A Biblical contradiction - impossible to resolve? But please try!

[Sebastian Toe]

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!

[Owlswing]

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.

[Owlswing]

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!

[Brownie]

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)

[Owlswing]

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. 

[floo]

Owlswing is a witch and isn't sure he finds your broomstick comment to be funny.

Really?

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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. 

[Nearly Sane]

Really?

What are you questioning about the statement?

[Sassy]

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.

[floo]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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!

You do realise you have just been deriding owlswing and witchcraft in this post?

[floo]

You do realise you have just been deriding owlswing and witchcraft in this post?

Oh blimey, I can't do right for doing wrong.  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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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? 

[Sassy]

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.

[Brownie]

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

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

[Owlswing]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

Thou shalt not kill is a translation. If you don't want to talk about translations, then using it means you are being hypocritical

[Hope]

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.

[Brownie]

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."

[Owlswing]

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.

[Owlswing]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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