Kill vs. Murder

[GreenMunchkin]

I can't remember where I saw it in the forum, but I saw someone say they're different things, and the Bible only prohibits one of them...

So I'd like to ask for your thoughts, please? What's the difference between the 2, and which one does the Bible allow?

Cos, I should say, I think there's no difference, and I don't think the Bible allows either (in fact, I think it prohibits both) and I really think saying it allows one or the other is all semantics and hermeneutics. But that's just my (meaningless) thoughts and this isn't meant to be a debate/angry thread. Am just confused as to what it is I read.

Thank you berry much for any answers

 

[LBJohnson]

My idea is that murder is an unjust killing. For example, if you killed someone who was trying to kill your child it wouldn't be unjust, wouldn't be murder. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong (and often am, lol.).

 

[porterross]

Hi, LBJ. Good to see you here.

I agree with your opinion. As bad as I would feel for taking a life (even of a criminal), keeping my child (or anyone else) from being murdered would, and should, be instinctive.

 

[MrJim]

I would say there is a difference~there's the commandment, yet not much further into the OT God is ordering war and annihilation of specific people. I don't know of any other case where any other commandment is ordered broken by God, so we have to approach it as though there is difference between murder and kill.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Thank you, everyone

The only problem is, in choosing to interpret "Thour shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder", are we not arbitrarily (mis?)interpreting scripture? (Hasten to add, am not saying we do... genuinely asking).

I find this whole thing very confusing indeed.

 

[porterross]

Yes, I have stated elsewhere that the death penalty tears me as do civilian casualties of war. It's not and shouldn't be an easy thing to reconcile, IMO.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Thank you, everyone

The only problem is, in choosing to interpret "Thour shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder", are we not arbitrarily (mis?)interpreting scripture? (Hasten to add, am not saying we do... genuinely asking).

I find this whole thing very confusing indeed.

it isn't interpreting, but rather translating.
The KJV says murder but many other translations use kill.
KJV also says God creates evil in Isaiah while other translations equate it with calamity or bad situations.

 

[Angel4Truth]

I can't remember where I saw it in the forum, but I saw someone say they're different things, and the Bible only prohibits one of them...

So I'd like to ask for your thoughts, please? What's the difference between the 2, and which one does the Bible allow?

Cos, I should say, I think there's no difference, and I don't think the Bible allows either (in fact, I think it prohibits both) and I really think saying it allows one or the other is all semantics and hermeneutics. But that's just my (meaningless) thoughts and this isn't meant to be a debate/angry thread. Am just confused as to what it is I read.

Thank you berry much for any answers

The literal translation from hebrew is "you must not murder".

The difference is this - self defense is not murder - war (battlefield) is not murder.

Murder is when there is malice of forethought (hate). Its a distinction of the heart condition.

Exodus 20 :13 literal :

13.
|3808| not
|7523| You must murder.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Yes, I have stated elsewhere that the death penalty tears me as do civilian casualties of war. It's not and shouldn't be an easy thing to reconcile, IMO.

Actually, that's a good point, sis. Whatever our feelings on war, under no circumstances do we say that soldiers *murder* people... had never thought about that before. So maybe there really is a difference

it isn't interpreting, but rather translating.
The KJV says murder but many other translations use kill.
KJV also says God creates evil in Isaiah while other translations equate it with calamity or bad situations.

Soph! Tis good to see you, bro

I suppose this is where it's beneficial to be able to read the original text, with its original context.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Actually, that's a good point, sis. Whatever our feelings on war, under no circumstances do we say that soldiers *murder* people... had never thought about that before. So maybe there really is a difference

Soph! Tis good to see you, bro

I suppose this is where it's beneficial to be able to read the original text, with its original context.

The original text of the NT if I remember was in greek and aramaic which I cannot read either. Best thing I can say is not to rely on one translation when in doubt consults a few of them and compare and there are other tools that can help. I have over the years seen most of the major arguements about the bible and seen many of them have come from preferring a translation that suited the wrong opinion.
Like what was said earlier God sees the heart as well as our actions. If we kill because our heart sees no other way it is different than killing because we can gain what we want. A lot of the killing in the OT was to allow the line of Mary and Joseph to bring forth our Savior. I believe if that had not happened those left alive would have annihilated God's people and we would not have Jesus as prophesized.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I can't remember where I saw it in the forum, but I saw someone say they're different things, and the Bible only prohibits one of them...

So I'd like to ask for your thoughts, please? What's the difference between the 2, and which one does the Bible allow?

Cos, I should say, I think there's no difference, and I don't think the Bible allows either (in fact, I think it prohibits both) and I really think saying it allows one or the other is all semantics and hermeneutics. But that's just my (meaningless) thoughts and this isn't meant to be a debate/angry thread. Am just confused as to what it is I read.

Thank you berry much for any answers

The crux of the issue biblically is the commandment thou shalt not 'kill'. That is the way most people quote it an know it.

It is better translated as "thou shalt not commit murder". (exodus 20:13)

this is somewhat clarified a few chapters later in Exodus 23 where it says (paraphrased) you shall not slay the righteous or the innocent.

about half the english translations render it as "kill" and about half render it "murder". Most scholars I've ever heard or seen, including Jewish ones say that it means specifically to murder.

The difference between murder and killing is authority. killing without the authority to do so is murder.
God has the authority to kill because he is the creator and owner of all life. God has delegated that authority under certain circumstances to man. Most notably in the bible it is very clear that God has delegated the authority to kill to governments, within certain limits.

God has also given people the right to defend themselves, that is delegated them the authority to use force to defend their person and property.

If you say that the bible prohibits all killing, it creates unsolvable contradictions because there are numerous instances in scripture where killing is not only condoned, but demanded by God.

This is one of the areas where many Christians on both sides have trouble with 'christian balance'. Christian balance is somewhat different than the way most people tend to think, and it is different from the eastern idea of balance.
Christian balance in this area is based on the recognition that God is both a God of war and a God of peace. Thus each has their place.

Jesus is the Prince of Peace, and the Mighty Warrior, and the Captain of the Host.

 

[Criada]

The hebrew word used is רצח - ratsach (rä·tsakh')

It is used in various ways in other places in the Bible, with meanings:
1) to murder, slay, kill
a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1) premeditated
2) accidental
3) as avenger
4) slayer

Interestingly, the word used in Numbers 35,in verses 11 and 12, 26 and 27, referring to accidental manslaughter, but also in verses 17,18,19,21 and 25 to refer to deliberate murder. The distinction is in nuance and translation, the Hebrew is the same.

Sorry.. that doesn't help a lot! But people are very quick to claim translation as a cause of all biblical ambiguities.. whereas most of the time, I think, it is just that our puny human brains aren't ever going to comprehend God, until we see Him face to face, and understand fully

 

[MrJim]

God has also given people the right to defend themselves, that is delegated them the authority to use force to defend their person and property.

You now produce the NT teachings that allow me to kill some guy for stealing my tv...

 

[Nadiine]

You now produce the NT teachings that allow me to kill some guy for stealing my tv...

it's real nice to know ahead of time what a burgler is GOING to do once in your home if you're in it.

Any burgler inside your home while you're there is an automatic threat to your life becuz you don't know WHAT weapons he may have or what he would intend to do if you find out he's there or walk in on him in the act.

What you're defining here is hind sight - while in the moment of a stranger in home, they ARE a direct threat to your life becuz of the element of surprise and the unknown that can transpire in the person's mind the minute they see you.

How many 7/11 robberies end up with the chashier handing the money over & they get shot in the face anyways?
The issue is the THREAT, not what the robbers plan to take in a perfect case scenario (ie. you not being home or them seeing you).

 

[Zecryphon]

it's real nice to know ahead of time what a burgler is GOING to do once in your home if you're in it.

Any burgler inside your home while you're there is an automatic threat to your life becuz you don't know WHAT weapons he may have or what he would intend to do if you find out he's there or walk in on him in the act.

What you're defining here is hind sight - while in the moment of a stranger in home, they ARE a direct threat to your life becuz of the element of surprise and the unknown that can transpire in the person's mind the minute they see you.

How many 7/11 robberies end up with the chashier handing the money over & they get shot in the face anyways?
The issue is the THREAT, not what the robbers plan to take in a perfect case scenario (ie. you not being home or them seeing you).

That's true and while God may have given us the authority to protect our property, the state of Arizona has not. I can not shoot a burglar who is walking out of my house with my tv. I can shoot a burglar who is in my house. So if I were to shoot a burglar who was making off with my personal property I would be the one going to jail.

 

[Nadiine]

That's true and while God may have given us the authority to protect our property, the state of Arizona has not. I can not shoot a burglar who is walking out of my house with my tv. I can shoot a burglar who is in my house. So if I were to shoot a burglar who was making off with my personal property I would be the one going to jail.

This is why you learn to rope & lassoo like the old TV cowboys....

if they manage to make it outside your door, you simply whip your trusty rope around them, yank them back inside & do the job correctly.

LOL




.

 

[Zecryphon]

This is why you learn to rope & lassoo like the old TV cowboys....

if they manage to make it outside your door, you simply whip your trusty rope around them, yank them back inside & do the job correctly.

LOL




.

Well maybe if I join Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse, I will learn such valuable skills. I mean it's not like you move to AZ and a rope and an instruction book on Lassos shows up on your doorstep. LOL But there's a part of me that would rather see the guy breaking into my house end up here:

Photo taken from:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-Graphics/SheriffArpaioPrisonersPinkShirts.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2007/12/14/arpaio-pink-the-new-must-have-color/&usg=__0bezgwol_MhT8uqdJGZaf_bmJ8k=&h=310&w=402&sz=83&hl=en&start=40&um=1&tbnid=yrWbkLHC-sIbJM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSheriff%2BJoe%2BArpaio%2527s%2BPosse%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-USfficial%26sa%3DN

And yes, they're wearing pink underwear to match.

 

[Nadiine]

Well maybe if I join Sheriff Joe Arpaio's posse, I will learn such valuable skills. I mean it's not like you move to AZ and a rope and an instruction book on Lassos shows up on your doorstep. LOL But there's a part of me that would rather see the guy breaking into my house end up here:

Photo taken from:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&sa=N

And yes, they're wearing pink underwear to match.

.

 

[Simon_Templar]

That's true and while God may have given us the authority to protect our property, the state of Arizona has not. I can not shoot a burglar who is walking out of my house with my tv. I can shoot a burglar who is in my house. So if I were to shoot a burglar who was making off with my personal property I would be the one going to jail.

this will serve as answer to Jim as well...

Nadiine's point was correct. There are two issues here, first is the use of force, second is the level of force to be used, or more specifically is lethal force justified.

First dealing with Lethal force. Lethal force is ONLY justified in the case of defending your life or the life of another. This is of course speaking of private citizens. With governments its another issue.

Thus Arizona is quite correct to make it illegal for you to shoot a guy who is leaving your house with your TV. The key there is that he is leaving. If a burglar is LEAVING then he is no longer a reasonable threat to your life/person. Thus you are not justified in using lethal force.

This is the issue where home owners have commonly gotten in trouble when defending their property against a burglar. They shoot a guy who is either leaving, or has already left their house. At that point he is no longer a threat and they do not have the right to use lethal force. Thus the burglar, if he survives, sues them and wins.

You do have a right to use force to protect your property, but only proportional to that which is being used upon you. Thus if a person is stealing your TV, you have a right to tackle him and subdue him, and at least in my state you have the right to put him under citizens arrest because he is actively committing a felony.

The law usually recognizes a scale of force and catagorizes certain actions at various levels. For example, some one hitting you in the chest or stomach is not considered lethal force.. but someone hitting you in the head MIGHT be. IF someone is using a weapon such as a knife, crowbar, or baseball bat.. that is lethal force. Guns obviously are as well.

Also you don't have a right to kill someone just for being in your home, even if they aren't leaving. If you come upon a burglar, you can't use lethal force until he shows signs or attempts to use force on you. Thus if you come out with a gun and the guy freezes, you can't shoot him. This is one of the reasons that deadly booby traps are illegal. You can't use lethal force just because someone is intruding on your property.

Those are all 'legal' standards, but they are based on historical precedents and legal theory, which in turn is based primarily off the biblical standard.