Have you read the whole Bible?

[MJFlores]

I'm impressed at your ability to pick and choose! So your answer to the OP would be....NO!

Told you I'm not done reading the Bible. It is really a closed book some contain prophecies which are hidden and not subject to private interpretation.

Then I have to re-read what I have read because you know, sometimes I forget. Reading is different, understanding is another.

 

[MJFlores]

Lots of people believe this.
Why are the vast majority so wrong?
Tom

Yep, the vast majority are so wrong because it is expected.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

John 9:39-41

Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

 

[Ponder This]

I mean every page. And if you have, how long did it take for you to do that?

Yes, more than 5 years.
The first four books were good and then it got harder. Chronicles was particularly difficult. Things picked up at Proverbs but generally things got worse and worse until the words just felt dead. The New Testament was alive. Every time Jesus spoke, it put me in an ecstatic state. After Jesus died, the magic started to fade again and Paul was dead reading again. The Revelation books had life in them but they were also confusing.

I didn't try to speed read it nor did I read it as part of any study group. I only read as much of it as I could handle at any given point in time. A lot of the Old Testament doesn't seem to be worth the time to read.

 

[arthra]

I mean every page. And if you have, how long did it take for you to do that?

I've read the Bible in a year... and there are programs where you read portions over time. Also along with reading the Bible in English you can study the meaning of the Hebrew and Aramaic. There are easier translations in modern English of course.. I preferred the Lamsa Bible the translation by George Lamsa.

 

[savagewind]

Apparently you don't know your sacred text like you think you do:

2 Kings 2:24

Ya but, what was "tare" mean? It is very much too obvious that it is not possible for two or even more bears to attack and kill 42 children......even if all of them stayed put.

 

[savagewind]

Haha... and you didn't even read the passage I linked to. "two she-bears" - that makes 2 bears. 2. and they killed 42 young boys, which the text strongly suggests was an action of God due to the curse Elisha called upon them after they mocked him by calling him "baldy" or "bald-head" or some such.

So... a guy gets miffed that a bunch of KIDS are making fun of him, and decides to call forth the wrath of Jehovah (the text literally says he "cursed them in the name of Jehovah"), and Jehovah is implied to have obliged him the curse by killing all the boys with bears.

And when did anyone say it was (or needed to be) a "major theme?" The Bible is full of dumb crap like this - major theme or no, it's a mess of overlooked/ignored travesty and morally questionable actions by "God" and His "chosen" buddies.

Maybe the joke is on you. Does it really say "cursed them in the name of Jehovah"?

If so, then why these? 1 Samuel 8:23 and 1 Samuel 6:5 It's the same word.
It means to lightly esteem.

To curse is like an oath. Do you think..............do you think it is ok that a holy man swears an oath "in the name of Jehovah"?

YOU say God "obliged him the curse by killing all the boys with bears", but, it doesn't say that!
Why are you lying about what God would do?

God says that you don't believe me. Why not think?
Their saying to him, "go up" is to recognize that he is a holy man on his way. OK?
That is to be esteemed by Jehovah. To recognize that a person is "going up" is a good thing, usually.

Do you want to know what I think tare means?

 

[james bond]

No. I hope to one day. I pray to one day.

 

[Fool]

I mean every page. And if you have, how long did it take for you to do that?

I've read it more than 12 times; using 4 translations.

Took approximately 6 - 8 months per pass.

 

[Tassie]

Not too very long, though I don't remember exactly how long. Ironically, and to me fortunately, I did this as my faith was wavering and did it to strengthen and affirm my faith. However, it resulted in me realizing things I could not reconcile (genocide, slavery, misogyny, child abuse, and such hatred and anger over trivial and petty things), left me realizing things were not as I had been lead to believe, and reading the Bible completely obliterated my faith.

Congratulations Shadow Wolf to the world of rationality & truth!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I was ok with the whole thing, shouldn't call people baldy. If it was Karma nobody would complain...

So your assessment is that "nobody would complain" if a group of 42 children were mauled by bears? Not surprising, honestly. From my experience most believers have a slightly to severely malfunctioning moral compass that they think is "God approved."

If you ever wonder why I don't believe as others believe, it's because I am constantly reminded by people like you how blind I could be if I did.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Ya but, what was "tare" mean? It is very much too obvious that it is not possible for two or even more bears to attack and kill 42 children......even if all of them stayed put.

I doubt it meant to "give them milk and cookies." Plus, with God involved, anything is "possible", right?

"Tare" is apparently an archaic form of "tear." From dictionary.com:

verb, Archaic.
1. simple past tense and past participle of tear

Which, of course, has this meaning (among other similar ones):

2. to pull apart or in pieces by force, especially so as to leave ragged or irregular edges.

I'm pretty sure that's what the writers of The Bible were going for. Unless you have evidence for the "milk and cookies" version.

 

[Windwalker]

No, I object. The law is the alpha and omega, the source of all reality in the Bible. The bears, the numbers 2 and 42 and the children are all there to make comments about the law. That applies to everything in the Bible. A story in the Bible about a bear or a shark or an elf or breakfast cereal or anything else -- is always, always about the law; and the author of Kings would be horrified if they thought that their story were used to endorse the mauling of children. Nor is it OK in the Bible for God to maul children, because everything is about the law. In the Bible the law is a river of reality, and whoever wants to be real drinks it or touches it, or breathes it, or warms themselves by it. As you move away from the law everything is less real, colder, more invisible. The moment the story about the bears is not commenting on the law, they cease to exist. Imagine the law is a girl and you have a crush on her. Now take away that girl, and your heart is broken. That is what you have done with this story. You have made it meaningless. It isn't about anything now.

You do realize this all is simply an interpretation after the fact trying to make it fit into some overarching mythology you are superimposing upon it? It's a theological sleight of hand to make it fit into some preconceived idea that the texts are perfect because they came from God. You can see the same thing in NT studies where they try to reconcile the contradictory Gospel accounts into some "harmony".

I don't accept that underlying premise of an inerrant Bible dictated by God anymore of course, and thus I take the simpler and more consistent explanation that these are tales about God from a tribal people of the time imagining him in the ways they would in that ancient culture; rain being withheld or granted by the deity, societal laws and norms being eternal truths handing down from their god, etc. That to me is much simpler than trying to find magical number significance that shows some 'code' hidden in the texts from God, or imagining the authors intended it that way.

I share my perspective not as a debate point, as this isn't a debate thread, but simply to point out this is how I understand the texts now that I've gained other perspectives from a more modern context. It's just a different way of understanding these things that works for me considering what I have been exposed to since my Bible college days accessing both modern and postmodern scholarship.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Maybe the joke is on you. Does it really say "cursed them in the name of Jehovah"?

If so, then why these? 1 Samuel 8:23 and 1 Samuel 6:5 It's the same word.
It means to lightly esteem.

To curse is like an oath. Do you think..............do you think it is ok that a holy man swears an oath "in the name of Jehovah"?

YOU say God "obliged him the curse by killing all the boys with bears", but, it doesn't say that!
Why are you lying about what God would do?

God says that you don't believe me. Why not think?
Their saying to him, "go up" is to recognize that he is a holy man on his way. OK?
That is to be esteemed by Jehovah. To recognize that a person is "going up" is a good thing, usually.

Do you want to know what I think tare means?

You are making things up to suit your own needs. Which would be fine, except the ACCEPTED truth of the passage IS that the bears were called forth, and mauled/killed the kids. Here, have a look at this link:

Answers in Genesis

This is a biblical support site, written by people who "believe" and actively try to defend The Bible, and even they admit that the truth of the passage is exactly what I have been saying all along.

And why wouldn't it be? I mean, give me a break! The Bible is chock full of violence and (especially in the Old Testament) that violence was used as a way to try and teach people to fear God - because you never know what He might unleash on you if He's trying to "teach you a lesson." The "lesson" with this passage was "don't make fun of people." Not a bad lesson, necessarily... but the writers of The Bible chose to blow the whole situation WAY WAY WAY out of proportion and have kids die in droves just because they poked fun at some guy's bald head. I mean... how insecure can you possibly be? To allow a bunch of kids to push you over the edge of emotional stability and call for their DEATH (or, at the very least, their immediate clawing/mauling and descent into pain and suffering - again, please read the text at the link I included above, where all of this is admitted to).

And I find you to be an extremely dishonest person, trying to claim that maybe the passage, instead, meant that Elisha was "lightly esteeming" them, or some such garbage. You're either dishonest, or deluded - take your pick, 'cause there aren't many other options. What would "lightly esteeming" even mean?? The word "esteem" means to appraise the value of, or hold in high regard. So, to "lightly esteem" would be told hold in a small amount of high regard - or have medium/mediocre regard for. But the verb is present tense - so it's like you're saying he was actively evaluating them to determine their value or something - which is nonsense. It's just an excuse - and a complete detraction and misdirection from what The Bible is actually delivering with the passage.

And yes, I would love to hear your outrageous lie of an excuse for what "tare" represented. By all means. This is also covered in the link I included above:

"The Strong’s number for tare is #1234 (baqa‘). This word variously refers to the breaking open of mountains and city walls, dividing the Red Sea, splitting wood, breaking bottles, making a way through a line of soldiers, getting a group of citizens to disavow their nation, and—in a prophetic metaphor for the destruction of a nation in Hosea 13:8—tearing by wild beasts."

So, in closing, stop lying to yourself, or lying to others - whichever it is you are doing.

 

[SpaceAgeLove]

Yes, multiple times over and not by choice. Took around a year or less each time. Later on I read the Nag Hammadi library as well, also known as the Gnostic Gospels or non-canonical scriptures.

 

[Kemosloby]

So your assessment is that "nobody would complain" if a group of 42 children were mauled by bears? Not surprising, honestly. From my experience most believers have a slightly to severely malfunctioning moral compass that they think is "God approved."

If you ever wonder why I don't believe as others believe, it's because I am constantly reminded by people like you how blind I could be if I did.

Who would you complain to if it was Karma? Ok sure people do complain and say Karma is a B****. Now Im not saying everybody is going to like 42 young boys being mauled by bears, particularly the young boys. But the question is not whether we like our lot as sinners, but whether the word is true. Did God really do that? What reason is there to believe God didn't do that? The same thing can happen naturally in the world God created.

 

[Kenny]

I mean every page. And if you have, how long did it take for you to do that?

6 months, one year, and the rest of my life (different speeds for different purposes).

Certainly it has strengthened my faith and cemented about His love for His creation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Who would you complain to if it was Karma? Ok sure people do complain and say Karma is a B****. Now Im not saying everybody is going to like 42 young boys being mauled by bears, particularly the young boys.

There is no one to "lodge an official complaint" with EITHER WAY. Complain to God? How exactly does that work? I don't "complain to God." Is that what you think I am doing? I don't even believe in Him!

Did God really do that? What reason is there to believe God didn't do that? The same thing can happen naturally in the world God created.

If I really could complain to God (note the "IF" part - again, please be sure you understand that I don't believe He exists), the first thing I would complain about is the sloppiness of His believers. I mean seriously... "Did God really do that?" What kind of a question is this? On one hand, you want to dole out scripture as "the truth" and use it to defend your precious positions as a believer - but then when something inconvenient in the text comes up, and it PLAINLY STATES WHAT GOD DID by making a ONE-TO-ONE correlation with Elisha cursing those people in the name of God and the bears appearing and ripping everyone up (I am not imagining the correlation - the scholars among your believer brethren even admit to it - I understand your desire to back-pedal on this, but you're doing a terrible job of it)... anyway, you use the text as "truth" out of one side of your mouth, and with the other side ask "Did God really do that?" when the text says that He did. It's ridiculous, and the very reason people like myself tend to put near ZERO stock in the empty words of believers.

 

[Akivah]

I mean every page. And if you have, how long did it take for you to do that?

Yes, I forced myself to read every sentence, even though some were a bit dull. All the way from Genesis through to Chronicles II. It took me about three months to do it.

 

[Rival]

I enjoy the Prophets lots and lots, but if I recall at the time my favourite books were the Books of The Kings because of all the stuff that happened. It was all just so human and even amusing at times.

 

[Akivah]

When I got to Joshua, I got bored. I think there was a war or something coming about.

I liked that book. I learned that Joshua split a river, a clear indicator of being Moses' rightful successor.

I liked Proverbs because it was short and not wordy. Psalms was too long to get through the second time. It took me a long while when I read and studied it at first.

When I learned that Psalms is a collection of hymns, it made it easier for me to get through it.

Ecclesiastics is my favorite book.

Me too. That book really spoke to me.

My biggest surprise was the book of Isaiah. After reading it straight through, I was left dumbfounded that christians, with a straight face, mis-identify the Servant. It is like hit-over-the-head obvious that the Servant is the Jewish people as a whole.