View source for The question is the Old Testament, you say that there was the word "murder." Why you have changed? You accept Old Testament or reject?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"The question is the Old Testament, you say that there was the word"|"Why you have changed"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|23Mar12}}
{{last|23Mar12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:It Is a Question Of...]]
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Say]]
[[Category:There Was]]
[[Category:This Word]]
[[Category:Murder]]
[[Category:Why]]
[[Category:You]]
[[Category:Change]]
[[Category:Accept]]
[[Category:Rejection]]
[[Category:Questions Posed by Srila Prabhupada]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril221974Hyderabad_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="70" link="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad">
<div class="heading">They are fools, all set of fools. Useless. See one thing and write one thing. Then you are not perfect. Bhrama pramāda. You commit mistake. Therefore your instruction is useless, useless. Because you commit mistake, therefore your instruction is useless. And that actually they are doing. As it is suitable, they are changing the words of Bible. They are useless. Things which are changeable, that cannot be accepted as scripture.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pañcadraviḍa: I met a Christian, and he said "You have got your guru and you are following him. He teaches you by his example. We have got our pope. He is our example of what Christianity is. He is the head of Christian order, and he himself is eating meat. Now how you can say...?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then how he can be pope?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: "But how you can say he is not the best Christian? He is the head of all the Christians."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But that means you are foolish and pope is also foolish. If he does not follow the orders of Jesus Christ, then how he becomes a pope? Therefore you are foolish. You have elected some foolish, another foolish man as your pope. That should be the right answer, that "If he does not follow Christ, how he becomes pope?"</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: He is not killing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why he is appointed as head? He must order. Otherwise if you are not following pope, then you are not Christian. He does not kill, then you should not kill. And why does he not order?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: He himself is eating meat. So it must be all right.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then how he is pope?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But he is knowing what Christianity is the best. Therefore he is in charge. He says it is all right to eat meat.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, how... Then first of all how you can elect him as in charge? Then you are fool.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: All the popes for hundreds of years have all eaten meat.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then hundreds of years you are fool. Therefore you are intelligent? Does it mean?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But when Jesus said, "Thou shalt not kill," he meant humans; he did not mean animals.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is your interpretation.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: But Jesus was a shepherd and there were many, many sheep. What did they do with all the sheep?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They eat?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: They must.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They must. That is your inference.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: What else...? In the middle of desert...? Babylon, Israel is all desert country. What will they do with sheep? They are not making wool coats.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why he has said, "Thou shalt not kill"? Then hypocrisy. Then you reject Jesus complete. He is a hypocrite. Yes. That is the conclusion. How can you follow hypocrite? Huh? Is that all right? If Jesus Christ himself killed animals and he said, "Thou shalt not kill," then he is a hypocrite. Then he cannot preach. He is a hypocrite. You are bringing Christ for condemnation. But how a hypocrite can be the head or can be the religious man or can be...</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: It is not that we are saying he is a hypocrite.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He is proving.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: He himself, the Christian is saying that Jesus Christ is a hypocrite.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: So why is he following?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: They still eat the sheep.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: The main thing they usually say is that kill means murder. That man at Bhaktivedanta Manor, that priest, he said the original Hebrew, the word means "murder." So this is an instruction to mankind not to murder, but it is not... But they have other places in the scripture where they point out that the animal is allowed for man to eat. So they just were showing us their scriptures.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is said, "It is murder."</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Yes, that "Thou shalt not murder." That it has been changed to "kill."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Originally it was murder?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: That is what that priest said to you in Bhaktivedanta Manor.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no, he may say. What was previously, we are not concerned. But you have left already this Jewish Old Testament. You have got New Testament. You are not Jewish. So why do you bring that Jewish for your defense? You have already rejected it.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But they say we accept both Old and New Testament. The Christians do not say we only have New Testament. They say we accept the old and the new.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why you have changed?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Because the Old Testament never mentions Christ, but the New Testament is all about Christ.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then it is rejected. If you have changed the tenets of Old Testament, that means you have rejected.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: No, not changed. In Old Testament the messiaḥ, he is predicted, but activities of the messiaḥ, they are not given.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The question is the Old Testament, you say that there was the word "murder." Why you have changed? You accept Old Testament or reject?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Accept the statement should be "murder."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But why it is "kill"?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Wrong translation.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Wrong translation.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They are fools, all set of fools. Useless. See one thing and write one thing. Then you are not perfect. Bhrama pramāda. You commit mistake. Therefore your instruction is useless, useless. Because you commit mistake, therefore your instruction is useless. And that actually they are doing. As it is suitable, they are changing the words of Bible. They are useless. Things which are changeable, that cannot be accepted as scripture. Scriptural injunction means you cannot change. Just like we accept the Vedic scripture but don't change it. That example I have given many times. Because Lord Buddha wanted to change Vedic literature, therefore he is rejected. Although Lord Buddha is so... We worship him as incarnation of..., but he was rejected. You cannot change. Immediately you are rejected.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>