Christian Apologetics Are Useless

Consider this situation: The members of a Christian youth club (more than forty of them) are lined up on the street, waiting to get into a Christian rock concert when an old man waddles past. The kids are in a cheeky mood, so they start teasing the senior citizen; calling him "old baldy" and telling to "piss off out of it."

How should such rudeness be punished? A jolly good telling-off from mum and dad perhaps? Or grounded for a week? Something along those lines ought to be enough to make them see the error of their ways. There shouldn't be any need to go any farther than that.

So let's see how the situation is treated in the bible:

And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

2 Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version)

Well blow me down! No telling-off, and no grounding for a week. The omnibenevolent God of love goes straight into maniacal-despot-mode and has the boys torn to pieces by wild animals!



Let's see how the Christian apologists explain that:

 Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible - John Haley
Andover 1874 (pages 270-271)
(pages 268-269 in the 1992 Whittaker House edition)

1. In the person of Elisha, God himself, whose servant the prophet was, was most wantonly and wickedly insulted.
2. The word "nearim," rendered "children" in Kings, may, as a late rationalistic commentator admits, denote a "youth nearly twenty years old." Gesenius says precisely the same; adding that it is also applied to "common soldiers," just as we in English style them, the "boys," the "boys in blue," etc.
   Fuerst gives among other definitions, a person who is twenty years of age, a youth, a young prophet; generally a servant of any kind, a shepherd, a young warrior. The same combination of words as above, "naar qaton," is applied to Solomon after he began to reign at some twenty years of age. Krummacher and Cassel translate the expression in the text, "young people." Hence the theory that these young scoffers were really "little children" at their play is untenable. They were old enough, and depraved enough, to merit the terrible fat which overtook them.
3. Elisha did not slay the young reprobates, nor did he cause the bears to come forth. God sent them. The same Being who sometimes cuts off wild, wicked youth by disease or accident, in the present instance punished sinful parents by the violent death of their reprobate children. Prof. Rawlinson suggests that a signal example may have been greatly needed at this time to check the growth of irrelgion; and that, as above intimated, the wicked parents were punished by deprivation of off-spring. 

Let's go through the apology point-by-point:
(My comments in red)

Haley says that Elijah “was most wantonly and wickedly insulted”
They called him “old baldy”. Rude perhaps, but not “wicked”.

The word interpreted as “children” may actually refer to a “youth nearly twenty years old.”
Or it may refer to “children”.

It might even mean “common soldiers."
Or it may not.

“Hence the theory that these young scoffers were really ‘little children’ at their play is untenable.
It becomes “untenable” only when you ignore what the bible actually says.

“They were old enough, and depraved enough to merit the terrible fate which over took them.”
Their age has nothing to do with it. Calling someone “old baldy” is not depraved (and it does not deserve a cruel and unusual punishment).

“Elijah did not slay the young reprobates, nor did he cause the bears to come forth. God sent them.”
Haley is implying that it would be wrong for Elijah to slay the children, but it’s an OK crime if God does it!

In his infinite wisdom, God “sometimes cuts off wild, wicked youth by disease or accident.”
Here Haley implies that we shouldn’t question god’s wisdom in this matter, because his wisdom is infinite and ours is not. In fact, it’s not really a crime if god does it – so there!"

He “punished sinful parents by the violent death of their reprobate children.” 
Here Haley is contradicting Deuteronomy 24:16, which states that "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers."

An “example may have been greatly needed at this time to check the growth of irreligion (and) the wicked parents were punished by deprivation of their offspring.” 
Here Haley is contradicting Ezekiel 18:20, which states that “The son shall not bear the guilt of the father and the father will not bear the guilt of the son.”

More recently Gleason Archer  offered exactly the same apology: 

Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties - Gleason Archer

Zondervan 1982 (pages 204-205)

The young men who mocked Elisha because he was bald were cursed, and forty-two of them were killed by two she-bears (2 Kings 2:23-24). How could a man of God curse people for such a mild personal offense?

A careful study of this incident in context shows that it was far more serious than a "mild personal offense." It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities. If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive towards respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry of the religious center of the kingdom of Israel (as Bethel was), had they been allowed to continue their riotous course. Perhaps it was for this reason that God saw fit to put forty-two of them to death in this spectacular fashion (there is no evidence that Elisha himself, in imposing a curse, prayed for this specific mode of punishment), in order to strike terror into other youth gangs that were infesting the city and to make them realize that neither Yahweh Himself nor any of His anointed prophets were to be threatened or treated with contempt.

Certainly from that time on, the whole Israelite community became convinced that Elisha was a true prophet and that he bore an authoritative word from God. Even the ungodly king Jehoram son of Ahab treated him with great deference and respect (see 2 Kings 3:11-13) after this had taken place.

And you'll find more of the same at these apologetic websites:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1147

http://carm.org/why-did-god-kill-42-lads-merely-saying-elisha-was-bald

http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/elishah1.htm

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40636

http://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html

http://trivialdevotion.blogspot.com.au/2011/08/elisha-and-killer-bears.html

http://www.icr.org/bible/2Kings/2/23-24

http://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-difficulties-2/ot-difficulties/1-samuel-2-chronicles/2-kings-223-24-mauled-42-boys-for-saying-baldy/

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/elisha-little-children-and-the-bears/

By the way, if you accept any of these Christian Apologetics, then you are, indeed, a completely brainwashed Christian with an horribly flawed moral code. Imagine if your little brother saw a policeman on the street; called him "old baldy", and the policeman pulled his gun and fired a shot into the boy's head. If you accept this Christian Apologetic then you must also accept that the policeman is an honorable man and your little brother deserved his fate! Like I said - your moral code is completely flawed (because normal people are not so callous).