|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Dec 21, 2004 17:57:06 GMT -5
"A Time to Kill" vs "Though Shall Not Kill"
Ecclesiastes 3:3
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
Most folks incorrectly translate the Hebrew words "THOUGH SHALL NOT MURDER" to "Though Shall not KILL".
Why are many Christians continuing to replicate this translation error?
Why do many Christians allow themselves to misquote God?
Why do people stand by when some needlessly die because of the error?
Shaking my head with wonder.
BoyntonStu
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 21, 2004 18:43:58 GMT -5
This is a big issue with you Stu. I would ask how you know "many" people take that commandment to mean not to kill at all? Nothwithstanding my personal opinion the Bible is best understood apart from it's literal sense, there are many passages in the Bible that make it clear killing in self-defense is not a sin. This is not to say there isn't any misunderstanding of the Bible. One of the worst translated words from the Greek to English is "repent" and it happens to be one of the most important. The most important, IMO, is also mistranslated or misunderstood and that is "agape" from the Greek. How many people believe that charity and love when used in parts, say 1 John 4:18 means an emotion? And, as far as misunderstanding, let me submit this. Who of us can comprehend God? If not, we may have a problem. Let's look at the two great commandments: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matthew 22:37-40. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deuteronomy 6:5. Here's the potential problem: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." 1 John 4:8. Add to this the translation problem; the word "love" is not in the original Greek an emotion, and it makes my head spin.  |
|
|
|
Post by KaosTheory on Dec 21, 2004 18:53:23 GMT -5
Hmm that's interesting....GK Chesterson says that you can't really talk about love unless you also talk about commitment. These two words go together and can not be separated. Love without commitment has no meaning.
KT
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Dec 21, 2004 19:19:30 GMT -5
If "agape" isn't an emotion, then what is it?
Have you checked out the Hebrew roots? "agape" is one of several words -- "amen" being another -- that came into Greek solely by virtue of the Jewish scriptures.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Dec 21, 2004 22:14:12 GMT -5
"....the Bible is best understood apart from it's literal sense, ....
Marc.
How may one understand words in a book that are not represenative of the original untranslated words?
What factual evidence do you have to support this statement?
My factual evidence for the people who do not understand kill vs murder are the thousands of Consiencious Objectors who came to the conclusion that self defense in a war is against their religion.
BoyntonStu
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 22, 2004 12:19:09 GMT -5
"....the Bible is best understood apart from it's literal sense, .... Marc. How may one understand words in a book that are not represenative of the original untranslated words? What factual evidence do you have to support this statement? My factual evidence for the people who do not understand kill vs murder are the thousands of Consiencious Objectors who came to the conclusion that self defense in a war is against their religion. Aren't you assuming they are relying on the mistranslation of Exodus 20:13? Couldn't it be based partly on other sections, such as "That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39. My factual evidence to prove the Bible is best understood apart from the literal is voluminous; it's the Bible itself. For example, in Jeremiah: Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart..." Jer. 4:4. "To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken..." Jer. 6:10. Clearly there is no literal foreskin on a literal heart, nor on a literal ear. These verses are incomprehensible in the literal. Isaiah unlocks the meaning of the rest of the Bible. For example: "For ye shall be ashamed of the oaks which ye have desired, and ye shall be confounded for the gardens that ye have chosen. For ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth, and as a garden that hath no water." Isaiah 1:29-30. Once again, as with so many verses in the Bible, man is compared to a tree; trees are metaphors or allegory for Man: "But I am like a green olive tree in the house of God." Psalm 52:8. Now consider the trees in Genesis. Last, read Galatians 4:23-24: For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants..." |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 22, 2004 12:20:51 GMT -5
If "agape" isn't an emotion, then what is it? Have you checked out the Hebrew roots? "agape" is one of several words -- "amen" being another -- that came into Greek solely by virtue of the Jewish scriptures. From my research, agape is a state of consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Dec 22, 2004 12:34:16 GMT -5
My factual evidence to prove the Bible is best understood apart from the literal is voluminous; it's the Bible itself. For example, in Jeremiah:
Judge Mark,
The Lawbooks explain the meaning of the law? Isn't that always their answer?
There are over 40,000 Protestant sects in the US. These many versions come because of your reasoning. Tere is no agreement on what the Bible really says. Every person using your logic can create another sect.
"Look before you leap" or "He who hesitates is lost".
Pick one and you contradict the other.
I am in agreement with your analysis of the law and Legal Land because you come from outside looking in. When it comes to the Bible, you are inside looking around.
Boyntonstu
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Dec 22, 2004 12:37:54 GMT -5
Marc, Just curious here... how does this thread correlate with the "Forum Etiquette" post? I mean, this is YOUR forum, so you can do whatever it is that you want with it, but when is a line a line and not a puddle?  |
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Dec 22, 2004 13:07:25 GMT -5
Hoping to clarify things so that I understand:
Is Stu saying that Christian pacifism relies on a misinterpretation of scripture?
|
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Dec 22, 2004 13:36:51 GMT -5
Hoping to clarify things so that I understand: Is Stu saying that Christian pacifism relies on a misinterpretation of scripture? Harry, What does "Christian pacifism" mean and what are the facts to support it? BoyntonStu |
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Dec 22, 2004 13:59:50 GMT -5
First, it's not a position I necessarily espouse. I'll leave identification of supporting facts to someone who does espouse it.
"Christian pacifism" would be pacifism that a Christian adheres to as a part of what she or he believes to be his or her Christianity.
Pacifism is a doctrine of not resorting to violence under any circumstances, including self-defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoyntonStu on Dec 22, 2004 15:58:30 GMT -5
"Christian pacifism" would be pacifism that a Christian adheres to as a part of what she or he believes to be his or her Christianity.
What is unique about Christian pacifism as compared to pasifism of other religious persuasians?
Does pacifism come from "Do not Kill"?
Boyntonstu
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Dec 22, 2004 16:06:27 GMT -5
The only thing unique about Christian pacifism, I think, is its presumption of being based in Jesus' teachings.
Otherwise it's not much different from other pacifisms. There was, for example, a community of pacifist Jews at the time of the Maccabean War, and when then Graecizers wiped them out -- this atrocity was one of the beginnings of the war.
Christian pacifism probably has less to do with "thou shalt not kill" than with "turn the other cheek" and "resist not [the] evil [one]." There are forms nonetheless of non-violent self-defense, which Gandhi and others made into a virtual science.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 22, 2004 18:57:56 GMT -5
Marc, Just curious here... how does this thread correlate with the "Forum Etiquette" post? I mean, this is YOUR forum, so you can do whatever it is that you want with it, but when is a line a line and not a puddle? "The theme, if there is one, is that all human interaction should be voluntary; no service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun." |
|
