Elisha was an important figure in the Old Testament. He inherited the mantle (a sheepskin outfit) from Elijah which made him God’s favorite. And Elijah, you remember him don’t you? He’s the one that had dozens of men burned to death to show them that he was a man of God (2 Ki 1:10). He’s the guy that didn’t fool around with dying and being buried, but instead rode a chariot pulled by burning horses straight up into the sky where everyone at the time mistakenly thought that God lived.
Elijah also had the power to lay hands on dead people and bring them back to life. Elisha however did him one better. Elisha’s corpse brought people back to life after Elisha was dead and buried in a grave (2 Kings 13:21).
Elisha, being the man of God he was, also had a way with children.
One day when Elisha was traveling to Bethel some little children came out to greet him:
“Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!”
When Elisha turned around and saw them he cursed them in the name of the LORD, and two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the children. (2 Ki 2:22-24)
Oh my God! Capella that’s hilarious XD
Mr. Capella,
The story of the “child” mauling was disturbing to me at first because I skipped over it and didn’t think it through as I was reading it, but a little deeper and it makes sense of the bigger picture. The word that is used for children or youths in the NIV is also the same word in Hebrew that described young men in the army. So these “children” or youths could have been possibly anywere from 17-25. I am seeing youths from Bethel (which was the Idolatry capital) disrespecting not Elisha or his bald headedness, but God’s message of repentence, and severly disrespecting anything that GOD might be trying to communicate to them. There hearts were hardend against anything Elisha would say. If GOD didn’t pass Judgement on those youths, it would be sending the message that it’s OK to disrespect GOD and his messengers, it’s just a bunch of threats, GOD’s not gonna do anything! It may seem like one thing on the surface but once things are investigated a little bit I believe the answers will come. I don’t wish to change anyones mind, I just hope that I may help you look at it from a different angle and see that a reasonable answer can be arrived at without having to stretch to reach it. Thank you all for your time.
Respectfully, if one deals with problems in the Bible by using apologetic commentaries or convenient translations then of course they’ll be able to rationalize away any problem in the Bible or any other book to their satisfaction.
Take Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” for example. Someone could write a commentary which mistranslates a word here and there, ignores what Hitler was clearly saying, and they could end up with Hitler portrayed as a good man to their satisfaction.
However, although they might feel better about the horrible things said, they have not made them go away.
My point is that such rationalizations may give comfort but it’s not living in the real world. It’s living in a comfortable sanitized version of the truth.
I see your point sir. But what we are talking about here is not weather or not we feel comfortable about what happens. I have said before that a lot of things in the Bible disturb me. But that doesn’t neccessarily mean that it’s wrong just because I don’t agree with it. If my baby brother is involved in a shootout and he gets shot and dies, am I comfortable with that? Abosoulty not! But that’s what happend. If the world were clean and sanatized you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation. I agree with you, trying to explain things so that they make us comfortable is irrational, but trying to explain things so they make sense is what we should do. If one is going to take the time to quote the Bible and take stories out of it to prove their point of disbelief I feel that out of respect they should at least cover all the angels, do a little, not much, but a little research and try to give the readers a fair chance at interpreting the text before the deck is stacked the other way. Respectfully, Zulla.
p.s. thank you for your comments and time Mr. Cappella
Oh, and it just hit me, remember when you gave your definition of atheism on that other link. Is that not the same thing. If I remember correctly you said that the dictionary just uses the word in a popular way not neccesarily what it means. Well, how come you didn’t think of that during your Bible critique? Just curious. Thank You again.
I think you answered your own question. The dictionary, like concordances and commentaries is another example of a publication catering to the rationalizations of common people.
You took the dictionary and clarified what it meant. You didn’t take it at face value, you dug a little deeper. How come you didn’t do that with the Bible? Instead you called it a rationalization to put our minds at ease.
Thank you.
I didn’t “clarify” what many dictionaries say.
I am putting them in the same category as concordances, commentaries, and convenient translations of the Bible, which are marketed to the itching ears of Christians and other religious people.
The basic premis being, if you read something religous or not, don’t always take what your read at face value, find the REAL meaning, don’t just chalk it up to religous propaganda. The dictionary said something. If taken at face value we would have something that is not necessarily correct. Who is to say that your definition is correct?
Thanks for your time Capella.
Zulla,
I have read this verse in the bible and considered your argument. However I find such actions from a ‘loving, benevolent’ God to be contradictory to his purpose. Essentially what message the old testament conveys more than anything is that of a Tyrant. To say follow me or else is not the actions of a loving parent figure, but that of an egotist who flaunts superiority.
Ive heard the rationalization of “well the ‘kids’ might not have been ‘kids’ at all, rather simply young men.” Well lets look at that, who is more likely to mock a bald man, kids or young men? If these are indeed young men, why are at least 42 of them hanging around, doing nothing productive? Young men work, kids do not. Other’s say these could have been soldiers on break, ok why is this not said? How can 2 Bears kill 42 Young men, some of whom could be armed? But lets just say for arguments sake, the 42 are indeed young, unarmed (not particularly fast running) men. What on earth did they do to deserve death by mauling? For mocking a man of God? THAT requires a death sentence? Couldn’t Elisha simply dropped some God-knowledge on them and taught them a lesson? why shed blood when shedding light is so much better? Why is God so thin-skinned? Of course, the entire story is fiction, thankfully because I mock men of god on a daily basis.
Just something to consider the Hebrew verb here does not mean maul as in a violent act, but scatter. Perhaps the bears did not kill the kids but scare them away…just a thought. This comes from the original language not a “convenient translation” into English.
Let’s see what the original Hebrew word actually did mean:
In my opinion, in the context of bears chasing dozens of children, this can and very likely was meant to be a violent word. As a matter of fact the word maul may actually be the most watered down description that biblical translators could come up with considering the possible meanings listed above. “Cut open” or “ripped to pieces” may have been closer to the original intent. The KJV translators used the word “tare” which is the precurser to the modern word “tear.”
In the Old Testament there is no shortage of stories about innocent children being stabbed, ripped out of pregnant women’s bellies, drowned, burned to death, crushed by boulders, swallowed by the earth, carried off by wild animals, stricken with tumors, etc… at the command of the “good guys.” So the way that almost every translation I’ve ever seen translates the verb (mauled) doesn’t seem to be out of place.
Apparently the primitive ancient audience the Old Testament was written for had no problem with the “good guys” doing these things. Unlike modern society which condemns such cruel and horrible acts, primitive ancient people most likely found them very impressive otherwise these stories wouldn’t have been created with many of the “good guys” of the Old Testament (including Jehovah himself) frequently killing babies and children.
I don’t believe this bible story anymore than the one about Elisha’s corpse bringing people back to life. However in the real world, if two bears did come after dozens of children I doubt the children would simply be “scattered.”
Zulla person, face it. Your God is a heartless cold blooded killer. If you knew any live or previously living person (someone like Adolf Hitler comes to mind) that acted like your god, you wouldn’t like them. And your other posts on the topic of child discipline ie “beating, spanking; is sick. Think about how sick it is to spank a child, which inflicts physical pain via breakage and destruction of cells and tissue, then turn around and tell them it is based on love. “Dear child, because I love you I have damaged your physical body along with your psyche”. So many children that are routinely spanked have emotional and sexual problems. Dont make me go into the physicality of placing punishment in the area of a body that acts on toileting and sexual activity. Its very wrong to promote physical punishment. Also, to believe that a parents loving physical abuse is the only way to make a child have good behavior and compassion is so bible, so made-up. It relies on your assumption that your child is born in sin. Well mine were not, and goodness is inborn and is usually easy to promote with discussion, tears and a plea for compassion. That is how I get my kids and grandkids to act appropriately in this world, through compassion. Teaching a child to have emotion and feel for others is the best way to encourage good behavior. There is no compassion in physical pain.
Oookay , forgot about this part of the bible , I kept falling asleep during our Theology classes back in High School.
That’s why part of me is cynical towards the bible because it depicts God as spiteful and petty. I mean come on kids will be kids and they get gobbled up by a bear because of this???
Capeela, I have to hand it to you. You put those “Christian Apologetics” in their place.
To Zulla and Jim, most of the people on this website are ex-Christians and we probably know the bible better then most believers. At least in my case questions where not being answered to my satisfaction. An apologetic would glaze over my question while looking up at the sky vaguely and shrug like only God knows things.
Most people have a clearer sense of what they DON’T believe/agree with than what they do. I ask anyone who claims a faith to look at what’s actually in the text (without the apologetic gloss) and see how they really feel about a notion of a God who responds in a certain way (whether it’s mauling children or turning a woman into a pillar of salt or anything else).
Ah, these are interesting topics, but I am always left wondering if half the debates are worth having, apart from the fact that they are a good excersise, and certainly interesting. With virtually every debate/discussion about events in the Bible that I listen to, I start to lose interest, and just drift away lol. As with so many of the events in the Bible, THEY NEVER TOOK PLACE, THEY DIDNT HAPPEN, AND IF THERE WAS SOME EARLY SEMBLANCE OF TRUTH IN THEM, THEY ARE LONG SINCE DISTORTED AND MEANINGLESS. Why people would argue for and against so many silly stories is beyond me. Lets face it, we are talking about a bunch of ignorant superstitious peasants, still looking at thunderstorms as angry gods, and we are also talking about a tiny propotion of the known world. The rest of the world had its own similar versions of their Gods at the same time. Dead people with the ability to heal? Its as fanciful as most Biblical stories. Please, interesting discussions for sure, but hey, we are talking about fairy tales, asif give any of it any credibility.