biblical atrocities, and tigers, and bears, oh my!

[Pax]

Over the Christmas holidays there were a lot of specials on TV about the bible, christianity, Judaism, Islam, JC, Mohammed and various other prophets.

Proof was given that it was possible that a lot of things in the bible could have happened and explained how.
I personally believe that there is a god.
I also believe that the the things depicted in the bible probably be happened.
what I do not believe is that yu can take the bible at face value. Especially when people claim to have spoke to god or that the things depicted in the bible was god's will. I believe it far more likely that someone, the writer, speechwriter, or a propagandist to justify there actions.
There is no way you can prove that if God spoke to these people, he was qouted correctly.
I think that the foundation of religous beliefs that follow the words of men and claim that it is the word of god is corrupt at its base. That's why we have the religous wars we have today.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The commandment in fact said "Thou shalt not kill." You will find the same thing in KJV, NRSV, and other versions. The NIV translation is wrong.

How about looking at the original, not these pansy translations?

It's "Thou shalt not murder"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Of course, that means when somebody asserts that he only follows the orders of some voice in his head, BK will have to defend the behaviour of said person.

I wonder if he'll be that agreeable when the "somone" in question decides to gut him.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Edan
How about looking at the original, not these pansy translations?

It's "Thou shalt not murder"

You know Hebrew Edan? Esp the ancient scripts used to write the OT?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Proof was given that it was possible that a lot of things in the bible could have happened and explained how.

Yeah, I read explanations of some of these events, no supernatural forces are necessary.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
You know Hebrew Edan? Esp the ancient scripts used to write the OT?

Well, I've always heard the literal translation as being not to murder, or wrongfully kill.

Here is a page translating the Hebrew:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm

The verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Over the Christmas holidays there were a lot of specials on TV about the bible, christianity, Judaism, Islam, JC, Mohammed and various other prophets.

Proof was given that it was possible that a lot of things in the bible could have happened and explained how.

TV specials aren't exactly a good basis for an accurate analysis of such events. I've seen some preposterous shows on the History Channel that seem more interested in catering to sensationalism than good science and rigorous historical criticism. Fox has also broadcast some ludicrously irresponsible specials that seem to be designed to appeal to the fundamentalists rather than balanced interpretations.

Of course, without specific instances, it's hard to judge this statement.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You know Hebrew Edan? Esp the ancient scripts used to write the OT?

Yes, and yes, if rusty on both. (For the most part ancient hebrew isn't really that different from modern hebrew.)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Well, I've always heard the literal translation as being not to murder, or wrongfully kill.

Here is a page translating the Hebrew:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0220.htm

The verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

According to Dan Barker*, in the nontract "Murder, He Wrote" (available from the Freedom from Religion Foundation) the word "ratsach" appears a total of 47 times, behind muth (825 times), nakah (502 times), haraq (172 times), and zabach (140 times). All of these words can mean "die, slay, kill, put to death, smite, murder" etc, like modern day authors switch freely between synonyms.

He concluded that "Thou shalt not kill is a better translation."

* Former minister of 17 years with formal training. Yes, he knows Hebrew.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
He concluded that "Thou shalt not kill is a better translation."

* Former minister of 17 years with formal training. Yes, he knows Hebrew.

I'm not sure where his conclusion comes from, but I'd say it's a bit dubious. It's clear that the reason there are so many different words is that they all carry different nuances and meaning, so its certainly possible the nuance of "ratsach" is "unlawful killing."

Considering Rabbis have pointed out that the Torah does condone killing--frequently--in terms of avenging wrongs and as criminal punishment, the prohibition in Exodus obviously is only pointing towards killing without legal sanction to do so.

Insisting the original means no killing whatsoever is a dead-end issue and will get a debate nowhere, because you're arguing over the usage of words based on modern grammatical concepts without taking the obvious context into account.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Am I the only one who loves the irony of this thread, where Ben advocates the genocide of babies? I thought he opposed abortion because we were genociding embryos and zygotes

It's not confusing at all. It's only wrong to kill children before birth. He's the complete opposite of a radical pro-choice advocate

[Vanguard]

Okay, let's assume that YHWH wanted to "make a place" for Israel in Palestine after the Exodos.

Why does he have to order the Israelites to wipe out all these nations? He is God. Couldn't he just wipe them all out with a plague? Or fire and brimstone?

Why the whole "kill them all with the edge of your sword, except for the little babies----- dash them against rocks" thing?

There is no reason for this. There is in fact no sense in it at all. The only thing that make sense is that Moses wanted to "make room for Israel" in Palestine. And he did this through the ancient and ignoble practice of genocide. And to justify this proceeding, he invoked the equally ancient and equally ignoble practice of claiming that "Dieu li volt" ("God wills it).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I'm not sure where his conclusion comes from, but I'd say it's a bit dubious. It's clear that the reason there are so many different words is that they all carry different nuances and meaning, so its certainly possible the nuance of "ratsach" is "unlawful killing."

Well, I couldn't find it on their website for copy-and-paste, and sure I wasn't to type the whole thing in He went on quite a bit, but I just skipped those paragraphs.

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Insisting the original means no killing whatsoever is a dead-end issue and will get a debate nowhere, because you're arguing over the usage of words based on modern grammatical concepts without taking the obvious context into account.

That's exactly what people insist it means "murder" have been doing. They just ignore the context.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Why does he have to order the Israelites to wipe out all these nations? He is God. Couldn't he just wipe them all out with a plague? Or fire and brimstone?

Or, he could just move the whole tribes elsewhere?

I also found it funny that YHWH couldn't overcome iron chariots. That's a riot.

[Vanguard]

One of my favorite episodes in the Bible is when YHWH "tries" to kill Moses------ and fails!

I guess Moses was just a little bit too quick for the Big Guy. I picture him doing a shoulder roll to dodge out of the way of YHWH's heat vision.