Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Joan of Bark · 01-05-2005, 05:08 PM

The sixth commandment (fifth for Catholics) strikes me as the greatest challenge facing Christians in their attempt to convince skeptics that the Bible is the Word of God. In the King James, American Standard, Revised Standard, New Jerusalem, Darby's and Webster's Bibles, the Hebrew word is translated as 'kill'. In the Living, Young's, and New International versions, it is given as 'murder'. If Christians cannot agree on the precise meaning of just ONE WORD that defines one of the most important moral issues in our world -- the taking of a human life -- then how can they make us believe that the Bible should be read as a moral and legal guide to our behaviour?
I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on this discrepency. :devil3:

yummyfur · 01-05-2005, 05:41 PM

I would say it says murder(that is illegitimate killing), the Hebrew word Ratsach is used for the commandment, wheras the word Harag is usually used for general killing including animals. Ratsach also is used to denote a murderer and assasin, wheras Harag is generally not.

Also in the Septuagint the word Phoneuo is used for the commandment, which connotes murder. In the instances where the Hebrew Bible uses Harag, the Septuagint usually uses Apokteino, which is killing of any kind.

The word murder in English originally denoted a killing that was done in secret, and so did not cover all illegitimate killings, probably why King James version did not use murder, and because of that tradition why it staid that way in many later translations.

Nectaris · 01-06-2005, 06:51 AM

This discussion has come up before, so you may want to check out some previous threads on the topic(I found these using the word ratsach):

Murder vs. Kill

Is it kill or murder?

Help with 10c translation

For my 2 cents, I wonder why one would have to have a commandment that says they'll shall not murder. If it's already defined as murder, than it is wrong because it is defined as such. Since people already know that it is wrong to kill illegitimately, the god-delivered commandment seems a tad redundant. It seems like the law reads "thou shalt not do, what you already know what not to do."

And welcome to IIDB Joan of Bark.

Dave

Agnostic Theist · 01-06-2005, 07:30 AM

Thou shalt not kill is almost immediately contradicted when Moses et al become engaged in war.

Thou shalt not murder would either be redundant or unintelligible, since given a human law for illegitimate killing, God's law would be a statement of the obvious. Without a human law or concept already in place (and the former is necessary for the latter) Moses and his people could not have known what 'muder' means as such.

For the moment I can think of two responses to this,

1.) There may have been a concept of immoral killing, but such acts were not illegal. This begs the question, if it was immoral, and known to be so, why didn't the people make a law against it? How could any form of society or community develop without some form of socio-ethical reasoning?

2.) That the statement is not to be taken literally. Thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not murder, is to be taken as a statement upholding the law. The authorities are chosen by God and their laws must be upheld. The commandment may come apropos of ancient political notions of 'natural' and 'political' law, which bears significance to the commandment since 'natural' law may be categorised with morality, while 'political' law may be categorised with legality. To summarise, 'thou shalt not kill' is an imperative to uphold the natural and political law.

The second explanation would suffer congruent, if not the same, objections raised against the legitimacy of natural law. I won't mention them yet because I don't want to derail this thread. Such objections may not be applicable to the explanation per se because, overall, they attack religion, viz. christianity and thus, in the fictionalist sense at least, it (ex. 2) is valid.

Another set of objections may rise from the existence of the other 9 commandments. What is so special about thou shalt not kill that it warrents socio-ethical significance? Frankly my take on this subject is a reasoned guess, but that does not necessarily make it false. Indeed, it would be very hard to explain Biblical passages without some degree of conjecture or assertion. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. The other laws may purport to uphold similar ideals. Perhaps they all relate to particulars of the universal 'law', with the first five (concerning God) relating to natural law and the second five relating to political law, or the communal integrity. Take, as another example, 'thou shalt not covet his neighbours wife/ass' (admitedly I forget the exact wording for those two laws). Is this an imperative to a specific deed? Perhaps, but it may also be a command to maintian communal coexistence, perhaps even communal principles, as long as they do not antagonise the natural and political laws.

The order of the commandments, or at least the two sections, also seems relevant. The fact that laws apropos of God come first certainly infers a higher degree of importance, which is mirrored by ancient politcal philosophies, which argue that political law is secondary to natural law, and thus the former must be based on the latter.A political law that conflicts with any natural law is not legitimate (and I'm aware that 'legitimacy' was not a term used in ancient political philosophy, but for linguistic convenience I'm using it as a valid term).

Unfortunately I don't have any more time - I have to revise for my exams (5 days left

), but I'll try to keep track of this thread.

Lugubert · 01-06-2005, 08:30 AM

From the first Bible in Swedish (1541) up to and including the confessionally neutral "Bibel 2000", a word meaning "commit manslaughter" has been used. A footnote in B2000 explains, "The Hebrew text does not use either of the two common Hebrew words for "kill". The ban refers to murder, but not to the execution of criminals (see, e.g., 21:12), the killing of enemies in wars, or the killing of animals.

I find that most posters agree with that.

Toto · 01-06-2005, 11:09 AM

Joseph Lewis on the 6th Commandment treats the 10C as superstitious relics of a primitive people. He wrote in 1946, and incorporates anthropological observations from many cultures. His work tends to make Christian apologists froth at the mouth, and is a little too harsh for some. But he makes a number of good points.

Here he says (regarding the Sixth Commandment):

Quote:

Certainly, if anyone should have known how these Commandments were to be observed, it was the one who was selected to deliver them to the children of men. Perhaps in the study of the character of Moses, "the great lawgiver," we may find the true meaning of the words and the proper action to be followed in the fulfillment of this Commandment.

That this Commandment was not a prohibition against killing or murder, is proved by the Bible itself, because the man whom the Bible selected to deliver the Tablets of Stone (containing the Ten Commandments) to the Children of Israel was himself a murderer! He killed not in self-defense, not under the emotional stress caused by suffering a great personal wrong, but deliberately and with calculation.

After Moses had been saved by the daughter of Pharaoh, she nurtured him as her own child. We find him now fully grown in the land of Pharaoh and we begin the Biblical narrative with the very first act of Moses after he became a grown man, "full forty years old." [*50]

11. And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren.

. . .

12. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

. . .

After an excursion into the theology of holy wars, Lewis concludes that this commandment is not a moral command to avoid killing, but a superstitious command to avoid blood pollution.

Quote:

The following definition from the New Standard Bible Dictionary also throws important light on the meaning of blood pollution and the reason for this Commandment: "The important meaning attached to blood in the Oriental world was determined by the notion that the life principle either was the blood itself or had its residence in the blood." [*73] It is not difficult to understand how such a notion might originate when one considers that after the blood has run out of the body, life is extinguished in both man and the lower animals.

Even in the Psalms there is a prayer asking that we be spared the penalty of the guilt of blood. Psalms 51, verse 14:

14. Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.

"Bloodguiltiness" did not refer to killing, but to the contamination of blood without proper expiation. The use of the word "bloodguiltiness" reveals in itself the prevalence of the fear of blood pollution. Like all other superstitious peoples under the influence of taboos, the Hebrews were always provided with methods of atonement and expiation. They carried their superstitions to fanatical lengths, recording them in minute detail, and formulating their fears and taboos into a system of belief which became the dominant factor in their lives. This is plainly indicated in Leviticus, Chapter 4, verses 1 to 12:

. . .

As already mentioned, fear of blood revenge formed an additional basis for this Commandment. According to early beliefs, the soul of a murdered man finds no rest until his death has been avenged. [*77] Even in primitive societies, where it is considered a meritorious act to kill an enemy, i.e., a member of another tribe, a ceremony of purification for shedding blood must take place.

. . .

The following passage also reveals the taboo regarding the shedding of blood. I quote I Chronicles, Chapter 28, verses 2 and 3:

2. Then David the king stood up upon his feet, and said, Hear me, my brethren, and my people: As for me, I had in mine heart to build a house of rest for the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and for the footstool of our God, and had made ready for the building:

3 But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.

David could not build a temple to the Lord because it would have been a violation of this Commandment, and, according to Biblical tradition, the building of the temple was left to Solomon, David's son. [*86]

The early Hebrew priests refrained from shedding blood, except for sacrificial purposes, and then only when accompanied by expiatory prayer.

. . .

From what has already been quoted, it becomes evident that this Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," has no bearing on, no connection with, a prohibition against killing and murder as such. It was a command formulated solely because of the fear that the spirit or soul of the victim would return to haunt or take revenge on the one who had killed him. This is conclusively proved by the following testimony from Numbers, Chapter 31, verses 19 and 20:

19. And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.

20. And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats' hair, and all things made of wood.

And the following quotation from Numbers, Chapter 31, verse 21, gives the final evidence:

21. And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses.

Joan of Bark · 01-06-2005, 11:30 AM

I had forgotten about Lewis' explanation of the origins of this commandment. Are there other prominent Biblical scholars who support him in this claim?
Incidentally, Lewis' book THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is available online at positiveatheism.org (sorry, I don't know how to set this up as a link).

Clivedurdle · 01-06-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.

Maybe should be another topic about blood in the Bible, but my Pentecostal upbringing was very heavily into Hebrews and being washed by the blood of the lamb.

RM Titmuss wrote a brilliant book "The Gift Relationship" about blood transfusion. JW's have interesting views.

It sounds like being washed in the blood of the lamb is anathema to Judaism

Toto · 01-06-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

I had forgotten about Lewis' explanation of the origins of this commandment. Are there other prominent Biblical scholars who support him in this claim?

Incidentally, Lewis' book THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is available online at positiveatheism.org (sorry, I don't know how to set this up as a link).

Welcome to the forum, Joan of Bark.

You will find the links in my post above. You can make a link automatically by typing the URL surrounded by spaces - eg - www.positiveatheism.org - or by using the little buttons above the text box, or by typing, eg, {url=http://www.positiveatheism.org}PositiveAtheism{/url} but replacing the {}'s with []'s

As for "prominent Biblical scholars" who support Lewis - I suspect that 1946 was not a good year to be publishing a book describing the Hebrew Scriptures as primitive sympathetic magic. In any case, his anthropological observations are outside the area of most Biblical scholars, and theologians are highly unlikely to accept his ideas. I haven't seen any commentary on this book outside of freethought and atheist groups.

Joan of Bark · 01-06-2005, 11:59 AM

How do Christians view this ambiguity? I know one woman who takes a completely pacifist view. She would not kill for ANY reason, even to save the lives of her children. I think she must be in a tiny minority ... after all, many Christians support war, capital punishment, and killing for self defense. Has anyone seen a survey conducted among believers to get a general sense of this issue? I believe many are being two-faced when they tout the Ten Commandments as being a guide for living (using 'kill' as the sixth) while fighting in the military or advocating capital punishment. (The same can be said for the fourth commandment -- most Christians have worked on the sabbath).

01-05-2005, 05:08 PM	#1
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Murder or Kill: What does the sixth commandment really say? The sixth commandment (fifth for Catholics) strikes me as the greatest challenge facing Christians in their attempt to convince skeptics that the Bible is the Word of God. In the King James, American Standard, Revised Standard, New Jerusalem, Darby's and Webster's Bibles, the Hebrew word is translated as 'kill'. In the Living, Young's, and New International versions, it is given as 'murder'. If Christians cannot agree on the precise meaning of just ONE WORD that defines one of the most important moral issues in our world -- the taking of a human life -- then how can they make us believe that the Bible should be read as a moral and legal guide to our behaviour? I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on this discrepency. :devil3:

01-06-2005, 11:30 AM	#7
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	On Joseph Lewis I had forgotten about Lewis' explanation of the origins of this commandment. Are there other prominent Biblical scholars who support him in this claim? Incidentally, Lewis' book THE TEN COMMANDMENTS is available online at positiveatheism.org (sorry, I don't know how to set this up as a link).

01-06-2005, 11:59 AM	#10
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	What I meant to ask was ... How do Christians view this ambiguity? I know one woman who takes a completely pacifist view. She would not kill for ANY reason, even to save the lives of her children. I think she must be in a tiny minority ... after all, many Christians support war, capital punishment, and killing for self defense. Has anyone seen a survey conducted among believers to get a general sense of this issue? I believe many are being two-faced when they tout the Ten Commandments as being a guide for living (using 'kill' as the sixth) while fighting in the military or advocating capital punishment. (The same can be said for the fourth commandment -- most Christians have worked on the sabbath).

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

01-05-2005, 05:41 PM	#2
yummyfur Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 351	I would say it says murder(that is illegitimate killing), the Hebrew word Ratsach is used for the commandment, wheras the word Harag is usually used for general killing including animals. Ratsach also is used to denote a murderer and assasin, wheras Harag is generally not. Also in the Septuagint the word Phoneuo is used for the commandment, which connotes murder. In the instances where the Hebrew Bible uses Harag, the Septuagint usually uses Apokteino, which is killing of any kind. The word murder in English originally denoted a killing that was done in secret, and so did not cover all illegitimate killings, probably why King James version did not use murder, and because of that tradition why it staid that way in many later translations.

01-06-2005, 06:51 AM	#3
Nectaris Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 855	This discussion has come up before, so you may want to check out some previous threads on the topic(I found these using the word ratsach): Murder vs. Kill Is it kill or murder? Help with 10c translation For my 2 cents, I wonder why one would have to have a commandment that says they'll shall not murder. If it's already defined as murder, than it is wrong because it is defined as such. Since people already know that it is wrong to kill illegitimately, the god-delivered commandment seems a tad redundant. It seems like the law reads "thou shalt not do, what you already know what not to do." And welcome to IIDB Joan of Bark. Dave

01-06-2005, 07:30 AM	#4
Agnostic Theist Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: UK Posts: 4,822	Thou shalt not kill is almost immediately contradicted when Moses et al become engaged in war. Thou shalt not murder would either be redundant or unintelligible, since given a human law for illegitimate killing, God's law would be a statement of the obvious. Without a human law or concept already in place (and the former is necessary for the latter) Moses and his people could not have known what 'muder' means as such. For the moment I can think of two responses to this, 1.) There may have been a concept of immoral killing, but such acts were not illegal. This begs the question, if it was immoral, and known to be so, why didn't the people make a law against it? How could any form of society or community develop without some form of socio-ethical reasoning? 2.) That the statement is not to be taken literally. Thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not murder, is to be taken as a statement upholding the law. The authorities are chosen by God and their laws must be upheld. The commandment may come apropos of ancient political notions of 'natural' and 'political' law, which bears significance to the commandment since 'natural' law may be categorised with morality, while 'political' law may be categorised with legality. To summarise, 'thou shalt not kill' is an imperative to uphold the natural and political law. The second explanation would suffer congruent, if not the same, objections raised against the legitimacy of natural law. I won't mention them yet because I don't want to derail this thread. Such objections may not be applicable to the explanation per se because, overall, they attack religion, viz. christianity and thus, in the fictionalist sense at least, it (ex. 2) is valid. Another set of objections may rise from the existence of the other 9 commandments. What is so special about thou shalt not kill that it warrents socio-ethical significance? Frankly my take on this subject is a reasoned guess, but that does not necessarily make it false. Indeed, it would be very hard to explain Biblical passages without some degree of conjecture or assertion. Anyway, back to the matter at hand. The other laws may purport to uphold similar ideals. Perhaps they all relate to particulars of the universal 'law', with the first five (concerning God) relating to natural law and the second five relating to political law, or the communal integrity. Take, as another example, 'thou shalt not covet his neighbours wife/ass' (admitedly I forget the exact wording for those two laws). Is this an imperative to a specific deed? Perhaps, but it may also be a command to maintian communal coexistence, perhaps even communal principles, as long as they do not antagonise the natural and political laws. The order of the commandments, or at least the two sections, also seems relevant. The fact that laws apropos of God come first certainly infers a higher degree of importance, which is mirrored by ancient politcal philosophies, which argue that political law is secondary to natural law, and thus the former must be based on the latter.A political law that conflicts with any natural law is not legitimate (and I'm aware that 'legitimacy' was not a term used in ancient political philosophy, but for linguistic convenience I'm using it as a valid term). Unfortunately I don't have any more time - I have to revise for my exams (5 days left ), but I'll try to keep track of this thread.

01-06-2005, 08:30 AM	#5
Lugubert Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Western Sweden Posts: 3,684	From the first Bible in Swedish (1541) up to and including the confessionally neutral "Bibel 2000", a word meaning "commit manslaughter" has been used. A footnote in B2000 explains, "The Hebrew text does not use either of the two common Hebrew words for "kill". The ban refers to murder, but not to the execution of criminals (see, e.g., 21:12), the killing of enemies in wars, or the killing of animals. I find that most posters agree with that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.