During a discussions on a forum debating creationism and evolutionism the believers often quoted the bible insisting that this ancient manuscript, although written and translated by humans, were inspired by god and therefor it was god’s word and must be taken literally, then used the literal text to “proof” creationism was real. My point was that the bible, after many translations and retold myths was interesting but could not be taken literally. I used the example of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill”. If we take that literally then all killing is immoral. A debater with the pen-name ‘keepyoureyespeeled” challenced that opinion. Here is the exchange:
Keepyoureyespeeled:"Now lets us look at one of the ten commandments “thou shalt not kill’"
-More correctly "murder".
Ben Andrews: WHY the "correction" because you want to say that not all killing is murder? Wars, for example? or people burned at the stake who didn't "believe"? Also if "killing" doesn't fit your view and have no answer to my statement that makes sense, you change it to "murder" because that was actually meant (God told you so) After all the original translation said so (since you are an ancient language specialist who can translate the original text). If non-believers use such arguments then they are dismissed with: “You can't do that, you have to take the bible literally, not only the original writers but subsequent translators are all God-inspired”. If this was not a correct explanation for "correcting" killing to murder, then the comment was totally irrelevant to the discussion
so why is it there? So just use "Thou shalt not Kill" literary, no exception mentioned in your always literally true bible
WHY the "correction" because you want to say that not all killing is murder?"
It is correct that not all killing is murder, regardless of what I want. Killing is a neutral act without
moral or lawful implications...murder goes against morality or law. That commandment is more correctly translated as "murder" rather than "kill". This is all simple dictionary definitions...and quick research
into the Bible."Wars, for example?"-Depends on the rules for war...right? Are you saying that law does not allow for killing in war time? If killing is deemed lawful, it is not murder. If killing is unlawful, it can become murder.Though, without objective moral values, why is killing in war wrong?"or people burned at the stake who didn't "believe"?-I think this is wrong (and I am justified in my belief)...and that was deemed right by people at that time...reminiscent of the Nazis, eh? Though in your view, without objective moral values, why is any of this wrong?
If "killing" doesn't fit your view and have no answer to my statement that makes sense, you change it to "murder" because that was actually meant (God told you so)"
-Not sure what you are getting at here. The translation is "you shall not murder"...the Hebrew word being used for murder is "ratsach "."After all the original translation said so ( since you are an ancient language specialist who can translate the original text)."
-I make no such claim that I am a specialist in anything whatsoever. The facts do not rely on me being a specialist. I can easily cite them from reliable sources. Here's an excerpt from the Theological Wordbook of the OT.>ratsach pronounce:rä·tsakh
root (rasah) murder, slay, kill. Rasah is a purely Hebrew term. It has no clear cognate in any of the contemporary tongues. The root occurs thirty-eight times in the OT, with fourteen occurrences in Num 35. The initial use of the root appears in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:13). In that important text it appears in the simple Qal stem with the negative adverb, "You shall not murder," being a more precise reading than the too-general KJV "thou shalt not kill." <
"So just use "Thou shalt not Kill" literary, no exception mentioned in your always literally true bible."
-That would be less-accurate. Why are you supporting the view of being less accurate in your studies? Don't you follow science? In science,shouldn't you try to be as accurate and learn as accurately as possible, while presenting the facts as accurately as possible?
You must also study contexts and word meanings..however, it certainly says "murder" in typical everyday used Bibles such as:
http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...and http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...and http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...etc...
Yes as you probably noticed in my statement, I foresaw your answer. Let me point out to you, that you agree the King James bible was not translated accurately. Thank you. Proved my point. If the bible was not always translated accurately as in the Kings James version then how many times did this happen? If God wrote the bible through his inspired humans why are there inaccurate translations that must be corrected if they don' fit well and must be re-interpreted to fit. Sorry to be so picky, but how can I take the bible literally if that, as you admit, is the case. Deafening silence since then.
Keepyoureyespeeled:"Now lets us look at one of the ten commandments “thou shalt not kill’"
-More correctly "murder".
Ben Andrews: WHY the "correction" because you want to say that not all killing is murder? Wars, for example? or people burned at the stake who didn't "believe"? Also if "killing" doesn't fit your view and have no answer to my statement that makes sense, you change it to "murder" because that was actually meant (God told you so) After all the original translation said so (since you are an ancient language specialist who can translate the original text). If non-believers use such arguments then they are dismissed with: “You can't do that, you have to take the bible literally, not only the original writers but subsequent translators are all God-inspired”. If this was not a correct explanation for "correcting" killing to murder, then the comment was totally irrelevant to the discussion
so why is it there? So just use "Thou shalt not Kill" literary, no exception mentioned in your always literally true bible
WHY the "correction" because you want to say that not all killing is murder?"
It is correct that not all killing is murder, regardless of what I want. Killing is a neutral act without
moral or lawful implications...murder goes against morality or law. That commandment is more correctly translated as "murder" rather than "kill". This is all simple dictionary definitions...and quick research
into the Bible."Wars, for example?"-Depends on the rules for war...right? Are you saying that law does not allow for killing in war time? If killing is deemed lawful, it is not murder. If killing is unlawful, it can become murder.Though, without objective moral values, why is killing in war wrong?"or people burned at the stake who didn't "believe"?-I think this is wrong (and I am justified in my belief)...and that was deemed right by people at that time...reminiscent of the Nazis, eh? Though in your view, without objective moral values, why is any of this wrong?
If "killing" doesn't fit your view and have no answer to my statement that makes sense, you change it to "murder" because that was actually meant (God told you so)"
-Not sure what you are getting at here. The translation is "you shall not murder"...the Hebrew word being used for murder is "ratsach "."After all the original translation said so ( since you are an ancient language specialist who can translate the original text)."
-I make no such claim that I am a specialist in anything whatsoever. The facts do not rely on me being a specialist. I can easily cite them from reliable sources. Here's an excerpt from the Theological Wordbook of the OT.>ratsach pronounce:rä·tsakh
root (rasah) murder, slay, kill. Rasah is a purely Hebrew term. It has no clear cognate in any of the contemporary tongues. The root occurs thirty-eight times in the OT, with fourteen occurrences in Num 35. The initial use of the root appears in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:13). In that important text it appears in the simple Qal stem with the negative adverb, "You shall not murder," being a more precise reading than the too-general KJV "thou shalt not kill." <
"So just use "Thou shalt not Kill" literary, no exception mentioned in your always literally true bible."
-That would be less-accurate. Why are you supporting the view of being less accurate in your studies? Don't you follow science? In science,shouldn't you try to be as accurate and learn as accurately as possible, while presenting the facts as accurately as possible?
You must also study contexts and word meanings..however, it certainly says "murder" in typical everyday used Bibles such as:
http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...and http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...and http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...etc...
Yes as you probably noticed in my statement, I foresaw your answer. Let me point out to you, that you agree the King James bible was not translated accurately. Thank you. Proved my point. If the bible was not always translated accurately as in the Kings James version then how many times did this happen? If God wrote the bible through his inspired humans why are there inaccurate translations that must be corrected if they don' fit well and must be re-interpreted to fit. Sorry to be so picky, but how can I take the bible literally if that, as you admit, is the case. Deafening silence since then.
RSS Feed