A Murder vs Kill incident. Pt 2

Altering the Bible raises red flags and my blood pressure.

If you haven’t read part 1, click here. I'm picking up where I left off, I was told at least a bit of summary would come in handy for readers, so here’s my whirl at that.

In part 1, I went through the dastardly incident that led up to these two articles, broke down and examined “justifications” used for believing self-defense is never allowed, explored Peter’s actions, the Cities of Refuge God, and some other stuff.

Part 2: You can’t “cherry pick” your way through the Bible.

His second justification-

“Thou shall not kill.”

This is where his belief went off script. I could understand his first argument to some degree if you look at it just on the surface, but this one I can’t. He allowed no room for this discussion, no allowance for anyone to even explain that it is in fact Thou Shall Not Murder.

Deliberate and intentional changing or going along with a previous mistranslation of the Bible that has been openly fixed and proven correct just to suit personal feelings or cowardness is the hallmark making of creating a disaster film.

Murder vs Kill breakdown — It’s all in the language.

Before we start, two things. First, think about this quote by Andrew Holt.

“All murder involves killing, but not all killings are considered murders”

And I recommend you read this article by Rabbi Yerachmiel D. Fried.I wanted to provide information from a Jewish perspective on this matter. While I do not necessarily agree with everything in this article by Rabbi Fried, it discusses both words from a Jewish perspective and linguistic source. I believe it is a valuable resource because we are predominantly English speakers who have been translating the Bible into our language. Our words, concepts, culture and thinking are not necessarily everyone else’s and vis versa.

Texas Jewish Post; Torah makes distinction between murder, killing.

While it is true that the word “kill” is used in many translations, newer translations have done a significantly better job thankfully of using ratsach and hāraḡ correctly.

— The Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13 is trə-ṣāḥ (תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃), the transliteration is ratsach, which means: “To murder, to slay, to kill.” It is not the Hebrew word hāraḡ which means “To kill, slay, destroy.”

It is also not any of the other Hebrew words used in reference to death, dying, slaughter, destroy, butcher etc., it is the the word תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃.

• 
  

• תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃ | trə·ṣāḥ | Ratsac

— “The Hebrew verb “ratsach” primarily refers to the act of murder or unlawful killing. It is used in the context of intentional, premeditated killing, as well as manslaughter. The term is often associated with the violation of the sanctity of life, which is a fundamental principle in biblical law.” (biblehub.com)

הָרַ֖גְתָּ | hā-raḡ-tā | Harag

— “The Hebrew verb “harag” primarily means to kill or slay. It is used in the context of taking life, whether in warfare, murder, or execution. The term can imply both intentional and unintentional acts of killing. It is often used in the Old Testament to describe acts of violence, judgment, or divine retribution.” (Biblehub.com)

Ultimately even if you choose to strictly use language as your only argument, it comes down to the fact you would need to remove everything else in the Bible regarding defense and self-defense and then you would have no choice but to remove God as well considering everything He did, commanded and said. You can’t have it both ways

My Personal Reflections.

We have learned more about the Hebrew language since people first started translating the Bible. We have become more accurate over the years as we have learned more about its unique nuances, structure and contextual uses.

The words Ratsach and Harag each have a difference that sets these two words apart from each other. I recommend reading this article for an even further in-depth explanation of the Hebrew language and the use of kill and murder, it is very informative!

"The whole killing vs. murder ‘contradiction’…"

Before anyone wants to go off and use improper translations, mistranslations, and how certain groups translated things, as a weapon against the Bible or an excuse not to believe in the Bible’s authority.

Keep in mind that if someone hadn’t taken the Bible from the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages and put it into Latin, then English, we’d be further backwards than forwards in our Christianity right now.

Believe me, I have plenty of qualms about some of the word choices that were used over the years that led to misinterpretations, but those are for different days.

Here’s the thing: We know more about languages than ever before!

There is no excuse to not look and study further now, especially from someone who stands behind a pulpit. His personal feelings are irrelevant; only God’s word is relevant. If you are going to believe something and forcibly shut people down, make sure you know what you are talking about.

Be open to learning, study the whole Bible, don’t cherry pick it. Learn the language, study the culture it came from, present the facts as they are and present the possible multiple interpretations as well if need be.

But do not shut down your own congregation’s questions because you want to be the only one who knows “everything,” and you can not accept challenges.

Don’t think that because you stand behind a pulpit, it protects you somehow or gives you the authority to change the Bible.

Openly admitting you would not protect your own family and using the Bible as your “proof” is simply cowardice and a disgrace.

© Jane Isley

If you enjoy my work and it has inspired a reevaluation of Scripture, touched your heart, or brought hope and a closer relationship with God, please consider supporting my work.

I am what I would call a self-supporting writer; your support would be greatly appreciated.

Buy me a cup of tea.

🍵