Ten commandments and differecies

[1over137]

I have a friend who is saying that the ten commandments should be the same and yet, there are differencies between Jewish version, Catholic's version and Protestant's version. Further he says that how can Bible be inerrant if there are differencies in the basic things like the ten commandments. What do you guys think?

[neo-x]

This is just playing around semantics, really. Why does the Bible have different translations?

The core commandments remain the same, the problem is not in-errancy, the problem is when you start to point out differences that are not even considered different then you are really trying to do your best to have an excuse for objections, which is sadly what your friend is doing.

A lot of it is because the numbering of the verses and their translations.

look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
under the heading "Two texts with numbering schemes"

That should explain it.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

I agree with Neo. Consider the following example. One of the most common errors with translations is in regards to "thou shalt not kill" and we all know that it really is "thou shalt not murder". Critics of Christianity have a tendency to only use the KJV when trying to crumble our biblical points, acting with an air of superior knowledge, but when we discuss the intricacies of translations with them, they draw blanks and become defensive. Any critic who uses "thou shalt not kill" as a point of contention immediately loses all credibility with me because it's 100% clear they have not done legitimate research.

[PaulSacramento]

The whole "murder/kill" things tends to be over blown, the hebrew term "ratsach" is used in both contexts and more.
Murder seems to imply a "unjustified killing" so it seems the more correct term to use BUT that is based solely on the fact that according to the Law given AFTER the 10 commandments, killing as punishment was authorized by God ( supposedly).
I am not so convinced to be honest and taking into account Jesus's teachings one wonders if thou shall not kill is not more correct.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

The whole "murder/kill" things tends to be over blown, the hebrew term "ratsach" is used in both contexts and more.
Murder seems to imply a "unjustified killing" so it seems the more correct term to use BUT that is based solely on the fact that according to the Law given AFTER the 10 commandments, killing as punishment was authorized by God ( supposedly).
I am not so convinced to be honest and taking into account Jesus's teachings one wonders if thou shall not kill is not more correct.

Are you suggesting the implications of "turn the other cheek" upon this commandment?

[PaulSacramento]

The whole "murder/kill" things tends to be over blown, the hebrew term "ratsach" is used in both contexts and more.
Murder seems to imply a "unjustified killing" so it seems the more correct term to use BUT that is based solely on the fact that according to the Law given AFTER the 10 commandments, killing as punishment was authorized by God ( supposedly).
I am not so convinced to be honest and taking into account Jesus's teachings one wonders if thou shall not kill is not more correct.

Are you suggesting the implications of "turn the other cheek" upon this commandment?

Not sure if you can just grab ONE verse and use it to cancel or re-interpret another.
Taking what we Know of Christ via what is written in the NT ( and prophised in the OT), do you think that Christ would be ok with "conditonal" killing as long as it wasn't "murder"?

[neo-x]

PaulSacramento » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:07 am

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
The whole "murder/kill" things tends to be over blown, the hebrew term "ratsach" is used in both contexts and more.
Murder seems to imply a "unjustified killing" so it seems the more correct term to use BUT that is based solely on the fact that according to the Law given AFTER the 10 commandments, killing as punishment was authorized by God ( supposedly).
I am not so convinced to be honest and taking into account Jesus's teachings one wonders if thou shall not kill is not more correct.


Are you suggesting the implications of "turn the other cheek" upon this commandment?


Not sure if you can just grab ONE verse and use it to cancel or re-interpret another.
Taking what we Know of Christ via what is written in the NT ( and prophised in the OT), do you think that Christ would be ok with "conditonal" killing as long as it wasn't "murder"?

Paul, it would be wrong to think that the God who was in the O.T was somehow missing the Son as part of his Godhead. As a matter of fact, Christ got killed as a substitute for the sinner at the hands of people through capital punishment.

[PaulSacramento]

PaulSacramento » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:07 am

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
The whole "murder/kill" things tends to be over blown, the hebrew term "ratsach" is used in both contexts and more.
Murder seems to imply a "unjustified killing" so it seems the more correct term to use BUT that is based solely on the fact that according to the Law given AFTER the 10 commandments, killing as punishment was authorized by God ( supposedly).
I am not so convinced to be honest and taking into account Jesus's teachings one wonders if thou shall not kill is not more correct.


Are you suggesting the implications of "turn the other cheek" upon this commandment?


Not sure if you can just grab ONE verse and use it to cancel or re-interpret another.
Taking what we Know of Christ via what is written in the NT ( and prophised in the OT), do you think that Christ would be ok with "conditonal" killing as long as it wasn't "murder"?

Paul, it would be wrong to think that the God who was in the O.T was somehow missing the Son as part of his Godhead. As a matter of fact, Christ got killed as a substitute for the sinner at the hands of people through capital punishment.

I agree, but my point is that we feel more comfrtable using thou shall not murder rather than thou shall not kill because of our believe that God does ordain "righteous killing" under circumstances and we get that from the OT laws.
My question is: Does that fall into character with the teachings we have from Christ?

[StMonicaGuideMe]

I understand your point Paul, but I hope you're not only thinking of "righteous killings" in a nationalistic/war type sense. Parents have a God-given duty to protect their children at any cost, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Christian who wouldn't kill to protect their children. This would be considered a form of "righteous killing". A parent protecting their child, even to the point of death, would not be murder, which is why I think even considering the impacts of Christ's teachings in the NT," thou shalt not murder" is still a more viable interpretation.

[PaulSacramento]

I understand your point Paul, but I hope you're not only thinking of "righteous killings" in a nationalistic/war type sense. Parents have a God-given duty to protect their children at any cost, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Christian who wouldn't kill to protect their children. This would be considered a form of "righteous killing". A parent protecting their child, even to the point of death, would not be murder, which is why I think even considering the impacts of Christ's teachings in the NT," thou shalt not murder" is still a more viable interpretation.

I am not thinking of anything in the "self defense" or in the defense of others at all.
The commandment NOT to kill applies to "doing nothing" and allowing someone to die as well ( at least from my POV).
I am thinking of the stoning/killing offenses for example.

[Canuckster1127]

In the OT and Jewish Talmudic law Jesus said that allowance for divorce was made "because of the hardness of your hearts."

Might it be that there are things that were "lawful" and practiced in the Old Testament are more by allowance for God's people than prescriptive?

I accept that civil governments can and do put people to death for reasons that are appropriate for such entities to handle. As an individual Christian who sees his responsibilities toward God as operating in those spheres that I am responsible and can control, I'm much less inclined to support candidates and parties whose valuing of human life included aggressive death penalties where there are demonstrated flaws in the justice system along the lines of race and economic stratas and multiple cases that have been proven by DNA to have been wrongful convictions (even after executions at times) and also those candidates or parties who promote foreign and economic policy that leads to war and the killing of thousands (perhaps millions) of others in countries outside of ours.

Early Christians, many of whom sat under the actual ministry of Christ or his direct disciples, seemed to have a very clear understanding of the values that Christ taught with regard to violence and the believer whose citizenship was ultimately in the Kingdom of God. It was clear enough that many of those believers submitted to martyrdom and unjust persecutions when they could have resisted or rescued themselves by self-defence or even at time making a simple recantation pledging their allegience to Caesar. It seems likely to me that those closest to Christ and His disciples most likely had a pretty clear understanding of what they believed Christ taught and the fewest barriers of language, culture and contextual understanding of whether Christ was speaking hyperbolicly or metaphorically in his teachings which appear to supercede anything that might be presumed from the OT.

Perhaps it's better for the believer in Christ to start with Christ and through Christ view those things in the past as incomplete and pointing toward Him rather that assuming that incomplete understanding and revelation to be the basis for viewing Christ Himself.

[PaulSacramento]

In the OT and Jewish Talmudic law Jesus said that allowance for divorce was made "because of the hardness of your hearts."

Might it be that there are things that were "lawful" and practiced in the Old Testament are more by allowance for God's people than prescriptive?

I accept that civil governments can and do put people to death for reasons that are appropriate for such entities to handle. As an individual Christian who sees his responsibilities toward God as operating in those spheres that I am responsible and can control, I'm much less inclined to support candidates and parties whose valuing of human life included aggressive death penalties where there are demonstrated flaws in the justice system along the lines of race and economic stratas and multiple cases that have been proven by DNA to have been wrongful convictions (even after executions at times) and also those candidates or parties who promote foreign and economic policy that leads to war and the killing of thousands (perhaps millions) of others in countries outside of ours.

Early Christians, many of whom sat under the actual ministry of Christ or his direct disciples, seemed to have a very clear understanding of the values that Christ taught with regard to violence and the believer whose citizenship was ultimately in the Kingdom of God. It was clear enough that many of those believers submitted to martyrdom and unjust persecutions when they could have resisted or rescued themselves by self-defence or even at time making a simple recantation pledging their allegience to Caesar. It seems likely to me that those closest to Christ and His disciples most likely had a pretty clear understanding of what they believed Christ taught and the fewest barriers of language, culture and contextual understanding of whether Christ was speaking hyperbolicly or metaphorically in his teachings which appear to supercede anything that might be presumed from the OT.

Perhaps it's better for the believer in Christ to start with Christ and through Christ view those things in the past as incomplete and pointing toward Him rather that assuming that incomplete understanding and revelation to be the basis for viewing Christ Himself.

I agree that many OT laws were "accomodationalist" is that the term?
I am not sure I understand your last part...
Are you saying that a Christian should take what we know of Christ and work backwards and try to understand the OT in that context?

[Canuckster1127]

Yes Paul. I'm saying that Christ is the lens through which we should view the OT.

If Christ gave clear teaching and his earliest, closest followers clearly understood the implications of that teaching to the point where they willingly were martyred rather than departing from Christ's teaching and example, why would a Christian today appeal back to the Old Testament to diminish or lessen what Christ taught on any matter?

[PaulSacramento]

Yes Paul. I'm saying that Christ is the lens through which we should view the OT.

If Christ gave clear teaching and his earliest, closest followers clearly understood the implications of that teaching to the point where they willingly were martyred rather than departing from Christ's teaching and example, why would a Christian today appeal back to the Old Testament to diminish or lessen what Christ taught on any matter?

Yes, I agree 100%.
Just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly

[1over137]

See the differencies here: http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Bible%2 ... dments.htm

Jews have: "I am the Lord your G-d who has taken you out of the land of Egypt." Protestants do not have it. They have the following instead: "You shall not make unto you any graven images."

Catholics merged Jewish 1st and 2nd commadment (and also omit the part mentioning the Egypt). The extra commadment they have is: "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."

Which version should be taught in schools?

Concerning the killing and murdering issue, this is what once my wise old friend told me:
"If I kill you, or murder you, you are dead. "I" shall not make you dead. That kind of killed is murder. Killed in English implies that it was not accidental, but premeditated. Otherwise, some kind of qualifying words would be added (e.g., "dead", "died", "drowned", "was accidently", unintentionally", etc.).

The emphasis in each translation is "you" (meaning, you cannot take another's life). However, legally, that state does have the right to enforce punishment by death of anyone who takes another's life intentionally."