Sick Verses? Really??

“Baby Thrower” - Gustav Viegeland - Vigeland Park - Oslo

As a result of a health issue, I have been unable to work at my "day job" since early October, 2011. I am on medication which regulates certain enzyme levels in the blood and I have discovered that one of the side effects reported was the loss of memory of words, and I have been experiencing this side effect. I know the words when speaking, but if you and I were having a conversation, I would come to a stop, say the word I think belongs, and then realize that it wasn't the right word, and have to search my "memory banks" to find the right word.

Because of this condition, I have been doing a lot of reading and research just to keep my mind sharp and focused, and I seem to be getting back to normal because of this activity. Sometime I find interesting things to look at but sometimes I come across some things that just don't make any sense.

I have discovered that atheists who do not believe in God spend a lot of time arguing why they don't believe in God, and have concluded that this is due to insecurity in their own "non" belief. Once source wisely observed that atheists while engaged in marital activities most likely shout out "Oh scientific method" and "Math." If you don't believe in an imaginary figure (as they put it) why waste one's time?

I have also discovered that some people post things on the Internet that are utterly untrue or are slanted in such a way that it would dissuade you from your own beliefs if your weren't paying attention. These people know just enough about the Bible to be dangerous. I'll give you one example below.

I came across a web site (just a page with no identifiers) called SICK BIBLE VERSES. Naturally, there was a plethora of ambiguities and erroneous assertions (see, big words, mind working) which covered just about everything negative in the Bible with the exception of nose picking which cannot be found there. It's funny how the anti-God people always seem to focus on negatives. I plan on ripping the entire page apart in the future, but right now let's focus on one specific example, that I picked out randomly and compared what was written, to what IS written in the pages of the Bible.

--- "SICK VERSES" said -----------

MORE BABY KILLING
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” --Psalms 137:9
The book of Psalms is considered by many the most beautiful book of the bible, but for a frightening  flash of a second - invision (should be envision, but I'm not the expert like the author is) the above verse.

--- End of "SICK VERSES" quote ---------

I looked up Psalms 137:9 and the Bible does say what the "SICK" person posted. Indeed the verse says "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” So I do the next logical thing in seeking out the facts. I expand the passage to read it in context (but even out of context one can see the erroneous misinterpretation of the original 1611 English King James version of the Bible). English has changed, but I argue that it has not changed THAT much.


I found that I was correct in MY reading of the text, and not to drag this out too long, the modern interpretation of the KJV reads like this... "Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Obviously a mental disorder blocked the "SICK" person from understanding that this verse actually meant that an ENEMY was happy when they took YOUR infants and smashed them against the rocks and not that YOU were happy to smash YOUR OWN infants against the rocks. I think that would be considered a late term abortion, but don't quote me on that.

Okay, so now I do more and compare various translations of the verse and realize that I too seem to be in error. Okay, I blame the medication, remember? I had read the context with a flawed presumption. I realized that the Israelites were captives of the Babylonian Empire and that this Psalm (or song as they were sung) came from the perspective of a people who had their city destroyed and were carted off into captivity.

The context of Psalm 137 for this purpose begins at verse 7 and reads like this... [[ My remarks are in brackets]].

 ⁷Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof. [[Rase is now spelled razed means demolished or destroyed to the citys' foundation. This implies that the Israelites detest the Babylonians for this.]]
 
 ⁸O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. [[Obviously the implication is that when they overcome the captivity, that they should expect payback. At this point in human history, payback was not only expected, it was demanded.]]
 
 ⁹Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. [[The implication is that they will be happy (and in some translations even blessed) who takes and kills her little ones. I cannot refute the line, but if you consider that the army of Babylon was the "children" referenced, well it makes sense. Again, it's payback.]]

History records that the Babylonians allowed the Israelites to return to Judah, and that the Israelites did not engage in a war to escape captivity. The Babylonians by 4 royal decrees actually paid for the reconstruction of the Temple. One decree was postponed due to an investigation, but then reasserted by the Babylonian King, so in theory, while the captives yearned to escape and give the Babylonians a bloody nose, it did not actually work out that way, so no babies were harmed in the making of my post.

Obviously, when one actually sits down and does the actual research into the kook interpretations of the Bible, one can honestly disprove every allegation of the concept of an "Evil" God, but let us for the sake of argument assume that God is indeed evil. Would it not still make sense that if He created man, that he could do with man what He wished? While we can see that interpreting the Bible can be challenging especially when people , if one takes the time and does a little digging, it all comes together in a nice neat package. Sure, my original assessment was incorrect as well, but after the other facts came together I wasn't too far off.