Discussion»Questions»Religion and Spirituality» Do you find it interesting that "Thou shall not murder" in the 10 Commandments was changed by the Vatican to "Thou shall not kill"?
No, it is not surprising.....it all depends on translation. The version I use is the English Standard Version which reads "You shall not murder." Exodus 20:13
The Hebrew word for murder also translates to manslaughter or negligence or carelessness.
The Vatican did no such thing. The King James translators were English Protestants. The Latin Vulgate, the only "authorized" version of the Bible ever released by the Vatican, translates the Hebrew word "ratzakh" as "interficio" (which specifically refers to the crime of homicide), not "neco" (the more generalized term for killing).
This post was edited by Slartibartfast at October 29, 2017 9:09 AM MDT
What are you talking about? There are many words translated "kill" and many versions, each version being someone's opinion of what the original was trying to say. So how about specifying what word you mean, and giving a few examples of how it is used and how you think it should be used.
AFAIK, the Roman Catholics made one version in Latin, called "vulgate". No relation to English versions.
This post was edited by Not Sure at October 29, 2017 8:11 AM MDT
Yes, the Vatican created the Gregorian Calendar. God should've created the calendar for all humanity to use. Mohammad should've returned with better knowledge of how our solar system works. Who do these people think they are?
1. "Mohammad should've returned with better knowledge of how our solar system works."
I think HQ 21:33 made sure he did. It says, “It is God who has created the night and the day. The sun and the moon each one travelling in an orbit with its own motion.”
The Arabic word used for travelling in this case is ‘Yasbahoon’. It describes the movements of a swimmer, those of parts of his body and that of the whole of his body. When referring to a celestial body, these two movements would be the rotating of the body about its own axis as well as the movement of the whole body along a path. So the HQ is saying that it’s not only the moon but the sun too is moving along an orbit while at the same time spinning about its own axis. Today we know that the Sun does just that. In fact it takes approximately 25 days to complete one rotation or spin on its own axis and around 250 million years to complete a single orbit in its galaxy at 800,000 km/h.
2. "Who do these people think they are?"
I don't now about "these" people, but we can see that HQ 18:110 tells Mohammed to tell people who he is. It tells him to "Say: "I am but a mortal man just like you all. [the only difference is that] It has been revealed unto me that your God is One God. So, whoever hopes for a meeting with his [ultimate] Carer and Sustainer [in the hereafter] then let him do righteous deeds, and in serving his [ultimate] Carer and Sustainer not admit any thing as a partner [also worth serving]!"
Are you content with a first grade school level knowledge of the night and the day. I think your HQ 21:33 is wrong. The sun does not travel in an orbit with its own motion. Is there an explanation, in your Quran, of how the moon is: the Earth's only natural satellite, the fifth largest moon in the Solar System, a distance of 238857 miles from the Earth, orbits the Earth every 27.3 days? The great man who traveled to heaven on his horse and returned, has no facts and explanation of our galaxy.
HQ 21:33 And He it is Who created the night and the day and the sun and the moon. All float in orbits. He did not create day and night. He created the Earth to rotate, thus causing darkness on one side and light on the other. They do not float in orbit. They move in a pattern which does not change.
Let him do righteous deeds by filling the people of the world with scientific knowledge of the skies. Let him share wisdom from our creator, in an intellectual level that man can comprehend, for him to understand the night and the day better than how another mere, simple man (compared to our creator) can. Prophets have been too busy patting themselves on the back with righteousness and failed to share our creator's physical establishment and achievement, which would prevent simple concepts created by man, such as the big bang theory. Rather than living in theories, we should be living in facts.
This post was edited by antibiotic at October 29, 2017 7:03 PM MDT
1. surely in the subject we're discussing there's no place for personal condescending remarks like suggesting that a person is "content with a first grade school level knowledge of the night and the day". Such remarks do not add any value to the argument of the person making them. They cause suspicion that the person's argument must be weak and that's why the person is resorting to condescending remarks.
2. "I think your HQ 21:33 is wrong. The sun does not travel in an orbit with its own motion." >>> Please check that up. If you're right then come back and we'll pick up from there.
This post was edited by CLURT at October 30, 2017 7:00 PM MDT
There is no personal condescending remark. There may be a general condescending remark, to any one in general, who is content that we have a night and a day with no explanation.
The sun does not travel. It does not have a pattern of advancing to any direction. These objects in the sky do not float. They are not buoyant to any type of matter and they do not rest or remain on the surface of a liquid.
The earliest recorded astronomical observation is the Nebra sky disk from northern Europe dating approximately 1,600 BC. Man has been left in the dark, not understanding the full concept of the physical heavens. If factual instructions of creation were given to prophets, to relay to man, we would have a better understanding of Allah and his great works, with less skepticism of his existence. Instead, we were instructed to behead anyone who did not follow one man's indoctrination.
1. AB, by saying "There is no personal condescending remark. There may be a general condescending remark, to any one in general, ...." you're implying that I am lying or I got it wrong. However, you were responding to MY comment and used the personal pronoun "you". I'm not making it up. These are your words "Are you content with a first grade school level knowledge.."
2. You said earlier "I think your HQ 21:33 is wrong. The sun does not travel in an orbit with its own motion." I asked you to "Please check that up. If you're right then come back and we'll pick up from there." You've come back saying that "The sun does not travel." Now I'm not sure whether you're just repeating what you said earlier or whether you're confirming after further research. We need to resolve this to your and my satisfaction.
3. You make a very good rational case in your statement, "If factual instructions of creation were given to prophets, to relay to man, we would have a better understanding of Allah and his great works, with less skepticism of his existence." However, your allegation "Instead, we were instructed to behead anyone who did not follow one man's indoctrination." is very trite, unsupported by the HQ, misleading and disappointing.
2. I don't waste time researching what I've already learned.
3. Surah 8:12 Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” If Allah had instilled more knowledge and information about his great physical creation, through his prophets, there would be less unbelievers in the world. Perhaps, there would be no unbelievers at all.
This post was edited by antibiotic at October 30, 2017 6:16 PM MDT
1. The point here was to see whether you'd be brave enough to admit an error. You chose to deflect by asking a question.
2. Here too the point was to see whether, if you were to find out that the HQ was right about the sun moving along on a path, you would then be generous enough to admit that the HQ was right. You chose to hide behind a strange statement, "I don't waste time researching what I've already learned."
3. Are you really serious that in HQ 8:12 we're being "instructed to behead anyone who did not follow one man's indoctrination."? Let's look at your own chosen translation of the verse. Even "with a first grade school level" analysis we can see that the very first word is "Remember". It is thus very obvious right from the start that even at the time this verse was revealed it was referring to a past event. The morale boosting message was clearly for "THE believers" meaning those who were present at the event, and it is obvious from the context that the event was at a battlefield. The verse does not say "ALL believers" neither does it just say "believers". The same goes for those who were to be struck, it was not "ALL unbelievers" everywhere, neither was it the general "unbelievers" but it was "THE unbelievers" who were present on THAT particular battlefield. The verse is reminding its audience of the morale boosting that was necessary at that event. Morale boosting is not given to a warring horde rearing to go to battle. It's given to people who might not want to be at the battlefield but they have to be, to defend themselves.
1. Asking a question, in relationship to the discussion, is not deflecting. It is contributing.
2. "I don't waste time researching what I've already learned", and I know the sun does not travel in any direction.
3. "Remember" means to retain in the memory; keep in mind; remain aware of. Remember: to look both ways before crossing the street. to keep your elbows off the table. to drive on the right side of the street. to pick up your son after school. to bow in prayer. this Friday, you get two pay checks. the sun does not travel in any direction. the Earth rotates on its axis and gravity keeps loose objects, on the surface, from "floating" in the skies.
1. Contributing is good, but if it is done in place of addressing the issue raised then it is a deflection from that issue.
2. You say, "I know the sun does not travel in any direction." The HQ 14 centuries ago said it does, it spins as well as moves along in a path. You kept refusing to check it out, so I've done it for you. This is what University Today says about whether or not the sun spins "All sunspots move across the face of the Sun. This motion is part of the general rotation of the Sun on its axis." What about moving along a path? According to a NASA site "the Sun ... orbits around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. We are moving at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr. But even at that high rate, it still takes us about 230 million years to make one complete orbit" That tells us a lot, including the fact that your "I don't waste time researching what I've already learned" is not very wise.
3. TY for confirming the points I was making about the verse you quoted. If you start any of the statements you listed with the word "Remember" then it means that what is mentioned in the statement has been mentioned before. For example, you do not say to a person "Remember to look both ways before crossing the street." if the person was never before told to "look both ways before crossing the street."
"All sunspots move across the face of the Sun. This motion is part of the general rotation of the Sun on its axis." Thank you for helping prove my point. It's great that we can rely on science, taught in schools, to get the truth of creation. This is where Allah failed to instruct his prophets to deliver the truth of creation to man. So, we follow The Discovery Channel, National Geographic, The Science Channel, Nova, NASA, Bill Nye - The Science Guy, to get knowledge that prophets failed to teach mankind. Seeking knowledge of what should've been taught by Allah's messengers leads to more skeptics and unbelievers. This is the end result of what happens when man pats himself on the back with righteousness and glory in the name of something they have no explanation for, except that he is great and merciful.
This post was edited by antibiotic at October 31, 2017 5:09 AM MDT
There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh and mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo and apokteino) for “murder” and “killing.” One means “to put to death,” and the other means “to murder.” The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact "ratsakh" has a broader definition than the English word "murder". "Ratsakh" also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing killing during wartime. That's why most modern translations render the sixth commandment “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” The Vatican has changed many things (for it's own corrupt purposes) but "murder to kill" isn't one of them.
Not at all---since your question assumes what is not true.
And yet as is observed by a Jewish participant in this debate, Bible commentator Eliezer Segal, things are not so simple. Although lo tirtsah., as opposed to its Hebrew alternative of lo taharog, would indeed appear to mean “Do not murder,” Jewish sources themselves have not always been clear about this interpretation. Indeed, in his fourth-century C.E. Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible that set the tone for Catholic and Protestant Bibles that came after it, St. Jerome was undoubtedly influenced, in his rather ambiguous choice of non occides, by two earlier Jewish translations that also came down halfway between “do not murder” and “do not kill”: the third-century B.C.E. Greek Septuagint’s ou phoneuseis and the second-century C.E. Aramaic Targum’s lo tiktol n’fash. Some later Jewish commentators, too, have waffled. The 12th-century scholar Maimonides, Segal writes, held that “all cases of killing human beings involve violations of the command [of lo tirtsah.], even if the violation happens to be overridden by other mitigating factors,” while the 15th-century Bible commentator Don Isaac Abravanel pointed out that even in the Bible ratsah. can mean “kill” rather than “murder,” as in the laws of permissible blood vengeance in Numbers 35.
In the final analysis, I would agree with Segal’s conclusion that “the translation ‘Thou shalt not kill’ was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James’ English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to [translate] accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root.” This is not to say that “Thou shalt not kill” is the better or more accurate translation. It is simply to say that, first of all, not all languages make an absolutely clear distinction between killing and murdering, and secondly, that, as is often true of translation, one’s interpretation depends on prior attitudes. To an opponent of capital punishment, killing a murderer is murder too; to a proponent of abortion, killing a fetus is not. It is not the meaning of the Sixth Commandment that will in most cases determine how we think about such things. It is how we think about them that will determine what we make of the Sixth Commandment.
Baba 