Evil

[Turgonian]

The Hebrew word used for 'killing' means a predatory way of killing -- lying in wait, premeditated murder. It doesn't refer to killing in war or legal execution. The positive side of the commandment is the value of human life, which argues against such issues as abortion and euthanasia.

See also Six Neo-Orthodox Theses Examined. It has the following to say about Schleiermacher:

Schleiermacher, a nineteenth-century theologian, maintained that the Scriptures could not be viewed as containing objective and propositional statements, but that everything was relative, subjective, and contingent on the subject who reads the Scriptures.

It explains why this position is untenable:

In my own studies, I have discovered that there is a great deal of solid, conservative scholarship out there that at the very least, demonstrates that the historical facts and phenomena associated with the Church Catholic can in no way be construed as being at odds with the historical portions of the Bible. The monumental and seminal conservative book New Testament Introduction by Dr. Donald Guthrie demonstrates most irenically that the literary critical theories that destroy originality, authenticity, integrity, and consistency of the NT gospels and epistles are nothing more than subjective opinions of literary critics and modernists who ignore the internal witness of the texts, the copious external witness to the texts by the Sub-Apostolic Fathers, and the fact that history has never been shown to be neatly explainable with a simple Hegelian dialectical approach.

Similarly, Dr. Gleason Archer's Survey of Old Testament Introduction upholds the literary unity and authenticity of the Old Testament. In the same spirit, Prof. Robert **** Wilson's Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament does a detailed philological study to reach the same conclusion. There are many more books that could be listed.

To rigorously defend orthodoxy against the ``scholarly'' claims of moderns would require a lifetime of writing. Suffice it to say that to my critical mind, their theories have fallen down completely due to an utter lack of facts. (Most notably, the various theories that deny Pauline authorship to certain New Testament epistles on the basis of stylistic and theological grounds are the theories that stand out as the most subjective.) There are those who would disagree, but the various critical theories advanced have never been able to stand close scrutinization by any person who refuses to let the critical methodologies dictate what the text ``should'' say. Ultimately, in my studies of how moderns approach the Biblical texts, my conclusion is that the modern claims are built on nothing but subjectivity and emotion, the spirit and ideology of the age. Such theories cannot stand for long, at least when the spirit of the age changes into something new. (There is a lovely quote from someone I can't remember: ``He who marries the spirit of the age soon finds himself a widower.'')

If you think the Bible should be interpreted subjectively, why do you think it should be trusted to convey any relevant moral (or historical) statements?

[Canuckster1127]

"Killing" in terms of destroying life, I'd not completely agree with. The admonition in the 10 commandments carries the idea of murder, in terms of taking a life without the benefit of law and justice, in the sense of a vendetta or with malice.

- - - -

So by the Levitical law and Ten Commands, when God gives Moses the instructions of "Thou shalt not kill," that is actually interpreted as, "Thou shalt not kill unless thou doest it in the name of justice, self-defense, or war. Thou shalt be culturally aware and enforce what I dost say only in abortion, stem cell research, and wence a person doth kill with malice on thy mind. " (Taken from current Christian positions). (Someone PLEASE say that "this isn't an accurate portrayal". Please.)

That's a rich example of hermaneutics and a complaint I have about fundamentalist Christians (those who beleive that the Bible is the inerrent word of God), where commonly their Biblical interpretations stress allegorical readings, frequently at the expense of the texts' literal meaning, while they read other bits of the Bible as literal at the expense of a potentially meaningful allegory. Why? Maybe to derive deeper meaning from the text.... maybe for the purpose of deriving an applicable lesson and teaching of morality.

Hermeneutics in the Middle Ages saw the growth of non-literal interpretations of the Bible. Christian's could read Old Testament narratives as prefigurations of analogous New Testament narratives, and as symbolic lessons about Church institutions and teachings, while including a personal application of figurative representation of the Spirit. In each case, the meaning of the narratives were constrained by attributing those narratives to a particular intention to the Bible, such as teaching morality. But these interpretions are posited by the religious tradition rather than by a preliminary reading of the text.

Thus enters the hermeneutic circle! (Yay, my favorite!) Friedrich Schleiermacher, in his works on philosophy and theology, stressed the importance of the interpreter in the process of interpretation as well as the importance of the interpreter actually understanding the text as a necessary stage to interpreting it. Understanding, for Schleiermacher, does not simply come from reading the text, but involves knowledge of the historical context of the text and the psychology of the author -- Which describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically ("Friedrich").

The Hermeneutic circle refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text, rather, it stresses that the meaning of text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context ("Hermeneutic Circle").

So here also is where I question the constant contradictions within the interpretations of the Bible - but I'll save that for another time.


"Hermeneutic Circle". Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaneutics on December 2, 2006.

"Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher". Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/ on December 2, 2006

No. The actual Hebrew term is better translated "Thou shalt not murder." Obviously when you take the context that the same law provides areas where capital punishment is to exercised, it is not simply a command to not kill in all situations. Killing in war or in the cited case of capital punishment is not probinited. Obviously in those situations there would be the element of justice. It wouldn't equate to a carte blanche across the board endorsement in every situation however.

This has nothing to do with your attribution to "fundamentalist Christians" This goes directly to the Hebrew language and the understanding of the people receiving the command in the context of their times. What matters is how they understood that commandment. Not how some today would seek to "capitalize" (pun intended) on the confusion and attribute meaning that was not contained in the original which is what those seeking to hold the meaning as a stricture on all killing period.

There's no need nor is it valid to attempt to obfuscate the issue with all the other baggage you're seeking to attach here.

When you are translating words and concepts from one culture and language to another it's normal that such clarifications are needed as the understanding in one area is not identical to another.

Why would you have a problem with that?

The purpose of hermeneutics boils down to that. There certainly are portions of Scripture that are intended and were understood in the context of their original delivery to their original audience to be allegorical or symbolic. When hermeneutics are used effectively this is brought out in the interpretation of the passage.

There often are areas where the "literal" meaning is not the simplest literal rendering of the text, but something more subtle and in a different mode.

As an Old Earth creationist, I see that to be the case in the early chapters of Genesis. Much of the error that Young Earth Creationists make, in my opinion, is taking the terms and understanding them in a manner which is completely foreign to the understanding of those who received the original text.

It's not always an easy thing to render and well meaning Christians have and undoubtedly continue to make such errors. The errors in these situations however are not resident in the text but rather the interpretor.

The material you've posted in that regard supports what I'm saying and further supports the meaning of that particular text.