Biblical Quote and CCW

[gggman]

I'm putting this in handguns general because it's related to CCW, mods move if necessary.
In my bible, (New Living Translation) Leviticus 19:16 says, "Do not stand idly by when your neighbor's life is threatened. I am the Lord."
OK, maybe I'm nuts, but does anyone else interpret that to mean that if another person's life is in danger, and you are carrying, then you would be sinning to not intervene on their behalf ?
And yes, I know that this verse is worded completely differently in other versions of the bible. I'm taking this directly from the NLT version.

 

[Muzzy_B]

You don't need to be carrying to intervene. You can intervene in any number of ways that don't involve direct engagement. But yes, I've interpreted it to mean that if you have the means to intervene in one manner or another to prevent harm, and you do not and your neighbor is hurt or killed as a direct result, then you will be held accountable before God.

 

[Euclidean]

First some parallel translations for reference.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-16.htm

As the OP said, the version he's referencing is actually phrased differently. We could get all hung up on that, but I've always held the Bible isn't about literal wording or beliefs, it's about ideas and principles God wants us to live by, even in regards to CCW.

I rather think the point is that the verse means not so much a literal mandate to stop your neighbor from being killed by your own force, but rather to act in a manner which shows humanity and concern.

That whole idea of showing concern for other people is pretty consistent throughout the Bible actually.

http://bible.cc/john/13-34.htm

Check out the cross references at the bottom of the page.

Now as far as what it means in the context of CCW, my two cents is this, it's just my personal belief so take it FWIW. I also hold as one of my theological beliefs that the Holy Spirit can move each of us to to different answers in our lives from the Scripture, different mechanics for the same belief in other words, so my idea is not necessarily the "correct" one.

I think it's dangerous to try to take an idea, a principle if you will, and try to extrapolate an absolute set of hard and fast rules from it based on some particular wording. When you do that you "lean into your own understanding" (Proverbs Chapter 3) instead of trusting in God's guidelines.

Rather, I think this verse, and the Bible as a whole, gives us an understanding of how to try to act, and the better we understand the general ideas and principles of the Bible, the better we can apply it in context. Remember how I said I think different people might have different interpretations of the actual mechanics?

But what is that context? It's your life. Your life is unique and different from everyone else's, and the situations you encounter, while they may be very similar or even shared by many others, are ultimately unique. In regards to CCW, the context is the scenario as it unfolds.

As for me personally, I do not believe that it's my role in life to run around and try to solve or prevent every crime by force. I don't think that's realistic or the best use of my time, and it could even be dangerous. But that's not to say I would absolutely never get involved.

Yes I have competing loyalties, my family is more important to me than other people I'll admit it, but at the same time, if I were standing right behind someone who was about to kill someone else who was obviously innocent, I don't think I could live with myself if I just sat there and watched them die, and I don't think God would want me to not do anything either. Heck, it may very well be that my moral compulsion to act is God's will for that other person to live manifesting itself, who knows?

So I don't advocate taking other people's safety into your own hands, but honestly if I knew something bad was about to happen, I somehow knew who was the "Good guy" and who was the "Bad guy", and I could act and stop it, I would.

It's not likely that will ever happen, but it's not implausible either.

 

[CK]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57618

 

[lee n. field]

In my bible, (New Living Translation) Leviticus 19:16 says, "Do not stand idly by when your neighbor's life is threatened. I am the Lord."
OK, maybe I'm nuts, but does anyone else interpret that to mean that if another person's life is in danger, and you are carrying, then you would be sinning to not intervene on their behalf ?

That's how I'd read it.

Bit I think I'd want to be cross referencing a more strict, formal translation. It also ties in to your view of the Torah, where Leviticus fits in to that, how that applies (or doesn't) to the Christian (reading the NLT, I'm guessing you're not a Jew).

All points of contention, and just cause for thread locking.

 

[Lonestar49]

My take..

...

First and foremost, Christians are not (weak) Sheep, but blessed Peaceful Warriors.

And yes, we can turn a cheek, but only so many times, if at all, per occasion..


LS

 

[The Bushmaster]

I just checked the King James edition...It says nothing that can be misconscrewed as protect your neighbor...Basicly it says don't lie about your neighbor causing his or her death...

I hate it when people try to interperate the Bible to justify their own desires. Stop reading into it what isn't there!!!

 

[gggman]

I just checked the King James edition...It says nothing that can be misconscrewed as protect your neighbor...Basicly it says don't lie about your neighbor causing his or her death...

I hate it when people try to interperate the Bible to justify their own desires. Stop reading into it what isn't there!!!

With all due respect to you, sir, I am not reading anything into anything. I quoted verbatum the NLT version of the bible.
As I said, I am well aware of the different interpretations of this verse in the various translations of the bible. My quote came from the NLT translation exactly as written.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I am not about to get between two Christians arguing about different translations - learn Hebrew and dump the translations.

[Or read Everett Fox - that's the only English translation that I have found that if you translated it back into Hebrew, you'd get the Torah back. Of course having a very, very close translation makes parts of the text darn near unreadable.]

The immediate implication of Leviticus 19:16 appears to me to be a requirement to investigate the death of a neighbor. In other words, if a neighbor dies, you have a responsibility to investigate/prosecute someone the slayer of your neighbor. This is presumably in contrast to surrounding cultures of the time, where you were only bound to prosecute the slayer of a family member.

Given the first part of the verse, it would appear the the neighbor's honor and/or reputation are at stake. It would be dishonorable to permit the slayer of your neighbor escape justice, somewhat in the same way that spreading gossip about a neighbor - whether the gossip is true or not. Both are an insult to your neighbor, and indirectly an insult to G-d, who is holy.

"Few are guilty, all are responsible."

In general, the Torah is less opposed to the use of violence than the Greek Testament. In general, Jews are required to struggle against evil - that "turn the other cheek stuff" is not in our Bible. I am not competent to decide whether it is in yours.

Can you interpret that verse as a commandment to defend your neighbor with a weapon? The rabbis tell us that each verse of Torah has 70 interpretations (meaning many, many interpretations, not the precise number 70). Go and learn.

Mike

 

[TMann]

The NIV version of Leviticus 19:16 states:

"...Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life. I am the Lord."

So in this particular version, it appears more as a command to not cause any harm to your neighbor, rather than a command to protect your neighbor.

TMann

 

[RPCVYemen]

The NIV version of Leviticus 19:16 says ...

The KJV looks closer to the Hebrew, if that matters. The Hebrew (in my amateur opinion) is something like "Do not stand in/on the blood of your neighbor."

Lo - Not
tamod - stand (imperative, "you stand")
al - in/on
dam - the blood
re-eicha - your neighbor

That doesn't mean that the NIV is "wrong" - many interpretations are possible.

Mike

 

[lee n. field]

learn Hebrew and dump the translations.

If I had the time, if I had the time.

 

[pogo2]

Obedience to Leviticus?

The book of Leviticus is a compendium of detailed rules for ancient Hebrews. I don't believe that any modern Christian church advocates following these rules. Some of the rules are:

• No eating of pork
• Priests shall diagnose skin diseases
• Mothers must sacrifice lambs and doves after giving birth

 

[Joe the Redneck]

So, for the umteenth time we have proven why religion should be discussed on religion boards and not gun boards.

 

[Autolycus]

King James Translation

A Site With all of the Different Versions.

Apparently there exist many different translations. It seems, according to the site, that the majority of these translations all say that you should not speak lies about your neighbor. I do not see anything that can justify CCW here except a misinterpretation.

I have to ask why there are so many different translations of the bible? I thought it was the word of god and all that entails with being the word of god.

Either way baby Jesus would not approve of CCw in my belief as he was the first socialist.

 

[finnerandr]

I dont usually chime in on religious or political threads, but this one caught my interest. It is quite neat to see how everyone can read the same thing and interpret it differently. I dont think anyone is wrong, I just want to chime in with my own belief for a second. The way I was taught, all the old testament stuff became null and void after Jesus came to die for our sins. No longer do we have to refrain from eating "unlean" meat(pork), nor do we have to sacrifice animals to God, or any other of those outdated rules. Basically, Jesus died and wiped those out. Now we live by the 10 commandments and thats pretty much it. Like I said, I dont think anyone is wrong, just wanted to throw in another viewpoint.


Back to what I said about how so many people can read the same thing and interpret it differently every time. Apply that to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and understand that everyone interprets things differently. So those who are anti 2nd Amendment may not be bad people after all, maybe they truly read it differently than us. I believe they are wrong in that interpretation, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. As for the politicians and lobby groups seeking to take away our guns, they are all evil and I pray that God sends them straight to Hades for their blasphemy!

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by finnerandr: I dont usually chime in on religious or political threads, but this one caught my interest. It is quite neat to see how everyone can read the same thing and interpret it differently. I dont think anyone is wrong, I just want to chime in with my own belief for a second. The way I was taught, all the old testament stuff became null and void after Jesus came to die for our sins. No longer do we have to refrain from eating "unlean" meat(pork), nor do we have to sacrifice animals to God, or any other of those outdated rules. Basically, Jesus died and wiped those out. Now we live by the 10 commandments and thats pretty much it. Like I said, I dont think anyone is wrong, just wanted to throw in another viewpoint.

Where does it say to throw out the old testament rules? And if Jesus changed things with his coming, why does the old testament get thrown out except for the 10 commandmants?

So anti-gunners are ok except for lobbyists and politicians? They are "evil" and you want god to send them to hell?

I thought Christianity preached forgiveness and tolerance but I guess I was wrong.

 

[Sistema1927]

Some simple principles of Biblical interpretation:

1) Always look at context, both immediate and global. Many errors occur when one lifts a verse out of context in order to perform "proof texting".

2) Always perform exegesis, not eisegesis. Read "out of" (ex) the text instead of reading "into" (eis) it. "What does the text say?" is much more important than "What do I want it to say?"

That said, the Bible as a whole requires us to care for our neighbor, and also gives support to concept of armed defense against evil.

 

[patentmike]

Either way baby Jesus would not approve of CCw in my belief as he was the first socialist.

No need for us to rely on your belief, we can look it up.

Luke 22:36 He advises buying a sword - the AR of it's day

Matt 26:52-54 Peter is told by Jesus to put away his sword. Think about it:
(a) they had been together 3 years and Peter was still packing
(b) He said "put it away" in that particular instance, not to get rid of it altogether

Somewhere around that part of the Bible, when Jesus was in the garden, He says something to the effect of: "What am I, a bandit that you come after me with spears and clubs?" Implying that it would be only natural to arm yourself for protection against such people.

Romans 12:18 "If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all."
That's a big "if" and another big "so far as" before you get to the part pacifists would quote.

Can you help me find the "first socialist" part?

 

[finnerandr]

Tecumseh, a lot of what I said about anti gunners and politicians was said tongue-in-cheek. I am simply trying to say maybe we ought to have a little more compassion for other people who simply read things differently than we do. Most politicians are only out for their own benefit, most do not care about the people. So, yes, I belive they would serve better use in Hades! As far as the anti-gunners, we need to do what we can to educate them and sway them to our side of the fence.

As far as the religion stuff, I didnt say throw out all of the old testament. I was just saying that all those outdated laws and ceremonies need not be performed any longer because Jesus wiped our sins away. It is one humble mans opinion, and I dont believe that I deserved the lashing that you gave me. I believe that you, sir, are a jerk.

 

[BridgeWalker]

In Beit Yaakov, way back in the day when I was an Orthodox Jew, I was taught that "lo takmod" did indeed mean that one had some level of duty to act in defense of others. Some commentators also draw meaning from its proximity to the preceding verse against gossip, stating that gossip is akin to murder.

As a Roman Catholic, I believe that that is the moral thing to do, based on what others haved cited, but mostly on the principal that I hope someone would do the same for me.

And in the common law, defense of a third party is regarded not only as a good defense but as a public service.

So, um, yeah.

Still, sometimes I wish I'd spent less time learning Hebrew and more time learning to shoot.

 

[doc2rn]

I will leave it as Chaplin Cash stated it to me, "I am my brothers keeper."
-nuff said

 

[Euclidean]

Well in my own personal interpretation, I believe the crucifixion signified the covenant with Abraham, essentially salvation through obedience to the law, was no longer binding, which is why we Christians don't observe the law. Instead salvation in the New Testament comes from grace.

But I feel if you look at what Christ actually said and cross reference verses, you can see Christ was teaching what the Scripture actually meant. If you look at the links I posted earlier, you can see where they took the verse that's the subject of this thread and cross referenced it thus.

Something I've noticed is that through Christ, in the transition from the law to grace, we lose the punitive nature of the old Testament and instead move to a new way of thinking. Christ's teachings don't contain hard rules like "If your slave spits on you, you may stone him" (I just made that up) but rather parables, directives, examples, and allegories to demonstrate a guiding principle. If you take the Bible as a whole, you can look back and see that the idea was there along, in the Old Testament, but I think Christ was trying to show people (among other things) they had gotten so hung up on the way it was worded they lost the message. I believe personally that Christ was actually teaching people what the law was really supposed to mean, showing them they were oftimes true to the letter of the thing but not the spirit of it.

The specific verse in question I don't think directly says anything about CCW specifically, but rather is just one part of a comprehensive concept of how we should treat others. Really, wouldn't compassion for other people start with simply not mistreating them? It makes sense from that perspective that in this early book of the Old Testament we'd see this as the start of the general concept to be expanded on later.

I still hold that when we look at the big picture concepts in the context of the Bible as a whole, we get some general principles which can be applied to everything we do in life, including CCW. Understanding exactly what those principles are takes work though, and I personally believe the Holy Spirit could move each person to understand it in a unique way (and in fact would have to since everyone's cognitive capacities are different), so I don't really see why multiple interpretations of the same idea is necessarily a bad thing.

It's when you slavishly devote yourself to your own narrow interpretation without consulting God along the way that you get yourself into trouble and start coming to some strange conclusions. Someone who works at it constantly will gradually form more and more mature and coherent beliefs but no human being can understand anything perfectly and in its entirety, as we have finite lifespans and finite brainpower, and many worthy facets of our existences competing for shares of each.

Perhaps if we all had infinite intellect and infinite time to really understand the Bible perfectly, we'd all finally reach the same conclusions in all matters. Barring that, I believe we just have to look at the principles contained therein and study, pray, and discuss while trusting that following the teachings is the right thing to do. That's why it's called faith.

So in that spirit I don't think the thread is irrelevant or bad or conducive to Low Road discussions, but that also depends on those reading to either refrain from pointless and baseless derogatory comments. I also think this is one thread where a little more restraint is in order.

 

[Coronach]

Folks, religion is OT per forum rules, even if it does related to CCW.

Mike