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?

[Charles]

(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?

YHWH periodically has chosen to defend HIS prophets from the attacks by other religions. HE has promised this help to HIS people and brought judgement many times upon the nations.

The first thing to note is that the word "little boys" interpreted as a pejorative actually refers in fact to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance H5288. na'ar: babe, boy, child, damsel, lad, servant, young man etc used to refer to any male not married yet.

Context supports Ellicott's (Commentary for English Readers) understanding of young boys (or, lads): Na’ar is not used rhetorically here, as in 1Chronicles 29:1; 2Chronicles 13:7. The boys who mocked Elisha might be of various ages, between six or seven years and twenty. “Little children� would not be likely to hit upon a biting sarcasm, nor to sally forth in a body to insult the prophet (2 Kings 2:24)

Context also supports that the insulting “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!� as rephrased as go away or get out of here also miss the point of the context of a religious war. Elisha's mentor Elijah had just been taken up [5927: alah] bodily to GOD and this mob used the same word to tell him to go up [5927: alah] to GOD also and probably offering to help him with that.

YHWH had just a few days earlier destroyed by fire from heaven 100 warriors, perhaps including some fathers and brothers of this mob, all followers of Ba'al-zebub. In this context is it probable that this was a gang of 5 year olds all calling only the same insult like a chant from the sidelines? No way - the insults were part of building themselves up to attack and kill Elisha.

Then the bears...if they mauled 42 young men, (this time the word is (yeled: Strong's Concordance: yeled: child, son, boy, youth, young man) can we assume that the mob was only 42 people strong and no one ran away? Not likely at all. If the bears got only half of them the mob was over 80 young men in total. Maybe they had weapons and so they stayed to fight off the bears, weapons they had been shaking at Elisha??

So given the context of a violent religious war, it is not at all probable this refers to a small group of 5-10 year olds who are slaughtered for insulting a prophet. It is far more likely that this was a murderous mob of late teens and twenty somethings threatening to send Elisha up to join Elijah and who were destroyed to protect the prophet in this continuing battle with Ba'al-zebub, 1 Kings 1:2.

I think that the words and context support the interpretation of Elisha being attacked rather than GOD killing a group of kids for insulting him. The fact the words (but not the context) CAN be read to support your pejorative interpretation does not mean they actually do so.

[amortalman]

(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?

The first thing to note is that the word "little boys" interpreted as a pejorative actually refers in fact to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance H5288. na'ar: babe, boy, child, damsel, lad, servant, young man etc used to refer to any male not married yet.

The definition you supplied from Strong's does not weaken but rather strengthens the pejorative interpretation. I took the liberty to bolded the last part of the above definition to bring attention to the fact that it is not part of the definition of Strong's H5288 - children, or na'ar but was attached to the definition by someone probably to try to strengthen an argument that these weren't little children as the text clearly says.

(According to Ellicott)The boys who mocked Elisha might be of various ages, between six or seven years and twenty. “Little children� would not be likely to hit upon a biting sarcasm, nor to sally forth in a body to insult the prophet (2 Kings 2:24)[/i]

Ellicott does not think it "likely" that little children could be so sarcastic. He probably hasn't been around many children. Furthermore, he does not think they would get into a group and insult the prophet. So, I think Ellicott does not want to believe the writer's account of the incident and I can't blame him.

Context also supports that the insulting “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!� as rephrased as go away or get out of here also miss the point of the context of a religious war. Elisha's mentor Elijah had just been taken up [5927: alah] bodily to GOD and this mob used the same word to tell him to go up [5927: alah] to GOD also and probably offering to help him with that.

You can't make a debatable argument with a "probably." That's nothing more than conjecture. Also, it is incorrect to refer to these kids as a mob and the text (in context) does not support it.

YHWH had just a few days earlier destroyed by fire from heaven 100 warriors, perhaps including some fathers and brothers of this mob, all followers of Ba'al-zebub. In this context is it probable that this was a gang of 5 year olds all calling only the same insult like a chant from the sidelines? No way - the insults were part of building themselves up to attack and kill Elisha.

You have already put forth a position that it was unlikely that this group of children "would sally forth to insult the prophet," now you have a gang of 5-year-olds about to attack and kill the prophet. Which is it?

Then the bears...if they mauled 42 young men, (this time the word is (yeled: Strong's Concordance: yeled: child, son, boy, youth, young man) can we assume that the mob was only 42 people strong and no one ran away? Not likely at all. If the bears got only half of them the mob was over 80 young men in total.

Yes, we can probably assume there were more than 42, but it's still an assumption. How many? We don't know.
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?

Maybe they had weapons and so they stayed to fight off the bears, weapons they had been shaking at Elisha??

Maybe a lot of things but you can't just make stuff up.

So given the context of a violent religious war, it is not at all probable this refers to a small group of 5-10 year olds who are slaughtered for insulting a prophet. It is far more likely that this was a murderous mob of late teens and twenty somethings threatening to send Elisha up to join Elijah and who were destroyed to protect the prophet in this continuing battle with Ba'al-zebub, 1 Kings 1:2.

Can we stick to what the Bible says? Maybe we should look at what the bible does not say. It does not say this was a mob, nor does it say it was a gang, nor does it say it was a mob/gang of men composed of 18, and 19, and twenty-somethings. Nor does it say anybody had weapons or that they were intent on killing the prophet. Nor does it mention that Elisha and God were justified in this killing because of a holy war.

I think that the words and context support the interpretation of Elisha being attacked rather than GOD killing a group of kids for insulting him. The fact the words (but not the context) CAN be read to support your pejorative interpretation does not mean they actually do so.

It says what it says.

[Zzyzx]

.
It seems as though a rational person would consider being 'ripped open' (likely killed in light of medicine of the times) 42 people (of any age) for the 'offense' of calling someone baldy.

It also seems irrational to believe that bears act on command of a person or a 'god'.

Why not consider it a moralistic tale intended to promote belief in the religion, to demonstrate the 'power' of its gods, and to instill fear in those who challenge its 'prophets'.

BTW, the KJV (Bible used by more US people than all other versions combined) CLEARLY says 'little children'. Of course, experts debating here are better qualified than translators and editors of KJV (or perhaps debaters have come to realize that the tale is irrational, and try to make it less so in effort to defend the Bible as being literal truth).

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

It surprises me (mildly) that in the 21st Century people would believe the tale as something that actually happened in the real world – let alone try to defend it in debate

AND, that is the least improbable of tales in 2 Kings 2. Have Theists actually read what it says? Here are some highlights:

2 Kings 2:8 And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground.

11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

19 And the men of the city said unto Elisha, Behold, I pray thee, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord seeth: but the water is naught, and the ground barren. 20 And he said, Bring me a new cruse, and put salt therein. And they brought it to him. 21 And he went forth unto the spring of the waters, and cast the salt in there, and said, Thus saith the Lord, I have healed these waters; there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land. 22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.

Perhaps Kings is worthy of a separate thread.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

Zzyzx wrote:

"Perhaps Kings is worthy of a separate thread."

It certainly deserves a separate thread, Z. But I suspect apologists don't want to try to defend it.

[Zzyzx]

.

Perhaps Kings is worthy of a separate thread.

It certainly deserves a separate thread, Z. But I suspect apologists don't want to try to defend it.

Let's see if anyone rises to the occasion.
viewtopic.php?t=37163

My intent always is to present ideas for readers to consider. Opposition debaters are often helpful by trying all sorts of tricks and tactics to defend silly stories OR are conspicuous by their silence. Either way suits me -- with a preference for defense that is at least halfway rational.

[Purple Knight]

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?

It is absolute fact. It also proves that God is bald, and it suggests that either he's insecure about it, or at least that he favours those who are made more closely in his image.

I myself am adamantly hairist.

This is how I know the tale is fact: I was there.

I keep getting reincarnated into a gorgeous body that doesn't carry the baldness gene, and I keep being punished for being so hairist.

I can't help it. I hate bald people. (Except Captain Picard.)

When I see the big shiny glimmer the sun makes on their horrible oily cue ball heads, and that little roll of fat at the back that decent people cover up, I just... I just... I want to do something horrible and violent, like stab it.

Even now I can feel the hatred rising in my gut and the dark side consuming me, but it doesn't matter. These "people" have been around for at least two thousand years, and no one ever does anything about them! They infest every society and we allow them to just walk around like regular people, as if nothing is wrong! We ignore the problem, and it only gets worse! This is truly the End of Days.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-baldness-p ... going-bald

It seems as though a rational person would consider being 'ripped open' (likely killed in light of medicine of the times) 42 people (of any age) for the 'offense' of calling someone baldy.

Are you implying that hairism isn't as bad as racism?

Hairism has been around longer and is more insidious.

[Purple Knight]

Maybe a lot of things but you can't just make stuff up.

Can we stick to what the Bible says?

So this is a more serious post. I apologise for my previous post but it's an issue that truly enrages me.

Stories don't give every detail, and I support the tradition of Midrash. This basically means, you put together what must have happened for the story to make sense.

There's nothing wrong with it, unless the story specifically says that didn't happen, or there's a very good reason based on the story to assume that detail would not have been omitted.

For example, in the story of Judas's ultimate end, yes you can technically reconcile him falling in a field and exploding with him committing suicide, but I do point out that versions that don't mention suicide completely change the character from a remorseful one who momentarily gave in to his greed, to a perpetually greedy fat sack who never cared what he caused or did.

On this story, I do admit that 42 is a large number. Do groups of really young boys generally hang out in groups that large in that era? If not, there's at least some reason to lean toward Charles's interpretation.

However, one thing to note is that this story does not strictly require any Midrash. It only requires it to more closely fit our modern interpretations of what is an appropriate punishment for what, and again, only if you don't accept that hairism is as bad as racism (in fact, it's worse).

Yes, you can add to the story and assume certain details were omitted to make it more moral by modern standards, but why do you think you should do that? Has God proven he follows modern moral standards before? If not, there's no excuse really to polish that altar.

[amortalman]

Maybe a lot of things but you can't just make stuff up.

Can we stick to what the Bible says?

Stories don't give every detail, and I support the tradition of Midrash. This basically means, you put together what must have happened for the story to make sense.

(I assume you are speaking directly to Charles' summary of what he thinks could actually have happened with the little children and the bears.)

Certainly, stories don't have to give every detail. And making a few assumptions is fine as long as you don't stretch it too far. This is often done when there is an agenda to support.

I have no idea what the ancient Judaic authorities who wrote Midrash had to say about this particular story if any. But I'm fairly certain they tried to smooth over anything that made their God look bad. In that, they, and modern apologists, have a tough row to hoe.

On this story, I do admit that 42 is a large number. Do groups of really young boys generally hang out in groups that large in that era?

I have no idea. As the story goes they did this time.

However, one thing to note is that this story does not strictly require any Midrash. It only requires it to more closely fit our modern interpretations of what is an appropriate punishment for what,...

What is "it" as in "It only requires"?

...and again, only if you don't accept that hairism is as bad as racism (in fact, it's worse).

Surely there must be degrees of hairism just as there are degrees of racism. The story does not support that these little children / young boys meant to do any harm. But let's say they did mean harm. Perhaps God should have sent a second chariot of fire to whisk his prophet away to safety without resorting to butchery.

Has God proven he follows modern moral standards before? If not, there's no excuse really to polish that altar.

God doesn't even follow his own moral standards. Thou shalt not kill comes to mind.

[Purple Knight]

Surely there must be degrees of hairism just as there are degrees of racism. The story does not support that these little children / young boys meant to do any harm.

I was there and I did intend to do harm. Calling someone a baldy is worse than using the N-word. Calling someone baldy, in itself, is harm. See here:

https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/20 ... -not-black

(Just apply it to baldies.)

I never seem to learn that lesson. I miss my last body the most: A Nazi often known by the name Herr Gorgeous. I had long flowing locks of abundant, silky amber gold down past my butt.

I was happy to hunt down Jews, as long as they were bald... But that wasn't enough for me and I got greedy. After I started planting yarmulkes on bald people (which is surprisingly easy if you add suction cups to the inside) the top brass somehow got wise, and I found myself executed for high treason. Such a waste!

(I assume you are speaking directly to Charles' summary of what he thinks could actually have happened with the little children and the bears.)

Correct.

Certainly, stories don't have to give every detail. And making a few assumptions is fine as long as you don't stretch it too far. This is often done when there is an agenda to support.

I have no idea what the ancient Judaic authorities who wrote Midrash had to say about this particular story if any. But I'm fairly certain they tried to smooth over anything that made their God look bad. In that, they, and modern apologists, have a tough row to hoe.

Well, only if they want their god to look good by human standards. That's what I was talking about before - the story - it - needs no apologism. I argue that the altar simply needs no polishing.

God may punish people as "cruelly" (by our standards) as it likes because it is God and moral by definition. This applies whether it is a fictional character or not. In fact, this applies even better if God is fiction, because this allows the writer to dictate the universe, the obvious first rule being that God is good by definition. If God exists in our universe, and there is morality independent of it (unlikely), then it can potentially be cruel or even evil, but this would require God not to be all-powerful, because someone all-powerful can do anything, even to morality itself, I should think.

God doesn't even follow his own moral standards. Thou shalt not kill comes to mind.

It doesn't have to, because being all-powerful, it can simply redefine it as not killing when it does it. (The traditional position is actually that it says don't murder and that when God does it, it will be killing, but not murder.)

But it may as well say killing, since God obviously has the power to redefine words. Especially if it is fiction, and the writer dictates the rules of the universe.