Whatwhatwhat?!? Humans are revived after death all the time.
^^Not stinking, rotting dead, they don’t.
Jeez, even I know that Jewish boys “come of age” at 13.
No they aren’t. If they are revived, they were not really dead. If someone is pronounced dead, then revived, it is a case of mistaken declaration of death. People who appear dead, yet are revived are not truly dead. Death is irreversible.
At first, this could appear to be circular reasoning. But in practice, this has led to the re-definition of “death” at least three times in human history. Cessation of breath. Cessation of heartbeat. And, today, cessation of neurological electrical impulses (flatline EKG.)
Death is irreversible, but only by working definition. Even those who hold differently require a miracle to achieve resurrection, and miracles tend to be difficult to observe objectively.
Disagree. I’ve seen it.
You were mistaken about the condition of death.
Well, there were no EEGs available at the period in history under discussion, obviously. Equally obviously, a great many people have revived/been revived from what would have qualified as death at the time–not breathing, no heartbeat, clinically unresponsive…just sayin’.
Boy, am I a slow learner. I still get surprised at the fact that intelligent and educated people can not only believe some of the crap in the Bible, but they actually try to justify it.
I’ll thank you not to attribute your opinions to me. I did not say or imply the authors of 2 Kings “were trying to deceive their audience.” In fact, I believe no such thing and never have, not now (when I’m an atheist) nor formerly (when I was a liberal Christian).
As for the claim, what you seem not to understand is that the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) is not and was never understood to be a contemporaneous account. It’s a collection of venerated stories, written down many years after the events they purport to describe. Ascribing fraudulent intent to the exercise is plain silly. The authors-compilers-redactors had no personal knowledge of the subject. They were synthesizing a text from much older sources, many of them oral rather than written, as was common throughout ancient literature in all times and places. If you’re genuinely interested in the subject, you could learn a lot from the Straight Dope Staff Report series on Who Wrote the Bible. Of particular relevance to this thread is Part Two.
To repeat, I’m an atheist. For me, this is a historical inquiry. Viewed through that lens, you’re way off base.
Is the phrase “clinically dead” actually used in the medical field, or is it just something that comes from TV dramas?
They thought they knew God’s Prophet, but it was just a belief in the writers mind of what God wanted ,or did. One cannot state in truth they know anything about God. It is the belief in the person that wrote or spoke it. There is no proof that what is in the Bible that could be God’s word, any more than the Koran or other writings.
This does make God sound like a monster, if he knows all things, they God wanted people to do evil things. We would scorn a human for acting and doing such things. I would think it an insult to a loving , all knowing being!
Once there are no brain waves then a person is dead, non have ever been revived after the brain gives no signal! I once had to be rescuscitated, I was not dead.
That’s incorrect. People who have flat-lined EEG’s have recovered. It’s rare. Severe hypothermia has been a cause. There are also some surgical procedures that deliberately create a flat-line for the patient.
Simply put, “That was supernatural” is never a good hypothesis because:
-
The event in question is always compatible with the hypothesis that it was caused by advanced technology, and
-
“That was supernatural” admits of no predictions, and so is:
------Untestable
------Not a source of information useful for any future action.
(Those last two are really two ways to say the same thing but I like to emphasize both aspects of it.)
So in other words, you never have to say it was supernatural, and besides, even if it were supernatural, there’d be absolutely no point in saying so.
I see it as more like an application of Occam’s Razor. If someone is brought back after they are believed to be dead, it is simpler to conclude the declaration of death was in error, rather to invent a mythology about an afterlife and travel back and forth between here and there. That raises too many other problems that must be explained to maintain credibility, requiring endless multiplication of the mythology of death.
4 But I am the Lord your God
from the land of Egypt;
you know no God but me,
and besides me there is no savior.
5 It was I who knew you in the wilderness,
in the land of drought;
6 but when they had grazed,[a] they became full,
they were filled, and their heart was lifted up;
therefore they forgot me.
7 So I am to them like a lion;
like a leopard I will lurk beside the way.
8 I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs;
I will tear open their breast,
and there I will devour them like a lion,
as a wild beast would rip them open.
When I read this I didn’t see it as meaning that God would actually tear anyone limb from limb, but rather that God would return into the people’s hearts with the ferocity of a mother bear protecting her cubs.
If I’m correct in this, the story of the two bears tearing apart 42 children isn’t a story about a bear attack.
I believe in the Jewish faith it is recommended that people study Kabbalah after the age of forty. I’ve always presumed that this is because at that age people might be thought to have enough life experience to understand what Kabbalah teaches.
From this, I’m wondering if the “little children” really refers to people who lacked the ability to understand God, rather than to actual children. Someone posted that the children came from Bethel, a place where the golden calf was worshipped. The opposition, in fact.
I’m also wondering if the baldness refers to “holiness” rather than a lack of head hair. I know in some cultures monks tend to shave their heads.
In other words, I’m wondering if the bear story really means that Elisha, an old (ready for God’s word) and bald (holy) man was accosted by a group of Bethel “children” (people who were not only not ready for God’s word, but also worshipped the golden calf). These people sneered at him that he should “Go up” as he claimed Elijah had done. In response, God entered the hearts of 42 of these people with the ferocity of two female bears.
If I’m right, it’s rather a coup for God to get 42 converts from the opposition.
I think there is a way to read the account as not as morally offensive as we assume in our cultural contexts today (then again, in the Israeli cultural context of the day, there is nothing morally offensive when enemies of God get mauled, but go with me here for a second)…
First of all, as stated above thread these youths likely weren’t children by late teens. Secondly, (also stated above thread) they likely weren’t 42 as the number was more symbolic - a stand in for ‘evil things happening’, or something similar. Thirdly, it was pointed out that “Go up, baldhead” is a much weightier insult then than it is now - baldhead was likely a mocking out of his holiness to Yahweh as Bethel wasn’t all that into Yahweh worship and “Go up” was a reference to Elijah going up to heaven, but I don’t think they were calling Elisha to call down a fire tornado, but the ‘[going] up’ into heaven may have been precipitated by other, let’s say more violent, means.
So, it may be reasonable to look at the story as an old prophet, going through an enemy territory, is sudden beset on all sides by young hooligans, and fearing for his life, curses them - leading to God sending some bears to defend his prophet. Btw, this is how I choose to see this story, but the point made up thread about history writers in this era combining fiction with non-fiction (and usually the facts are added upon to make some point or metaphor) is something to be very strongly considered.
However, of course, the historicity doesn’t really matter compared to the lesson behind it.
Think how all of this could have been avoided, if Elisha would have just asked for some hair instead.