| Author | Message | ||
     Torquehd |
Hoot, The problem is - once you say that there's a problem with the translation - then the whole thing becomes invalid. Look at it contextually, big picture. God commanded the Israelites to kill enemies, to kill people who engaged in certain sins, to kill animals for food and for sacrifice. Were they guilty of breaking God's law by following his law? God killed people - Nadab and Abihu are the first that come to mind. Oh yeah, and the folks of Sodom and gommorah, and lots more. Was God guilty of breaking his own laws? Of course not. In Genesis, Joseph stockpiled corn in Egypt. Of course, there was no corn back then in that part of the world, as we think of corn today. Corn means grain but when we hear it today, the only thing we think of is the maize native to the Americas. Murder is simply a subset of kill. And I agree that, looking big picture, murder makes perfect sense. But I wouldn't say that the word kill is a wrong translation just because I can see a potential for disagreeing with it when taking that standalone word at its most common meaning. Here's an interesting jewel. Lev 15:33 says, "And of her that is sick of her flowers..." It aint talking about daisies or tulips. It literally says, "flowers", but the meaning is, her that has blood flowing out of you know where.... And, unless you can read Hebrew and have the original scroll - you're reading a translation. I posted up a handful of verses in another thread as to why I believe that the word of God has been maintained; why I believe it is inerrant, inspired, infallible. I also hold to the belief that I don't need someone to interpret the bible for me. Take it in context, analyze the whole thing. There are MANY mysteries, but all will be revealed in time. Original language is subject to interpretation, but I believe God preserved his word. The best way to know the intent of God's word is to spend time in it. That's not always easy, and sometimes it's downright hard to stay interested in it. But I try. Hoot, I agree - murder makes sense, but even that has limitations. Killing someone else is a definition of murder. Are we talking killing innocent people or criminals? What assessment is used for determining whether it's murder, capital punishment, etc. This branches out a lot further. The simple answer is, consider the context. | ||
| Hootowl |
"once you say that there's a problem with the translation - then the whole thing becomes invalid." That's not a reason to say that every thought was properly translated, especially when different versions use different words that have different meanings. If that invalidates the Bible for you, well...I'm sorry, it doesn't for me; I simply recognize that I'm reading text that was translated. Translation... You can do a word for word translation (where there is a word that another word translates to, that is) but that is problematic as, in many cases, the word or phrase, and its connotation, cannot be translated word for word without losing meaning. Example: What does la caliente translate to in English? Hot. That's what it says, but that's not what it means. The same can be said of many words and phrases. What it means is up to the person making the translation. You can drive a truck through the gap between between "though shall not murder" and "though shall not kill". | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm with Hoot on this one. But I'm not going to argue about it. You can drive a truck through the gap between between "though shall not murder" and "though shall not kill". So true. A simple example is a bed guy comes into your home. He's bigger and stronger than you are and commences raping then murdering your family. The only option you have to stop him is a lethal weapon. Do you let him murder your family... or the family next door, because you won't kill? For some people that's their only option, for personal reasons, not related to the 10 commandments. See the essay on "On Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs". http://www.killology.com/sheep-wolves-and-sheepdog s I can even respect your decision not to kill in defense of others based on your faith. Not a lot of respect, I admit. I'll probably put you on my list of people to enslave if I ever become an evil overlord. ( I never will, too much work..... but you can dream  ) There have been plenty of religions created to keep the slaves in line by promising an afterlife better than this one. ( if you suspect those man made propaganda machines are perversions of another faith.... you're right ) War is another thing. For 99.999% of human history War is one King wanting to steal the property of another. Land, resources, people. In a lot of ways it's the murderer in your house writ large. | ||
| Torquehd |
As for translation - I have a side by side english KJV/ Chinese heheben translation. Depending on the context, I typically need to look up between 10-50% of the characters; some places I understand it all quite cleanly. I'm no language shifu, but I appreciate translation, and language. Word for word? Not a chance in Chinese. A totally different syntax is used, but the intention of the statement stays the same. In Genesis - "the earth was void and without form" translated from the Chinese heheben comes across more like, "the earth was empty, without meaning, primal chaos" (BTW, the Chinese word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 "Thou shall not kill" means, "kill". It can also mean murder, but another character is generally required to specify.) So this has been on my mind: Killing is never a good thing to have to do. Even when you do it for a good reason, it's never a good thing to have to do. God demanded the shedding of blood for sins in the old testament; it's perhaps the ultimate example of repercussion for sin. "The wages of sin is death". King David wanted to build God a temple, but was not allowed to build the temple (that would be later built by his son, king Solomon), because: 1 Chron 22: 8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight. Perhaps it says, "kill" for a reason. Maybe it is as simple as, "You should not kill". Sometimes you must, even though you should not. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to do the right thing. Perhaps God designed that finite detail into the text. Feel free to disagree, but if you do, present some evidence to build your case. I'm just expounding and pondering here. That's not a reason to say that every thought was properly translated, It's either infallible, or it is not. If my KJV has errors, then it needs to be disregarded. You can expound on translations and study the Hebrew and Greek words; that's fine. But to simply say that a word was "a bad translation" because it's not the word you want, is just plain wrong. Or to imply that you need something other than the bible to understand the bible would make Christianity a cult. We can look at greek and Hebrew all day and analyze meanings in the original language - not that it would do me any good without some scholar telling me what he thinks that word means. I wish it said, "murder", for simplicities sake. But it doesn't. So I will ponder it as is. I'm enjoying this conversation BTW. I don't often get a chance in my daily life to ponder and question these subjects. | ||
| Hootowl |
http://www.biblestudy.org/question/what-does-thou- shall-not-kill-mean.html QUESTION: I am studying the Ten Commandments. Please explain the Sixth Commandment that says "thou shalt not kill." ANSWER: The commandment "thou shalt not kill" (found in the KJV Bible translation of Exodus 20:13), also listed as "thou shall not kill" is better understood in the New King James Version Bible. "You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13, NKJV throughout) Most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-12/feat ures/sns-201204101200--tms--godsqudctngs-a20120412 apr12_1_commandment-killing-murder "In biblical Hebrew, as in English, killing (harag) and murder (ratzah) are two different words with two very different moral connotations, and the commandment uses the Hebrew word ratzah, which means that the proper translation of the commandment from Hebrew into English is, "Thou shalt not murder." The difference is crucial." So it sounds to me like KJ has it wrong, and NKJ has it right. Translation error. | ||
| Aesquire |
The problem is - once you say that there's a problem with the translation - then the whole thing becomes invalid. Ok... THAT I'll argue with. Your faith does not depend on precision in translation. If the word "witches" is chosen instead of the actual "poisoners" it does not mean that you should covet, kill, lie, etc. It certainly doesn't mean that Your God does not exist, or that Jesus did not die for your sins. ( what I believe does not matter ) The "witches/poisoners" probable translation difference is because words change meaning. You wouldn't accuse the CEO of the chinese company that sold poisonous toothpaste a witch. You'd call him a criminal & maybe a Poisoner. But in King James time, or certainly for centuries before, witch would be the common word. In some cultures and languages. Assume long rant on Sorcery, Shaman, Witch doctors & Wicca.......... and we'll skip it.  None of which is any threat to or negation of the faith. Just a warning that evil men have & will exploit the Bible by cherry picking bits out of context and that has killed.... many. ( aka... don't join the New Spanish Inquisition ) Seriously, no matter if you're right or wrong about miraculous magical spell correct or not, The Basics are there. Your reasoning, twisted a tiny bit, is the Atheist argument that "if it's a little bit wrong, it's all wrong" and the conclusion that EVERYTHING in the Bible is made up from whole cloth and thus... meaningless. Christ on his Cross was a heretic and the whole "had to stop and demolish the gates of Hell on the way here, sorry it took 3 days, Gotta go, Dad's calling, don't forget!" is science fiction. And that's why your statement above is false. Drops mike. Btw, now that they can finally do righteous special effects for superhero movies, I'd love to see the story Of Jesus throwing down the gates of Hell, and battling his way back to Earth as a movie. There's a limited amount of original script here... my version above isn't that much longer than the original. Who do we get to make an epic of such magnitude? Peter Jackson? | ||
| Aesquire |
I don't agree with you on the divine guidance of translation & copying. But that's not worth arguing about. I agree we disagree. But I do argue with the notion that if you are wrong in this one particular that everything else is wrong too. I mean, you could certainly be wrong about many things in your life. I am. Stupid Humans. But your argument seems to be if you are mistaken in one tiny thing....that the Bible is suddenly wrong too? Or because of that? Bogus. Or I could be wrong. Doesn't change that we'll probably never see the "Gates Of Hell" movie. Or the Bible, one little bit. It it blasphemous to start a name that movie thread? | ||
| Torquehd |
This is why I don't study the Hebrew. There are guys that do, who understand the language, how it works, which resources to use. I don't. According to the Hebrew Interlinear Text, which is the Textus receptus - the common text from which the KJV was translated - the word should be thrtzch (Badweb won't let you post Hebrew, or Chinese for that matter), which google translate says should mean Murder, Slay, Kill, butcher. http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTp df/exo20.pdf Kill can also mean any and all of those things. Drops mike. Who's Mike, and why are you holding him instead of a mic? cherry picking bits out of context and that has killed.... many. Did it kill them or murder them? | ||
| Hootowl |
"( aka... don't join the New Spanish Inquisition )" Well, I didn't expect you to bring up the Spanish Inquisition. | ||
| Torquehd |
But I do argue with the notion that if you are wrong in this one particular that everything else is wrong too. Patrick, for the believer, if you can pick and choose what you disagree with, then the whole thing is as good as null. If I choose to believe that what it says is wrong, then I can justify any doctrine that I want. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm not asking you to change your belief. I'm saying that the logic "if one part is wrong all is wrong" is incorrect. If this was a Science Experiment, testing if ALL materials fell at the same acceleration, and unobtainium didn't, then the theory is wrong. This is a book of history and teachings of the prophets and.... not a simple yes/no proposition. My belief in any part of the Bible has zero, nada, to change any Truths written inside. Or to quote Niels Bohr & Enrico Fermi, "Stop telling God what to do with his dice." | ||
| H0gwash |
"...They just cannot in good conscience participate in an event that they feel is a celebration of rebellion against God." The same arguments used to deny service to gay marriages are basically the same arguments used to deny service to interracial marriages. Perhaps Timber Creek should become a church or provide weddings in partnership with a church specifically to avoid the legal liability. It seems to me the easiest solution would be to withdraw from the weddings entirely and focus on the bed and breakfast side of the business. "...People should be free to refuse creating things or participating in events that they view as rebellious towards God. That is just to say that Christians should be free to live their faith." Everyone already have those freedoms. It's just that faith and business don't mix so easily. You have the freedom of calling in sick for the day and arranging for someone else to take your place. You have the freedom of shutting down and changing your business as you see fit. You have the freedom of re-organizing as a church, you have the freedom of paying fines to avoid providing business services to people you don't want to serve. | ||
| Torquehd |
you have the freedom of paying fines to avoid providing business services to people you don't want to serve. Seriously? Number one, it has nothing to do with who they were providing goods to. In the case of the bakers, the gay folks had bought stuff from them before, according to the news stories, IIRC. They just weren't OK with promoting homosexual weddings. Two, I have a hard time believing that you believe what you say. Let me repeat what you said: If your moral code is different from mine, you need to call in sick (at the small business that YOU run), shut your business down, or pay HUGE fines to the government. These are all the glorious freedoms that the government gives you! I can disagree with you, but you can't disagree with me. That sounds like satire. (Message edited by torquehd on December 13, 2016) | ||
| Blake |
Gerard, I think Jesse (Torque) said it well. Concerning your analogy of SSM to interracial marriage, If It happened that scripture was used to try to support banning interracial marriage, the people doing so we're liars. It doesn't follow Christ in any way to ban or oppose interracial marriage. That was just petty people tenuously twisting bits of scripture to try to support their bigotry. They were liars and bigots, and every actual follower of Christ knew/knows it. What Christ actually teaches: Christ: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Dude: "Who shall I consider as my neighbor?" Christ: (Everyone you meet) See the parable of the Good Samaritan. So the analogy utterly fails on substance, and there are other problems with it relative to the cake issue we're discussing. 1) Race is a superficial distinction based upon trivial physical traits. Gender is MUCH more than that. The two issues are thus similar from only the most strained of tenuous of perspectives. 2) The Bible teaches irrefutably that giving in to lust is contrary to God on many counts, in fact any and all that occur outside of marriage, and it specifically states that men lying with men as if with women is an abomination to God. I suppose if two men were "marrying" and vowing celibacy, the objecting cake baker might should reconsider. 3) Also, states had outlawed interracial marriage itself. If the states had outlawed bakers from creating interracial wedding cakes, then your analogy might be partly valid. You didn't respond to the questions I posed. More than anything, they bring the point home. Should a vegan baker with a vegan bakery be forced to put butter and lard into his cakes cause the dairy and cattle association wants it? How about bacon sprinkles? Should a gay baker be forced to make a cake quoting the scripture that calls male homosexual behavior "an abomination to God"? I'd say no on both counts, just like for the Christian baker concerning the SSM wedding cake. | ||
| Aesquire |
Racism is a fairly modern development. In ancient Rome you either were Roman or a foreigner. You spoke Latin or not. ( later Greek when Constantinople became the center of Empire ) No one gave a darn what your eye color or skin color was. Speak Latin & behave like a Citizen? You were fine. Oh, they had slavery. Criminals, debt slaves, hereditary ones, etc. But your melanin content was irrelevant. Probably have to go to Dutch & British slavers to get the Afrocentric racism echoed by today's rednecks & race hustlers. They might blame the Arab slavers.... That's not the only racism on the planet. The Japanese had a long history, the closer you were to an ape the lower status you had. As a hairy foreigner I rank well below a Chinese guy who naturally was below a native of Nippon. ( funny how that works ) Russians & Mongols. Europeans & Russians. .... yeah we got that crap going back quite a ways. Neanderthal & Cro-Magnon.......... As to the cake issue. You want to lose customers? Don't do stuff you don't approve of. This isn't the eighteenth century. There are more bakers. There's social media to spread the word that "Bob's bakery won't do Jewish/Nazi/Christian/etc. Cakes." If there's enough Nazis or whatever in the area Bob's loses a lot of business. His choice. Your choice. That's not perfect but better perhaps than government regulation of mandatory labor. | ||
| Hootowl |
Is no one going to say it? | ||
| H0gwash |
"...a vegan bakery be forced to put butter and lard ...cause the dairy and cattle association wants it?" While I don't imagine there is a real need to protect Illinois vegan bakers from the cattle association, there is local legislation governing business practices in Illinois requiring local businesses provide equal service. "...Should a gay baker be forced to make a cake quoting the scripture that calls male homosexual behavior "an abomination to God"? " Many professional cake bakers have adopted the uniform policy that they will bake you your cake, but they don't promise to inscribe or decorate it with anything offensive. The customer can add that the offensive bit in himself. There are a thousand other workaround solutions. | ||
| Torquehd |
Many professional cake bakers have adopted the uniform policy that they will bake you your cake, but they don't promise to inscribe or decorate it with anything offensive. do you have a reference for that info? If a cake is just a cake, that's all good with me and we can all go home happy at the end of the day. If it becomes, "if a gay person asks for a wedding cake, you are legally bound to make him a cake that says "Adam and Steve", then I have a problem. But iff a gay guy comes and asks for a white 3-layer cake, that's totally kosher and I'll do it. BUT, if he tells me that he and his boyfriend(?) are going to use the cake for their wedding, then my spidey sense starts tingling. (Gerard - serious question, is the term "gaydar" offensive?) My wife started an entry-level photography business 2 years ago. When the Christian baker vs gay wedding story came out in the news, I remember her working herself up to a panic, thinking that she was going to have to choose between either paying an outlandish fine that we wouldn't be able to afford after a decade of saving, or just officially endorse gay marriage. Or gay relationships. Well, I thank God that there have only been two gay couples asking for photo sessions for them and their significant other. Both times, the potential clients have understood that she simply isn't comfortable with it, and they've said, no problem, we'll look elsewhere. But, if they had decided to press charges (we were living in WA state up until recently - a state known for its left-wing standing) because my wife refused services based on sexual preference... then, at that point, my wife is a slave. You will do as you are commanded, or else you will be persecuted. Note, I differentiate this from legal requirements like paying taxes, filing for a business license, etc. None of those things violate any type of moral code that I know of, other than simple greed or apathy. | ||
| H0gwash |
FWIW I don't find the term gaydar offensive at all. I don't have a specific reference for the cake decoration policy. Here in CA it seems to be common practice. I certainly can sympathize with the burden and anxiety placed on your family income with the sudden change in the local law. If I were in your wife's situation I would find someone who would photograph gay weddings and setup a subcontracting agreement as protection against 'activist' customers. If that photographer was busy on the wrong weekend I would consider myself overbooked and unable to accommodate. It should be noted that not all states have such laws, and some state laws specifically protect against religious discrimination in public accommodations, but not for sexual orientation and it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gays in those states. | ||
| Blake |
Gerard,
I'm most interested in your personal opinion, not so much about state laws or business practice. What is your personal opinion? Would you send men with guns to force people to employ their art against their wishes, or too confiscate their bank balance and shutter their business if they refuse? Cause that's what we are ultimately talking about, the use of force to compel or punish people who refuse to violate their conscience and their faith. A generic cake? No problem, no artwork that violates conscience or faith. Enjoy! The photographer is probably a more cut and dry situation. Photography is artwork. Would you force a photographer to photograph an event or subject to which they object? Would you force them to retain someone who is willing to photograph any/every social event or subject? It's not enough to direct people to other professional artists who are willing to do so? That's what some have done, and still the men with guns have been called. Why? (Message edited by Blake on December 14, 2016) | ||
| Blake |
Is subcontracting really a solution to sincere objection? Think of an extreme example that most everyone likely agrees upon. Take your pick. If you owned a photography business, would you be okay with affiliating it with something that is morally unacceptable to you? Take partial birth abortion for example. You frequently photograph and videograph the births of babies, and a customer wants you to photograph her baby's birth. It'll just be cut short is all. Send your subcontractor? | ||
| Blake |
Say you're a videographer. You frequently provide services to all kinds of activist groups, from environmentalists, to LGBT groups, to minority rights groups, to illegal immigrant advocates, to Christian evangelists, to abortion rights, and to pro-life proponents. But then, some skin-head, white power, neo-Nazi Westboro "Baptists" want you to record their hateful propaganda. Just send a subcontractor? Where does govt force (violence) to compel people to act against their conscience and their sincere faith stop, and where do individual rights begin? We're talking about issues involving objectionable behavior, nothing more. Trying to reframe it as an issue of objection to persons as with racism is intellectually dishonest. Patrick has it right! Let Liberty rule. | ||
| H0gwash |
How I feel personally depends on the person refusing service. If the cake baker or wedding photographer is visibly upset in an embarrassed or apologetic sort of way I would probably back off. If they asked me to let them not do the work I would find it hard to refuse the request. If the baker or photographer was being what I thought was overly aggressive and insulting, might be upset enough to complain on the internet. I don't think I would sue, it is too much work and emotional commitment. | ||
| H0gwash |
I do think that personal interest in work makes the work materially better. I think that a person being forced to photograph a wedding that makes their stomach turn will produce inferior work, even though they may try their best. | ||
| Reepicheep |
Like any of us. How did we all react when a Harley dealer refused to work on a Buell? | ||
| Aesquire |
If this was a simple issue the answer would be easy. It's almost simple. If I run a hardware store I can refuse service to any individual I chose. Don't need to justify it. Rubs me wrong, don't like his shirt, stole my daughter's virtue... my darn business. Same store but I won't sell to Christians? That seems like a crime. Ditto any subdivision of society. Jews, Gays, Straight guys who like musical theatre, bikers..... When you have a Service Business, custom cakes, cars, mosaics. .... it's not simply selling stock off shelves, there's value added labor. The photographer can choose not to work for any individual. Fine. Not work for groups? Less clear. Impulse is to say yes, just like the hardware guy. But the salesman/craftsman things aren't the same. One involves contracts with the customers above any legal obligation to make good on a deal. Will you force someone to accept as boss a neo-nazi? Girl scout? ( hey, lots of hang ups out there ) | ||
| Torquehd |
If the baker or photographer was being what I thought was overly aggressive and insulting, might be upset enough to complain on the internet. Eph 4 tells us to speak the truth in love, and in Romans 12, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." No one should be a jerk just because they disagree with you. Unless they're disagreeing with you in a violent way. Then be a jerk. How did we all react when a Harley dealer refused to work on a Buell? Teach a man to fish, and fix your own motorcycle. I think Confuscius said that. If this was a simple issue the answer would be easy. The important things are always simple; the simple are always hard. The easy way is always mined. -Murphy's laws of combat. | ||
| Torquehd |
While we're on the subject of redefining morality, I'm pretty surprised that the legal status of public nudity hasn't come up in the news here in the US (besides an occasional blip about topless women in NYC). I know there are people and groups who believe that it should be legal; a few years back a woman in either Seattle or Olympia WA went to city hall and dropped her dress and started ranting about how it was unfair that it was illegal. Is public nudity immoral? It obviously is for the bible believer, I can cite verses if needed. What about others? Is public nudity immoral? Should that freedom be protected for naturists? I'd like to hear opinions on the issue. | ||
| Mackja |
Late to this discussion, but it is a huge issue with me also. SSM cannot and does not exist no matter what the "law" says. The basic understanding of marriage even before the Christian era was to build up the family to build up the state, Christianity kept that and added to it. SSM violates natural law, it is closed to life, humanity ceases to move forward, it is outside the natural order. Man and woman complement, they give to each other something neither has, it is impossible to give someone something they already have. I also defies reason, it just does not work. Now do people in these relationships love each other, yes I am sure they do, but again that alone does not constitute marriage. They harp on marriage equality, this is also false, because the marriage is not equal in its capacity or possibility to bring fourth life. I have only read a few of the post, so if others have already presented these point, apologize for the repetition. As for the kill or murder, yes they are different, and under certain conditions it is morally acceptable to kill. Augustine and Aquinas in their Just War doctrine give us the moral grounds. It is justified to prevent a greater evil, if killing Hitler would have prevented the murdering of thousands of Jew's, then it would have been justified and morally acceptable. | ||
| Crusty |
Using that logic, then infertile marriages do not deserve to be treated as equal, since they are also closed to life. And what about marriages with adopted children? That's unnatural, also. Should they be considered less equal? Or are some more equal than others? Hmmmm; something to ruminate over... |
