Allow me to put a handle on matefkr's argument. He is claiming that if a god is omniscient, then we must be apart of the god's knowledge. It is then the case that we contribute to being part of this god.

It would seem to be faulty reasoning, and it is. After all, it isn't the case that knowing Lady Gaga makes her apart of yourself.

but we technically don't 'know' anything about lady gaga, so we can't say for sure. Maybe if we did "completely know" lady gaga, like god does us, then she might be a part of ourselves.

But that's purely speculation. It doesn't mean anything. We don't know if we are a part of God. We don't know if we aren't a part of God. We can't know if we're either.

Without a concrete definition for "knowing completely", I am tempted to reject it for being far too vague to hold any weight. I would also add that it's wise to refrain from objecting to a particular stance until it has been laid out in concrete terms, to avoid unfalsifiability.

To whom are you speaking, and about what?

Might i say that this verse is very mistranslated. The only time i have ever read it, it did not talk about little children, but about young adult men or teenagers, which means they had a much greater sense of right and wrong. This is coming from several recent translations that are regarded as closest to the original.

The KJV says little children, so you would need to provide evidence of your claim.

--

I have taken the liberty of looking into your claim. The untranslated term is unearim qotanim. Na'ar, the Hebrew root for unearim, means boy, youth, or young man -- although from this sort of range I would equate it solely to the word lad. Qaton, the root for qotanim means to be small or insignificant. Therefore, unearim qotanim could be accurately translated as small lad (I would settle for children, personally).

Later in the chapter it is revealed that there are at least forty-two children. This poses a bit of a problem. What would forty-two children possibly be doing out on their own without guidance? Or maybe there was, but it wasn't mentioned. What do that many children even do together? So in the interest of debate, grant that it actually meant very young men (a stretch, I would think), but forty-two teenagers is not as far-fetched as forty-two small children.

Some places I've read even conjecture so far to label them soldiers or physically threatening in some way. This begs the question how two bears managed to take out forty-two of what should have been capable men. It would certainly be puzzling if they could not, lending support to a belief they were unarmed and likely very young. Even if explained, it does not vindicate the translator of confirmation bias (because Elisha would never do such a terrible thing).

I dare say it has not been mistranslated, considering the great deal of other illogical phenomenon occurring in the old testament (Noah's Ark, for instance).

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 19 2012, 7:52 am by Sacrieur.