This is how I'm coming close to accept we need Wrath
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (69)
sorted by:
Good. Good! Let the hate flow through you!
Now follow the thread of why this concept generates such a visceral revulsion in you, and you might just come to some correct but outside overton conclusions.
Homosexual fornication is a sin? The wages of sin are death?
I think just rolling back the civil rights act and other federal overreach including the ability of the supreme court to override state laws would be good enough.
Did this occur from Hebrew to Latin?
Or from Latin to English?
Hebrew to Greek then to English if I remember correctly
The King James version would've been translated directly from Hebrew and Aramaic, not Latin. How much of a "mistranslation" it is is debatable. I've seen arguments on both sides.
Yeah but even the evidence is pretty heavily weighted to it as a mistranslation vs it not.
Even the Septuagint, which was a translation made by the Jews translated it to the murder and not a generic kill which shows the Jews clearly believed that was the word for murder and not kill or they would have translated it that way. Not to mention the semantic domain of the hebrew word compared to the alternative word that could be used simply doesn't support a generic universal "Kill" definition. And, honestly Hebrew scholarship is incredibly heavily weighted one direction on this to the point it is rarely even a controversy. Sure you can always find some argument one way, but that is pretty rarely argued for when so much is weighted one way. But hey maybe they are all wrong :) Sometimes the less believed thing is right.
But honestly looking at the evidence on this one it really is weighted all one way... with the arguments the other way really stretches trying to hard to find something....
Maybe I'm being pedantic. Is that a mistranslation? In English, kill is a synonym for murder. Is it the same in Hebrew? The precise implications of the word (under what circumstances does it imply) are extra context you can logically deduce or know by being a Biblical scholar, which I'm not.
(Sorry, I used to be a translator, so I'm looking at this whole thread from that narrow lens and not considering what the deity actually intended in the commandment.)
I think it is difficult to call kill a synonym for murder. Those have two entirely different connotations with incredibly different theological implications. Saying not to Kill implies a complete ban on the action. It practically makes immoral anything but pure pacifism [which completely makes zero sense in the context of the book it is written in].
Murder however, is a very specific type of killing done with very specific moral implications. Murder is a small subset of "kill" implying an unjust action or however you want to word it. While the original Hebrew had a bit more richness in potential meanings than our word murder, it is still clearly talking about murder and not the general action of killing which would be a different word used. That is speaking in english of murder vs kill, and it turns out that there is a similar distinction in both Hebrew, and Greek [Greek is very important for the old testament as well given the incredible importance of the Septuagint to the New Testament writers and the early church. Not saying it is a perfect translation though either or anything so grand of a declaration. Just that it is one of the most important old testament documents]
I am doing this from memory so I may not have this next part "perfect" but I believe it is the word used could mean murder, or accidentally killing someone in Hebrew [while there is a more generic word for the action] depending on the context. Clearly a command not to murder makes more sense than a command not to do something accidentally [if it was accidental, you were trying to obey the command anyway!] and even if it were meaning just accidental or maybe both, it wouldn't include ALL actions of killing by that word. At best it could mean murder + accidental deaths [which the second being kinda awkward as a command, but still reasonable to say those are bad too when you mean the first].
Maybe the word bad translation would be better than mistranslation, but at least to our modern english, it is simply a bad translation of the term.
Not to mention, the entire context of a general kill makes ZERO sense in the context of the Pentateuch. Context is important and king. Occam s razor makes quickly obvious by the context what it means. Dont' create yourself magical contradictions when the obvious answer is SO simple and obvious. Those who are trying to argue otherwise are often just KJonlyists which I am not even going to get into that nonsense here or people really stretching and trying to ignore a massive pile of evidence that all leads one way and isn't even that controversial for most scholars.
Not saying it can't be argued with, please forgive me if it sounds like that. I am just saying the evidence is very weak from the testimony of the early hebrew to other languages translation, all we know about hebrew, inference to the best explanation, and context in the book and passages it is written in [for the context one if often helps to not assume an author is so dense they are going to contradict themselves on a massive scale just a few words later. Maybe they did, but give them the benefit of the doubt and check if maybe there is [and is often a more obvious] an answer].
I am not sure there but even in the Septuagint it distinguishes between kill and murder appropriately in the Greek.
KJV Genesis wasn't translated from Greek. The First Westminster Company (the team assigned to Genesis) used the hebrew directly from the 1524 Bomberg printing of the Rabbinic Bible. The Bomberg print was done under the approval of Pope Leo X, and was the first COMPLETE printed edition of the Pentateuch ever. There WERE some punctuation errors in the 1519 printing that rabbais complained about but those were fixed by 1524.
I am aware of that. My point was that even the Jewish scholars of 300BCish were translating it to the equivalent of murder instead of kill [which there was a seperate greek word for, which would have worked for "kill" if they thought it meant that... but they clearly didn't and instead used the greek murder word] which shows how at least back then [which is pretty far back] they were having an understanding of it being that in their original language instead of kill and the argument on the side of it actually meaning specifically murder has at least over 2000 years worth of history by a strong source. Not to mention you can't forget the entire context of what else is written with the book. if it meant generically kill it makes zero sense with the context of the rest of the pentateuch while it is the most obvious and simple explanation to have it make sense if we didn't have the original language studies to go on [as in, it is hardly a stretch to think it meant murder when it is cohesive with the rest of the pentateuch while kill is not at ALL cohesive with it]].
I am simply making that point though as the Septuagint is one of the most important translations of the Old Testament out there [it was literally the bible of the early christian church [as the new testament was being written] including that of many new testament authors who quoted directly from Septuagint translations incredibly often in the New Testament itself.
I get the feeling you are a KJonlyist by a few of your other posts on here. Would I be correct?
whoa whoa pede goyim, too close to the truth there, your false g*d (eugh! disgusting goyim!) said judge not so you better listen little gentile...
It is not.
Genesis 20:13 KJV is very clear.
Thou shalt not kill.
There have been hundreds of reviews of the KJV over the last few centuries and only ONE line in the entire text is disputed, Hebrew 13:8. King James was VERY clear to the six translation teams he commissioned for the project; he wanted the FINAL, perfect, canonical english edition.
And it was shortly after that translation that George Fox was like yeah, that means no killing.
Confessions of a pedophile. This is called grooming and it's how pedos entice children into sexual acts.
Confined to privacy.
No kids.
Literally all they had to do but they just couldn't help themselves.
Kind of a cautionary tale though, about kink. Like if you let it progress there's no clear reason why it will ever stop.
It does but the damage is made manageable by a separation of the public sphere and the private sphere.
This is something that the left have utterly destroyed in their quest to divide the nation into allies and enemies of the revolution.
Ah, yes, that is a very interesting point.
Now, if you would, please face the wall
Because degenerate acts are the way. I'm sorry normal people want to teach their kids that they can make their own way through... innovating, being creative, being curious. No. It's all about disgusting, weird sex acts for the tolerant left. You as a person, are defined by the sex acts you perform and nothing else. Nothing.
Lol I actually got banned on reddit sub for saying that the LGBT acts outrageous then gets outraged when others object to said behavior
Surprised pikachu, with more AIDS
Lol I'm definitely not shocked after tonio threw a tantrum and banned me last time. Just look at my post on here about it.
At this rate I will welcome Islam with enthusiasm.
I much prefer Christianity. Among other things they are not allowed to bear false witness to advance their cause, and they don't murder people who won't convert.
And peace comes from the Holy Spirit, not the carnal satisfactions of conquest or motivational speakers telling you how amazing you are.
Weakness.
More weakness.
Eh, that's not strictly true. Take a look at the spread of Christianity through Europe and you'll see plenty of "covert or die" going down. It's just not an approach they've used in recent history.
I’m sure Leftists would agree. Leftists are what you get when a society rejects Christianity and goes full atheist.
Every western society that rejects Christianity ends up losing its mind and embracing collectivism and authoritarianism.
I also note that most anti-theists are like homosexuals in that they almost always had some childhood trauma that fuels their anti-religious resentment. Simple atheists rarely harbor such resentment, and many even recognize the value of Christianity and religion in general.
It is because human psychology needs religion at a fundamental level. If you remove theism you need to replace it with something else that looks like a religion: like being a social justice warrior. We need things that feel like altruism, penance, universal justice, agape/brotherhood, and deifications of good and evil. Either we'll find those things through faith or they will be imposed on us by the state or culture.
(the Based Atheist only proves the exception to the rule)
I heard or read somewhere that there's a very important difference between a theistic cult or commune, and the non-theistic types. In the theistic type of place, the more demands placed on the followers, the longer it will last, and the stronger it will be. For the non-theistic kind, the fewer demands, the better (ie, the artsy-fartsy kind of hippie communes that were into things like MDA, LSD, and pot mostly just banned alcohol (because it doesn't play nice with MDA/MDMA).
What's going on is actually a brewing war between "Apollo" and "Dionysus", as well as being between "Dogs" and "Dingos", if you catch my drift.
As has been pointed out, a lot of the wokesters are basically just calvinists stripped of the supernaturalism.
I grew up Calvinist. They were not as strict as the woke left. Unlike the woke, they didn't condemn everything they saw as sinful and demand it be overtly Christian.
Or they could realise the dangers of religion? Religion has no value except for controlling the masses.
A common atheist belief with no basis in reality.
Religion is inevitable... even atheists adhere to a worldview with underlying assumptions, and dogma isn't uniquely religious. Everyone is religious in this respect.
Exactly. Dogma doesn't need a god. It's just what you're not allowed to question.
"Religion is inevitable" Yeah because the masses are sheep and have to believe in something to feel safe.
I didn't downvote until you complained about downvoting, then I did because ha ha
arguing on the internet is like racing the special olympics... even if you win you are still retarded
This works great when all power (priviledges and responsibilites) in a society is withheld from people who wish to be slaves. That does not fit the USA. I don't personally believe it's possible to uplift every person to self-actualization.
I think there are two possible remedies: stratify the citizenry into tiers of power, or de-scale into citystates so the city hives may not vote alongside the rural men.
I'm a little reluctant to agree after seeing some of the silly reports dealing with our military recently, but foundationally it'd certainly be a step up.
we've been doing that
look what it got us
maybe the fundies had it right
Times like these, it's worth noting the Taliban actually temporarily ended the practice of bacha bazi (rape of feminized underage boys on a mass scale) in Afghanistan by killing the people indulging in it - and this crackdown was one of the reasons why the Afghan populace preferred them over the warlords preceding them.
It only came back because of the Coalition invasion, as those same warlords have become our valiant allies in defending Democracy™ and Human Rights™ and Coalition forces have been ordered to turn a blind eye to their habitual boy-rape for the past 20 years we've been in A-stan. Vice did a rather famous documentary about it back when they still did anything remotely resembling journalism at all.
This is What Winning Looks Like
Ugh, this was 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h6TXJBDj9o
We deserved to lose.
I understand the sentiment but wholeheartedly disagree. Islam is just a nightmare of a different kind.
But one the woke can’t call out…
Make no mistake, Islam and the Woke Left converge at the same point, which is why they’re allies despite appearing to be polar opposites. Islam puts on a facade of morality but in reality they encourage pedophilia same as the perverts on the Left do… they just invoke Muhammed’s name to give it a veneer of righteous justification.
Either side you choose, it eventually leads to the oppression of women, the abuse of children, sexual perversion, and the unquestionable supreme authority of the state.
Thats nice, now face the wall.
Slap a dildo on that wall and they'll probably do so willingly.
The mods support this
I believe this is the way of the future. A great and blinding resurgence in violence to bring about a new golden age of peace and prosperity from sheer brute force. The way of these perverts is always destruction. It will lead to violence from parents who care about their children. This is not my hope, this is what is going to happen.
Who wrote this faggotry? I need names.
Ragebait. and you're falling for it
Early life check on author please?