|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 17:58:24 GMT -5
this thread is designed to discuss and debate the old testament. christians will attest that they live by the new testament, and often times half the bible is completely ignored. however, the very fact that the old testament is bound together with the new testament and attested to be the infallible word of god is evidence enough that the history of christianity, through the jews, be exposed for what it often time is...evil.
WHAT WE WILL DEBATE:
one: the character of god as evidence provides in the bible. you have the freedom to implement scripture and reasoning supporting your conjecture that god is good/evil.
two: why were the actions of the old testament taken? provide evidence using any method neccesary.
three: how is the action of the old testament any different than that of the new testament? compare, contrast and debate. what information does this provide of the nature of god?
four: we will discuss no more than two verses at a time, although i would request that we only make it one for the sake of multiple conversations.
five: we will examine the culture of the appropriate time period.
WHAT WE WILL NOT DEBATE:
one: we are not here to debate the definition of evil, or to insist that christian and secular evil is two separate entities. the definition of evil used will be according to social laws of western civilization, i.e. murder, rape, and stealing, etc. is wrong.
two: we will not debate off-topic. topical debates that produce off-topic results need to evolve into a separate thread. period.
three: we will not debate one another on the topic of personal conviction or belief. what you and i believe has nothing to do with what the bible says. instead, use secular works or theology as your evidence. you are not required to list sources, unless someone requests it of you.
note: we will begin with the verses listed in the previous thread entitled, 'The Bible.' please forgive me if it is more than one or two verses, but its time to play catch up. i will begin.
happy debating..
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 18:03:16 GMT -5
1.) Murder, Rape, and Pillage at Jabesh-gilead
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan. The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, "How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God's curse." Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, "Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, 'Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn't find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'" So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes. -- Judges 21:10-24
2.) God Kills Brats?
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. -- 2 Kings 2:23-24
3.) God Kills Good Samaritans?
The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals. When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. -- 2 Samuel 6:3-7
here are the verses for now. for the sake of convenience, use the numbers, or if you use verses for examination in the future...please use a numbering/lettering system. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jul 31, 2006 22:20:37 GMT -5
there was an argument constructed by rebecca in the thread entitled, 'The Bible,' that the first passage extends to verse twenty-five which states that israel was without a king and, "that's not god's fault...."
however, i disagree. the murder, rape, and pillage at jabesh-gilead was the act of men abusing their own religion. twelve thousand israelites were sent to this city with orders to kill everyone there, "including women and children." there is something that i believe is key in the earlier verses of this passage: warriors and orders. this was a jewish army. the jews lived according to a theocracy, and not a democracy. this means that the orders were from holy men themselves who acted as church and state. what is the evidence that the jews lived by a theocracy? we know this from lengthy historical studies, but one only needs to read the passage itself. the women of the tribe of benjamin were dead, and religious laws prevented the israelites from giving the men their daughters' hands in marriage, or a curse of god would be put upon them. ironically enough, the solution was kidnapping! how unethical is that? the men of benjamin, jewish 'brothers', were instructed to kidnap jewish women from a festival at shiloh--a festival for, "the LORD." so, even then, the religious leaders acting as politicians wormed their way through one of the laws--created by god--and found a loophole. the christian majority will respond with answers that the people deserved death, but why is this a sufficient justification? why is god, and his people, able to bend the rules...while we continue to suffer?
i think that is the question, and i have yet to meet a christian who has provided a decent response.
note: this post is evidence of lack of sleep. haha. rebecca's answer is not sufficient because the jews are god's 'chosen' people. the bible records this passage and since the bible is presumed to be divinely inspired--and infallible--then the actions of these men have god's stamp of approval on it. unfortunately, i do not see how murder and rape is approved by a god who condemns such things.
in conclusion, its earnest that you understand the 'rape' in this passage, because i doubt christians see it. the women who were kidnapped--and the virgin women of the sacked city--did not love the men who they were forced to marry. therefore, any intercourse and offspring is rape. common sense, right?
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 1, 2006 8:40:16 GMT -5
I do think Rebecca was on to something there though. vs 25 said not only that there was no king (basicaly, no enforcement of the law) but it also said that people just did as they wanted (paraphrasing). My point is this.....God didn't order this to happen as you seem to insinuate. It was just a account of what happened.....not a lifestyle suggestion.
Now why did God ALLOW this to happen is a good question. Israel was God's chosen people, right? Yes, Israel is God's chosen people and they screwed up time and time again....and God punished them time and time again for it.
Yes, Rape is wrong....Biblically, morally, and legaly. Rape being forbidden was addressed in both the Old and New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 1, 2006 9:58:32 GMT -5
however, in a theocracy, god is considered the only law. the prophects act as messengers, and often times are the ones who establish god's laws--and enforce them. this is why i stated that it was important to note the actions of the people. there may not have been a physical king, but god's people take orders from prophets, and other religious-political officials, who take orders from god. so, in the end, there can be theocratic law without physical law--or a monarchy. this is why i believe the people are without excuse.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 1, 2006 11:14:41 GMT -5
however, in a theocracy, god is considered the only law. the prophects act as messengers, and often times are the ones who establish god's laws--and enforce them. this is why i stated that it was important to note the actions of the people. there may not have been a physical king, but god's people take orders from prophets, and other religious-political officials, who take orders from god. so, in the end, there can be theocratic law without physical law--or a monarchy. this is why i believe the people are without excuse. Agreed, I believe that they were without excuse also. I guess it could be argued as a cultural issue, but I think moral law (given to us by God) would be the biggest factor) Rape is wrong....there is no justification for it. I think most people here would say that those people were certainly in the wrong.....just not that it was a God sanctioned event.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 1, 2006 18:47:14 GMT -5
i will disagree with you on that, but that is because there is no substantial proof on either side. i cannot prove that god sanctioned it, but because of a lack of biblical information you cannot neccesarily prove otherwise. we both agree that rape is wrong, and other events argued as a cultural issue can be debated. thus, we will move on. i will post post something on the second example within twenty-four hours, but if you, or others, want to post something first...be my guest.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 2, 2006 2:40:16 GMT -5
i apologize. i was taking my epilepsy medication, and preparing for bed, when i realized that i did not post within the time period i had promised. the second passage...
...is evidence that the men of god, prophets of the bible, are evil beings under the influence of an evil religion. i think it is terrible that god would record, through the pen of man, exactly how many children that elisha cursed, and indirectly murdered at the hands of god. forty-two is this number, and the method of attack by mauling shows no mercy and a contempt for all things living. children are often times cruel in their games, but i doubt they are malicious in the same light as an adult. jesus loved children as is stated in luke eighteen, verses fifteen through seventeen. how is it that a god who welcomes children slays forty-two because of 'jeering?'
how do you compare these two actions, and still see it as standing the test of time? how does the bible remain infallible when a righteous, yet fallen man uses god to kill? how is this the actions of the same god, and if this is not the action of god then how is it justified? who is to blame and why?
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 2, 2006 11:49:34 GMT -5
I dont usually do this, but Tony, I cannot believe you agreed with that qoute. Here is why...
I am reading through the Bible right now and currently am in Leveticus. This statement is not correct. God is not the "law" but the lawgiver, the prophets are the old testament mediators and do not "enforce" the laws or "establish" them.
God establishes the law, gives it to the prophet to mediate to the people. Now we dont need that as Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between God and man (yes RC's the ONLY mediator). Again the prophet does not "enforce" the law either, God does that even apart from the prophet (sodom and gommorah, uzziah, etc.) Sometimes, as in Moses and Israel's case, the prphet can coerce God to withhold judgement, but the prophet does not "enforce" the law.
As a side note, anything that God declares is wrong, is wrong. Not because we agree, or disagree, but because God has declared it to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 2, 2006 12:47:04 GMT -5
I dont usually do this, but Tony, I cannot believe you agreed with that qoute. Here is why... No, no.....I am sometimes guilty of breaking things down to the most simplistic form, and I think that is what I have done here. It seemed to me that the essence of Dusty's comment was, "God ordered this and therfore God was responsible." (correct me if I am wrong Dusty) I am just saying that man is responsible for their own sin. Rape is both a moral and legal issue. The conscience says that rape is wrong as does the law. For that reason anyone commiting the act is rebeling against both the Holy Spirit and the Law. The ultimate point is that simply because something is recorded in the Bible does not mean God condoned the event, and Dusty is saying that in this case, there is also no record surrounding the event that clearly states didn't condone the event. Soddom and Gammorah (sp) would be a good example of where people were in sin and God made very clear through the scripture that it was wrong. The theocracy stuff? I'll let the smarter folks takle that. It really makes my head hurt just thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 2, 2006 12:48:31 GMT -5
i apologize. i was taking my epilepsy medication, and preparing for bed, when i realized that i did not post within the time period i had promised. the second passage... ...is evidence that the men of god, prophets of the bible, are evil beings under the influence of an evil religion. i think it is terrible that god would record, through the pen of man, exactly how many children that elisha cursed, and indirectly murdered at the hands of god. forty-two is this number, and the method of attack by mauling shows no mercy and a contempt for all things living. children are often times cruel in their games, but i doubt they are malicious in the same light as an adult. jesus loved children as is stated in luke eighteen, verses fifteen through seventeen. how is it that a god who welcomes children slays forty-two because of 'jeering?' how do you compare these two actions, and still see it as standing the test of time? how does the bible remain infallible when a righteous, yet fallen man uses god to kill? how is this the actions of the same god, and if this is not the action of god then how is it justified? who is to blame and why? Let me get back to you on that one. I don't have a Bible in front of me.....I know the story, and I have a answer, just want to be sure that I at least half know what I am talking about before I give it to you :-)
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Aug 2, 2006 12:58:49 GMT -5
Okay brother, I was just wondering.
As you were ;D
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 2, 2006 20:28:23 GMT -5
evan, correct me if i am wrong, but the book of judges was written well after the ten commandments were established in exodus, and well after the books of law, i.e. leviticus. in fact, it was generations after the fact! you tell people like me that no man is without excuse, and in this case, the men of god committed crimes against people that were different than them. this was the only crime they commited. this would be a hate crime, and as is a lot of actions displayed in the old testament it would appear that your god is a deity of hate.
what other explanation do you have?
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 3, 2006 10:02:17 GMT -5
evan, correct me if i am wrong, but the book of judges was written well after the ten commandments were established in exodus, and well after the books of law, i.e. leviticus. in fact, it was generations after the fact! you tell people like me that no man is without excuse, and in this case, the men of god committed crimes against people that were different than them. this was the only crime they committed. this would be a hate crime, and as is a lot of actions displayed in the old testament it would appear that your god is a deity of hate. what other explanation do you have? It still seems that this is pointing the blame at God for the actions of humans. Here is a example that comes to mind. A Pastor is a man of God. If, in a moment of weakness, he commits adultery, does this make God a Deity of Adultery? Of course not. He was acting independent of God's will and leading of his conscience and made a mistake. If the Pastor's congregation sees what he had done and follow his example and they all commit adultery, they are still responsible for their own sin because (1) God's law said, "Don't do it" and (2) Their conscience said, "don't do it". This doesn't change God's character, it simply means that even Christians sometimes operate outside of God's will. This is sin, for which they must repent. Again, this doesn't make God a deity of sin.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 4, 2006 2:51:57 GMT -5
you make an excellent point. however, i want you to consider one thing. the prophet of god that called out the bears of the wilderness to attack, maul, and kill forty-two children was acting under god's command.
how do i provide evidence of this?
no man can call bears out of the wild to perform certain duties. a prophet is given certain powers of understanding, etc., by god. right? god is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. right?
god watched as his prophet killed forty-two children and never said a word. he did not lift a finger, or remove the powers from the prophet...and he did not even punish the prophet for his actions.
why is this a problem? this proves that god was indifferent to what happened. he was apathetic to the fact that his prophet killed children...innocent children.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 4, 2006 8:16:53 GMT -5
Dusty, I apologize, I still haven't dug into that issue, so I am going to tell you what I think based on memory right now, and may have to backtrack later when I review the scripture (basicly reserving the right to be wrong in THIS post ;D )
I read a apologetic article on that specific issue some time ago, and if memory serves me correctly, the translation of the word that was describing Children was actually better suited for teenager or young adult. (again, I'll tract down the specifics on that for you). Basicly, it's not like a bunch of 7 year olds were doing this, but more likely a group of 17-25 year olds. Now does this alone make bears eating them right? Not really, but this was more of a mob mentality. I also think that Elisha may have also been afraid for his life here. Remember, this was a violent time. It looks as if God may have done this to protect Elisha (which will make a lot more sense if I am correct about my first point.
Everyone.....If I am dead wrong on this, please forgive and correct me. I'm shooting from the hip at this moment and again, may be incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 4, 2006 8:24:19 GMT -5
tony, if you can provide the hebrew translation/apologetics for the issue then you may have a point. otherwise, the evidence isn't pointing in the 'right' direction. so, unless someone else has something to say on this passage, we'll move on to number three...and then more verses.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 4, 2006 9:42:14 GMT -5
yeah, lets move on, but I do promise to look at that this weekend. It's been so long since I read that article, that it made me kind of nervouse to post it at all, but I will get a definitive answer by Monday.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 4, 2006 13:56:31 GMT -5
So, the basic question is...why would God kill these innocent children? No one is innocent first of all. But this is just part of the question, how can God kill these kids (they weren't kids by the way, the Hebrew word described Isaac at approximately 28-30 years old and Joseph after he was made regent in Egypt). How can God order whole civilizations killed, etc.
Once again, my friend Greg Koukl comes through...
How is it that God could allow the annihilation of thousands and thousands of people, whether that annihilation was through war or natural disaster? In fact, how is it that God could even command such a thing in the Old Testament if it is immoral to take the life of an innocent human being? How does it suddenly become moral because God Himself commands such a thing?
In answering this question, we have to be careful of what is called Euthyphro's Dilemma and the dilemma is: Is morality something that is above God, that God must conform to, or is morality something that is merely the whim of God, such that God can choose to do anything He wants and it's still called moral? In the first case, it would mean that there is a law above God that He is subordinate to, which mean He would be less than God. In the second case, if morality is merely that which God says is right and wrong, then it seems that moral things are merely arbitrary and God could change His moral viewpoint at His whim, and this would then reduce His morality to His power. God has the power to enforce whatever He wants, therefore whatever He wants happens to be the moral thing at that time. Killing innocent children is immoral now, but tomorrow He might change His mind. And because He is God, after all, He can make that a moral thing, at least for Him. So there is the dilemma because it seems like you lose both ways.
My answer is simply this: How is it that God can allow the taking of life of innocent people? The answer is that God, being the Author of life, has the absolute right to take life away whenever He wants to. Simply put, He gives life, He takes it away. Life is His to do with what He wants. He can give it, as the Author, and as the Author, He can take it away.
For example, if you have a vacation day you can spend it at the beach, or you can spend it playing sports, or you can spend it just staring at the wall. If you choose to stare at the wall on you vacation day, you have no need to justify the action to someone else who thinks that staring at the wall is a foolish waste of time. They say, "Well, why are you staring at the wall? You shouldn't do that. You should do otherwise." Your response to them is, "Listen, it's my vacation, it's my time and it's my wall." That's it. You don't need to justify your actions when the execution of those actions are entirely and properly your prerogative, as it would be in how you use your vacation time.
In the same way, life is God's possession so God may do with life as He pleases. Now it may sound like I'm simply reducing God's morality to His power. He can do what He wants because He is God. That's not what I am saying because I don't think taking innocent life is patently, on the face of it, immoral. It is immoral when it is done by certain people, and not immoral when it is done by others--or Another.
I am merely stating that there are certain things which are clearly God's prerogative. Can God create something and then destroy what He's created? Yes, He can do as He wishes, though His wishes are constrained by His character so He can't wish something that is immoral or inconsistent with His character. And there is nothing patently immoral about the Creator of life taking away life. It's immoral for us because when we take life, usually we are exercising a prerogative reserved for God alone.
There are a few circumstances where He delegates that power to us, specifically in my view, capital punishment. We know this intuitively, folks, because when men seek to make life and death decisions for others, what do we tell them? We say, "It's not right for you to 'play God.'" Well, of course it's not right for man to play God, but it implies that it is right for God to play God , and that's my point.
My point is simply this: we intuitively know that man and God have different prerogatives. It is inappropriate for men to take innocent life simply because we are robbing other human beings of a God-given gift and we are not to play God in that regard. But clearly God can play God. It is His role and He is not robbing when He takes away what He has given in the first place. It is something that is under His appropriate control. He can take a life anytime He wants. Taking innocent human life is wrong for us, because taking life is God's prerogative, not ours, which means it is appropriate for Him to do it, not us, and He can dispense and retract life whenever He pleases.
Part of the problem here is that we want to hold God to the same standard of morality He holds us to, as if the standard is above us both and man and God are on equal terms when it comes to behavior. Whatever we can't do, God shouldn't be allowed to do either. But every parent knows that such an arrangement is just plain false. Parents aren't constrained by the same standards that their children are constrained by, and in the same way God has a different set of prerogatives as well. Life and death is one of His, not one of ours, and that's why it is appropriate for Him to make His sovereign decisions with regards to the disposition of life and death. We are not to do so, and that's the long and short of it.
I want to add an illustration I think sharpens the point a little bit because it seems to suggest that there are some things that are immoral for us yet are moral for God and it's hard to make sense of that. My illustration simply is that we know this intuitively if we are parents. If we are not parents and we reflect for a moment, we realize that there are some moral rules that apply equally to all human beings and the moral rule does not discriminate between different human beings. That's the kind of moral rule it is. We ought not murder, and that doesn't change whether we are adults or children. Children ought not murder other human beings, nor should adults murder other human beings.
However, it is also true that there are things that are immoral for children that are not immoral for adults. Children ought to obey adults. Adults ought not obey children. It just doesn't work that way. So it seems clear from this illustration that there are some prerogatives that individuals have in life that changes the moral requirements of that individual.
By the same token, there are some things that are true for us as being moral because they are true for God. It is wrong to lie, because God is a truthful God and He doesn't lie because there is no deceit in His nature. And that moral quality then becomes incumbent upon us. So in a sense, the moral rule applies to both God and man although I want to be careful, you understand, when I say it applies to man that man has to answer to the rule. When I say it applies to God, I'm not saying that God has to answer to the rule. It only applies to Him in that He is a moral being who lives without deceit and so He exemplifies the rule, He is not beholden to the rule. The rule is for us. But in one sense, both God and man have the rule in their sphere.
However, what about the rule thou shalt not kill? That's a different kind of rule. That is a rule that applies to human beings because the taking and giving of life is not our prerogative so it is immoral for us to do that. But the taking and giving of life is God's prerogative, so it is not immoral for Him to exercise the same thing. He can give and take life at His whim, if that's what it amounts to, because He is God. Human beings can't do it because we are not exercising our prerogatives. That is solely God's prerogative. In the same way that parents have certain prerogatives that children do not have, God has prerogatives that humans don't have.
I think that is the key to unlocking this very tricky issue, at least it may seem so initially. How do we justify the taking of what seems to be innocent life in the Old Testament by God directly or indirectly through floods and earthquakes and things like that, or through the mediation of a go-between in the time of the Old Testament like the nation of Israel going into a country and killing all men, women and children? I think this speaks well to that issue.
God is the author of life, therefore He has the prerogative to take life whenever He wants. That is His prerogative. It is only immoral when human beings exercise prerogatives that are not theirs, that are God's alone.
(Bolding and highlights are mine)
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 4, 2006 15:50:07 GMT -5
With respect to Greg, I don't agree that this would be the proper apologetic to use in this case. I agree with the essence of what he is saying, but not with this as being a explanation for the situation.
Could you provide more detail with what you started to say about the kids not being kids. This was the part that I have read before and wanted to research. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
As to why I don't agree with what Greg said as a apologetic for the non-believer is that basicly we are answering the question, "Why did God do this?" with the answer "because He can". Thats enough of a answer for me as a Christian now, but probably wouldn't clarify anything for me if I was a non-believer. Sometimes we (me especially) are afraid to simply say, "Man, I don't know why God did that." I think that is a fine answer in light of the fact that not knowing or understanding a few things should in no way contradict all of the clear evidence that does support the Christian position.
.....but I do think you are on to the answer with the "Where the children, really children thing.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 5, 2006 8:43:29 GMT -5
tony is right, luvofchrist, your explanation [on behalf of another person, as always, christians never think for themselves] is what causes atheism. no 'heathen' would accept this as a valid debate. you presuppose that god exists in the first place, and the jury is still out on that one. the only evidence you have is faith, but we have an entire bible filled with contradictions--and contradictions to the nature of christ, as is explained by modern theology, and his behavior betwixt old and new testaments.
nevertheless, christians see an infallible truth in the faith of their religion because they need to see it, and they cannot live without it. admit it, your life as you know it...would shatter...if it was ever revealed to you, personally, that god didn't exist.
you would keep on believing for the sake of believing in something.
edit: i will post on the third verse when i get the time. shalom.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 5, 2006 11:02:07 GMT -5
Sure Tony, my pleasure. The word in Hebrew in this passage for youths is "na'ar."
YOUTH
na`ar OT:5288, "youth; lad; young man." This word is found in Ugaritic, and it seems that the Egyptian word na-arma ("armed retainers") is also related to the West Semitic usage. The root with the meaning of "youth" occurs only as a noun and occurs in Hebrew in the feminine (na`arah, "young girl") as well as the masculine form (e. g., Gen 24:14).
Na`ar occurs 235 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Its use is predominant in the Pentateuch and in the historical books. The first occurrence is in Gen 14:23-24: "...I will not take any thing... save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion."
The basic meaning of na`ar is "youth," over against an older man. At times it may signify a very young child: "For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" Isa 7:16. Generally na`ar denotes a "young man" who is of marriageable age but is still a bachelor. We must keep in mind the opposition of youth and old age, so that we can better understand that Jeremiah, while claiming to be only a "youth," was not necessarily a youngster. In truth, he argued that he did not have the experience of the older men, when he said: "Ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child" Jer 1:6.
Absalom was considered a na`ar, even though he was old enough to lead the troups in rebellion against David: "And the king commanded Joab and Abishai and Ittai, saying, Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with Absalom" 2 Sam 18:5.
A derived meaning of na`ar is "servant." Jonathan used a "servant" as armorbearer: "Now it came to pass upon a day, that Jonathan the son of Saul said unto the young man that bare his armor, Come, and let us go over to the Philistines' garrison, that is on the other side" 1 Sam 14:1. The na`ar ("servant") addressed his employer as "master": "And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it" Judg 19:11. Kings and officials had "servants" who were referred to by the title na`ar. In this context the word is better translated as "attendant," as in the case of the attendants of King Ahasuerus, who gave counsel to the king: "Then said the king's servants [NASB, "attendants"] that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king" Est 2:2. When a na`ar is commissioned to carry messages, he is a "messenger." Thus, we see that the meaning of the word na`ar as "servant" does not denote a "slave" or a performer of low duties. He carried important documents, was trained in the art of warfare, and even gave counsel to the king. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Aug 5, 2006 11:29:41 GMT -5
tony is right, luvofchrist, your explanation [on behalf of another person, as always, christians never think for themselves] is what causes atheism. no 'heathen' would accept this as a valid debate. you presuppose that god exists in the first place, and the jury is still out on that one. the only evidence you have is faith, but we have an entire bible filled with contradictions--and contradictions to the nature of christ, as is explained by modern theology, and his behavior betwixt old and new testaments. nevertheless, christians see an infallible truth in the faith of their religion because they need to see it, and they cannot live without it. admit it, your life as you know it...would shatter...if it was ever revealed to you, personally, that god didn't exist. you would keep on believing for the sake of believing in something. edit: i will post on the third verse when i get the time. shalom. You have no idea who I am or the life I've lived. I see from your profile that you are the ripe old age of 23. I am almost twice your age and the life I've lived, the things I've done and the places I've been would probably run circles around you. I have not always lived a life of faith in God. I believe in God and His Son Jesus Christ because of all the other nonsense I've studied and tried to believe I found to be lies and inconsistent with the evidence. You are right when you say I can't live without my faith because it's the only reality in a world of illusions. I'll ignore the gross over-generalizations and just say, of course I can think for myself and do all the time. You seem to think Christians check their brains at the door. I have two degrees sweetie. But let me ask, have you been to University? Did you read textbooks and take the word of the author of that textbook that he/she knows what they're talking about? What! You let the author of the textbook do your thinking for you!? We take the word of the person who is the author because they are a trusted source. No one is more trusted to me than the Lord and Maker of the Universe. He's proved Himself to be trustworthy ALL the time. Unlike others. I choose to believe the Bible since God is the author of life and He has given us the Bible which is the Handbook for living that life. I'll take His word for it. If I buy a Hyundai why wouldn't I read the Hyundai owner's manual to know how to operate my car? I take the maker's word for it.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 9, 2006 14:16:18 GMT -5
no, ma'am, i attended university for five years off and on. i came to the conclusion that no piece of paper was attractive enough for me to spend fifty thousand dollars on it. sorry. anyway, i do not take the word of authors, speaking of generalizations, and i usually compare several authors before even taking it as a possibility. this is also how i watch the news. i watch fox, cnn, and local at fifty percent of the time. the other fifty, if you must know, comes from foreign news such as bbc. so, if one news source claims something that no other reports...there is a likelihood that it is false, or a politically driven agenda. i will most likely believe something that is reported across the board.
i study objectively. period.
your age has only one advantage, and that is experience. this has no determination on integrity, will power, intelligence, or etcetera. ah, also, i made no attack on your character, nor did i make any generalization...so...i am not sure why you have this attitude, unless its menopause. i can be mean. the choice is up to you, kid.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 9, 2006 14:23:35 GMT -5
luvofchrist, additionally, my hebrew bible does not use the same language as you do when expressing the difference in child in comparison to the verses we are studying and the others. in fact, they are readily different. odd...i wonder why that is...could it be that you read this from a christian website and did not translate it yourself. do you own a hebrew/greek bible? i do. can you read it? i can...some...but at least i admit it.
...or am i making generalizations again?
ok. i will definately start on the third passage as is listed in the first post when i return. we will then move on to other verses one at a time. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Aug 9, 2006 15:53:05 GMT -5
luvofchrist, additionally, my hebrew bible does not use the same language as you do when expressing the difference in child in comparison to the verses we are studying and the others. in fact, they are readily different. odd...i wonder why that is...could it be that you read this from a christian website and did not translate it yourself. do you own a hebrew/greek bible? i do. can you read it? i can...some...but at least i admit it. ...or am i making generalizations again? ok. i will definately start on the third passage as is listed in the first post when i return. we will then move on to other verses one at a time. thanks. Thank you for that LuvofChrist. That was what I was thinking of. Dusty--I know this isn't a absolute, without a shadow of a doubt answer to your question, but it does put another perspective on the situation. I'm not saying this is exactly what happened, but it "could be" what happened and would also be the most reasonable at least in our eyes. Looking forward to the next one :-)
|
|
|
Post by sequindaisies on Aug 10, 2006 3:49:12 GMT -5
You have no idea who I am or the life I've lived. I see from your profile that you are the ripe old age of 23.
That's it? Just a child..
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 10, 2006 7:14:46 GMT -5
daisy, use quotations or the quote box offered to you by the site. otherwise, it makes you look like you are saying exactly what i said. some people may get the wrong idea, plus i don't like people stealing my words. heh.
age is meaningless. i don't care if you are ten, twenty, sixty or one hundred years old. i do not discriminate. i debate with people based on their words, insight, and intelligence. experience helps some...
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Aug 10, 2006 7:36:32 GMT -5
The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals. When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. -- 2 Samuel 6:3-7
this is the third verse of the three that i originally posted. forgive me for wasting so much time, i've been busy. why does god kill good samaritans? sure, you may all have good excuses why the first two were justifiable, but what makes this an action that a loving, compassionate and fair god would commit? how is preventing the ark of the covenant from falling upon the ground a sin punishable by death? i tried finding something that uzzah did before these events that might have caused his death, because the sentence is structured in such a format that it would lead someone to think that past actions were being weighed and accounted for. however, i found nothing.
this is almost as pathetic as tripping over something and touching the bill of rights, and then being struck down dead by lightning. why is god so evil?
|
|
|
Post by sequindaisies on Aug 10, 2006 14:54:34 GMT -5
daisy, use quotations or the quote box offered to you by the site. otherwise, it makes you look like you are saying exactly what i said. some people may get the wrong idea, plus i don't like people stealing my words. heh. age is meaningless. i don't care if you are ten, twenty, sixty or one hundred years old. i do not discriminate. i debate with people based on their words, insight, and intelligence. experience helps some... heh, if you want to get technical those words were not yours heh If you can't figure it out with out the quote box, heh, I make sure I use it, heh.
|
|