Those that dash little ones against the stones

[doubtingmerle]

And let me refresh your mind by saying that context is everything.

Context is very important. Now what is the context of Psalm 137? It is a complaint about how horribly the Jews have been treated in Babylon. It ends with a blessing on those who take revenge by killing Babylonian babies.

Now how does the context of Psalm 137 do anything to change the observation that the writer praises those who kill babies?

 

[Everlasting33]

Context is very important. Now what is the context of Psalm 137? It is a complaint about how horribly the Jews have been treated in Babylon. It ends with a blessing on those who take revenge by killing Babylonian babies.

Now how does the context of Psalm 137 do anything to change the observation that the writer praises those who kill babies?

Would you admit that there are cultural and societal differences from the 21st century to 2,000 years ago?

While I am not advocating any kind of violence, I was sitting here thinking about how violent society was back then. Think back to the gladiators and the Roman Republic. Thousands of people would come to watch these gladiators fight animals and other gladiators and it was certainly a very violent sport, not to mention a strange kind of entertainment for us to fathom.

I cannot fathom doing or seeing such a thing but the way society worked 2,000 years ago was completely different. I believe we need to keep that in mind when examining these verses.

However, the argument to undermine Biblical authority according to that one verse is weak, at least in my opinion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I cannot fathom doing or seeing such a thing but the way society worked 2,000 years ago was completely different. I believe we need to keep that in mind when examining these verses.

Things were different back then, but killing babies as a means of revenge against the parents was still wrong, yes?

However, the argument to undermine Biblical authority according to that one verse is weak

I could overlook one verse that seemed to be wrong. But the problem is not just with one verse. Several years ago we had a thread here to see if somebody could find a perfect chapter. I think a serious flaw was found in every chapter that was suggested. Do you care to suggest a chapter (of more than a few verses in length) that has no flaws?

 

[Everlasting33]

Things were different back then, but killing babies as a means of revenge against the parents was still wrong, yes?



I could overlook one verse that seemed to be wrong. But the problem is not just with one verse. Several years ago we had a thread here to see if somebody could find a perfect chapter. I think a serious flaw was found in every chapter that was suggested. Do you care to suggest a chapter (of more than a few verses in length) that has no flaws?

Certainly, it was wrong. But the Bible certainly doesn't portray its prophets or the characters in the book as perfect, which is neat if you think about it. They were imperfect, human and prone to make mistakes.

Society and its people were very barbaric and cruel, especially 2,000 years ago.

If you could, define flaws. Do you mean grammatical errors, contradictory statements, or illogical sentiments?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you could, define flaws. Do you mean grammatical errors, contradictory statements, or illogical sentiments?

Flaws would be things like contradictions, historical errors, questionable morals, etc.

 

[Everlasting33]

Flaws would be things like contradictions, historical errors, questionable morals, etc.

Are you claiming that every book in the Bible has flaws in every chapter?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Are you claiming that every book in the Bible has flaws in every chapter?

I don't know if every chapter has a flaw.

I am simply saying that we once had a thread here where we asked people to submit a chapter in the Bible that was perfect in the sense that it had no flaws. Several chapters were suggested, and every one that was suggested appeared to have a flaw.

That does not prove that all chapters are flawed, only that that thread did not find a flawless chapter.

Care to suggest a chapter you think is flawless?

 

[PETE_]

I have a good resourse that addresses alot of these issues.
​

Psalm 137:8–9, many regard as the most difficult of all the imprecatory psalms. First, the word happy is used twenty-six times in the book of Psalms. It is used only of individuals who trust God. It is not an expression of a sadistic joy in the ruin or destruction of others.
​

The words “dashes [your infants] against the rocks” are usually regarded as being so contrary to the teachings of the New Testament that here is little need to discuss the matter any further. Curiously enough, these very same words are repeated in the New Testament by no one less than our Lord (Lk 19:44). In fact, the verb in its Greek form is found only in Psalm 137:9 (in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew text) and in the lament of our Lord over Jerusalem in Luke 19:44. This is the clearest proof possible that our Lord was intentionally referring to this psalm. Moreover, our Lord found no more difficulty in quoting this psalm than he did in quoting the other two psalms most filled with prayers of imprecation, namely, Psalms 69 and 109.
God “shattered the enemy” at the Red Sea (Ex 15:6) and will continue to do so through the triumph of his Son as he “will rule them with an iron scepter” and “dash them to pieces like pottery” (Rev 2:26–27; 12:5; 19:15).
The word translated “infant” is somewhat misleading. The Hebrew word does not specify age, for it may mean a very young or a grown child. The word focuses on a relationship and not on age; as such, it points to the fact that the sins of the fathers were being repeated in the next generation.
That the psalmist has located the site of God’s judgment in Babylon appears to denote this psalm as being composed while Judah was in exile in Babylon and also that there are figurative elements included in the psalm. One thing Babylon was devoid of was rocks or rocky cliffs against which anything could be dashed. In fact there were not any stones available for building, contrary to the rocky terrain of most of Palestine. All building had to depend on the production of sun-dried mud bricks and the use of bituminous pitch for mortar. Therefore when the psalmist speaks of “dashing [infants] against the rocks,” he is speaking figuratively and metaphorically. Close to this metaphorical use of the same phrase is that of Psalm 141:6, “Their rulers will be thrown down from the cliffs.” But that same psalm adds, “And the wicked will learn that my words were well spoken [the literal rendering is ‘sweet’].” If the rulers had literally been tossed over a cliff, they surely would have had a hard time hearing anything!
What, then, does “Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us—he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” mean? It means that God will destroy Babylon and her progeny for her proud assault against God and his kingdom. But those who trust in God will be blessed and happy. For those who groaned under the terrifying hand of their captors in Babylon there was the prospect of a sweet, divine victory that they would share in as sons and daughters of the living God. As such, this is a prayer Christians may also pray, so long as it is realized that what is at stake is not our own reputation or our personal enemies, but the cause of our Lord’s great name and kingdom.​

Kaiser, Walter C.: Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Il : InterVarsity, 1997, c1996, S. 281
​

 

[Everlasting33]

I don't know if every chapter has a flaw.

I am simply saying that we once had a thread here where we asked people to submit a chapter in the Bible that was perfect in the sense that it had no flaws. Several chapters were suggested, and every one that was suggested appeared to have a flaw.

That does not prove that all chapters are flawed, only that that thread did not find a flawless chapter.

Care to suggest a chapter you think is flawless?

Would you be able to look at the chapter objectively?

My only concern about this idea is that any chapter that I present will indeed be flawed in your eyes (assuming, of course). As a past agnostic, I can indeed vouch at least for my own personal experience. If you are looking for flaws, indeed you will find them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

the word happy is used twenty-six times in the book of Psalms. It is used only of individuals who trust God. It is not an expression of a sadistic joy in the ruin or destruction of others.​

Yes, I agree that this is the meaning of the word happy in this chapter. Those who try to interpret this as a sadistic joy seem to be stretching the obvious meaning of the text.

The word translated “infant” is somewhat misleading. The Hebrew word does not specify age, for it may mean a very young or a grown child. The word focuses on a relationship and not on age;
​

​

Do you know of one major translation that translates this as "offspring". Every translation I have seen refers to infants or little ones. If it really means offspring, why did all those translators get it wrong?

It means that God will destroy Babylon and her progeny for her proud assault against God and his kingdom. But those who trust in God will be blessed and happy.

It seems to me that there are ways of saying that which would be much clearer. For I have found many explanations here, but none that agree with the explanation here. If this was the message, couldn't the author have made his point clearer?

 

[PETE_]

6408 עֹולָל (˓owlal): n.masc.; ≡ Str 5768; TWOT 1579c—LN 9.41-9.45 child, little one, i.e., male or female offspring, as a class of person from infancy to just prior mature adolescence, relatively defenseless to an attack (Ps 137:9; Jer 6:11; 9:20[EB 21]; La 1:5; 2:19; 4:4; Joel 2:16; Mic 2:9; Na 3:10+)​

Swanson, James: Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament). electronic ed. Oak Harbor : Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997, S. HGK6408

9 Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones

and adashes them against the rock!​

English Standard Version. Ps 137:9

9 How blessed will be the one who seizes and adashes your little ones

Against the rock​

New American Standard Bible Ps 137:9

9 Happy he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the rock.​

Darby, Ps 137:9

9Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones Against the rock.​

American Standard Version.Ps 137:9

That's a few that I have

 

[Everlasting33]

Oh, of course, any investigation looking for flaws would need to be looked at objectively. And yes, people would come to different conclusions. The question is not whether one can claim a flaw, but whether the objective evidence indicates that a flaw exists.

Lets start with the shortest chapter in the Bible: Psalm 117

 

[PETE_]

It seems to me that there are ways of saying that which would be much clearer. For I have found many explanations here, but none that agree with the explanation here. If this was the message, couldn't the author have made his point clearer?

Probably was more clear to the Hebrews of the day, but time and language make things much more difficult. Many scholars spend years studying Biblical languages and it is good to have a variety of their works to consult about such difficult passages. I am fortunate my dad has a library that rivals most pastors and hs been generous in passing stuff down to me.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Lets start with the shortest chapter in the Bible: Psalm 117

You will notice that I had said a chapter of more then several verses.

 

[Everlasting33]

You will notice that I had said a chapter of more then several verses.

Still counts as a chapter right

 

[doubtingmerle]

6408 עֹולָל (˓owlal): n.masc.; ≡ Str 5768; TWOT 1579c—LN 9.41-9.45 child, little one, i.e., male or female offspring, as a class of person from infancy to just prior mature adolescence, relatively defenseless to an attack

​

​

Okay, so the blesing is on those who cast owlal against the rocks, which your source defines as "a class of person from infancy to just prior mature adolescence, relatively defenseless to an attack".

Uh, if "owlal" represents clidren that are relatively defenseless against attack, then they aren't the ones who enslaved the Jews. If the Jews want revenge, then they should focus on those who broguht about the captivity, not on owlal children that are too young to defend themselves, and certainly too young to launch an attack on another nation and enslave the people.

Do you praise the act of dashing owlal against the rocks?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Still counts as a chapter right

Sure it's a chapter, but not one that meets my orignal request.

And yes, you will be fairly safe from flaws if you stick with the Psalms.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Probably was more clear to the Hebrews of the day, but time and language make things much more difficult.

Writing a book in an ancient language is not the best way of getting a message across. One wonders why a God of the universe would use an archaic language like that to communicate to people in the Blackberry age.

 

[PETE_]

[/left]
Okay, so the blesing is on those who cast owlal against the rocks, which your source defines as "a class of person from infancy to just prior mature adolescence, relatively defenseless to an attack".

Uh, if "owlal" represents clidren that are relatively defenseless against attack, then they aren't the ones who enslaved the Jews. If the Jews want revenge, then they should focus on those who broguht about the captivity, not on owlal children that are too young to defend themselves, and certainly too young to launch an attack on another nation and enslave the people.

Do you praise the act of dashing owlal against the rocks?

It is a pointless exercise to distinguish between the ages of those that God destroys. Most believe that Children that are still unable to distinguish between right and wrong will be saved by God. If He chooses to destroy them, then He has provided for that in His Divine plan. Also all of man is equally defenseless before him. It takes no more effort for God to destroy a baby or a warrior. It is also not about praising the act itself but praising the complete victory of God over His enemies. There are also places in the OT where God commands the slaughter of all men, women, and children. It may seem cruel but to not wipe them out would leave those to come back against His people in the future(just as Palestinians). Upon Jesus' return, He will wipe out ll of His remaining enemies with one simply word. And yes, we will praise that victory.

 

[Everlasting33]

Sure it's a chapter, but not one that meets my orignal request.

And yes, you will be fairly safe from flaws if you stick with the Psalms.

Here is a website that discusses the contradictions:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm