Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 04-25-2006, 07:11 AM

I now believe in the resurrection. Because, out of the blue, after years of no contact, my original, first creationist -- the chap who started me on all this stuff in earnest back in '99 -- reappeared in my email inbox.

We've had a brief to-and-fro, all very amicable. And <skip to the end> he's just mentioned this to me. Apparently, there is a question mark over the

Quote:

interpretation of the Hebrew which yields "thou shalt not". I'll locate definitive evidence in due course, but current scholarship suggests that it should be interpreted "...with God's help, you won't want to..." But as most of this turns on the reality of the Resurrection, as a historical fact, with a spiritual logic and a permanent relevance in the lives of individuals, I don't expect concurrence!

Any advance info please? It's not my field, so I don't intend to pursue it far, but it's interesting.

Cheers, Oolon

robto · 04-25-2006, 08:46 AM

And not one Bible translator in over 2000 years has noticed this... truly amazing!

Hallandale · 04-25-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

I now believe in the resurrection. Because, out of the blue, after years of no contact, my original, first creationist -- the chap who started me on all this stuff in earnest back in '99 -- reappeared in my email inbox.

We've had a brief to-and-fro, all very amicable. And <skip to the end> he's just mentioned this to me. Apparently, there is a question mark over the

Any advance info please? It's not my field, so I don't intend to pursue it far, but it's interesting.

Cheers, Oolon

I don't see the connection between "Thou Shalt not" and the resurrection.
Please explain.

Nick Hallandale enterprisestrategy@earthlink.net

Oolon Colluphid · 04-25-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hallandale

I don't see the connection between "Thou Shalt not" and the resurrection.
Please explain.

I was hoping you folks could tell me.

Ah, yes, I see. My reference to the resurrection was because the creationist had come back from the dead-and-buried of my past. No connection between that and his reference to it (which I'd not noticed when typing my brief background info intro thingy), which is half of what my question is about.

Toto · 04-25-2006, 12:44 PM

The Hebrew is here:

http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html

I don't see any support for interpreting Thou Shalt Not as some sort of touchy feeling invitation which respects your automony in decision making...

Oolon Colluphid · 04-26-2006, 01:07 AM

Thanks Toto, fascinating.

So I looked through for the word equivalent to 'shall', for just long enough to realise (then do this: :banghead: ): Hebrew's inflected. So what we have is what in Latin and Greek we called the imperative mood, plus a negative ('lo', apparently). 'You-shall-murder not', etc.

So no wriggle room there. The term 'commandment' couldn't be more apt, because that's what the imperative means!

Unless I'm wrong -- especially about whether the mood is called 'imperative' in Hebrew -- I'll fire that back at him and we'll see what possible connection there is to the resurrection!

Dean Anderson · 04-26-2006, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

Thanks Toto, fascinating.

So I looked through for the word equivalent to 'shall', for just long enough to realise (then do this: :banghead: ): Hebrew's inflected. So what we have is what in Latin and Greek we called the imperative mood, plus a negative ('lo', apparently). 'You-shall-murder not', etc.

So no wriggle room there. The term 'commandment' couldn't be more apt, because that's what the imperative means!

Unless I'm wrong -- especially about whether the mood is called 'imperative' in Hebrew -- I'll fire that back at him and we'll see what possible connection there is to the resurrection!

You're pretty much spot on there - and it is called the 'Imperative' in Hebrew, at least it is in the references I've read...

Although remember that Hebrew is read right-to-left, so rather than "You-shall-murder not" the actual word order in the commandment is "Not you-shall-murder" (or "Never you-shall-murder" - The Hebrew lo, as can be seen here, can be variously transliterated as "no", "nay" or "never" amongst other synonyms. I can only assume that singing "The Wild Rover" in Hebrew is rather boring...)

Oolon Colluphid · 04-26-2006, 04:34 AM

:rolling: I was about to say that till I reached your last sentence!

Oolon Colluphid · 04-26-2006, 04:39 AM

So finally, to make it watertight (pending resurrection material

): is there somewhere that shows tsakh teer is the imperative of 2nd person (sing. or pl.?) of 'to murder'?

Oolon Colluphid · 04-26-2006, 04:50 AM

Just for your amusement, here's my reply:

Quote:

> The only line I really want to pursue is interpretation of
> the Hebrew which yields "thou shalt not". I'll locate
> definitive evidence in due course, but current scholarship
> suggests that it should be interpreted "...with God's help,
> you won't want to..."

I see. So we can interpret one thing to mean another if it suits our theological purpose? A less charitable person than I might call that finessing the point. And I don't understand why Genesis etc need be literal if that sort of thing is allowed. Please explain!

See, there's no wriggle room that I can see in what the Bible says in Exodus 34.

God says to Moses, go chisel out a couple of stone tablets, and I'll write on them what was on the last ones that you went and broke. Then bring them up Mount Sinai in the morning.

So the next morning God appears in a puff of smoke and wafts around, saying "I'm God, I'm God", just in case Moses thought it was someone else. Then he says that he's a nice guy really, but won't fail to punish the children and grandchildren of anyone who gets on his wrong side. So Moses says, "Sorry Lord, I know we're a recalcitrant lot, but please look after us."

God says, "Okay. I'll make a deal with you. I'll do all sorts of wonders and give your tribal enemies a good kicking, if you promise to follow what I write on these tablets. Then he gives Moses a bunch of instructions, and at the end tells him, "Write that lot down, because they're the terms of our deal." So Moses did, though it took him nearly six weeks.

(Quite how he came to write so much of the OT if it took him over a month to write two pages is a mystery. I guess that's why he had to live so long. And, didn't God say he'd do the writing?)

So, what were the instructions in this pact? Or rather, how were they phrased? Simple, for the 'thou shalt nots'. Because 'thou shalt not' is what it says. Here's the Hebrew:
www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html
Now, Hebrew is an inflected language, where words are modified to show their grammatical relationships. So, verbs have tenses and moods. 'I did' is written differently to 'I do' (tense); 'I would do' is written differently to 'I will do', and so on.

God's instructions are in the imperative mood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammat...mperative_mood
They translate unambiguously as Do this. So the term 'commandment' couldn't be more apt, because that's what the imperative means!

They are then modified by the negatively qualifying particle 'lo'.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...6086-4653.html
... effectively Don't do this.

So for illegal killing (ie not in wars or capital punishment), God's words are precisely:
'Not you-shall-murder". Or, You shall not murder. ('Because if you do, you're breaking our bargain.')

I don't see any support for interpreting 'Thou shalt not' as some sort of touchy-feeling invitation which respects your automony in decision making. The use of the Imperative makes it imperative to see it means Don't do X. It does exactly what it says on the tin.
> But as most of this turns on the
> reality of the Resurrection, as a historical fact, with a
> spiritual logic and a permanent relevance in the lives of
> individuals,

So I'm fascinated as to what the resurrection has to do with it.
Even so, I have to wonder about the idea of "with God's help, you won't want to boil a kid in its mother's milk." I've managed to restrain myself on that count without his help quite comfortably.

> I don't expect concurrence!

Justify it, and I'll concur. <shrug>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2006, 08:46 AM	#2
robto Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Maryland Posts: 701	And not one Bible translator in over 2000 years has noticed this... truly amazing!

04-25-2006, 12:44 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Hebrew is here: http://www.levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html I don't see any support for interpreting Thou Shalt Not as some sort of touchy feeling invitation which respects your automony in decision making...

04-26-2006, 01:07 AM	#6
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Thanks Toto, fascinating. So I looked through for the word equivalent to 'shall', for just long enough to realise (then do this: :banghead: ): Hebrew's inflected. So what we have is what in Latin and Greek we called the imperative mood, plus a negative ('lo', apparently). 'You-shall-murder not', etc. So no wriggle room there. The term 'commandment' couldn't be more apt, because that's what the imperative means! Unless I'm wrong -- especially about whether the mood is called 'imperative' in Hebrew -- I'll fire that back at him and we'll see what possible connection there is to the resurrection!

04-26-2006, 04:34 AM	#8
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	:rolling: I was about to say that till I reached your last sentence!

04-26-2006, 04:39 AM	#9
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	So finally, to make it watertight (pending resurrection material ): is there somewhere that shows tsakh teer is the imperative of 2nd person (sing. or pl.?) of 'to murder'?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.