Promulgatious
Member
Thou shalt not kill ??? Or--- Thou shalt not kill unjustly ???
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
So what should it be ie 6th Commandant ?
- Thread starter Promulgatious
- Start date
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Thou shalt not murder. (i.e. thou shalt not kill unjustly)
In Hebrew there is a distinction between killing and murder just like in English.
If it were "thou shalt not kill", it would say in Hebrew "Lo Harag".
The commandment is written "Lo Tirtzach"... thou shalt not murder.
Levite
Higher and Higher
This is totally correct. The Hebrew word "retzach," which is the root of the phrase in the commandment "lo tirtzach" specifically means murder: intentional criminal homicide. The word "hereg" or "killing" is not used (as Poisonshady indicates, if it were, the commandment would read "Al Taharog," or possibly "Lo Lir'hog"), which would indicate the prohibition for killing anything or anyone in general.
And, BTW, since we happen to be talking about the commandments and their frequent mistranslation or misinterpretation, when it says, "lo tisah et shem YHVH elohechah la-shav" (usually translated as "do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain"), that does not mean that you can't cuss or say god damn it or suchlike. That commandment actually refers specifically to pronouncing the tetragrammaton (the four- letter unpronounceable name of God) in a formal curse (like, the magical kind), or in a false oath (as in swearing by that name to false testimony in court), or for similar felonious uses. The kind of cussing we do on a day to day basis, while it may or may not be uncouth, is in no way prohibited by commandment.
I like this one. ^
Some translations do say murder instead of kill.
Promulgatious
Member
No offence personally to the posts given but I really do not relate to " interpetation written by whomever by this or that hebrew interpeter claiming to have the gift to interpet what we should fall in line with "
This is my view a matter of justice, hard as it is !
This is my view a matter of justice, hard as it is !
Last edited:
Levite
Higher and Higher
There is a difference between "this is what Jewish commentators and traditional sources have said is the proper interpretation of X," and "this is the literal translation and grammatical context of Hebrew word X."
The difference between a word meaning "murder" and a word meaning "kill" is not a matter of interpretation. It is simply linguistic fact.
Likewise, the phrase "lo tisah et shem YHVH elohecha la-shav" (usually translated as "do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain") reflects a grammatical construction common to Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, which nearly always refers to taking a formal oath, formally invoking a name in blessing or curse or prayer, or invoking a name formally in testimony. It is highly unlikely that that it means something different in that context. That is not a matter of exegetical innovation, or Rabbinic interpretation, that is purely a matter of clarification of syntax.
The difference between a word meaning "murder" and a word meaning "kill" is not a matter of interpretation. It is simply linguistic fact.
Likewise, the phrase "lo tisah et shem YHVH elohecha la-shav" (usually translated as "do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain") reflects a grammatical construction common to Biblical and Mishnaic Hebrew, which nearly always refers to taking a formal oath, formally invoking a name in blessing or curse or prayer, or invoking a name formally in testimony. It is highly unlikely that that it means something different in that context. That is not a matter of exegetical innovation, or Rabbinic interpretation, that is purely a matter of clarification of syntax.
K.Venugopal
Immobile Wanderer
The "commandant" may kill but the commandment is not to kill. Thereby the commandant earns sin. When a sufficient number of sins are earned, the commandant would be ripe for hell.
Promulgatious
Member
So all the words I hear from the mouths of men/women cursing their discomfitcure is nothing to God but a clarifiction of syntax! Really don't want to stand in judgement with that arguement, but thats your call . Makes me wonder why the curses of man are always related to God, Christ etc. ? Why not Budda, why not the gods in India, why not the " Sacred Cow " ?? Why not curse them ? How about their monkey god ?
Lets try it ?
Just hit my thumb with a hammer !!! Oh that ******* monkey god !!
I am trying to engage in a discussion on what is in the heart, and the choices we make due to the info we have,
Last edited:
Promulgatious
Member
Promulgatious
Member
(Interesting that this thread has morphed...)
Three Jews have given you an answer on this thread.
'Murder' not 'Kill'.
If you refuse to listen, that's your decision, of course. We're just Jews, who received the Torah, what do we know?
Levite
Higher and Higher
You are free to interpret whatever you wish: it is a free country (at least where I am-- I hope where you are also).
However, you are missing the point of what I said. Cussing of the "God damn it" variety, while it may be vulgar, is not what the plain text reading of the commandment indicated. Nobody is saying that if you find such profanities unpleasant, you should still use them. And if you would like to propose an exegesis of the commandment that indicates one should refrain from such vulgarities, even if not actually forbidden, out of an excessive zeal for respecting God, that might be a perfectly defensible exegesis. However, it is almost certainly not the plain meaning of the words. Nothing is wrong with exegesis. Extrapolating a doctrinal meaning is perfectly fine textual choice. But an extrapolation, an exegetical building of doctrine, is not the same thing as the plain meaning of the words.
The commandment as it is phrased refers either to pronouncing the tetragrammaton in the course of committing perjury, or making an oath one does not intend to keep or which is prohibited for other reasons, or in actively pronouncing a curse upon God Himself. By which I mean, not saying "God damn it," which is literally an invocation to God (using the English translation of one of the lesser Hebrew Names of God, thus not pronouncing the Sacred Name at all) to damn some thing or situation (leaving aside for the moment that Judaism does not believe in damnation, so that the commandment couldn't refer to such a thing anyhow). What might be prohibited, if one accepts both the word God as a Divine Name and the doctrine of damnation, would be to say "May God be damned," which is a completely different sentence.
You need to be clear on the difference between what is an interpretation that one chooses to make, and what is the literal meaning of the text. Neither one is wrong, or somehow better than the other. But they are not the same thing.
And as for why people don't curse with the names of other gods, many do. I myself frequently, when irritated, use the phrase "Jesus Christ!" although of course I do not believe in Jesus' divinity or sanctity, but merely because I have become accustomed to the sound of the phrase. By the same token, I have known Jews who lived in Quebec to use curses like "Tabernac," or "Hostie," and Spanish-speaking Jews to say things like "Puta Madonna;" and I have even known Indian Jews who used curses that invoked devas (or so I am told, not speaking whatever language the curses were in).
It is also worth remembering that what you personally do or do not like may not actually be what is prohibited or permitted in the text. One cannot merely trust to translations and catechisms if one is interested in the literal meaning of the text.