Those that dash little ones against the stones

doubtingmerle said:

Pslams 137:9 says, "Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Does anybody here agree with this verse? Does anybody agree with praising those who dash litlle babies against stones?

I think it is wrong to dash babies against stones. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Absolutely, I sincerely hope that no-one on this forum vindicates the murder of infants.

The Psalm in question (137) is a lament on the loss of Jewish Identity during the exilic period, when Jews were held in captivity by Nebuchadnezzar.
Taking the Psalm in context we see that it is a reminder of the Jewish peoples torment at the hand of their captives:

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.

Click to expand...

So the lines 7-9 are specifically suggest that it is justifiable to persecute their captors for the devastation wrought to the temple of Jerusalem, and the murder of their infants, children women and men.

In this context the premise for the toleration of murder stems from:

24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ~ Exodus 21:24

and

20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. ~ Leviticus 24:20

That was all well and good for the Israelites, but I'm guessing that as your question is posted in 'Exploring Christianity' you want the Christian justification?

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. ~ Matthew 5:38-40

So the new covenant of Christianity does not tolerate the old "Eye for an Eye" law, or the Apoditic Law.

In conclusion, yes it is not tolerable to dash babies against stones. It cannot be justified morally, or religiously.

doubtingmerle said:

Pslams 137:9 says, "Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Does anybody here agree with this verse? Does anybody agree with praising those who dash litlle babies against stones?

I think it is wrong to dash babies against stones. What do you think?

Click to expand...

This is not a Psalm of praise.

Look at it a little more closely ---

Psalm 137:7-9 said:

7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Click to expand...

He in verse 8 is Cyrus, king of Persia; and this Psalm is telling Nebuchadnezzar that when he destroys Babylon, he will commit infanticide as well, and he will do it happily.

Nebuchadnezzar, if he really cared, should have ordered all children out of Babylon, but I take it he didn't heed God's warning, and the children suffered the consequences.

Quaero said:

Absolutely, I sincerely hope that no-one on this forum vindicates the murder of infants.

The Psalm in question (137) is a lament on the loss of Jewish Identity during the exilic period, when Jews were held in captivity by Nebuchadnezzar.
Taking the Psalm in context we see that it is a reminder of the Jewish peoples torment at the hand of their captives:

So the lines 7-9 are specifically suggest that it is justifiable to persecute their captors for the devastation wrought to the temple of Jerusalem, and the murder of their infants, children women and men.

In this context the premise for the toleration of murder stems from:

24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, ~ Exodus 21:24

and

20fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. ~ Leviticus 24:20

That was all well and good for the Israelites, but I'm guessing that as your question is posted in 'Exploring Christianity' you want the Christian justification?

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. ~ Matthew 5:38-40

So the new covenant of Christianity does not tolerate the old "Eye for an Eye" law, or the Apoditic Law.

In conclusion, yes it is not tolerable to dash babies against stones. It cannot be justified morally, or religiously.

Click to expand...

Nice vocabulary I love that word, as you might be able to tell judging by my forum name

Good post btw. I agree with you.

I do not agree with dashing babies onto stone. I think that is wrong.

The wicked are dashing babies against stones.

doubtingmerle said:

Pslams 137:9 says, "Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Does anybody here agree with this verse? Does anybody agree with praising those who dash litlle babies against stones?

I think it is wrong to dash babies against stones. What do you think?

Click to expand...

You can't take a poetic lamenation and pull doctine or ethics out of it. To do so would be to ignore what the Psalm is.

.........Ok, we both agree that killing infants is wrong, and that these verses recommend to kill infants.

So it appears to me that we both agree that these verses teach to do something wrong.

Click to expand...

Jesus gave the same kind of discourse concerning 1st century apostate Jerusalem in the NT. I and some others also view this City as the "Babylon" in the Jewish/Hebrew book of Revelation

Luke 19:41 And as He nears being aware the City He laments upon Her 42 saying "that if thou knew and thou even indeed in the day, this, the toward Peace of thee, now yet it was Hid from thy eyes. 43 That shall be arriving days upon thee and thy enemies shall be casting up a siege-work to thee and shall be encompassing thee and pressing thee every which place. 44 and they shall be leveling thee and the offspring of thee in thee and not they shall be leaving stone upon stone in thee stead which not thou knew the time of the visitation of thee.

Luke 21:23 "Woe yet to the-ones in belly having, and to those giving suck in those, the Days. For shall be great necessity/anagkh <318> on the Land and Wrath in the People, this/toutw <5129>;

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7164949&page=2
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

doubtingmerle said:

So this has nothing to do with Israelites killing babies?

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with Israelites killing babies.

doubtingmerle said:

Can you see how some might think these verses are a call to arms to the Israelites against Babylonia?

Click to expand...

No --- it is saying Cyrus of Persia is going to do the job.

If Nebuchadnezzar would be smart, he would move the children out of the city to save their lives.

doubtingmerle said:

If this is a prophesy of the future, why the present tense?

Click to expand...

It is not present tense, it is future tense.

Psalm 137:8-9 said:

8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Click to expand...

Future tense.

doubtingmerle said:

And how could Cyrus be happy while he was smashing babies? Wouldn't that make any normal person sad or at least conflicted?

Click to expand...

Pharaoh basically did the same thing to the children of Israel.

Exodus 1:15-16 said:

15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.

Click to expand...

doubtingmerle said:

Then why is it that not a single person here has expressed agreement with you that this verse is a prophecy about Cyrus? If it is so clear, wouldn't at least somebody else here find the same thing in this verse?

Click to expand...

I'm sure that if they researched the pronouns, they would conclude the same thing; and I think we're all in agreement, including you, that happily dashing babies against the stones is just plain wrong. Isaiah is even more graphic:

Isaiah 13:16 said:

Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Click to expand...

I'd say that's pretty straightforward, wouln't you?

doubtingmerle said:

Maybe old Neb never read this verse. Or maybe he interpreted it like everybody else here is interpreting it, that it has nothing to do with a prophecy about Cyrus.

Click to expand...

When Nebuchadnezzar campaigned against Jerusalem, the prophet-to-be Daniel was taken captive in 605 BC and deported to Babylon, where he eventually became an advisor to the the king. I'm sure Daniel knew the Scriptures, and I'm sure he would have warned the king about this. However, King Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC and his successor, Belshazzar was the reigning king when Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled.

doubtingmerle said:

But does smashing babies bring happiness? I don't think dashing babies against rocks brings happiness. Your words indicate, surprisingly, that it does.

Can you really argue that Pharaoh and Cyrus experienced happiness when they dashed babies against rocks? I'm sorry, but I disagree. I don't think smashing babies leads to happiness.

When selecting a babysitter, one requirement should be that the sitter does not think that smashing babies into rocks brings happiness. Agree?

Click to expand...

I don't think you realize the evil that was prevalent in those days.

Look at this, for example:

Jeremiah 32:35 said:

And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Click to expand...

I won't go into the gory details about how this was done, but it is a sure testimony of the evil that men do.

Note: don't think for one minute that this isn't being done today in America with a Visa card, and in a different setting --- but that's a different subject altogether, which I won't go into here.

When Nebuchadnezzar campaigned against Jerusalem, the prophet-to-be Daniel was taken captive in 605 BC and deported to Babylon, where he eventually became an advisor to the the king. I'm sure Daniel knew the Scriptures, and I'm sure he would have warned the king about this. However, King Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC and his successor, Belshazzar was the reigning king when Isaiah's prophecy was fulfilled.

Click to expand...

Hi AV. Do you think Daniel's people, the Jews, understand this prophecy in the Olivet Discourse? I and others also believe this was fulfilled on the Jews as prophecied

Revelation 1:3 Happy the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) and the ones hearing the words of the prophecy and keepings the in it having been written for the time nigh.

Matt 24:15 "Whenever then ye may be seeing the abomination of the desolation the being declared thru Daniel the prophet having stood in a place, holy (the one reading/anaginwskwn <314> (5723) let be understanding!/noeitw <3539> (5720)

314. anaginosko an-ag-in-oce'-ko from 303 and 1097; to know again, i.e. (by extension) to read:--read.
303. ana an-ah' a primary preposition and adverb; properly, up; but (by extension) used (distributively) severally, or (locally) at (etc.):--and, apiece, by, each, every (man), in, through. In compounds (as a prefix) it often means (by implication) repetition, intensity, reversal, etc.
1097. ginosko ghin-oce'-ko a prolonged form of a primary verb; to "know" (absolutely) in a great variety of applications and with many implications (as follow, with others not thus clearly expressed):--allow, be aware (of), feel, (have) know(-ledge), perceived, be resolved, can speak, be sure, understand.

doubtingmerle said:

Absolutely.

So why does Psalms 137 praise those who do the act that you declare to be "just plain wrong"?

Here are the verses in question:

8O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one,
How blessed will be the one who repays you
With the recompense with which you have repaid us.
9How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock. (Psalms137:8-9, NASB)

Now those verses praise the one who do this act, don't they?

That is the problem. You can argue all day about whether this is refering to a particular person (Cyrus) or to Israelites in general. That has no bearing on the issue at hand. The issue is not who is doing the wrong act, but the fact that the act that you know to be wrong is being praised by these verses.

So why do you honor a book that praises an act you know to be "just plain wrong"?

Click to expand...

I would say for the same reason the Jews do....to gain knowledge of YHWH and His Christ JESUS. Most Covenants were also "Cut" using blood

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7326950
New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 Hebrew 8

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold! days, ones coming a declaration of YHWH and I-Cut Make/03772 karath with the house of Yisra'el and with the house of Y@huwdah a Covenant, New

Matthew 26:28 "For this is the blood of Me, the of the New Covenant/diaqhkhV <1242>, the about many being poured out into a remission of sins"