Evidence for God from Science

2 Kings 2:23-25 (KJV)

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.

25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

Usually when faced with a athiest that throws out verses of God commiting murder, and genocide, I usually can answer them quickly. This verse was new to me as I've never read the books of King. Ive done a little research and so far ive got that once again the KJV failed on a translation, and that these children are rather, young men, who are in a mob or gang (very large one at that, implying that this was planned) who are mocking or threatning God's prophet. He cursed them and then two bears mauled them.

My concerns. First I would like more detail on this. I just dont understand if there mocking him or planning to attack him. If there mocking him I see no reason why God would kill them. Unless they planned to attack him. Second how can two bears kill 42 young teenagers? maybe if they stayed to fight or there were more than 42. Im just confused on that. Anyways this whole thing has me lost as you can tell by my writing. Hope im not confusing anyone. Thanks.

If one takes the event as an actual event - one that truly happened and wasn't just a "lesson verse", then one must reconcile their view of God with a God that allows His prophet to call upon the murder of children that were NOT a physical threat to him.

PaulSacramento wrote:If one takes the event as an actual event - one that truly happened and wasn't just a "lesson verse", then one must reconcile their view of God with a God that allows His prophet to call upon the murder of children that were NOT a physical threat to him.

The prophet did not call upon the bears he merely cursed them in the name of God. If there is one to blame it is God who did the bear thing. How do we know that the children(rendered "boys", "small boys", and even just "youth" in other translations) were not a threat? There were more than 42 of them all insulting the prophet in unison. Do you really believe that even boys are incapable of harm to adults especially in gangs like this? Are children really incapable of evil either? Granted this was their time of youth and they should not be held accountable though. But the story may very well give an incomplete picture that is unsuitable for concrete judgement upon the person of God in this text.


Basically put...

If the judgement was not holy, then it was not God who did it.

If the judgement was holy, then there is no reason not to believe that God did it.

wrain62 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If one takes the event as an actual event - one that truly happened and wasn't just a "lesson verse", then one must reconcile their view of God with a God that allows His prophet to call upon the murder of children that were NOT a physical threat to him.

The prophet did not call upon the bears he merely cursed them in the name of God. If there is one to blame it is God who did the bear thing. How do we know that the children(rendered "boys", "small boys", and even just "youth" in other translations) were not a threat? There were more than 42 of them all insulting the prophet in unison. Do you really believe that even boys are incapable of harm to adults especially in gangs like this? Are children really incapable of evil either? Granted this was their time of youth and they should not be held accountable though. But the story may very well give an incomplete picture that is unsuitable for concrete judgement upon the person of God in this text.


Basically put...

If the judgement was not holy, then it was not God who did it.

If the judgement was holy, then there is no reason not to believe that God did it.

The account does NOT state that they were a threat to him.
They insulted his lack of hair and he cursed them.
Not something Christ would condone, do you agree?

PaulSacramento wrote:The account does NOT state that they were a threat to him.They insulted his lack of hair and he cursed them.Not something Christ would condone, do you agree?

Before we jump to such quick conclusions we gotta know the whole story. Were these little children as small as we think they are? Is there any extra blasphemous or insultive baggage that comes with what the children were saying? Why did the children choose to follow them and who are they exactly?

We gotta put the bible as innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

wrain62 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The account does NOT state that they were a threat to him.They insulted his lack of hair and he cursed them.Not something Christ would condone, do you agree?

Before we jump to such quick conclusions we gotta know the whole story. Were these little children as small as we think they are? Is there any extra blasphemous or insultive baggage that comes with what the children were saying? Why did the children choose to follow them and who are they exactly?

We gotta put the bible as innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

Correct.
But in doing that we have to go on what is stated:
Elisah cursed them because they insulted him, called him baldy.
Now, insulting a prophet was viewed as a serious offense ( though ignoring and even killing them happened).
The issue that any skeptic would have with this is NOT the ELisah cursed them ( even though he shouldn't have, he was only human however) BUT that, supposedly, God sent she-bears that attacked and mauled them ( not necessarily killed but torn up).
Now, what we CAN read is that Elisha cursed them for calling him baldy and God as punishment sent the bear to attack the kids.
Of course the bible doesn't say that, it says that Elisha cursed them in the name of the lord AND that bears came and attacked them.
It seems to imply that God sent the bears but does NOT state it as such.
Considering the Elisha had just purified their water, one wonders what issues those little brats had with Elisha but kids aren't always that smart.

This could be the case of an actual punishment from God to those that not only insulted His prophet BUT did it after he saved them.
Or this could be a simple "warning" story as to can happen if you insult one of God's prophets.
Or it could have simply been a "coincedence" that after Elisha cursed them, bears attacked them ( they may have been near a dwelling and that man kids making noise would probably bring the bears attacking to protect their home.

PaulSacramento wrote:The account does NOT state that they were a threat to him.
They insulted his lack of hair and he cursed them.
Not something Christ would condone, do you agree?

No, read it more carefully. They did not insult him, they insulted the One who sent him. The bald head is a contrast to the long hair of Elijah, and the "Go up" was a mocking of the ascent of Elijah. The preceding part of the chapter is how the mantle passed from Elijah to Elisha, and the transfer of the prophetic spirit. Few believed that Elijah had gone to heaven, thinking instead that he was hiding or put in some other place close by, as they sent out a search party to look for Elijah. Elisha told them not to do it, as he had witnessed the ascension. To show that the Spirit of the Lord had passed on to him, he performed a miracle with the water.

Against that backdrop, as he was leaving Jericho, a group of young men came out and mocked the ascension of Elijah, the passing of the Spirit to Elisha and the office of prophet that God had bestowed on Elisha. We know that God will not be mocked, and Elisha, as a prophet of God, knew the character of these boys, as he cursed them in the name of the Lord. God must have agreed, or else judgment would not have come over them in that fashion. It may well be a continuance from the preceding, where people did not believe him, and since he was going into Bethel and Mount Carmel, there could be no doubt that he was the prophet, and the destruction of those who mocked his appointment was a way to remove those doubts, and demonstrate the seriousness with which God regarded the appointment.

So what is the real objection here? That God killed people for mocking a guy with no hair? That is clearly not the case.

I assume you missed my last post

PaulSacramento wrote:I assume you missed my last post

Cross-posted. Great minds etc...

So what exactly is the problem here?

It is one thing to discuss these verses and debate them as Christians but it is quite another to discuss and debate them with skeptics or people of other faiths.
Ever had a debate about the OT with a Jewish person? It is a fascinating experience.
Of course these "issues" are nothing new and that some passages pose these difficulties is something that the history of Christianity shows us, see the Marcion and the Gnostic issues.

wrain62 wrote:So what exactly is the problem here?

Atheists think God is a meanie because he killed kids for calling a guy bald.

August wrote:

wrain62 wrote:So what exactly is the problem here?

Atheists think God is a meanie because he killed kids for calling a guy bald.

That is down playing a serious issues that many people have, truly.
It's enough of an issue that we have books like Paul Coplan's " Is God a Moral Monster?".
It is NOT one easily dismissed.

PaulSacramento wrote:

August wrote:

wrain62 wrote:So what exactly is the problem here?

Atheists think God is a meanie because he killed kids for calling a guy bald.

That is down playing a serious issues that many people have, truly.
It's enough of an issue that we have books like Paul Coplan's " Is God a Moral Monster?".
It is NOT one easily dismissed.

How is it downplaying anything? It depends on the starting point, which is atheism. I agree, at face value it is a serious objection, but an emotional one, and it has been around for centuries, and answered for centuries.

When you have the likes of Hitchens and others, proclaiming that God is indeed a moral monster, I don't think that many of the arguments of the past hold much sway now.
Arguments like " It is God' right to punish those he sees fit" or "God shows mercy on who he chooses", or things along those lines, just don't work VS the modern skeptic that has been "armed" the the militant atheist rhetoric.
The "bible says so", doesn't work either ( since the bible is for them the problem of the matter in many cases).
Since we are speaking of this situation with Elisha, let me use this as an example:
A human is far more moral than God because, I for example, would NOT of sent bears to maul these misguide youths but would have showed my superiour moral by forgiving them or another line that could be taken is that God could have repayed their taunts in kind with all of them being struck BALD at that instant !
Etc, etc...