Bible Study THE ALTERING OF THE SIX COMMANDMENT

[violet7]

The command in the Hebrew Talmud is distinctly "THOU SHSLT NOT KILL." The Greek word "Mephoneuseis," as well as the Latin "non occides," remain the same in all the eight instances, Luther's Bible, which is quoted by many critics as the purest interpretation of the Bible, and which shows deep insight and knowledge of the Hebrew Scripture, retain the original wording, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" in all places, nor is there any alternation in any of the languages mentioned. This most serious Alternation of God's Command, is a terrible travesty of TRUTH, and leads people who would not on any account willfully break Gods Commands, to think they may KILL and eat poor Animals with Impunity----for they have apparently only been commanded not to KILL one another. Moreover, this change in the Six Commandment to "THOU SHALT do no MURDER," has taken such a mighty hold on people, that it is the experience of every Vegetarian that the invariable answer to their pleading for a return to a simple Natural Diet, is that the command does not concern the Animal world at all, but only means they are commanded not to take Human LIfe.

All major religions scriptures enjoying man to live without killing unnecessarily. The Old Testament instructs. "Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20-13) This is traditionally misinterpreted as referring only to murder. But the ORIGINAL HEBREW is lo tirtzach, which clearly translated "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."
Dr Reuban Alcalay's Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary says that the word tirtzach, especially in classical Hebrew usage, refers to "any kind of killing," and not necessarily the murder of a human being.
http://www.sacreddance.org/garden/page1,html

I was attacked by people who call themselves Christian many times when everytime I posted message to promote non violent life style of vegan.
These people used Word of God to defend their flesh eating but do they really have deep knowledge about Word of God?
How many years did they study ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE?

 

[peace4all]

im not really pro vegan or vegetarian. But im pro human rights.

war=kill

 

[element80]

If you're so anti-meat, then why do you keep feeding us all this SPAM? Is it really necessary to make hundreds of threads on the same thing? Also, this whole "those who call themselves Christians" thing is getting old. If you really think that no meat-eating person is a Christian, then you are saying that Paul, who wrote a majority of the New Testament isn't a Christian, since there are verses that suggest he ate meat.

 

[violet7]

It is so strange for people who call themselves Christian to promote most horrible animal cruelty by keep consuming factory farmed animals day after day without feelig any shame.
If this is true color of Christian, who want to be a Christian?

 

[violet7]

What people say about flesh eating?

If you visit http://www.all-creatures.org and see animal exploitation part and if you have clear conscience, I am sure your opinion of flesh eating will change but if you have no conscience, of course you continue to use Bible as excuse to maximizing most horrible farm animal torture and killing.
I think you are interested to read response of people who viewed animal exploitation part of this wonderful Christian website.
Please keep in your mind that all-creatures.org is Christian website.
Knowing there is no such thing call humane killing of farm animals, all meat/dairy/egg eaters are responsible for shocking farm animal cruelty because eating = killing.
Nobody can be 100% pure but if you continue eating meat/dairy/eggs, least you should choose these animals products from farms where animals are treated less cruelly and killed quickly to avoid plolonged suffering.

 

[violet7]

element80, here is what you posted.
"If you really think that no meat-eating person is a Christian, then you are saying that Paul, who wrote a majority of the New Testament isn't a Christian, since there are verses that suggest he ate meat.

Where did you get idea of majority of the New Testament is written by Paul?
Where did you get idea of Paul was meat eater?

I am just wondering if what you posted is imagination or not.

 

[Sara929]

Hmm.. chicken breast sounds good for dinner.

 

[violet7]

Sara929, no wonder most people think Christians are cruel heartless people when we speak about pain and suffering of animals.
You are good example.
It is sad to know that people like you are chasing other people away from Jesus.
My reason for why I don't go to church and not interested to have frienship with Christian is because I cannot stand insensitivity and cold hearted attitude of people like you.
You cannot spread Gospel with your kind of attitude because people can sense difference between real believer and fake.

 

[KnarfKS]

Where did you get idea of majority of the New Testament is written by Paul?

:-? He wrote about 1/2 of the new testament...13, possibly 14 out of 27 books is about half and possibly the majority...but he wrote by far more than anyone else.

Violet please read 1 Corinthians 8...Its ok if you feel as though it is wrong for you to eat meat and I would if given the opportunity not eat it in front of you, but the majority are not stumbling with this and I speak for myself the Holy spirit nor scripture has in no way convicted me saying that eating meat is wrong. I don't agree with you but I'm ok with what ever you want to eat.

I'm definately not big on your site's no hunting policy. Responsible hunting is about conservation. For example if there was no hunting where I live the deer would end up getting hit on highways constantly because of overpopulation and searching new areas for food. It has happened in areas like alabama where the legal limit is 5 deer a day so they can thin them out and prevent the spread of diseases the deer are catching because of overpopulation. Australia even has kangaroo problems that are similar. I agree there are idiots out there hunting, but there are idiots everywhere.

 

[cubedbee]

The command in the Hebrew Talmud is distinctly "THOU SHSLT NOT KILL." The Greek word "Mephoneuseis," as well as the Latin "non occides," remain the same in all the eight instances, Luther's Bible, which is quoted by many critics as the purest interpretation of the Bible, and which shows deep insight and knowledge of the Hebrew Scripture, retain the original wording, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" in all places, nor is there any alternation in any of the languages mentioned. This most serious Alternation of God's Command, is a terrible travesty of TRUTH, and leads people who would not on any account willfully break Gods Commands, to think they may KILL and eat poor Animals with Impunity----for they have apparently only been commanded not to KILL one another. Moreover, this change in the Six Commandment to "THOU SHALT do no MURDER," has taken such a mighty hold on people, that it is the experience of every Vegetarian that the invariable answer to their pleading for a return to a simple Natural Diet, is that the command does not concern the Animal world at all, but only means they are commanded not to take Human LIfe.

Wait a second, how are vegans any better than normal omnivores in this case? You kill plants in order to live, I kill both plants and animals. So, if the commandment really is to be intrepeted "Thou shalt not kill", referring to killing in general, then a person needs to refrain from food altogether and allow themself to die in order to obey the commandment. This is obviously absurd, so we know that it can't just be a general prohibition against killing. And indeed, the commandments indicating the precise way to kill animals also contradict your intepretation of the passage. The correct translation might indeed be "kill" instead of "murder" but in the context of Moses' Law, it is obvious that the command is only talking about killing people.

 

[element80]

element80, here is what you posted.
"If you really think that no meat-eating person is a Christian, then you are saying that Paul, who wrote a majority of the New Testament isn't a Christian, since there are verses that suggest he ate meat.

Where did you get idea of majority of the New Testament is written by Paul?
Where did you get idea of Paul was meat eater?

I am just wondering if what you posted is imagination or not.

Paul wrote/co-wrote Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thesselaoninas, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. That is a big chunk of the NT (almost half of the books).

Romans 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself.

1 Cor. 8:13 Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

The first verse shows that Paul doesn't regard any food as unclean, while the second verse implies that he did, in fact, eat meat.

 

[Nikki]

Is it just me that doesn't understand why SO MANY threads are being started about "save the animals"??? :-?

 

[Hawkanomics]

I think the fact of the matter is, we were made in the image of God to be superior to the animals. Maybe the way they are killed is cruel, but is that our fault? Should we let this meat go to waste because we don't approve of the way it was made to us? For what other reason were the animals put here other than to do for us what we want them to? God didn't make the animals in his own image, but us he did....telling me that we don't have the right to kill these animals to nourish our own bodies seems like complete nonsense....I think that is all that needs to be said.

 

[element80]

Is it just me that doesn't understand why SO MANY threads are being started about "save the animals"??? :-?

and by the same person

 

[peace4all]

the problem is that the NT contradicts teh OT.

One has to be thrown out, the other believed.

 

[element80]

the problem is that the NT contradicts teh OT.

One has to be thrown out, the other believed.

That gets into a whole other discussion on the fulfillment of the law. If you want to talk about that, then start a new thread about it, but you are wrong in assuming that they contradict eachother.

 

[violet7]

I'm definately not big on your site's no hunting policy. Responsible hunting is about conservation. For example if there was no hunting where I live the deer would end up getting hit on highways constantly because of overpopulation and searching new areas for food. It has happened in areas like alabama where the legal limit is 5 deer a day so they can thin them out and prevent the spread of diseases the deer are catching because of overpopulation. Australia even has kangaroo problems that are similar. I agree there are idiots out there hunting, but there are idiots everywhere.

knarFKS, your message above is your clear lack of knowledge concerning the law of nature and anybody who know science cannot be fooled by your statement to defend cruel hunting.
Your idea of, if hunters don't hunt, wild animals are over populated, is nothing but excuse of hunters to continue their blood thirst hunting to destroy natural ecological balance.
Did you study ecology in science?

Basic Concept about ECOLOGY
there is a give and take between living things and their environment.
For example, the waste products of some organism are the food for other organisms. Further, some whole organisms, such as plants, are eaten by other animals.
Such interdependence for sources of food among living thing in one area of space is called the ECOLOGY.
If all organisms in an ecological area (called an ecosystem) have enough food and no one group of organism is "taking" more than it is "giving" the ecology is called a balanced system.
When a balance is upset, natural forcess will usually come into play to restore it. HOW EVER, ACTIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS SOMETIMES PREVENT THE NATURAL RETURN OF THE BALANCE.
Let us look at a simplified example of a balanced system.
Imagine a number of deer, which secure their food from vegetation. The deer are attacked and eaten by wolves for food. If the population of deer should grow bigger for some reason, the wolves will have a larger food supply. But more wolves will mean that more deer will be eaten, and the deer population may then decrease because of this greater food supply.
Now that there are fewer deer again, the wolf population will decrease.
Now that there are fewer deer again, the wold population will be forced back down. And a balance is then restored.
However, imagine further that man, a love of deer, decided to eliminate the wolves. as he traps, shoots, or poisons the wolves, the deer population grows larger again. soon, the increasing number of deer is too big for the avilable food supply, and with no more wolves to restore the balance, the deer will die of starvation. The balance that once existed is no longer present.
THERE ARE, UNFORTUNATELY, MANY SUCH EXAMPLE OF HUMAN INTERVENTION UPSETTING THE ECOLOGICAL BALANCE.

Over population of wild animals is created by human intervention and hunters, trappers, and people who poison wild animals are responsible for this preventable problems.

http://www.linkny.com/~civitas/page105.html

 

[violet7]

of

cubedbee, just a case you don't know, plants don't have nerve to feel pain therefore you cannot compare killing SENTIENT CREATURES to killing of plant.

 

[Free]

violet7,

The command in the Hebrew Talmud is distinctly "THOU SHSLT NOT KILL."

That is interesting because this Jewish site offers an English translation of the Torah and it states the verse as "thou shalt not murder".

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Exodus20.html

These people used Word of God to defend their flesh eating but do they really have deep knowledge about Word of God?

And yet you have not replied to the passages I have given from Scripture:

Gen. 9:2-3, "2 'The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 'Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as {I gave} the green plant.'"

Ex. 12:3-10, "3 "Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, 'On the tenth of this month they are each one to take a lamb for themselves, according to their fathers' households, a lamb for each household. 4 'Now if the household is too small for a lamb, then he and his neighbor nearest to his house are to take one according to the number of persons {in them;} according to what each man should eat, you are to divide the lamb. 5 'Your lamb shall be an unblemished male a year old; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. 6 'You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month, then the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel is to kill it at twilight. 7 ' Moreover, they shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and on the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. 8 'They shall eat the flesh that {same} night, roasted with fire, and they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. 9 'Do not eat any of it raw or boiled at all with water, but rather roasted with fire, {both} its head and its legs along with its entrails. 10 ' And you shall not leave any of it over until morning, but whatever is left of it until morning, you shall burn with fire."

Matt. 26:17-21, "17 Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?" 18 And He said, "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, `The Teacher says, "My time is near; I am to keep the Passover at your house with My disciples.""' 19 The disciples did as Jesus had directed them; and they prepared the Passover. 20 Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples. 21 As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me.""

Luke 24:41-43, "41 While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" 42 They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; 43 and He took it and ate it before them."

"Thou shalt not kill." (Exodus 20-13) This is traditionally misinterpreted as referring only to murder. But the ORIGINAL HEBREW is lo tirtzach, which clearly translated "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

It is not clearly translated that way at all. Even your next point proves that. The word in the Hebrew is ratsach, which although it can mean "kill," it can also mean "kill unjustly" or "murder," and in this particular passage it is best translated as "murder".

If you still want to argue that it should be "thou shalt not kill," you have to then explain all the times that God told the Israelites to kill other people, to not even let one of them live.

Dr Reuban Alcalay's Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary says that the word tirtzach, especially in classical Hebrew usage, refers to "any kind of killing," and not necessarily the murder of a human being.

Yes, but "not necessarily" means that it can refer to "murder".

How many years did they study ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE?

How many years have you studied the "original" Scripture?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Sara929, no wonder most people think Christians are cruel heartless people when we speak about pain and suffering of animals.
You are good example.
It is sad to know that people like you are chasing other people away from Jesus.
My reason for why I don't go to church and not interested to have frienship with Christian is because I cannot stand insensitivity and cold hearted attitude of people like you.
You cannot spread Gospel with your kind of attitude because people can sense difference between real believer and fake.

Violet, you are basing this on the sixth commandment. The correct translation is murder. This is what has been agreed upon by scholars after reviewing the Hebrew context. Secondly, the Bible mentions numerous times that Man is above animal. Thirdly, the commandments where given to men, not animals.

As for the judging you seem to enjoy passing on, Matthew 7:1 or John 8:7 should clarify that question.