Ancient Hebrew - Ten Commandments

[Barquentine]

Does anyone know how to read Ancient Hebrew? Could you tell me if there would be a difference between 'Thou shalt not kill' (i.e. 'do not kill) and 'you cannot kill'? What would the two alternatives look like?

[coccinelle]

I don't think there's the equivalent of you cannot kill. Literally, it's translated by kill not.

[Ankou]

this seems to cover it.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ ThouShaltNotMurder.html

[naomi24]

Here's the ten commandments written in Hebrew and English. The translation given for No. 6 is Thou Shalt Not Kill.

http://torahforever.net/the-ten-10-commandment s-hebrew-english-verses.html

If Clanad comes along, he might be able to help you further.

[Clanad]

Thanks for the confidence, naomi (nice Hebrew name there,no? Who would have thought?)... however, when the author of the question asks about "Ancient Hebrew" the tone of the question changes. "Ancient" Hebrew was a word picture language, not unlike Chinese pictographs. It's called Paleo-Hebrew and there are significant changes from that to modern Hebrew.

Having said that as explanatory, the Hebrew word used in the Ten Commandments is רצח ... or transliterated as ratsach (apologies for the font size of the Hebrew, but all of us would require a Hebrew replication program for it to appear normally).

This word means the taking of life as in murder... unlawfully, without sound reason, with premeditation as a key component. As, over against תרצח , or harag, as found in Genesis 4:15 where Yahweh proscribes any vengeful killing of Cain following his act of murder (also harag) against brother Abel where this type of killing appears to be more influenced by emotional outbursts, similar to our manslaughter (at least here in the U.S.)

Contd.

[Clanad]

Contd.

The use of these two (and several others, such as nakah and chalal) words depends, in large part, on the context. Keep in mind that Hebrew (Paleo or Modern) has no vowels and only twenty-two letters in its alphabet, therefore context plays a great deal of importance as does vocalizations.

The context of a prohibition of doing what we would describe as murder, as used in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Yeshua's quote of the Torah in Matthew (New Covenant, which translates from the Greek φονεύω or phoneuō, also translates, properly, to English as our concept of murder.

To form the imperative in Hebrew, only (in most cases) a word or a phrase ending or beginning syllable is modified, although, (again, in most cases) the word or root-word itself is not changed. The imperative is almost always associated with the future tense in use. Thus, the change from "You shall not do murder" is modified by the dropping of a single letter (in this case the Hebrew equivalent of a) to become nearly our rendition of "You cannot do murder").

I apologize for the lack of clarity, but this subject usually takes a large part of several Chapters in learning the Hebrew language...

[naomi24]

Clanad. You're welcome. I don't know anyone else around here who could answer this question, so credit where credit is due.

Yes, it is a nice Hebrew name, and I have it for good reason. Surprise, surprise. :o)

[Ankou]

the link i gave explains the use of harag and ratsah in hebrew texts and how this was translated several times by medieval scribes rewriting the old testament into kill rather than murder.

anyways when someone is using this context to campaign against abortion etc. as they do, then the literal interpretation (to them) remains the same, no ?

a bit like clanad saying, i could murder a pot of marmite right now.

[naomi24]

The question asked what the two alternatives would look like and since, as far as I can see, your link doesn't illustrate that, the only person I know around here who could possibly answer the question accurately is Clanad.

[beso]

Never mind debating the intracacies of the langyage. From context is is abundently clear that the rule is "Only kill those that the Voice of God commands you to kill."

It is also important to realise that the reward for implementing God's will is His everlasting support so long as you continue to do exactly as He (through the priesthood) tells you to do.

This simple technique has served thousands of dictators since Adam was a primitive hominim. It encompasses a behaviour that some call human nature. Until we can rid ourselves of the influence of these primitive tomes and the mentality of the zombies under its trance we will be locked in base behaviours. And the wars in the name of the faith will destoy us.

Escape the Bible, the Koran and the teachings of Ron L Hubbard. They are all the products of the deluded whose philosophies appeal to crippled minds forged in the shadowy morality of religion and self supremacy.

[Ankou]

noami, my point was to the qer, not you.

i am more than familiar with the opinions and articulation of our esteemed comrade, clanad. i am also well aware of his politeness and charm. something you'd do well to emulate.

beso. it�s a bit of a conundrum isnit. god says do not kill, but he seems to be attributed by the ot gospel writers as the biggest proponent of that prohibition.

[naomi24]

Ankou, politeness and charm? You? What a wag! Ha ha ha!

As for my response to your post, obviously a misunderstanding. My apologies.

[Ankou]

i was talking about clanad. i make no such spurious claims about myself.

apology accepted.

[naomi24]

Haaaaa! Very wise.

[Ankou]

i like to think i am, but your flattery is unrequired.

[Barquentine]

Clanad, thanks for the full and clear answer. Just to make sure I've understood; it is the context that makes it clear that it is an imperative. It could never be interpreted as 'you cannot (i.e. are not able to) kill'? That it is an injunction is made clear by the list of other injunctions in close proximity?

In another context it could mean 'you are not able to' instead of 'you will/may not'?

It's the mood of the verb's tense I was most interested in, rather than the the kill/murder distinction.

Many thanks.

[naomi24]

Oh no, Ankou, certainly not flattery. Simply an observation of your assessment of yourself.

Now since we don't know enough about this subject, the polite thing to do would be to leave these good people to discuss it.

Bye bye.

[Ankou]

barquentine are you trying to see whether it could be viewed as less authoritarian, as in not being 'capable' of commit the act rather than a 'do not' in the strictest sense?

i'm sure clanad can pop along and illuminate us further but he operates in different time zones. i look forward to his reply.

in the meantime, here are the words that seem to cause the scholars so much concern throughout history.

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi ?number=07523

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/heb/view.cgi ?number=02026

[Barquentine]

Ankou, yes you are correct. It seems unlikely given the context (a list of prohibited acts), but I started wondering if the original script may have been mistranslated and could in fact be a factual statement: "You are not able to kill". This came from my reading about multiverse theory and quantum suicide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_a nd_immortality

That speculation cannot be right though because 'will not kill' appears in a list of orders so would be out-of-place (unless the other commands could also be re-interpreted as statements of fact).

Re-reading Clanad's explanation though, I think I misunderstood him. I think he says the future tense has been used (implying an imperative) and one letter would need to be dropped to change it to 'cannot'.