It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Have you ever noticed how people cry out God's name in vain as loud and often as they can?
I am always amazed at how common using the Lord's name in vain is. I hear people constantly yelling, "Oh My God!" or "Good Lord!" or "Jesus". This disrespect prevails everywhere!! on television, the radio, schools, churches, my next door neighbors. Even in this forum, people write "OMG" flippantly as if they can't be bothered except to abbreviate the name of the Alpha and the Omega. People seem to antagonize God in every way they can and as often as they can. Then they wonder why God gives them over to despair.

Why is such irreverence condoned in our society?


[edit on 28-7-2006 by checkers]




posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Well, maybe you should get to a translation that's accurate. Then you won't sweat the little stuff. The more accurate translation is to not use the name of the Lord in a vain cause.

Kind of casts a big shadow on all the horrific things done in the name of God, now doesn't it? But sure beefs up the commandment over just not letting a little gawd-damn slip every once in awhile.

Sometimes things can start to make sense - if you just try to understand.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Thank you Valhall for stating what I was thinking. I could have not put it better myself.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

This scripture doesn't say "vain cause". I don't see the word "cause" anywhere.

I guess you can interpret the Bible anyway you want to though as long as you're comfortable with adding a word here or there to fit your own agenda.


[edit on 28-7-2006 by checkers]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
I've come to believe there are particular places in the KJV translation that were intentionally mistranslated to "further the cause"...this happens to be one of them. The second one would be Paul's speech on the Mount of Mars where KJV wants to portray him ridiculing the Greeks for their "superstitions". In fact, the correct translation of Pauls speech is NOT


I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.


...but, accurately translated...


Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious.

For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.


(Acts 17: 22-23)

Goes from ridiculing a people for being "supstitious" to acknowledging their attempts to be devout to that which they do not know and understand, but recognize may exist.

When you think about it - both of these scriptures are integral in either condemning or being twisted to support such heinous things as the crusades.

Chilling - and unforgivable.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by checkers
Exodus 20:7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

This scripture doesn's say "vain cause". I don't see the word "cause" anywhere.

I guess you can interpret the Bible anyway you want to though as long as you're comfortable with adding a word here or there to fit your own agenda.



[edit on 28-7-2006 by checkers]


This isn't "interpreting". This is a matter of correct translation (or not). If you choose to take an errant translation and then interpret that - you're lost to the true knowledge of the Bible forever.

So be it. I don't get worked up over your personal choices. But I won't sit silent while you're openly doing it...k?

[edit on 7-28-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
What "correct translation" states a vain "cause"?

Please show me a Biblical translation that actually says vain "cause"...a translation other than the subjective one in your mind.

Please tell me you actually have authority to argue against the words in the Bible. All I've heard so far is a bunch of fallible thoughts of a human being.





[edit on 28-7-2006 by checkers]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by checkers
What "correct translation" states a vain "cause"?

Please show me a Biblical translation that actually says vain "cause"...a translation other than the one in your mind.


www.abovetopsecret.com...


GSA

posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Valhal,
Beautiful work, very precise and to the point. Excellent.






posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Proverbs 30:6:
6 Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Revelation 22
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;

19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

20 He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen
Come, Lord Jesus.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Take your own words to heart and change yourself. You are misleading people by trying to make sure they don't say a word that you have been (falsely) taught will bring some type of damnation, when the importance of the scripture was to ensure that the wonderous and merciful Creator's name was never invoked in an evil man-made cause.

Release yourself from your bondage of ignorance on this matter and stop quoting your badly translated scriptures to me immediately.

Lest I release a volley of better translations that spurs you in your groins.

[edit on 7-28-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Very nicely put, and great research Val.


I don't think I quite have the amount of patience with people that you do.


Just a little add-on to, does it really matter if people are doing it without realising it's suppose to be bad, I mean is'nt the Christian god suppose to be all forgiving and all loving?



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Very nicely put, and great research Val.


I don't think I quite have the amount of patience with people that you do.


Just a little add-on to, does it really matter if people are doing it without realising it's suppose to be bad, I mean is'nt the Christian god suppose to be all forgiving and all loving?


There's the rub...if you omit the bad translations you get down to a position that all men know is "wrong". What a healing balm! God is merciful enough to only put on us what burdens we can carry ourselves...like knowing when we are about to do evil.

Saying god damn...not so apparent!

Deciding to proclaim God is backing your own little twisted plot - yeah, we all know that's not right...even if we call Him by another name.

See how simplistic it becomes when you separate the chaff (the bad translation) from the wheat (the original message)?

kind of makes you go...hmmmm.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Saying god damn...not so apparent!

Deciding to proclaim God is backing your own little twisted plot - yeah, we all know that's not right...even if we call Him by another name.

See how simplistic it becomes when you separate the chaff (the bad translation) from the wheat (the original message)?

kind of makes you go...hmmmm.


A good point Val, too many Christians get wrapped around the axle over uneducated interpretations of Scripture.

But don't you think that saying GD is disrespectful? Further, are you not in essence telling God to damn someone because of what you think? Is that not a vain cause?



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemicalLaser



A good point Val, too many Christians get wrapped around the axle over uneducated interpretations of Scripture.

But don't you think that saying GD is disrespectful? Further, are you not in essence telling God to damn someone because of what you think? Is that not a vain cause?


I think that saying god-damn is disrespectful.
I do not "damn" anyone.
I do not equate it to the same as employing the Divine name behind your cause. That's much worse.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I've come to believe there are particular places in the KJV translation that were intentionally mistranslated to "further the cause"...this happens to be one of them. The second one would be Paul's speech on the Mount of Mars where KJV wants to portray him ridiculing the Greeks for their "superstitions". In fact, the correct translation of Pauls speech is NOT


I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.


...but, accurately translated...


Ye men of Athens, in all things, I perceive that ye are very religious.

For as I passed along, and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.


(Acts 17: 22-23)

Goes from ridiculing a people for being "supstitious" to acknowledging their attempts to be devout to that which they do not know and understand, but recognize may exist.

When you think about it - both of these scriptures are integral in either condemning or being twisted to support such heinous things as the crusades.

Chilling - and unforgivable.


Paul realized that the Mars Hill crowd worshipped idols. So the best translation is "superstition", because one of the definitions of superstition is idolatry. Even if the crowd understood it to mean he found them religious, he could very well have intended to say that they were superstitious.

The translators of the early bibles were scholars/monks, religious and educated in the Bible, since they too were aware that idolatry is superstitious, they translated it so.

You didn't give your source for the translation you prefer: The nearly inspired version (NIV) uses "religious", as do several other versions. That still doesn't mean that Paul used it, as the word he used (Deisidaimonesteros) could mean either one, which when you think about it was inspired of him, leaving it up to the crowd to decide whether they were being insulted or praised. (If "superstitious" had a negative connotation back then!)



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Take your own words to heart and change yourself. You are misleading people by trying to make sure they don't say a word that you have been (falsely) taught will bring some type of damnation, when the importance of the scripture was to ensure that the wonderous and merciful Creator's name was never invoked in an evil man-made cause.

Release yourself from your bondage of ignorance on this matter and stop quoting your badly translated scriptures to me immediately.

Lest I release a volley of better translations that spurs you in your groins.

[edit on 7-28-2006 by Valhall]


went to your other post with the breakdown of the words and so on. Good stuff and enlightening, rings true to my spirit. And also a great relief as I am one who slips out with an OMG on occasion though I don't like it when I do and hate it when I hear my grands doing it.



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I must say that I mostly agree with Valhall. Sadly, most Christians do not realize the extent to which our Bible (KJV) has been altered from the original.

Furthermore, I don't think that saying "OMG" or "G-d dammit" is a one-way ticket to eternal damnation. Of course it is wrong to use the Lord's name in vain. But I don't believe that doing so will land you amongst the hellfire and brimstone. We must also understand that our G-d is all-knowing and posesses more intelligence than anyone could ever even contemplate. He knows that when I stub my toe and scream "G-d damn!" that I am neither damning him nor anyone else. They are just words, uttered in a painful moment, and He knows what intentions we have behind them. I mean, he knows EVERYTHING, doesn't he?

I'm sure that we can all agree (us Christians, at least), that we do use the Lord's name in vain all too often these days. Actually, we do a lot of bad things all too often these days! The important thing is the meaning and the intent behind them. So long as you're not purposely damning G-d, then I have to believe that our all-forgiving and understanding Lord and Savior will let it slide.

Not to get off subject... but a quick question for Valhall. What English language Bible do you recommend as the most accurately-translated one? Unfortunately, I don't have enough time in my day to visit as many threads on ATS as I'd like to, so I'm hoping that in addition to answering my question on here that you could also U2U me your answer. I will admit, sadly, that I am someone who has never sat down and read the Bible from cover-to-cover. It is something that I would like to do. Also, if there is an easy to understand, well-translated version that you know of, please let me know also!

Thanks, and God Bless!



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by curiousity


Paul realized that the Mars Hill crowd worshipped idols. So the best translation is "superstition", because one of the definitions of superstition is idolatry.


Only if you decide to go with what has been preached to you.



You didn't give your source for the translation you prefer:


While it doesn't matter to me which translation you use - as long it is a translation that tries to stay true to the CONTEXT of passage (which the KJV absolutely does not) - I prefer, for the New Testament, New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament (with NRSV). The problem with the KJV is that it is almost a transliteration. In other words, it translates each word on its own, without trying to stay true to the context. There are many translations which are more correct to the context of the passage. I'm not advocating any of them. I just advocate that that those who wish to hurl scriptures like daggers at others be sure they have looked into the translations (and what the inadequacies of the one they are ignorantly clinging to) can mean for their lack (or fullness) of understanding.

If you choose to TRULY AND FULLY investigate the translations of Acts and decide that Paul condemned the Greeks versus acknowledging them and then teaching them, that's your business. But your choice speaks volumes - and not in what Christ taught, but more in what men have taught in the years since he left us.

[edit on 7-28-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 28 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Rasputin,

I u2u'd you.

Regards.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join