Hence why I posted the link. You should read it.
The ONLY Biblical answer to The Age of Accountability
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Hence why I posted the link. You should read it.
Derf
Well-known member
Depends on whether that someone made a mistake or not.
Agreed. Im just saying, that if a person has presented a case against one's position, he should investigate to see if he truly is in error, and then if not, present a counterargument.
Immediately doubling down on one's position by quoting scripture taken out of context dealing with three men who had no rebuttal to Job's argument seems rather ironic, not to mention arrogant.
You are such a waste of time.
I do not agree that the passage demands we rewrite the term "little children" in 2 Kings 2:23 as "young men," since the phrase "young men" is almost always translated in the OT from the Hebrew word (naar). King David made captured enemies pass under bloody threshing instruments of iron to kill them. God ordered His servants to utterly slay old and young. If God killed 42 elementary students or 42 college students, that is His prerogative. He knows what He is doing.
Ezekiel 9
4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
8 And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord God! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The Lord hath forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not.
10 And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
11 And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.
King James Version (KJV)
Right Divider
Body part
So you clearly did not read the entire article. It made many good points.
You really need to start being more thorough and logical in your thinking.
If you're wrong, then you should at the very least, reconsider your position.
The word used in the Hebrew means "young men," marke. It doesn't mean "little children."
Just because the Bible is poorly translated in some places doesn't mean you get to insist that your opinion is correct simply because it's based on that poor translation of the Bible.
Again, to condense what was stated in the article:
The KJV's translation of "naar" as "little children," while it can be used to mean that, is wrong, because "naar" specifically means "young men."
That's WHAT IT MEANS. You don't get to disagree.
That's the word used, marke.
Guarantee you none of them were young children, if you were to do any actual research or looking into the topic.
There is nothing wrong with God commanding someone to slay His enemies, because He is their Creator, and has every right to take their lives when He sees fit.
Your feeble attempt at an argument fails at supporting your position.
42 were killed, but there were more than that who were mocking Elisha, something you would have also been told had you thoroughly read the article I gave you.
They weren't "elementary students." They were a LARGE group (more than 42 individuals) of young men, likely around 20 years old (which is why I haven't moved this discussion to another thread yet, by the way)...
... who had gathered to mock a prophet of God, and their insults were not just mocking of Elisha, but of God Himself. God had every right, aside from simply being their Creator, to slay them.
The Hebrew word used here is a different word, "taph," and does in fact mean "children."
It is not "naar," which means "young men."
I read the article but remain unconvinced that my understanding of the Bible is wrong.
You will hardly convince me I am wrong by claiming my KJV Bible is poorly translated.
The Hebrew word for young men (naar) is not used in 2 Kings 2:23.
Stubbornly believing falsehoods is a bad idea. You should humble yourself and ask God to help you with it.
That's because you have an a priori commitment to the belief that the KJV is superior in some way.
And we're not just "claiming [your] KJV Bible is poorly translated," marke. We're DEMONSTRATING IT! Making it CLEARLY VISIBLE TO YOU that it is, in fact, poorly translated in places.
Yes, it is, marke!
Here, I've highlighted it for you:
Denying reality isn't healthy, marke!
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, it is.
H5288 נַעַר na`ar (nah'-ar) n-m.
1. (concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence.
2. (by implication) a servant.
3. (also, by interchange of sex) a girl (of similar range in age).
[from H5287]
KJV: babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).
Root(s): H5287
[?]
Right Divider
Body part
That's too bad, but you're not alone. Many people remain willfully ignorant even when shown the truth.
You are correct. The word translated "children" is "naar" and the word translated "little" is "qatan." Except for in the passage 2 Ki 2:23, the two Hebrew words are never found together like they are here, implying very small children. Because the passage uses the Hebrew word "qatan" in conjunction with "naar" I still believe the intended meaning is not just "young men" as the word "naar" is translated dozens of times in the OT, but "very young men," or "diminutive" as defined by Strong's Concordance.
I have been studying the history of the inspired word of God and the development of the KJB Bible for more than 40 years. I do not agree with critics that the word of God passed down to us over thousands of years has flaws. Critics of the KJV use flawed arguments, versions, and manuscripts to mislead others into believing the KJV Bible is flawed while their own favorite translations or manuscripts are not. I do not agree with Bible critics who do not believe as I do that Psalm 12:7 emphatically proves God will preserve His spotless word forever.
The word "qatan" here adds description to the word "naar", making it no longer "young men" as naar is usually translated, but "very young men." Here is some description given by Strong's:
Strong's Concordance
qatan: least
Original Word: קָטָן
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: qatan
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-tawn')
Definition: small, young, unimportant
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
least, lesser, little one, smallest, one, quantity, thing, younger,
Or qaton {kaw-tone'}; from quwt; abbreviated, i.e. Diminutive, literally (in quantity, size or number) or figuratively (in age or importance) -- least, less(-er), little (one), small(-est, one, quantity, thing), young(-er, -est).
see HEBREW quwt
Right Divider
Body part
So will you now retract your statement from post #50?
Note what "qatan" does NOT necessarily mean "very young"... it can just mean "young".
From the context, it does not seem to mean "very young children", as they don't usually exhibit this sort of "gang" behavior.
Either way, there is nothing in this passage that shows God to be unjust as some try to make it.
Yes. I already said you were right and I was wrong.
God did not say "young men," because He used the adjective "qatan" to describe the word "naar" that was commonly used for "young men."
If God had meant to describe the gang of miscreants as "Young men" He would have used only the one word 'naar." If we are to assume God meant the mob was "young men" then why did he use both words, which would have to be translated "young young men" which does not make sense if He only meant to say "young men."
Last edited:
Which means that the KJV is WRONG when it calls the "young men" "little children."
"Very young men" is still not "little children," no matter how much you try to rationalize it.
So what? No one cares.
It does.
The thread at the following link includes photos of the original handwritten notes in the margins of one of the most important Bibles in the history of the canon we call the Bible.
Even IT had errors:
Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today? Battle Royale XIV
Is the King James Bible the Only Inspired Scripture on Earth Today? Battle Royale XIV Will Kinney vs. Bob Enyart and Will Duffy Will Kinney will defend the proposition that the King James Bible is the only inspired Scripture on Earth today. Pastor Bob Enyart and Will Duffy of Denver Bible...
theologyonline.com
I strongly recommend you read the ENTIRE debate before replying here again.
No one cares.
I can tell you right now, it's not talking about the Bible.
"Very young men" are not "little children" as the KJV wrongly implies.
Supra.
Another person not paying attention.
Just because you don't get how Hebrew grammar works doesn't mean that "it doesn't make sense to say X."
The Hebrew word "qatan" is an adjective meaning "very small." What kind of young men is God talking about in the verse? Very small young men.