Guest Empty Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Oct 4, 6:17 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote: > "Michael Gray" <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote in message > > news:nt79g3dgc9m7astonae53f4ku456ui2mm1@4ax.com... > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:42:42 +0100, "josh" > > <jillywo...@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? pfft... Why the heck can't Christians understand that they are pathetic, is a more accurate question.. //Empty Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:17:36 GMT, "Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.cöm> wrote: >"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >news:2789g35giq28odoif451d8i5shcn16fkr0@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:26:55 +0930, Meteorite Debris >> <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote: >> >>>Last time that great scribe Carl <saints@nettally.com> chipped away at >>>his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... >>> >>>> >>>> "josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>> news:t4adneLrgJ9iupnaRVnyuwA@eclipse.net.uk... >>>> > One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not >>>> > kill', and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. >>>> >>>> Actually the most accurate translations is "thou shalt not murder." >>> >>>Actually it isn't. The word used is "ratsach" which is a general word >>>for kill. For example in Deuteronomy 4:42 which is most definitely NOT a >>>murder situation. This is utterly false. 'ratsach' is NOT a general word for kill. Whoever stated this should study their Hebrew day and night as they are plainly lacking. >>>The "murder" interpretation is xian deceit. A lie in fact. >> >> Are you sure that you can support such a bold assertion? >> I happen to think otherwise. >> I take it that you can read Hebrew? > >I can't, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. The subtlety comes in the Hebrew word 'ratsach', which in this case etymologically and philologically clearly means "manslaughter motivated by blood vengeance", with emphasis on the 'vengeance' bit. (If it were supposed to be simply 'kill', it would have been rendered as 'katal' or 'harag'.) So, a far better translation into English of this apodictic commandment would be: "Thou shalt not take murderous vengeance into your own hands." Which is a bit different from 'manslaughter', as that terms covers death caused by wilful neglect, amongst others, that are not in the intent of the commandment. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 13:15:36 -0400, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com> wrote: > >"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... > >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" The problem with taking your transaltations from lexicons, without actually reading Hebrew, is that lexicons are by their very nature, too generalized to cover the indivdual subtleties of the context in the sentence, and the situation, as well as the age in which it was written, the origin of the phrase, etc. It takes etymology, philology, history, and archeology for each and every sentence to "get" the nuances. I hope that you have learned something of use here. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:30:59 -0700, saints@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. > >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. See my previous correction to this nonsense. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 20:35:24 +0930, Meteorite Debris <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote: >Last time that great scribe Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> chipped >away at his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... > >> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:26:55 +0930, Meteorite Debris >> <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote: >> >> >Last time that great scribe Carl <saints@nettally.com> chipped away at >> >his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... >> > >> >> >> >> "josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:t4adneLrgJ9iupnaRVnyuwA@eclipse.net.uk... >> >> > One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not >> >> > kill', and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. >> >> >> >> Actually the most accurate translations is "thou shalt not murder." >> > >> >Actually it isn't. The word used is "ratsach" which is a general word >> >for kill. For example in Deuteronomy 4:42 which is most definitely NOT a >> >murder situation. >> > >> >The "murder" interpretation is xian deceit. A lie in fact. >> >> Are you sure that you can support such a bold assertion? >> I happen to think otherwise. >> I take it that you can read Hebrew? > >My source is Dan Barker's book "Losing Faith in Faith" in the chapter >"Murder He Wrote". Ah, I thought it was not an authorative source. See my prior corrections to this issue. The term clearly means "manslaughter by blood vengeance". Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:23:58 -0700, saints@nettally.com wrote: >On Oct 4, 12:56 am, Meteorite Debris ><epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote: >> Last time that great scribe Carl <sai...@nettally.com> chipped away at >> his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... >> >> >> >> > "josh" <jillywo...@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >news:t4adneLrgJ9iupnaRVnyuwA@eclipse.net.uk... >> > > One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not >> > > kill', and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. >> >> > Actually the most accurate translations is "thou shalt not murder." >> >> Actually it isn't. The word used is "ratsach" which is a general word >> for kill. For example in Deuteronomy 4:42 which is most definitely NOT a >> murder situation. >> >> The "murder" interpretation is xian deceit. A lie in fact. >> > >Nope. Biblical language scholars have shown time and time again that >the word "ratsach" is properly and most accurately translated as >"murder" in regards to the passages referred (Ex. 20:13; Dt. 5:17). Where? Who? When? You just made that bullshit up. >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 when referenced in the New Testament (Matt. 5:21; Rom. 13:9) the >Koine Greek word "phoneuo" also translates into English as "to >murder" (New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded >Greek-Hebrew Dictionary). See my previous corrections to this egregious error. >May God bless, May Harry Potter Bless. Quote
Guest V Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Oct 3, 7:42?pm, "josh" <jillywo...@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote: > One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not kill', > and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. > > So I ask a simple question that strikes to the heart of Christianity: why > have Christians defied their god and spent the last two thousand years > killing people either in wars or during exploration or simply because they > disagreed with each other over the way to worship their god? > > Surely it is quite simple for all Christians: Thou shalt not kill. > > Any person who has killed another human being or has deliberately set up a > situation where a human being is likely to be killed cannot claim to be a > Christian - George Bush and Tony Blair are prime examples. > > Please don't tell me that when their time comes killers are just going to > beg forgiveness and then be dispatched to heaven. The place would be full > of former murderers! > > That would make a mockery of the Bible statement. Because they are not perfect and sin. V Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 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. That a large number of loonies actually claim to respect(!) these laws, makes it mildy important that they are translated from the original language into English correctly, of at least some import, surely? Despite their God being a bollocks fiction, their behaviour is all too real. Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:29:41 -0000, Empty <perfect.empty@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 4, 6:17 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote: >> "Michael Gray" <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote in message >> >> news:nt79g3dgc9m7astonae53f4ku456ui2mm1@4ax.com... >> >> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 00:42:42 +0100, "josh" >> > <jillywo...@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? > >pfft... Why the heck can't Christians understand that they are >pathetic, is a more accurate question.. Their parasitic mind infection (meme) actively shuts off that bit of their brain. Quote
Guest Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in news:66oag39ks9f6lqun72bo1cdjvjus0ofaa3@4ax.com: > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:17:36 GMT, "Sara Brum" <sarabrum@medulla.cöm> > wrote: > >>"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message >>news:2789g35giq28odoif451d8i5shcn16fkr0@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:26:55 +0930, Meteorite Debris >>> <epicurusboth@YOUR_SHOESaapt.net.au> wrote: >>> >>>>Last time that great scribe Carl <saints@nettally.com> chipped away at >>>>his/her stone these gems of wisdom for posterity ... >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "josh" <jillywoods@abcjillywoods.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>>>> news:t4adneLrgJ9iupnaRVnyuwA@eclipse.net.uk... >>>>> > One of the ten Bible commandments says quite clearly 'Thou shalt not >>>>> > kill', and I believe Jesus continued in the same theme. >>>>> >>>>> Actually the most accurate translations is "thou shalt not murder." >>>> >>>>Actually it isn't. The word used is "ratsach" which is a general word >>>>for kill. For example in Deuteronomy 4:42 which is most definitely NOT a >>>>murder situation. > > This is utterly false. > 'ratsach' is NOT a general word for kill. > Whoever stated this should study their Hebrew day and night as they > are plainly lacking. > >>>>The "murder" interpretation is xian deceit. A lie in fact. >>> >>> Are you sure that you can support such a bold assertion? >>> I happen to think otherwise. >>> I take it that you can read Hebrew? >> >>I can't, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on this. > > The subtlety comes in the Hebrew word 'ratsach', which in this case > etymologically and philologically clearly means "manslaughter > motivated by blood vengeance", with emphasis on the 'vengeance' bit. > (If it were supposed to be simply 'kill', it would have been rendered > as 'katal' or 'harag'.) > > So, a far better translation into English of this apodictic > commandment would be: > > "Thou shalt not take murderous vengeance into your own hands." > > Which is a bit different from 'manslaughter', as that terms covers > death caused by wilful neglect, amongst others, that are not in the > intent of the commandment. > How do you actually know that the originals were even written in the Hebrew language. IIRC the oldest existing OT text was written in koine greek around 300BC. I presume that was translared from hebrew but the documents it was translated from no longer exist. The oldest existing hebrew texts are from the first century BC. It is quite possible that these were translated from the greek version. Quote
Guest saints@nettally.com Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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. May God bless, Carl my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest saints@nettally.com Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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 his personal presuppositions therefore he cannot be recognized as being objective. Secondly, his knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek is quite limited and he is no expert on Biblical languages. Thirdly, he intentionally rejects established sources simply because they show his position on the passages in question to be incorrect. > Why can't you assholes show a shred of honesty? I am being intellectually honest about this. Unfortunately, as your response shows, you are being not only intellectually dishonest, but quite immature and uncivil. As such you disqualify yourself from any credibility whatsoever. > >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. I will keep you in my prayers. May God bless, Carl my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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? You are unqualified to make coment on the matter. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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, Fuck off and die. >Carl >my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/ >my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/ Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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. Barker has no bias here. He lost it when he ceased to be a Christian - after trying desperately to hang on to his faith. But that is a standard Christian falsehood, to accuse those who don't believe as they do of a priori bias. >You are unqualified to make coment on the matter. Yep. Quote
Guest Pastor Dave Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Pastor Dave Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Geoff Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Geoff Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Andy W Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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 Quote
Guest Michael Gray Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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! Quote
Guest Andy W Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 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 Quote
Guest josh Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 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. Quote
Guest Carl Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 "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, > > Fuck 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/ Quote
Guest Carl Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 "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/ Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.