Bible-believers: What are your thoughts on this passage?

[Mr. Ofo Oao]

Did you know that the KJV bible had Gods true name removed from it over 7,000 times from the OT? They forgot to remove it 4 times though.

King James Bible Exodus 6:3
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

King James Bible Psalm 83:18
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.


King James Bible Isaiah 26:4
Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:


King James Bible Isaiah 12:2
Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.

I trust the translations but commentaries about the Bible I'm not that into.

 

[Mr. Ofo Oao]

it's a metaphor, for Pete's sake! Don't get your panties in a wad. You mentioned in your post above that you're interested in what the text says. However, "what the text says" is heavily influenced by cultural and literary understanding. The text says something metaphorical, and you have to understand what that is before making hasty judgments upon the text for the pictures it uses to explain its point.

Lol I don't wear panties for the record and anyone can make up "an explanation" of what the scripture is "really" saying.

Peace.

 

[Nada]

I trust the translations but commentaries about the Bible I'm not that into.

What opinion?

 

[Shem]

Hi,

I wanted to ask Bible-believers, what are their thoughts on this passage from the Bible. The passage is 2 Kings 2:22-25; in the passage the prophet Elisha allegedly cursed and caused the death of 42 "little children." It seems to me that a prophet of a deity that should be worshiped would be able to tolerate little children mocking him without cursing them and causing them to be killed by a wild animal, but Bible-believers what are your thoughts on the passage?:

Here are the options that immediately come to my mind:

1. The deity was evil and should not be worshipped or respected.
2. There is no deity and the attack was a coincidence.
3. There is a Deity, God is good, all wise, and all loving. While it seems harsh to us today, these children went immediately home to God where they could rejoice in is love. There is no "death" in God's eyes, but rather just a change of residence.
4. The story is bogus. It didn't happen.

I believe 3 is the most correct.

 

[sojourner]

Lol I don't wear panties for the record and anyone can make up "an explanation" of what the scripture is "really" saying.

Peace.

Sure they can, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a critical, exegetical treatment of the texts -- especially one that is scholarly and peer-reviewed.

 

[Nakosis]

Sure they can, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a critical, exegetical treatment of the texts -- especially one that is scholarly and peer-reviewed.

Which is?
Where can this critical treatment be found?

 

[sojourner]

Which is?
Where can this critical treatment be found?

For the lay person? Exhaustive commentaries such as the Anchor Bible Commentary.

 

[McBell]

... anyone can make up "an explanation" of what the scripture is "really" saying.

So what makes your "explanation" so special?

I suspect you have no idea how much the above quoted comment hurts your argument.