4 ms·

And the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” does not have an asterisk beside it, referring you to the bottom of the page, where there’s a list of instances whe

And the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill” does not have an asterisk beside it, referring you to the bottom of the page, where there’s a list of instances where it is okay to kill people. I know he's just quoting someone, but as an interesting aside, it rather does. A more accurate translation is "thou shalt do no murder", and in historical-linguistic context it basically only applies to not killing Jewish people.

eloisius 5y ago
A Jewish friend once explained a similar thing about “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Raised Christian, I was always taught it was broadly “do not lie,” but apparently it was more specific about not perjuring yourself in a court of law.
- 542458 5y ago
  I don’t think there is good evidence for what you described on a theological basis (I also do not believe that what you described is a very common interpretation). The word translated as “murder” is “retzach”. Conveniently, the book of Numbers talks about “retzach” quite a bit, and it’s described as killing (including accidentally) outside of warfare. It is not distinguished by race or religion, and although there are a number of justified causes for retzach, none are as broad as “all non-Jews”. There’s a sort of precedent to “shalt not kill” in Genesis 9:6 as part of God’s covenant with Noah, and it’s very clear that it’s a prohibition to the murder of any human regardless of race or creed: “ Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” The old Jewish law contains a number of explicit protections for non-Jews, so it would seem very inconsistent if murder of non-Jews was viewed as not contrary to the law.
jfengel 5y ago
Much of the rest of the book is that footnote. The same deity orders numerous genocides, and mandates execution for a wide variety of offenses. As you say, it's better translated as "murder", which leaves open a wide range of killing.
SnowHill9902 5y ago
Not true. How could it be that way? It’s literally “do not murder”. It’s even one of the seven laws applying to everybody regardless of their religion along with not to commit adultery and not to steal. You’ll have to back that discriminatory claim.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  Deuteronomy 20:16-18 > As for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded.”
  - SnowHill9902 5y ago
    That is a specific case during war between already warring tribes. It has nothing to do with murder being permitted in certain cases.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      There is a difference between murder and killing. Killing is the act of terminating a life. Murder is killing without the sanction (or de facto sanction) of an authority. The contention is that there seems to be plenty of killing sanctioned by God, but (literally by definition) you will find no murder sanctioned by God in the Bible. If we tie this back to TFA, "though shalt not kill" is more appropriately phrased as "though shalt not murder" given how often people were instructed by God himself to kill.
lalaland1125 5y ago
For example, most infamously Leviticus 20:13 > If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
- SnowHill9902 5y ago
  There are no records that capital punishment was actually ever delivered after the establishment of courts as it required many strict conditions. Regardless, that’s not murder but capital punishment for a certain offense.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    > Regardless, that’s not murder but capital punishment for a certain offense. That's exactly the point here. The article claims that the commandment is "do not kill", when the actual Biblical law is "do not murder". Per the Bible, there is a whole list of people you can legally kill (men who have sex with men, people from certain tribes, etc). > There are no records that capital punishment was actually ever delivered Do we have records of any of the "normal" executions carried out by the ancient Hebrew state while it was a theocracy (in the time of the first temple)? It seems like it's so far back that we wouldn't get records of them executing gay people, even if it was actually happening.
    - SnowHill9902 5y ago
      You couldn’t even legally kill those people yourself. It was aimed at leaders and judges. What’s written is only a tiny small part of the whole legal and ethical system. You can’t try to understand it by reading a literal translation of just the written part.
      - lalaland1125 5y ago
        Yes, there is a process and you wouldn't have been able to kill them yourself. If you wanted to kill a gay person, you would have had to collect evidence of them having gay sex and then present that to the court so that the court can kill them for you. Civilization!
recuter 5y ago
It basically does not. At all. I think instead of foisting the most iron age-y least charitable interpretation imaginable you ought to realize that people have had a couple thousand years to develop a body of laws and thought around this. Ask a Rabbi. They'll say of course not. Ask another, they'll also say of course not but they might provide you a completely different explanation as to why not.
- causality0 5y ago
  you ought to realize that people have had a couple thousand years to develop a body of laws and thought around this. This is of course true but I wasn't trying to say anything about modern Abrahamic religions or their practitioners. Jewish doctrine has changed over time just as Christian and Islamic doctrines have. Jewish people aren't some kind of insane throwback and I wasn't trying to imply that they were.
  - recuter 5y ago
    Well, good. But some nuance is still lost here in my opinion. > in historical-linguistic context it basically only applies to not killing Jewish people This is your own framing. Perhaps you are a timelord or a 3000 yr old man? :) There is weird stuff in the Bhagavad-Gita, bringing your own context to it is ill advised as you are likely to misread the text. I suggest, very politely, that this is what happened here - I have only heard such interpretations as yours from non native speakers with only a passing familiarity of the original text. In other words, I'm glad we agree that a modern day rabbi would disagree with this but it is not as if a rabbi from 1000 years ago would say the commandment only applies to non-Jews. Nor would one from the time of Moses. I don't know where you got this notion. It doesn't matter. Ask someone knowledgable if you are interested.

eloisius 5y ago

A Jewish friend once explained a similar thing about “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” Raised Christian, I was always taught it was broadly “do not lie,” but apparently it was more specific about not perjuring yourself in a court of law.

542458 5y ago
I don’t think there is good evidence for what you described on a theological basis (I also do not believe that what you described is a very common interpretation). The word translated as “murder” is “retzach”. Conveniently, the book of Numbers talks about “retzach” quite a bit, and it’s described as killing (including accidentally) outside of warfare. It is not distinguished by race or religion, and although there are a number of justified causes for retzach, none are as broad as “all non-Jews”. There’s a sort of precedent to “shalt not kill” in Genesis 9:6 as part of God’s covenant with Noah, and it’s very clear that it’s a prohibition to the murder of any human regardless of race or creed: “ Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” The old Jewish law contains a number of explicit protections for non-Jews, so it would seem very inconsistent if murder of non-Jews was viewed as not contrary to the law.

jfengel 5y ago

Much of the rest of the book is that footnote. The same deity orders numerous genocides, and mandates execution for a wide variety of offenses. As you say, it's better translated as "murder", which leaves open a wide range of killing.

SnowHill9902 5y ago

Not true. How could it be that way? It’s literally “do not murder”. It’s even one of the seven laws applying to everybody regardless of their religion along with not to commit adultery and not to steal. You’ll have to back that discriminatory claim.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lalaland1125 5y ago
Deuteronomy 20:16-18 > As for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded.”
- SnowHill9902 5y ago
  That is a specific case during war between already warring tribes. It has nothing to do with murder being permitted in certain cases.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    There is a difference between murder and killing. Killing is the act of terminating a life. Murder is killing without the sanction (or de facto sanction) of an authority. The contention is that there seems to be plenty of killing sanctioned by God, but (literally by definition) you will find no murder sanctioned by God in the Bible. If we tie this back to TFA, "though shalt not kill" is more appropriately phrased as "though shalt not murder" given how often people were instructed by God himself to kill.

lalaland1125 5y ago

For example, most infamously Leviticus 20:13 > If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

SnowHill9902 5y ago
There are no records that capital punishment was actually ever delivered after the establishment of courts as it required many strict conditions. Regardless, that’s not murder but capital punishment for a certain offense.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  > Regardless, that’s not murder but capital punishment for a certain offense. That's exactly the point here. The article claims that the commandment is "do not kill", when the actual Biblical law is "do not murder". Per the Bible, there is a whole list of people you can legally kill (men who have sex with men, people from certain tribes, etc). > There are no records that capital punishment was actually ever delivered Do we have records of any of the "normal" executions carried out by the ancient Hebrew state while it was a theocracy (in the time of the first temple)? It seems like it's so far back that we wouldn't get records of them executing gay people, even if it was actually happening.
  - SnowHill9902 5y ago
    You couldn’t even legally kill those people yourself. It was aimed at leaders and judges. What’s written is only a tiny small part of the whole legal and ethical system. You can’t try to understand it by reading a literal translation of just the written part.
    - lalaland1125 5y ago
      Yes, there is a process and you wouldn't have been able to kill them yourself. If you wanted to kill a gay person, you would have had to collect evidence of them having gay sex and then present that to the court so that the court can kill them for you. Civilization!

recuter 5y ago

It basically does not. At all. I think instead of foisting the most iron age-y least charitable interpretation imaginable you ought to realize that people have had a couple thousand years to develop a body of laws and thought around this. Ask a Rabbi. They'll say of course not. Ask another, they'll also say of course not but they might provide you a completely different explanation as to why not.

causality0 5y ago
you ought to realize that people have had a couple thousand years to develop a body of laws and thought around this. This is of course true but I wasn't trying to say anything about modern Abrahamic religions or their practitioners. Jewish doctrine has changed over time just as Christian and Islamic doctrines have. Jewish people aren't some kind of insane throwback and I wasn't trying to imply that they were.
- recuter 5y ago
  Well, good. But some nuance is still lost here in my opinion. > in historical-linguistic context it basically only applies to not killing Jewish people This is your own framing. Perhaps you are a timelord or a 3000 yr old man? :) There is weird stuff in the Bhagavad-Gita, bringing your own context to it is ill advised as you are likely to misread the text. I suggest, very politely, that this is what happened here - I have only heard such interpretations as yours from non native speakers with only a passing familiarity of the original text. In other words, I'm glad we agree that a modern day rabbi would disagree with this but it is not as if a rabbi from 1000 years ago would say the commandment only applies to non-Jews. Nor would one from the time of Moses. I don't know where you got this notion. It doesn't matter. Ask someone knowledgable if you are interested.