PDA

View Full Version : Thou shalt not kill...?



AmericanWarrior
02-05-2005, 02:40 PM
I believe there's a deference between killing and murdering.. You know on the battle field its Kill or be killed. But it does say thou shalt not kill not "Thou shalt not kill,unless they are your enemies in battle"

help me out. What do you guys think? :confused: :confused:

GeorgeG
02-05-2005, 03:17 PM
It's a translation issue. In the time of King James 'killing' meant murder, as opposed to justified killing. The translation that became the King James Bible has been handed down since without adjusting for the change in usage of the word 'kill'.

michael
02-05-2005, 06:59 PM
George is right. The actual translation was "murder", not "kill". The original Greek and Hebrew texts use murder, not kill.

bratch
02-05-2005, 07:45 PM
Its all about translations. I've heard a more direct translation is "Thou shall not kill in anger".

marshall
02-06-2005, 05:28 AM
Exodus 20:13 in the NIV (probably the most used translation now):

"You shall not murder."

It reads exactly the same in the New American Standard Version, considered to be one of the more accurate translations.

Exodus 22:2 indicates that if you kill a thief breaking into your home at night you will not be considered guilty of murder (blood-guiltiness).

Killing in self-defense, or killing to defend the lives of innocents, is considered OK by the Bible. :)

yoni
02-06-2005, 07:39 AM
In Hebrew it is murder and not kill. One of the nice things about using the original language and text you don't have to worry what someone may have changed.

In fact we are commanded that if we know someone is coming to kill us we are duty bound to ambush them and to kill them.

Yoni

michael
02-06-2005, 10:26 AM
In Hebrew it is murder and not kill. One of the nice things about using the original language and text you don't have to worry what someone may have changed.

In fact we are commanded that if we know someone is coming to kill us we are duty bound to ambush them and to kill them.

Yoni
Exactly. Having access to the original text is all important when it comes down to the meaning of one specific word. All versions of the Bible in English are translations, and none of them are 100% correct to the original. For the most part, many of the translations are accurate enough that the general idea of what is said is not changed, but occaisonally, like in this instance, it makes all the differece. I have almost every version there is, King James, New King James, New American Standard, Contemporary English, NIV, and my favorite, New Living. None are perfectly translated because sometimes, there is no way to translate exactly what is written and some of the meaning may be lost in the translation.

Dale Fricke
02-06-2005, 08:29 PM
Hi Brothers::D
What God said:
1Sa 15:3 Now go and strike Amalek, and completely destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
1Sa 15:8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive. And he completely destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
1Sa 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not completely destroy them. But everything that was vile and feeble they completely destroyed.
1Sa 15:11 It repents Me that I have set up Saul to be king. For he has turned back from following Me and has not done My commands. And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to Jehovah all night.
1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idol-worship. Because you have rejected the Word of Jehovah, He has also rejected you from being king!
1Sa 15:33 And Samuel said, As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women. And Samuel cut Agag in pieces before Jehovah in Gilgal.
1st murder
Gen 4:8 And Cain talked with his brother Abel. And it happened when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.
Gen 4:9 And Jehovah said unto Cain, Where is your brother Abel? And he said, I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?
Gen 4:10 And He said, What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries to Me from the ground.
Gen 4:11 And now you are cursed more than the ground which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

God was grieved that Saul didnít kill and that Cain did!
Hope it helps :D

michael
02-07-2005, 07:39 AM
Excellent Dale. Thanks!:)

ISRAELI EXTREMIST
02-07-2005, 03:28 PM
When it comes to the Ten commandments it is the original version that matters and counts not any translations or interpretations.
It clearly says LO TIRTSAH which means thou shall not MURDER, if it wanted to say Thou shall not Kill then it would have said LO TAHAROG, if it would have said in general terms thou shall not kill it would have prevented any body from killing any body or any thing even for self defense.
In different times to stop barbarism, murder and genocide the churches translated it as thou shall not kill to instill the fear of G_D in the population and the fear of punishment.
We all know how much that helped, almost nothing, people still continued to kill each other with joyful abandon and they still do.

NedMan
02-07-2005, 06:44 PM
This is a timely question, indeed. Rabbi Reuven Mermelstein (your friend and mine) addressed this in the past and just yesterday for a reader. Go to the 3rd paragraph: http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0362.htm

an excerpt:

"The biblical source for the obligation to defend oneself against an unprovoked attack is Exodus 22:1. Other English bible versions, the King James Version for example, number this verse as 22:2, but I only use the original Hebrew for my reference use. There the bible states, "If a thief is found breaking in, and is killed, no bloodguilt is incurred."

In a nutshell, the bible does not instruct how the intruder is to be killed, only that the homeowner may kill him if need be. The reasoning is that the thief, knowing that the home is occupied, is prepared to murder the homeowner if necessary to burglarize the home. A piece of firewood, a brick, a fire poke, or a kitchen knife was available. Firearms had, quite obviously, not been invented 3,500 years ago."

and another

"...Killing and murder are dissimilar as night and day. Hebrew uses two distinct words to differentiate between the two. Self defense may require the killing of a human being. Law enforcement officers and combat soldiers are routinely armed, yet nobody calls the cops or our military servicemen murderers, except Jane Fonda and John Kerry in the case of our military servicemen. I couldn't give a fig for the argument that firearms are used as recreational equipment. Firearms were developed for one purpose only, regardless of the more enjoyable uses to which men have learned to put them over the years. And that is precisely why the firearm is most eminently suited to fulfill the biblical commandment to kill the intruder and save one's own life and/or the lives of his or her family. Have you ever heard the expression used to sum up the seafood-level intelligence of certain people, "He is such a low-watt bulb that he would bring a knife to a gunfight"? That is exactly what I am saying here. To use an old bromide, G-d created men and Samuel Colt made them all equal. "