Denominations

[melliff]

Welcome to the Biblical and Theology Section of 1Faith

[Raise a Debate] @ 1faith
Your post will be answered shortly
Raise a Debate - by posting bait !

Deborah

That was the case 400-500 years ago, when the splits were raw and tempers were hot. As you point out, there were martyrs on both sides and neither comes out with much credit. Now we no longer kill each other on the grounds of our disagreements - and to talk as if we were all still at each others throats is seriously misleading.

Has the last 120 years of Irish history passed you by?  Irish Catholics hate Irish Protestants and vice versa, and thousands of people have died as a result, and not just in Ireland.  A political peace has been implemented but the hatred remains and children are sent to their own denomination schools so that they come to adulthood with the same interpretation of God's word and the same prejudices.

[Deborah]

Deborah
Has the last 120 years of Irish history passed you by?  Irish Catholics hate Irish Protestants and vice versa, and thousands of people have died as a result, and not just in Ireland.  A political peace has been implemented but the hatred remains and children are sent to their own denomination schools so that they come to adulthood with the same interpretation of God's word and the same prejudices.

The Irish Catholics and Protestants aren't at war because of religious differences (let alone different interpretations of the Bible) but because of political issues. "Catholic" and "Protestant" are just convenient labels for two communities with different historical origins and backgrounds.  My sister-in-law is an Irish Catholic, and she has told me that the genuine believers (on both sides) have always got on perfectly well. As do she and I!

[davetaff]

One would think not, but take the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."  One can't get more "back to basics" than that.  It seems an absolutely unambiguous statement; but look at different versions of the Bible and you see it also gets translated as "Thou shalt not murder", which of course leaves the door open for many denominations to send their members to kill and be slaughtered in wars, whereas some denominations take the original meaning literally and are pacifists.  Who has the truth?  Presumably God does and he must have known that his word was going to be misinterpreted, so if he meant "Those shalt not kill", why didn't he add "under any circumstances"?  Did he want the commandment to be open to interpretation?

If such a basic statement in the Bible is open to such different interpretation, how can we trust that any version of the Bible contains God's word as he intended it?

Hi Melliff
Thank you for your reply this is one of the reasons I like to stick to the KJV the reason being it was the first full translation into English and I believe inspired by God I do quote The ESV on here it seem most prefer it.

As for
       Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill     

This is taken up in the N T

        Rom 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

   22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire     

So we can see plainly from these text that to kill another is a big no no the commands of our Lord is quite clear we must love our neighbour and we shall love our enemies and if we love someone we could never do them any harm let alone kill them.
If we follow the Lord Jesus Christ we will turn the other cheek in so doing we show the world a better way.
It is not violence that will save the world its LOVE GOD IS LOVE.
The only weapon we need is the sword of truth which is the word of God.

As for pacifists they are keeping the command of God and should be admired and be held up as an example to the world jest think if everyone was a pacifist all wars would cease how wonderful would be of course this will happen when our Lord returns.

Love and Peace
Dave

[eik]

One would think not, but take the commandment "Thou shalt not kill."  One can't get more "back to basics" than that.  It seems an absolutely unambiguous statement; but look at different versions of the Bible and you see it also gets translated as "Thou shalt not murder", which of course leaves the door open for many denominations to send their members to kill and be slaughtered in wars, whereas some denominations take the original meaning literally and are pacifists.  Who has the truth?  Presumably God does and he must have known that his word was going to be misinterpreted, so if he meant "Those shalt not kill", why didn't he add "under any circumstances"?  Did he want the commandment to be open to interpretation?

If such a basic statement in the Bible is open to such different interpretation, how can we trust that any version of the Bible contains God's word as he intended it?

This is not strictly true, because the Hebrew word for murder as in the ten commandments, "Thou shalt not murder" is "rāṣaḥ" on every occasion, which is limited to extra judicial killing outside of battle and which alone is deemed worthy of the death sentence. Whereas the word for legitimate killing, or smiting, in a far more general sense, that does not fall to be interpreted as murder under the legal jurisdiction, is "nāḵa."

Very occasionally both words are used in the same verse however, e.g. Num 35:30, where the context takes on "rāṣaḥ." Occasionally "nāḵa" is considered a cause of judgement on its own. Exo 21:12. Here the context makes it clear whether nāḵa is being used in the sense of rāṣaḥ.

Self defence "nāḵa" is not condemned in the bible as such and certainly not in the context of warfare.

So not really any ambiguity here. Pacifists will have to look for far better justifications than biblical ambiguities (that's not to say there aren't any - the possibility of killing other Christians might be one).

[melliff]

About 4,000 years ago, it seems that God decided that he had important messages to share with mankind.  One assumes that he thought long and hard to find a way to make sure that his messages were not likely to misinterpreted.

In the end he decided that the written word was the best vehicle to use.  He does not write it himself, but 'inspires' fallable human beings to write it.  Being all knowing, he would have be aware that what was being written was prone to error and misinterpretation.  And it was written in one langauage so that it would have to be translated into all the languages spoken by mankind also increasing the possibility of misinterpretation.  And all this happens when, for nearly the whole of next 4,000, only a tiny percentage of mankind could actually read and the messages directly.  Indeed, one of the denominations that were created because of the errors and misinterpretation, the Roman Catholic Church, did its level best to stop lay people reading the Bible themselves, even burning people who dared to translate it into common languages.

It all seems very odd and unworthy of the Lord of the Universe.

There is another possibility.  Knowing that any written word would be a very imperfect way of imparting his messages, God had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible and chooses to maintain his silence.

[eik]

Indeed, one of the denominations that were created because of the errors and misinterpretation, the Roman Catholic Church...

Actually the reason for the Roman Catholic church itself has nothing to do with the bible. You won't find any mention of it directly. You will find allusions to the papacy (as distinct from the RCC) in prophecy, the second beast, the harlot sitting on the beast drunk with the blood of the saints etc. However the RCC is not the papacy. The average Roman Catholic church member is not the subject of these prophecies.

The papacy arose because of those such as Leo I strove for direct primacy (rather than Primus inter pares) using superior and bogus (i.e. pagan) trinitarian philosophy (two natures in Christ) post Council of Chalcedon AD451, whilst other churches either conceded its superiority (such as Constantinople) or were excommunicated by Rome.

Also the churches failed to distinguish the church itself from the papacy in Rome. They failed to see that the papacy was not the church and vice versa.