Happy to kill children

[OzmO]

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)

[loco]

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?

[Dos Equis]

Is this more from "evilbible.com"? 

[MCWAY]

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.

[liberalismo]

Why would there be a "blessing" on anyone that bashes children to pieces? 

[OzmO]

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?

[loco]

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?

[OzmO]

No, really, answer my questions.  You don't get it, do you?

No, really, answer my questions.

[Deicide]

Ah gonna dash me some kids against dem rocks, cause Ah knows god be lubbing it!

[loco]

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.

[MCWAY]

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!!!

[OzmO]

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. 

[The ChemistV2]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[liberalismo]

I see that my question has been ignored.

[OzmO]

I see that my question has been ignored.

Imagine that

[The ChemistV2]

Why would there be a "blessing" on anyone that bashes children to pieces? 

I guess if the Kid was really annoying.....

[loco]

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.

[MCWAY]

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.

[OzmO]

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. 

[loco]

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"?

[OzmO]

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.

[loco]

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.

 

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"?

[OzmO]

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.   

I'll ask again.

Can you please address why it says "blessed."

[loco]

Blah Blah Blah.

Not really.  In a pretty good mood today.   

I'll ask again.

Can you please address why it says "blessed."

Okay, but only because you said "please".     

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?