Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Owlswing on October 24, 2016, 11:48:57 AM
-
King James Version
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
The Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not kill
Will somebody please explain to me, exactly and precisely (preferably in simple teerms understandable by my simple mind!), how Christians are expected to obey both these instructions as, to my, admittedly pathetic, mind, it is impossible to do so.
-
It'll be a new covenant or some such escape clause.
It's almost like the Bible was written by politicians and lawyers such are the loopholes and exceptions contained therein.
-
King James Version
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
The Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not kill
Will somebody please explain to me, exactly and precisely (preferably in simple teerms understandable by my simple mind!), how Christians are expected to obey both these instructions as, to my, admittedly pathetic, mind, it is impossible to do so.
Standard reply is that kill here is an effective mistranslation of 'murder' see below
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html
-
King James Version
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
The Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not kill
The opposite of "suffer" is enjoy, so "Thou shalt enjoy that witches live".
I can put an extra couple of ...eths in there, if it'll make it any clearer...?
-
Standard reply is that kill here is an effective mistranslation of 'murder' see below
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou-shall-not-kill-mean.html
Yes, I see.
However the article quotes, and I quote:
Exodus 1:16-17
and
Exodus 21:12-14
thus excluding the specific verse that I am questioning.
So, get-out clause, in this instance, sadly, rejected.
-
Yes, I see.
However the article quotes, and I quote:
Exodus 1:16-17
and
Exodus 21:12-14
thus excluding the specific verse that I am questioning.
So, get-out clause, in this instance, sadly, rejected.
except that the verse they use is the same word translated so they would argue it is the same issue based on the sane logic.
-
The opposite of "suffer" is enjoy, so "Thou shalt enjoy that witches live".
I can put an extra couple of ...eths in there, if it'll make it any clearer...?
Unfortunately your misinterpretation get-out clause is also rejected on theground that that is NOT the way that it has been used for centuries.
The Inquistion certainly did not see it your way; to the tune of about 90,000 (mostly) completely innocent lives and many many hours of SUFFERING under torture.
-
except that the verse they use is the same word translated so they would argue it is the same issue based on the sane logic.
Which particular word, please?
-
Unfortunately your misinterpretation get-out clause is also rejected on theground that that is NOT the way that it has been used for centuries.
The Inquistion certainly did not see it your way; to the tune of about 90,000 (mostly) completely innocent lives and many many hours of SUFFERING under torture.
Squeaky's post was tongue in cheek.
-
Squeaky's post was tongue in cheek.
My OP is not!
-
Which particular word, please?
ratsach
-
My OP is not!
And?
-
ratsach
Where does this word appear? No-where in the KJV as far as I know.
-
While we are on the subject, what do you think of the article below, which argues that very little of the killiing of witches was related to the Inquisition?
http://draeconin.com/database/witchhunt.htm
-
Where does this word appear? No-where in the KJV as far as I know.
it's what was translated from. It's the same word in both verses. The logic for it being translated, as it is in most bibles now, as murder is the same in both cases.
-
It's what was translated from. It's the same word in both verses. The logic for it being translated, as it is in most bibles now, as murder is the same in both cases.
My point exactly!
-
My point exactly!
no, between the two versions of kill, not the suffer the witch to live.
-
no, between the two versions of kill, not the suffer the witch to live.
The meaning of suffer, at the time of th KJV translation, was allow. This was used because James intended to use this (mistranslated as it happens) verse to top his briother-in-law who had designs on his throne.
In the matter of your quoted article - I will get back to you on it - when I have had time to "read, note and inwardly digest" as I have no intention of making comments or drawing conclusions which almost certainly will be used to ridcule either myself, my beliefs or fellow pagans and witches, or all of the above, as has happened previously, by saying anything in a manner precipitate.
I hope you will understand.
I shall, however, be contacting Professor Ronald Hutton (Professor of History at Bristol University) for his comments as I value his insight and wisdom when looking at the views of American historians and witches. These are quite often tangential to those of historians and witches in this country.
This may take a while but I will be back to the subject as soon as I possibly can.
One small point is that the article is 20 years old and 20 years is a damn long time when it comes to historical treatises, especially those which may be deemed contentious in the academic fraternity interested in this particular period.
-
King James Version
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
The Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not kill
Will somebody please explain to me, exactly and precisely (preferably in simple teerms understandable by my simple mind!), how Christians are expected to obey both these instructions as, to my, admittedly pathetic, mind, it is impossible to do so.
OK, Owl, lets see if you can do a bit of the work yourself. You have used an Old Testament reference, so you will need to do a bit of Hebrew research. What is the Hebrew word that the translators of the AV decided to translate as 'kill'? I suppose that you could try to use the Septuagint - but it is, in itself, already a translation.
I'll point out that English has a similar dichotomy. What's the difference between murder and judicial killing or what soldiers are trained to do - killing enemies?
-
Yes, I know what suffer means here. I'm not stating that there is not an instruction for people to be killed. My position is rather that the two verses using 'kill' I.e. are talking about murder and not about some form of judicial ki!!ing.
Incidentally, there is an argument that witch is a mistranslation of poisoner, down to Jamie 6/1.
No problem in the article, I hope it will provoke an interesting discussion for you.
-
In the matter of your quoted article - I will get back to you on it - when I have had time to "read, note and inwardly digest" as I have no intention of making comments or drawing conclusions which almost certainly will be used to ridcule either myself, my beliefs or fellow pagans and witches, or all of the above, as has happened previously, by saying anything in a manner precipitate.
Owl, I think the wording of your OP points to a degree of ridiculousness - not of witchcraft or other witches - but of you as someone who doesn't make the effort to research issues you question.
-
OK, Owl, lets see if you can do a bit of the work yourself. You have used an Old Testament reference, so you will need to do a bit of Hebrew research. What is the Hebrew word that the translators of the AV decided to translate as 'kill'? I suppose that you could try to use the Septuagint - but it is, in itself, already a translation.
I'll point out that English has a similar dichotomy. What's the difference between murder and judicial killing or what soldiers are trained to do - killing enemies?
I have researched the Hebrew and it has been explained to me by the Curator of Ancient Manuscripts (Hebrew) at the British Library that, at the time of the translation to the Septuagint the Hebrew, a highly contextual language, was so archaic that even some Talmudic scholars were not totally sure what some of the Hebrew words actually meant in the context that they were written.
Also, please see #1 which gives a name to the content of your post above!
-
Owl, I think the wording of your OP points to a degree of ridiculousness - not of witchcraft or other witches - but of you as someone who doesn't make the effort to research issues you question.
let he who is without sin etc etc
-
Owl, I think the wording of your OP points to a degree of ridiculousness - not of witchcraft or other witches - but of you as someone who doesn't make the effort to research issues you question.
I think that researching both the history of witchcraft and the relationship between Christianity and the modern popular conception of modern witchcraft almost continuously for the last nine years, with the help of Professor Ronald Hutton (mentioned above) makes anonsense of your comment.
Just because I think your religion, as you think mine, is based upon a load of crap does not mean that I do not (sometimes) know what i am talking about, and the same applies to you!
Your arrogance on matters pagan and witchy is way, way, beyond your factual knowledge of the subject.
-
Let he who is without sin etc etc
OUCH!
I look forward to the gentleman's response - if, of course, he bothers to honour you with one!
-
OUCH!
I look forward to the gentleman's response - if, of course, he bothers to honour you with one!
We have to be careful with the whole claim to authority we often see. We are all capable of knowing more, doing more research so I don't see how we can easily make progress whilst merely asserting people haven't done research. I think it's up to the person who wants to say that to lay out exactly what they think is being missed.
-
OK, Owl, lets see if you can do a bit of the work yourself. You have used an Old Testament reference, so you will need to do a bit of Hebrew research. What is the Hebrew word that the translators of the AV decided to translate as 'kill'? I suppose that you could try to use the Septuagint - but it is, in itself, already a translation.
I'll point out that English has a similar dichotomy. What's the difference between murder and judicial killing or what soldiers are trained to do - killing enemies?
All of your translations etc Hope, I suppose in some ways you are trying to make some sense of your religious beliefs.
I don't suppose you're the only one, probably it's a pursuit of millions and I'm sure you're aware of this; how come so many millions follow and have followed these pursuits and not one of you has ever managed to prove there's anything in these magical, mystical and superstitious beliefs that you all seem to hold so dear have ever actually happened?
ippy
-
Yes, I know what suffer means here. I'm not stating that there is not an instruction for people to be killed. My position is rather that the two verses using 'kill' I.e. are talking about murder and not about some form of judicial ki!!ing.
If it were "thou shalt not commit murder" it would be tautological.
-
If it were "thou shalt not commit murder" it would be tautological.
Son the murder laws in the UK are tautological? The point is there us such a thing as legal killing.
-
Son the murder laws in the UK are tautological? The point is there us such a thing as legal killing.
I'm not aware that the laws of the UK just say "don't commit murder". Murder is defined as certain classes of killing (actually, it's defined as killing somebody but with certain exceptions e.g. self defence).
A law that just says "thou shalt not commit murder is the same as one that says "it is illegal to kill somebody illegally". If that is the correct translation of the commandment, it immediately provides the resolution to Owlswing's contradiction because murder is simply defined to exclude the killing of witches (and gays and female adulterers and slaves as long as they survive a week and the Canaanites and people who work on Saturdays and blasphemers etc etc etc).
-
I'm not aware that the laws of the UK just say "don't commit murder". Murder is defined as certain classes of killing (actually, it's defined as killing somebody but with certain exceptions e.g. self defence).
A law that just says "thou shalt not commit murder is the same as one that says "it is illegal to kill somebody illegally". If that is the correct translation of the commandment, it immediately provides the resolution to Owlswing's contradiction because murder is simply defined to exclude the killing of witches (and gays and female adulterers and slaves as long as they survive a week and the Canaanites and people who work on Saturdays and blasphemers etc etc etc).
UK laws define what is murder and then say don't do it. These things have a context, denying any other context in the bible, denies any context in law
-
UK laws define what is murder and then say don't do it.
Exactly.
These things have a context, denying any other context in the bible, denies any context in law
And the context in the Bible (at least in the KJV) includes killing witches as being an exception.
-
Exactly.
And the context in the Bible (at least in the KJV) includes killing witches as being an exception.
no. It includes killing 'witches' as being legal and not murder. Not so much an exception as a matter of definition of what is murder.
-
Exactly.
And the context in the Bible (at least in the KJV) includes killing witches as being an exception.
No! Exodus 22:18 states that it is required to kill a witch - the Sixth states that ANY killing is forbidden!
-
No! Exodus 22:18 states that it is required to kill a witch - the Sixth states that ANY killing is forbidden!
Only in the KJV. Other Bibles have "do not commit murder" which is tautological in itself but when read in context with "kill witches" is not a contradiction.
-
Talking of killing witches, the last witch to be killed in my home island was supposed to have suffered their fate in one of the fields belonging to my childhood home! :o
-
That explains everything, floo.
-
Some old houses in my home island have a step on the chimney so the witches can take their ease when flying around on their broomsticks. When I am over there it is so useful, especially at my age, flying around on a broomstick can be quite tiring, especially when very windy! ;D ;D ;D
It is a pity I can't post photos on the forum, I would display a picture of my broomstick! ;D
-
Only in the KJV. Other Bibles have "do not commit murder" which is tautological in itself but when read in context with "kill witches" is not a contradiction.
Bibles dated before or after the KJV?
-
Talking of killing witches, the last witch to be killed in my home island was supposed to have suffered their fate in one of the fields belonging to my childhood home! :o
Your home island?
-
Some old houses in my home island have a step on the chimney so the witches can take their ease when flying around on their broomsticks. When I am over there it is so useful, especially at my age, flying around on a broomstick can be quite tiring, especially when very windy! ;D ;D ;D
It is a pity I can't post photos on the forum, I would display a picture of my broomstick! ;D
LOL? Maybe not.
-
LOL? Maybe not.
I agree it could be very scary indeed. ;D
-
I agree it could be very scary indeed. ;D
I meant that, as a witch, I am not sure if your comment is funny.
-
I meant that, as a witch, I am not sure if your comment is funny.
Not with you?
-
Not with you?
Owlswing is a witch and isn't sure he finds your broomstick comment to be funny.
-
I might be a witch as I live in Nelson, next to Pendle Hill, in the north west, where the Pendle witch business started !!!!
Nick AKA Lucifer's Child !!!?!??!
-
And the context in the Bible (at least in the KJV) includes killing witches as being an exception.
Actually, the context of the KJV doesn't involve an exception, jp - because when one takes the larger picture of the various references, they tend to deal with individual actions, as opposed to state permitted actions. As NS suggests, they define what is and what is not state permitted
-
Bibles dated before or after the KJV?
Good question, Owl. The Wycliffe Bible, which predates the KJV by some 250 years, gives the commandment as 'Thou shalt not slay'. 'Slay' tends to imply something done in the heat of anger, rather than anything accidental or in self defence.
-
... the Sixth states that ANY killing is forbidden!
And where do you get the idea that the commandment forbids 'ANY' killing, Owl?
-
King James Version
Exodus 22:18
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live
The Sixth Commandment
Thou shalt not kill
Will somebody please explain to me, exactly and precisely (preferably in simple teerms understandable by my simple mind!), how Christians are expected to obey both these instructions as, to my, admittedly pathetic, mind, it is impossible to do so.
Thou shalt not commit murder....
Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.”
There is a difference between putting someone to death for committing murder and actually murdering someone. One is legal and is punishment for criminal offence. The other is unlawful killing. War is not murder it is lawful killing. Being a witch was against the law and was punishable by death in the time of the Israelites in the desert. It is not punishable today because those laws applied to the people of that covenant.
How do you not know the difference between lawful and unlawful killing?
You don't have a contradiction you have a deliberate error created by you refusing to face the fact that lawful and unlawful killing exists? There is nothing sincere about what you have written. It simply lacks discernment which any reasoning person would have been able to use to reach the right conclusion.
-
Thou shalt not commit murder....
Exodus 20:13: “You shall not murder.”
Can anyone explain why Sassy has chosen to NOT quote from the KJV on this occasion?
You know, the beloved KJV from which she quotes almost exclusively!
-
I might be a witch as I live in Nelson, next to Pendle Hill, in the north west, where the Pendle witch business started !!!!
Nick AKA Lucifer's Child !!!?!??!
If you consider being Lucifer's Child makes you a witch, you are not a witch. Witchcraft and witches, despite the Christian insistance to the contrary, has nothing whatsover to do with the Devil.
-
And where do you get the idea that the commandment forbids 'ANY' killing, Owl?
Thou shalt not killl - show me where this allows for ANY exceptions!
-
I was thinking about that and, I suppose, one exception is in time of war, with the purpose of preventing innocent people from being killed. Doesn't always work of course but that must be the ethos behind wartime killing.
(Edit: Looks as though Sassy has already covered that on previous page)
-
I was thinking about that and, I suppose, one exception is in time of war, with the purpose of preventing innocent people from being killed. Doesn't always work of course but that must be the ethos behind wartime killing.
(Edit: Looks as though Sassy has already covered that on previous page)
I meant where in the wording of the Commandement does it make any exceptions. It states categorically and without exception that "Thou shlt NOT killl!".
As to Sassy I no longer read anything she posts - her total inability to see any negative of any description in her beliefs, in the (supposed) words of her God, or in the contents of her Holy book excludes any chance whatsoever of carrying on a "discussion" with her.
I just pass her posts by, treating them as an annoying buzz in the background.
-
Owlswing is a witch and isn't sure he finds your broomstick comment to be funny.
Really?
-
I meant where in the wording of the Commandement dies it make any exceptions. It states categorically and without exception that "Thou shlt NOT killl!".
Yet you seem to base this belief on a discussion with a single person in a single establishment, Owl, when there are many other Hebrew scholars - including Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars - who would disagree with that interpretation. Furthermore, the Old Testament mandates the death sentence for certain instances of behaviour - so clearly the context in which all the commandments exist understood that there is a difference between judicial and non-judicial killing - hence the use of the term 'murder/slay' in many translations that both predate and postdate the King James. In view of your rant against Sass immediately following this paragraph it is ironic that you insist on referencing a translation that was flawed from the outset - in part because of James' interference with the translation process - and which was 'of its time', in other words was designed to be in the English language of the day. As you will appreciate, language is a living entity, and changes from year to year, let alone century to century.
I don't know what, if any written material exists for Paganism that might be seen as comparable with the Bible, but if there is and it remains in a form of language that is several hundred years old, couldn't a similar charge to those you and others make against the likes of Sass and her use of the KJV be made against those who abide by comparable any Pagan material.
-
If you consider being Lucifer's Child makes you a witch, you are not a witch. Witchcraft and witchs, despite the Christian isnistance to the contrary, has nothing whatsover to do with the Devil.
I suppose it depends on how one looks at life, Owl. Christians believe that there are two sources of power in this life - God and Satan. By definition, anything that doesn't have God as its source must therefore have Satan as its source. The Bible makes it clear that witchcraft and anything associated with it isn't of God - hence their insistence that it is 'of the devil'.
Perhaps more important is the fact that vast swathes of what the medieval church deemed to be witchcraft - and therefore of the devil - was nothing of the kind; it was simply innate understanding of nature.
-
Really?
What are you questioning about the statement?
-
Can anyone explain why Sassy has chosen to NOT quote from the KJV on this occasion?
You know, the beloved KJV from which she quotes almost exclusively!
It wasn't about the version it was about Gordon deliberately taking the verse out of context.
If that verse referred to just killing then how would they have made sacrifices?
Hence the people of that covenant knew they were not to murder each other.
The rest of the covenant supports that killing in itself, animals for sacrifice or food or humans for breaking laws which lead to them being put to death was not what God was talking about.
What actually worked was showing Owlswing deliberate and unreasoned misleading way you use the bible to say what he/you want it to say. You live in a world where people are put in prison or put to death for breaking the law. Owlswing question has been proved that he/you knew that God was referring to MURDER and he/you knew that was wrong. So he/you knew the difference between lawful and unlawful killing and chose to ignore the truth to make an unfounded and unsound allegation.
In your case you knew but made it about the bible version used. But the killing in all understandings of the covenant in any time or place is about murder in that law, about unlawful killing.
He/You can tell the difference in the versions of the bible but not understand what it really says?????
His post was deliberately misleading and showing he knew the fact it was murder and not just "killing" otherwise how could they put blood of a sacrificed lamb around the door post and eat the meat when God commanded them too?
The obvious is being; as is the different versions. Something are not what you make them out to be. Any person can see the difference between lawful and unlawful killing. What God makes clear if you read the whole bible is the difference between the two.
Whatever the version regarding the 10 commandments that command refers to unlawful killing of a human being, committing murder.
-
I suppose it depends on how one looks at life, Owl. Christians believe that there are two sources of power in this life - God and Satan. By definition, anything that doesn't have God as its source must therefore have Satan as its source. The Bible makes it clear that witchcraft and anything associated with it isn't of God - hence their insistence that it is 'of the devil'.
Why is witchcraft derided by some Christians? The crazy stuff some extreme Christians indulge in isn't any better, exorcism and the daft gobbledegook known as 'speaking in tongues', for example! :o
-
I suppose it depends on how one looks at life, Owl. Christians believe that there are two sources of power in this life - God and Satan. By definition, anything that doesn't have God as its source must therefore have Satan as its source. The Bible makes it clear that witchcraft and anything associated with it isn't of God - hence their insistence that it is 'of the devil'.
Perhaps more important is the fact that vast swathes of what the medieval church deemed to be witchcraft - and therefore of the devil - was nothing of the kind; it was simply innate understanding of nature.
Mmm we have to be careful here since, as you will know, it is not certain that witch in 'you shall not suffer a witch to live, is another questionable translation.
Further I think describing whatever the church thought of as witchcraft as being 'an innate understanding of nature', is hugely problematic in its blanket approach both to church attitudes and in describing those killed in this way.
-
Why is witchcraft derided by some Christians? The crazy stuff some extreme Christians indulge in isn't any better, exorcism and the daft gobbledegook known as 'speaking in tongues', for example! :o
You do realise you have just been deriding owlswing and witchcraft in this post?
-
You do realise you have just been deriding owlswing and witchcraft in this post?
Oh blimey, I can't do right for doing wrong. :o Well at least Owlswing doesn't try to get people to follow his calling, by telling us we will burn in hell if we don't convert as some Christians do.
-
It wasn't about the version it was about you deliberately taking the verse out of context.
If that verse referred to just killing then how would they have made sacrifices?
Hence the people of that covenant knew they were not to murder each other.
The rest of the covenant supports that killing in itself, animals for sacrifice or food or humans for breaking laws which lead to them being put to death was not what God was talking about.
What actually worked was showing Owlswing deliberate and unreasoned misleading way you use the bible to say what he/you want it to say. You live in a world where people are put in prison or put to death for breaking the law. Owlswing question has been proved that he/you knew that God was referring to MURDER and he/you knew that was wrong. So he/you knew the difference between lawful and unlawful killing and chose to ignore the truth to make an unfounded and unsound allegation.
In your case you knew but made it about the bible version used. But the killing in all understandings of the covenant in any time or place is about murder in that law, about unlawful killing.
He/You can tell the difference in the versions of the bible but not understand what it really says?????
His post was deliberately misleading and showing he knew the fact it was murder and not just "killing" otherwise how could they put blood of a sacrificed lamb around the door post and eat the meat when God commanded them too?
The obvious is being; as is the different versions. Something are not what you make them out to be. Any person can see the difference between lawful and unlawful killing. What God makes clear if you read the whole bible is the difference between the two.
Whatever the version regarding the 10 commandments that command refers to unlawful killing of a human being, committing murder.
Is thst s very long winded way of saying that the KJV is not necessarily the best version to use in all instances? ::)
-
Is thst s very long winded way of saying that the KJV is not necessarily the best version to use in all instances? ::)
Can you read with understanding?
It was showing that Murder and lawful killing for breaking the law are not one and the same thing under killing. Lawful and Unlawful killing is the same in whatever lifetime, religion, moral society and bible version. Do you not read what is actually written. So the short answer to your post would be.
NO.
But you could read the bible and educate yourself. Or read the posts made after mine to Owlswing.
-
Can you read with understanding?
It was showing that Murder and lawful killing for breaking the law are not one and the same thing under killing. Lawful and Unlawful killing is the same in whatever lifetime, religion, moral society and bible version. Do you not read what is actually written. So the short answer to your post would be.
NO.
But you could read the bible and educate yourself. Or read the posts made after mine to Owlswing.
I believe Sassy is right in her above Biblical interpretation. Surely believers and non believers alike generally believe there is such a thing as lawful killing.
Here is a Wiki article which further explains it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
-
Can you read with understanding?
. So the short answer to your post would be.
NO.
So the KJV is the best version to quote from or not?
Please confirm.
-
Yet you seem to base this belief on a discussion with a single person in a single establishment, Owl, when there are many other Hebrew scholars - including Hebrew-speaking Jewish scholars - who would disagree with that interpretation. Furthermore, the Old Testament mandates the death sentence for certain instances of behaviour - so clearly the context in which all the commandments exist understood that there is a difference between judicial and non-judicial killing - hence the use of the term 'murder/slay' in many translations that both predate and postdate the King James. In view of your rant against Sass immediately following this paragraph it is ironic that you insist on referencing a translation that was flawed from the outset - in part because of James' interference with the translation process - and which was 'of its time', in other words was designed to be in the English language of the day. As you will appreciate, language is a living entity, and changes from year to year, let alone century to century.
I don't know what, if any written material exists for Paganism that might be seen as comparable with the Bible, but if there is and it remains in a form of language that is several hundred years old, couldn't a similar charge to those you and others make against the likes of Sass and her use of the KJV be made against those who abide by comparable any Pagan material.
I am not arguing about translations, or history, or your continuing attempts to justify just about anything by talolking about anything but the point I am making.
Your book says THOU SHALT NOT KILL! There is no argument there, it has been this way for centuries.
Your book says THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE! This, equally for centuries, has been accepted to mean witches must mot be allowed to live and in anyone's language that means they must be killed.
Once again you and all the rest of your oh so holy buddies will say just about anything to prove that this contradiction does not exist and therefore you do not have to justify or explain it.
It dfoes not matter one iota what the words tranlated to read as above meant centuries ago - these are the precise words that your clergy, your Sunday School teachers etc etc etc have taught to hundreds of thousands of children over four hundred years!
As far as I am concerened you are, when challenged on subjects like this, and others as demonstrated time and time again on this forum, willing to use every subterfuge available to the worst possible political spin doctor to try and hide this and various other contradictions.
When it comes to the TRUTH you and your associates wouldn't know the TRUTH if it hit you at a thousand miles an hour in the form of a ten ton block of concrete.
As far as I am concerned the OP has proved the point that I set it out to prove - that until you are, as I am, prepared to admit that your religion is, like mine, based upon nothing more than faith, a faith which is totally incapable of proving its beliefs to be true peddling a fantasy, an illusion.
-
Thou shalt not kill is a translation. If you don't want to talk about translations, then using it means you are being hypocritical
-
I am not arguing about translations, or history, or your continuing attempts to justify just about anything by talking about anything but the point I am making.
If you are unwilling to 'argue' (though that's not as word I'd use in the context, preferring 'debate'), I'm not really sure why you bothered asking the question in the OP, Owl. In view of your vehement attacks on Sass for her style of posting, all I can say is that you are a hypocrite, who has no interest in debate but only dogmatic insistence on their own somewhat jaundiced POV. I, for one, will be leaving this thread, as without debate this board is dead.
-
He might come back and debate, Hope.
Owl, this is what Wiki says:
"Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. The imperative to not kill is in the context of unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[2]
The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also contains prescriptive imperatives for lawful killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."
-
Thou shalt not kill is a translation. If you don't want to talk about translations, then using it means you are being hypocritical
Please READ what I wrote!
Your book says THOU SHALT NOT KILL! There is no argument there, it has been this way for centuries.
Your book says THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE! This, equally for centuries, has been accepted to mean witches must mot be allowed to live and in anyone's language that means they must be killed.
Translation is not at issue. At issue are words that have been used for centuries.
-
If you are unwilling to 'argue' (though that's not as word I'd use in the context, preferring 'debate'), I'm not really sure why you bothered asking the question in the OP, Owl. In view of your vehement attacks on Sass for her style of posting, all I can say is that you are a hypocrite, who has no interest in debate but only dogmatic insistence on their own somewhat jaundiced POV. I, for one, will be leaving this thread, as without debate this board is dead.
Christ al-fucking-mighty do you EVER read what is wrtitten?
As far as I am concerned the OP has proved the point that I set it out to prove - that until you are, as I am, prepared to admit that your religion is, like mine, based upon nothing more than faith, a faith which is totally incapable of proving its beliefs to be true peddling a fantasy, an illusion.
-
Please READ what I wrote!
Translation is not at issue. At issue are words that have been used for centuries.
which is the question of translation
-
He might come back and debate, Hope.
Owl, this is what Wiki says:
"Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. The imperative to not kill is in the context of unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[2]
The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also contains prescriptive imperatives for lawful killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."
he's been arguing through the thread. You may disagree but why present as if he hasn't?
-
All about translation and interpretation.
-
Which is the question of translation
I am getting the impression that you are being as obtuse as Hope and Sassy.
When were you, ar anyone, ytaughgt in Sunday School or Church that the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 say this but they mean that?
Never! Never! And you know it.
This is my final word on the subject because, I don't know about Hope and Sassy, but I am of te opinion that I am being deliberately wound up here to see if I can be made to lose my rag and post something Modable!
Not happening!
-
he's been arguing through the thread. You may disagree but why present as if he hasn't?
Because I feel he just hasn't grasped what one or two of us are trying to explain! I'm surprised you can't see that; it's not unusual for a lot of posters on here to home in on a particular point and miss the others, especially if the subject concerns something about which they feel strongly. Owlswing is no different to anyone else in that respect and doesn't deserve to be highlighted for it. I thought if we presented things in a gentle fashion, without exasperation, he might have a better understanding even if he didn't ultimately agree.
However it now appears that Owlswing has left the discussion, which is his right, so I'm not going to prolong the agony by saying any more on this topic.
-
I am getting the impression that you are being as obtusre as Hope and Sassy.
When were you, ar anyone, ytaughgt in Sunday School or Church that the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 say this but they mean that?
Never! Never! And you know it.
This is my final word on the subject because, I don't know about Hope and Sassy, but I am of te opinion that I am being deliberately wound up here to see if I can be made to lose my rag and post something Modable!
Not happening!
Just because something was taught in Sunday school doesn't mean that that is the original meaning of the phrase. What was being taught was a translation and interpretation of earlier texts. Not sure why you think pointing this out is an attempt to wind you up.
-
I am getting the impression that you are being as obtusre as Hope and Sassy.
When were you, ar anyone, ytaughgt in Sunday School or Church that the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 say this but they mean that?
Never! Never! And you know it.
This is my final word on the subject because, I don't know about Hope and Sassy, but I am of te opinion that I am being deliberately wound up here to see if I can be made to lose my rag and post something Modable!
Not happening!
I have no interest in making you 'lose your rag'. As to being taught about the fifth commandment, please see the attached link which covers the RC catechism, note you need to read all five pages on it to get the full position that I was taught, so you need to read first page and press next four tines.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Y.HTM
-
When were you, ar anyone, ytaughgt in Sunday School or Church that the Sixth Commandment and Exodus 22:18 say this but they mean that?
Owl, I was taught in Sunday School, at school as a whole and at home (my father was a history teacher before he was ordained) that one has to question transalations of documents to see whether the translation in front of you actually reflects the meaning of the original wording. OK, this involves a degree of research - which has been made much easier with the advent of the internet - but it applied as much to translations of the Odyssey or the Aeneid - or the Bible.
This is my final word on the subject because, I don't know about Hope and Sassy, but I am of te opinion that I am being deliberately wound up here to see if I can be made to lose my rag and post something Modable!
Sorry to see that you are no longer willing to discuss the issue, let alone put your opinion forward in a more reasoned fashion than thus far.
-
Owl, I was taught in Sunday School, at school as a whole and at home (my father was a history teacher before he was ordained) that one has to question transalations of documents to see whether the translation in front of you actually reflects the meaning of the original wording. OK, this involves a degree of research - which has been made much easier with the advent of the internet - but it applied as much to translations of the Odyssey or the Aeneid - or the Bible.
Sorry to see that you are no longer willing to discuss the issue, let alone put your opinion forward in a more reasoned fashion than thus far.
Once again I venture to suggest that your experiences at school etc were different to mine, when I was in the Army - and here is the ridiculous part of it - it was still read by the Padre as "thou shalt not kill" with no reference to possible differences or errors in translation.
As to my being "no longer willing to discuss the issue" you never discuss - you pontificate! No point of view but yours is valid!
Tough - I disagree and I have had enough of your preaching error and lack of research at me!
-
Bibles dated before or after the KJV?
Well, for instance, the NRSV has "murder" and it is considered to be a better translation than the KJV.
-
Mmm we have to be careful here since, as you will know, it is not certain that witch in 'you shall not suffer a witch to live, is another questionable translation.
The NRSV has: "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live"
-
The NRSV has: "You shall not permit a female sorcerer to live"
and in many ways that is justifiable as a translation but what does that mean?
-
Sorcerer? Couldn't be anything similar to sorcerers or witches often mentioned in the ' Harry Potter' series of works? Equally fictitious, unless of course?
Why bother to discuss as though there's some kind of importance attached to these ideas, unless there's solid foundation for any kind of or for belief in sorcerers or witches to be found and established.
Why not discuss the best way to deal with and treat unicorns; wouldn't that be equally futile?
ippy
-
Sorcerer? Couldn't be anything similar to sorcerers or witches often mentioned in the ' Harry Potter' series of works? Equally fictitious, unless of course?
Why bother to discuss as though there's some kind of importance attached to these ideas, unless there's solid foundation for any kind of or for belief in sorcerers or witches to be found and established.
Why not discuss the best way to deal with and treat unicorns; wouldn't that be equally futile?
ippy
I see, I do not exist to you.
-
Turn him into a toad !!! Turn Him Into A TOAD !!!!!
-
Lots of talk about the biblical definition of "killing" but not much about the biblical definition of "witch".
Does the Bible define what a witch is?
Are we told that it's someone who causes disease, crops to fail, pregnant mothers to miscarry, cows milk to sour, etc?
-
and in many ways that is justifiable as a translation but what does that mean?
It seems pretty obvious to me. It means kill the women who can do magic.
-
Once again I venture to suggest that your experiences at school etc were different to mine, when I was in the Army - and here is the ridiculous part of it - it was still read by the Padre as "thou shalt not kill" with no reference to possible differences or errors in translation.
As to my being "no longer willing to discuss the issue" you never discuss - you pontificate! No point of view but yours is valid!
Tough - I disagree and I have had enough of your preaching error and lack of research at me!
Your padre probably read: Jesus saying: I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father, but by me.
So what is Jesus telling? What is his way, truth and life?
Your argument doesn't hold water since you already cannot show you understand these words or the fact you show the deliberate lack of purposely ignoring the obvious the bible teaches such as lawful and unlawful killing. Should you really be trying to discuss matters you have a closed mind about, and deliberately ignore the obvious answers to? NO
-
Well, for instance, the NRSV has "murder" and it is considered to be a better translation than the KJV.
In the light of use in Hebrew, Latin, Greek and English. The fact we know the unlawful killing and lawful killing the later version would have displayed the usage term to make it easier to read. When the Hebrew translations done there was not always a word in Greek/English to represent the Hebrew definition so the nearest would have been used. But a margin mark/ reference made to explain.
-
In the light of use in Hebrew, Latin, Greek and English. The fact we know the unlawful killing and lawful killing the later version would have displayed the usage term to make it easier to read. When the Hebrew translations done there was not always a word in Greek/English to represent the Hebrew definition so the nearest would have been used. But a margin mark/ reference made to explain.
Would you care to rephrase that in English to make it easier to read?
-
The truth remains that witchcraft and other powers were all based in the worship of the male forces of nature. That they believe powers are in the earth so spells cast, herbs mixed and potions etc using the things of nature. Worship of animals still in many religions today they place a significant part.
But God is the unknown force who created nature and life.
A force for good which is about the welfare of humans and them knowing the truth.
One has to ask why the Egyptians well educated in their times past knew that there was no power greater than the finger of God.
Exodus 8:19 (KJV)
19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and he hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said.
Luke 11:20
(KJV)
20 But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.
There is no greater power even magicians knew when up against God himself and his power there is no other power greater. Pharaoh believed he was a god and here was the Moses sent by God, showing no man or power is greater than the true Gods.
-
Would you care to rephrase that in English to make it easier to read?
It is easy a word used nearest to the definition but a note made to show it was different from the Hebrew. But nearest to it.
-
I see, I do not exist to you.
I'm sure you think you're a witch owl, I think I'm an average ordinary male person, we're all free to think whatever we like to think.
ippy
-
I'm sure you think you're a witch owl, I think I'm an average ordinary male person, we're all free to think whatever we like to think.
ippy
and what's an 'average, ordinary' male, ippy. Didn't there were any such beings!! ;)
-
and what's an 'average, ordinary' male, ippy. Didn't there were any such beings!! ;)
OED Hope, average, ding ding, average.
ippy
-
Lots of talk about the biblical definition of "killing" but not much about the biblical definition of "witch".
Does the Bible define what a witch is?
Are we told that it's someone who causes disease, crops to fail, pregnant mothers to miscarry, cows milk to sour, etc?
That would br a BIG FAT "NO"