Zone1 New poll shows Americans' confidence and belief in the Bible is at all-time low

[surada]

The cycle has never ended and will probably never end.

So the cycle is now 2000 years.

 

[Meriweather]

The overall premise of 2 Kings was that the Kings of Judah and Israel were wicked and didn't worship Yahweh, so making fun of Yahweh's prophets was probably not that big of a deal. Elijah and Elisha were constantly in conflict with the priests of Baal.

This is more on track.

 

[surada]

No, I don't work on that particular assumption. On the other hand, a community isn't going to let very young children outside city walls. Older teens, young adults, yes--but not small children.

Scripture says they were small children.

 

[Meriweather]

Or that they were children who mocked a God who already has shown he has NO PROBLEM murdering children. Little Josiah just died of the plague, got eaten by a bear or some other calamity in this 50% child mortality rate world? Well, he must have ticked off our jealous sky pixie who constantly needs to get appeased.

So close with the previous paragraph, and now we are back in la-la land. Why do you do this?

 

[Meriweather]

Scripture says they were small children.

Already addressed. Two or three times.

 

[ding]

So the cycle is now 2000 years.

Ummmmm.... more like 10,000 years or more. Ever since man became aware.

 

[surada]

Already addressed. Two or three times.

If you're right assuming they didn't let small children outside the city walls, maybe it's a story not history.

 

[Meriweather]

And this is the problem that most of you God-botherers have. Primitive Hebrews, like most people in the Bronze Age, saw God as any force of nature they didn't understand.

There was much more depth to their beliefs than this. And it is truly difficult to understand. They were as concerned with divisiveness in society as we are today. They were better at trying to understand it and how to use and mitigate it to work towards peace.

 

[ding]

And this is the problem that most of you God-botherers have. Primitive Hebrews, like most people in the Bronze Age, saw God as any force of nature they didn't understand. Modern people see God as this narcissistic reflection of themselves where their lives all have purpose, so God must truly love us.

You are thinking of polytheism, Joey, not monotheism. But if you are looking for signs that God loves us that can be found in the fact that good comes from bad and man's refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong even when he violates it. Every argument you have ever made is a moral argument. What more proof do you need?

 

[Meriweather]

If you're right assuming they didn't let small children outside the city walls, maybe it's a story not history.

I find those two verses extremely odd in several ways. I haven't been able to make up my mind whether they are a transition into what follows in history...or a conclusion of what had gone before in their history. The use of 42 is interesting--and puzzling. There are a few ways that can go, but I get tangled up--the culture and thinking are so different.

 

[Meriweather]

Modern people see God as this narcissistic reflection of themselves where their lives all have purpose, so God must truly love us.

That is your view, meaning that those who hold no belief wander off into wondering why some do hold a belief. Starting with a wrong premise ends with conclusions far wide of the mark.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So fun watching you haters hate.

You always roll up into a little ball and suck your thumb, the moment anyone meets your point with counterpoint. Which makes one wonder why you post on message boards, given that any actual discussion turns you into a little blob of crybaby.

 

[JoeB131]

No, I don't work on that particular assumption. On the other hand, a community isn't going to let very young children outside city walls. Older teens, young adults, yes--but not small children.

Who said these were walled cities? At that point, only very large cities were walled. You make assumption on top of assumption here.

 

[Meriweather]

Who said these were walled cities? At that point, only very large cities were walled. You make assumption on top of assumption here.

No, there were walls in Bethel. I don't know if, at the time, there were walls all around the city, but walls were there.

The only way you can see the account is about little children being killed. I get that. Modern culture, modern English...understandably, that is what you see.

Go back to that ancient culture. What if in that language and that culture, it is not a story about little children, it is a story about the nation of Israel?

Why was the spring around Jericho undrinkable? What was the significance of it becoming pure again? What was the significance of Elisha turning back to see those who were taunting him? Why the number 42?

These small details may mean nothing to someone immersed in today's culture reading the account in a modern language. But they painted a picture to the people in that culture, reading, writing, or hearing in that language.

 

[JoeB131]

So close with the previous paragraph, and now we are back in la-la land. Why do you do this?

Um you're the one who believes in a book with Giants and Talking Donkeys.

There was much more depth to their beliefs than this. And it is truly difficult to understand. They were as concerned with divisiveness in society as we are today. They were better at trying to understand it and how to use and mitigate it to work towards peace.

By murdering anyone who committed even the slightest transgression? Daughter not a virgin? Stone her. Gay? Stone him. Picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Stone him. Minding your own business worshipping Baal... Put them to the sword!

I find those two verses extremely odd in several ways. I haven't been able to make up my mind whether they are a transition into what follows in history...or a conclusion of what had gone before in their history. The use of 42 is interesting--and puzzling. There are a few ways that can go, but I get tangled up--the culture and thinking are so different.

Or Occam's razor... the simplest solution is often right. They had a rash of bear attacks, and looked for an excuse why God would let that happen. The story grew over time. Maybe it was just four kids, but with each telling, there were more kids...

That is your view, meaning that those who hold no belief wander off into wondering why some do hold a belief. Starting with a wrong premise ends with conclusions far wide of the mark.

I have a lot of beliefs. But all my beliefs are based on firm evidence and logic.

 

[dblack]

Um you're the one who believes in a book with Giants and Talking Donkeys.

Shrek!?! My kids loved that. I didn't know it was originally a book.

 

[Meriweather]

Um you're the one who believes in a book with Giants and Talking Donkeys.

Joe, you seem to believe that everyone takes the Bible literally or with a child's understanding. It makes it difficult to communicate with you. Let's try a more in depth focus of the Bible, shall we?

 

[JoeB131]

No, there were walls in Bethel. I don't know if, at the time, there were walls all around the city, but walls were there.

The only way you can see the account is about little children being killed. I get that. Modern culture, modern English...understandably, that is what you see.

Go back to that ancient culture. What if in that language and that culture, it is not a story about little children, it is a story about the nation of Israel?

Why was the spring around Jericho undrinkable? What was the significance of it becoming pure again? What was the significance of Elisha turning back to see those who were taunting him? Why the number 42?

These small details may mean nothing to someone immersed in today's culture reading the account in a modern language. But they painted a picture to the people in that culture, reading, writing, or hearing in that language.

Or it's just a bunch of fairy stories written centuries later.

Let's take another tact. There was a book called the Life of St. Columba. It's full of a lot of stories you normally saw in such texts, but one kind of interesting story was that the Saint chased off a monster in the River Ness. Centuries later, this was interpreted as historical proof of the Loch Ness Monster. Of course, people citing it ignored the other fanstastic stories in the book like healing people with diseases, expelling malignant spirits, subduing wild beasts, calming storms, and even returning the dead to life. But nope, he saw the Loch Ness Monster! Even though it wasn't actually in Loch Ness and there were no other accounts of Monsters until 1933.

Life of Columba - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Meriweather]

Or Occam's razor... the simplest solution is often right. They had a rash of bear attacks, and looked for an excuse why God would let that happen. The story grew over time. Maybe it was just four kids, but with each telling, there were more kids...

Or maybe it is not. The story was not written by children, but by a historian of that time.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, you seem to believe that everyone takes the Bible literally or with a child's understanding. It makes it difficult to communicate with you. Let's try a more in depth focus of the Bible, shall we?

Either the Bible is the unerring word of God, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.