What I found was nothing like what is claimed here. This is like some tabloid story twisting the words and adding false ones to sell more pieces of paper.

H Bekker,

I too looked up the passages and I found the stories to be almost entirely right on. I even tried several different Bible versions.

It’s too bad you don’t provide at least a few examples. I’d be really interested to see where you think the passages have been “twisted”. As far as I can see, although it’s a literalist interpretation, it’s spot on. After all, the author does claim to be criticizing the literalist perspective.

I vaguely recalled these passages so I had to go and look them up again. What I found was nothing like what is claimed here. This is like some tabloid story twisting the words and adding false ones to sell more pieces of paper. Some questions might still be raised however if you where to read the King James version of this and it would take a more knowledgeable person than I to answer them. (I know of such a person…)

I know the newer translations to be tampered with to no end. While god forbids it and will surely punish those who did the bible also states that it will however happen. Gospel book stores are filled with self help books and new versions of the bible that chops and changes at their whim. Many could still do some good but remain severely blunted instruments. Some are subtly changed just enough to have catastrophic effects in the bigger picture. Others have nothing to do with the god it claims to speak of. Some are translated from scriptures that where found in the equivalent of a rubbish bin on an archaeological dig. Scriptures that don’t stand up to those found earlier and yet now despite its questionable origins are used for these new translations. So do be careful what book you use to bash us with.

If any of you are serious about finding answers to the questions you have or would like to actually know what you are talking about rather than quoting a bunch of fools and taking pot shots at people. I refer you to Professor Walter Veith. This is a man that really could be called a Christian and I would love to see anyone try and truthfully criticize a proper man of worth. I have seen nothing that truthfully shoots him down so far. He is a scientist he speaks your language. He does not resort to the dribble that others do and neither does he dodge the big questions. He has facts, raw and hard. He is an academic and the type all of you deserved when you first asked your questions.

Even if you are tired of religion which would be understandable, I recommend you go and see what this man has to say about the things we eat. It has nothing to do with religion and will still knock your socks off.

http://amazingdiscoveries.org/speakers-WalterVeith1.html

Evil is any lack of conformity, in heart or thought or act, to God’s law.

So killing women, as long as they aren’t virgins, AND their unborn child, isn’t evil. That part I don’t need, but this getting to keep all the virgin girls I will make sure to mark so that the next time I’m near a middle school…

1) There’s nothing in the gospel of Christ that demands or compels me to accept these stories literally or at all, for that matter, even as an illustration of God’s character.

2)I read some of these stories, those relating to David in particular, as illustrations of our free will and the consequences of our actions, rather than some teaching on God.

3) To enter into a critique of God’s actions, we would need to define justice and morality and whether a higher being should be held to man’s standard of morality.

4) I find it curious that atheism would object to such definitive acts of God – if you’re going to take them as such – such as portrayed in Illustrated Stories. I don’t think Nietzche would condone such whining. Isn’t the meekness of Christ a better target?

I’d send him that definition, but he wouldn’t have any use for Strong’s, a Christian resource. As I said, I’m sure he’s relying on rabbinic opinion of centuries past. I did ask him why all of the English translations use “children”; he didn’t answer me.

Polly,

My nephew has a rather gentle disposition, and the Hasidic group to which he belongs is on the left-most fringe of that world; a lot of the other groups have issues with them. In terms of attitudes toward the Palestinians and the Israeli state, there’s a wide range of opinions. There are ultra-Orthodox Jews who are in the Israeli government or serve in the Knesset (Parliament). There are those who side with the Arabs in general because they despise the secular government and would like to see it brought down. There are secular and Modern Orthodox Jews both here and in Israel who would like to see the Palestinians evicted; they feel it’s the responsibility of the other Arab nations to take them in.

I didn’t think he’d display a genocidal attitude; unfortunately, if you wanted to talk to someone who did, I’m ashamed to say I think you’d be able to find a few. You’d certainly find many who would be in favor of expulsion.

I asked my nephew. About Elisha and the bear – the story in 2 Kings, he said the word used is na’ar, which can be used to refer to older people, and never refers to children.

That’s interesting, cipher. I took a look in the book to see if this is addressed and here’s what the author has to say:

For those who prefer a more technical definition, Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary states that na`ar means, “(concretely) a boy (as active), from the age of infancy to adolescence; by implication, a servant; also (by interch. of sex), a girl (of similar latitude in age):–babe, boy, child, damsel (from the margin), lad, servant, young (man).”, and qatan means, “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).” It is easy to see, then, why the KJV Bible (the most respected among fundamentalists) correctly calls the victims “little children”, and why no Bible is willing to translate the passage as referring to adults.

The point he makes is that, we may not actually KNOW what age the “children” were, but the author has certainly not overstepped the bounds of translation or interpretation with the illustrations as they are. Seemed to me, when reading the book, every picture was pretty well justified.

I prefer whitewashing to blatant acceptance of horrific mauling of children. If religion is to be, let it at least be tamed.

Re Pal’s: That sounds about right. I’d've been very surprised if he’d gone all Joshua-Son-of-Nun on you.