bears brutally killed a bunch of children, you prove that it was so or shut the Hades up. It's not my business to prove that something didn't happen the way you imagine.

Maybe he can provide references to justify his not-so-subtle implication that no one was killed in the incident.

Maybe oyu can provide references to prove someone was killed. After all, you are the one with the objection that someone was killed. Prove it or shut up.

Or maybe he's just spouting out some pure, baseless speculation that is convenient to his apologetic case.

Like you? The difference is that reasonable speculation is all we have to do. If you want to claim moral outrage, then prove there is something to be outraged about.

jpholding

October 25th 2006, 05:42 PM

That means, they could not possibly have turned to run and found themselves trapped. They could not possibly have found themselves in a crowd confusion, causing them to trip and fall and be "scratched" by the bears

And of course, the bears were armed with the latest in Tantalus field technology to keep them from getting up. :doh:

This man is stupid beyond all redemption. I will not ask that he be barred from here but I will ask mods, if it is possible, to chop his inane messages out of this thread and stick them in the Locker Room where the rest of the tile-floor scum belongs. :lolo:

aikidoka

October 25th 2006, 06:47 PM

And of course, the bears were armed with the latest in Tantalus field technology to keep them from getting up. :doh:

This man is stupid beyond all redemption. I will not ask that he be barred from here but I will ask mods, if it is possible, to chop his inane messages out of this thread and stick them in the Locker Room where the rest of the tile-floor scum belongs. :lolo:

I've seen myspace skeptic twits with more brains.

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 10:10 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Soundsurfr

Not in dispute. How about your scenario that they were armed? Is that based on scholarship? Provide it.

:duh:

Guess not. :lol:

Maybe JP can provide appropriate references to back up the claim that there is "no way" the youths did not attack the bears.

:duh: Explained already. Forty Two of them got beaten. If they wanted to run away they could have and the bears wouldn't have beaten as many of them.

So there are no scholarly references for this. Only pure speculation. Thank you. That was my point.

Maybe he can provide appropriate references to back up the implication that the youths were only "scratched".

This is a shifting of the burden of proof.

No sir. I did not ask for proof. It's a given that neither you nor Holding can prove ANY of this codswallop. I simply asked you to back up your obviously empty claim that this aspect of Holding's position is somehow "scholarly" as opposed to just the opinionated apologetic spin that it is. Still waiting.

Atheists are the ones whining that the bears brutally killed a bunch of children, you prove that it was so or shut the Hades up.

That was not my claim, Darth Strawman. My claim is that biblical translators use the words "tare", "tore up", "mauled" and "attacked" to describe what the bears did to the youths, and Holding uses the word "scratched". What is the scholarly reason for this? When either of you hotshots comes up with an answer that is better than "Cause we're smarter than you", I'll be listening. Until then, it's just opinionated apologetic spin.

Maybe he can provide references to justify his not-so-subtle implication that no one was killed in the incident.

Maybe oyu can provide references to prove someone was killed.

I did not make the statement that someone was killed. And I am not the one who publishes tracts intended to influence the way people think about Bible passages, and I do not back up my speculative opinions with claims of "requisite knowledge" or "scholarship. That's what you guys do. Then when pressed, you cop out. Back to the facts, which are as follows - there is no indication in the account that someone was killed, and no indication that no one was killed. And no outside reference provided that can shed any new light onto whether or not someone died in the melee. Therefore any speculation either way is simply speculation. But there's talk of "mauling" and "taring", language which would imply serious injury. Unless, of course, there is reason to believe otherwise. Is there some "scholarly" reason to believe otherwise? I haven't seen any.

Holding's paragraph spins it so that Christian kids can wallow in the comfort that the youths may only have been "scratched". It's all pure speculation, based on vapor, not "scholarship". And it's so ridiculously biased toward the intended slant that it's almost comical.

You both hide behind this cloak of "scholarship", which is nothing more than a veil for your own opinionated speculation.

After all, you are the one with the objection that someone was killed. Prove it or shut up.

I have raised no such objection.

Quote:

Or maybe he's just spouting out some pure, baseless speculation that is convenient to his apologetic case.

Like you?

Yes. And you. And everyone else here who has weighed in on the issue.

The difference is that reasonable speculation is all we have to do.

Ah. So what we're doing here has gone from applying "requisite knowledge" to "scholarship" to "reasonable speculation". Here's a hint - you're getting warmer with each try. :thumb: You're only one word away now.

If you want to claim moral outrage, then prove there is something to be outraged about.

I have not claimed to be morally outraged. I think the story was probably meant to illustrate that your imaginary God is up for tearing a bunch of dumb teenagers to ribbons any time he chooses, and I'm not morally outraged by that at all. It's what imaginary Gods do. 'course I"m speculating. :tongue:

Soundsurfr

October 25th 2006, 10:22 PM

I've seen myspace skeptic twits with more brains.

It's easier to call me a twit than to actually address the issues I raise, isn't Aiki? Holding is teaching you well.

This man is stupid beyond all redemption. I will not ask that he be barred from here but I will ask mods, if it is possible, to chop his inane messages out of this thread and stick them in the Locker Room where the rest of the tile-floor scum belongs. :lolo:

I asked you to join me in another thread to back up your claims, Holding, and you declined.

Maybe you'll come over to wherever these posts are moved and respond, but it seems you're in cop-out mode.

aikidoka

October 25th 2006, 10:40 PM

It's easier to call me a twit than to actually address the issues I raise, isn't Aiki? Holding is teaching you well.

I asked you to join me in another thread to back up your claims, Holding, and you declined.

Maybe you'll come over to wherever these posts are moved and respond, but it seems you're in cop-out mode.
I dont see you raising issues worth addressing. Your spinning around in irrelevancy and refusing plausible answers. I have better things to do with my time, calling a spade a spade, being one of them. Which means calling you a fool.

Darth Executor

October 25th 2006, 10:41 PM

Guess not. :lol:

I suppose thugs and bandits rob people by threatening to tickle them. Since you are clearly too stupid to go to JP's site and look up the article, let me quote the relevant part:

What was up with these yaled anyway? Finally, to tie the two points together: What were these kids up to in the first place? Callahan derisively notes Gleason Archer's explanation that this was a group akin to a modern street gang, saying, "Presumably the gangs of Elisha's day would have whipped by in hot chariots discharging arrows." [x] There is, he says, "nothing in the actual story to justify" Archer's explanation. Really? Archer knows quite a bit more about the social context of this story than Callahan does, and is indeed on the mark, although he could have done with more explanation. Chariots and arrows? No - but let's try things like robbery and banditry (remember the Good Samaritan story?) and perhaps theft of animals from farmsteads -- no mere prank, the latter, in this day and age, but a very serious offense that could lead to the starvation of a family of innocents. The key here is the concept of corporate survival: In this day and age, every family member was required to make a contribution in order to help the family survive - for in this day, there were no social services, no welfare checks, no supermarkets to stock up from in case your pantry was raided. The question then becomes, why were these yaled banded together in such large numbers, and then, why were they not at home contributing to the corporate survival of their own families? To throw the analogy back in Callahan's teeth, is he suggesting that these were just a glee club of Beaver Cleavers walking casually back from school and having a little fun at Elisha's expense? Hardly so. That they were banded together in such large numbers suggests rather that they were indeed as Archer tells us - a gang of rovers who survived on their own, probably by robbing others of their lives and property (they certainly did not own their own farms or go hunting for game

That was not my claim, Darth Strawman.

Backpedaling. Why did you ask Holding to prove nobody was killed?

My claim is that biblical translators use the words "tare", "tore up", "mauled" and "attacked" to describe what the bears did to the youths, and Holding uses the word "scratched". What is the scholarly reason for this? When either of you hotshots comes up with an answer that is better than "Cause we're smarter than you", I'll be listening. Until then, it's just opinionated apologetic spin.

How about checking a dictionary to see what the word "scratch" means, idiot. It's not limited to the limited damage that occurs in your brain when you try to think.

Holding's paragraph spins it so that Christian kids can wallow in the comfort that the youths may only have been "scratched". It's all pure speculation, based on vapor, not "scholarship". And it's so ridiculously biased toward the intended slant that it's almost comical.

Let me help you a bit. I asked you to check a dictionary earlier but I have a feeling you'll get confused when you see all those big 4+ letter words:

scratch:

1. to break, mar, or mark the surface of by rubbing, scraping, or tearing with something sharp or rough: to scratch one's hand on a nail.

2. to dig, scrape, or tear (something) out or off with or as if with the nails, claws, etc.: to scratch the burs off one's coat.

You both hide behind this cloak of "scholarship", which is nothing more than a veil for your own opinionated speculation.

Holding's article on the subject has been up for ages. If you were actually interested in an answer you'd have looked it up. Instead, you're simply interested in spreading your brand of stupidity to any fool who will listen.

Ah. So what we're doing here has gone from applying "requisite knowledge" to "scholarship" to "reasonable speculation". Here's a hint - you're getting warmer with each try. :thumb: You're only one word away now.

Here's a real hint: I said that's all we have to do. That we have done more than that is a sign of great generosity on our part.

Soundsurfr

October 26th 2006, 12:12 PM

I suppose thugs and bandits rob people by threatening to tickle them. Since you are clearly too stupid to go to JP's site and look up the article, let me quote the relevant part:

I read Holding's speculations. So while we're in imaginitive speculation mode, heres a multiple choice question for you, with only two choices so as not to totally confuse you:

If just two bears were able to maul 42 people who were, by the way, on the offensive against the bears, then it is more likely the people were
a) well armed
b) not very well armed

(insert Jeopardy music here)

:whistle:

Backpedaling. Why did you ask Holding to prove nobody was killed?

You are thicker than I ever could have imagined. I never asked Holdling to prove anything. As I said before, there is nothing in Holding's apologetic diatribes that could possibly be proven, which is what makes his work so....convenient. I asked what the scholarly basis is for Holding's obvious preference to use the word "scratched" over any other when:

The King James Version uses "tare"
The New International Version uses "maul"
The American Standard Version uses "tare"
The New International Reader's Version uses "attacked"
The Holman Christian Standard Version uses "maul"
The New Life Version uses "tore up"

I cannot find a single version where the translators chose "scratched". But Holding has conspicuously chosen to use the word "scratched" throughout his pamphlet. I guess he just likes the way it rolls off the tongue. :lol:

How about checking a dictionary to see what the word "scratch" means, idiot. It's not limited to the limited damage that occurs in your brain when you try to think.

I'll do better than that. I'll go back to the root Hebrew "baqa" and look up what that means.
Baqa
Definition

to split, cleave, break open, divide, break through, rip up, break up, tear
(Qal)
to cleave, cleave open
to break through, break into

(Niphal)

to be cleft, be rent open, be split open
to be broken into

(Piel)

to cleave, cut to pieces, rend open
to break through, break down

(Pual)

to be ripped open, be torn open
to be rent
to be broken into

(Hiphil)

to break into
to break through

(Hophal) to be broken into
(Hithpael) to burst (themselves) open, cleave asunder

Sheesh. I don't see "scratch" anywhere.:huh:

Then I went to Roget's Thesaurus and checked for synonyms for the word "maul" and got:

Synonyms: bang (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bang), bash (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bash), batter (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/batter), beat (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/beat), beat up (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/beat%20up), bludgeon (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bludgeon), break face (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/break%20face), buffet (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/buffet), bung (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bung), bung up (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bung%20up), claw (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/claw), clean (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/clean), drub (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/drub), flagellate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/flagellate), flail (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/flail), go over (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/go%20over), handle roughly (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/handle%20roughly), hit (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/hit), hurt (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/hurt), ill-treat (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ill-treat), kick butt (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/kick%20butt), knock about (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/knock%20about)*, knock around (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/knock%20around)*, lacerate (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/lacerate), lash (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/lash), lean on (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/lean%20on)*, maltreat (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/maltreat), mangle (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/mangle), manhandle (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/manhandle), molest (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/molest), mug (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/mug), muscle (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/muscle), paste (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/paste)*, paw (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/paw), pelt (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pelt), pound (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pound), pummel (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/pummel), rough up (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/rough%20up), skin (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/skin), thrash (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/thrash), trample (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/trample), wax (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/wax), whip (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/whip)

I even tried "torn" (there was no entry for "tore") and got:

Synonyms: broken (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/broken), burst (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/burst), cleaved (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/cleaved), cracked (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/cracked), damaged (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/damaged), divided (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/divided), fractured (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/fractured), gashed (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/gashed), impaired (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/impaired), lacerated (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/lacerated), mangled (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/mangled), ragged (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ragged), rent (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/rent), ripped (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ripped), ruptured (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/ruptured), severed (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/severed), shabby (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/shabby), slashed (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/slashed), sliced (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/sliced), slit (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/slit), snapped (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/snapped), split (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/split), wrenched (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/wrenched)

How odd. No mention of "scratch". :huh:

Let me help you a bit. I asked you to check a dictionary earlier but I have a feeling you'll get confused when you see all those big 4+ letter words:

scratch:

1. to break, mar, or mark the surface of by rubbing, scraping, or tearing with something sharp or rough: to scratch one's hand on a nail.

2. to dig, scrape, or tear (something) out or off with or as if with the nails, claws, etc.: to scratch the burs off one's coat.

I know what "scratch" means, and I know what the mental connotations of the word are. And so do you. And so does Holding.

And I know what "maul" means, and I know what the mental connotations of the word are. And so do you. And so does Holding. And all three of us know that "scratched" is not a very good synonymn for "mauled", or "torn" or "attacked". Which is why your appeal that it is comes across as simply a pathetic denial.

Holding's article on the subject has been up for ages. If you were actually interested in an answer you'd have looked it up.

If you were actually good at this, you would not have assumed I didn't.

Here's a real hint: I said that's all we have to do.

I agree. You don't have to do anything more. Nor could you.

That we have done more than that is a sign of great generosity on our part.

Yes, you have generously called me names for two days now. Thanks so much!:kiss:

jpholding

October 26th 2006, 12:38 PM

I know what "scratch" means, and I know what the mental connotations of the word are.

We're now so desperate that we're resorting to "mental connontations" because the dictionary won't cooperate.

:lolo: It's time to call for the guys with the long sleeved white coats to take little Surfer away to the big rubber room.

Soundsurfr

October 26th 2006, 12:46 PM

We're now so desperate that we're resorting to "mental connontations" because the dictionary won't cooperate.

OK, so I guess your position is that the following two statements are perfectly synonymous, and ellicit the same exact reaction from the reader:

1.) The boy was mauled by a bear.
2.) The boy was scratched by a bear.

Is that your position?

I guess also, someone could modify your pamphlet to use the word "maul" wherever you use "scratch", and that wouldn't really make any difference. You'd agree with that, right?

:lolo: It's time to call for the guys with the long sleeved white coats to take little Surfer away to the big rubber room.

All you have to do, Holding, to not look like you're ignoring my points (which you are), is to explain why you have fixated on the word "scratch" as opposed to any of the actual words used by the translators.

jpholding

October 26th 2006, 02:15 PM

Look, stupid,

OK, so I guess your position is that the following two statements are perfectly synonymous, and ellicit the same exact reaction from the reader:

1.) The boy was mauled by a bear.
2.) The boy was scratched by a bear.

Read what I said carefully for once in your ignominious life:

In fact, the word used could mean as little as a single scratch.

Does that make any impression on your reinforced concrete skull? :lol:

And I also said this:

. The word used for what was done to them (“tare”) means to break, rip or open.

Can you possibly be any more dishonest?

Second, I would say that only idiots looking for a problem would make some issue out of "reaction".

Third, the Hebrew word does not mean "mauled" and can never mean "mauled".

All you have to do, Holding, to not look like you're ignoring my points

Some things are so magnificently idiotic that ignorance is all they deserve. But in fact, your "points" have been mauled numerous times in this thread by all of us.

It's funny how stupid people like you try to gouge meaning out of English "translations" by Biblical scholars while ignoring what is said by such scholars in commentaries. Apparently the commentary people are trying to cover up something the translation people are trying to reveal. :lolo: Even though some of the translators write some of the commentaries....

Darth Executor

October 26th 2006, 03:18 PM

I read Holding's speculations.

Supported by a scholar's "speculations".

So while we're in imaginitive speculation mode, heres a multiple choice question for you, with only two choices so as not to totally confuse you:

If just two bears were able to maul 42 people who were, by the way, on the offensive against the bears, then it is more likely the people were
a) well armed
b) not very well armed

(insert Jeopardy music here)

c) It doesn't matter, because in a battle between people with no big guns and bears, my money's on the bears.

You are thicker than I ever could have imagined. I never asked Holdling to prove anything.

Of course not, this is a figment of my imagination:

Maybe he can provide references to justify his not-so-subtle implication that no one was killed in the incident.

The King James Version uses "tare"
The New International Version uses "maul"
The American Standard Version uses "tare"
The New International Reader's Version uses "attacked"
The Holman Christian Standard Version uses "maul"
The New Life Version uses "tore up"

I cannot find a single version where the translators chose "scratched". But Holding has conspicuously chosen to use the word "scratched" throughout his pamphlet. I guess he just likes the way it rolls off the tongue. :lol:

Scratch and tear are synonymous.

I'll do better than that. I'll go back to the root Hebrew "baqa" and look up what that means.

How about you get a brain? Do you know what a synonim is?

Sheesh. I don't see "scratch" anywhere.:huh:

I don't see "maul" anywhere either. Whoops.

Then I went to Roget's Thesaurus and checked for synonyms for the word "maul" and got:

How odd. No mention of "scratch". :huh:

And? The definition I got from the same dictionary isn't good enough for you?

I know what "scratch" means, and I know what the mental connotations of the word are. And so do you. And so does Holding.

And I know what "maul" means, and I know what the mental connotations of the word are. And so do you. And so does Holding. And all three of us know that "scratched" is not a very good synonymn for "mauled", or "torn" or "attacked". Which is why your appeal that it is comes across as simply a pathetic denial.

The mental connotations of the word "scratch" when it comes to animals includes serious wounds. It just so happens that my grandfather was a ranger. Drinked and smoked himself to death before I was born, but left behind a crapload of books. You have no idea what you're talking about.

If you were actually good at this, you would not have assumed I didn't.

If you had, you would not be screaming after scholars when the name "Archer" is all over the article.

Soundsurfr

October 27th 2006, 09:39 AM

Read what I said carefully for once in your ignominious life:
I'll take that as a "No, Soundsurfr. I don't think the terms are synonymous, despite Darth Sycophant's insistence that they are." Thanks.

In fact, the word used could mean as little as a single scratch.

You have'nt provided any reference as to how you came to that knowledge, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that it could be used that way. You are, after all, quite a bit smarter than me.

But I would think it would be used to mean as little as a single scratch when you're talking about fighting kitty cats. When fighting wild bears, I would think it's more likely to imply something like "disemboweled". Maybe it's just me. :shrug:

In fact, the word used could mean as little as a single scratch.

There’s no way 42 of them got scratched up unless they decided to go on the offensive against the bears.

That sounds like a bad case of overconfidence – and like if it hadn’t been there, there’d have been a lot less than 42 people given some sort of scratch.

So, as indicated above, in your pamphlet you use "scratch" just about every time the issue comes up. And no bible translator ever uses it. I guess I'm wrong, but I couldn't help thinking you were trying to leave the reader with the impression that people were really just kinda scratched by the bears. But you're assuring me that was not your intention at all. Right?

And the fact of the matter is, you have no idea whether some or all of the lads were scratched, torn, ripped, mauled, dismembered or disemboweled. Do you?
Second, I would say that only idiots looking for a problem would make some issue out of "reaction".

So your position is that reaction to or connotation of language is not an issue in apologetics. 'kay. I'll remember that. :wink:

And I also said this:

. The word used for what was done to them (“tare”) means to break, rip or open.

You did. Which implies you would be equally satisfied with the overall message of your pamphlet if an editor substituted the words "ripped up" for "scratched", right? You wouldn't take issue if the editor wanted to make a nitpicky little change like that.

Third, the Hebrew word does not mean "mauled" and can never mean "mauled".

Interesting. I believe you, but I'd be interested in how you know that also, given that a goodly number of translations use it. And if it can never mean "mauled", do you think those translators who used the word "mauled" made an error? Or do you think they had some leeway given that they were describing a fight with bears and not kitty cats?

Soundsurfr

October 27th 2006, 10:15 AM

I love it when Boo Boo weighs in.

Supported by a scholar's "speculations".

Yeah, I read his speculations too.

c) It doesn't matter, because in a battle between people with no big guns and bears, my money's on the bears.

Unless (insert Western music here) John Hirsch is in the crowd!
:lol:

Scratch and tear are synonymous.

OK. If you say so. Now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go buy some polish to get rid of those tears in my car. :rofl:

The mental connotations of the word "scratch" when it comes to animals includes serious wounds.

OK. If you say so. So when Holding says it "could mean as little as a scratch", he's actually saying it could mean "as little as a slashed jugular vein". :rofl::rofl:

That big ole' lion came and scratched me. Now I need a band aid. And in this context, the mental connotation of the word "band aid", of course, includes tourniquet.

Keep this up and you're gonna need a crane to get out of this hole, Darthy.

jpholding

October 27th 2006, 10:15 AM

I'll take that as a "No, Soundsurfr. I don't think the terms are synonymous, despite Darth Sycophant's insistence that they are."

Of course you will. :lol: Since you've lost the battle now.

Especially since Darth showed that "scratch" means a lot more than your "mental corruptions" you desperately cling to.

You have'nt provided any reference as to how you came to that knowledge

And you sure as heck are too lazy to find out yourself.

But I would think it would be used to mean as little as a single scratch when you're talking about fighting kitty cats.

Then it is time to grow up and be a man and stop contriving "mental corruptions" and start answering arguments.

When fighting wild bears, I would think it's more likely to imply something like "disemboweled". Maybe it's just me. :shrug:

It is you.

And the fact of the matter is, you have no idea whether some or all of the lads were scratched, torn, ripped, mauled, dismembered or disemboweled

The fact of the matter is that injuries caused by bears vary widely from full fledged maulings to simple scratches. Given 42 and more people, the scenario that fits the evidence is the majority getting away with little in the way of injury and a tiny handful getting anything like a mauling of any sort.

Except of course in your fantasy world, where bears wear Flash costumes and come equipped with Tantalus fields.

So your position is that reaction to or connotation of language is not an issue in apologetics.

Nope. My position is that contrived reactions to or connotations of language is not an issue in apologetics.

Which implies you would be equally satisfied with the overall message of your pamphlet if an editor substituted the words "ripped up" for "scratched", right? You wouldn't take issue if the editor wanted to make a nitpicky little change like that.

No, actually, I wouldn't, except that "rip" tends not to indicate an actor whereas "scratch" does.

Interesting. I believe you, but I'd be interested in how you know that also, given that a goodly number of translations use it

As if that turns the Hebrew word into "mauled". It doesn't. The average translator is a scholar who likely hasn't seen a bear past Wild Kingdom and would hardly know the technical differences between words as someone like Darth's grandfather would. So it's time to grow up and deal in the real issue of what the word means in Hebrew, which means it is well beyond your ability.

As if it hasn't been anyway. :hehe:

Darth Executor

October 27th 2006, 10:25 AM

Unless (insert Western music here) John Hirsch is in the crowd!
:lol:

:duh:

Did you read the article? It was pure luck that he won.

Soundsurfr

October 27th 2006, 11:36 AM

And you sure as heck are too lazy to find out yourself.

Tried, but I'm not as good at looking stuff up as you are. Came up with nothing. Give me a reference and I'll chase it down. Otherwise, I'll have to draw the only possible conclusion.

Then it is time to grow up and be a man and stop contriving "mental corruptions" and start answering arguments.

I'll be happy to answer any argument you provide, as soon as you provide an argument.

The fact of the matter is that injuries caused by bears vary widely from full fledged maulings to simple scratches.

Now I'm with ya.

Given 42 and more people, the scenario that fits the evidence is the majority getting away with little in the way of injury and a tiny handful getting anything like a mauling of any sort.

First of all, there is no "evidence". There is only an account. (And the unchallenged assumption on your part that the account is not an exaggeration.)

Second, they weren't trying to get away, right? They were attacking the bears, according to your scholarly analysis. So do we know at what point they stopped attacking the bears and at what point they decided it was a pretty stupid move and started trying to get away? Guess we don't. Guess your estimation above is just that much fanciful fantasizing. Maybe you're getting your apologetics confused with your Tektoons.

Nope. My position is that contrived reactions to or connotations of language is not an issue in apologetics.

Oh, so you're saying my reaction to the word "scratched" in your tract is contrived. I say it's not. You're smarter than me. You win. :wink:

No, actually, I wouldn't, except that "rip" tends not to indicate an actor whereas "scratch" does.

OK. I would disagree, but that's not an argument worth pursuing.

As if that turns the Hebrew word into "mauled". It doesn't.

I didn't say it did. I asked if you thought it was mistaken to use the word "mauled" in that context. Then you artfully evaded the question. Kudos.

Care to answer the question?

{Edit to add: I also asked you how you know it "could never mean mauled", and you evaded that one too. :wink: }

The average translator is a scholar who likely hasn't seen a bear past Wild Kingdom and would hardly know the technical differences between words as someone like Darth's grandfather would.

So the average Bible translator cannot properly interpret a Hebrew word as it applies to an attacking bear? This is such an interesting education I'm getting here.

And what exactly is YOUR experience with attacking bears, aside from Wild Kingdom?

jpholding

October 27th 2006, 12:06 PM

Tried, but I'm not as good at looking stuff up as you are. Came up with nothing. Give me a reference and I'll chase it down

Nope. You do it yourself since you're the one whining. Then go ahead and draw the ignorant conclusion and we'll just keep mocking you for it. :thumb:

First of all, there is no "evidence". There is only an account.

Of course, any idiot could simply make the same assertion about any historical account. Somehow historians missed the news that accounts are not evidence.

Second, they weren't trying to get away, right? They were attacking the bears, according to your scholarly analysis.

Right, stupid. Here's a hint:

"Rescue operation."

Starting to tick now, dum dum?

Oh, so you're saying my reaction to the word "scratched" in your tract is contrived. I say it's not. You're smarter than me. You win.

Yes. I do.

Care to answer the question?

I did. You just don't like the answer.

{Edit to add: I also asked you how you know it "could never mean mauled", and you evaded that one too.

What's the evade? You contrive an idiotic idea that a word that the lexicons say means "tear" can mean "maul". So that means that when it says in the OT that a prophet "ripped" his clothes, using the same word, he was also actually "mauling" them. :doh:

This is the sort of idiocy that comes of fundamentalist atheism.

So the average Bible translator cannot properly interpret a Hebrew word as it applies to an attacking bear? This is such an interesting education I'm getting here.

Yes. It's called, "learning about specializations". If you think a language specialist is also keen at biology, you're even more ignorant than has been shown.

And what exactly is YOUR experience with attacking bears, aside from Wild Kingdom?

I've done a great deal of study over the years in the behavior of bears as predators. They're interesting creatures to study -- intelligent, trainable, and also deadly and unpredictable.

As for you, it looks like you're knowledge comes from hugging your Teddy Ruxpin.

Soundsurfr

October 27th 2006, 01:10 PM

Nope. You do it yourself since you're the one whining.

Big "L" on the forehead for you, amigo. Any loser can claim to have knowledge and sources that he doesn't have, then deflect by saying "look it up yourself". I am not even remotely impressed.

Of course, any idiot could simply make the same assertion about any historical account.

And any lamebrained apologist can simply make the assertion that what they read and then subsequently fantasize about was actually true.

Somehow historians missed the news that accounts are not evidence.

No, you missed the news that uncorroborated accounts, in and of themselves, are not evidence.

Right, stupid. Here's a hint:

"Rescue operation."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What a riot! We could make a whole slapstick movie out of your little story here. "Look - Wild Bears are attacking us! QUICK, Little help over here - everybody fight the bears! OH NO! We're getting scratched! RUN AWAY!!!"

Do you sit and think about this stuff for hours on end, or does it just come to you?

I did. You just don't like the answer.

Sorry, I missed it. Do you think it was a mistake on the part of the translators to use the word maul in this context? Yes or no.

What's the evade? You contrive an idiotic idea that a word that the lexicons say means "tear" can mean "maul".

I did not contrive it. It's in several versions of the Bible.

So that means that when it says in the OT that a prophet "ripped" his clothes, using the same word, he was also actually "mauling" them. :doh:

No, silly. It means he was actually "scratching" them. :lol: :lol:

Yes. It's called, "learning about specializations". If you think a language specialist is also keen at biology, you're even more ignorant than has been shown. I've done a great deal of study over the years in the behavior of bears as predators. They're interesting creatures to study -- intelligent, trainable, and also deadly and unpredictable.

OK, enough of this zeppelin sized helium balloon you call an ego. The facts are as follows. If the account is true, the following must be true:

1. At least 42 youths were present.
2. Some or all of them were jeering at Elisha, referring to baldness or lack of hair.
3. Elisha cursed them in the name of the Lord.
4. Two female bears came onto the scene.
5. The bears injured 42 of the youths.

Anything else you care to inject into this story is pure speculation on your part, based on nothing other than your own faith and apologetic biases. I don't care if you can speak a hundred languages fluently. I don't care if you've studed ANE culture for 20 years. I don't care if you worked summers as a zoologist in a bear exhibit. Here's what you and Boo Boo DON'T know:

You don't know if the youths were armed or not.
You don't know if they were planning to harm Elisha or not.
You don't know if they attacked the bears or not.
You don't know if they were all seriously injured or not.
You don't know if any of them died or not.

And there is no possible way to find out.

So it's a happy, convenient little game you play with your pamphlets and your treatises. "I'm a real smart guy, full of self-importance and great at looking stuff up, and I can guess what happened better than you can! And I can claim that I'm right and you're wrong, and nobody will ever be the wiser!"

It's been fun watching you beat your chest again, Alpha Chimp. If we ever meet up somewhere, I'll buy you a banana.

Philosophickle

October 27th 2006, 01:18 PM

*Off topic*

How the heck could 2 bears scratch, maul or tear up 42 people. One would think it would be easy for the majority to escape, unless each bear was attacking 21 people at once.

Edited to add: Crap, you already talked about it.

jpholding

October 27th 2006, 02:36 PM

Big "L" on the forehead for you, amigo. Any loser can claim to have knowledge and sources that he doesn't have, then deflect by saying "look it up yourself". I am not even remotely impressed.

The terminally ignorant usually aren't. :hehe:

And any lamebrained apologist can simply make the assertion that what they read and then subsequently fantasize about was actually true.

An admission that your "history is bunk" argument is debunked.

No, you missed the news that uncorroborated accounts, in and of themselves, are not evidence.

Oh? Where's that in the Rules of Evidence, please? Or was that just a rule you pulled out of your bum this morning? :hehe:

Haven't seen that in historians either, sorry. Try again.

What a riot! We could make a whole slapstick movie out of your little story here. "Look - Wild Bears are attacking us! QUICK, Little help over here - everybody fight the bears! OH NO! We're getting scratched! RUN AWAY!!!"

Posturing as a sub for an inability to answer. Of course, since you're scared by your Teddy Ruxpin, you'd never know.

Sorry, I missed it. Do you think it was a mistake on the part of the translators to use the word maul in this context? Yes or no.

I'll answer that (again) if someone else can't figure it out too, besides someone like "member 11491".

Anything else you care to inject into this story is pure speculation on your part,

Oh dear. So much for historical detective work then,. SoundlyBeaten is a fundamentalist. Historians who reason things out from accounts are a bunch of idiots. He's da man. He knows better dan ALL of 'em. :hehe:

You don't know if the youths were armed or not.

Yes, we do. It's a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing out the implications. You're the one who has to invent unarmed people against all historical precedent and that of the setting.

You don't know if they were planning to harm Elisha or not.

Yes we do. The honor-shame dialectic which governed the ancient world tells us that this was indeed their eventual intent.

You don't know if they attacked the bears or not.

Yes, we do. That's the ONLY way 42 could have been injured aside from your fantasy of bears armed with force fields.

You don't know if they were all seriously injured or not.

All were torn. That's all that has been asserted.

You don't know if any of them died or not.

Yes, we do. The text refers to no deaths. You have to add them on to justify your irrational misotheism.

And there is no possible way to find out.

Other than deleting one's ingorance and not being a fundy who clings to the text like a baby's blanket. :hehe:

So it's a happy, convenient little game you play with your pamphlets and your treatises.

And your poor self-esteem has taken a beating, as usual. :thumb:

Darth Executor

October 27th 2006, 03:13 PM

Yes, we do. It's a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing out the implications. You're the one who has to invent unarmed people against all historical precedent and that of the setting.

Surferdude probably thinks gangs and bandits fight like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0AS7-LWimg

:lmbo:

Soundsurfr

October 27th 2006, 04:47 PM

The terminally ignorant usually aren't. :hehe:

Posturing as a sub for an inability to answer.

I'll answer that (again) if someone else can't figure it out too, besides someone like "member 11491".

There's nothing so arrogant and rude as someone who refuses to provide a straightforward answer to a direct question.

Yes, we do. It's a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing out the implications.

Nah. With you, it's a matter of pulling scenarios out of your bum.

Yes we do. The honor-shame dialectic which governed the ancient world tells us that this was indeed their eventual intent.

:lol:

Yes, we do. That's the ONLY way 42 could have been injured aside from your fantasy of bears armed with force fields.

:lol:

All were torn. That's all that has been asserted.

Got one right!

Yes, we do. The text refers to no deaths.

The text says 42 youths were torn up by bears. You can stamp your feet and huff and puff the way you do, but you have no idea whether or not any of them died.

You have to add them on to justify your irrational misotheism.

No, that's your business.

jpholding

October 27th 2006, 04:55 PM

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!

Yep. That's what we figured. :thumb:

Soundsurfr

October 28th 2006, 07:37 AM

Yep. That's what we figured.

Holding, I'm bowing out of this thread now, with the understanding that you are unable to provide a reference from any lexicon for your contention that the Hebrew root "baqa" can mean "as little as a single scratch." I have searched several and could not find one. Using your logic w/regard to the word "maul", I am forced to conclude that "baqa" does not mean "scratch" and can never mean "scratch". I've asked for a reference and you've come back with "you're too lazy to find it yourself". Very clever, because if I never find one, you can simply say that's my fault. Is that a tactic you learned in your library science studies?

So you make claims in your apologetics that you cannot or will not back up when called into question. 'Cause that's the kind of apologist you are. I never thought you were a particularly nice guy, but until now, I did not question your integrity in your field.

Sound

jpholding

October 28th 2006, 08:30 AM

No fair! I'm gonna tell my MOMMY on you!

Don't let the slidinhg door slap you on the rear on the way out. :thumb:

dizzle

October 28th 2006, 10:02 AM

Holding, I'm bowing out of this thread now, with the understanding that you are unable to provide a reference from any lexicon for your contention that the Hebrew root "baqa" can mean "as little as a single scratch." I have searched several and could not find one. Using your logic w/regard to the word "maul", I am forced to conclude that "baqa" does not mean "scratch" and can never mean "scratch". I've asked for a reference and you've come back with "you're too lazy to find it yourself". Very clever, because if I never find one, you can simply say that's my fault. Is that a tactic you learned in your library science studies?

So you make claims in your apologetics that you cannot or will not back up when called into question. 'Cause that's the kind of apologist you are. I never thought you were a particularly nice guy, but until now, I did not question your integrity in your field.

Sound

:rofl: Don't the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya

Reading your responses was only possible with Twilight Zone music going in the background

They're coming to take me away, haha, hee hee, where life is beautiful all the time....

Abigail

October 28th 2006, 12:18 PM

jpholding

October 28th 2006, 01:14 PM

Soundsurfr

October 29th 2006, 09:12 AM

I dont know Hebrew but I have have looked in my Strong's (#1234) and one of the meanings is 'divide' so perhaps the verse can be understood as the bears scattering the youths. So their little gang was ripped asunder - they ran away

Look at this pathetic chicken-pecking for excuses to justify Holdings dishonesty!

The bears "divided" 42 of them.

Idiots.:ahem:

Holding you have zero credibility now. You've proven yourself. Congrats!

Now go back to musing about Jesus hiring clarinet players for the last supper.

:lol:

Abigail

October 29th 2006, 10:08 AM

Look at this pathetic chicken-pecking for excuses to justify Holdings dishonesty! I have no reason to justify Holding, I was just weighing the odds between a different understanding of the verse and the one which has the bears tearing the youths to shreads bodily. As H Morris says in his commentary "the jeering exhortation to 'go up thou baldhead' was both a sarcastic reference to Elijah's supposed ascension (which they disbelieved) and a personal insult to God's chosen prophet. This challenge to Jehovah and the authority of His prophet could not be excused, so God made good on a warning issued long before "And if ye walk contrary unto Me, and will not hearken unto me ;...I will also send wild beasts among you which shall rob you of your children (Lev 26:21-22) '

The bears "divided" 42 of them.
As I said this thread made me open to wondering if the verse could be understood in another way (from Morris' understanding) ...you I see have nothing concrete to offer in eliminating the possibilities though I guess understanding was not your motive for persuing this thread

Idiots.:ahem:

Holding you have zero credibility now. You've proven yourself. Congrats!

Now go back to musing about Jesus hiring clarinet players for the last supper.

:lol:

Look to your own credibility mate

jpholding

October 29th 2006, 08:42 PM

Aw, leave poor SoundlyBeaten alone. He has a Hebrew lesson tomorrow after he buys his next box of "Lucky Charms". :hehe:

Frogwarrior

October 29th 2006, 10:00 PM

So, out of curiosity, how do you know that it can mean as little as a single scratch? Have you perhaps seen it used as such somewhere or something?

(You can use PM if you want MentallyUnsoundSerf to keep guessing... he probably wouldn't get it anyway)

Soundsurfr

October 30th 2006, 10:00 AM

So, out of curiosity, how do you know that it can mean as little as a single scratch? Have you perhaps seen it used as such somewhere or something?

No, he hasn't. You haven't figured out yet that he's got no justification for his assertion? See my signature line.

(You can use PM if you want MentallyUnsoundSerf to keep guessing... he probably wouldn't get it anyway)

That's OK - I'm not guessing. I have the answer, and so do you.

jpholding

October 30th 2006, 10:15 AM

No, he hasn't. You haven't figured out yet that he's got no justification for his assertion? See my signature line.

Yep. He created his own brand of epistemology to prevent himself having to present an informed argument for his position. :hehe:

To ya shortly, Frog.

Soundsurfr

November 3rd 2006, 02:24 PM

The IQ level of SoundlyBeaten's other thread on this has taken a precipitous dip downward for the people on his side, especially with Snarf doing his usual "duh" rotuine, but I have some comments.

On the contrary, Theonomy has posted the first and only serious examination of the lexicon and its uses throughout the OT, and has taken the position that baqa can never mean scratch, in response to which MM can only drool and say "yeah, but it still could mean scratch". :duh:

First of all, parallel uses of the word to refer to things like tearing open shoulders does not in the least establish that a baqa' is always a serious injury. The object AND nature of the action is what tells us that, not the mere word itself. That's why it is important to include such uses as a chick breaking out of an egg.

Right, where "baqa" refers to what happens to the egg.

That's why it is ridiculous to say, "any time the word applies to humans it is something bad" to the level of opening shoulders.

Trottin' out the straw, I see.

Linguistically, that's a laugh riot. It may be serious relative to the object (eg, a finger with a baqa' is serious for the finger, not the person) and thus "scratch" (as used in the context, thank you, of a BEAR CLAW!) is completely acceptable, SoundlyBeaten's mental paranoia problems with "connotation" aside.

By the same logic, it may also be serious for the person, as in a "mauling", and thus "maul" (as used in the context, thank you, of a BEAR CLAW!) is completely acceptable, Holding's mental paranoia problems with the connotation of THAT aside.

In this case, the contextualization we have -- that of the mode of bear attacks, and the only realistic scenario whereby 42 people were injured -- tells us that there is no way the word meant uniform infliction of serious damage.

Trottin' out more straw. Keep it up and you could build a bonfire. The fact that you believe an unrealistic scenario to be the only realistic scenario makes you sound twice as foolish.

Inevitably it takes the idiocy of the likes of SoundlyBeaten to suggest that the bears were given supernatural abilities to chase or hold down people, or suggesting that the 42 constanty trampled or bumped into each other like some sort of large-scale Three Stooges routine,

Or that they were cornered or their escape route was otherwise cut off somehow (impossible, right?) or any of a dozen other scenarios someone with no biased agenda and a less stunted imagination than the alpha chimp might consider.

as a way of preserving their misotheistic rendering of the text.

It also takes the idiocy of JPH, the Benny Hinn of apologetics, to suggest that no one could could possibly have been killed in the attack, or that he knows from his "naturalistic" expertise pretty much exactly what happened to those 42 lads that day.

Second, it's far from impressive to cite someone like Gleason Archer as saying that the bears "mauled" or even killed these people.

I for one, was equally impressed by Boo Boo's appeal to the English dictionary, whereupon he looked up the English word scratch and found that it could be used to mean "tear", then insisted that the Hebrew word for "tear", could therefore be used to mean "scratch".:rofl: Mountain Man pulled the same asinine stunt in the other thread. By the way, have we ever been given a reference that supports the use if the term "scratch" here? Guess not. Guess we only have Holding's fluent understanding of the nuances of Hebrew language to go by.

Archer is a fantastic guy but he isn't a naturalist and it is doubtful that he has any knowledge of bear behavior.

You mean the kind that suggests that bear attacks don't ever result in serious injury? Or the kind that suggests that when bears attack large groups of people, the people are likely to stand and fight rather than run? :ahem:

My own sources are such as these:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0424_060424_bears.html

Idiots like SoundlyBeaten should note the following:

*Bear attacks are "freak occurrences" and are exceptionally rare. (If they were female bears, they may have had cubs nearby, which would help explain the attack.)

Wow. You looked in National Geographic. That makes you a NATURALIST. :lol: :lol: What the heck difference does it make whether bear attacks are rare or not? We are dealing with an account of a bear attack.

*Only 12 people were killed by black bears in the last century in the lower 48 of the US. And they want us to think that 42 were killed here in one episode?

Boy, you really are dumber than a box of hammers. Where did anyone say all 42 were killed? You, on the other hand, are the idiot who claims to be sure that none of them died.

No -- that's about the number killed by bears in Canada and Alaska in one century!
*"People are more than a hundred times more likely to be killed by bees in the United States than by a black bear." (!!!)
*Bears are generally very timid.

Now one can fuss and whine that these are black bears, not the sort that attacked the youths, but if they want to play that game they'd better have comparable data for bear species native to Palestine. Good luck.

So you admit you have no data, and therefore no real knowledge concerning the disposition of the species native to Palestine. Great.

As far as I can find, the likeliest candidate, the Syrian brown bear, is now extinct in Israel -- and is also :ahem: VERY SMALL for a bear -- about 400 lbs.

Stupid people may also wish to consider, before they say that "Nobody in their right mind moves TOWARD an attacking bear", not only that they would indeed do so to rescue someone (as happened above)

Yeah - as happened above regarding a guy with a rifle. :lol: This is by far the funniest barrel of swill I've ever seen from you, Holding. And that's saying a lot.

but because in that time, someone looking at a bear would also likely think of it as a good meal.
Oh, now it's clear. They figured maybe they could EAT the bears. :lmbo: Maybe while the bears were charging at them, they had time to huddle and work out their strategy. Whaddya say boys? How about we overpower these bears and have ourselves a barbecue!

Stupid people may also wish to believe that JP Holding has some tenuous remaining grasp on reality.

800 lbs of bear versus say 6300 lbs of human. Huh. Now who would end up winning that one? :hehe:

I guess the bears got theirs, eh?

Stupid people need to think less like fundamentalists when they read this stuff.

My thoughts exactly.

jpholding

November 3rd 2006, 03:22 PM

On the contrary, Theonomy has posted the first and only serious examination of the lexicon and its uses throughout the OT, and has taken the position that baqa can never mean scratch, in response to which MM can only drool and say "yeah, but it still could mean scratch".

Of course, that's a very erroneous version of the events, when in fact MM showed that "scratch" was a perfectly good way to render baqa' when contexts were considered -- not merely "mental retardations" of the sort that spew from your little cake hole. :hehe: Likewise I showed the error of using the object of the baqa' as a determinant of its broad meaning.

Right, where "baqa" refers to what happens to the egg.

And also what happens to skin.

The end for you.

Trottin' out the straw, I see.

Nope. Burning the scarecrow. :hehe: You have no answer to it, and it shows.

By the same logic, it may also be serious for the person, as in a "mauling", and thus "maul" (as used in the context, thank you, of a BEAR CLAW!) is completely acceptable, Holding's mental paranoia problems with the connotation of THAT aside.

Nope. That's just you, ignorant as you are, desperately trying to reword my argument in a nonsense fashion. Baqa' refers to a splitting of something. "Maul" has no connotations of splitting. A scratch can split and does.

Perhaps you should try counting gumballs as your profession again, since basic higher reasoning function seems to not be a capability you have. :hehe:

Trottin' out more straw. Keep it up and you could build a bonfire. The

IOW, you have no answer other than positing bears with force fields, dressed in Flash costumes. :rofl: Poor little stupid person.

Or that they were cornered or their escape route was otherwise cut off somehow (impossible, right?)

Oh, dear, of course not. There must have been aliens dropping concrete walls all over that area to stop them from running. Heaven knows the geography of Palestine affords so many opportunities to cordon people off. Sort of like in Texas, you know? That sagebrush just reaches out and holds on for dear life, and you never know when you're going to get mugged by some grass. And then there's places like Canada, where the trees just won't stop moving around.

or any of a dozen other scenarios someone with no biased agenda and a less stunted imagination than the alpha chimp might consider.

Like aliens will ready-made walls. Of course. :hehe: You can't even count to 12 without removing your socks, how you gonna come up with that many anyway?

It also takes the idiocy of JPH, the Benny Hinn of apologetics, to suggest that no one could could possibly have been killed in the attack,

Oh yes. What idiocy to suggest that when only 45 people were killed in one CENTURY by bears, in Canada and Alaska, out of the whole of bear encounters, that none were killed out of 42 in one instance, and by bears half the size of those who killed the 45. :lolo: :hehe:

or that he knows from his "naturalistic" expertise pretty much exactly what happened to those 42 lads that day.

An obvious cover for the fact that your "bear expertise" amounts to, "I sit and suck my thumb and hug Teddy Ruxpin." :lol:

I for one, was equally impressed by Boo Boo's appeal to the English dictionary, whereupon he looked up the English word scratch and found that it could be used to mean "tear", then insisted that the Hebrew word for "tear", could therefore be used to mean "scratch".

And in return, the "DUH" you provided was very impressive. :hehe: It shook walls in Siberia.

You mean the kind that suggests that bear attacks don't ever result in serious injury?

As if anyone said that. :hehe:

Or the kind that suggests that when bears attack large groups of people, the people are likely to stand and fight rather than run?

Maybe a no-man like you with no principles doesn't get it....sure. :whistle:

Wow. You looked in National Geographic. That makes you a NATURALIST. What the heck difference does it make whether bear attacks are rare or not? We are dealing with an account of a bear attack.

Um, well, it does tend to indicate the uh, you know, LEVEL OF AGGRESSION bears offer as a whole. :doh: How likely they are to give up the fight, or lose enthusaism for it. Duh!

Boy, you really are dumber than a box of hammers. Where did anyone say all 42 were killed?

Um, hey, stupid?

http://www.funtongue.org/scatterplot/

Go down to the 1/4/2006 entry and tell me what it says, willya?

This is a standard canard of the intelligent people on your side of the rainbow. :hehe:

I found 5 more in just a minute on the first two pages of a search.

So you admit you have no data, and therefore no real knowledge concerning the disposition of the species native to Palestine. Great.

Guess you didn't read the next paragraph, huh? :hehe:

Oh, now it's clear. They figured maybe they could EAT the bears. Maybe while the bears were charging at them, they had time to huddle and work out their strategy.

Nope. Bear as a food didn't require any more thought than "hey, there's a deer". It's just you making up stupid stories to evade your defeat. :hehe:

I guess the bears got theirs, eh?

I don't see you proving anything to the contrary, no-man. :whistle: But maybe Ruxpin beats you up, too.

So, summing up -- Stupid here has had his bear rear handed to him on a platter, and has nothing but JPHOCD to show for it. He can't cite any contrary sources and has only his "mental retardations" of the word "scratch" as an argument. He has to keep positing stupid stuff like walls dropping out of the sky and bears with the powers of Flash.

Pretty sad. And he can't do anything on the copycat chapter either. :lol: