Did God send bears to rip open 42 little boys?

[amortalman]

In chapter 2 of 2 Kings, we read an odd tale concerning the Fantastic Duo, prophets of the Lord, Elijah and his sidekick, Elisha. We find the Duo wandering around with Elijah not really knowing which town he wanted to land in. But it was settled when a chariot of fire and horses of fire came down and took Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind.

So Elisha doubles back and with the help of Elijah's cloak and "Elijah's God," he parts the Jordan river so he can walk over on dry land. He must be in a very nasty mood because this is where he loses it when some kids start mocking him:

23 He went up from there to Bethel, and going up on the way, little boys came out of the city and made fun of him and said to him, “Go up, you bald head! Go up, you bald head!� 24 He turned around, saw them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and ripped open forty-two of the boys.

For debate: What do we make of this horrifying tale?

(1) Is it fact or fiction?
(2) If fiction, why is it presented as fact?
(3) If fact, what does this say about the Lord's prophet and the Lord himself?

[Overcomer]

amortalman wrote in response to Charles' assertion that these were young men, not children:

You can keep trying to make them a mob of "young men" but the definitions you provide simply don't support it. How can you change "little children" to "young men" exclusively? Did they miraculously grow older and larger?

Charles is correct in saying these were young men. The word "naar" is a flexible Hebrew word used dozens of times throughout the Old Testament referring to children, servants, and young men. Here are just a few examples:

Abraham also ran to the herd, and took a tender and choice calf and gave it to the servant, and he hurried to prepare it. (Gen. 18:7).

"I will take nothing except what the young men have eaten, and the share of the men who went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their share." (Gen. 14:24).

The following is talking about Ishmael who Abraham sent away when he was between the ages of 17 and 19 as recorded in Gen. 21:17-20:

17 God heard the lad crying; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter with you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. 18 "Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him by the hand, for I will make a great nation of him." 19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water; and she went and filled the skin with water and gave the lad a drink. 20 God was with the lad, and he grew; and he lived in the wilderness and became an archer.

The word is also used to describe Isaac who could have been anywhere from 20 to 35 (the Talmud cites the latter based on the age of his mother at his birth) at the time Abraham took him to Mount Moriah to be sacrificed:

He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Gen. 22:12)

See here for a discussion of Isaac's age:

https://www.premier.org.uk/Blogs/Yeshua ... -the-Altar

For the most part, the word referred to a young man of marrying age just as Charles noted.

We can only understand individual Scripture verses when we read them in the context of the chapter, the book and, indeed, the whole Bible. Therefore, it's imperative to look at how the word "naar" is used throughout the entire Old Testament. It is also imperative to place the event in its historical context which is what Charles has done in his post above. There is much to be learned from studying commentaries of the books of the Bible. They offer information to clarify and aid in our understanding of Biblical texts.

It's also interesting to note that "bald-headed", while not sounding like much of an insult to us, was a serious insult indeed in that society. Consider this from an article by Bible Scholar J. Hampton Keathley:

"Baldness was regarded by the lower orders as a kind of disgrace; for as it was one of the usual consequences of leprosy, so it was accounted a sign of personal and mental degradation. Hence, in using this opprobrious epithet, the young profligates had a most malicious intention. Their expressions are not to be viewed as a mere burst of youthful wantonness; but as poisoned arrows, pointed and directed by refined and satanic malignity. It is as if they had said, “Thou effeminate leper! Thou would-be prophet! We fear thee not! Go up! Go up!� as if they mean, “Imitate thy master!� . . . It seems to have been a scoffing allusion to the ascent of Elijah; partly sceptical, and partly in derision of Elisha."

In the same article, Keathley notes that " the word 'mocked' is the Hebrew 'galas' and denotes a scornful belittling of something or someone, but it issues from an attitude which counts as valueless that which is really of great value."

See here for the full article:

https://bible.org/seriespage/4-elisha-a ... ngs-223-25

By mocking Elisha, a prophet of God, they are actually mocking God himself. So we are talking about young men or lads or fellows, as some translations note, old enough to know what they're doing and who they're belittling. To stand in opposition to Elisha and his message was to stand in opposition to God who gave Elisha the message.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]

Overcomer wrote:

"For the most part, the word referred to a young man of marrying age just as Charles noted."

I disagree. I have multiple translations to back that up. I looked at 17 Bible translations and in all of them na'ar is translated "boys" 14 times and "children" 3 times. Among these translations are some of the most familiar and trusted translations available including the New American Standard Bible, New International Version, the King James Version, Holman Christian Standard, and the Wycliffe Bible.

Besides that, the footnote to the New English Translation says:
"2 Kings 2:23 tn The word נַעַר (naʿar), here translated “boy,� can refer to a broad age range, including infants as well as young men. But the qualifying term “young� (or “small�) suggests these youths were relatively young."

Every one of these translations uses this qualifying term.

We can only understand individual Scripture verses when we read them in the context of the chapter, the book and, indeed, the whole Bible.

I trust the expert translators of this text did exactly that and in this particular text, they overwhelmingly translated na'ar as either children or boys. In Jewish society, a boy is a male child less than thirteen years of age. Again, the qualifying terms of "little", "young", or "small" further reduces the age of these boys.

Therefore, it's imperative to look at how the word "naar" is used throughout the entire Old Testament.

Are you suggesting the translators did not do this very thing when they translated 2 Kings 23-24?

It is also imperative to place the event in its historical context which is what Charles has done in his post above. There is much to be learned from studying commentaries of the books of the Bible. They offer information to clarify and aid in our understanding of Biblical texts.

No need to educate me on the use of Biblical commentaries; I am quite familiar with them. Commentary is usually one person's opinion on events and written by clergy/ministers who, by nature of their profession, have a natural bias for what they believe is "God's word."

[Charles]

Are you suggesting the translators did not do this very thing when they translated 2 Kings 23-24?

Translators are just as addicted to their biases as everyone else. The Christian message is that no truth can be found in study without the Holy Spirit stepping in and helping you to change your mind. No one is tabula rasa!

No need to educate me on the use of Biblical commentaries; I am quite familiar with them. Commentary is usually one person's opinion on events and written by clergy/ministers who, by nature of their profession, have a natural bias for what they believe is "God's word."

You are not saying that non-believers perfectly interpret scripture without any filtering through their biases I hope.

Yes I agree that Christians do indeed follow their biases (as I've contended may times) but I also know that so do agnostics and atheists... There is no avoiding this psychology of human kind, unless maybe if someone intrudes into your ideas and changes them for you.

[Zzyzx]

.

The Christian message is that no truth can be found in study without the Holy Spirit stepping in and helping you to change your mind.

If said 'spirit' is 'stepping in', it seems to be pointing people in many contradictory directions and producing translations that are at odds with one another.

Could it be that the 'spirit' is malevolent rather than holy? Or multiple 'spirits' promoting different agendas?

Do 'spirits' verify the religious beliefs of translators and only help those with approved piety? Do 'spirits' inject bias?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]

By mocking Elisha, a prophet of God, they are actually mocking God himself. So we are talking about young men or lads or fellows, as some translations note, old enough to know what they're doing and who they're belittling. To stand in opposition to Elisha and his message was to stand in opposition to God who gave Elisha the message.

In what way does any of that justify their brutal slaughter?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 11 by Overcomer]

By mocking Elisha, a prophet of God, they are actually mocking God himself. So we are talking about young men or lads or fellows, as some translations note, old enough to know what they're doing and who they're belittling. To stand in opposition to Elisha and his message was to stand in opposition to God who gave Elisha the message.

In what way does any of that justify their brutal slaughter?

Indeed. In fact, didn't Jesus supposedly say:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 5:39 New International Version (NIV)
39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

If Jesus and God are 'on the same page' then God should not be ripping people to pieces simply because they have mocked Him. He should simply turn the other cheek right?

To try and 'apologize' for this bear story by claiming God is exacting some kind of righteous punishment just introduces a contradiction. The Bible is full enough of those on it's own without creating more I would think.

[Charles]

Could it be that the 'spirit' is malevolent rather than holy? Or multiple 'spirits' promoting different agendas?

imCo from the PCE pov:
Of course there are malevolent spirits, which is why I specifically referred to the Holy Spirit by His name. Some are malevolent to GOD and some to Satan... Since even GOD is malevolent to HIS enemies and they can correctly conclude HE is trying to kill them and will kill them someday; malevolence doesn't tell us so much.

Do 'spirits' verify the religious beliefs of translators and only help those with approved piety? Do 'spirits' inject bias?

The Holy Spirit helps people because they are under HIS promise of salvation from their sin, not because of any piety at all.

Yes, spirits can inject bias. The conversion experience is GOD realigning your biases in HIS favour. Like GOD lifted up Pharaoh to prove HIMself and allowed the serpent access to visit his protegé Eve, so too does HE allow and abet the false teachings about HIS reality as part of HIS method to reinforce the separation of HIS people, the elect, from out of the rest of mankind.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 13 by Charles]

You are not saying that non-believers perfectly interpret scripture without any filtering through their biases I hope.

No interpretation is needed beyond what is already presented in the Bible by those capable of translating the Hebrew language into English. The bias comes from those who insist the Bible says what it does not say, i.e. changing "little children", "boys", little boys", "young boys" into late teens or twenty-somethings.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 17 by Charles]


Zzyzx wrote:

"Could it be that the 'spirit' is malevolent rather than holy? Or multiple 'spirits' promoting different agendas?"

imCo from the PCE pov:
... Since even GOD is malevolent to HIS enemies and they can correctly conclude HE is trying to kill them and will kill them someday; malevolence doesn't tell us so much.

That's the first time I heard anyone say that God is trying to do something but is unsuccessful. I'm sure, however, it was just a slip of the tongue.

Coming from a believer(as I assume you are) I find it surprising that you call your God malevolent, even to his enemies given that malevolent means "having or showing a wish to do evil to others," and "1: having, showing, or arising from intense often vicious ill will, spite, or hatred
2: productive of harm or evil" - Merriam-Webster

And here I thought God was trying to save folks, not kill them. But God's malevolence is what atheists have been saying about the Biblical God character all along....often it's toward his own people.

But I'm curious - what is imCo from the PCE pov ? Are you a follower of PCE theory? Just asking.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 13 by Charles]

The Christian message is that no truth can be found in study without the Holy Spirit stepping in and helping you to change your mind. No one is tabula rasa!

How do you know there is such a thing as the Holy Spirit?