Illustrated Stories from the bible (that they won't tell you in Sunday School)

[Pitchforkpat]

Spit the worms and mud out of your mouth, I can't quite hear you.

Got news for you: simply claiming victory is not the same as actually winning?? Especially when you’ve barely even made an argument.

Quite clearly you think the reason Elisha had the children mauled was that this gang of thugs (that you’ve conjured up) was threatening Elisha in some way and he was acting in self defense

That was in response to your claim that they were not a threat. Strike 1 for more illiterate crap. If I get to 3 again I'll end this conversation like I said I would.

3 again?? You’re only at two and you’re the one who’s missing the ball. You still haven’t demonstrated Elisha was in any physical danger, and apparently now you claim that’s not your excuse for the mauling. I wish you could make up your mind what in the name of Buddha you’re trying to argue. If, according to your own words, it doesn’t matter whether or not Elisha was in danger, why did you try to argue the point? Why didn’t you say right from the start that it doesn’t matter? See how confused you are?

Dangerous youths shouting insults at you is physical danger.

You’re absolutely hilarious. “Dangerous” youths would by definition put you in danger. However, I'm sorry to have to point out to you that making an unsubstantiated statement and then using your own statement to back up your point is about the silliest attempt at an argument one can make. YOU alone have stated they were dangerous. Let’s rephrase your sentence so it mirrors reality in some way: “Youths shouting insults at you is physical danger”. Now that it’s been corrected we can see how silly your sorry excuse for a point is.

Since I'm in a relatively good mood right now, I'll tell you what I think happened

What YOU THINK happened? No one really cares what YOU THINK happened. You’re supposed to be telling me what the authors of 2nd Kings thought happened. Anyway, since I’m in a relatively good mood, I’ll humor you.

Elisha was walking on, minding his own business.

Brilliant! I’m really learning something.

Since they were "jeering", the insult is probably an accusation of lying regarding his master

Ok so you THINK they were PROBABLY accusing Elisha of lying? Wow. Powerful argument. I hope scholars are taking notes for the next updated version of the Bible.

As you may or may not know, honor in ancient times (and in many parts of the world today) is very important. In fact, it was more important than one's own life. In return, Elisha cursed them in God's name to defend his honor.

Aaahhh…so now we finally have it. Elisha was defending his honor by having 42 people mauled by a bare. I think the rotting carcasses and the screams of the mothers is a great testament to Elisha’s honor. What an honorable gentleman.

So if a bunch of kids accuse you of lying, then you’d better defend your honor and have them all mercilessly mutilated! That is if “honor” is “important” to you. Boy, I’m glad honor is now only important in SOME parts of the world (as you claim above). Where is it in the world today where honor isn’t important? Empty-headed twaddle.

I’ve just looked at eight different Bible versions and none calls the group of kids a “gang”.

I don't really care

Oh right. It’s not really important what the Bible says, it’s what YOU THINK that matters. Sorry for the mistake.

42 people mature enough to know how to insult a prophet's honor and who are in a place where they're not supposed to be is not "implied" danger, it's obvious for anybody who knows anything about he subject

Whether Elisha was in physical danger or not does not matter.

One again, then why are you wasting time trying to argue this point? Will you please make up your mind what your argument is??

Where does the translation say they were not a gang?

Oh don’t tell me you’ve put your foot in your mouth that badly? Wow. If it doesn’t explicitly say they were not a gang means it’s plausible for you to say they WERE a gang? Well if you’re that stupid, perhaps I’ll go a little easier on you. Sorry for being so hard on you. I shouldn’t assume people are able to think logically.

Not only that, but you did not address my evidence that the mauling could simply be a "pat on the back".

You weren’t serious with that were you? Tell me if you were. I could use a good laugh.

I'll quote Miller for the full explanation, as this is his work. “One of these words described Isaac at his sacrifice in Genesis 22:12, when he was easily in his early twenties. It described Joseph in Genesis 37:2 when he was seventeen years old. In fact, the same word described army men in 1 Kings 20:14-15...these are young men ages between twelve and thirty."

Yes I’m aware of the apologists arguments. They are specious. Notice how he says “one of these words” when he talks about men being seventeen or thirty.

na`ar means, “(concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age):--babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).”

But here it is coupled with qatan which means, “diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance):--least, less(-er), little (one), small(-est, one, quantity, thing), young(-er, -est)."

When used together it is easy to see why some translations deem them to be children or “small boys” and why no Bible claims they were adults. Again, the picture is validated by poplular Bible versions.

They should not have the time to be out to jeer Elisha because they should be at home helping out their parents.

Aawww…they never got play time? Anyone not doing chores every waking moment of every day was a gang member? Fascinating knowledge of ANE cultures you have.


Ok…now I’ve dealt with you, time to catch up on the rest of the thread to see if anyone’s got anything worth while to say.

[Darth Executor]

Since I need to go to bed, I'm going to skip past your garbage (most of your post by the look of it) and answer a few key points. If you can call them that.

Aaahhh…so now we finally have it. Elisha was defending his honor by having 42 people mauled by a bare. I think the rotting carcasses and the screams of the mothers is a great testament to Elisha’s honor. What an honorable gentleman.

Precisely. The people of the time cared more about their honor than they did about their lives. The "kids" knew that when they issued the challenge, and gambled on Elisha being worthless. They lost. Then comes Retardpat sporting full white bed sheets and burning a cross to laugh at those stupid barbarians. How about you present a real argument, idiot? Oh yeah, because you can't.

So if a bunch of kids accuse you of lying, then you’d better defend your honor and have them all mercilessly mutilated!

Attempt to dishonor. Lying is not automatically dishonorable. And what's with the "you"? I don't live in a honor/shame society, I live in the same fat, weak western society you live in. I seriously can't wait for our oil to run out and have all you fat pigs revert back to the stone age. See how much you'll be laughing at those barbarians when you have to either act just like them or be wiped out.

Oh don’t tell me you’ve put your foot in your mouth that badly? Wow. If it doesn’t explicitly say they were not a gang means it’s plausible for you to say they WERE a gang? Well if you’re that stupid, perhaps I’ll go a little easier on you. Sorry for being so hard on you. I shouldn’t assume people are able to think logically.

No you retard, I said the text does not exclude the possibility and gave you reasons as to why it is a gang, reasons which you were unable to refute and resorted to posting a smilie instead. That you spit out some cliche garbage about "logic" while making an argument from silence "the translations don't say they're gangs, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" is clearly your nearly comical incompetence made manifest.

When used together it is easy to see why some translations deem them to be children or “small boys” and why no Bible claims they were adults. Again, the picture is validated by poplular Bible versions.

No conclusive proof that they were little children other than to cry "some translations say so"? What's wrong, are you an ignoramus on the subject and can't defent your theory? Appeals to authority are useless if the other side appeals to equally valid authorities, and when it comes down to it, you have no idea how to defend your side. Not like I expected better.

Aawww…they never got play time? Anyone not doing chores every waking moment of every day was a gang member?

No you dire imbecile, they did not get "play time" in groups of 40+ outside the city. I see that you're still an idiot. Please display some sort of intelligence in your next post otherwise I'll go do something more productive like drinking flaming gasoline.

[Pitchforkpat]

I take it you've never heard of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

It’s a stroke of pure genius.

“Also, inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts (which no longer exist, but can be inferred on the basis of extant copies), not to the copies or translations themselves.”

The biggest whopper of a cop out yet. Now inerrancy is simply inferred and stated. In other words, it is completely unverifyable and impossible to critique so you'll just have to take our word for it. We're saying it's without error and you can't check. NO original manuscripts exist, so NO accusations of inerrancy can ever stick again. Genius. Pure Genius.

However, it’s also a lie. If they were truthful it would be the Chicago Statement on Original Manuscript Inerrancy (that's the TRUTH). Saying that because no original manuscripts contained error, that therefore the Bible doesn’t contain error is a bald-faced, unscrupulous cheat. The Bible is the book I can walk down to my local Christian Book and Music store and buy – and it contains errors.

[Darth Executor]

However, it’s also a lie.

Tell me, "genius", if I say I'm pro choice, does it mean I'm either in favor of a rapist's choice to rape whoever I want or I'm a liar? Or does it have a more specific meaning that is known to people who aren't idiots? Anybody with half a brain who gets into a discussion about Christian doctrine knows what inerrancy refers to. It's only a lie for idiots like you. Looks like you're picking up a lot of screwball awards.

[Biblischism]

Man, what is it with you and making issues over piddly little things like your opponent's hobbies or taste in music and such?

Thanks for asking. It's a very basic principle: I judge people according to the quality of their taste; the ones who have good taste tend to be more interesting and, oftentimes, more intelligent.

It's a general rule, but as you see in the case of MM, it's pretty accurate in judging individuals and the merit of their arguments. In other words, if that golden brain of MM's could not find anything more edifying and soul nourishing to listen to than This Means War!!! by Petra, then what are the chances this same brain has successfully contemplated the whole of biblical scripture, properly meditated on its precepts and tenets, and thoughtfully considered the myriad complex issues attached to it? Such a man is a Grade A poser--vainly pretending to know what his Petra-addled mind hasn't the sufficient resources to know.

Ergo, Petra fans are unintelligent people and, therefore, unworthy of serious discourse.

How can I be the only one here who has grasped this? Where are the pure thinkers, fer criminy?!

I accept your admission that criticizing my taste in music is a pointless diversionary tactic. Now don't let it happen again.

Well just this once, then I'll stop...until your next round of Petra poetry. Remove the bad poetry and I'll reconsider, though.

First of all, my admission wasn't unwitting, it was intentional. The Bible that I have is a translation of something written by a foreign culture in a foreign language, so it is inevitable that something will get "lost in the translation".

Like your sanity?

I bet you still listen to Bloodgood and Stryper, too. Whatever happened to the halcyon days of Rockin' for the Rock, anyway? I miss the wholesome combination of bulging blue spandex, mascara, and that mini-sermon before the drum solo.

Secondly, I don't need my English translation to be "perfect" for it to be an understandable and valuable source of wisdom and truth. It's more than sufficient for casual reading and study, but I'm also aware that because of the culture gap, gaining a fuller understanding requires resources beyond the translation itself. This seems perfectly reasonable.

Ergo, Bible incomplete. I get it already: proper understanding of the Bible involves toting a mini-library around with you (something Franklin Graham won't tell you at his Crusades).

No, it really isn't, since parroting my position back to me doesn't in anyway refute it.

Ask yourself why I'd want to refute your assertion that my Bible is errant. LOL. In fact, what you said is so priceless, I'm putting it in my signature.

Petra's powerful rock is apparently taking a toll on your basic cognitive abilities. Time to turn the volume down and read what you're writing, lest you be featured weekly in my signature!

[Jnthn]

Straight from the mouth of an inerrantist, folks.

It's hard to imagine one can hold two polar opposite views of the Book on which his/her faith is based.

(Pssst. That's not Wormword and Slubgob whispering in your ear; it's cognitive dissonance. Your statement above proves you have a monster case of it.)

Actually, my view of inerrantism is roughly in line with the Chicago statement, so no, I don't believe that English language Bibles are inerrant.

That's another straw man put to the torch.

J

[XaositectCrayon]

the OP would get a kick out of Wonder Showzen

[Mountain Man]

I get it already: proper understanding of the Bible involves toting a mini-library around with you...

No, not really. But it does require one to be familiar with the history and culture of the writers at the very least.

Ask yourself why I'd want to refute your assertion that my Bible is errant.

Straw man alert! Look, you really need to stop obsessing over my signature and start paying attention to my posts. What I actually said is that gaining a better understanding of scriptures requires more effort than a plain reading of an English translation.

At best, an English version of the Bible can only give you a literal translation of the original manuscripts. There is nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but it is also ignorant to think that such translations contain everything you need to understand the intent of the authors. Gaining at least a minimal familiarity with the original language, culture, and history of the writers will help you to frame the scriptures in their proper context and will aid your understanding. Such an undertaking is neither insurmountable nor unreasonable.

[Mountain Man]

That is also true, and in some cases we may be able to arrive at it. It helps if we have the author there to question and have them expound and explain. But when we are talking about books that are millenia old, written in various contexts for various purposes, written in completely different languages filled with culturally and contextually sensitive idioms and definitions, and from a period where our ability to fully understand the social context is limited by the availability of historical resources...I think it is reasonable to conclude that we can make decent guesses, but ultimately we will never know for sure. The best we can do is our "best guess." And history has shown us that, when it comes to the bible, those guesses are all over the map and unverifiable.

You're begging the question. Your argument assumes that an author's intent can not be correctly ascertained through textual criticism.

[Biblischism]

Actually, my view of inerrantism is roughly in line with the Chicago statement, so no, I don't believe that English language Bibles are inerrant.

So the English Bible is flawed and you adhere to a deliberately safe and cozy definition of biblical inerrancy.


That's quite an endorsement.


Between your phantom grammatical rules, sad knowledge of God's botanical provision, and insistence that our current Bible is full o' holes, you're not doing your brethren any favors with your contributions.


BTW, why are you hanging out here when you've a thread to answer over in "Sacred Plants"? Elisha's male pattern baldness is pretty trifling compared to the plant problem.

That's another straw man put to the torch.


J

You're right. I'm sorry I called you an inerrantist.

[Jnthn]

So the English Bible is flawed and you adhere to a deliberately safe and cozy definition of biblical inerrancy.

There is no "the" English Bible. There are dozens of English language translations and paraphrases. From having studied modern languages, I am fully aware that there is not a one to one mapping of any language to another, let alone the languages in which the books of the Bible were originally written.

Between your phantom grammatical rules, sad knowledge of God's botanical provision, and insistence that our current Bible is full o' holes, you're not doing your brethren any favors with your contributions.

What phantom grammatical rules? And again, there is no single Bible. Rejecting inerrancy in a translation does not equate to asserting that there are "holes", nor does it diminish the argument that the original documents were inspired or inerrant.

BTW, why are you hanging out here when you've a thread to answer over in "Sacred Plants"? Elisha's male pattern baldness is pretty trifling compared to the plant problem.

I'll address your non-arguments about plants in their own thread.

J

[Cynic Sage]

Thanks for asking. It's a very basic principle: I judge people according to the quality of their taste; the ones who have good taste tend to be more interesting and, oftentimes, more intelligent.

It's a general rule, but as you see in the case of MM, it's pretty accurate in judging individuals and the merit of their arguments. In other words, if that golden brain of MM's could not find anything more edifying and soul nourishing to listen to than This Means War!!! by Petra, then what are the chances this same brain has successfully contemplated the whole of biblical scripture, properly meditated on its precepts and tenets, and thoughtfully considered the myriad complex issues attached to it? Such a man is a Grade A poser--vainly pretending to know what his Petra-addled mind hasn't the sufficient resources to know.

Ergo, Petra fans are unintelligent people and, therefore, unworthy of serious discourse.

How can I be the only one here who has grasped this? Where are the pure thinkers, fer criminy?!

That has to absolutely be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It reeks of the fallacies Argument Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy.

[Biblischism]

That has to absolutely be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It reeks of the fallacies Argument Ad Hominem and Genetic Fallacy.

It also reeks of satire.

You're not that bright, are you? Half your brethren here regularly dole out insults like "retard" and "idiot." It's a very undignified approach for a Christian to pretend he knows how to ad hom in order to feign confidence. Better to approach it as the artform that it is and not merely a list of over-used epithets scrawled on a Post-It affixed to your monitor.

Thankfully, I'm well versed in high insult; I know how to Play the Dozens properly. Therefore, I will continue to teach rubes like jnthon, MM, and jpholding how the game should be played. That they cannot engage in high insult is no problem of mine.

[Jnthn]

It also reeks of satire.

You're not that bright, are you? Half your brethren here regularly dole out insults like "retard" and "idiot." It's a very undignified approach for a Christian to pretend he knows how to ad hom in order to feign confidence. Better to approach it as the artform that it is and not merely a list of over-used epithets scrawled on a Post-It affixed to your monitor.

Thankfully, I'm well versed in high insult; I know how to Play the Dozens properly. Therefore, I will continue to teach rubes like jnthon, MM, and jpholding how the game should be played. That they cannot engage in high insult is no problem of mine.

If your idea of high insult is calling me a rube then you're note even in the running for deputy waterboy let alone master of the jump shot

And for the record, it's not an ad hominem to point out the poverty of your arguments then call you an idiot, idiot.

Take instruction like a good little kindergartener.

J

[Mountain Man]

Thankfully, I'm well versed in high insult; I know how to Play the Dozens properly.

Nice try, but we're not here to play the dozens, we're here to debate, and your so-called "arguments" thus far have been little more than a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Sorry, bub, but as much as you seem to enjoy your little games, fact is, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.