MadMax, you made this statement in the Andrea Yates thread and I think this might be grounds for a good discussion. I also didn't want to interfere with the interesting discussion still continuing in that thread so I figured I'd start a new one. First, where do you come up with murder instead of kill? I am by no means a bible expert but I have a book entitled Losing Faith in Faith which discusses this issue a bit. The author is Dan Barker who was a minister that became an athiest. I would like to quote some of the book as I am really interested in discussion of bible terminology and this is an admittidly biased source. Do the Ten Commandments really say, "Thou shalt not murder?" The Hebrew word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is ratsach... Depending on which version you use there are about ten Hebrew words which are translated "kill." The five most common, in Hebrew order (with translastion in order of King James frequency) are: muth: (825) die, slay, put to death, kill nakah: (502) smite, kill, slay, beat, wound, murder haraq: (172) slay, kill, murder, destroy zabach: (140) sacrifice, kill ratsach: (47) slay[23], murder[17], kill[6], be put to death[1] Muth, nakah, haraq, sabach, and ratsach appear to be spilled all over the bible in an imprecise and overlapping jumble of contexts, in much the same way modern writers will swap synonyms... I think one telling example is in Deuteronomy 4:42 in which Moses talks about setting up shelters for killers: that the slay [ratsach] might flee hither, which should kill [ratsach] his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in times past." So this is killing without motive or cause, which I think clearly separates the act of killing from murder. One more appropriate verse is in Numbers 35:27: [if] the revenger of blood kill [ratsach] the slayer [ratsach]; he shall not be guilty of blood." So here the bible justifies revenge killing, which could be considered to be a justification for capital punishment, using the same hebrew word that is used in "Thou shalt not killl/murder." Barker doesn't cite his sources and I don't happen to have a copy of a Hebrew bible laying around so I can't check on this myself. That being said, I am curious as to how any Christian who holds the idea of bible inerrancy to be true can support capitol punishment in light of these verses.
Against killing that isn't done in defense of one's self, loved ones, complete strangers, etc. Against death penalty. Against Abortion. I am for exile. If someone can't be civilized, deprive them of civilization. I don't always follow the old testament. I believe the bible is flawed because it is written by men who interpret God's will and it is only meant as a guidance. I feel my "moral compass" is God's way of guiding me and each person's mission in life is unique. If I listened more, I think I'd ve lost less. My compass tells me death is the cruelest punishment that can be dealt to someone. No one and no entity here has the right to judge whether person should live or die.
dylan -- interesting post. my understanding (and I'm not sure where i've read this, but i know i've read and heard it more than once) is that the hebrew word in the ten commandments means murder. keep in mind, God told men to go in and wipe out civilizations in the Old Testament in the context of war....i'm not certain He would call on His chosen people to break his own commandments, thus intrinsically making them unclean in His sight. the man who brought the ten commandments to the Jews, Moses, went on to write of the death penalty in Numbers and Deuteronomy. if that's the translation, it makes no sense.
Is it possible to believe in Biblican inerrancy when Genesis contradicts itself? There are two mutually exclusive creation stories, for crying out loud!
please note...no Christian that I know of has ever claimed inerrancy of translated Bibles!!!! they claim inerrancy in the originals...the autographia is the word, I think. haven -- you've mentioned the 2 genesis stories before..run that by me again...
They are both in Genesis but I don't know chapters and verses. In one (the one we all know and love) God created the world in 7 days, man coming last. In the other God created the world in one day, man coming first. I'll look around to try to find the correct verses...
ok..now i see what you're talking about...i think you're misguided on that one...you're looking at Gen 2:4-25..this is not a second and contradictory account of creation...rather this is specifically describing the account of the specific creation of man and woman without repeating the entire story of the creation of the universe recorded in Gen. 1. ch. 2 says nothing of creation of light, separation of waters, or of the formation of sun, moon and stars. Nor does it actually describe the creation of the vegetation or animals.
The two stories are in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Quoting from this page on biblical contradictions: Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition: Day 1: Sky, Earth, light Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!) Day 3: Plants Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids) Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.) Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time) Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did) Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good". The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes: Earth and heavens (misty) Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth) Plants Animals Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib) So if the book I mentioned is correct in the hebrew words that are ascribed to Exodus 20:13 ("Thou shalt not kill [ratsach]") and Numbers 35:27 ("[if] the revenger of blood kill [ratsach] the slayer [ratsach]; he shall not be guilty of blood.") how do you rectify this contradiction?
MadMax: Even ancient theologians like Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas recognized this as a flaw in a literal interpretation of genesis. The contradiction is, quite frankly, obvious. There are some other literal contradictions I can supply you with, if you doubt this one. EDIT: Most theologians/Biblical scholars think the " 7 days 7 nights" thing was actually borrowed from the Babylonians during their captivity in Babylon. The other one is probably the older, original Hebrew creation myth.
I can see where you getting the idea of "retelling" the story but that is incorrect when you said the creation of vegetation and animals is not mentioned. From Genesis 2:18-19: Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. But in Genesis 1 animals are created on the 5th day and man on the 6th.
dylan -- i don't know what to tell you...i'm looking at the footnotes to my Bible right now and it says the following: "the verb used here is a special word which can only mean murder and always indicates intentional slaying" i don't speak or read hebrew...wish i did. would certainly help out! the fact someone would point out that there are "days" before the sun is created is a ridiculous way to attack scripture. first of all...it wasn't written contemporaneously with the creation...if it was truly inspired by God, then the writer was told the story first...and he's in turn telling it to others...he needs a time reference to explain how long it took so he says, "a day." the other possible explanation is that the actual word written here is better translated as meaning some larger period of time...i honestly don't know...hope you didn't start this thread assuming I have all the answers. I'd like to go to seminary one day..maybe I'll know more then! the plural form of Elohim suggests the Trinity....not the plural form of the word in verse 26 of ch. 1..followed by the singular "God" in verse 27...read the first bits of John in the New Testament where it indicates that Christ was present at the beginning with the Father. If you want to get into the trinity, that's a far tougher subject...but I'll entertain it if you'd like. again..i make no promises about being able to provide you real answers. i'll try, though!! as for the 2nd chapter...my first answer still stands. read the entire 2 chapters of genesis before posting if you want to talk further...
dylan -- you misquoted, according to the Bible I'm reading (NIV translation) Gen 2:18-20: The Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be aalone. I will make a helper suitable for him. Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. so the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. had formed seems to be the key to this verse!!!
haven -- find me a source on origen, augustine or aquinas recognizing this as a flaw...not one where someone else is ascribing those words to them...but where they say it themselves. i've just never seen that before. thanks in advance for any work you have to do to find one.
I was quoting from the RSV. I truly don't mean to attack you as it might seem as I am doing here but using the NIV for anything other than "recreational" studying is a bad idea. The purpse of the NIV was to create a modern bible that was more easily readable. In the creation of the NIV literalness at times took a back door to translatability. I have read this numerous places and the creator of the NIV supposedly acknowledged it. This isn't a bad thing per se but means it's not best used for scholarly debates. For what it's worth, the 21st century KJ version also uses the present tense... Also, for what it's worth, I completely agree with you that using 7 days vs 1 day is meaningless. For the more difficult errors are the ones mentioned such as explicitly changing the order of creation. It would help a lot here if we could both read hebrew and had copies of the original texts.
dylan -- you're being fair...no need to apologize for questioning...but thanks for your courtesy, anyway! i've read just the opposite about the NIV... please understand, none of this changes the idea of the resurrected Christ, which is the crux of Christianity. if you want to tear down a religion, that's the place to start. I wouldn't bet on you, though!! no offense, of course!
MadMax: I'll actually look for these if it would actually change the way you think. I've specifically read Origen's critique of stuff like this. And Augustine believed that such contradictions could only be avoided by interpreting the Bible metaphorically. To him, it was inerrant *if* you interpreted it by metaphor. If you took it literally, it was contradictory to him. If I actually take the effort to find quotes, what would the effect be upon you? I don't want to put myself through the considerable effort (since I sold those text books back ) for nothing.
but haven...you want me to accept the overarching point you're proving by simply saying, "these guys you respect agree with me." i've just never read they agree with you...certainly you see the problem in arguing that way, right??? i mean i could just as easily say, "these guys you respect agree with ME!" i guess i'll try to find more of this on my own...i do agree you shouldn't have to do research to support this argument in a freaking basketball bulletin board! i'm guessing you probably can't bill that time, either!
MadMax: I try to never damage my credibility by posting something that's totally untrue. I've made a couple of errors that I specifically remember, but have generally been on target, factually. I had assumed that such would merit a certain degree of trust. I've taken several courses in theology/philosophy, and have accumulated a certain degree of knowledge on the subject. Specific contradictions in the Bible are generally accepted as the best reasons for an allegorical interpretation. As far as "proof goes," the best I could do in a cursory internet search is this: Not a very good source, admittedly, and not from the horses mouth... but it would seem to reinforce the idea that both Origen and Augustine, at least, interpreted the Bible (specifically prophecy, here) allegorically. Considering the fact that the grounds for allegorical interpretation is literal contradiction, I hope that you'll at least give some credence to what I'm saying. I'll look a little longer for something better, and will edit this post if I find it quickly. If you're *genuinely* interested, I'll send out an email to some people who would know more than myself on the subject, if you'd like. EDIT: More on Origen's allegorical approach: ANOTHER EDIT: This one actually relates to Origen believing literal interpretations could be nonsensical.
you're saying biblical interpretation is metaphorical or it's contradictory..right??? just wanna make sure i'm understanding that point right. and i would never suggest you would post something as a lie...my only concern is you might very well interpret the words of augustine a different way than i might. that's all. no need to go to a ton of trouble... and please keep in mind the bible is not merely a history book to me..it's not like a statute where i pour over its literalness...i've seen the evidence of Christ in my own life and in the lives of others. you're right in saying you can't change that view most likely. i'm not certain why everyone is so intent on making these arguments with me!!!
The thing that I find so interesting about religion is that there can be such wide debate over even a single word of religious text and yet the religion itself seems to remain fairly distinct as a whole. It seems that there are several versions of Christianity... Conservative Christianity Fitting the traditional mold of the conservative American Christian, which seems to incorporate social tradition in with Biblical theology. Orthodoxy Catholicism and protestant religions as a whole, seem mostly in this category. They are based primarily on Biblical theology and interpretation over centuries and, while they may have varying liturgy and, in some senses, ideology, the basic Christian belief systems are the same across the board. Mystical/Evangelical This fits in with those who still practice the monastic life (Anglican and Franciscan monks for example) as well as groups that attribute more of their religious and spiritual practice to the Holy Spirit part of the trinity. Liberal Quaker Christianity I would say everything from hippie Christians (Jesus is just alright with me, man ) to more spiritual (as opposed to religous) practitioners. Many of these believe in the validity of all religons as opposed to the exclusive model of traditional Christianity. Interesting stuff.
