What if these were your kids?
Kings 6:28-29 “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 today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. 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.”
2006-06-25 09:33:12 · 14 answers · asked by You really_believe_that_shit? 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It sounds like they're a couple of idiots. I don't think the Bible was saying what they did was right or what God ordered.
But I don't dig the Bible anyway. Just live from your heart.
2006-06-25 09:37:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
those 2 verses are from the tale of the 2d siege of Samaria through king Aram's military. The siege is the reason for a famine so intense that anybody is putting out to devour their own little ones. in the later verses, the king of Israel turns into so distraught that he has no extra trust in Yahweh. a bunch of activities later, the Aramaean military is unsuitable in wondering that the Hittites are coming to assist Samaria, and leaves, ending the famine. So i do not imagine God is ordering a lot abuse the following... If something, he helped damage the siege, regardless of the lack of religion of the king.
2016-11-15 06:08:41 · answer #2 · answered by tatsuta 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear inquirer, Remember, the Bible was written by man. God sent us to this planet to use our free will, since we asked for it. All that occurs here is our own doing. Aah, but never fear, like a rising mist, this dream will vanish and we will go our spirit's way a little bit wiser for the experience. All is well and all will be well. May God bless you.
2006-06-25 09:53:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
God does not order child abuse. This passage refers to the sins of the king and the woman. Their sins were so great that the covenant curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were being inflicted.
2006-06-25 09:38:14 · answer #4 · answered by e. 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your quotations are from the Old Testament, which is the basis of the Jewish religion. Christ's words and teachings are in the New Testament. Where ever there is any conflict, that part of the Old Testament must be rejected. Simple
2006-06-25 10:23:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think It was just a medifoe like she would have to give her son to the church to never see him again or something i do really think they would have eaten the boy but the could have been saying literally eat the boy
2006-06-25 09:53:28 · answer #6 · answered by Phi nu 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
samaria was under siege. the people of aram were tryng to starve the samarians out. in the account it isn't clear that god approved of the starvation that drove people to that desperation. i'm sure that the people involved in eating human flesh, the both of them, were executed.
apparently the samarians created a diversion that sounded like thousands of horseman and chariots. ben-hadad thought the samarians had hired the egyptians or the hittites to attack them and they took off. maybe they did hire the egyptians or the hittites. they were desperate enough to do that.
2006-06-25 09:59:53 · answer #7 · answered by Stuie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should read the passage again. God didn't order any child abuse.....this was about the wrong one woman did to another. The story sickens the king and he rents his clothes when he hears it.
2006-06-25 09:42:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. There are also passages about raping angels and dumping hot coals and the head of your enemy. The bible is meant to be interpreted, and some things are difficult. I think this is one of them.
2006-06-25 09:37:04 · answer #9 · answered by Vengeful_Hippie (AM) 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was the King that ordered that. Some of the kings followed God and some of them were corrupt.
http://www.biblebelievers.com/SimpleSalvation.html
2006-06-25 09:58:20 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋