Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on March 13, 2009, 09:11:58 AM
-
Some wonderful nuggets from your creator:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock." (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9, Jerusalem Bible)
Isa 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
Hsa 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
"And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29)
-
Who is "Happy to kill children" here, OzmO? Do you even understand what you posted? Who is doing the killing here, and who is being killed?
Oh, and what is Hsa 13:16? Is that even in the Bible?
-
Is this more from "evilbible.com"?
-
Who is "Happy to kill children" here, OzmO? Do you even understand what you posted? Who is doing the killing here, and who is being killed?
Oh, and what is Hsa 13:16? Is that even in the Bible?
You mean that Ozmo is foolishly posting Bible verses, ranting and raving (with little-or-no use of the context involved, to find out what it actually means)?
Say it ain't so!!
It looks as if he forgot verse 8 of that same Psalm,
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
It sounds to me as if these are the lamenting Israelites, in Babylonian captivity, warning that their captors will one day get what's coming to them.
If my history is correct, the Babylonians got beat up by the Medes and Persians. So, there's a good chance that the "he", who's supposed to be happy about Babylon's downfall, would be Cyrus of Persia.
Isaiah 13 is much the same thing, referring to the fall of Babylon and how its conquerors will deal with them.
-
Why would there be a "blessing" on anyone that bashes children to pieces? ???
-
Who is "Happy to kill children" here, OzmO? Do you even understand what you posted? Who is doing the killing here, and who is being killed?
Oh, and what is Hsa 13:16? Is that even in the Bible?
Funny how you ignore the Psalms verses
You mean that Ozmo is foolishly posting Bible verses, ranting and raving (with little-or-no use of the context involved, to find out what it actually means)?
Say it ain't so!!
It looks as if he forgot verse 8 of that same Psalm,
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
It sounds to me as if these are the lamenting Israelites, in Babylonian captivity, warning that their captors will one day get what's coming to them.
If my history is correct, the Babylonians got beat up by the Medes and Persians. So, there's a good chance that the "he", who's supposed to be happy about Babylon's downfall, would be Cyrus of Persia.
Isaiah 13 is much the same thing, referring to the fall of Babylon and how its conquerors will deal with them.
A blessing to anyone who kills the babies?
-
Funny how you ignore the Psalms verses
A blessing to anyone who kills the babies?
No, really, answer my questions. You don't get it, do you?
-
No, really, answer my questions. You don't get it, do you?
No, really, answer my questions.
-
Ah gonna dash me some kids against dem rocks, cause Ah knows god be lubbing it!
-
Some wonderful nuggets from your creator:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock." (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9, Jerusalem Bible)
Psalm 137:8-9 (New International Version)
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
No matter what version you quote, here the Bible is simply saying that happy will be the Medes and Persians when they do to Babylon exactly what Babylon had done to Israel, dashing their little ones against stones being one of the many atrocities Babylon had committed against Israel.
Isa 13:16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
In Isaiah 13:16, which was written about 200 years before Babylon’s fall at the hand of the Medes and Persians, the destruction of Babylon was prophesied in almost the exact terms used in Psalm 137.
So the prophecy was fulfilled and the Medes and Persians were "happy" to do to Babylon exactly as Babylon had done to Israel. What's the big deal? What bothers you so much about this, OzmO?
The dashing of infants against the rocks was NOT done by Israel or by God. It was done by Babylon to Israel, then later it was done by the Medes and the Persians to Babylon.
Hsa 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
What is Hsa, OzmO? Where did you get this from?
"And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son...." (II Kings 6:28-29)
Nobody was happy about this atrocity, not God, not these women, not the king of Israel.
Why are you so dishonest, OzmO? You conveniently left out the verse that follows right after on purpose. The king, upon hearing this, was terrified and saddened, and he mourned.
II Kings 6:30
When the king heard the woman's words, he tore his robes. As he went along the wall, the people looked, and there, underneath, he had sackcloth on his body.
Babylon had the city under siege for a long time, not allowing anybody out and not allowing anybody or any food in. The city ran out of food and the people were starving. One of these women was desperate and used poor judgement resorting to the unthinkable, eating her own child. Obviously the other woman never intended to give up her child for food, but was able to trick this woman into doing so.
The Old Testament records many atrocities. This does not automatically mean that these atrocities were part of God's plan.
-
Psalm 137:8-9 (New International Version)
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
No matter what version you quote, here the Bible is simply saying that happy will be the Medes and Persians when they do to Babylon exactly what Babylon had done to Israel, dashing their little ones against stones being one of the many atrocities Babylon had committed against Israel.
In Isaiah 13:16, which was written about 200 years before Babylon’s fall at the hand of the Medes and Persians, the destruction of Babylon was prophesied in almost the exact terms used in Psalm 137.
So the prophecy was fulfilled and the Medes and Persians were "happy" to do to Babylon exactly as Babylon had done to Israel. What's the big deal? What bothers you so much about this, OzmO?
The dashing of infants against the rocks was NOT done by Israel or by God. It was done by Babylon to Israel, then later it was done by the Medes and the Persians to Babylon.
What is Hsa, OzmO? Where did you get this from?
"Hsa" is the abbreviation for the book of Hosea.
Nobody was happy about this atrocity, not God, not these women, not the king of Israel.
Why are you so dishonest, OzmO? You conveniently left out the verse that follows right after on purpose. The king, upon hearing this, was terrified and saddened, and he mourned.
II Kings 6:30
When the king heard the woman's words, he tore his robes. As he went along the wall, the people looked, and there, underneath, he had sackcloth on his body.
Babylon had the city under siege for a long time, not allowing anybody out and not allowing anybody or any food in. The city ran out of food and the people were starving. One of these women was desperate and used poor judgement resorting to the unthinkable, eating her own child. Obviously the other woman never intended to give up her child for food, but was able to trick this woman into doing so.
The Old Testament records many atrocities. This does not automatically mean that these atrocities were part of God's plan.
Ozmoooooooo, you got some ‘splainin’ to doooooooooo!!!
-
Psalm 137:8-9 (New International Version)
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
No matter what version you quote, here the Bible is simply saying that happy will be the Medes and Persians when they do to Babylon exactly what Babylon had done to Israel, dashing their little ones against stones being one of the many atrocities Babylon had committed against Israel.
In Isaiah 13:16, which was written about 200 years before Babylon’s fall at the hand of the Medes and Persians, the destruction of Babylon was prophesied in almost the exact terms used in Psalm 137.
So the prophecy was fulfilled and the Medes and Persians were "happy" to do to Babylon exactly as Babylon had done to Israel. What's the big deal? What bothers you so much about this, OzmO?
The dashing of infants against the rocks was NOT done by Israel or by God. It was done by Babylon to Israel, then later it was done by the Medes and the Persians to Babylon.
They say blessed, which is it blessed or happy? Why is it that other translations have it with blessed? It looks to me God is saying he's happy infants are being killed.
What is Hsa, OzmO? Where did you get this from?
Nobody was happy about this atrocity, not God, not these women, not the king of Israel.
Why are you so dishonest, OzmO? You conveniently left out the verse that follows right after on purpose. The king, upon hearing this, was terrified and saddened, and he mourned.
II Kings 6:30
When the king heard the woman's words, he tore his robes. As he went along the wall, the people looked, and there, underneath, he had sackcloth on his body.
Babylon had the city under siege for a long time, not allowing anybody out and not allowing anybody or any food in. The city ran out of food and the people were starving. One of these women was desperate and used poor judgement resorting to the unthinkable, eating her own child. Obviously the other woman never intended to give up her child for food, but was able to trick this woman into doing so.
The Old Testament records many atrocities. This does not automatically mean that these atrocities were part of God's plan.
Not being dishonest. Simply not researching the site's posted verses which i found this. I will from now on, It would be silly for me to think that you or anyone would not look into it thoroughly. so don't think it's me being dishonest.
-
I've always thought it was a mistake that the old testament and new testament was lumped together. The God of the old testament is made to be like a vengeful child. He's always threating to kill people and their children if you don't worship him properly. If there is a being that had the ability and intelligence to create the universe, I sincerely doubt he would have all these childish emotions that's displayed by the God of the Old testament. Sounds more like the people who wrote it projected their own humanistic emotions to a supreme being. By the way, having attended a christian college, I had to do extensive biblical study even though I was a business major. I've always preferred the new testament.
-
I've always thought it was a mistake that the old testament and new testament was lumped together. The God of the old testament is made to be like a vengeful child. He's always threating to kill people and their children if you don't worship him properly. If there is a being that had the ability and intelligence to create the universe, I sincerely doubt he would have all these childish emotions that's displayed by the God of the Old testament. Sounds more like the people who wrote it projected their own humanistic emotions to a supreme being. By the way, having attended a christian college, I had to do extensive biblical study even though I was a business major. I've always preferred the new testament.
Perhaps, this will put things into perspective:
From the TV special, “Who Is This Jesus? Is He Risen?”
Suppose you had a manuscript, a music manuscript. And it contained harmonies, obviously harmonies to something. And, they were brilliant and beautiful passages in there. But the whole thing didn’t make sense. And, then came the melodic line. And, now the whole thing makes sense. Jesus (Christ) is the melodic line to the whole of the Old Testament. – Father Francis Martin, John Paul II Institute.
When Jesus said, If you love me, keep my commandments", He is referring to the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) from the Old Testament.
One of the most popular verses in Scripture states that "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son......" That, is the same God of the OT (despite claims to the contrary by certain posters).
What I've found is that certain critics like to play the old "Catch-22", God-can-do-no-right routine. If God's people are being persecuted or tormented and He seemingly does nothing, they'll come out with, "Where is God, now"? Yet, when the Almighty DOES render judgment onto people, all of a sudden, it's "OOOHHH!! He's so cruel and mean and bad, etc."
Look at the Exodus. The Lord hit Egypt with nine plagues; still Pharoah was hard-headed.
- Water turns to blood....."LET MY PEOPLE GO!!"; Pharoah refuses.
- Boils......"LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!"; Pharoah refuses.
- Lice......"LET MY PEOPLE GO!!!" ;Pharoah refuses.
- Blighted grain and dead livestock……”LET MY PEOPLE GO”; Pharoah refuses.
- Darkness for 3 days……”LET MY PEOPLE GO”; Pharoah refuses.
On and on, nine plagues....."LET MY PEOPLE GO"; Pharoah refuses.
But, since some folks got to learn the hard way; therefore, here's come the BIG ONE, the deal-clincher, the provebial back-breaker.
DEATH OF THE FIRSTBORN OF EGYPT (From Pharoah's son on down)......guess what finally happens: Pharoah lets God's people GO!!
A "childish" God doesn't give someone nine chances to release His people, before bringing the hammer down. The question wasn't if Pharoah would do it but when he would do it and how painless (or PAINFUL) the process would be.
-
I see that my question has been ignored.
-
I see that my question has been ignored.
Imagine that
-
Why would there be a "blessing" on anyone that bashes children to pieces? ???
I guess if the Kid was really annoying.....
-
They say blessed, which is it blessed or happy? Why is it that other translations have it with blessed? It looks to me God is saying he's happy infants are being killed.
You tell me, OzmO. You are the one who wrote "Happy" on the title of this thread. You are the one who posted the multiple translations.
Do any of these translations say "God is saying he's happy infants are being killed"? No, that's what you want it to say. That is what you want to see.
-
I see that my question has been ignored.
Look who’s talking!!!
Loco already answered your question. It appears the Israelites want to see the Babylonians get what’s coming to them, based on their being put in Babylonian bondage.
-
You tell me, OzmO. You are the one who wrote "Happy" on the title of this thread. You are the one who posted the multiple translations.
Do any of these translations say "God is saying he's happy infants are being killed"? No, that's what you want it to say. That is what you want to see.
You're arguing schematics of the title?
Answer the questions or don't.
-
You're arguing schematics of the title?
Answer the questions or don't.
You are the one arguing. I've given you plenty of answers. You have yet to answer a single one of my questions. But that's typical OzmO tactics, avoid the question and accuse others of doing the same.
You copy and paste stuff out of context that you don't even understand and then try to change the subject when shown that you don't have a clue. If you had actually read the Bible as you claimed you had, and if you knew a little world history, you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this.
Do any of these translations say "God is saying he's happy infants are being killed"?
-
You are the one arguing. I've given you plenty of answers. You have yet to answer a single one of my questions. But that's typical OzmO tactics, avoid the question and accuse others of doing the same.
You copy and paste stuff out of context that you don't even understand and then try to change the subject when shown that you don't have a clue. If you had actually read the Bible as you claimed you had, and if you knew a little world history, you wouldn't embarrass yourself like this.
Do any of these translations say "God is saying he's happy infants are being killed"?
BLAH BLAH BLAH, if you are not going to answer why it says blessed then shut up.
I really don't know why, That's why I'm asking. You answered the first part, "happy", but the other part, "Blessed"
So if you aren't going to answer it, fine.
-
BLAH BLAH BLAH, if you are not going to answer why it says blessed then shut up.
I really don't know why, That's why I'm asking. You answered the first part, "happy", but the other part, "Blessed"
So if you aren't going to answer it, fine.
;D
Bitter and demanding today, aren't we? I have given you answers, but you refuse to answer my questions. That's not why you are asking. You have your mind already made up.
Will you please, with sugar on top, answer me and stop avoiding my questions?
Do any of these translations say "God is saying he's happy infants are being killed"?
-
;D
Bitter and demanding today, aren't we? I have given you answers, but you refuse to answer my questions. That's not why you are asking. You have your mind already made up.
Will you please, with sugar on top, answer me and stop avoiding my questions?
Do any of these translations say "God is saying he's happy infants are being killed"?
Blah Blah Blah.
Not really. In a pretty good mood today. :D
I'll ask again.
Can you please address why it says "blessed."
-
Blah Blah Blah.
Not really. In a pretty good mood today. :D
I'll ask again.
Can you please address why it says "blessed."
Okay, but only because you said "please". ;D
You are the one who posted the Bible texts out of context and made unfounded claims about it. Then when asked questions about your post, you refuse to answer and demand answers from those asking you the question? You must think yourself superior or something like that. Get off your high horse! ::)
Why don't you at least try and read the whole Psalm that you yourself posted? Here, I'll take you by the hand:
Psalm 137 (New International Version)
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill .
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
Take a look at verse 3 for example. To you, is this God saying that His "captors" and "tormentors", the Babylonians, demanded songs of joy from God? No. This is the Psalmist saying that his/her captors and tormentors, for their own amusement, demanded from him/her and the other Israelite musicians songs of joy.
In verses 8 and 9, the Psalmist is saying that happy will be the Medes and Persians when they do to Babylon exactly what Babylon had done to Israel, dashing their little ones against stones being one of the many atrocities Babylon had committed against Israel.
The Psalmist is saying that "he(Medes and Persians) who repays you(Babylon) for what you have done to us(Israel)" has the Psalmist's blessing. You would feel the same way and would say the same thing if the Babylonians had raped and killed your women in front of your eyes and had dashed your infants against rocks.
OzmO, your childish games are ridiculous. What are you going to say in your next thread, that God said that there is no God because the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible says in Psalm 14:1 that "there is no God"?
Psalm 14:1
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Is that what you'll say next? ::)
Or will you say next that God said that Jesus was demon-possessed because the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible says in John 8:48 that Jesus was "demon-possessed"?
John 8:48-49 (New International Version)
48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.
Is that what you'll say next, OzmO? ::)
-
Okay, but only because you said "please". ;D
You are the one who posted the Bible texts out of context and made unfounded claims about it. Then when asked questions about your post, you refuse to answer and demand answers from those asking you the question? You must think yourself superior or something like that. Get off your high horse! ::)
More drama from the queen. ;)
Why don't you at least try and read the whole Psalm that you yourself posted? Here, I'll take you by the hand:
A condescending arrogant drama queen at that.
Psalm 137 (New International Version)
1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
2 There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"
4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?
5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill .
6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
9 he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.
Take a look at verse 3 for example. To you, is this God saying that His "captors" and "tormentors", the Babylonians, demanded songs of joy from God? No. This is the Psalmist saying that his/her captors and tormentors, for their own amusement, demanded from him/her and the other Israelite musicians songs of joy.
In verses 8 and 9, the Psalmist is saying that happy will be the Medes and Persians when they do to Babylon exactly what Babylon had done to Israel, dashing their little ones against stones being one of the many atrocities Babylon had committed against Israel.
The Psalmist is saying that "he(Medes and Persians) who repays you(Babylon) for what you have done to us(Israel)" has the Psalmist's blessing.
Sorry I don't see it. Isn't Psalms supposed to be the word of God? Why is happy replaced by Blessing ion other translations? Answer the question. Blessed are those who bash little ones against stones?
Seems pretty straight forward to me unless you are trying to make it something it isn't.
You would feel the same way and would say the same thing if the Babylonians had raped and killed your women in front of your eyes and had dashed your infants against rocks.
I would say that they are blessed?
I would say that someone who dashed the INNOCENT CHILDREN of my enemies against rocks are blessed?
Are you fucking loco? Oh yeah you are. ;)
You seem to presume to know me well enough predict what I'd do, even to the point of posting those other verses. Sorry I'm not like you. Killing innocent children is WRONG and it's certainly not something to be blessed no matter what the reason, revenge, anger for what was done to my family etc...
Obviously you seem to have no issue because in you lies the seed of that evil act and you think it must lies in me.
Sorry loco you are wrong.
I'm not like you , I see NO justification to kill innocent people much the innocent children of the murderers of my children.
Now the guilty ones.........
-
More drama from the queen. ;)
A condescending arrogant drama queen at that.
Sorry I don't see it. Isn't Psalms supposed to be the word of God? Why is happy replaced by Blessing ion other translations? Answer the question. Blessed are those who bash little ones against stones?
Seems pretty straight forward to me unless you are trying to make it something it isn't.
I would say that they are blessed?
I would say that someone who dashed the INNOCENT CHILDREN of my enemies against rocks are blessed?
Are you fucking loco? Oh yeah you are. ;)
You seem to presume to know me well enough predict what I'd do, even to the point of posting those other verses. Sorry I'm not like you. Killing innocent children is WRONG and it's certainly not something to be blessed no matter what the reason, revenge, anger for what was done to my family etc...
Obviously you seem to have no issue because in you lies the seed of that evil act and you think it must lies in me.
Sorry loco you are wrong.
I'm not like you , I see NO justification to kill innocent people much the innocent children of the murderers of my children.
Now the guilty ones.........
Condescending, arrogant drama queen, my opinion of you exactly, OzmO. How did you know? Though I must admit I'd never guessed you'd be so hard on yourself. ;D
I told you, your mind is already made up. You see only what you have already made up your mind to see. It makes you feel better about yourself to launch personal attacks and insults on Jews and Christians just for believing the OT is the Word of God. It's okay, we are used to it, and it hasn't stopped us for thousands of years.
Nothing wrong with questioning the Bible, but you have gone beyond that. You are being dishonest and indecent, as usual.
-
Condescending, arrogant drama queen, my opinion of you exactly, OzmO. How did you know? Though I must admit I'd never guessed you'd be so hard on yourself. ;D
Ha ha, now you've resorted to: I know you are but what am i?
I don't care what your opinion is of me. Doesn't change anything. I told you about yourself a long time ago.
I told you, your mind is already made up. You see only what you have already made up your mind to see.
It makes you feel better about yourself to launch personal attacks and insults on Jews and Christians just for believing the OT is the Word of God. It's okay, we are used to it, and it hasn't stopped us for thousands of years.
Nothing wrong with questioning the Bible, but you have gone beyond that. You are being dishonest and indecent, as usual.
I see you not only can't answer the question, you also can't back up your assertion. So now you launch into your standard, predictable drama queen dribble.
I'll will ask again for liberalismo too.
I'll even say please.
Please,
Isn't Psalms supposed to be the word of God? Why is happy replaced by Blessing in other translations? Answer the question. Blessed are those who bash little ones against stones?
Also, please don't bother answering if you can't directly answer my question. I already know what you think of me, and you know what i think of you. So going on and on about it accomplishes nothing. Also no need for your silly defecting about my sloppiness. If you are going to blather on about the title or some verse that isn't in the bible or how i didn't make sure to read the the surrounding verses save it. I already told you i overlooked it. I don't have a problem admitting a mistake or a misinterpretation. Yes, my mind is made up, the bible for the most part is a book of stories written by primitive men believed to be true by modern day primitive men, some of which have admitted they would kill a child on God's orders. That doesn't mean, I couldn't change my mind based on something someone shows me about the bible. I didn't always think this. If you have the courage to continue the dialog i will refrain from attacking as you do the same.
Frankly, I hope it isn't what it sounds as it is. But your explanation falls very short at the moment.
-
If you are going to blather on about the title or some verse that isn't in the bible or how i didn't make sure to read the the surrounding verses save it. I already told you i overlooked it. I don't have a problem admitting a mistake or a misinterpretation. Yes, my mind is made up
I rest my case! Whatever you do for a living, don't give that up for theology, world history or linguistics. This is very simple and I've answered your question already, but you continue to play dumb on purpose. Using the words "happy" or "blessed", "dichoso" or "bendecido" does not change the meaning of the text or the message of this Psalm, in any language.
I do not condone or justify the killing of infants, and you know that, though you are dishonest about it. However, like you, I could just sit here and claim that I would not give my blessing to the Persians, as the Psalmist did, for doing to the Babylonians what they did to me, had the Babylonians raped and killed my women and dashed my infants against the rocks. But I am not a self righteous hypocrite and I am not going to judge anyone who had just experienced something like that.
If someone like Jesus, MLK or Gandhi made a bold claim as yours, I'd believe him. But you are no where near the same level of someone like them, as you've clearly shown in your posts, and neither am I.
It's beginning to show more and more by your posts that when you babble "The Bible 100% the WOG" you don't even have a clue what that means to you or what it means to Christians. I believe that a small part of the Bible was written by the finger of God. Another part was dictated by God to Moses and to some of the prophets, but written by these men. The rest was "inspired" by God while written by men. I believe that God allowed these men to show their emotions(sorrow, joy, anger,etc.) in what God inspired them to write. The book of Psalms, for example, is a collection of songs and poems of victory, of defeat, of joy and of sorrow. The book of Lamentations...well, the title alone should give you a clue. This is what I believe, and what many Christians believe too.
It is not like what the Muslims believe about the Koran, that the entire thing was dictated by God and written by one man, Mohamed, in a short period of time.
What you are doing here is no different than you saying that God said that there is no God because the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible says in Psalm 14:1 that "there is no God."
Psalm 14:1
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
It is no different than you saying that God said that Jesus was demon-possessed because the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible says in John 8:48 that Jesus was "demon-possessed."
John 8:48-49 (New International Version)
48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.
-
Ozmo,
I'm curious to know how you feel about Jesus' view on the forthcomming battle of Armageddon?
GC/DEA_Agent
-
I rest my case! Whatever you do for a living, don't give that up for theology, world history or linguistics. This is very simple and I've answered your question already, but you continue to play dumb on purpose. Using the words "happy" or "blessed", "dichoso" or "bendecido" does not change the meaning of the text or the message of this Psalm, in any language.
Are you a linguist? Are you an historian? Are you a paid theologian?
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock." (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9, Jerusalem Bible)
How blessed will be the one...... How can anyone be blessed for killing an innocent child?
Happy the man who shall seize......How can anyone in their right mind be happy about killing an innocent child?
If it is as what i think you are saying then it should read:
We are happy that they have bashed the head....
This is supposed to be God's word is it not? Why would God say someone is blessed for killing a child?
I do not condone or justify the killing of infants, and you know that, though you are dishonest about it. However, like you, I could just sit here and claim that I would not give my blessing to the Persians, as the Psalmist did, for doing to the Babylonians what they did to me, had the Babylonians raped and killed my women and dashed my infants against the rocks. But I am not a self righteous hypocrite and I am not going to judge anyone who had just experienced something like that.
I'm not claiming nothing, I'm not being self righteous and I'm not judging. I don't see their song as something to judge even though it is wrong, i understand their anger even though I have never lived it. I may in anger desire the death of the children of the murderer of my family, but it still would be wrong. And Certainly wrong to be the "word of God". And certainly an evil act to commit with no justification. Acting with revenge on an innocent child is of man not god.
If someone like Jesus, MLK or Gandhi made a bold claim as yours, I'd believe him. But you are no where near the same level of someone like them, as you've clearly shown in your posts, and neither am I.
Again. You and I are very different. I will not kill an innocent child nor rejoice in it. Your attempts to make me like you fall short. You see wisdom and justification in the killing of children. I see none. You make excuses for it in the times it happened int he OT. I see none. You must have a low opinion of others and your self. Most of my friends as I know them wouldn't condone it either. Yes, they would be angry and want vengeance on the GUILTY. NOT the children. Only a nut job would do that and end up in prison to boot, if not also the chair.
It's beginning to show more and more by your posts that when you babble "The Bible 100% the WOG" you don't even have a clue what that means to you or what it means to Christians. I believe that a small part of the Bible was written by the finger of God. Another part was dictated by God to Moses and to some of the prophets, but written by these men. The rest was "inspired" by God while written by men. I believe that God allowed these men to show their emotions(sorrow, joy, anger,etc.) in what God inspired them to write. The book of Psalms, for example, is a collection of songs and poems of victory, of defeat, of joy and of sorrow. The book of Lamentations...well, the title alone should give you a clue. This is what I believe, and what many Christians believe too.
Sounds like an interesting topic for another thread.
What you are doing here is no different than you saying that God said that there is no God because the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible says in Psalm 14:1 that "there is no God."
Psalm 14:1
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
It is no different than you saying that God said that Jesus was demon-possessed because the Bible is the Word of God and the Bible says in John 8:48 that Jesus was "demon-possessed."
John 8:48-49 (New International Version)
48The Jews answered him, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"
49"I am not possessed by a demon," said Jesus, "but I honor my Father and you dishonor me.
I see what you are saying loco then by what you also said, the Bible is NOT the word of God. It only contains some of it.
Kind of what I've been saying. ;)
-
Are you a linguist? Are you an historian? Are you a paid theologian?
No, and that's exactly my point. This is so simple, but you continue to play dumb on purpose.
I am fluent in more than one language, and I know that when translating from one language to another, many times a single word in the source language can be translated into any one of multiple words in the target language. The translator could use any one of those multiple words that he/she chooses without changing the meaning of the text being translated. There are many other languages in this world besides English.
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)
"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock." (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"Happy the man who shall seize and smash your little ones against the rock!" (Psalms 137:9, New American Bible)
"a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!" (Psalms 137:9, Jerusalem Bible)
How blessed will be the one...... How can anyone be blessed for killing an innocent child?
Happy the man who shall seize......How can anyone in their right mind be happy about killing an innocent child?
If it is as what i think you are saying then it should read:
We are happy that they have bashed the head....
As usual, OzmO arguing because things aren't the way he wants them to be, or because things were not done the way that he would have done it himself.
Again. You and I are very different. I will not kill an innocent child nor rejoice in it. Your attempts to make me like you fall short.
What are you talking about? The Psalmist did not kill an innocent child, and I never said that you would. He/she did not rejoice in killing any child, and I never said that you would. The Babylonians killed Israelites, then the Persians killed Babylonians. The Psalmist just expressed an emotion, and you would too were you in his/her shoes. You just confirmed that you would.
I may in anger desire the death of the children of the murderer of my family, but it still would be wrong
You see wisdom and justification in the killing of children. I see none. You make excuses for it in the times it happened int he OT. I see none. You must have a low opinion of others and your self. Most of my friends as I know them wouldn't condone it either.
Yes, they would be angry and want vengeance on the GUILTY. NOT the children. Only a nut job would do that and end up in prison to boot, if not also the chair.
When Britain partitioned India to form Pakistan in 1947, many once peaceful Hindus and Muslims started killing each other. Many pacifist, Hindu fathers witnessed their children murdered by Muslim mobs, and some of those Hindu pacifist fathers in an act of rage killed Muslim infants in retaliation. They were later horrified at their own actions and repented. They never thought that they would ever kill even a fly, much less an infant. What they did was wrong, and they knew it, and they regretted it.
I am not going to judge them. I could sit here and claim that I would never even think about doing what they did if I were in their shoes, but I am not a self righteous hypocrite.
By the way, we are talking about modern time, educated, "pacifist" Indians here. What was that you've been saying all this time about primitive people, and modern people being better?
Sounds like an interesting topic for another thread.
Yeah, how can you say that right after saying this?
This is supposed to be God's word is it not? Why would God say someone is blessed for killing a child?
I see what you are saying loco then by what you also said, the Bible is NOT the word of God. It only contains some of it.
Kind of what I've been saying. ;)
No, you do not see what I'm saying because if that's what you see, then you are blind. That is not what I am saying, and you know it. Your dishonesty has no end.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God because it is inspired by God Himself.
-
No, and that's exactly my point. This is so simple, but you continue to play dumb on purpose.
I am fluent in more than one language, and I know that when translating from one language to another, many times a single word in the source language can be translated into any one of multiple words in the target language. The translator could use any one of those multiple words that he/she chooses without changing the meaning of the text being translated. There are many other languages in this world besides English.
That's exactly the point I made, when we were discussing Elisha (at least, with the single word from the source language, getting translated into one of multiple words in the target language). The Hebrew root words na'ar and qatan can be translated as "little children". But, they also can be translated as young men. The latter was used to describe, for example, Joseph in Genesis 37 (who was 17 years old in that passage).
As I stated in that discussion, the surrounding context of the passage clearly indicates that the mob of folks who went after Elisha (42 of whom got jacked up by two bears) weren't a bunch of gummy-goat-eating rugrats, fresh out of diapers (as the author of the article that Ozmo posted was attempting to imply). They were guys (who know about Elisha and his mentor) had evil and nasty intentions for him.
I don't know about you. But, if a bunch of guys are heading my way, with intentions to beat me up (or worse), two she-bears ain't too bad to have as backup.
The translation thing appears to apply here as much as it does in 2 Kings 2.
As usual, OzmO arguing because things aren't the way he wants them to be, or because things were not done the way that he would have done it himself.
Good point.
What are you talking about? The Psalmist did not kill an innocent child, and I never said that you would. He/she did not rejoice in killing any child, and I never said that you would. The Babylonians killed Israelites, then the Persians killed Babylonians. The Psalmist just expressed an emotion, and you would too were you in his/her shoes. You just confirmed that you would.
When Britain partitioned India to form Pakistan in 1947, many once peaceful Hindus and Muslims started killing each other. Many pacifist, Hindu fathers witnessed their children murdered by Muslim mobs, and some of those Hindu pacifist fathers in an act of rage killed Muslim infants in retaliation. They were later horrified at their own actions and repented. They never thought that they would ever kill even a fly, much less an infant. What they did was wrong, and they knew it, and they regretted it.
I am not going to judge them. I could sit here and claim that I would never even think about doing what they did if I were in their shoes, but I am not a self righteous hypocrite.
By the way, we are talking about modern time, educated, "pacifist" Indians here. What was that you've been saying all this time about primitive people, and modern people being better?
;D
-
No, and that's exactly my point. This is so simple, but you continue to play dumb on purpose.
I am fluent in more than one language, and I know that when translating from one language to another, many times a single word in the source language can be translated into any one of multiple words in the target language. The translator could use any one of those multiple words that he/she chooses without changing the meaning of the text being translated. There are many other languages in this world besides English.
As usual, OzmO arguing because things aren't the way he wants them to be, or because things were not done the way that he would have done it himself.
What are you talking about? The Psalmist did not kill an innocent child, and I never said that you would. He/she did not rejoice in killing any child, and I never said that you would. The Babylonians killed Israelites, then the Persians killed Babylonians. The Psalmist just expressed an emotion, and you would too were you in his/her shoes. You just confirmed that you would.
How did i confirm i would express the emotion? I'd be angry. I wouldn't bless the person who killed an innocent child.
And who's the Psalmist? god or man?
When Britain partitioned India to form Pakistan in 1947, many once peaceful Hindus and Muslims started killing each other. Many pacifist, Hindu fathers witnessed their children murdered by Muslim mobs, and some of those Hindu pacifist fathers in an act of rage killed Muslim infants in retaliation. They were later horrified at their own actions and repented. They never thought that they would ever kill even a fly, much less an infant. What they did was wrong, and they knew it, and they regretted it.
Exactly, killing innocent children is wrong.
I am not going to judge them. I could sit here and claim that I would never even think about doing what they did if I were in their shoes, but I am not a self righteous hypocrite.
I not claiming i wouldn't think that in anger. I'm only telling you it's wrong. And i wouldn't act on it. I'd surely try to act on killing the person who killed my family. But I wouldn't kill their children. I wouldn't say someone is blessed for killing innocent children,
By the way, we are talking about modern time, educated, "pacifist" Indians here. What was that you've been saying all this time about primitive people, and modern people being better?
They weren't pacifist that day.
Yeah, how can you say that right after saying this?
No, you do not see what I'm saying because if that's what you see, then you are blind. That is not what I am saying, and you know it. Your dishonesty has no end.
I believe that the Bible is the word of God because it is inspired by God Himself.
Is the Bible the infallible WOG or not? Or is the infallible WOG minus the Psalms? Or is the infallible WOG minus certain other chapters? Or verses etc...?
which is it?
PS: I see you decided not to take my offer.
-
They weren't pacifist that day.
Niether is Jesus today. ;) ???
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Niether is Jesus today. ;) ???
GC/DEA_AGENT
Do you believe the end is near?
-
????????? why is this thread still alive and well???????????
in a word...... bizzare
-
Do you believe the end is near?
Without a doubt, my friend!. Go to 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and tell me if you see those things going on now in the world.
So, what is your thoughts on Jesus not being a pacifist?.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
????????? why is this thread still alive and well???????????
in a word...... bizzare
Why?
-
Without a doubt, my friend!. Go to 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and tell me if you see those things going on now in the world.
So, what is your thoughts on Jesus not being a pacifist?.
GC/DEA_AGENT
Depends on what you define being a pacifists as. I've come to realize that definition can mean many things to different people. IMO he wasn't.
-
Depends on what you define being a pacifists as. I've come to realize that definition can mean many things to different people. IMO he wasn't.
I gotcha!. Ozmo, my thinking on it was that if Jesus taught that he would be back to fight and lead in the battle of Armageddon, then by definition, he is indeed not a pacifist.
I'm interested in what your belief is of what a pacifist is. Also, in that battle, according to Jesus, there will be an enormous amount of people who will loose their life, including infants, children, and women. What's your take on that?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I gotcha!. Ozmo, my thinking on it was that if Jesus taught that he would be back to fight and lead in the battle of Armageddon, then by definition, he is indeed not a pacifist.
I'm interested in what your belief is of what a pacifist is. Also, in that battle, according to Jesus, there will be an enormous amount of people who will loose their life, including infants, children, and women. What's your take on that?
GC/DEA_AGENT
All wars result in the deaths of innocents.
I believe a pacifist is what ever the definition is.
I don't know where pacifist got into this discussion. You are not a pacifist simply because you refuse to kill children. I refuse to kill needlessly children if i have other options. I have no problem defending myself against aggressors. But I'm not going to purposely target and kill their children after their parents are already dead. That would be cold blooded murder, evil and wrong.
-
Without a doubt, my friend!. Go to 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and tell me if you see those things going on now in the world.
That only describes basic human nature. The not so good part.
-
How did i confirm i would express the emotion? I'd be angry. I wouldn't bless the person who killed an innocent child.
I quoted you right after my statement.
And who's the Psalmist? god or man?
The Psalmist is a human being.
Exactly, killing innocent children is wrong.
Who is saying it isn't?
I not claiming i wouldn't think that in anger. I'm only telling you it's wrong. And i wouldn't act on it. I'd surely try to act on killing the person who killed my family. But I wouldn't kill their children. I wouldn't say someone is blessed for killing innocent children,
They weren't pacifist that day.
You are talking about the same Indians who gained their independence through peaceful means from the same British empire that you gained your independence from through war and violence. And you still dare say that you are better than these Indians, and that you would never do as they did if you were put in their situation? ::)
You did not answer my question as usual. What was that you've been saying all this time about primitive people, and modern people being better?
Is the Bible the infallible WOG or not? Or is the infallible WOG minus the Psalms? Or is the infallible WOG minus certain other chapters? Or verses etc...?
which is it?
The Bible is the Word of God.
PS: I see you decided not to take my offer.
OzmO, I already told you: I am flattered, but I don't swing that way!
-
I quoted you right after my statement.
And then you attached your own assumptions to it.
The Psalmist is a human being.
So then it is not the Word of God, but instead the word of man.
You are talking about the same Indians who gained their independence through peaceful means from the same British empire that you gained your independence from through war and violence. And you still dare say that you are better than these Indians, and that you would never do as they did if you were put in their situation?
You did not answer my question as usual. What was that you've been saying all this time about primitive people, and modern people being better?
At the very least, modern society doesn't condone the killing of innocent children, where as, the thing you worship did just that with the jews. So yes, human emotions may or may not have evolved enough to prevent acts of vengeance that include killing innocent children that were not responsible for said transgressions, however, our society isn't built on the idea that killing innocent children, because they would have starved or they would have surely grown up to follow in the foot steps of their parents is justified as it is in the bible. We are no longer as primitive as to see righteousness in that act of cold blooded murder. At least some of us.
The Bible is the Word of God.
Wow the Bible is the word of God when it's convenient I see.
OzmO, I already told you: I am flattered, but I don't swing that way!
::)
-
And then you attached your own assumptions to it.
No, I did not. I quoted you and left it at that.
So then it is not the Word of God, but instead the word of man.
Wrong! It is the Word of God!
At the very least, modern society doesn't condone the killing of innocent children, where as, the thing you worship did just that with the jews.
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does God or the Jews kill innocent children? In those verses you posted, the Babylonians killed Israel's infants, then the Persians killed Babylon's infants.
So yes, human emotions may or may not have evolved enough to prevent acts of vengeance that include killing innocent children that were not responsible for said transgressions, however, our society isn't built on the idea that killing innocent children, because they would have starved or they would have surely grown up to follow in the foot steps of their parents is justified as it is in the bible. We are no longer as primitive as to see righteousness in that act of cold blooded murder. At least some of us.
What are you babbling about now? What does any of this have to do with the verses that you posted in this thread? Nothing. But I see you finally admit that you are no better than these modern time Indians.
Wow the Bible is the word of God when it's convenient I see. ::)
To you, yes. You are the one who has been insisting all along that only parts of the Bible are the Word of God and that other parts are not. That's what I call convenient.
I and other Christians on the board, on the other hand, have maintained all along that all of the Bible is the Word of God, written by God in parts, written by men while dictated by God in other parts, and the rest written by men while inspired by God.
-
No, I did not. I quoted you and left it at that.
Wrong! It is the Word of God!
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does God or the Jews kill innocent children? In those verses you posted, the Babylonians killed Israel's infants, then the Persians killed Babylon's infants.
Oh wow, Captain Obvious, you know what i was talking about. ::)
Aside from that modern society doesn't "bless" the bashing of innocent children and would denounce anyone being happy about it.
What are you babbling about now? What does any of this have to do with the verses that you posted in this thread? Nothing. But I see you finally admit that you are no better than these modern time Indians.
Where did i say i would kill the innocent children of my aggressors?
Thought so.
If you are having problem with my babbling, go back to your english class and study some more.
To you, yes. You are the one who has been insisting all along that only parts of the Bible are the Word of God and that other parts are not. That's what I call convenient.
I and other Christians on the board, on the other hand, have maintained all along that all of the Bible is the Word of God, written by God in parts, written by men while dictated by God in other parts, and the rest written by men while inspired by God.
That's what you call convenient? ::)
You more a cultist than a Christian.
-
Oh wow, Captain Obvious, you know what i was talking about. ::)
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does God or the Jews kill innocent children? In those verses you posted, the Babylonians killed Israel's infants, then the Persians killed Babylon's infants.
Aside from that modern society doesn't "bless" the bashing of innocent children and would denounce anyone being happy about it.
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does it say that their "society" blessed the bashing of innocent children?
Where did i say i would kill the innocent children of my aggressors?
Thought so.
Oh, so I see you still maintain that you are better than these Indians who were put in that horrible situation, same Indians who gained their independence through peaceful means from the same British empire that you gained your independence from through war and violence. ::)
If you are having problem with my babbling, go back to your english class and study some more.
Oh, I'm so offended by your racist, condescending rhetoric! ::)
Answer the question. How does any of what you posted above have to do with the verses that you posted in this thread?
That's what you call convenient? ::)
You more a cultist than a Christian.
More insults and name calling! ::)
Please define cultist! Please define Christian!
-
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does God or the Jews kill innocent children? In those verses you posted, the Babylonians killed Israel's infants, then the Persians killed Babylon's infants.
More stating the obvious. However, a Psalm whether it be, inspired by god or is the word of God, (depending on what's convenient at the time) in the Bible blesses the person committing the act.
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does it say that their "society" blessed the bashing of innocent children?
see above.
Oh, so I see you still maintain that you are better than these Indians who were put in that horrible situation, same Indians who gained their independence through peaceful means from the same British empire that you gained your independence from through war and violence. ::)
I'm not claiming to be better or worse. You are. I'm only saying killing innocent children is wrong and never justified. It doesn't matter who does the killing or why they do it.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Maybe be because the God you worship has done it and you feel forced to accept it?
You can find a thousand other instances where men of great wisdom and moral standards killed children in vengeance. It wouldn't change the fact that killing innocent children is wrong and far from a Godly thing to do.
Oh, I'm so offended by your racist, condescending rhetoric! ::)
You are the one who is having problems understanding what i wrote. ::)
Answer the question. How does any of what you posted above have to do with the verses that you posted in this thread?
I've been responding to the things you said. So I'll ask he same thing: How does any of what you posted above have to do with the verses that you posted in this thread?
More insults and name calling! ::)
Please define cultist! Please define Christian!
::)
-
More stating the obvious. However, a Psalm whether it be, inspired by god or is the word of God, (depending on what's convenient at the time) in the Bible blesses the person committing the act.see above.
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does it say that their "society" blessed the bashing of innocent children?
I'm not claiming to be better or worse. You are. I'm only saying killing innocent children is wrong and never justified. It doesn't matter who does the killing or why they do it.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Maybe be because the God you worship has done it and you feel forced to accept it?
You can find a thousand other instances where men of great wisdom and moral standards killed children in vengeance. It wouldn't change the fact that killing innocent children is wrong and far from a Godly thing to do.
No, you said that you would never feel or say what the Psalmist felt and said. The Psalmist did not kill anybody.
You said that you would never even think of doing what these Indians did if you were put in their horrible situation.
You think you are "modern" and better.
You are the one who is having problems understanding what i wrote. ::)
I've been responding to the things you said. So I'll ask he same thing: How does any of what you posted above have to do with the verses that you posted in this thread?
::)
Way to deflect the question.
In the Bible verses you posted in this thread, where does God or the Jews kill innocent children? In those verses you posted, the Babylonians killed Israel's infants, then the Persians killed Babylon's infants.