[Tj3]

Tj3 :

As I stated : the proof is in the "eating of the pudding" : The FACTS show us that Christians score lower in the application of their moral and ethical values than Secular Humanists.

Ho hum - facts made up by the Cred Institute no doubt, where research on the west pointing compass is underway by engineers who got their licences in high school :p

[spyderglass]

I missed the word "assume" in the Bible. Can you point out where you saw it?

As to whether it is right or not depends upon the context. It depends upon the context. Keep in mind that Israel was to be the people of God, a priestly nation who was to remain pure, so that they would be essentially God'/s messengers or representatives in the world and the nation through whom the Messiah would enter the world. Nothing is more important than the Messiah because without Him, and without the truth of the gospel, everyone goes to hell for eternity. Scripture speaks of such apostasy as whoredom against God. Not something to be taken lightly.

Further, as we seen the history of Israel, as well any other group, once heresy enters, it dopes not stop with one person, and because of the Holy nature of what Israel as a nation was to be, the danger of such false teaching cannot be overstated.



It says that in some English translations.

Others say:

Ex 20:13
13 "You shall not murder.
NKJV

"Murder" is a more accurate translation.

In the OLD KJV it says thou shalt not kill, which IS the more accurate translation. My bible is also an open bible and I have a strong's dictionary as well, which goes into depth about the meaning of words in the bible.

[Tj3]

In the OLD KJV it says thou shalt not kill, which IS the more accurate translation. My bible is also an open bible and I have a strong's dictionary as well, which goes into depth about the meaning of words in the bible.

The KJV was an accurate translation 600 years ago, and I would no doubt recommend it if your first language was AD1611 English, but it is not the best translation if you are trying to understand what it says in today's vernacular.

[spyderglass]

It is the best translation because it is MORE pure. And like I said I have other sources for interpretation.

[Tj3]

It is the best translation because it is MORE pure. And like I said I have other sources for interpretation.

"More pure" is not a term used to describe the accuracy of a translation.

If you wish to argue your opinion or likes against what it actually says, then we are not likely to come to common ground. Have you been reading Riplinger's writings?

[spyderglass]

Sure it is, the bible used today whether it be KJV, NKJV etc. is by no means pure. And of course I continue to support my opinions until I drop dead. However, my opinions are subject to change.

He that never changes his opinions, never corrects his mistakes, and will never be wiser on the morrow than he is today.
Author: Tryon Edwards

[Tj3]

Sure it is, the bible used today whether it be KJV, NKJV etc. is by no means pure. And of course I continue to support my opinions until I drop dead. However, my opinions are subject to change.

You are welcome to your opinions, but in no case do your opinions become the standard by which we translate.

[spyderglass]

Well, I agree to disagree. I like to debate so much disagreeing agrees with me. :)
Later, I'm crashing another thread, until our next 'disagreement' lol

[asking]

So the argument is against what the Bible actually says, versus opinions of some people who would prefer to read it as "kill".

That's fine,although the same article said there was some reason to think that Hebrew scholars of the time interpreted it more broadly than as just a prohibition of technical murder, but a more general prohibition against killing human beings. I'm sure you read the whole article, just as I did.

I'll stick with the actual text.

Fine. But then you are stuck with the problem that "murder" is a legal definition that varies with time, culture, and geography. Why would God prohibit something that's only illegal if a human says it is? Is he just seconding human laws and doesn't care if they say you can kill women who don't float in this century, but not in this one? Is He saying you can kill a runaway slave in this country but not in that? What kind of commandment is that?

BTW, just consider how I could claim that you meant something entirely different by applying alternate meanings to the words that you using other than what definition of the word is, and what the context is. Using an approach like that, where you alter what is actually said, you could make anything say whatever you wanted, but that would not be dealing honestly with the text.

Not sure what you are driving at. The Bible is clearly not a precision document, hence the need for so many layers of human interpreters like yourself. If really smart priests and rabbis (with no internet or back episodes of The Wire to distract them) can spend literally millennia arguing about what it means, I am certainly not going to sort it out, nor you, I'll hazard, with all due respect. :)

[Alty]

You are demonstrating that you know about as much about Hebrew as you do compass needles ;)

Let me fill you in on some things that you may not know.

1) The Bible was originally penned in Hebrew and Koine Greek, not English (this may come as a shocker to you)

2) The original word used in Hebrew gives the sense of murder, not general killing.

3) Some Bibles translate it as murder and some as kill. These tend to be the newer translations because the meanings of English words do vary over time (You may not be aware of this because English is not your first language). the NKJV, CEV, ESV, LITV, and RV for example, all translate it as murder.

You chose the KJV, which is almost 600 years old, and was translated into a form of English which is no longer in common use, and meanings of many words has varied by either small changes or in some cases major changes. In any case, what is most important is what the Bible says in the original language in which it was penned.

Ah, Tom, this is where you aren't accurate.

Yes, The old testament was written in Hebrew, and the New testament in greek. There are some verses written in Armaic which is closely related to Hebrew, but not enough that it would be easy to translate.

No, I didn't look on the internet for this info, this was taught to me in Catholic school. I can give you the verses that were originally written in Armaic if you want, but unless you have an original bible handy, it won't do you much good.

The bible has been translated so many times into so many languages that the original text has probably been lost along the way.

After all, if, and I do say if, the bible was written by God, surely we can agree that it was translated by fallible men, and goodness knows they probably missed a lot when translating this book.

Also, there are bibles out there that are written in plain english, easy to understand. These are the bibles that most religious schools have today. Most children cannot begin to understand the text of the older bibles.

So, how much has been lost in translation? I'd venture to say that most of what is written is very far removed from the original text.

Still, does that make it the work of God? Not in my opinion. If I were to write a book today, I'd write it in English. If it was a good book and my publishers decided to translate it, I'm sure that a lot of my original words would be lost in the translation.

[Tj3]

That's fine,although the same article said there was some reason to think that Hebrew scholars of the time interpreted it more broadly than as just a prohibition of technical murder, but a more general prohibition against killing human beings. I'm sure you read the whole article, just as I did.

Once again, opinions are fine, but I'll stick what was the text actually says.

Remember sound exegesis of the Bible requires that we allow the Bible to interpret itself, rather than for men to interpret it for us.

Fine. But then you are stuck with the problem that "murder" is a legal definition that varies with time, culture, and geography.

The Old Testament included the law for the OT. The definition insofar as it pertained to ancient Israel is defined in the Bible. In addition, scripture requires that we abide by the laws of the land insofar as they do not restrict our ability to worship the true God. Therefore what is included in the scripture definition is the minimum - but it may be more restrictive as the l,aw of the land provides. Lastly, keep in mind that the context of scripture refers to killing as authorized by the state in alignment with the law of the Bible.

So your argument that it varies over time does not carry weight.

[spyderglass]

So if killing a witch is okay because it was the 'law of the land' (even though it's says thou shalt not kill)
Does that mean since abortion is legal, and it is the 'law' of the land that abortion is okay?

[Tj3]

Ah, Tom, this is where you aren't accurate.

Yes, The old testament was written in Hebrew, and the New testament in greek. There are some verses written in Armaic which is closely related to Hebrew, but not enough that it would be easy to translate.

That is a claim, generally put forward by the RCC, but whether or over time any evidence comes forward in support of that position does not in any way assist your position.

The bible has been translated so many times into so many languages that the original text has probably been lost along the way.

Have you studied the history of the manuscripts? You should. The evidence of the accuracy of the text that we have today has been established to be greater than any other ancient text by orders of magnitude. And yet the secular world accepts other ancient documents as accurate historic documents.

[Alty]

Remember sound exegesis of the Bible requires that we allow the Bible to interpret itself, rather than for men to interpret it for us.

Do you read hebrew? If not, then you need man to translate it for you, which they've done. What makes you so certain that the men that translated the bible from hebrew to english, did it right? Or where they inspired by God as well?

[spyderglass]

Have fun on here Alt, tj
Night

[Tj3]

So if killing a witch is okay because it was the 'law of the land' (even though it's says thou shalt not kill)
does that mean since abortion is legal, and it is the 'law' of the land that abortion is okay?

See why I say that these claims of contradictions are timewasters? As you said, you are in this for the argument, and in this post you have completely ignored all the evidence and all our previous discussions, coming up with a logical fallacy argument known as a strawman.

Prov 26:21
21 As charcoal is to burning coals, and wood to fire,
So is a contentious man to kindle strife.
NKJV

If you wish to have a discussion, that is fine, but if you are just going to ignore whatever is said, facts that are established so that you have have an argument, then go find someone who has time to waste.

[Tj3]

Do you read hebrew? If not, then you need man to translate it for you, which they've done. What makes you so certain that the men that translated the bible from hebrew to english, did it right? Or where they inspired by God as well?

The interesting thing is that if you go to the experts in translation of the verses in the Bible which deal with the essentials, there is very little disagreement about what the meaning is. Differences are on points which do not alter the meaning of what is said.

The key points where there is disagreement is on points which are not essential.

So your point does not hold water.

[Alty]

Have you studied the history of the manuscripts? You should. The evidence of the accuracy of the text that we have today has been established to be greater than any other ancient text by orders of magnitude. And yet the secular world accepts other ancient documents as accurate historic documents.

Funny you should ask. Actually I have studied the history of the manuscripts.

I will not say that what I learned is fact, but I did find some interesting things when doing my research.

What I found is that two brothers translated the original text of the bible. You see, it was translated at a time when no one understood the original language of the bible. Two men had the task of translating, and they understood much of the original hebrew in the bible, but they did not understand the Aramaic. They lived far apart from each other and kept in contact by mail (which in those days took months). When they came to a part of the original book that was in Armaic they made up what was said because they couldn't translate it. They wrote extensively to each other, wondering if it was okay to do this. They decided that it was better to make something up then to omit those portions of the bible, because it would be noticeable that those portions where missing. Because of the distance between them the information didn't always reach them in time to amend what they had written, but they each sent each other copies of what they had translated. In the end they both agreed that their translation (even those that were accurate as far as they knew) where contradictory to each other and they both agreed that the bible was the work of man, not God.

I will have to look up the books where I got this info, it's been many years and I don't remember the titles off hand. But yes, that is what I read.

Is it true? I can't say, after all, like the bible, it was written by man. Who knows if they wrote the truth?

[Tj3]

Funny you should ask. Actually I have studied the history of the manuscripts.

I will not say that what I learned is fact, but I did find some interesting things when doing my research.

What I found is that two brothers translated the original text of the bible. You see, it was translated at a time when no one understood the original language of the bible. Two men had the task of translating, and they understood much of the original hebrew in the bible, but they did not understand the Aramaic. They lived far apart from each other and kept in contact by mail (which in those days took months). When they came to a part of the original book that was in Armaic they made up what was said because they couldn't translate it. They wrote extensively to each other, wondering if it was okay to do this. They decided that it was better to make something up then to omit those portions of the bible, because it would be noticeable that those portions where missing. Because of the distance between them the information didn't always reach them in time to amend what they had written, but they each sent each other copies of what they had translated. In the end they both agreed that their translation (even those that were accurate as far as they knew) where contradictory to each other and they both agreed that the bible was the work of man, not God.

I will have to look up the books where I got this info, it's been many years and I don't remember the titles off hand. But yes, that is what I read.

I don't know where you got this from, but either the book is off base, or your memory has forgotten some(or maybe most) key details over the years.

Is it true? I can't say, after all, like the bible, it was written by man. Who knows if they wrote the truth?

You will continue to believe that because you refuse to believe anything that disagrees with what you want to believe, as we discussed previously.

[Alty]

You will continue to believe that because you refuse to believe anything that disagrees with what you want to believe, as we discussed previously.

Ditto!

I don't know where you go this from, but either the book is off base, or your memory has forgotten some key details over the years

My memory is sound, have no doubt of that. The accuracy of the book I cannot say, but did I read it and was my depiction of those words accurate? Yes.