thou shalt not kill

[HopeBforJC]

"thou shalt not kill" --the Bible.

Ever read it? I haven't. Now murder...sure. "thou shalt not murder" is a definite on it being in the Bible.

So what's the difference?

If God told us "thou shalt not kill" then he would be quite the hypocrite, don't you think? He himself told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. So there is obviously a difference. But what is the difference? When does killing turn into murder? When is killing justified?

 

[HannahBanana]

I think that killing is only justified when it's done in self-defense or in order to sustain oneself (i.e., the Donner Party). All other deaths of already-born humans equate to murder, in my opinion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

"thou shalt not kill" --the Bible.

Ever read it? I haven't. Now murder...sure. "thou shalt not murder" is a definite on it being in the Bible.

So what's the difference?

If God told us "thou shalt not kill" then he would be quite the hypocrite, don't you think? He himself told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. So there is obviously a difference. But what is the difference? When does killing turn into murder? When is killing justified?

Hmmm...

[bible]Exodus 20:13[/bible]

 

[DLaurier]

I like a good steak sandwich, But some cow had to die for me to eat that sandwich.
Ergo, sombody had to kill her.

Some people want to fill their tank with cheap petrol.
But some poor village had to be massacred to insure that petrol was cheap.

Where do we draw the boundary beween acceptable killing, and unacceptable killing?

Its a tricky question.

 

[flicka]

Does it depend on the version of Bible you use? I've seen it written both ways.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Does it depend on the version of Bible you use? I've seen it written both ways.

It does depend on the translation. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" is KJV. "Thou shalt not murder" is NIV.

Take your pick.

 

[HopeBforJC]

Well I don't read KJV maybe that's why? I dont know. But then thats a huge contradictory statement. *goes to see for herself*

 

[Lynden1000]

I have a hard time believing that an all-knowing God would have inspired the phrase "thou shalt not murder," knowing that "murder" is a legal term indicating a killing that society has deemed unjustified and illegal. In antebellum days, killing one's slave would not have been murder, because it was not illegal. In some cultures, killing one's child if it's born female is not murder, because it's not illegal. And of course abortion is not murder, because it's not illegal. I suspect, however, that most Christians feel that those acts *are* violations of the sixth commandment.

It would help if the bible specified what is and is not a violation of the sixth commandment.

 

[momalle1]

Kill, or murder, is translated from the Hebrew word ratsah, fortunatley for me, I have several friends from Israel who's primary language is Hebrew, so i was able to ask them what it meant. Some said kill, some said murder, most said it depended on the context. The word ratsah does not have a direct English translation. Obviously, the rest of the Bible has no problem with killing.

 

[tocis]

"thou shalt not kill" --the Bible.

Ever read it? I haven't.

The bible clearly says "kill", not "murder".

Want proof? Here's the verse in my bible:

"Du sollst nicht töten."

Of course that's the German Luther bible... which kind of leads to the question whether there really is "the" bible.

("töten" = "kill"... the quoted verse, if refering to murder, would read "Du sollst nicht morden.")

 

[gengwall]

Ratsach occurs 46 times in the OT, more than half of them in the Pentatuch.

It occurs the one time in the ten Commandments in Exodus.

In Numbers, it is used exclusively in chapter 35 in the laws dealing with cities of refuge for any "manslayer". They deal with both accidental killing and with unjust homocide (i.e. murder). It is probably from these verses, infact, where we get the concepts of murder and manslaughter (man slaying) in the common law. A key to this section of the law is that both murder and unintentional manslaughter are punishable offenses which require trial. Another key is that either case involves people in societal relations. It does not address killing in war or killing directed by God.

The 6 occurances in Deuteronomy deal with the same issues as Leviticus (and also include a repeat of the commandment).

The 8 occurances in Joshua also deal with the same issues. In this book, the actual cities of refuge for manslayers are named.

Single uses in Judges, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, and Job all clearly reference murder (as opposed to unintentional or "justifiable" homocide). Likewise in two uses in Psalms.

Proverbs 22:13 is a verse I can't make heads nor tails of: "The sluggard says, 'There is a lion outside; I will be killed in the streets!'"

Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea speak symbolically and prophetically of murderous (not unintentional) actions.

Now, the importance of all of this is that the word used in the commandment is not the word used by God when giving orders to kill. That word is Harag, and it is found much more commonly in the OT. Unfortunately, that word is also translated murder, although only in a few instances. But surely intentional homocide (i.e. murder) in a societal context is included in it's uses (the most famous being Cain killing Abel - an obvious murder).

OK - so not much can be made of this other than the fact that the word in the commandment is never used by God in any of His commands.

 

[jayem]

Seems to be another case of Biblical ambiguity.

Not to derail the thread, but I do wonder why the Bible should be in any way vague. If it really is the inspired word of God, why would He allow it to be subject to so many conflicting interpretations, and varying translations? In fact, if it really is a supernatural document, why would we need translations at all? Why wouldn't God make His scripture immediately clear and unambiguous to anyone reading it, no matter what their native language? Then no one could doubt the Bible's authority. I know this sounds fatuous, but I think it's a reasonable question that I'd like to see addressed by those claiming Biblical inerrancy and divine origin.

 

[Lynden1000]

(the most famous being Cain killing Abel - an obvious murder).

Just as a nitpick, I'm not sure the killing of Abel would be murder. Certainly you might consider it immoral, but it wasn't "murder" because it wasn't illegal. As far as I can tell from the bible, no laws had yet been established, by either divine command or secular authorities. The only command we're told about is the command to refrain from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

 

[gengwall]

Just as a nitpick, I'm not sure the killing of Abel would be murder. Certainly you might consider it immoral, but it wasn't "murder" because it wasn't illegal. As far as I can tell from the bible, no laws had yet been established, by either divine command or secular authorities. The only command we're told about is the command to refrain from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

A good point, although I agree a bit nitpicky . Let me rephrase - "(an obvious murder if viewed in light of the common law tradition and other laws throughout history)"

The Leviticus chapter I referenced really defines murder as any intentional homocide. I think we can probably project backward that such a concept was not just created at that point by God, but had been God's view all along, even though not yet codified in the revealed law.

 

[DLaurier]

Cain had Jehova put a special mark on him to stop people from killing him in reprisal for his little fratracide.
This would suggest that there was already a custom or tradition of actively punishing people for killing other people.
Cain was going into the land of Nod, Where he eventualy married a woman from a strange tribe or nation.
Obviously there was some sort of custom or tradition against unjustifiable killing already in place in Nod.

 

[RealityCheck]

Well, the Oxford annotated Bible that I have notes that this commandment, "Thou shalt not kill/murder", was a commandment for Hebrews to not kill other Hebrews - that is, no killing your tribesmen and kin. It was not a broad moral imperative against killing people outside of the Hebrew tribes. (Not counting, of course, all the different offenses warranting the death penalty - but, it should be noted, all of those punishments were to 'purify' or 'cleanse' the tribe of evil - so in effect, the people that committed the crime were no longer considered part of the tribe because of what they had done.)

 

[gengwall]

Well, the Oxford annotated Bible that I have notes that this commandment, "Thou shalt not kill/murder", was a commandment for Hebrews to not kill other Hebrews - that is, no killing your tribesmen and kin. It was not a broad moral imperative against killing people outside of the Hebrew tribes. (Not counting, of course, all the different offenses warranting the death penalty - but, it should be noted, all of those punishments were to 'purify' or 'cleanse' the tribe of evil - so in effect, the people that committed the crime were no longer considered part of the tribe because of what they had done.)

Interesting. It is true that the law was delivered onto the Hebrews by Moses although in Leviticus, many of the extensions of the law were applied to foreigners as well as Israel including the provisions for providing a town of refuge for "manslayers" (unintentional killers)

 

[RealityCheck]

Interesting. It is true that the law was delivered onto the Hebrews by Moses although in Leviticus, many of the extensions of the law were applied to foreigners as well as Israel including the provisions for providing a town of refuge for "manslayers" (unintentional killers)

Right - and you'll note that all of those extensions dealt with how the Hebrews were to deal with allies (or, people not hated by God) and enemies (people God is listed as hating).

This is also related to the commandment given in Leviticus 19:18 - " 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. " Here, a 'neighbor' is 'one of your people' - not just anyone at all. It would also mean a foreigner that God had commanded be treated "as a neighbor." Note, however, that this specifically is changed by Jesus in the New Testament:

43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Also, there is the account of a man who asks Jesus about the greatest commandment, and when given this command to "love thy neighbor" the man asks "who is my neighbor?" This gives Jesus the opportunity to tell the "Good Samaritan" tale, in which a Samaritan, an enemy of "real Jews", stops to help a Jewish man in need. This is meant to expand the definition of neighbor to mean "anyone", including enemies.

 

[quatona]

"thou shalt not kill" --the Bible.

Ever read it? I haven't. Now murder...sure. "thou shalt not murder" is a definite on it being in the Bible.

So what's the difference?

If God told us "thou shalt not kill" then he would be quite the hypocrite, don't you think? He himself told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. So there is obviously a difference. But what is the difference? When does killing turn into murder? When is killing justified?

Since "murder" is defined as "unlawful or immoral killing", the commandment "though shalt not murder" would be merely affirming this definition (I mean, of course thou shalt not do what is unlawful or immoral ) without giving any concrete advice - except, maybe, the command to obey the respective rules of the society you happen to live in. In which case this rule would practically give different commands to different people.

 

[Emmy]

Dear HopeBforJC, God gave the Commandments for our own good, God`s Holy Law is, everything has consequences, do good and earn good, do bad and earn bad. The O.T. is a History of the Israelites and their Prophets. God was establishing His Kingdom, His Law for His People, and the Israelites were surrounded by Heathen peoples, and their cruel gods. In time Jesus came, He showed us how God really is, a loving Father, waiting for His children to return to Him. God`s Law is, do not kill, it has consequences, and the Law of the Land, will judge and give it`s verdict, which has to be obeyed. I say this humbly and kindly, HopeBforJC, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.