Thou Shall not Kill Or Murder

[MarkT]

Actually, it says "Thou shalt not murder."
לֹא תִּרְצָֽח׃ ס
(ratsach)
רָצַח râtsach, raw-tsakh'; a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay(-er), murder(-er).

Murder vs. manslaughter is very clearly defined by Moses (Num 35) in the same law which recorded "Thou shall not murder."
So, obviously, it was defined at that time.

Even by your own definition it's 'kill'. Saying 'especially to murder' doesn't affect or change or negate the first part which says, 'kill (a human being). Basic English comprehension. ie. I love all animals, especially cats, doesn't change the fact I love all animals.

 

[MarkT]

Further, both are "killing," but only one is "murder."

To say that the prohibition is "killing" would mean we couldn't eat animals!

Taken a step further, we "kill" a tree to make a house, and we "kill" plant life to eat vegetables. This is Jainism, which explains why no one here has ever met anyone practicing that religion (you can't survive very long that way)

That's just plain absurd if that's what you think.

 

[Jim Parker]

Even by your own definition it's 'kill'. Saying 'especially to murder' doesn't affect or change or negate the first part which says, 'kill (a human being). Basic English comprehension. ie. I love all animals, especially cats, doesn't change the fact I love all animals.

 

[Randy]

Christians that believe they cant Fight Back are Deceived!

The commandment that says thou shall not kill is translated wrong it is really thou shall not murder.
But here is a very interesting article on the subject of self defense and if you have to kill someone. Not that you would want to, but to protect your wife and children, you might have to.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1026247/pg1

Self defence was allowed in some circumstances.
"If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, "the defender" is not guilty of bloodshed;
but if it happens after sunrise, the defender"is guilty of bloodshed."

To me if a defender pulls a gun and the attacker turns and flees but is shot in the back and dies that is murder.
But if the attacker still charges the defender and is shot and killed that is self defense.

 

[Razeontherock]

Self defence was allowed in some circumstances.
"If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, "the defender" is not guilty of bloodshed;
but if it happens after sunrise, the defender"is guilty of bloodshed."

To me if a defender pulls a gun and the attacker turns and flees but is shot in the back and dies that is murder.
But if the attacker still charges the defender and is shot and killed that is self defense.

The law tends to agree with you, in many jurisdictions. Then again "the law" (meaning LEO as well as Judges) also says if you get in such a scuffle you're best off just offing the guy, then rearranging the evidence after the fact to make things look better. But a shot in the back will likely get you convicted. And a shot at all will almost certainly get you arrested, and your
weapon(s) confiscated indefinitely.
A good lawyer will get you out, til trial. If you're exonerated, you should get your piece back.

 

[Randy]

The law tends to agree with you, in many jurisdictions. Then again "the law" (meaning LEO as well as Judges) also says if you get in such a scuffle you're best off just offing the guy, then rearranging the evidence after the fact to make things look better. But a shot in the back will likely get you convicted. And a shot at all will almost certainly get you arrested, and your
weapon(s) confiscated indefinitely.
A good lawyer will get you out, til trial. If you're exonerated, you should get your piece back.

But nothing is hidden from Jesus.

 

[Razeontherock]

But nothing is hidden from Jesus.

Absolutely! A Just God and a Savior. Is anything too hard for Him?

 

[atpollard]

Self defence was allowed in some circumstances.
"If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, "the defender" is not guilty of bloodshed;
but if it happens after sunrise, the defender"is guilty of bloodshed."

To me if a defender pulls a gun and the attacker turns and flees but is shot in the back and dies that is murder.
But if the attacker still charges the defender and is shot and killed that is self defense.

Since it may not have been clear to everyone, Randy was not stating his opinion, he was stating God’s Law:

[Exodus 22:2-3 NIV] 2 "If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. "Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.

The commandment cannot be “You shall not kill” when the Law offers an example where killing is not guilty of murder. So the commandment must be “You shall not murder.” (which fits better with the literal ‘dash to pieces’ meaning of the word).

 

[Razeontherock]

True, but it goes further than this; the OT gives us many examples of when killing does not break the law. (Not that it was ever taken lightly)

 

[MarkT]

Since it may not have been clear to everyone, Randy was not stating his opinion, he was stating God’s Law:

[Exodus 22:2-3 NIV] 2 "If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. "Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.

The commandment cannot be “You shall not kill” when the Law offers an example where killing is not guilty of murder. So the commandment must be “You shall not murder.” (which fits better with the literal ‘dash to pieces’ meaning of the word).

It doesn't follow that the commandment must be 'You shall not murder.'

The crime is shedding blood. So 'You shall not kill' is correct.

Note if it happens after sunrise the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

 

[atpollard]

It doesn't follow that the commandment must be 'You shall not murder.'
The crime is shedding blood. So 'You shall not kill' is correct.
Note if it happens after sunrise the defender is guilty of bloodshed.

Before or after sunrise, the thief is equally “killed”, so before or after sunrise the defender has violated a commandment “You shall not kill”. In contrast, it is clear that before sunrise, the defender has still killed, but he is not GUILTY of “bloodshed”, and after sunrise the defender has killed and IS GUILTY of “bloodshed”.

In common parlance, to kill and be guilty of a crime is called MURDER, while to kill and not be guilty of a crime is called SELF-DEFENCE. So the simplest way for the Commandment and the Law to not be contradictory is for the Commandment to be a prohibition on murder.

 

[MarkT]

Before or after sunrise, the thief is equally “killed”, so before or after sunrise the defender has violated a commandment “You shall not kill”. In contrast, it is clear that before sunrise, the defender has still killed, but he is not GUILTY of “bloodshed”, and after sunrise the defender has killed and IS GUILTY of “bloodshed”.

In common parlance, to kill and be guilty of a crime is called MURDER, while to kill and not be guilty of a crime is called SELF-DEFENCE. So the simplest way for the Commandment and the Law to not be contradictory is for the Commandment to be a prohibition on murder.

So you agree the commandment is 'You shall not kill'. Then you say the commandment is a prohibition on murder.

So if the defender is guilty, what is he guilty of? Clearly it's not murder. Guilty means he has broken the law. It only makes sense if the law says 'You shall not kill'.

Jesus said, 'whoever kills shall be liable to judgment'. The definition of liable is responsible by law. Legally answerable. So this is why the manslayer has to hide out even though he didn't murder anyone. It's because the law says, You shall not kill.

 

[atpollard]

Sorry Mark, you win.
I just don’t think that I can bring myself to explain it a third time.

 

[Jim Parker]

About time to bury this thing?