Page 2 of 3 [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 Jun 2012, 12:52 pm

enrico_dandolo wrote:
The word "witch" is inherently ambiguous. In that case, it is the translation of a Hebrew word, whichever it is, with certainly different denotation and connotation in its own language and in its own time. If it is said to apply to anything, it is because it is wanted that it apply, not because it does.

Sorry...been doing my homework. The Hebrew word isn't ambiguous. I've tried to work out every way I can think of to make it mean something else. The only way it can be made ambiguous is to go with the Greek text. Incidentally, the LXX was preferred among Jews for a long time until Christianity started to spread. It suddenly fell out of favor with the Jews about that time, probably because of its strong association with Christianity (despite LXX having been written by Greek-speaking Jews), and not long after it was abandoned by many Christians. Scholars generally prefer the Masoretic Text to the LXX. The reason why we keep the LXX around is that some words and phrases from the MT are difficult to understand or translate. The LXX probably doesn't go back as far as MT sources, but it still goes WAAAAY back--something like 3rd Century BC. It predates Christianity, anyway. So it represents what the Greek-speaking Jewish scholars understood it to mean in that language. We sometimes have a better handle on ancient Greek language than we do ancient Hebrew, so when things get too difficult for us with the MT, the LXX helps. It turns out that the Hebrew "M'khashepah" is much clearer than the Greek "pharmakous." I mean, "pharmakous" could refer to either a poisoner or a doctor (druggist) as well as a practitioner of magic. "M'khashepah" doesn't leave quite that much room for debate.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

11 Jun 2012, 1:31 pm

Witches think that casting love spells is harmless.



Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

11 Jun 2012, 3:50 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Rocky wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics.

That column is WAY off, though. I mean, you do realize that laws like that were meant to apply specifically to a Hebraic theocracy? If Yahweh is King of a nation, loyalty to any other deity cannot be tolerated. Attempts to manipulate supernatural forces, i.e. to bring gods and spirits under human subjection, cannot be tolerated.

I dunno what you mean by pickin' and choosin'. We live by all the laws that pertain to us. I'm not a Jew, so OT dietary laws meant to distinguish me from Gentiles do not apply to me. I choose to observe moral laws as closely as I can because I love God. I don't observe ceremonial laws because 1) I'm not a Jew, and 2) even if I was, it's impossible for me to go up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices in the temple (it was destroyed in 70 A.D.).

As a Christian, the blood of Christ cancels any need I'd otherwise have for offering sacrifices. But I DO observe the "Greatest Commandment," which as Jesus said is "the law and the prophets." The Decalogue even hits the high points of what it means to love God with all your being and to love others. Christians, whether they are aware of it or not, really do observe all the commandments.

Now, I do think it is admirable to try to live in a theocracy dedicated to worshipping Yahweh, but if the Bible proves anything it is that humans consistently fail at it. I believe King David once wrote that "no one keeps the law." Jesus warned of the dangers of measuring righteousness by adherence to the law without also following in the spirit of the law.

The Salem Witch Trials WAY missed the mark even as an attempted Christian theocracy. First of all, it's an example of "guilty until proven innocent" justice, and that's not what was meant by legal procedure outlined in the OT. I mean, sure...all it takes is two witnesses, and a trial has to be held among one's peers. But no superstitious "witch tests" are required. It is also known that the trials were a sham and intended to execute vengeance on one's enemies. OT law requires that false witness get the same treatment as those that they accuse. So, sorcery, with a mandatory death sentence, would also require the execution of false witnesses.

Maybe there were one or two true believers in Salem. But it appears to me that the religious community of Salem was really just a pseudo-Christian cult. I would say it is generally inadvisable for a group of Christians to form an exclusive theocracy because of the religious tendency towards legalism over genuine worship. It also violates the Great Commission, something that also seems to have been the point of ancient Israelite theology but got totally omitted in practice.


I found the part of the Bible which preceded the quote about witches. I made bold the relevant parts. This follows the ten commandments:
Exodus 20

And the LORD said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. 23Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. 24An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee. 25And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. 26Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness be not discovered thereon.
<< Exodus 21 >>
King James Version
 

1Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.

2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
12He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. 14But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.
15And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
16And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
17And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
18And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: 19If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
20And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
26And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. 27And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake.
28If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. 29But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. 30If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. 31Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. 32If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein; 34The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.
35And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide. 36Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.

<< Exodus 22 >>
King James Version
 

1If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
2If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. 3If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. 4If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double.
5If a man shall cause a field or vineyard to be eaten, and shall put in his beast, and shall feed in another man's field; of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he make restitution.
6If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed therewith; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.
7If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double. 8If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, to see whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. 9For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
10If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it: 11Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall accept thereof, and he shall not make it good. 12And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof. 13If it be torn in pieces, then let him bring it for witness, and he shall not make good that which was torn.
14And if a man borrow ought of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof being not with it, he shall surely make it good. 15But if the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good: if it be an hired thing, it came for his hire.
16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

Christians weren't around then, so the god of the Bible was giving these laws to all his followers. The children of Israel were the only followers around at that time.

Um...this argument fails from the outset. I mean, even the bolded part you used to make your point kills your point: Thus thou shalt say to the children of Israel... Not "to the nations." Not "to Christians." Doesn't matter if there weren't Christians yet.

And, NO, the children of Israel were NOT the only followers at that time. Abraham was the ancestor of the Israelites and worshipped Yahweh without having any special ancestral ties to Yahweh worship. Melchizedek was a priest of Yahweh, and, again, there were no ancestral identifiers. Circumcision was not even unique to the Israelites when that was instituted. Hebraic monotheism wasn't even unknown to Canaan when Moses led the Israelites back. What made Israel special was that Yahweh called them out to be a nation of priests, the light of the world. The surrounding nations and people did not receive the same call--merely a call to repentance from wickedness. It's up to the nations as to whether they will choose to worship Yahweh or not. And it is up to all people whether they accept Jesus as Christ or not.

Now, there are some interesting things to note about Exodus 21 and 22. It appears that most of these are law-and-order kinds of laws, just establishing basic justice and rules of acceptable conduct. Verse 18, that you have bolded, seems out of place given the laws preceding it. Sorcery is outright condemned to death elsewhere, but HERE, given the context, it could be that the word for "witch" has been mistranslated. I'm not a big fan of old skool King Jimmy, though I do like the NKJV. The word that has been used for "witch" could also be translated "poisoner." If this had to do with holiness laws, "witch" would work, but I'm not 100% sure this works based on the context. Poisoning would be a deliberate murderous act, and the only restitution for murder is "life for life." So all it really accomplishes is clarifying that poisoning is murder and should be treated as same, which MIGHT be otherwise problematic given the subtlety of the crime. Poisoning wouldn't have the obvious signs that stabbing or beating would have. I'm just guessing here, but it might be that a poisoner could just claim accidental death, and this verse just drives the point home that deliberate poisoning is just as punishable as more obvious forms of murder.

[UPDATE] Just checked out the interlinear on verse 18. I've had a Wiccan friend tell me that the word is supposed to be "poisoner," and I still don't see how given the context that it HAS to mean "witch." I've also seen stuff on the internet that suggests that King James had this translation specifically because he had a witch phobia or some such. Whether this is true or not, it doesn't seem likely that Biblical scholars of even King Jimmy's day would have caved that much in producing the Authorized Translation. And even if they had, subsequent revisions of the English text should have corrected it. Further, the Leningrad Codex is a long-established ancient manuscript on which the Authorized Version was based, though it also sources the Vulgate and the LXX. So the problem with the word for "witch" is not a matter of King Jimmy's preferences--it's a question of what the word actually means. According to the interlinear, the original word in question is "M'khashepah." There's not an EXACT English equivalent, but the word "witch" is closest to it. The word refers, as I understand it, to a person who speaks words that cause harm. The words in question are understood to mean in an incantation or spell form...so, the closest you can get in English is "sorceress" or "witch." Nothing about a poisoner. Looks like my Wiccan friend is dead wrong. So even if by context it doesn't have to mean "witch," there's not a different word there. So I stand somewhat corrected.

[UPDATE #2] OK, I just had a big "DUH" moment... It turns out that the Hebrew does NOT translate as poisoner, but "sorceress." I thought about it for a minute and realized I hadn't checked out the LXX. It turns out the Greek word for "sorcerer/sorceress" is also translated as "poisoner." It has a number of meanings, actually, among those being "spell-giving potion." It's also the same root word from which means "drugs" and from which we also get "pharmacology." Also checked out the context a little bit closer and noticed that following this law there are more laws referring to pagan practices. So it's not an out-of-place insertion, and most likely our words "witch" or "sorceress" really are the preferred equivalents.


If killing witches (or sorcerers, etc.) is morally required (by the god of the Bible) of the children of Israel, why wouldn't it be for everyone? To paraphrase Socrates: Is something moral because the god(s) say so, or do the god(s) say something is moral because it is moral?


_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

11 Jun 2012, 6:02 pm

Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics. >Link<

You might not be aware of the fact that people (usually children) in Sub Sahara Africa are still being killed for this reason today! I don't know what their specific religious beliefs are.

Fortunately, most people pick and choose which rules of the Bible to follow.


I know that but we have those laws so does the Muslim and Jewish faith.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 12:32 pm

But what does the new testament say?



enrico_dandolo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 866

12 Jun 2012, 1:48 pm

AngelRho wrote:
enrico_dandolo wrote:
The word "witch" is inherently ambiguous. In that case, it is the translation of a Hebrew word, whichever it is, with certainly different denotation and connotation in its own language and in its own time. If it is said to apply to anything, it is because it is wanted that it apply, not because it does.

Sorry...been doing my homework. The Hebrew word isn't ambiguous. I've tried to work out every way I can think of to make it mean something else. The only way it can be made ambiguous is to go with the Greek text. Incidentally, the LXX was preferred among Jews for a long time until Christianity started to spread. It suddenly fell out of favor with the Jews about that time, probably because of its strong association with Christianity (despite LXX having been written by Greek-speaking Jews), and not long after it was abandoned by many Christians. Scholars generally prefer the Masoretic Text to the LXX. The reason why we keep the LXX around is that some words and phrases from the MT are difficult to understand or translate. The LXX probably doesn't go back as far as MT sources, but it still goes WAAAAY back--something like 3rd Century BC. It predates Christianity, anyway. So it represents what the Greek-speaking Jewish scholars understood it to mean in that language. We sometimes have a better handle on ancient Greek language than we do ancient Hebrew, so when things get too difficult for us with the MT, the LXX helps. It turns out that the Hebrew "M'khashepah" is much clearer than the Greek "pharmakous." I mean, "pharmakous" could refer to either a poisoner or a doctor (druggist) as well as a practitioner of magic. "M'khashepah" doesn't leave quite that much room for debate.

What I meant is that what is considered a "witch" is not immutable, not that the Hebrew word itself was ambiguous (which I couldn't have known was true or untrue, but thank you for the detailed explanation). I probably should have said "concept" instead of "word", however. Applying the Bible's judgement on "witches" two millenia later does not make much sense. I have no idea whatsoever what the Hebrew idea of a witch was, but I am certain that their witches were not 16th century witches.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 2:58 pm

Witches in the old testament would burn up kids by passing them through the fire so that the rain god would be appeased.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jun 2012, 5:19 pm

Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics.


Wrong. The Hebrew says not to permit a witch. necromancer or poisoner to make a living. In short, don't give such folks any business.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

12 Jun 2012, 8:43 pm

So how come King Saul got rid of the witches or did he just banish them?



Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

13 Jun 2012, 3:11 am

ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics.


Wrong. The Hebrew says not to permit a witch. necromancer or poisoner to make a living. In short, don't give such folks any business.

ruveyn


So you are saying that the translation should be: "Do not suffer a witch to make a living." What if they were just performing witchcraft as a hobby? :lol:


_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

13 Jun 2012, 9:25 am

Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics.


Wrong. The Hebrew says not to permit a witch. necromancer or poisoner to make a living. In short, don't give such folks any business.

ruveyn


So you are saying that the translation should be: "Do not suffer a witch to make a living." What if they were just performing witchcraft as a hobby? :lol:


That is exactly how to translate the Hebrew. The Gentiles have managed to not only screw up the world, but also the Hebrew scriptures on which they partially base their childish superstition.

ruveyn



MjrMajorMajor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jan 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,771

13 Jun 2012, 10:10 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxcyYOODXmw[/youtube]



Could...not...stop...reference.... :D



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

13 Jun 2012, 1:29 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
But what does the new testament say?


The new testememant does not say anything about it.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

13 Jun 2012, 1:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics.


Wrong. The Hebrew says not to permit a witch. necromancer or poisoner to make a living. In short, don't give such folks any business.

ruveyn


So you are saying that the translation should be: "Do not suffer a witch to make a living." What if they were just performing witchcraft as a hobby? :lol:


That is exactly how to translate the Hebrew. The Gentiles have managed to not only screw up the world, but also the Hebrew scriptures on which they partially base their childish superstition.

ruveyn


Funny it was the Jews at one point killing off Gentiles their not so innocent themselfs.



Rocky
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2008
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,074
Location: Uhhh...Not Remulak

13 Jun 2012, 2:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics.


Wrong. The Hebrew says not to permit a witch. necromancer or poisoner to make a living. In short, don't give such folks any business.

ruveyn


So you are saying that the translation should be: "Do not suffer a witch to make a living." What if they were just performing witchcraft as a hobby? :lol:


That is exactly how to translate the Hebrew. The Gentiles have managed to not only screw up the world, but also the Hebrew scriptures on which they partially base their childish superstition.

ruveyn


This is one more good example of why no one should take the words in the Bible literally. The problem is, that even if one assumes that the original authors were divinely inspired, the translators, and those who chose what would be included would have to be as well, or mistakes of this kind would be made. It makes it harder and harder to believe any of it. Of course, if you have faith, you can believe anything.


_________________
"Reality is not made of if. Reality is made of is."
-Author prefers to be anonymous.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

13 Jun 2012, 2:06 pm

Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Rocky wrote:
The Bible says to kill witches. Here is a link to a column that covers the specifics.


Wrong. The Hebrew says not to permit a witch. necromancer or poisoner to make a living. In short, don't give such folks any business.

ruveyn


So you are saying that the translation should be: "Do not suffer a witch to make a living." What if they were just performing witchcraft as a hobby? :lol:


That is exactly how to translate the Hebrew. The Gentiles have managed to not only screw up the world, but also the Hebrew scriptures on which they partially base their childish superstition.

ruveyn


This is one more good example of why no one should take the words in the Bible literally. The problem is, that even if one assumes that the original authors were divinely inspired, the translators, and those who chose what would be included would have to be as well, or mistakes of this kind would be made. It makes it harder and harder to believe any of it. Of course, if you have faith, you can believe anything.


True you can believe things when you have Faith I have a lot of faith. How ever it was the Jews that acted Zealous on Gods behalf first not Gentiles.