Thou shalt kill or thou shalt not?

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:29:41 -0000, Empty
<perfect.empty@gmail.com> wrote:


>pfft... Why the heck can't Christians understand that they are
>pathetic, is a more accurate question..
>
>//Empty

Your handle is appropriate.


--

If you wouldn't say it in person, why say it online?

To email me, just remove the underscores.
 
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:25:01 -0700, saints@nettally.com
wrote:


>On Oct 4, 2:49 pm, Christopher A.Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> 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]
>>
>> Modern preachers must be smarter than the Hebrew translators if they
>> claim that ratsach means "murder" exclusively.
>
>Actually, Barker failed to compared the Koine Greek references that
>support the contention that the proper and most accurate translation
>of the Hebrew word "ratsach" in the passages in question in Exodus and
>Deuteronomy is indeed "to murder." Secondly Barker intentionally
>ignored the numerous established and recognized Hebrew and Greek
>dictionaries and ecyclopedias that also show this. Furthermore, his
>contention has been refuted by Biblical language scholars many times
>much to Barker's consternation.
>
>Again, Dan Barker is unqualified to be a recognized Biblical language
>scholar and his poor exegesis shows this. If Barker is your best
>source, then you are quite lacking in solid ground in regards to your
>position.

Even putting aside the New Testament and even
all of the other references in the Old Testament,
since Chris has listed murder as a possible definition
for the Hebrew word in question, he admits by
default that he cannot say with surety that it is
"to kill", as he is trying to claim here.

Thus, even putting aside all other references
and using only his, if he does not confess that
it at least could be "murder", then he has
disqualified himself as being honest. Not
because YOU said so, but because HE said so!


--

If you wouldn't say it in person, why say it online?

To email me, just remove the underscores.
 
Michael Gray wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:17:09 -0400, "Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:nt79g3dgc9m7astonae53f4ku456ui2mm1@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:42:42 +0100, "josh"
>>> <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt
>>>> not kill',
>>>
>>> Only in the appalling English translations.
>>> The Hebrew says something quite different.
>>
>> That's fine, but is it really relevant to modern society? I sure
>> hope not.
>>
>> IMHO, I don't care if it means "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt
>> not murder" or "Thou shalt not eat beets".
>>
>> And why the heck can't Christians understand that "God" didn't
>> really speak in Renaissance English?
>
> But the goat-herders who did write down these apodictic laws DID speak
> ancient Hebrew, and thus it reverts to an historical philological
> question.

Absolutely. As a study in archaeology, linguistics and sociology, I think
it's fascinating.
 
Pastor Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:29:41 -0000, Empty
> <perfect.empty@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> pfft... Why the heck can't Christians understand that they are
>> pathetic, is a more accurate question..
>>
>> //Empty
>
> Your handle is appropriate.

Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your bullet-riddled body.
 
On 4 Oct, 23:21, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
> >"Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message
> >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>
> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
> >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>
> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>
> >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
> >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
> >However if this is beyond your capabilities...
>
> >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder"
> >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew
> >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
> >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well.
>
> Even these don't take the nuance that ratsach has in this case.
> Some get closer to the mark with "Thou shalt not commit manslaughter",
> but even this is not close enough to the indended meaning.
> Properly translated, it is "Thou shalt not take blood veneange into
> your own hands"

So if I've understood you correctly, the only thing forbidden by the
commandment is killing in revenge? All other types of killing are
okay? It's bad enough when it's translated as "murder" since that
seems to exclude stuff like executions, war, genocide, and anything
"God commands".

Andy
 
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:02:56 -0700, Andy W <vorath@mailinator.com>
wrote:

>On 4 Oct, 23:21, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message
>> >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>>
>> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
>> >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>>
>> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>>
>> >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
>> >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
>> >However if this is beyond your capabilities...
>>
>> >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder"
>> >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew
>> >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
>> >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well.
>>
>> Even these don't take the nuance that ratsach has in this case.
>> Some get closer to the mark with "Thou shalt not commit manslaughter",
>> but even this is not close enough to the indended meaning.
>> Properly translated, it is "Thou shalt not take blood veneange into
>> your own hands"
>
>So if I've understood you correctly, the only thing forbidden by the
>commandment is killing in revenge?

Proscriptively or apodictically, yes.
But it doesn't exclude further restrictions on killings.

>All other types of killing are
>okay?

Not at all.
They are dealt with elsewhere.
It is just that this particular command is restricted to the absolute
prohibition of manslaughter motivated by (blood) vengeance.

>It's bad enough when it's translated as "murder" since that
>seems to exclude stuff like executions, war, genocide, and anything
>"God commands".

Quite.
As it is usually translated "kill", that would be lunacy for a nation
that was almost constantly at war, and that had commandments requiring
the death penalty for numerous infractions.
Just ludicrous to the point of imbecility!
 
On 6 Oct, 00:29, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:02:56 -0700, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 4 Oct, 23:21, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>
> >> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
> >> >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>
> >> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>
> >> >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
> >> >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
> >> >However if this is beyond your capabilities...
>
> >> >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder"
> >> >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew
> >> >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
> >> >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well.
>
> >> Even these don't take the nuance that ratsach has in this case.
> >> Some get closer to the mark with "Thou shalt not commit manslaughter",
> >> but even this is not close enough to the indended meaning.
> >> Properly translated, it is "Thou shalt not take blood veneange into
> >> your own hands"
>
> >So if I've understood you correctly, the only thing forbidden by the
> >commandment is killing in revenge?
>
> Proscriptively or apodictically, yes.
> But it doesn't exclude further restrictions on killings.
>
> >All other types of killing are
> >okay?
>
> Not at all.
> They are dealt with elsewhere.
> It is just that this particular command is restricted to the absolute
> prohibition of manslaughter motivated by (blood) vengeance.

Gotcha.

I wonder why it was deemed so important it required its own
commandment?

>
> >It's bad enough when it's translated as "murder" since that
> >seems to exclude stuff like executions, war, genocide, and anything
> >"God commands".
>
> Quite.
> As it is usually translated "kill", that would be lunacy for a nation
> that was almost constantly at war, and that had commandments requiring
> the death penalty for numerous infractions.
> Just ludicrous to the point of imbecility!

And who ever heard of such qualities in a religion?

Thanks

Andy
 
Thanks for all those answers. I am left to choose between various
interpretations: 'kill' means kill, or murder, or promote a blood feud, or
manslaughter...

No wonder believers have had excuses to kill others for their beliefs. I am
clearer now about the blood shed over the centuries by people thinking they
have God on their side, and it repels me.

It is frightening that so much philosophical debate has gone on over
subjects such as execution for wrongdoing, when the origin of the problem
lay at least in part in the interpretation of a word in ancient manuscripts.

If there is a God, then he was irresponsible to allow this ambiguity in the
first place. It hardly shows leadership.

And then there are later reports that he evolved into a god of love...Not
that it made much difference to the levels of killing. The same loopholes
remained.
 
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:fqibg35ffj302vsb6eof70oa72e8b4qhp3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:29 -0700, saints@nettally.com wrote:
>
>>On Oct 4, 2:52 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:30:59 -0700, sai...@nettally.com wrote:
>>> >On Oct 4, 12:15 am, Meteorite Debris
>>> ><epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
>>> >> Last time that great scribe MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> chipped away
>>> >> at
>>> >> his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>>>
>>> >> > A more accurate translation is "Thou shalt not commit murder."
>>>
>>> >> I believe this has been disputed. Dan Barker in his book says that
>>> >> "kill" is a more accurate translation than "murder" for the
>>> >> commandment.
>>>
>>> >Barker isn't qualified as an expert in Biblical languages. His degree
>>> >in Religion from Azusa Pacific University did not give him expert
>>> >qualifications in Biblical languages, specifically in this case,
>>> >Hebrew and Koine Greek. So your source is flawed. Actual Biblical
>>> >language experts teach that both the Hebrew and Koine Greek that
>>> >reference this commandment are most accurately translated as "to
>>> >murder." The recognized scholarly sources such as Thayer's and
>>> >Strong's support this as well. As do numerous other scholarly sources.
>>>
>>> Only among those who want it to mean that becvause they're in denial.
>>>
>>> Barker simply did hard work t hat anybody could have done, without an
>>> axe to grind.
>>
>>Barker does has "an axe to grind." His whole conclusions are based on
>
> Only in the fantasies of deluded religionists.
>
>>his personal presuppositions therefore he cannot be recognized as
>
> Liar.
>
>>being objective. Secondly, his knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek is
>>quite limited and he is no expert on Biblical languages. Thirdly, he
>
> So what?
>
> Anybody can repeat what he did.
>
>>intentionally rejects established sources simply because they show his
>
> Liar.
>
>>position on the passages in question to be incorrect.
>
> Liar.
>
>>> Why can't you assholes show a shred of honesty?
>>
>>I am being intellectually honest about this. Unfortunately, as your
>
> Liar.
>
>>response shows, you are being not only intellectually dishonest, but
>
> Liar.
>
>>quite immature and uncivil. As such you disqualify yourself from any
>>credibility whatsoever.
>
> Liar.
>
> I am simply calling an in-denial intellectually dishonest religionist
> what he shows himself to be.
>
>>> >It is becoming apparent that you are unable and/or unwilling to be
>>> >intellectually honest on this point and would rather rely on
>>> >unqualified sources (such as Dan Barker) rather than researching this
>>> >correctly. As such your claims become moot.
>>>
>>> Why are so many Christians such personal liars?
>>
>>And your response merely gives further evidence of your inability to
>>engage in intelligent discourse.
>
> Liar.
>
>> I will keep you in my prayers.
>
> Deliberate nastiness.
>>May God bless,
>
> **** off and die.
>
>>Carl
>>my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>>my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/

Your hatred, immaturity, dishonesty and misplaced anger are all duly noted.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
 
"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:kvibg314993b76jjppdqn7d4c87ca1ebkb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:51:13 +0930, Michael Gray
> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:25:01 -0700, saints@nettally.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 4, 2:49 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >"Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message
>>>> >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>>>>
>>>> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt
>>>> >> not
>>>> >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>>>>
>>>> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>>>>
>>>> >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is
>>>> >"Thou
>>>> >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about
>>>> >this.
>>>> >However if this is beyond your capabilities...
>>>>
>>>> Actually it's not. This is a rationalisation by in-denial believers.
>>>>
>>>> >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder"
>>>> >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew
>>>> >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
>>>> >Expanded
>>>> >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well.
>>>>
>>>> Dan Barker checked all the words used for kill/slay/etc. From his
>>>> essay "Murder, she Wrote" in Losing Faith in Faith, copied without
>>>> permission, any typos are my own:
>>>>
>>>> [begin insert]
>>>>
>>>> Do the Ten Commandments really say "Thou shalt not murder"? The Hebrew
>>>> word for "kill" in Exodus 20:13 is ratsach. (The word for "slay" in
>>>> the contradictory command in Exodus 32:27 is haraq). Depending on
>>>> which version you use there are about ten Hebrew words which are
>>>> translated "kill". The five most common, in Hebrew order (with
>>>> translation 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]
>>>>
>>>> Modern preachers must be smarter than the Hebrew translators if they
>>>> claim that ratsach means "murder" exclusively. Muth, nakah, haraq,
>>>> zabach 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.
>>>>
>>>> [end insert]
>>>>
>>>> He then gives several examples, quoting chapter and verse, showing
>>>> both the modern translation and the original word used. It is clear
>>>> that if "ratsach" always means murder then the meanings of these
>>>> verses become completely different.
>>>>
>>>> >May God bless,
>>>>
>>>> May you get a brain and stop being so in-your-face rude.
>>>
>>>Actually, Barker failed to compared the Koine Greek references that
>>>support the contention that the proper and most accurate translation
>>>of the Hebrew word "ratsach" in the passages in question in Exodus and
>>>Deuteronomy is indeed "to murder." Secondly Barker intentionally
>>>ignored the numerous established and recognized Hebrew and Greek
>>>dictionaries and ecyclopedias that also show this. Furthermore, his
>>>contention has been refuted by Biblical language scholars many times
>>>much to Barker's consternation.
>>>
>>>Again, Dan Barker is unqualified to be a recognized Biblical language
>>>scholar and his poor exegesis shows this. If Barker is your best
>>>source, then you are quite lacking in solid ground in regards to your
>>>position.
>>
>>You keep repeating this rubbish, but you cannot read Hebrew!
>>It an intonement in this case to not commit blood vengeance.
>>How many times must you be told?
>
> Anybody can repeat what Barker did - and will reach the same result.
> Whether they are Christian or anything else.

Actually, no. To repeat what Barker did is to engage in the same dishonest,
biased presupositions. To base a whole argument on faulty premises as Barker
did is weak. No wonder his conclusion is also false.

> Barker has no bias here. He lost it when he ceased to be a Christian -
> after trying desperately to hang on to his faith.

Barker has no bias here? Are you kidding? Of COURSE Barker is biased. He is
anti-Christian and is biased specifically from a radical atheist standpoint.
There is no objectivity from Barker on this point. The fact that he
intentionally ignores many legitimate sources of Hebrew language scholarship
merely because they refute his claim further gives evidence of his biasness.
So your claim he has no bias is simply ludicrous.

> But that is a standard Christian falsehood, to accuse those who don't
> believe as they do of a priori bias.

Actually, such accusations without merit are being made by you as well as
Barker in his book. Your hypocrisy is showing.

>>You are unqualified to make coment on the matter.
>
> Yep.

Yet you continue to do so. Fascinating.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
 
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:dM2dnX7dEL0LDpvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:29:41 -0000, Empty
>> <perfect.empty@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> pfft... Why the heck can't Christians understand that they are
>>> pathetic, is a more accurate question..
>>>
>>> //Empty
>>
>> Your handle is appropriate.
>
> Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your bullet-riddled
> body.

What a childish thing to post.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
 
"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com...
>
> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>>
>>
>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>>
>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>>
>
> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
> However if this is beyond your capabilities...

You mean the bible lies?

> The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder"
> according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew
> Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
> Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well.

So of course, all the bible out there use the word murder, right?

Or are you suggesting that all Christians are conversant enough with ancient
hebrew, and the ancient scripture, to accurately translate it, in direct
contradiction to what's written on the pages of most English translations?

My position is that most Christians, if they interpret the word as murder,
do not do so as a result of superior biblical scholarship, but rather as an
ignorant, ham-handed rationalization.

--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
 
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:32:12 -0400, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote:

>
>"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:fqibg35ffj302vsb6eof70oa72e8b4qhp3@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:29:29 -0700, saints@nettally.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 4, 2:52 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:30:59 -0700, sai...@nettally.com wrote:
>>>> >On Oct 4, 12:15 am, Meteorite Debris
>>>> ><epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote:
>>>> >> Last time that great scribe MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> chipped away
>>>> >> at
>>>> >> his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ...
>>>>
>>>> >> > A more accurate translation is "Thou shalt not commit murder."
>>>>
>>>> >> I believe this has been disputed. Dan Barker in his book says that
>>>> >> "kill" is a more accurate translation than "murder" for the
>>>> >> commandment.
>>>>
>>>> >Barker isn't qualified as an expert in Biblical languages. His degree
>>>> >in Religion from Azusa Pacific University did not give him expert
>>>> >qualifications in Biblical languages, specifically in this case,
>>>> >Hebrew and Koine Greek. So your source is flawed. Actual Biblical
>>>> >language experts teach that both the Hebrew and Koine Greek that
>>>> >reference this commandment are most accurately translated as "to
>>>> >murder." The recognized scholarly sources such as Thayer's and
>>>> >Strong's support this as well. As do numerous other scholarly sources.
>>>>
>>>> Only among those who want it to mean that becvause they're in denial.
>>>>
>>>> Barker simply did hard work t hat anybody could have done, without an
>>>> axe to grind.
>>>
>>>Barker does has "an axe to grind." His whole conclusions are based on

That was a lie. Unlike you he cited where the information came from,
and demonstrated the only possible conclusion.

You should have shown why his data was wrong.

Because the figures won't go away no matter much you lie about bias.

>> Only in the fantasies of deluded religionists.
>>
>>>his personal presuppositions therefore he cannot be recognized as
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>>>being objective. Secondly, his knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek is
>>>quite limited and he is no expert on Biblical languages. Thirdly, he
>>
>> So what?
>>
>> Anybody can repeat what he did.
>>
>>>intentionally rejects established sources simply because they show his
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>>>position on the passages in question to be incorrect.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>>>> Why can't you assholes show a shred of honesty?
>>>
>>>I am being intellectually honest about this. Unfortunately, as your
>>
>> Liar.

Care to explain how dismissing points by saying somebody is biased,
"intellectually hoinest"?

You should have shown where Barker was wrong, using the same data
source that he did.

>>>response shows, you are being not only intellectually dishonest, but
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>>>quite immature and uncivil. As such you disqualify yourself from any
>>>credibility whatsoever.
>>
>> Liar.

You resorted to personal lies instead of addressing what you were
told. Thie word for someone who does this is "liar". If you don't like
it, stop lying.

>> I am simply calling an in-denial intellectually dishonest religionist
>> what he shows himself to be.
>>
>>>> >It is becoming apparent that you are unable and/or unwilling to be
>>>> >intellectually honest on this point and would rather rely on
>>>> >unqualified sources (such as Dan Barker) rather than researching this
>>>> >correctly. As such your claims become moot.
>>>>
>>>> Why are so many Christians such personal liars?

Well, why are you?

>>>And your response merely gives further evidence of your inability to
>>>engage in intelligent discourse.
>>
>> Liar.

You lied and got called a liar for it.

>>> I will keep you in my prayers.
>>
>> Deliberate nastiness.

Well?

>>>May God bless,
>>
>> **** off and die.
>>
>>>Carl
>>>my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>>>my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>
>Your hatred, immaturity, dishonesty and misplaced anger are all duly noted.

How is calling a a liar a liar by the evidence of his own words,
"hatred, immaturity, dishinesty and misplaced anger", liar?

It was not I who dismissed what BArker did and anybody else could by
calling it "biased".

Why didn't YOU use exactly the same objective data and show why he was
wrong?

Guess hoiw we know you're a Christian? And it's not in ways you would
find flattering.

>May God bless,

What a remarkably and in-your-face nasty thing to say to anybody you
know is atheist.

But then you're full of **** in the first place, with no integrity,
common sense or courtesy.


>Carl
>my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
>
 
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:

>
>"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com...
>>
>> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
>> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>>>
>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>>>
>>
>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
>> However if this is beyond your capabilities...

And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for
remarks like this.

In short he's a typical net.Christian.

>You mean the bible lies?
>
>> The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder"
>> according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew
>> Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with
>> Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well.
>
>So of course, all the bible out there use the word murder, right?
>
>Or are you suggesting that all Christians are conversant enough with ancient
>hebrew, and the ancient scripture, to accurately translate it, in direct
>contradiction to what's written on the pages of most English translations?
>
>My position is that most Christians, if they interpret the word as murder,
>do not do so as a result of superior biblical scholarship, but rather as an
>ignorant, ham-handed rationalization.

Of course. That much is obvious.

And instead of justifying it they rationalise - in this case by
ignoring the data and accusing the person using it of bias.

He should have shown where Barker's work was wrong - by repeating it
for himself and showing that all occurrences of "ratsach" were for
murder and that none of the other words used, were.

But no, it got dismissed for "bias".

Which even if it were true, make no difference to the numbers and
occurrences of the various words.

And this is the guy who accuses others of not being intellectually
honest.
 
On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:49:29 -0700, Andy W <vorath@mailinator.com>
wrote:

>On 6 Oct, 00:29, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:02:56 -0700, Andy W <vor...@mailinator.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 4 Oct, 23:21, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >"Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>>
>> >> >> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
>> >> >> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>>
>> >> >> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>>
>> >> >Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
>> >> >shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
>> >> >However if this is beyond your capabilities...
>>
>> >> >The Hebrew word used in the verse is "ratsach" which means "murder"
>> >> >according to Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew
>> >> >Lexicon. Also New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded
>> >> >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary defines it as "murder" as well.
>>
>> >> Even these don't take the nuance that ratsach has in this case.
>> >> Some get closer to the mark with "Thou shalt not commit manslaughter",
>> >> but even this is not close enough to the indended meaning.
>> >> Properly translated, it is "Thou shalt not take blood veneange into
>> >> your own hands"
>>
>> >So if I've understood you correctly, the only thing forbidden by the
>> >commandment is killing in revenge?
>>
>> Proscriptively or apodictically, yes.
>> But it doesn't exclude further restrictions on killings.
>>
>> >All other types of killing are
>> >okay?
>>
>> Not at all.
>> They are dealt with elsewhere.
>> It is just that this particular command is restricted to the absolute
>> prohibition of manslaughter motivated by (blood) vengeance.
>
>Gotcha.
>
>I wonder why it was deemed so important it required its own
>commandment?

To balance the (then tribal) conflicts between killing one's genetic
relations versus a genetic competitor.
Very important, in terms of reproductive integrity.

>> >It's bad enough when it's translated as "murder" since that
>> >seems to exclude stuff like executions, war, genocide, and anything
>> >"God commands".
>>
>> Quite.
>> As it is usually translated "kill", that would be lunacy for a nation
>> that was almost constantly at war, and that had commandments requiring
>> the death penalty for numerous infractions.
>> Just ludicrous to the point of imbecility!
>
>And who ever heard of such qualities in a religion?

Jim Jones.

>Thanks

You are more than welcome, sir.
 
On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:01:06 -0700, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote in message
>>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com...
>>>
>>> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
>>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>>>>
>>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
>>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
>>> However if this is beyond your capabilities...
>
>And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for
>remarks like this.
>
>In short he's a typical net.Christian.

:

I have informed him of his error on numerous occasions, to with no
response.
 
On Oct 6, 5:51 am, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Care to explain how dismissing points by saying somebody is biased,
> "intellectually hoinest"?

Actually your attempts to misrepresent my position and what I have
posted already shows you to be equally intellectually dishonest as
well. I have pointed out the biasness of Barker's assertions via his
own words and admissions that he has taken an anti-Christian and
radical athetistic stance. For you or anyone else to claim his has no
bias in light of this fact is to ignore reality.

> You should have shown where Barker was wrong, using the same data
> source that he did.

I showed where Barker was wrong and used better data sources than he
did especially since he intentionally ignores any and all recognized
data sources for the sole reason they refute his claim concerning the
passages in question.


> >>>response shows, you are being not only intellectually dishonest, but
>
> >> Liar.
>
> >>>quite immature and uncivil. As such you disqualify yourself from any
> >>>credibility whatsoever.
>
> >> Liar.
>
> You resorted to personal lies instead of addressing what you were
> told. Thie word for someone who does this is "liar". If you don't like
> it, stop lying.

I have presented documented facts. You calling them lies does not
change the facts I present. All it actually exposes is your immaturity
and inability to engage in intelligent discourse.

> >Your hatred, immaturity, dishonesty and misplaced anger are all duly noted.
>
> How is calling a a liar a liar by the evidence of his own words,
> "hatred, immaturity, dishinesty and misplaced anger", liar?

It is such since you haven't proven the lies of which you accuse.
Rather you spew the accusation forth as a playground child would when
unable to present anything substantive. Since you have nothing
substantive to offer, I see no reason to continue this thread with
you. The documented facts have long refuted Barker and you in regards
to the Biblical passages in question and your childish provocations
are simply a waste of my time and resources.

May God bless and help you with you anger and hatred,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
 
On Oct 6, 9:34 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 03:01:06 -0700, Christopher A.Lee
>
>
>
>
>
> <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 00:23:10 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>"Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
> >>news:fe373r$ibn$1@news.utelfla.com...
>
> >>> "Denis Loubet" <dlou...@io.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4MqdnUEZltfqqJnanZ2dnUVZ_s2tnZ2d@io.com...
>
> >>>> All the theist has to do is edit the god's word to read "Thou shalt not
> >>>> MURDER!" and everything is magically cool.
>
> >>>> Just interpret the bible, and you can justify anything.
>
> >>> Actually the proper and most accurate translation of the Hebrew is "Thou
> >>> shalt not murder." You could at least be intellectually honest about this.
> >>> However if this is beyond your capabilities...
>
> >And he wonders how we know he is an in-your-face nasty liar, for
> >remarks like this.
>
> >In short he's a typical net.Christian.
>
> :
>
> I have informed him of his error on numerous occasions, to with no
> response.- Hide quoted text -

Actually, Michael, your "explanation" if you wish to refer to it as
such, it not accurate in regards to the passages in question. I know
what the consensus of Biblical language experts say concerning the
passages in question and I will defer to their expertise over your
alledged knowledge. I've already cited several recognized, legitimate
scholarly sources supporting my contention and can cite numerous
others yet I already can see based upon your own words that you
dismiss them all out of hand so any further citations would be a waste
of my time. It's apparent you have made up your mind on this and you
are entitled to your opinion. I happen to disagree with it as do
thousands of Biblical language scholars. I think I will side with the
established scholars over you.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
 
Carl wrote:

>>>> //Empty
>>>
>>> Your handle is appropriate.
>>
>> Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your
>> bullet-riddled body.
>
> What a childish thing to post.

And let's see what mature things you say?

> May God bless,

And you think I'm childish? LOL

I don't need your condescension, you judgmental *****.
 
On Oct 6, 2:50 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> Carl wrote:
> >>>> //Empty
>
> >>> Your handle is appropriate.
>
> >> Yeah...as in the clip of his gun as he stands over your
> >> bullet-riddled body.
>
> > What a childish thing to post.
>
> And let's see what mature things you say?
>
> > May God bless,
>
> And you think I'm childish? LOL
>
> I don't need your condescension, you judgmental *****.

And you go ahead and prove me correct.

May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
 

Similar threads

WorldNews
Gunmen kill five female Afghan airport staff in Kandahar
Replies
0
Views
29
WorldNews
WorldNews
WorldNews
US-led anti-IS strikes kill family in Syria: monitor
Replies
0
Views
22
WorldNews
WorldNews
M
  • Poll
The Beast Revelation
Replies
2
Views
724
michae1
M
WorldNews
To negotiate or not? That's the new Nordic puzzle over populism
Replies
0
Views
19
WorldNews
WorldNews
Y
Life or death? Boston bomber's trial turns to sentencing
Replies
0
Views
21
Yahoo! News
Y
Back
Top