The article Snowbird linked is a fine example of how grotesque defense of Bible God can get.
The article points out that these weren't necessarily "small children", they may even have been men in their 20's. How exactly does THAT make mauling 42 of them on the basis of their mocking ok? Can you imagine a mass-murderer's defense attorney saying, "Hey, c'mon. It's not like my client murdered KIDS, right?"
It reminds us that Elisha didn't call for bears. That was God's idea. (I really don't know how this was meant to be a defense. If anything, it would've been better if almighty God-is-Love Yahweh DID NOT come up with this one on his own.)
And finally, it points out that "mauled" doesn't necessarily mean "killed", nor do we know how many escaped unharmed. True, all 42 may only have been horribly disfigured and maimed, likely dying from infections over the coming days and weeks, while their other comrades were merely PTSD-stricken. But again, this doesn't strike me as a defense, per se.
Rather than trying to explain why such stories are "ok", why don't Bible defenders instead find an excuse to excise them from the text altogether? Surely they can find SOME way to justify calling it a later addition, or something.
Dave
