Thou shall not suffer a witch to live

POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 19:41
VIEWED: 25190
PAGE 2 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:33 PM

Wiccans aren't witches in the same sense the Bible speaks of, so your point is moot.

Also, where the Muslims killed because of their beliefs? No, they weren't.

This is why the Enlightenment has done more harm than good, as all the same old Anti-Christian biases are carried on. Its not like the Crusades where fought by the entirety of Christendom unified against Islam, and that they took up arms to kill Muslims for no other reason than they where Muslim. Its also a misconception if you believe the Muslims where purely innocent. I realise you didn't say they where but, that is the implication here.

The First Crusade was called in the 1160's by Pope Urban the Second. Its original purpose was to defend the Eastern Empire (Now referred to as Byzantine, but then not known as that) from invasion.

This crusade proved largely successful in turning back the Muslim aggressors.

The remaining six Crusades where fought mainly over the right to make pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Muslims had occupied the Holy Land since the 700's, but in the 900's-1000's began to mistreat both Christians and Jews, escalating to the point that they where openly killed in the streets.

Now, the Crusades did feature abuse, such as the Sack of Constantinople later on, but they weren't originally the evil people tend to think of them as when the word is used.

And as I said, none of the Crusades killed Muslims on the basis of their beliefs, but rather over land rights.

So, its wrong to see this as people killing over beliefs.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:38 PM

And so heathens living in the holy lands had nothing to do with it, just like they have nothing to do with it now.

Still waiting on those sources.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:44 PM

Onto the usual doubt over the legitimacy of what I say.

In any case, what are your sources?

I've studied Religion and History for 7 years now. I'm working towards an advanced degree in it.

My sources are basic History books, Hebrew Lexicons, Dictionaries, and texts, and of coruse the actual Bibles that we still have around.

In fact, most of this is available online, such as Strong's Exhaustive concordances, or the Bibels I listed.

You're challenging widely accepted interpretations of history here, I'm going to need more than your word for it.

But, by whom is it widely accepted? Certainly not Historians, and I see it mainly on Internet message boards and Websites run by Neo-Pagans or by Militant Atheists.

Sure, some well meaning people also repeat these claims, and I don't think everyone who does has malicious intent, with some sincerely believing in this, but that doesn't make it true.

Nor does it make it a widely accepted idea. I doubt most people in general have heard any of this.

I haven't read these biblical versions you speak of, and considering their age and probable value, they're probably in archives somewhere, so I doubt you've read them either.

They are available online, for anyone to read. You can google or yahoo search them.

I'll give you one source. There are others. Check online. I know Wesleyan University scanned the entire Wycliffe Bible onto their site, for instance, and you can find copies of the Coverdale or Geneva online too.

You can also download E-Sword, and get a lot of them, though Unfortunately, you can't get the Wycliffe Bible or Coverdale yet. Still, the Geneva and Bishops are available.

You can, as I said earlier, also get lexicons for Biblical Hebrew.

You can also search Amazon for hard copies.

Here is STudylight. It has the Coverdale, Bishops, and Geneva Bible, as well as Wycliffes and the KJV. (And others.)

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+1&translation=mcb

You have not directly translated the Hewbrew, only posted already translated lines where in replacing words are shown to make the line nonsense. That does not mean the line is representative of the original Hebrew.

But, the word Kaphash doesn't mean Poisoner. I know as Ive studied Hebrew. You can too, or at least get a Lexicon.

So, again, where are your sources?

I've listed them.

And why am I challenged on this, when others who say King James Mistranslated the Bible to read Witch rather than Poisoner aren't?

It seems illogical to take me with some sort of hostility while believing the original far more willingly.

Especially since a simple online search can secure you the same knowledge I just presented.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:47 PM

And so heathens living in the holy lands had nothing to do with it, just like they have nothing to do with it now.

Still waiting on those sources.

Patience is a virtue.

And, no, the Crusades didn't have anything to do with Heathens. In fact, neither Muslims nor Christians saw each other as Heathens. Muslims used the term "Infidel" and Christians "Herertic" to describe each other.

Still, if you read the History, the Crusades where about either Defending Europe, such as the Battle of Tours, or reclaiming the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrimages, not about forced conversions or killing infidels.

Do I need to source this as well? You can easily go to a reputable history source to see that I'm right.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:51 PM

I haven't been hostile, I've only asked you to establish where you're coming from, because I haven't heard of any of this.

I'm just trying to fact check.

Before I look at the hebrew bibles, are they posted in manner that's compatible to using a hebrew lexicon to translate them?

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:54 PM

Quote:
And, no, the Crusades didn't have anything to do with Heathens. In fact, neither Muslims nor Christians saw each other as Heathens. Muslims used the term "Infidel" and Christians "Herertic" to describe each other.

Still, if you read the History, the Crusades where about either Defending Europe, such as the Battle of Tours, or reclaiming the Holy Land for Christian Pilgrimages, not about forced conversions or killing infidels.

Do I need to source this as well? You can easily go to a reputable history source to see that I'm right.

You say potato, I say "pohtahto." Well, not really. But in my mind, that's the exact same thing.

Americans didn't kill Native Americans because of their religious beliefs, but the fact is, differences in religious belief justified killing them for land.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:58 PM

Actually no. Racial discrimination combined with greed caused Thomas Jefferson to want to expand America, and he forcibly removed the Native Americans in order to achieve his goal of a conquered, white America.

Jefferson started that, and didn't care about their religious beliefs.

In fact, missionaries to the Indians actually protested Jefferson sending the army in, writing letters to Congress or the President to plead with him to stop.

The removal of the Indians was done to facilitate what was later codified as "Manifest Destiny" of the white race taming and civilizing barbarian lands, and claiming the land as their own.

Many of the Indians had actually converted to Christianity already, and where still forced off their land.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:01 PM

As to the Hebrew Bibles, I do not know. I usually use hardcopy as its easier on the eyes and despite studying it, my first language is English.

But you can do something easier if not, in that you can trace the word back in the Strong's.

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:03 PM

Fine, it was a COMBINATION of racism, coupled with broad generalizations of Native Americans as heathens.

The analogy isn't perfect, but you didn't comment on it in regards to the point at hand, which is that Christians killed Muslims trying to reclaim what they perceived as their holy lands. What justified the Christians in this case?

EDIT: Actually, nevermind, that's also off the point at hand, which was specifically in regards to witches and the killing thereof for their practices and whatnot.

So, when I get the chance to look over those bibles and check the translations, I'll be good.

ZAROVE

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:10 PM

Fine, it was a COMBINATION of racism, coupled with broad generalizations of Native Americans as heathens.

No, it wasn't. it was a combination of racism, greed, and lust for power. Jefferson never stated that they where Heathens, nor did he use this as justification for Appropriating their land.

Historical records do not indicate that the Religion of the Native Americans played any role in their removal by American forces.

The analogy isn't perfect, but you didn't comment on it in regards to the point at hand, which is that Christians killed Muslims trying to reclaim what they perceived as their holy lands. What justified the Christians in this case?

Well for centuries the Christians didn't kill Muslims over the Holy Land, but let them rule it. Only when Muslims began to actively persecute Christians, or even kill them, did this even become a COncern.

But the First Crusade, which was a massive success, really got the ball rolling. They thought that, if they could eaisly win agaisnt the Muslims, and thinking God was on their side, this means they also have the abiklity to reclaim the Holy Land to make it safe for Christian pilgrims.

They did not see the word as modern Democrats, or in the way we do regarding Nation-Sates, but rather in a Feudal Sense, and where demanding their Sacred and historical rights to make Pilgrimage. To them this made sense.

Also, I tire of the Christians getting all the flack, didn't the Muslims first threaten to conquer Europe? Why does no one mention this?

Because the defensive motive is crucial in understanding the Christians.

Also, it wasn't "The Christians" but the Catholics. The Eastern Orthodox Church did not take part in the Crusades.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE