Depends on the translation, although admittedly most of them specify “his”. Here’s that verse in lots of different translations and versions, a few of them have a neutral language:
I guess one would need to start with the original Hebrew. Very hard to translate one language into another.
While watching that Documentary about Desmond Doss, I noticed he kept referring to the commandment as “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. I’m fairly confident that is not what is written in the original Hebrew. It’s my understanding that the commandment actually says “Thou Shalt Commit no Murder”
In support of my position: Mosaic Law calls for death for the breech of many Laws. Such as; working on the Sabbath, adultery and, homosexual acts. A father may also kill a recalcitrant child. So clearly, the commandment may simply not be read as “thou Shalt not kill”. Insisting the commandment is “thou shalt not kill” surely also leads to an understanding that neither may one kill an animal? Logically carry it even further, to insects, like the Jains
Cultural context; The Tanakh was written down around 700 bce. It was to create and maintain order in tribes of Bronze age, nomadic goat herders. Such tribes were in constant conflict with other tribes. Killing such people was perfectly fine. Also worth remembering that the words’ enemy’ and stranger’ were interchangeable as far as I know. It’s my opinion that situation may have led to strict rules of hospitality. So people wouldn’t just kill strangers out of hand.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
According to David Barton, what is the meaning of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13)? What is forbidden? What is permitted?David Barton says that if we were to ask any Hebrew scholar the true interpretation of “Thou shalt not kill” is “Thou shall not muder” which are two very different terms. He talks about how the bible permist taking of life in three occasions; self-defence, justified war and civil justices (capital punishment). He talks about what God does not permit and that is the shedding of innocent blood. .
no such animal, right?
Not sure.
As far as I’m aware there are at least fragments of the Torah dating from the first century.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were until recently thought to have been created between 408 and 318 BCE. Recent carbon dating has shown some fragments may be much older than originally thought.
It’s my understanding that some of the Dead Sea scrolls which have been translated show a remarkable consistency with far more recent copies of the Torah. Some are deemed to be inferior to later works.
Most are written in Hebrew, with some in Aramaic and some in Nabataean.
I find myself getting rapidly over my head here. I found the Wikipedia article very helpful.
Yet no answer to the actual antiquity is forthcoming. Nor does it pin point the texts that ‘may be’ older than first thought.
It is a really piss poor article.
But that would hardly be original; I don’t think anyone has seen an original in more than two millennials.
Although just why an omniscient and omniscient deity, would need any human language to communicate its message, is of course a mystery.
Or it should be to any objective reader. Like the koran only really making sense in Arabic, I mean the inference for its provenance should be pretty clear ffs.
Indeed.
Just as no god of such attributes would have any difficulty producing evidence Of his existence any atheist could accept. I doubt he would ever have to bother because his existence would be plain for all to see.
I’ve always had a problem with the notion of a creator god of infinite attributes. We would be as fleas to him. I doubt he’d be remotely interested in anything we could say ,do or feel. We would be incapable of either pleasing nor displeasing such a god, imo. I’ve always thought that to believe otherwise is the very epitome of hubris.
OF course I could be wrong. The irony is that if I’m right, I’ll never know. If I’m wrong, and YHWH , the monster of Tanach is in charge, I’m in deep do doo.
I agree, and the ludicrous idea that we are the “main show” or remotely more important than any other living thing, is utterly refuted by the fact of evolution.
Gulliver’s Travels (uncensored) is one of my favourite books. The satire is savage:
In one part, a court philosopher is yelling at Gulliver, telling him to go away. Seems the court philosopher had just proved how Gulliver or anyone like him could not possibly exist.
In another part could be pertinent today with some vegetarians and vegans: Gulliver came across an order of monks who ate nothing except cabbages which had died of natural causes.
2 Likes