Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Thou Shall not Kill Or Murder
- Thread starter Lewis
- Start date
The cultural context is not in the Bible. So how can you say I'm ignoring it?
Razeontherock
Member
Exactly. You're demonstrating ignoring it completely.
It's not in the Bible. How can I ignore it?
Razeontherock
Member
First, who was that part of the Bible written to, and when? You haven't even been trying to take that into consideration.
Second, everyone in this thread has been telling you about it beginning with the OP, and all you've done is ignore all of us.
That's pretty thorough
Truly the Bible was written for those who can read. That's what I believe.
I believe the OT Scriptures were written by the prophets who were sent to a disobedient people. I believe, "The word of the Lord will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little; that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken." Isaiah 28:13
I believe, "the deaf shall hear the words of a book, and out of their gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind shall see. Isa. 29:18
Does that answer your question?
What is your understanding re. Lot? I'm afraid to ask. Lot offered up his daughters. Was that a cultural thing? Is that what they did back then?
You're saying the word has been mistranslated. I get it. So its come down to the meaning of Greek/Hebrew words again.
Last edited:
Deuteronomy 32:39
“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
Is God a murderer? No. So the word 'kill' doesn't always mean 'murder'.
If you truly believe you are justified in killing, I get it. But now you are liable to judgement. Mt. 5:21
“‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
Is God a murderer? No. So the word 'kill' doesn't always mean 'murder'.
If you truly believe you are justified in killing, I get it. But now you are liable to judgement. Mt. 5:21
Last edited:
Using his argument
It is a sin to follow a command to kill a man who by three witnesses killed another ,lied or any such sin with a death
The church of galatians, Ephesus, etc are still getting letters?
There's an audience in all these books.some of it is universal.Genesis is to all but well the Hebrews ,heard it first.
Circumcision was a command in Genesis, there's no command for that to be taught or any command to share those accounts from Abraham,to jacob.they did it because they loved God.commands given in Exodus.
A culture example there.
Razeontherock
Member
Ignorance isn't a problem until it becomes willful
Matthew 5:21
“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ RSV
Is he saying, "You shall not murder" or "you shall not kill"? I would say, 'you shall not kill' because he says, "whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." So if a homicide occurs, a judge will have to decide whether it is murder or self defence or accidental or what kind of homicide it is. They are all homicides. Deut. 17:8
Deut. 17:8 says if you can't decide between one kind of homicide and another (they are all homicides) then you have to take your case to court.
Then Jesus speaks of another kind of assault; spiritual assault, ie. doing harm/violence to your brother's spirit; whoever is angry with his brother, whoever insults his brother, whoever says,"You fool" shall be liable to the hell of fire.
“You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ RSV
Is he saying, "You shall not murder" or "you shall not kill"? I would say, 'you shall not kill' because he says, "whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." So if a homicide occurs, a judge will have to decide whether it is murder or self defence or accidental or what kind of homicide it is. They are all homicides. Deut. 17:8
Deut. 17:8 says if you can't decide between one kind of homicide and another (they are all homicides) then you have to take your case to court.
Then Jesus speaks of another kind of assault; spiritual assault, ie. doing harm/violence to your brother's spirit; whoever is angry with his brother, whoever insults his brother, whoever says,"You fool" shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Last edited:
I hate to get into sementiics.but your argument is like this.
Thou shalt slay the witch in your camp, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.because the words kill werent used it's not a sin but the word slay is a synonymous word to kill.
I slew the cow for food ,I killed the cow for food.
Therefore if the simple words of I caused the cessation of a heartbeat of a man who tried to harm me with death or serious injury it's not a sin.
You can't argue God commands his priests ,the congregation to sin if kill in all contexts is sin.
Slew ,slay are also able to be used in that same manner .
Thou shalt slay the witch in your camp, thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.because the words kill werent used it's not a sin but the word slay is a synonymous word to kill.
I slew the cow for food ,I killed the cow for food.
Therefore if the simple words of I caused the cessation of a heartbeat of a man who tried to harm me with death or serious injury it's not a sin.
You can't argue God commands his priests ,the congregation to sin if kill in all contexts is sin.
Slew ,slay are also able to be used in that same manner .
You had wrote the following
What I'm getting at is that whether one believes or not, when encountering and angel of God, assaulting the angel would be the farthest thing from their mind.
Who are you to say what is appropriate? You have been giving us your opinion throughout this thread. I was hoping you had the answer for the question I posed.
re. the translations. Some translations say thou shalt not kill and some say thou shalt not murder. Take Mt. 5:21 for example. The RSV says whoever kills shall be liable to judgment. The NRSV says whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.
But anyway you look at it, the person who kills or the person who murders, they shall be liable to judgment. Whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. Whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.
Looks like the only way to avoid judgment is to not kill. But it's not just don't kill or don't murder. You can be brought up on charges of name calling, insulting your brother, getting angry. So what is a person to do? Jesus tells us “Judge not, that you be not judged. Mt. 7:1 So if you don't want to go before the court, don't judge.
But under pressure we don't always do what we want to do. I'd say avoid violence. But if you sin, repent. Ask God for forgiveness and don't do it again.
But anyway you look at it, the person who kills or the person who murders, they shall be liable to judgment. Whoever murders shall be liable to judgment. Whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.
Looks like the only way to avoid judgment is to not kill. But it's not just don't kill or don't murder. You can be brought up on charges of name calling, insulting your brother, getting angry. So what is a person to do? Jesus tells us “Judge not, that you be not judged. Mt. 7:1 So if you don't want to go before the court, don't judge.
But under pressure we don't always do what we want to do. I'd say avoid violence. But if you sin, repent. Ask God for forgiveness and don't do it again.
From their mind? The depraved mind? Maybe assaulting an angel of God would be first thing on their mind. Why would they care if they did not believe?
I don't think they were out to assault an angel of God if that's what you mean. But it's possible. Maybe they heard they were angels and that's why they went out to know them.
Last edited:
Knowing them, in the context presented, was assaulting them. Other translations render it "have sex with them." If a man would force himself upon me, that is assault in any definition of mine.
Last edited:
Razeontherock
Member
That's not what it says. Words mean things. There is a time for a 'surface reading,' just getting the Word in us where the Holy Spirit can use it. That doesn't tell us so much about what any of it means, nor is that the objective for that time.
Then there's also a time for study, which is where resources come into play. Different Bible versions, concordance, lexicon ...
There's no way you can pay attention to any of this and fail to make the distinction that RSV is weak on this point. And EVERY version of the Bible has weaknesses, as well as strengths. It's just not possible to translate in print, from languages and cultures so far removed, without some pretty major omissions. It takes discussion, preaching, revelation, etc. It's a growth process
Razeontherock
Member
Lot was following a custom. The story is a type of literature known as "moral dilemma;" there is NO right answer. Lot couldn't have done anything good, the situation was just that bad. This forces the reader to think, and God is very big on that.
The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are not limited to homosexuality which this story highlights, but also include violating hospitality as this story demonstrates.
We can also see a parallel to Cain and Abel:
Abraham offered a sacrifice per God's command, and was spared. God never actually wanted Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham proved he was WILLING to, but his faith was that even if he went through with it, God would raise Isaac from the dead. Abraham KNEW God so well that it was preposterous for him to think he would actually offer his Son on the altar and that would be the end of it. So Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness. He also saw the ram caught in the thicket as God's provision.
Abel likewise offered unto God per God's command.
Lot acted according to his interpretation of custom, not according to God's command. Lot proved he was WILLING to sacrifice his daughters, but they were spared, just as Isaac was spared. Lot's act of faith was not accounted to him for righteousness, just like Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted.
Lot is described as "just," not as righteous. Rev 22:11 gives us some insight into these distinctions; there is a distinction between Abraham and Lot. We can see that in many places
The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are not limited to homosexuality which this story highlights, but also include violating hospitality as this story demonstrates.
We can also see a parallel to Cain and Abel:
Abraham offered a sacrifice per God's command, and was spared. God never actually wanted Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham proved he was WILLING to, but his faith was that even if he went through with it, God would raise Isaac from the dead. Abraham KNEW God so well that it was preposterous for him to think he would actually offer his Son on the altar and that would be the end of it. So Abraham's faith was accounted to him for righteousness. He also saw the ram caught in the thicket as God's provision.
Abel likewise offered unto God per God's command.
Lot acted according to his interpretation of custom, not according to God's command. Lot proved he was WILLING to sacrifice his daughters, but they were spared, just as Isaac was spared. Lot's act of faith was not accounted to him for righteousness, just like Cain's sacrifice wasn't accepted.
Lot is described as "just," not as righteous. Rev 22:11 gives us some insight into these distinctions; there is a distinction between Abraham and Lot. We can see that in many places
Peter says he was righteous In his epistles irc
ezra
Member
i have a hard time understanding this just Lot i believe the Bible at some point and time he had to change