I guess I would need to know the context of how he said it. Did he use it to use "on them secretly without their knowledge" or as a drug to use with them because it was the 70s.... That is a significant difference.
I don't know I didn't follow the trial. I just need more info on that statement.
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 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?
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....
Yeah actually I always thought that. All they have to do is say one specific word and it kills someone. Or others and it is a magical torture device. The wand is basically a gun on steroids that EVERYONE has almost.
You know I remember things like that as a kid. Like I remember there was were a few of these big ice storms for a couple years. In my mind I think "wow we haven't had an ice storm quite like that in forever, what changed?!" Turns out those were big freak ice storms that actually occurred at a standard rate through a longer history, and we actually did have some ice storms in recent years but I just don't remember them as being such a big deal cause I wasn't a kid looking out for a school day to be canceled or whatever. I just went along my normal day to work with the only difference is I drove more carefully.
You would be surprised just how often we build these "the weather used to be" in our minds but really it is about the same, or you remember a few freak incidents that didn't happen nearly as often as you remember.
Not saying things haven't changed, just saying I hear this a lot but often times it doesn't really get backed up by reality.
This is what seems so disgusting to me. I am sure there were probably a few people who went to far in things, but it sounds like they were basically invited in? How is that not some sort of entrapment? I am not legal expert but seriously how is this not entrapment?! They literally let these people into a public area and are prosecuting them. Now go ahead on those who went too far but this is just silly.
So this kinda implies though that pictures before the transition literally was not even her[him]? Even if it was before they "came out" that still was that person...
I mean, in theory even if it is not the most up to date picture, an out of date picture still makes more sense than an absurd drawing.
I mean look at old movie stars. Especially of female ones it seems where they are now 80 or something years old. They will consistently have photos on wikipedia from 15+ years earlier even though they look no longer like that. I am fine with that but still....
That is what I am thinking. What he has left of a conscious is somehow telling him something is wrong with what he is doing. If he actually had full confidence in it his behavior like he is supposed to, wouldn't he not even have an issue in telling his daughter?
Only possibility is, it may not be about his daughter at all and just found a dumb reason to write an article cause he needs to make his 50 cents a day as a journo and he legit doesn't care, and the article is a lie, and his daughter already knew.
Yeah I totally agree. I was just throwing a random example.
I guess my point was, in the past often times people just sorta went to university just for.... ya know to give them a more well rounded education that wasn't technically career-practical. There can be value in that, it doesn't have to lead to a higher paying job.
For example, going to college to study classical literature or history or something. It can provide value, but it may not translate to a higher paying job which is a huge problem with the amount of people who go to college for a degree that will never pay them a penny and go broke doing so.
Even with the internet there is some value in it [for example you can get a pretty dang inaccurate and one sided view of history if you don't go on the right stuff on the internet.... but wait... schools are that way now too xD but I am talking in the ideal]
I don't think every degree necessarily should be "well now I make more money for having it."
Sometimes education of some subjects should be good just for education's sake. [Hey, I have an interest in astronomy, I will go take some classes and learn astronomy!]. However, the cost has gotten to be too insane to justify that.
That is the worst thing I have ever seen. I have seen a lot of bad things. In my previous career I have personally had to see and handle hundreds of dead human bodies including children and babies along with adults. This is worse than anything I have ever seen.
I take it the guy called her Sir and given transgender wanted to be called Ma'am?
You know what is funny, I have been scolded by more women for calling them Ma'am than about any other polite word. The feminists want to be called "Sir" like a man [Sir can be used gender neutral] or non-feminists assume you are calling them old. I have actually found it useful to simply avoid the term Ma'am....
I think he was saying he had tons of dirt on people in power. He even said he had a dead man's switch to send out the info to everyone at some point if he got suicided [they could have compromised it knowing one existed, or it could be on a delay(maybe some program that he has to "sign in on" to prove he is still alive to it, and if it doesn't happen at least once a month it sends everything out after that timeline?), or maybe never actually existed and was all BS :P]
I mean it almost is. I swear so much of it is fashion.
It really opened my eyes when I truly saw just how useless they made the word gender. OH I know they have made it absurd for years, but a few days ago I somehow ended up on their wiki reading through the hundred+ genders that their wiki says exists. Reading through them all with my coworker as we laugh about it [dude they seriously have a flag for EVERY FREAKIN" ONE] it made me realize.... to them gender just means that they have some weirdo quirk or personality trait or fetish. It has nothing to do with "gender" in any reasonable sense. I mean they legit have "OSGender" with it's own flag [it is a rainbow with a Microsoft Windows logo on it]. From their own wiki:
"...someone feels their gender is somehow connected to the any operating system (Windows, MacOS, Linux or other) or to elements related with it. For example, someone's gender is connected to the Windows XP operating system (fully or partially)."
And, that is taken completely seriously. Not satire, not as a joke. It isn't just some joke gender on their wiki. It is considered just as valid as all their other genders on their website. It isn't even the most absurd one on there. Just one that came to mind.
I am sorry, but just because you really relate to linux hardcore.... that does not mean it has anything to do with your gender in any way. Wtf does that have to do with any reasonable meaning of a word gender?! I can't even figure out how to connect the two. Nothing to do with body parts, dna, chromosomes, literally anything. Gender truly to them legit = pick my quirky personality trait I realized reading that. It isn't just how much of a boy vs girl you are and anywhere in between. You get your quirky personality trait/hobby/interest + your sexual fetishes and combine those two and bam there is your gender/sexual identity.
Honestly it makes them all make a lot more sense. When you get mad cause a doctor "chose their gender at birth for them" in their mind it is legit synonymous with "My doctor chose my personality at birth" as if the doctor held up the baby and said "THIS BABY SHALL BE A JERK TO ALL AROUND [BUT BLAME IT ON THEM BEING SELF DIAGNOSED AS 1% ON THE AUTISM SPECTRUM] AND ALSO HAVE A DRAGON FETISH!" like some sort of prophesy as if he could know how the baby's personality will be. They have torn down the word to such a level of meaninglessness.