• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Human shields

See OP: Who is responsible for the death of the human shields?

  • Total voters
    36
Blackdog said:
That is not true and does not even apply. The word for murder was mistranslated as killing in the KJV. Most other Bibles have corrected this mistake.

End of story.
Click to expand...

The Hebrew word used in the ten commandments also appears in Deuteronomy 19:4-6, which describes an accidental killing.

It occurs in other places as well.

Anyone with any sense of linguistics at all knows that many words exist that are not easily translated into another language as a single word. It's pure idiocy to assume that either "Murder" or "Killing" fully encapsulate the meaning of the Hebrew word.

One thing I give credit to the Catholics about, their version is less prone to hypocritical justification. Most protestants I know are so steeped in subjectivity on the killing matter that I often laugh my ass off when they say someone else is guilty of moral subjectivism.



Please Tucker, do not try and preach my own Bible to me. I know it inside and out in it's many different translations and versions. As I have shown you are incorrect, and it does not work like that in this case.
Click to expand...

How is saying little more than "you're wrong, I'm right" showing that someone is incorrect? :lol:


It is not a question of interpretation, it is an admitted mistranslation.
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense. The word is more complicated than Murder or Kill in English, which is what actually causes the translation problem. It is exactly a matter of interpretation because it cannot be adequately translated into English using a single word.



Taken out of context and without any real knowledge of the Bible, I can see how you and others would make that mistake.

It is a lesson about forgiveness and revenge, not literally letting someone beat you or kill you.
Click to expand...

Ironically, you've misinterpreted what I was trying to get at. I agree that it is a lesson about forgiveness and revenge. It's very clear.

If you read the Catholic catechisms, you'll see that the Catholics can correctly claim that they follow both the commandment AND Jesus' teachings on the matter. Cases like the Death Penalty (which is undeniably "revenge" killing) and their arguments that war must be, in all cases, a last resort and only in self-defense also conforms to both the Commandment and Jesus' teachings.

I don't see the same consistency from many Protestant groups. I see moral subjectivity and Justifications for things that should be considered sins by the words of their own savior.

So be it. It's their choice. My point was that what you consider a sin isn't the same as what others consider a sin and that just because you think you got it right, doesn't actually mean you do.
 
Tucker Case said:
The Hebrew word used in the ten commandments also appears in Deuteronomy 19:4-6, which describes an accidental killing.

It occurs in other places as well.

Anyone with any sense of linguistics at all knows that many words exist that are not easily translated into another language as a single word. It's pure idiocy to assume that either "Murder" or "Killing" fully encapsulate the meaning of the Hebrew word.
Click to expand...

The commandment "thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder." 99.9% of the Bible rendered it this way for a reason.

According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10).

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

So you can deny it if you like, but I am correct.

Tucker Case said:
One thing I give credit to the Catholics about, their version is less prone to hypocritical justification. Most protestants I know are so steeped in subjectivity on the killing matter that I often laugh my ass off when they say someone else is guilty of moral subjectivism.
Click to expand...

And yet Catholics have done more killing in the name of God than any other. Yea they are a perfect choice. :roll:

The same religion that called for the Crusades in God's name.
The same religion that backed the Nazi's in WWII.
The same religion that held the inquisition.
The Same religion that ignores direct commandments like no Idolatry etc.
The same religion that protects child molesters. In fact it is still going on in other countries now as it was in the US.

Again, don't try and preach my own religion to me. I know it much better than you my friend.

Tucker Case said:
How is saying little more than "you're wrong, I'm right" showing that someone is incorrect? :lol:
Click to expand...

I posted fact, you posted opinion.

Tucker Case said:
Pure nonsense. The word is more complicated than Murder or Kill in English, which is what actually causes the translation problem. It is exactly a matter of interpretation because it cannot be adequately translated into English using a single word.
Click to expand...

Used in it's proper context it most certainly can. You are trying to make it much more complicated than it is.

In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus expands on the meaning of the sixth commandment. He brings out that to commit murder means more then just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude to wards them...

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny." - Matthew 5:21-26, KJV

Here in the KJV they use the word "murder" instead of kill. I wonder why those crafty old Catholics would do this when Jesus IS talking about the 6th commandment.

No misinterpretation here.

Tucker Case said:
Ironically, you've misinterpreted what I was trying to get at. I agree that it is a lesson about forgiveness and revenge. It's very clear.
Click to expand...

Could not prove that by what you typed?

Tucker Case said:
If you read the Catholic catechisms, you'll see that the Catholics can correctly claim that they follow both the commandment AND Jesus' teachings on the matter. Cases like the Death Penalty (which is undeniably "revenge" killing) and their arguments that war must be, in all cases, a last resort and only in self-defense also conforms to both the Commandment and Jesus' teachings.
Click to expand...

The "death penalty" is not considered revenge killing. That is an incorrect assumption. That is a governmental issue, not one of spirituality. The words of Christ are not a form of government, he did not get involved in politics at all. Render unto Cesar...and God... his law unlike the first covenant is a personal code for us to follow spiritually.

Tucker Case said:
I don't see the same consistency from many Protestant groups. I see moral subjectivity and Justifications for things that should be considered sins by the words of their own savior.
Click to expand...

Well first of all it is because you don't really want to. Second is because you try and use scripture you don't even really know in context, to try and teach us (incorrectly) that do know what is right according to our own religion.

Tucker Case said:
So be it. It's their choice. My point was that what you consider a sin isn't the same as what others consider a sin and that just because you think you got it right, doesn't actually mean you do.
Click to expand...

In this case as I have shown again I am correct.

Now we should return to the subject at hand and stop hijacking the thread with something that was actually a pretty small part of my overall argument.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
The Hebrew word used in the ten commandments also appears in Deuteronomy 19:4-6, which describes an accidental killing.

It occurs in other places as well.

Anyone with any sense of linguistics at all knows that many words exist that are not easily translated into another language as a single word. It's pure idiocy to assume that either "Murder" or "Killing" fully encapsulate the meaning of the Hebrew word.

One thing I give credit to the Catholics about, their version is less prone to hypocritical justification. Most protestants I know are so steeped in subjectivity on the killing matter that I often laugh my ass off when they say someone else is guilty of moral subjectivism.





How is saying little more than "you're wrong, I'm right" showing that someone is incorrect? :lol:




Pure nonsense. The word is more complicated than Murder or Kill in English, which is what actually causes the translation problem. It is exactly a matter of interpretation because it cannot be adequately translated into English using a single word.





Ironically, you've misinterpreted what I was trying to get at. I agree that it is a lesson about forgiveness and revenge. It's very clear.

If you read the Catholic catechisms, you'll see that the Catholics can correctly claim that they follow both the commandment AND Jesus' teachings on the matter. Cases like the Death Penalty (which is undeniably "revenge" killing) and their arguments that war must be, in all cases, a last resort and only in self-defense also conforms to both the Commandment and Jesus' teachings.

I don't see the same consistency from many Protestant groups. I see moral subjectivity and Justifications for things that should be considered sins by the words of their own savior.

So be it. It's their choice. My point was that what you consider a sin isn't the same as what others consider a sin and that just because you think you got it right, doesn't actually mean you do.
Click to expand...



The answer to this question lies in the first principle of hermaneutics (interpretation), which is "first interpret scripture with more scripture".

"Thou shalt not kill" is a blanket statement. Thou shalt not kill what? Anything? Rabbits? Bugs? Microbes?
Under what circumstances? "Thou shalt stand still while thine enemy rapes and murders thy daughters"?

Obviously more interpretation is called for.

Taken as a whole scripture does not condemn all killing, or all warfare, nor self-defense, nor capital punishment. I can cite scripture supporting this if need be, but it is obvious enough if you read a bit.

There are reasons why "Thou shalt not kill" is very commonly held to refer to the unlawful or unjustified/unnecessary killing of human beings, rather than simply killing in general.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
The commandment "thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder." 99.9% of the Bible rendered it this way for a reason.

According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10).

Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

So you can deny it if you like, but I am correct.



And yet Catholics have done more killing in the name of God than any other. Yea they are a perfect choice. :roll:

The same religion that called for the Crusades in God's name.
The same religion that backed the Nazi's in WWII.
The same religion that held the inquisition.
The Same religion that ignores direct commandments like no Idolatry etc.
The same religion that protects child molesters. In fact it is still going on in other countries now as it was in the US.

Again, don't try and preach my own religion to me. I know it much better than you my friend.



I posted fact, you posted opinion.



Used in it's proper context it most certainly can. You are trying to make it much more complicated than it is.

In Matthew 5:21-26 Jesus expands on the meaning of the sixth commandment. He brings out that to commit murder means more then just killing someone, it means having an angry and unforgiving attitude to wards them...

"You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

"Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny." - Matthew 5:21-26, KJV

Here in the KJV they use the word "murder" instead of kill. I wonder why those crafty old Catholics would do this when Jesus IS talking about the 6th commandment.

No misinterpretation here.



Could not prove that by what you typed?



The "death penalty" is not considered revenge killing. That is an incorrect assumption. That is a governmental issue, not one of spirituality. The words of Christ are not a form of government, he did not get involved in politics at all. Render unto Cesar...and God... his law unlike the first covenant is a personal code for us to follow spiritually.



Well first of all it is because you don't really want to. Second is because you try and use scripture you don't even really know in context, to try and teach us (incorrectly) that do know what is right according to our own religion.



In this case as I have shown again I am correct.

Now we should return to the subject at hand and stop hijacking the thread with something that was actually a pretty small part of my overall argument.
Click to expand...

The word doesn't mean murder, nor does it mean kill. That's where you fail. It means something that doesn't get translated to a single word. The fact that you cling to it meaning murder is just a way to justify your subjectivity.
 
Goshin said:
The answer to this question lies in the first principle of hermaneutics (interpretation), which is "first interpret scripture with more scripture".

"Thou shalt not kill" is a blanket statement. Thou shalt not kill what? Anything? Rabbits? Bugs? Microbes?
Under what circumstances? "Thou shalt stand still while thine enemy rapes and murders thy daughters"?

Obviously more interpretation is called for.

Taken as a whole scripture does not condemn all killing, or all warfare, nor self-defense, nor capital punishment. I can cite scripture supporting this if need be, but it is obvious enough if you read a bit.

There are reasons why "Thou shalt not kill" is very commonly held to refer to the unlawful or unjustified/unnecessary killing of human beings, rather than simply killing in general.
Click to expand...

The point is, it doesn't consider all warfare or all legal acts of killing to be Justified either.

The New Testement is pretty clear against capital punishment, as the "turn the other Cheek" is pretty clearly saying that we should not take revenge. It's also pretty clear that only God shall pass full judgment on a person.

I don't hold one mistranslation as superior to another. It's pretty clear through the other uses of the word used in the commandment, that it means more than just "thou shalt not murder".

It isn't as sweeping as "thou shalt not kill", but it isn't as subjectively interpretable as "thou shalt not murder".

The word doesn't translate into English perfectly.
 
Blackdog said:
Here in the KJV they use the word "murder" instead of kill. I wonder why those crafty old Catholics would do this when Jesus IS talking about the 6th commandment.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the vast majority of Catholics, and the Vatican, do not use the KJV, right?

The Vatican uses the Greek and Latin versions.
 
Tucker Case said:
You do realize that the vast majority of Catholics, and the Vatican, do not use the KJV, right?

The Vatican uses the Greek and Latin versions.
Click to expand...


Going back to the original Hebrew in the OT, I've asked two different observant Jews if they parsed that commandment as "kill" or "murder". Both said "murder".

But again, I was talking about interpretation through holistic interpretation of scripture.

Exd 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.

Exd 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him, [there shall be] blood [shed] for him; [for] he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Click to expand...

If a thief is caught in the act, particularly in the night, and is killed, the homeowner is not liable for his death. If he is caught after the fact (ie in the daylight with the stolen goods on him) he should not be killed. This is support for self-defense and defense of the home from break-in, as you don't know someone's intentions when they kick in your door.

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Click to expand...

NT support for capital punishment and indeed for punishment ("revenge" as you say) in general. Actually I dispute that capital punishment is revenge.


Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Click to expand...

Jesus' own words. He was warning his apostles and disciples that they would be going out hereafter without his physical presence, and that they needed to make some preparations for dealing with worldly concerns: such as being able to pay for things, and being able to defend themselves from common threats like bandits.



(Before you chide me about mistranslations and versions, be aware that I quite regularly delve into the original hebrew and greek when engaging in bible study.)


Now, I do agree with you that God does not look with favor on ALL wars, nor approve of EVERY instance of capital punishment, nor is EVERY man who claims self-defense telling the bare truth... but on the whole the Bible is not nearly as pacifistic as many seem to think.
 
Tucker Case said:
You do realize that the vast majority of Catholics, and the Vatican, do not use the KJV, right?

The Vatican uses the Greek and Latin versions.
Click to expand...

Which are the non English versions of the KJV.
 
Tucker Case said:
The word doesn't mean murder, nor does it mean kill. That's where you fail.
Click to expand...

It means both when used in the proper context. In the context of the OT, it does indeed say murder in the Commandments.

I mean only the last 500 years of Jewish and biblical scholars came to this conclusion, but what do they know when compared to an Internet search?

Tucker Case said:
It means something that doesn't get translated to a single word. The fact that you cling to it meaning murder is just a way to justify your subjectivity.
Click to expand...

I never said it did get translated into a single word. I understand the context in scripture.

I mentioned the fact that it was also including context in my last post. Sorry you missed it.

I cling to it because it is correct. Has nothing to do with my objectivity one way or the other.
 
Blackdog said:
Which are the non English versions of the KJV.
Click to expand...

The KJV is not a Catholic bible. Someone who knows this stuff "inside and out" should be aware that it is an Anglican bible. As in Church of England.

There are no non-English versions of the KJV, because the KJV was specifically made for English-speaking people, as it was intended for an English religion.

English speaking Catholics use the New American Bible (which was translated directly from the original languages).

That's because the KJV is a protestant bible, and has never been used by Catholics.

I'm sure you already knew that since you know this stuff inside and out, though.
 
Goshin said:
Going back to the original Hebrew in the OT, I've asked two different observant Jews if they parsed that commandment as "kill" or "murder". Both said "murder".

But again, I was talking about interpretation through holistic interpretation of scripture.



If a thief is caught in the act, particularly in the night, and is killed, the homeowner is not liable for his death. If he is caught after the fact (ie in the daylight with the stolen goods on him) he should not be killed. This is support for self-defense and defense of the home from break-in, as you don't know someone's intentions when they kick in your door.



NT support for capital punishment and indeed for punishment ("revenge" as you say) in general. Actually I dispute that capital punishment is revenge.




Jesus' own words. He was warning his apostles and disciples that they would be going out hereafter without his physical presence, and that they needed to make some preparations for dealing with worldly concerns: such as being able to pay for things, and being able to defend themselves from common threats like bandits.



(Before you chide me about mistranslations and versions, be aware that I quite regularly delve into the original hebrew and greek when engaging in bible study.)


Now, I do agree with you that God does not look with favor on ALL wars, nor approve of EVERY instance of capital punishment, nor is EVERY man who claims self-defense telling the bare truth... but on the whole the Bible is not nearly as pacifistic as many seem to think.
Click to expand...

I actually don't disagree with anything you said at all, Goshin.

As far as the Hebrew goes, I would say that there is an ongoing debate between Hebrew scholars on the matter. It's not a simple "murder" vs. "killing" debate, as the meanings of these English words do not fully encapsulate the meaning of the Hebrew word (according to these scholars). The full meaning is indeed explained through the rest of the bible.

But here's where Catholics and protestants differ.

The main reason the Catholics prefer "kill" to "murder" is because the Bible itself dictates which types of actions are self-defense etc, and are thus justifiable killings and non-sins, not the laws of the land one is in. Murder, in English, simply means illegal killing, and is open to far more subjective interpretation than "killing" is.

This is, because as you point out, the Bible specifically states the exact conditions for justifiable killing that doesn't constitute a sin.

The Catholic church believes that using "murder" creates more ambiguity for things that superficially resemble the situations described in the bible, but are not explicitly stated.


Also, I don't think the OT is pacifistic. Quite the opposite in fact. However, I do think the NT is far more pacifistic than it is violent, but still allows for violence in certain situations.

However, using the context of the bible, Old and New, most killing is to be avoided at all costs. And even justifiable killing is to be avoided if at all possible. And revenge killing is never justified, for forgiveness is the ultimate virtue. Which is why the Catholic church opposes the death penalty. Only God can pass judgment and take revenge. We have been told to forgive and forgo revenge.

Essentially, the Catholics feel that only God can justify killing, not the legal system of a nation. God has left examples of what are justifiable killings, and Jesus expanded upon that in the New testament by spending quite a bit of time focusing on forgiveness.


That's there prerogative. According to strict adherence to Catholicism, the Iraqi war was a sinful war because it was not done for defense, and all efforts at peace had not been exhausted.

Thus if someone shoots through a "meat shield", as BD puts it, to get the "bad guy", they are in fact committing a sin, and full responsibility lays on them for the innocent death, even if they shot in self-defense, because their "sinful" ways put them in danger in the first place.

Many sects of Protestantism clearly have a less stringent view on the matter.

Which side is right?

Only God knows for sure, and that's the truth of it.
 
Tucker Case said:
The KJV is not a Catholic bible. Someone who knows this stuff "inside and out" should be aware that it is an Anglican bible. As in Church of England.
Click to expand...

I am not a Catholic. I never said I know the Catholic Bible inside out.

Tucker Case said:
There are no non-English versions of the KJV, because the KJV was specifically made for English-speaking people, as it was intended for an English religion.

English speaking Catholics use the New American Bible (which was translated directly from the original languages).

That's because the KJV is a protestant bible, and has never been used by Catholics.

I'm sure you already knew that since you know this stuff inside and out, though.
Click to expand...

Actually some of this I did not know, as I said more than 1 time, I am not Catholic. This does not change the fact that it is a mistranslation even according the Hebrews. So your argument is still non existent.
 
Goobieman said:
Side A and side B are fighting a war.

Side A uses human shields to protect its forces.
Side B attacks the forces of side A, and the human shields die
(Clarification -- the human shields involuntary act as such)

Who is responsible for the death of the human sheilds?
Click to expand...

I can't determine who is at fault with the information provided.

Recent history teaches us that whoever gets the best press coverage is in the right, and the other party is in the wrong. Also, one has to consider that right and wrong have been rendered highly subjective, the meaning of which can change depending on the audience.

History is no longer written by the victor because the real war isn't being waged on the battlefield.
 
Blackdog said:
I am not a Catholic. I never said I know the Catholic Bible inside out.
Click to expand...

Actually, you did.

Please Tucker, do not try and preach my own Bible to me. I know it inside and out in it's many different translations and versions. As I have shown you are incorrect, and it does not work like that in this case.
Click to expand...

"inside and out in it's many different translations and versions"

That statement has been proven to be bull****. You don't even know much about the English translations. Hell, you don't even know which religion uses them. For example, the KJV is protestant.

You also claimed "99.9% of the Bible rendered it this way for a reason. "

Here's a stat, (and unlike yours, mine's real). There are 2.1-2.2 billion Christians in the world. About 50% are Roman Catholic. 1.1 billion or so.

How could 99.9 percent of the bibles be rendered this way when 50% of the people who would read it are of a faith that disagrees with it?

(Not to mention the fact that most of them aren't rendered in English)




Actually some of this I did not know, as I said more than 1 time, I am not Catholic. This does not change the fact that it is a mistranslation even according the Hebrews. So your argument is still non existent.
Click to expand...

It's a direct translation from the original texts, which are mostly in the possession of the Catholic church.

Which Church would you bet has the most original, untranslated biblical texts in the world?

But, yes, because you disagree and can make **** up while not presenting a single fact, my argument is nonexistent. :roll:
 
Tucker Case said:
You also claimed "99.9% of the Bible rendered it this way for a reason. "

Here's a stat, (and unlike yours, mine's real). There are 2.1-2.2 billion Christians in the world. About 50% are Roman Catholic. 1.1 billion or so.

How could 99.9 percent of the bibles be rendered this way when 50% of the people who would read it are of a faith that disagrees with it?

(Not to mention the fact that most of them aren't rendered in English)
Click to expand...

Strike this. I misunderstood what you had written to mean 99.9 percent of bibles rendered it this way.

Ass far as the Hebrew word being debated, it is actually used as often to describe different types of lawful killings (involuntary manslaughter) as it is unlawful killings (murder).

But my mistake on teh confusion. I read it wrong.
 
EgoffTib said:
Both. Side A for using them, Side B for shooting them anyway.
Click to expand...

WRONG.

The side using them is responsible for it. Side A cannot be allowed to think human shields will deter the consequences of their actions.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, you did.
Click to expand...

No I did not.

I said MY BIBLE in it's different versions. The Catholic Bible is a beast unto it's own with books I have never read.

Sorry but you made a mistake.

Tucker Case said:
"inside and out in it's many different translations and versions"

That statement has been proven to be bull****. You don't even know much about the English translations. Hell, you don't even know which religion uses them. For example, the KJV is protestant.
Click to expand...

Taking my statement out of context is just a bit dishonest don't you think?

I am not a Protestant either. I am non-denominational. I do know the Bible as is very will in most of it's different renderings. I did not say all. I also said I don't know everything.

Tucker Case said:
You also claimed "99.9% of the Bible rendered it this way for a reason. "

Here's a stat, (and unlike yours, mine's real). There are 2.1-2.2 billion Christians in the world. About 50% are Roman Catholic. 1.1 billion or so.

How could 99.9 percent of the bibles be rendered this way when 50% of the people who would read it are of a faith that disagrees with it?

(Not to mention the fact that most of them aren't rendered in English)
Click to expand...

Already covered your wrong accusation. Thanks for the correction.

Tucker Case said:
It's a direct translation from the original texts, which are mostly in the possession of the Catholic church.
Click to expand...

No. You would logically assume that, but it is wrong.

"Unfortunately, none of these original manuscripts exist today. Well over 3000 years have passed since Moses first penned the book of Genesis. None of his own writing has survived, but copies have been made down through the centuries. The scribes who made these copies were extremely careful as they did their work. We know this because there are over 5000 complete or partial copies of the originals, actually copies of the copies. Yet these thousands of copies (which predate the printing press) agree with each other to an amazing extent. There is no major variation in any of them. No other book from ancient times has this much underlying documentary support. So we are sure we have the original text as it came from the mind of God." - Where Is The Original Bible?

Tucker Case said:
Which Church would you bet has the most original, untranslated biblical texts in the world?
Click to expand...

None actually.

And of the 5000 surviving copies the Vatican, does not have a majority.

Tucker Case said:
But, yes, because you disagree and can make **** up while not presenting a single fact, my argument is nonexistent. :roll:
Click to expand...

Not really. You are trying to say a corrected and accurate translation is not to try and say not all religions agree?

Hell of an argument.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Taking my statement out of context is just a bit dishonest don't you think?
Click to expand...

You want to speak of dishonesty?!?!?!?! :rofl:rofl

Let's look at the context:


I said:

Tucker Case said:
See how that works? The simple fact is you can't say for certain who is getting it wrong, you can only say what you believe ;)

Only God knows for sure what is or is not a sin.
Click to expand...

Obviously, I am referring to all possible translations with this.

You responded with:

Blackdog said:
Please Tucker, do not try and preach my own Bible to me. I know it inside and out in it's many different translations and versions. As I have shown you are incorrect, and it does not work like that in this case.

It is not a question of interpretation, it is an admitted mistranslation.
Click to expand...

Which is a dishonest attempt to paint yourself as an expert on the subject.

Either you were referring to all translations, thus making the post to which I am currently responding a flat-out lie, or you were only referring to the translations which you agree with which makes the statement itself a clearly dishonest portrayal of yourself as an expert AND it proves my statement correct.

So before you go accusing people of taking things out of context, you really should pull the plank out of your own eye.
 
Blackdog said:
No. You would logically assume that, but it is wrong.

"Unfortunately, none of these original manuscripts exist today. Well over 3000 years have passed since Moses first penned the book of Genesis. None of his own writing has survived, but copies have been made down through the centuries. The scribes who made these copies were extremely careful as they did their work. We know this because there are over 5000 complete or partial copies of the originals, actually copies of the copies. Yet these thousands of copies (which predate the printing press) agree with each other to an amazing extent. There is no major variation in any of them. No other book from ancient times has this much underlying documentary support. So we are sure we have the original text as it came from the mind of God." - Where Is The Original Bible?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. What I should have said was that the Vatican has the largest single collection of what is considered to be the texts in their original languages. I should have worded it better, though, as it looks as though I'm saying they have the majority of the texts.

I don't know if the Vatican has the majority of the texts, but I do know that no other group's collection comes remotely close to comparing to the Vatican's in size and general quality.

But you are correct in pointing out the flaws in that statement. I acknowledge the mistake.

And of the 5000 surviving copies the Vatican, does not have a majority.
Click to expand...

I worded this poorly, as well, it seems. I asked which "Church has the most" in order to mean which church has the largest collection (in comparison to other churches, or in general for that matter).

I know that the Vatican has 800 Hebrew manuscripts. Approximately 5600 manuscripts exist in varied states. That's about 1/7th of the total number the manuscripts into a single collection. Making the Vatican the single group that has the most of these copies, even though they themselves do not have the majority of the copies.

To explain this more adequately, imagine you have five hundred people.

499 people all have 1 apple each, but 1 person has 300 apples. You could say that this person has the most apples.

But I can see how the confusion on what was meant by this was exacerbated by my error above, so I apologize for this error as well.

The point remains though. No other group has direct access to as many original-language texts as the Vatican.
 
Tucker Case said:
You want to speak of dishonesty?!?!?!?! :rofl:rofl

Let's look at the context:


I said:



Obviously, I am referring to all possible translations with this.

You responded with:



Which is a dishonest attempt to paint yourself as an expert on the subject.

Either you were referring to all translations, thus making the post to which I am currently responding a flat-out lie, or you were only referring to the translations which you agree with which makes the statement itself a clearly dishonest portrayal of yourself as an expert AND it proves my statement correct.

So before you go accusing people of taking things out of context, you really should pull the plank out of your own eye.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. I stated I am an expert and I am. This does not mean I know everything about all Bibles in existence. I also stated for a fact I am no Catholic, so how would I be an expert on it? I said this before hand I believe.

This is pretty irrelevant anyway. It does not change the FACT, the translation they follow is wrong by all standards in biblical history but their own. Go figure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom