Solomon imported peacocks. Ants are mentioned in Proverbs.
The list of clean and unclean animals in Leviticus includes coney, rabbit, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, cormorant, pelican, stork, hoopoe, bat, mole, mouse, gecko, crocodile, chameleon.
The list of animals that can and can't be eaten in Deuteronomy additionally includes: ox, goat, gazelle, roebuck, ibex, antelope, and mountain sheep.
I'm not sure it's a correct interpretation of 2 Kings 2 to say that the she-bears killed the young men. Perhaps some did die, but it's more likely they were mauled, or even just chased away (split up from each other). I find it unlikely that 2 small Palestinian bears could possibly kill (or maul for that matter) 42 young men. Perhaps it would be better to have it here as mauled or chased, since we don't know that they were killed.
Well depends how you see it. Considering the context and the fact that Elisha was almost certainly shaven for religious reasons, it would be kinda offensive, if not downright blasphemous.
Most translations say "boys", which many take to mean "children." I think it makes more sense that this was a gang of young men, which is what the Hebrew word used here specifically means. 42+ "boys" isn't just a bunch of playmates. This is a massive group of young men."Go on up, you baldhead" might mean that they wanted to send him where his master went, meaning kill him. We get no indication any of them died, but the passage serves the point that an attack, even mass scorn, on God's servant is an attack on God.
I'm not so sure all of these comments align with the text as written. I've got the original Hebrew here alongside the JPS translation, as well as the NRSVUE and NABRE. The language isn't particularly ambiguous. They are specifically referred to as "little boys" and "children" (יְלָדִים) and their fate is rather grisly, JPS uses "mangled" while NABRE has "tore forty-two of the children to pieces."
It's an upsetting story, to be sure, and I think it's important not to sidestep that. I haven't got a II Kings Anchor commentary around, but NABRE includes an interesting note, that "this story was probably told to warn children [to respect prophets]." We've all read old Grimm's fairy tales, they're not exactly pretty.
There's no real point in trying to sanitize the language. It's clear and direct. The story, as written, was that children were mauled by she-bears.
Not to be overly picky, but the Bible never says that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan. As far as the Bible is concerned, it was just a snake.
Revelation refers to The Devil, Satan, The Dragon, and "That Ancient Serpent" as being one and the same(Revelation 12:9). That is almost definitely not a reference to anything else other than the serpent in genesis. It fits perfectly within the narrative if the serpent is Satan. I always appreciate it when things like this are pointed out, because we should be aware of the details.
"9 The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."
Just because a serpent is mentioned, doesn't mean it is identified with the serpent in Genesis. Serpents are a very universal cultural symbol.
But even if it is a reference, it is just a reference. Genesis and Revelation were written thousands of years apart, in wildly different cultural and religious contexts. Genesis is part of Jewish creation mythology, while Revelation is a political commentary about the situations of early Christians in the Roman Empire. If the author of Revelation referenced Genesis, that doesn't mean that the author of Genesis intended the serpent to be Satan. In fact, that would be pretty off base for the way how Satan is depicted in the Old Testament.
If someone says they have a cat in their backyard, would you think they are talking about a lion? No. Lion is a member of the Big Cats species, but if you are simply saying "the cat" it evidently only point to the household variety (Felis Catus)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Herod being eaten by worms is in the Bible. It does mention Herod's death (Matthew 2:15, 19), but I don't think it says anything about his body being eaten by worms.
This specific Herod is Herod Agrippa I, the son of Herod Antipas (the Herod ruling Galilee at the time of Jesus, known as "King Herod" in Mark and "Herod the Tetrarch" in Luke-Acts). He ruled Judea from 41-44 CE.
As discussed above, the serpent in Eden is not representing Satan. That is a interpretation that only appeared way later in christian theology. It could be changed to something like "This animal convinced Eve to eat a forbidden apple in the garden of Eden.".
The list of clean and unclean animals in Leviticus includes coney, rabbit, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, cormorant, pelican, stork, hoopoe, bat, mole, mouse, gecko, crocodile, chameleon.
The list of animals that can and can't be eaten in Deuteronomy additionally includes: ox, goat, gazelle, roebuck, ibex, antelope, and mountain sheep.
The 2nd plague was frogs.
It's an upsetting story, to be sure, and I think it's important not to sidestep that. I haven't got a II Kings Anchor commentary around, but NABRE includes an interesting note, that "this story was probably told to warn children [to respect prophets]." We've all read old Grimm's fairy tales, they're not exactly pretty.
There's no real point in trying to sanitize the language. It's clear and direct. The story, as written, was that children were mauled by she-bears.
Just because a serpent is mentioned, doesn't mean it is identified with the serpent in Genesis. Serpents are a very universal cultural symbol.
But even if it is a reference, it is just a reference. Genesis and Revelation were written thousands of years apart, in wildly different cultural and religious contexts. Genesis is part of Jewish creation mythology, while Revelation is a political commentary about the situations of early Christians in the Roman Empire. If the author of Revelation referenced Genesis, that doesn't mean that the author of Genesis intended the serpent to be Satan. In fact, that would be pretty off base for the way how Satan is depicted in the Old Testament.