kfk@ccieng2.UUCP (08/27/83)
This is in response to Steve Den Beste's article, "A major transgres- sion on the part of Christians with respect to the Bible." It is true that the typical English translation of the commandment to which you refer is "Thou shalt not kill." This is, however, in error. First, you should notice that the word "thou" is Olde Eng- lish. That should give the first hint. It is now generally accepted that the proper interpretation of the Hebrew (Aramaic? I can't remem- ber...) is "You shall not murder." This is *NOT* a "mealy-mouthed" view of the commandment. It is the correct TRANSLATION of a foreign language. If I had my sources, I would gladly quote them. Unfor- tunately, I don't, but if anyone is curious, write me some mail. I'll look it up and write back to you. This translation is based on (relatively) new evidence from ancient Hebrew writings. There are two words in Hebrew for taking the life of a person, just as in English. Think about it logically: God gives men commandments, one of which says, "You shall not kill." Then, time after time, the nation Israel gets into wars, and God helps them to win. It's so blatantly incon- sistent that to accept the translation as "kill" is just naive. Along these lines, I will state my position on killing/murder. If you try to harm my wife, my son, or any other member of my family, I *will* kill you. If you try to kill me, I will kill you first, if possible. I have responsibilities to my family, which I cannot take care of if dead. I will *not* permit you to cause any harm to come to my family or friends if I can possibly stop you. Jewish law *always* allowed for the righteous EXECUTION (not self-righteous) of another person when that other person has done something sufficiently wrong, such as murder. War is a considerably more difficult subject, but think of it this way: who would have been hurt more if Hitler had not been stopped? (That comment is intended as support for the right for Christians to fight in a war in which they feel they would be fighting on the right side for the right reasons. It is not intended to justify any current activity on the part of the U.S. I won't even tell you which side of El Salvador/Nicaragua/Chad I'm on.) ============== Karl Kleinpaste =============== ...!allegra!rocksvax!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk ...!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk
grw@fortune.UUCP (Glenn Wichman) (08/29/83)
Of course, "kill" and "murder" are both very culturally
defined here. What is and is not murder depends very much
on exact circumstances and even which judge you get. When
God said, "Thou shalt not murder", did that include 1st,
2nd & 3rd degree murder? Or what? Clearly following merely
the letter of the law will get us nowhere (The argument
against following the letter of the law, but not the spirit,
was made by Jesus himself...) This country defines it as
not-murder to kill while protecting your stereo or your
country, or your life. I have problems with each of these.
Killing someone who is trying to steal from you, it
seems to me, is escalating things. I don't think I need
to argue further.
Jesus told me to love my enemies. I suppose that the
"enemies" of the United States count as mine, too. I think
it a rather unloving thing to kill someone, so I will not
kill my country's enemies for it.
If someone were trying to kill me, and it was a "him/her
or me" situation, there is no question about it: I would let
myself be killed. I know where I'm going. If the person
who is shooting at me lives, he/she may still have a chance to
be saved. If I kill him/her [I hate English's gendered pronouns],
I have taken away that chance.
-Glenn