I remember from the Pray for an Atheist event and various other encounters a very specific charge against God. Specifically, the charge was that "God said 'Thou shalt not kill' and yet he order the slaughter of the Canaanites and other people. The Bible contradicts itself and God is a moral monster!"[1] I heard that several times throughout the event. Even recently, I found another example of the usage of "Thou Shall Not Kill", only this was in my speech book. It was used in an example persuasive speech outline arguing that the death penalty be abolished. One of the main points of the hypothetical speech was that the death penalty violated the Biblical commandment of "Thou shall not kill".
Below is a list of most English translations of the Bible. The ones that use "kill" are italicized. Notice how few in number that they are, and notice that they come from Old English translations of the Bible.
2011 NIV: "“You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)
The Message: "No murder" (Exodus 20:13)
Amplified Bible: "You shall not commit murder: (Exodus 20:13)
21stKJV: "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13)
Young's Literal Translation: "Thou dost not murder" (Exodus 20:13)
Douay Rheims 1899: "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13)
Notice the majority of the translations use the word murder. That is a far different meaning than kill, as we will look at below.
Why is this important? For one thing, there is a huge difference between a command not to kill and a command not to murder. For one thing, "Thou Shall Not Kill [what]?" If you are going to kill something, you have to have the thing you a going to kill. But that is not immediately specified in "Thou Shall Not Kill". Kill what? Humans? Trees? Animals? Insects? Germs? Going back to the speech example, the only way the speaker could have used "Thou Shall Not Kill" as evidence in his/her speech would have been to use the command's lack of a directly identified recipient and plug in "People" into the equation "Thou Shall Not Kill [what]". However, to do so is to make an argument from ambiguity, not to mention the fact that as the English language evolves, words change meaning over time (which is one of the reasons why I am not a fan of the KJV being used today.) "Kill" could have very well meant "murder" in the time when the KJV was used. [2] And given the overwhelming ratio above, it is clear that "kill" is synonymous with "murder" in this case. Let's define murder:
Why is this important? For one thing, there is a huge difference between a command not to kill and a command not to murder. For one thing, "Thou Shall Not Kill [what]?" If you are going to kill something, you have to have the thing you a going to kill. But that is not immediately specified in "Thou Shall Not Kill". Kill what? Humans? Trees? Animals? Insects? Germs? Going back to the speech example, the only way the speaker could have used "Thou Shall Not Kill" as evidence in his/her speech would have been to use the command's lack of a directly identified recipient and plug in "People" into the equation "Thou Shall Not Kill [what]". However, to do so is to make an argument from ambiguity, not to mention the fact that as the English language evolves, words change meaning over time (which is one of the reasons why I am not a fan of the KJV being used today.) "Kill" could have very well meant "murder" in the time when the KJV was used. [2] And given the overwhelming ratio above, it is clear that "kill" is synonymous with "murder" in this case. Let's define murder:
"Murder: The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethough" (Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary)
When someone brings the charge that God violated His own command of "Thou Shall Not Kill", and then cites a specific instance (e.g. the flood, the judgment of the Canaanites, ect), I would point out that the passage means to not murder (from the majority comparison above) and that to murder someone and to kill someone are two totally different things. It invalidates the argument on the basis of the definitions being used.
For internet apologists, this also highlights another point. Since we are at a computer, most of our conversations are not in real-time. Even if we are in real time conversations (i.e. Facebook chat), we have access to a whole slew of information that would otherwise be unreachable if this discussion were taking place, say, on a high school campus. Whenever someone quotes a passage, you have the luxury of making sure it is correctly quoted. If it is a paraphrase, you have the luxury of checking the validity of the paraphrase. This allows the security of making sure the passage(s) being discussed are done so without misquote, a bonus feature not always available in real time conversations. In short, use that to your advantage.
For internet apologists, this also highlights another point. Since we are at a computer, most of our conversations are not in real-time. Even if we are in real time conversations (i.e. Facebook chat), we have access to a whole slew of information that would otherwise be unreachable if this discussion were taking place, say, on a high school campus. Whenever someone quotes a passage, you have the luxury of making sure it is correctly quoted. If it is a paraphrase, you have the luxury of checking the validity of the paraphrase. This allows the security of making sure the passage(s) being discussed are done so without misquote, a bonus feature not always available in real time conversations. In short, use that to your advantage.
2: I have no evidence to back this particular claim up. This conclusion is inferred based on the fact that some English words have changed meaning over time or carried different meanings long ago, but otherwise it is speculation.
No comments:
Post a Comment