What is a god?

Mr Skeptic · May 27, 2010

If you remember Jesus on his way to the cross, he never fought (and rebuked Peter fighting) or lied. All he had to say was that he was not the son of God and he wouldn't have been killed.

And if you remember, Jesus intended to die, and also he forced the soldiers to let his buddies go (John 18).

forufes · May 27, 2010

god's omnipotence is not contradictory.

you make it contradictory because you want it to be contradictory.

can god heat a burrito that'll burn him?

if he can, then he's burned, not omnipotent.

if he can't then he's not omnipotent.

what a word play.. the question is phrased to have only one answer.. actually, to appear to have only one answer.

but lets analyze that question a bit shall we?

can god do something (heat a burrito) that will contradict/take away his omnipotence? (getting damaged-burned)

:eyebrow:

no he can't.

thus, he's omnipotent.

:eek:

but you just said he CAN'T do something!!?

well actually to be truly omnipotent, you should be unable to be otherwise.

lol it's like; is one who is "ultimately able" able to be unable?

well nope, sorry, he's unable to be unable-----> meaning he's ultimately able.. he's Omnipotent.

lol you and your silly games:D

**mooeypoo** · May 27, 2010

god's omnipotence is not contradictory.
you make it contradictory because you want it to be contradictory.

can god heat a burrito that'll burn him?

if he can, then he's burned, not omnipotent.

if he can't then he's not omnipotent.

what a word play.. the question is phrased to have only one answer.. actually, to appear to have only one answer.

but lets analyze that question a bit shall we?

can god do something (heat a burrito) that will contradict/take away his omnipotence? (getting damaged-burned)

no he can't.

thus, he's omnipotent.

This is a philosophical contradiction, though. Omnipotence means one can do *anything*. When you show that there's something you can't do, you're no longer omnipotent. Very simple.

I do agree with you that this is a relatively weak argument against the existence of God - that is, it's a philosophical inconvinience that doesn't necessarily means God's existence as an omnipotent being is impossible, but the philosophical argument remains contradictory.

but you just said he CAN'T do something!!?

well actually to be truly omnipotent, you should be unable to be otherwise.

lol it's like; is one who is "ultimately able" able to be unable?

well nope, sorry, he's unable to be unable-----> meaning he's ultimately able.. he's Omnipotent.

lol you and your silly games:D

You know, forufes, people will undersrtand you much better - and debate you much more efficiently - if you treat the debate properly and use sentences rather than shorthand abbreviations in nonexisting sentences. It's a bit messy and confusing, specially when we deal with arguments like these that are philosophical and sometimes deal with some subtleties that are really unclear from the way you conveyed them.

And finally, I'd appreciate it if you don't mock those who disagree with you. The rules of the forum will appreciate it too, if you care to read them.

~moo

forufes · May 27, 2010

This is a philosophical contradiction, though. Omnipotence means one can do *anything*. When you show that there's something you can't do, you're no longer omnipotent. Very simple.

I do agree with you that this is a relatively weak argument against the existence of God - that is, it's a philosophical inconvinience that doesn't necessarily means God's existence as an omnipotent being is impossible, but the philosophical argument remains contradictory.

i'm not sure it IS a philosophical contradiction.

because then the word "omnipotent" has no meaning.. if you can't be unable to do something, then you're not omnipotent, and if you can be unable to do something, then you're also not omnipotent..

i think such redundant conflicts are ignored.

because otherwise, almost every sound philosophical statement can be bent to be wrong, especially when when you apply it to itself..

for example, the good o'l "you can't prove a negative" statement would turn out to be wrong too, because i DID prove a negative once, but it twisted the argument from the inside out, the negative i proved was:

there isn't a negative to be proven

that past sentence, states that there is NOT...etc, so it's a negative statement.. and it's also right in what it claims, that there is no proved negative...lol, except for itself!

so mooy, is there a proven negative or not?

you either answer "no" and then you're answer itself is a negative.

or you answer yes, and the example you'll give is "there is no proven negative" which contradicts the statement it's supplied for.

however, as for the omnipotence issue, i see it a matter of phrasing, if you define a mathematical space where only positive operations and numbers can be used, and i subtract a negative, am i violating the mathematical space's rules or not?

i say no.

you say yes.

You know, forufes, people will undersrtand you much better - and debate you much more efficiently - if you treat the debate properly and use sentences rather than shorthand abbreviations in nonexisting sentences. It's a bit messy and confusing, specially when we deal with arguments like these that are philosophical and sometimes deal with some subtleties that are really unclear from the way you conveyed them.

:-(

yeah.. sometimes i don't know what i mean when i read older posts of mine..

but if i try making a perfect post i'll never post it(and i've tried), i find myself the most productive when i'm the most casual and carefree.

And finally, I'd appreciate it if you don't mock those who disagree with you. The rules of the forum will appreciate it too, if you care to read them.

you know? i had a looong reply there, but i'll just keep it at

"no comment":rolleyes:

**mooeypoo** · May 27, 2010

i'm not sure it IS a philosophical contradiction.
because then the word "omnipotent" has no meaning.. if you can't be unable to do something, then you're not omnipotent, and if you can be unable to do something, then you're also not omnipotent..

Now who's playing word games? :eyebrow:

Omnipotence is the ability to do everything, not the inability to do anything or the ability to have an inability.

i think such redundant conflicts are ignored.

because otherwise, almost every sound philosophical statement can be bent to be wrong, especially when when you apply it to itself..

I don't understand what you mean here.

for example, the good o'l "you can't prove a negative" statement would turn out to be wrong too, because i DID prove a negative once, but it twisted the argument from the inside out, the negative i proved was:
there isn't a negative to be proven

that past sentence, states that there is NOT...etc, so it's a negative statement.. and it's also right in what it claims, that there is no proved negative...lol, except for itself!

First off, of course you can prove a negative. That isn't a philosophical statement, it's a misunderstood concept.

so mooy, is there a proven negative or not?
you either answer "no" and then you're answer itself is a negative.

or you answer yes, and the example you'll give is "there is no proven negative" which contradicts the statement it's supplied for.

Here's a negative for you: "There are no toxins in my glass of water."

I can prove that. There is no philosophical problem here because there's no philosophical argument.

The argument of "you can't prove a negative" in relation to God isn't so much about showing a non-existence as it is about the argument itself being too broad - and hence, unfalsifiable.

If a claim is properly phrased (as it *should be in science!*) then you can either confirm it or deny it. "Toxins do not exist in my cup of water" is something I can test for; I know what toxins are, I know what my cup of water is, and I can test and either confirm this or prove it to be wrong.

"God does not exist in my cup of water" is meaningless. We don't know what god should look like, we don't know how to test for his existence, and whatever and any experiment I can possibly think of, could be argued that it doesn't prove anything because God can just choose not to be detected.

This isn't really 'proving a negative', it's more 'proving an unfalsifiable', which in science is a nonscientific concept.

however, as for the omnipotence issue, i see it a matter of phrasing, if you define a mathematical space where only positive operations and numbers can be used, and i subtract a negative, am i violating the mathematical space's rules or not?

i say no.

you say yes.

It's a definition, forufes. Omnipotence means someone that can do anything. You found something he can't do, therefore by definition he's no longer omnipotent.

I do agree that it's semantics (which is what I said above). If god does indeed exist outside of our realm of comprehension (I have more problems with this particular claim, btw, than I do with the 'omnipotence' one) then the definition we chose to put on omnipotence might not be suitable to the situation.

Still, though, your reasoning makes little sense if we talk philosophically. There *IS* a contradiction. You can claim it doesn't matter, but the contradiction still exists.

yeah.. sometimes i don't know what i mean when i read older posts of mine..

but if i try making a perfect post i'll never post it(and i've tried), i find myself the most productive when i'm the most casual and carefree.

It's not about casual as it is about making sure you are clear. Try to take time to go over your own post before you hit "Submit Reply" and see that the sentences make sense, otherwise it is just hard to understand what you mean.

you know? i had a looong reply there, but i'll just keep it at
"no comment":rolleyes:

Good, because that specific part of my reply wasn't really a request.

~moo

Cap'n Refsmmat · May 27, 2010

Omnipotence is the ability to do everything, not the inability to do anything or the ability to have an inability.

This is not the traditional theological view. As C S Lewis says, drawing on earlier work by Thomas Aquinas,

His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to his power. If you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words 'God can.'... It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of his creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because his power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence#Scholastic_definition

Aquinas has this to say:

Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility. Hence it is better to say that such things cannot be done, than that God cannot do them. Nor is this contrary to the word of the angel, saying: "No word shall be impossible with God." For whatever implies a contradiction cannot be a word, because no intellect can possibly conceive such a thing.

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/FP/FP025.html#FPQ25A3THEP1

That is to say, many words and phrases refer to some sort of abstract "object" or "action." If I say "cat," you have an abstract mental representation of cat in your mind that my word corresponds to. If I say "making a burrito," you have a mental representation of making a burrito. But there is no representation for "making a burrito that is not a burrito." That does not describe an abstract action, or any action at all; it is a meaningless bunch of words.

Similarly, you could make an analogy to indeterminate forms. 0⁰, [math]\infty \times 0[/math], and [imath]\frac{0}{0}[/imath] don't represent any particular value, like 1 or 7. They're indeterminate; without further information, they mean nothing.

forufes · May 27, 2010

Good recollection captain.

and mooey, the inability of inability is complete ability, the vulnerability to vulnerability is invulnerability. You can only argue that with a play of words, as the initial argument was. for what i say makes perfect philosophical sense too. Which doesn't work by isolating a chosen part and nit picking on it.

.

DrDNA · May 28, 2010

And if you remember, Jesus intended to die, and also he forced the soldiers to let his buddies go (John 18).

John 18:

7 Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."

8 "I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."

'Forced'?

Where is force present here, or anywhere else in the Gospels for that matter?

Would there even be a need for forgiveness in the presence of force?

How can a man be forced to light a lamp if he has been given the freedom to choose whether or not to put oil in it?

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

God is all knowing and all seeing. So every time a woman is raped, for example, God is allowing for this to happen. We can argue back and forth whether or not there's a problem "of evil" with this question, but my current point is that if you claim that God is the example of good, then ignoring someone suffering is good?

We hunger, so he should turn stones into bread?

We are in danger, so he should lock us up in cages out of harms way to protect us from ourselves and from each other?

In other words, you would rather God not only make the rules, but also move us around like pawns on a chess board?

In essence, take away our free will?

No thanks. I'll take the world the way it is with all of its imperfections.

If you know for a fact that this guy just killed 10 people in cold blood, he's crazy, he will stab you before you start talking if you tell him you know where his gf is ---- that is, if you KNOW you will both die if you tell the truth -- is it still sinful to lie? And are you really a 'good person' for not lying when the girlfriend is now dead as a result

I would shoot him in the face.

But I am also aware of the fact that I too am a filthy rag, no cleaner or dirtier than he is (maybe I should say 'was' after I blew his face off).

The only substantial difference between he and I being that I know where the laundramat is and he probably does not.

Edited May 28, 2010 by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.

Mr Skeptic · May 28, 2010

John 18:
7 Again he asked them, "Who is it you want?" And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."

8 "I told you that I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

9 This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."

'Forced'?

Where is force present here, or anywhere else in the Gospels for that matter?

Would there even be a need for forgiveness in the presence of force?

How can a man be forced to light a lamp if he has been given the freedom to choose whether or not to put oil in it?

How about the previous verse:

6 When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

The impression I get from this is that they couldn't have arrested him is Jesus hadn't let them. Some force and implied threat of more force if they didn't let his followers go. (none of the other gospels mention this aspect and instead all 3 have Judas doing his thing).

DrDNA · May 28, 2010

How about the previous verse:
6 When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

The impression I get from this is that they couldn't have arrested him is Jesus hadn't let them. Some force and implied threat of more force if they didn't let his followers go. (none of the other gospels mention this aspect and instead all 3 have Judas doing his thing).

It doesn't say anything along the lines he wrestled them to the ground or smite them or anything like that....

Nor does it say that he caused them to fall to the ground.

Most importantly, they asked him again.........

6As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.

7Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.

So if he forced them as you say, why would he have allowed them another question and allow them to reply?

PS: if God is standing in front of me and he says "I am he". I'd fall down to.

**mooeypoo** · May 28, 2010

We hunger, so he should turn stones into bread?

We are in danger, so he should lock us up in cages out of harms way to protect us from ourselves and from each other?

In other words, you would rather God not only make the rules, but also move us around like pawns on a chess board?

In essence, take away our free will?

No thanks. I'll take the world the way it is with all of its imperfections.

You're making no sense. The question is about your free will -- you have a clear choice: save someone's life on the expense of another, or let someone be killed.

This isn't about YOUR safety, it's about allowing an innocent woman to die. That's the moral question.

I would shoot him in the face.

But I am also aware of the fact that I too am a filthy rag, no cleaner or dirtier than he is (maybe I should say 'was' after I blew his face off).

The only substantial difference between he and I being that I know where the laundramat is and he probably does not.

Really? That's disturbing. Do you *REALLY* see no difference between a mad-crazed-blood-thirsty rapist killer and yourself?

Interesting. And kinda sad, I think.

~moo

Cap'n Refsmmat · May 28, 2010

You're making no sense. The question is about your free will -- you have a clear choice: save someone's life on the expense of another, or let someone be killed.

This isn't about YOUR safety, it's about allowing an innocent woman to die. That's the moral question.

That's not what DrDNA was responding to. DrDNA was responding to your claim that a good God would intervene to prevent bad things from happening.

The question of why innocent people suffer when an omnibenevolent God exists really is the problem of evil, and we've discussed it before:

[thread]49436[/thread]

In that thread I present a few solutions to the problem that work fairly well, I'd think. If you want to revive the thread I can go into more detail about the solutions.

Merged post follows:

Really? That's disturbing. Do you *REALLY* see no difference between a mad-crazed-blood-thirsty rapist killer and yourself?

Interesting. And kinda sad, I think.

One theological response to the problem of evil (that is, the problem of why innocent people suffer disproportionately) is that any sin against an infinite God is infinitely bad, so everyone deserves to suffer. Everyone's equal.

In any case, the New Testament preaches that nobody is perfect in God's eyes. That's why Jesus died on the cross.

**mooeypoo** · May 28, 2010

One theological response to the problem of evil (that is, the problem of why innocent people suffer disproportionately) is that any sin against an infinite God is infinitely bad, so everyone deserves to suffer. Everyone's equal.

In any case, the New Testament preaches that nobody is perfect in God's eyes. That's why Jesus died on the cross.

Fine, but even in the bible god separates between different sins and specially between killing and murdering. I know many english speakers read the ten commandments as "thou shall not kill" but the original hebrew is "thou shall not murder", which is different. It also is much more consistent when you see the amount of time god sends people to kill (or be killed), or the amount of cases where people just kill others in either wars or disputes that are apparently okay, because they're not punished for it.

They *are* punished for murder - which is more about senseless killing or killing out of some personal motive. When a person kills for self defense, he/she is not punished. When they murder for personal gain or some selfish motive, they are punished.

Even god separates those two. I understand that christians believe everyone are sinners, but god appears to have a scale. I don't quite see the moral sense in not having one, honestly.

If you don't see a difference between a murderous rapist who will murder an innocent woman and the person killing that murderous rapist in order to defend himself *and* the helpless victim, then I call you out on your morality.

Wouldn't you?

~moo

**ydoaPs** · May 28, 2010

And if you remember, Jesus intended to die

There's actually some contextual evidence against that.

"Then answered Peter and said unto him, 'Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?'. And Jesus said unto them, 'Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'"-Matthew 19:27-28

"Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel."-Luke 22:28-30

Why would Jesus have Judas(one of the twelve) be one of the rulers of the Kingdom if He knew that Judas would betray Him? Based on independent attestation(the same thing is said with different wording, so it's likely to be M and L rather than Q), contextual credibility(see preceding sentence), and the criterion of dissimilarity, it is likely that Jesus was unaware that He would be betrayed. However, it is likely that, as the passover week progressed, Jesus began to expect to be arrested as He did make quite a ruckus in the Temple(not to mention that His followers were illegally armed).

Cap'n Refsmmat · May 28, 2010

Fine, but even in the bible god separates between different sins and specially between killing and murdering. I know many english speakers read the ten commandments as "thou shall not kill" but the original hebrew is "thou shall not murder", which is different. It also is much more consistent when you see the amount of time god sends people to kill (or be killed), or the amount of cases where people just kill others in either wars or disputes that are apparently okay, because they're not punished for it.

My NRSV translation says "murder," as well as the NIV. The NRSV notes that "kill" is an alternate translation, but the Oxford Annotated Bible's footnotes add that "murder" is the correct way to do it. It's probably the old King James Version that's perpetuating the "thou shalt not kill" version. Fortunately the NIV and the NLT have overtaken the KJV in popularity, and they're both right.

Go Biblical scholarship.

If you don't see a difference between a murderous rapist who will murder an innocent woman and the person killing that murderous rapist in order to defend himself *and* the helpless victim, then I call you out on your morality.

I dunno. Does the Bible ever make the self-defense distinction? Is it murder if it's self-defense?

Jesus's preaching would seem to indicate that you should not fight back, but I'm not entirely sure.

Seeing as Jesus's home was never invaded by a serial rapist with a machete, we unfortunately don't know his direct opinion on the matter.

**ydoaPs** · May 28, 2010

Seeing as Jesus's home was never invaded by a serial rapist with a machete

We don't know that.

DrDNA · May 28, 2010

That's not what DrDNA was responding to. DrDNA was responding to your claim that a good God would intervene to prevent bad things from happening.

The question of why innocent people suffer when an omnibenevolent God exists really is the problem of evil, and we've discussed it before:

[thread]49436[/thread]

In that thread I present a few solutions to the problem that work fairly well, I'd think. If you want to revive the thread I can go into more detail about the solutions.

Merged post follows:
Consecutive posts merged

One theological response to the problem of evil (that is, the problem of why innocent people suffer disproportionately) is that any sin against an infinite God is infinitely bad, so everyone deserves to suffer. Everyone's equal.

In any case, the New Testament preaches that nobody is perfect in God's eyes. That's why Jesus died on the cross.

Amazingly correct these statements about my intent are.

From my own keyboard you have taken these words.

**mooeypoo** · May 28, 2010

I dunno. Does the Bible ever make the self-defense distinction? Is it murder if it's self-defense?

It does.

Look at David and Solomon. They were both in battles - hence, both were directly responsible for killing people.

David, however, sent Uriah (Bat Sheba's husband) to war - to the FRONT - to be killed, intentionally, because he wanted his wife. He had a few sins here - coveting, adultery and murder. He was punished for all of them, but the reason he did not build God's temple in Jerusalem (and the task was saved for his son, Solomon) is because he had blood on his hands -- seeing as all of the biblical kings - solomon included - killed people in wars and battles -- David's "blood on his hands" is a reference to sending Uriah to die *for the purpose of stealing his wife*.

Also, God explicitly says so through Samuel (the prophet).

There are other examples I can look up specifically if you want. There is a direct distinction between murder and killing. In the bible, the context is more 'war' and 'selfish needs', but the point remains that those are separate issues. Killing is okay. Murder is not.

~moo

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

PS:

Also, the words in hebrew are different -- and both are used in the bible in different contexts.

"Tirtzah'" is the word for "Murder" (as in "though shall not murder")

"Harag" is the word for "Kill" (as in 'killed in battle').

There are instances where the word used is "Harago" (killed him) and others where the word used is "Ratzah" (murdered). I will try to bring examples, if you wish, when I get back home.

Cap'n Refsmmat · May 28, 2010

I see. But that's not self-defense, just killing in battle, even offensively.

My concordance leads me to Matthew 5:21, where Jesus says:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:21-26&version=NIV

And then, of course, there's Matthew 5:38-48, which includes this:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:38-48&version=NIV

The New Testament is rather clear on the issue.

DrDNA · May 28, 2010

I dunno. Does the Bible ever make the self-defense distinction? Is it murder if it's self-defense?

Jesus' preaching would seem to indicate that you should not fight back, but I'm not entirely sure.

Seeing as Jesus's home was never invaded by a serial rapist with a machete, we unfortunately don't know his direct opinion on the matter.

Romans 12 states that we should not repay evil for evil...not to take revenge.

Romans 12 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.

But pay particular attention to verse 18 "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone."

Clearly he was addressing the fact that it is not always possible to live at peace with everyone.

In Luke 22 Jesus tells the disciples to sell their outer garments in order to buy swords.

Luke 22 "36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

He didn't tell them to buy helmets so that they could get beaten about their heads.

There is only one purpose for a sword.

It is also clear that Jesus viewed the defense of a loved one as the ultimate act of love.

John 15 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

Of course they were not going to lose their lives for the same reason that Jesus did.

That is, get 'sacrificed' for the greater good (eg, forgiveness, eternal life) of their loved ones.

The most logical conclusion and the most likely way this would occur is in a defensive posture.

I also find this interesting.

John 18 19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.

21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."

23"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?"

Jesus did not strike back at the high priest, but he didn't simply roll or either.

He rebuked the assault.

So we can see that there is a need to stand your ground when it is necessary.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, the words in hebrew are different -- and both are used in the bible in different contexts.

"Tirtzah'" is the word for "Murder" (as in "though shall not murder")

"Harag" is the word for "Kill" (as in 'killed in battle').

There are instances where the word used is "Harago" (killed him) and others where the word used is "Ratzah" (murdered). I will try to bring examples, if you wish, when I get back home.

I'm not saying that you're incorrect. I don't know.

But I do know that we should not assume that every word in the Bible should be taking in a Hebrew context.

For example, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Aramaic was used in other parts of bible as well, for example in Daniel and Ezra, and Aramaic is the main language of the Talmud.

Edited May 28, 2010 by DrDNA
Consecutive posts merged.

Cap'n Refsmmat · May 28, 2010

I'm not saying that you're incorrect. I don't know.

But I do know that we should not assume that every word in the Bible should be taking in a Hebrew context.

For example, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.

Aramaic was used in other parts of bible as well, for example in Daniel and Ezra, and Aramaic is the main language of the Talmud.

mooeypoo speaks primarily from the Old Testament, which is mostly Hebrew.

Merged post follows:

Jesus did not strike back at the high priest, but he didn't simply roll or either.
He rebuked the assault.

So we can see that there is a need to stand your ground when it is necessary.

Indeed. But I think we can agree that Jesus would advocate nonviolent means whenever possible.

DrDNA · May 28, 2010

mooeypoo speaks primarily from the Old Testament, which is mostly Hebrew.

Of course.

I just wanted to point out that there are exceptions, even in the OT and even in the Talmud.

I previously assumed that every word in the Bible should be taken in a Hebrew context and I was wrong.

Indeed. But I think we can agree that Jesus would advocate nonviolent means whenever possible.

כן. בוודאי

**mooeypoo** · May 28, 2010

Of course.
I just wanted to point out that there are exceptions, even in the OT and even in the Talmud.

We were talking about the ten commandments, which are in the old testament. In that context, the word 'Murder' and the word 'Kill' are different, appear in different contexts, and god delivers different punishments for each.

I previously assumed that every word in the Bible should be taken in a Hebrew context and I was wrong.

You seem to speak in a very absolute manner. The problem is that this isn't science, it's interpretation. There are more substantiated interpretations and less substantiated ones, but we can't really have anyhting absolutely absolute. Because you don't know what god really thinks, you just know what the bible says, and you don't know what happened 2000 years ago, you just know what societies left behind.

I would be careful making absolute statements about 'right' and 'wrong' in this context.

On top of that, I would also like to see examples of what you mean. If you believe the old testament is part of God's word, and the old testament is in hebrew, then while it's fine to read the general idea/story in english (or any other language), the *original* text should, in principle, be superior when words and contexts are unclear.

If you disagree, I'd love to get an example.

Or, in other words,

כן. בוודאי

במקומך, לא הייתי מצהירה הצהרות מוחלטות ללא הוכחה.

~מו

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For example, Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew.
Aramaic was used in other parts of bible as well, for example in Daniel and Ezra, and Aramaic is the main language of the Talmud.

I don't know where you got this from, but in any case the bible is also written in a combination of hebrew and aramaic. Whatever happens in the new testament, the old testament is written - originally - in hebrew. If you consider it God's word or influence, you should go to the original.

Whatever is the original of the new testament (I believe greek and latin? not sure) you should check the original there too if you believe the original to be the word of god.

Otherwise, you admit that you have the bigger power to reinterpret god's *original* word. That's convinient, maybe, but inconsistent.

~moo

DrDNA · May 29, 2010

You seem to speak in a very absolute manner. The problem is that this isn't science, it's interpretation. There are more substantiated interpretations and less substantiated ones, but we can't really have anyhting absolutely absolute. Because you don't know what god really thinks, you just know what the bible says, and you don't know what happened 2000 years ago, you just know what societies left behind.

I would be careful making absolute statements about 'right' and 'wrong' in this context.

As Christians, we believe that God IS absolute in power, majesty, authority, love, truth and divinity.

So in that context, you are incorrect.

I don't know where you got this from, but in any case the bible is also written in a combination of hebrew and aramaic. Whatever happens in the new testament, the old testament is written - originally - in hebrew. If you consider it God's word or influence, you should go to the original.

I don't understand why you don't know where I got this from because you just repeated what I said.

Some parts of the old testament are in Aramaic.

Parts of Daniel, Jeremiah and I forget the others.

Whatever is the original of the new testament (I believe greek and latin? not sure) you should check the original there too if you believe the original to be the word of god.

Otherwise, you admit that you have the bigger power to reinterpret god's *original* word. That's convinient, maybe, but inconsistent.

~moo

The gospels were written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Aramaic is considered to have about as much in common with Hebrew as French has with Spanish.

Very few scholars believe that Jesus spoke Hebrew and there is not any evidence to that effect to my knowledge. If someone has any, I would certainly be interested in seeing it.

We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic in part because Aramaic was the language spoken in Galilee during that time.

Perhaps more importantly, even in the original Greek text, there are clues that Jesus spoke Aramaic, because some of Jesus' words made their way in the new testament in their original Aramaic vernacular.

For example in Mark 5:41, "Talitha cum" means "Little girl, get up!" in Aramaic

Mark 14:36 "Abba" means "Father" in Aramaic

Mark 15:34 "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" in Aramaic

Peter and the other disciples were also from Galilee. Peter was actually called "Cephas," which is an Aramaic name.

Therefore, any part of the new testament that quotes Jesus has been translated from Aramaic.

Since they were all from Galilee, most if not all of the accounts given by the disciples must have also been translated from Aramaic.

This is true whether you are reading it in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English or any other language.

Moontanman · May 29, 2010

כן, אבל מה האמת היא שיש בדת

Sign In

What is a god?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ydoaPs

Cap'n Refsmmat

DrDNA

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Important Information