Biblical Literalism: Was Elisha Cruel ... A Case Study

[prisonchaplain]

The full question is: ...wasn't Elisha very cruel when he sent those bears against those little kids who were teasing him about being bald?

It's been suggested that interpreting the Bible as most literal imposes a heavy burden, often forcing us to some rather convoluted and inconsistent rendorings. In most of these "difficult passages," if we presume that God is good and just, we can gain some strong understandings. However, those who are skeptical of our scriptures and our God, may be difficult to satisfy.

In this story, the short answer is that the "little kids" were between 12-30 years old (young adults by old world standards), and that they were not merely teasing a bald old prophet (Elisha was likely young as well, since he lived 60 years after that), but rather it was a confrontation against Yahweh and his prophet vs. some hostile anti-God youth mob. Consider too that this group of youth probably numbered well over 50, and you end up with Elisha offering a generic curse on the rebellious, which God backs up with dramatic judgment.

The linked study is "prayer-ware," and the author requests that if you choose to access, you say a short prayer for him. His name is Glenn.

Mean, mean Elisha!

[Moksha]

Hmmm, make the kids older, meaner and into a mob threatening Elisha, then it almost makes sense to have them mauled and killed. Might even have fed a hungry bear as well.

Surely a short explanation that we ourselves add, is not reaching into a bag of tricks. It is merely making understandable those events which on face value do not stand on their own.

Here is another one about Eve from Adams rib: Adam was taken into the Celestial Cloning Institute, where he underwent a radical ribectomy. While in recovery, his rib was used for a procedure altering the DNA to leave out the Y chromosome and substituting it with an additional X chromosome. The embryo was placed within the incubation accelerator and out came his helpmate Eve. See, just add a little explanation and the face value is increased many times over!

:)

[prisonchaplain]

Cute, Moksha. But, history, context, cultural millieu...such actually do add to our understanding. It's ironic for the fundy to get accused of intellectualizing the account. :-)

[Moksha]

  prisonchaplain said:

It's ironic for the fundy to get accused of intellectualizing the account. :-)

Well compared to me you are an egghead.

[Snow]

  prisonchaplain said:

The full question is: ...wasn't Elisha very cruel when he sent those bears against those little kids who were teasing him about being bald?

It's been suggested that interpreting the Bible as most literal imposes a heavy burden, often forcing us to some rather convoluted and inconsistent rendorings. In most of these "difficult passages," if we presume that God is good and just, we can gain some strong understandings. However, those who are skeptical of our scriptures and our God, may be difficult to satisfy.

In this story, the short answer is that the "little kids" were between 12-30 years old (young adults by old world standards), and that they were not merely teasing a bald old prophet (Elisha was likely young as well, since he lived 60 years after that), but rather it was a confrontation against Yahweh and his prophet vs. some hostile anti-God youth mob. Consider too that this group of youth probably numbered well over 50, and you end up with Elisha offering a generic curse on the rebellious, which God backs up with dramatic judgment.

The linked study is "prayer-ware," and the author requests that if you choose to access, you say a short prayer for him. His name is Glenn.

Mean, mean Elisha!

The point that you are trying to make is that what was done was done not by boys but adults and that it was so horrendous that it merits being brutally savaged and gutted by supernaturally driven wild beasts.

Rather than resort to some agenda driven apologetic spin let's deal with the actual text:

"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.

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."

That's it. That's what it says. It does not say that they were 30 years old members of a hostile anti-God mob. What is does say is that they were "!tq" (young, small, insignificant) "r[n" (children, boys, youths, lads) in the KJV the word "r[n" is used to describe everything from babes up to young men; but in this case the word is preceded by an adjective to specify that they were young, small, insignificant.

Now you can claim that those kids were really the false prophets of Baal and that they were mean and horrible and evil and nasty but that is not what the text says. As I recall, you are a literalist. you can't very well create things not supported by the text to cast the text in another light.

[prisonchaplain]

Snow, literalism does not deny context. History and culture matter. If the common use of the term is for young men, which makes sense even in the passage (50+ primary school age kids taunting a prophet???), then reading the "little boys" to mean young men, especially given the rational from the article, hardly seems polemic. Additionally, the article offers several suggestions as to what might have garnered this group strong judgment. It doesn't insist that each and every proffered count against them was so. Simply that, if we believe God is just, then there are several factors that could support the reasonableness of God's actions in this particular story.

[Hemidakota]

It is no different today when the Spirit prompts a servant to curse another. What happens after that is left to the Lord in dealing with the person.

Elisha 'probally' listened to the Spirit and did what was told. Noting the amount of information given, I can only assume there is more to this action but either it was not important to write it all or may have some emotional impact of not being written for us to read.

[rameumptom]

My view is that the children were sent by their parents to mock the prophet of God. God, as a stark lesson to the parents and to honor his prophet, slaughtered the children. The children, being little, would be blessed in the kingdom of God. The parents would gain a witness to not mess with the prophet of the Lord.

[Snow]

  prisonchaplain said:

Snow, literalism does not deny context. History and culture matter. If the common use of the term is for young men, which makes sense even in the passage (50+ primary school age kids taunting a prophet???), then reading the "little boys" to mean young men, especially given the rational from the article, hardly seems polemic. Additionally, the article offers several suggestions as to what might have garnered this group strong judgment. It doesn't insist that each and every proffered count against them was so. Simply that, if we believe God is just, then there are several factors that could support the reasonableness of God's actions in this particular story.

It's one thing to say that context needs to be considered (it does). It's quite another thing extrapolate and interpolate well beyond the actual text to include things that the text does not say.

If the text is infallible (according to The Chicago Statement) then it cannot mislead. It, the text itself, speaks for itself.

I've specified in other posts that if the event is historical (real) then the account is missing a whole lot that is needed in order to make sense (justice) of it.

[Hemidakota]

Adding to Snow post, in Dan's [Daniel H. Ludlow] book 'Companion to Your Study of the Old Testament' gave the same feeling after review of the Hebrew meaning of the term children -

The stories of Elisha are mostly tales of his "good-turn" miracles for people, but this initial one is different. He was insulted by youths (Hebrew na'arim is "youths" usually, rather than "little children") who challenged him to ascend (as they had perhaps heard that Elijah had ascended), and taunted him with the dishonorable epithet "bald-head." Note that the account does not say the bears ate the children, nor even that they killed them, but tore them. The Hebrew word also means to "lacerate." (IOT 2:11.)

Edited October 19, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Just_A_Guy]

The article is interesting, but I think Snow has a point.

"Little"

"Children"

I can see the author of Kings using one term or the other if the meaning was "young men 12-30". But the use of both terms together seems to me to indicate the lower end of that spectrum.

[Traveler]

  prisonchaplain said:

The full question is: ...wasn't Elisha very cruel when he sent those bears against those little kids who were teasing him about being bald?

It's been suggested that interpreting the Bible as most literal imposes a heavy burden, often forcing us to some rather convoluted and inconsistent rendorings. In most of these "difficult passages," if we presume that God is good and just, we can gain some strong understandings. However, those who are skeptical of our scriptures and our God, may be difficult to satisfy.

In this story, the short answer is that the "little kids" were between 12-30 years old (young adults by old world standards), and that they were not merely teasing a bald old prophet (Elisha was likely young as well, since he lived 60 years after that), but rather it was a confrontation against Yahweh and his prophet vs. some hostile anti-God youth mob. Consider too that this group of youth probably numbered well over 50, and you end up with Elisha offering a generic curse on the rebellious, which God backs up with dramatic judgment.

The linked study is "prayer-ware," and the author requests that if you choose to access, you say a short prayer for him. His name is Glenn.

Mean, mean Elisha!

I am just wondering how it is that you believe that same G-d caused this to be part of the Sacred Biblical text giving us an infallible doctrinal guide in how to live and conduct ourselves around others, and how you personally reconcile the doctrine you purport concerning this scripture, with Matt 5:43-47 – in particular verse 44.

I tend to support Snow - something is missing from the Biblical text.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

God is love does not contradict God just, nor that he is, after all, God. I've checked several sources for the reading of 2 Kings 2, particularly about "little boys." There is surprisingly little treatment of it. An article at chabad.org (giving us an ultra orthdox Jewish rendoring) retells the story, using "young men." Most of the Christian sites argue for the 12-30 range, suggesting that these were either over-zealous students of false prophets of Baal, or they were a gang. Further, there is little doubt but that Elisha was himself young, and may well have been facing those who were his age peers.

It would indeed be difficult to read the passage and make moral sense of it, if the children were under 8, for example. However, I find the linked article very reasonable.

God is love, and desires his opponents to change their hearts, and repent. But, Scripture promises curses to those who sin and blessings to those who obey. Is it so surprising that mockers of God and his prophet would face punishment? And, keep in mind, it's possible to read this wild animal attack as the 42 receiving lacerations, rather than some gory blood-bath macabre.

Acts 5:1- offers another example, New Testament even, of God bringing strong judgment on those who would use God's household for their own ends.

[hordak]

  Snow said:

The point that you are trying to make is that what was done was done not by boys but adults and that it was so horrendous that it merits being brutally savaged and gutted by supernaturally driven wild beasts.

Rather than resort to some agenda driven apologetic spin let's deal with the actual text:

"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.

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."

That's it. That's what it says. It does not say that they were 30 years old members of a hostile anti-God mob. What is does say is that they were "!tq" (young, small, insignificant) "r[n" (children, boys, youths, lads) in the KJV the word "r[n" is used to describe everything from babes up to young men; but in this case the word is preceded by an adjective to specify that they were young, small, insignificant.

Now you can claim that those kids were really the false prophets of Baal and that they were mean and horrible and evil and nasty but that is not what the text says. As I recall, you are a literalist. you can't very well create things not supported by the text to cast the text in another light.

See snow. This is what i was i was speaking of on the other Bible literacy thread. When one takes the whole Bible literal it makes one seem less "biased" (for lack of a better term".

Here the word meaning youth to the tale of Elisah is scrutinized to make the story more believable.

But other "out there" stories of more importance are not. The Word Almah in Isaiah 7:14 is translated to mean virgin. Saying Jesus will be born of a virgin.

The word Almah shows in the bible more often. However it is translated to mean, girl, maid, damsel, and young women in other verses.

Why is the Elisha tale is "sanitized" to make it more believable, while the virgin birth is taken as absolute truth? Even though the same analysis can be done it isn't.

Now LDS have modern day prophecy, others scriptures, and the 8th article of faith. This makes it possible to disregard bears killing kids, talking donkeys and still believe in the miracles associated with Christ no problem. But for only bible believing crowd who "pick and choose" the question is why do you believe story x while disbelieving story y.Especially when the only difference between them is how positively the affect your faith.

This is what i meant by saying Bible literalism can be an advantage.

[rameumptom]

I think it is an issue of "we just don't know". There are problems with complete literalism. There are also problems when we turn everything in the Bible to rhetoric.

What is more incredible to believe: a bear thrashing a bunch of children because they are cursed by a prophet? OR a man walking on the sea of Galilee?

A virgin bearing a child? OR a man raising the dead?

A talking donkey? OR Jesus atoning and resurrecting?

Are you so willing to doubt everything in the Bible as to withdraw belief in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ: the two biggest miracles in the entire book?

Snow and Traveller, do you believe in the resurrection? Why? Why would you take these things so literally? In such an instance, perhaps you would be careful to attack PC and others who are more literalist in their Bible view.

[Traveler]

  prisonchaplain said:

God is love does not contradict God just, nor that he is, after all, God. I've checked several sources for the reading of 2 Kings 2, particularly about "little boys." There is surprisingly little treatment of it. An article at chabad.org (giving us an ultra orthdox Jewish rendoring) retells the story, using "young men." Most of the Christian sites argue for the 12-30 range, suggesting that these were either over-zealous students of false prophets of Baal, or they were a gang. Further, there is little doubt but that Elisha was himself young, and may well have been facing those who were his age peers.

It would indeed be difficult to read the passage and make moral sense of it, if the children were under 8, for example. However, I find the linked article very reasonable.

God is love, and desires his opponents to change their hearts, and repent. But, Scripture promises curses to those who sin and blessings to those who obey. Is it so surprising that mockers of God and his prophet would face punishment? And, keep in mind, it's possible to read this wild animal attack as the 42 receiving lacerations, rather than some gory blood-bath macabre.

Acts 5:1- offers another example, New Testament even, of God bringing strong judgment on those who would use God's household for their own ends.

Prison Chaplain: I am deeply troubled by your acceptance of these verses and willingness to purport a doctrine that I have found so foreign to your character and the light of Christ that I have seen expressed so often in your thoughts.

Let us assume that your assessment of this scripture is 100% correct. What troubles me is that you purport that it demonstrates G-d’s love. To be honest I find such a rendition of love preposterous and contrary to scripture. Why was Saul (Paul) given a second chance for his role in the death of Stephen and far worse percussion (than of Elisha) of early innocent Christians?

The G-d that I worship and believe in would not condemn anyone without more than one witness and warning. I am personally caught in a great dilemma. What you propose we understand in this scripture seems to fly against the very core of what I thought you believe in as a Christian – in particular verse 44 of Matt. Chapter 5 which I now include:

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I am so sorry PC but the more you post concerning this matter the more I am convinced that you are deeply involved with something that is not consistent with who you are and the Christ you have dedicated you life to.

I do not mean this to sound critical of you – it is just that this seem to be so out of the character I have come to appreciate and trust that I am quite bewildered and confused and would greatly appreciate it if you would address my concern.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

  rameumptom said:

.......

Are you so willing to doubt everything in the Bible as to withdraw belief in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ: the two biggest miracles in the entire book?

Snow and Traveller, do you believe in the resurrection? Why? Why would you take these things so literally? In such an instance, perhaps you would be careful to attack PC and others who are more literalist in their Bible view.

I am so sorry that it appears that I am attacking PC. I have the highest regard for him and his work. I believe in the resurrection – and above all I believe in Christ. What I cannot accept is a belief that G-d would have his servant act as his proxy, in his very sacred name and as an example for all in the manner that is being suggested. That this is the example that we all should emulate in how we deal with our fellow men is outrageous; particularly for myself being that I have lived most of my life bald. Something about the interpretation of Elisha’s as being the example for us all as infallible righteousness as spoken of in Holy Scripture leaves me most perplexed.

I am stating as best as I know how that I believe something of great importance is missing. And I think this is the essence of what Snow is trying to communicate as well.

If I have offended PC or anyone else – I do apologize – but I also witness with everything I believe and hold dear and true that there is something very wrong or missing in this account of Elisha (especially in light of the teachings of Christ as it relates to all that adhear to his teachings) - regardless if we understand it literally or in metaphor.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

  Traveler said:

Prison Chaplain: I am deeply troubled by your acceptance of these verses and willingness to purport a doctrine that I have found so foreign to your character and the light of Christ that I have seen expressed so often in your thoughts.

Let us assume that your assessment of this scripture is 100% correct. What troubles me is that you purport that it demonstrates G-d’s love.

I don't know that I ever did. God's love surely is not the primary lesson of this passage. Rather, it would be our need to for total devotion to God. We might argue it shows God's hedge of protection over his prophets, and perhaps, by extension, his people. But, no, God's love is not the the main lesson of this passage.

  Quote

To be honest I find such a rendition of love preposterous and contrary to scripture. Why was Saul (Paul) given a second chance for his role in the death of Stephen and far worse percussion (than of Elisha) of early innocent Christians?

I mean this respectfully, but you'll have to take this up with God. By declaring yourself free to dismiss any difficult story from Scripture as "missing precious truths," or being more an account of a prophet's character flaws, or as a redactor infusing his own personal fiction into the account--well these approaches free you to find whatever God you want in the Scripture. As for me, I'm bound by the text, and married to a mostly literal understanding. So, youngsters mocked a prophet, taunted him with the equivalent of "Just go and die!" and Elisha responded with a traditional curse. God responded by sending bears to lacerate the children, and thus sent a message to Bethel that God will not be toyed with.

I won't apologize for God. On the hand, reasonable scholars conclude that these "little boys" were more likely middle schoolers and above, not kindergartners. The almost eager desire of some to insist that these were little kiddies, and that the text is obviously flawed or incomplete suggests to me as much of an agenda as I and the author of the link I provided am thought to have embraced (defending God through an alleged dubious interpretation).

  Quote

The G-d that I worship and believe in would not condemn anyone without more than one witness and warning. I am personally caught in a great dilemma. What you propose we understand in this scripture seems to fly against the very core of what I thought you believe in as a Christian – in particular verse 44 of Matt. Chapter 5 which I now include:

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I am so sorry PC but the more you post concerning this matter the more I am convinced that you are deeply involved with something that is not consistent with who you are and the Christ you have dedicated you life to.

I do not mean this to sound critical of you – it is just that this seem to be so out of the character I have come to appreciate and trust that I am quite bewildered and confused and would greatly appreciate it if you would address my concern.

The Traveler

Traveler, is this God you believe in the God explained in Scripture? Or, is it one you've fashioned from preferences, from instruction, etc.? The contradiction you allege between God's command to love our enemies and God's dealing with the young lads of Bethel arises in many other OT accounts. What do you do with God's commission to Israel to destroy its evil neighbors, destroying even their animals and children? God does bring vengence upon his enemies. We love our enemies because vengence belongs to God. We love them in hopes of reconciling them to God. But we understand that the unrepentent will be condemned.

I'm not a New Testament Christian. I'm a Bible Christian. In my faith I reconcile the Old and New Testaments, seeing them as a wholistic revelation of God. Perhaps I'm not courageous enough, but I will not fashion God in my own image, or according to my own presuppositions about how God must be, if He is fair and just. He is those by definition. My job is to take his revealed word, and see how those characteristics are fleshed out. He redeems and reconciles Saul, and he destroys youthful mockers. Both are true. You see them as contradictory, I find the balance between God's extravagant love and mercy and his ultimate justice. Sin will be answered, one way or the other.

[prisonchaplain]

  Traveler said:

What I cannot accept is a belief that G-d would have his servant act as his proxy, in his very sacred name and as an example for all in the manner that is being suggested. That this is the example that we all should emulate in how we deal with our fellow men is outrageous; particularly for myself being that I have lived most of my life bald. Something about the interpretation of Elisha’s as being the example for us all as infallible righteousness as spoken of in Holy Scripture leaves me most perplexed.

Let me offer an adjustment, and then a deep concern of my own. No one is suggesting that we do as some radical Muslims have, and enact violence (or even pray for such) against our (or God's) enemies. We do love our enemies, leaving the vengence to God. On the other hand, even in heaven, the martyred saints are shown crying out, "How long O God before you avenge our blood?" My interpretation of this passage is primarily that God is God, worthy of respect. Yes mockers will be avenged, but in this passage God does it. Elisha did not pray for the bears to come, but rather cursed them with a very common, traditional curse. It was God who brought the bears. And again, it is likely that the bears scratched up these adolescent anti-God zealots (or alternatively, hoodlums), not that they were are slaughtered in a horrific bloodbath.

Now my concern. Can you really not accept a belief--ANY BELIEF--if it is clearly taught in Scripture? Does your presupposition about God trump canonical revelation? You can argue my interpretation. But your bold declaration that you will refuse to accept...this is concerning to me. If God is God, I have no authority to reject anything He reveals.

BTW, could it be that my reticence is related to my belief that, while I shall be exalted, and gain some godlike qualities, I shall never become what God is?

  Quote

If I have offended PC or anyone else – I do apologize – but I also witness with everything I believe and hold dear and true that there is something very wrong or missing in this account of Elisha (especially in light of the teachings of Christ as it relates to all that adhear to his teachings) - regardless if we understand it literally or in metaphor.

The Traveler

Traveler, you are fine with me. You communicate sincerely and with passion. But, if I understand you correctly, you would have me jettison my allegiance to the Bible as a complete revelation from God (note I'm not denying continued revelations, but rather am saying that any new words from God will not alter what the Bible already shows). That is one mighty hurdle.

[Traveler]

  prisonchaplain said:

I don't know that I ever did. God's love surely is not the primary lesson of this passage. Rather, it would be our need to for total devotion to God. We might argue it shows God's hedge of protection over his prophets, and perhaps, by extension, his people. But, no, God's love is not the the main lesson of this passage.

I mean this respectfully, but you'll have to take this up with God. By declaring yourself free to dismiss any difficult story from Scripture as "missing precious truths," or being more an account of a prophet's character flaws, or as a redactor infusing his own personal fiction into the account--well these approaches free you to find whatever God you want in the Scripture. As for me, I'm bound by the text, and married to a mostly literal understanding. So, youngsters mocked a prophet, taunted him with the equivalent of "Just go and die!" and Elisha responded with a traditional curse. God responded by sending bears to lacerate the children, and thus sent a message to Bethel that God will not be toyed with.

I won't apologize for God. On the hand, reasonable scholars conclude that these "little boys" were more likely middle schoolers and above, not kindergartners. The almost eager desire of some to insist that these were little kiddies, and that the text is obviously flawed or incomplete suggests to me as much of an agenda as I and the author of the link I provided am thought to have embraced (defending God through an alleged dubious interpretation).

Traveler, is this God you believe in the God explained in Scripture? Or, is it one you've fashioned from preferences, from instruction, etc.? The contradiction you allege between God's command to love our enemies and God's dealing with the young lads of Bethel arises in many other OT accounts. What do you do with God's commission to Israel to destroy its evil neighbors, destroying even their animals and children? God does bring vengence upon his enemies. We love our enemies because vengence belongs to God. We love them in hopes of reconciling them to God. But we understand that the unrepentent will be condemned.

I'm not a New Testament Christian. I'm a Bible Christian. In my faith I reconcile the Old and New Testaments, seeing them as a wholistic revelation of God. Perhaps I'm not courageous enough, but I will not fashion God in my own image, or according to my own presuppositions about how God must be, if He is fair and just. He is those by definition. My job is to take his revealed word, and see how those characteristics are fleshed out. He redeems and reconciles Saul, and he destroys youthful mockers. Both are true. You see them as contradictory, I find the balance between God's extravagant love and mercy and his ultimate justice. Sin will be answered, one way or the other.

Thank you for your response:

However, please allow me to be blunt – there is no indication in the scripture story of Elisha that there was any admonishing of warning toward the youth to consider repentance. I could understand what happened if Elisha had issued any warning as G-d has warned some of the worst offenders possible with the warnings Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah and other prophets as well as his Beloved Son. Of if someone else has issued the warning – but that is not what the scripture indicates; so if such a thing is possible, it is lost from our version of the scripture story.

And so I ask you directly for any scripture where Jesus recommended any of his followers to curse anyone for any reason? I can understand G-d sending bears to tear apart a gang of bad guys or foolish kids, to protect his prophet or whatever – I have no problem because G-d knows and sees things we do not but what I do not understand is that Jesus would tell us to forgive others even 7 times 70 and to not judge. And then give Elisha as the example of what exactly to do anytime someone ridicules our baldness.

Even the article tries to put things into the story that are not really there so it can be understood correctly. And that is the point – that there is something missing from the scripture. So the question is – If it is that G-d did not intend us to understand such scriptures exactly as they come to us – why would he have someone explain to us what was not expressly there. If the scripture is the authority why cannot it be believed as it is written? Why must it be explained? And how can it be explained except there is a “higher” authority than the scripture. Are reasonable scholars the higher authority - Who then can say with authority, “This is what G-d means to say to us by such and such a scripture”.

The only possible reason that makes sense to me is if the scriptures are not the authority and that there must be something of a higher authority (for example reasonable scholars) to explain them correctly. In fact I believe your post imply such. But when I ask the question and ask who has such authority – you say no and no one. And so I am confused as to which is the correct doctrine of authority; the scripture or the commentary by reasonable scholars. If it is the scripture why do you seem to believe the commentary? If it is the commentary – why not make that your sacred cannon?

I had a wise brother say that if you have a rule then you must live by it or be dishonest to yourself. If you ever make an exception then that exception is your rule.

In LDS theology we do have a higher authority – an apostle and prophet called and ordained by the laying on of hands (in the same manner as Jesus demonstrated in scripture with his apostle Peter). Therefore, if the scripture is the highest authority then the commentary is not to be even considered or taught because it is of lesser authority and it explains something that is not in the scripture. Which is what the entire discussion is about – Are the scriptures the authority? – If there is a question about if a scripture is literal or metaphor then – unless the scripture tells us which is literal or metaphor then any effort to make a determination implies a higher authority for doctrine above that of the scriptures from which every Christian can obtain that information and if we obtain any information to explain in scripture what was not given in scripture, that by definition is a higher authority.

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

Where in the bible, old or new testament, does the Elisha story take place?

[prisonchaplain]

  Traveler said:

Thank you for your response:

However, please allow me to be blunt – there is no indication in the scripture story of Elisha that there was any admonishing of warning toward the youth to consider repentance.

Well, sure there is. Not in those three verses. However, as the article linked in the OP indicated, the prophet had just come off of a big time miracle. Elisha's God had prevailed, where their gods had not. If that's not a call to repentence, then I don't know what to say. Billy Graham wasn't available yet. Instead of acknowledging God, they became enraged and shouted for him to go away (i.e. die!). Does not open rebellion of God imply that the rebels know repentence is an alternative? God shouts, via the miracle, "Give?" They can either say, "Uncle," or they can mock God's prophet. They chose the latter.

  Quote

And so I ask you directly for any scripture where Jesus recommended any of his followers to curse anyone for any reason? I can understand G-d sending bears to tear apart a gang of bad guys or foolish kids, to protect his prophet or whatever – I have no problem because G-d knows and sees things we do not but what I do not understand is that Jesus would tell us to forgive others even 7 times 70 and to not judge. And then give Elisha as the example of what exactly to do anytime someone ridicules our baldness.

Nobody suggests sending large wild beasts on someone who makes fun of a bishop's male pattern baldness. And, if you consider the linked article, there was much more going on here then silly children's insults of an old man. Elisha was likely in his 20s--around their age, and the coment about baldness likely carried a far more degrading meaning. And again, Elisha did not call the bears, he offered a general curse in response to the mockery of God.

God tells Israel, "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." Over and over, God tells his own people, "Obey and be blessed, Rebel and be cursed." Jesus did indeed humiliate the rich young man, who refused to sell all he had and follow Jesus. He condemned the Pharisees and the Sadduccees, calling them "whitewashed tombs," and "a generation of vipers."

  Quote

Even the article tries to put things into the story that are not really there so it can be understood correctly.

The article pulls from other Bible accounts to bring context to the story. The author is not just making stuff up, as you seem to imply.

  Quote

And that is the point – that there is something missing from the scripture.

Considering that Old Testament scripture is meant to be studied continuously, and that even fairly young Jewish children would not read this passage in a vacuum--they would have the understanding and context the author provides in that link, what is it you say is missing? Well, there's our issue. Since Joseph Smith said there are precious truths missing, you could claim any number of details are missing. Such an open playing field strikes me as dangerously subjective.

  Quote

So the question is – If it is that G-d did not intend us to understand such scriptures exactly as they come to us – why would he have someone explain to us what was not expressly there. If the scripture is the authority why cannot it be believed as it is written? Why must it be explained? And how can it be explained except there is a “higher” authority than the scripture. Are reasonable scholars the higher authority - Who then can say with authority, “This is what G-d means to say to us by such and such a scripture”.

Our Bible is written in very approachable language. The KJV is about 11th grade level (because of so many archaic terms). The NIV is 7th grade. Good News is 5th, as is the Contemporary English Version. There's even a limited English version, the New Life Version, that's 4th grade, and contains limited vocabulary. So, no it's not that hard, and doesn't require great degrees. On the other hand, learning to understanding the Bible in its context means reading through it several times. It also means, yes, sitting unders some good teaching, that helps pull stories together.

What you seem to demand is that every Bible incident be self-contained, and immediately and fully explained, within the immediate passage. God doesn't have to comply with such a standard.

[Snow]

  prisonchaplain said:

God is love, and desires his opponents to change their hearts, and repent. But, Scripture promises curses to those who sin and blessings to those who obey. Is it so surprising that mockers of God and his prophet would face punishment? And, keep in mind, it's possible to read this wild animal attack as the 42 receiving lacerations, rather than some gory blood-bath macabre.

Uh-huh. Picture 42 boys/youths being attached by wild bears bears but the bears having the skill and self-control to simply cut the boys, not kill them. Perhaps the bears - and this has precedence in the scriptures - had the power of speech and said to the boys, "Hold very still whilst we gnaw on your legs and abdomens with our bear teeth, lest we accidentally puncture an artery and bleed you out." ... and the boys reply "Yes wild bears of the forest, we hear the wisdom of your words. We will not panic and run away, lest our strugglings cause the slashing and chomping to peril our very lives, rather we will line up hear and take our lacerations like the men later apologists will claim us 'little children' to be be."

[Snow]

  hordak said:

See snow. This is what i was i was speaking of on the other Bible literacy thread. When one takes the whole Bible literal it makes one seem less "biased" (for lack of a better term".

Here the word meaning youth to the tale of Elisah is scrutinized to make the story more believable.

But other "out there" stories of more importance are not. The Word Almah in Isaiah 7:14 is translated to mean virgin. Saying Jesus will be born of a virgin.

The word Almah shows in the bible more often. However it is translated to mean, girl, maid, damsel, and young women in other verses.

Why is the Elisha tale is "sanitized" to make it more believable, while the virgin birth is taken as absolute truth? Even though the same analysis can be done it isn't.

Now LDS have modern day prophecy, others scriptures, and the 8th article of faith. This makes it possible to disregard bears killing kids, talking donkeys and still believe in the miracles associated with Christ no problem. But for only bible believing crowd who "pick and choose" the question is why do you believe story x while disbelieving story y.Especially when the only difference between them is how positively the affect your faith.

This is what i meant by saying Bible literalism can be an advantage.

Interesting point.

In the New Testament only Matthew and Luke appear to know anything about the virgin birth. John and Mark demonstrate no knowledge of it. Neither does Paul or James or Peter. The author of Matthew represents it as fulfilling an Isaiah prophecy but that prophecy does not actually say anything about a virgin - as you said it simply says woman or young woman. Scholars also say that the Isaiah prophecy was referring to prophecy that was fulfilled in 732 BCE.

Luke doesn't say anything about prophecy and differs from Matthew in numerous aspects of the birth narrative.

Interesting...

[prisonchaplain]

  Snow said:

Uh-huh. Picture 42 boys/youths being attached by wild bears bears but the bears having the skill and self-control to simply cut the boys, not kill them.

You assume there were only 42 boys in the group. There could have been 100s. You also assume there was no way for the boys to escape, or that some did not have clubs or weapons of some type. There is much that is untold here. Traveler argues it's because details are missing. Skeptics are willing to fill in the worst, most morbid, most despicible description of God possible. My understanding is that you are looking for the most natural and humanly likely storyline. Me, I'm trying to learn what God wants us to get from the story. I trust that it's from him, and I do indeed presuppose his goodness, mercy, and justice. I openly admit my bias. At the same time, I try not to let that bias cause me to overread the story.