The Power of Words -- Why Definitions Matter

Many in our church today are losing their firm hold on truth as a result of their vocabularies being realigned to modern cultural concepts and definitions. Some have taken mistranslations of the Bible to support their views, leading to an entire theology which is unBiblical. When that theology must necessarily, to maintain some consistency with itself, accept these unscriptural ideas, their own opinions have effectively become of greater import than the Word of God, and are held to a higher status in a "higher criticism" sense. This has led to such modern movements as "spiritual formations," the "One Project," and the emerging church movement, to various degrees.

In this thread, I would like to examine the impact of the simple "definitions" that I have come to realize are so very important. We begin learning word meanings in elementary school, but often we neglect to carefully understand the meanings of Biblical words, simply assuming they mean what we think they should mean. However, the Bible should be carefully studied, and if a meaning is assigned to a word that creates a Biblical contradiction or a logical contradiction, we must be extra vigilant to reconsider that definition and to allow the Bible to define its own meanings in a consistent manner.

Some significant words that I have found many to stumble upon, based on their own private interpretations (opinions) include the following.

• Adam
• arbitrary
• authority
• avenge
• begotten
• body
• breath
• consecrate
• earth
• eternal
• everlasting
• faith
• heaven
• hell
• husband
• jealous
• judge
• judgment
• kill
• kinsmen
• love
• man
• meat
• murder
• ordain
• ordinances
• penalty
• perpetual
• purge
• sabbath
• saint
• sanctification
• sea
• soul
• stars
• strange
• spirit
• teach
• wife
• works

These, and others (I may need to update this list as I remember or encounter more), will provide good discussion material for this topic. Please remember to address the topic with each post here, and focus on Biblical word definitions and how one can arrive at understanding them in a spiritually sound manner that does not admit of personal persuasions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'll start with one simple concept from the list above which was recently referenced in another thread. The keyword here is "kill."

The KJV translation mistranslated the Hebrew word "רָצַח" (ratsach) as "kill." Only four other times in the Bible was it translated this way, one of which was in the other set of 10 Commandments. More than 40 times it is translated as some form of "murder," "slay," or "manslayer," with a form of "murder" accounting for nearly half of those translations.

The Bible is careful to distinguish between "kill" and "murder." If we in our modern times define "kill" as always being equivalent to "murder," we have neglected the Bible's own definitions and must soon come to one of two logical conclusions in error:

1) The Bible contradicts itself; OR
2) God is fickle, self-contradictory, and a hypocrite.

As I cannot accept either of these, I must study to show myself approved unto God, recognize, and acknowledge the clear distinction between these terms that the Bible itself makes.

To help one see how bad the "kill" mistranslation makes things appear unless one chooses to understand that the "thou shalt not kill" really refers instead to "murder," look at the following verses.



If KILL = MURDER, and one can never kill any other person (and what about animals, or plants?) because this is "murder" and therefore "sin," why would God command killing?

Obviously, there must exist a distinction between these terms. Many theologies have been built upon a foundation of mis-definitions. This is unfortunate. The careful scholar must look at the definitions, the foundation of the text, before building a theology upon them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The 10C are a definition of God's character. If you believe that God has to kill, then will cloud your thinking. God does not kill, Sin kills. It was sin that killed the Son of God and it is sin that kills the sinner in the end. Christ demonstrated the cause of the second death, and God did not kill Him.

The Bible does not contradict itself when read from a Biblical definition. The Bible says, Numbers 21:6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

But we know that God did not "send" the serpents. And if you Green do not know this, then there is your problem. Is the Bible not telling us the truth about the fiery serpents? Or do we need to read the Bible using the Bible's method of writing? We cannot read it using a dictionary definition, we need to read it using the Bible's definition.

God destroys no man. Yet Green, you say God is "A Destroyer". Yeah, I have a problem with your definitions. The Bible is its own expositor. And Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of who God is. I will follow Jesus, and not man's definitions.

First of all, I believe that my own opinion is of lesser authority than the Word of God. So I lay aside my bias, and look to see what the Bible actually says. Even if it surprises me, corrects me, or goes against my own understanding, I guess I should expect that this will be so at times, for God has told me "lean not unto thine own understanding."

If you immediately start your studies with your conclusions, you will be certain to miss the important steps required to reach proper conclusions.



Alright, APL, since you think you're so educated on the matter, tell me why God commanded killing if killing is murder.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That sounds like the reasoning I have heard behind the "for ever" means "until it's finished" concept that has pervaded the Adventist theology of hell fire. But, this essentially takes mis-definitions to a level of "it means what I think it means, not what it means." I will agree that a modern dictionary for a translated word may not have the correct nuance in terms of the word's original meaning, but let us have some respect for the meaning of the word in its original context, and not try to rewrite scripture per our own definitions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is this going to be another God kills, God does not kill thread?

I think this is a good discussion and I agree with Green. I have long realized this and always stop to look for the Lord's definition of words. It's a great exercise that is quite beneficial.

Using the word "kill" to kick off this discussion is a serious mistake. I've been in a "How God Kill" discussion in another forum where the people are quite polarized and it seems to get very nasty.

I would recommend searching for meaning of words that are quite essential in our spiritual identification or growth.

A good word to look into is "faith" as we use this word all the time between each other with our modern definition, but most do not know the Lord's definition of it.

Even to look into the meaning of the names of places often reveal a prophetic clue or meaning. People's names like Jacob and Israel, Manasseh & Ephraim,all the names of Jacob's children are prophetic in their meanings.

I always look at the meaning of the words in both the Hebrew and Greek language and in context employed in scriptures.

Really? When I did that, I saw the truth as it is in Jesus of the true character of God. *Beware of rejecting truth. I think you have already brought your prejudice to this discussion.

When the Bible says Korah and company were swallowed up by the ground in Numbers 16, do you conclude that God killed them? Or do you take all of what Scripture says on the subject to get the truth? If so, when you read Paul and lay aside you predudice, the conclusion is that no, it was not God but Satan.

When you read that God sent serpents to bite the people, do you conclude that yes, God caused the death of those people? Or do you believe inspiration that no, God did not "send" the serpents, but that He could no longer protect them in their unbelief?

When you read that the children of Israel fought their way into Canaan that this was the perfect will of God that they should? Or do you see that their minds were terribly blinded by transgression and that God never desired that they gain the land by warfare?

What does inspiration say?

One passage will prove to be a key that will unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning of the word. By comparing different texts treating on the same subject, viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning of the Scriptures will be made evident. {CE 85.1}

The jewels of truth do not lie upon the surface, as many suppose. The master mind in the confederacy of evil is ever at work to keep the truth out of sight, and to bring into full view the opinions of great men. The enemy is doing all in his power to obscure heaven's light through educational processes; for he does not mean that men shall hear the voice of the Lord, saying, "This is the way, walk ye in it." [Isa_30:21.] {CE 85.2}

The jewels of truth lie scattered over the field of revelation; but they have been buried beneath human traditions, beneath the sayings and commandments of men, and the wisdom from heaven has been practically ignored; for Satan has succeeded in making the world believe that the words and achievements of men are of great consequence. The Lord God, the Creator of the worlds, at infinite cost has given the gospel to the world. Through this divine agent, glad, refreshing springs of heavenly comfort and abiding consolation have been opened for those who will come to the fountain of life. There are veins of truth yet to be discovered; but spiritual things are spiritually discerned. Minds beclouded with evil cannot appreciate the value of the truth as it is in Jesus. When iniquity is cherished, men do not feel the necessity of making diligent effort, with prayer and reflection, to understand what they must know or lose heaven. The have so long been under the shadow of the enemy, that they view truth as men behold objects through a smoked and imperfect glass; for all things are dark and perverted in their eyes. Their spiritual vision is feeble and untrustworthy; for they look upon the shadow, and turn away from the light. {CE 86.1}

These should be sobering words when we study the Bible.

Is this a request with an open mind, laying aside your prejudice? I don't think so. Your comment is already has a condescending tone. Are you really looking for truth, willing to lay aside your preconceived ideas? I'm not sure you are.

Would you rather discuss "the dangerous delusion of Universalism" for that truly is the opposite of death?

Not exactly. This is going to, hopefully, go deeper yet--to the word definitions themselves.

Many times people argue the same thing from two different definitions, never realizing that in their verbal disagreement they actually support the same idea. Until they agree on the same set of definitions, this will never be borne out.

God does not murder. But APL thinks "kill" means "murder." Until he understands the definitions of each (and he has too long supported error to make this understanding easy, or, perhaps even, possible at this point), he will never even comprehend what "the other side" actually believes. In his mind, I believe God is a murderer. I, however, believe no such thing, but he cannot grasp this, for he has not deeply considered the definitions of the words themselves.

Furthermore, other definitions are at stake besides "kill" and "murder."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I take even more than simply the Bible, for I also accept Mrs. White's writings. I define them as "scripture" per the Bible's own definition of scripture. That's another one I should add to the list, I guess. But I think you regard Mrs. White as authoritative, so perhaps this quote from her pen can settle this question: "Even after God, in a miraculous manner, caused the earth to swallow up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, the leaders in the rebellion, the people still would have it that Moses and Aaron were wrong, and that they had killed the people of the Lord." {1SP 308.1}

What "God caused" is, by definition, God's doing. It's a simple matter of definitions once again. Apparently, some today still think that Moses and Aaron killed Korah--or perhaps they have come up with yet another divine miracle--that God had given Korah the ability to perform this suicidal act himself.



Here again, it's back to definitions. By the Bible's definitions, both of your two supposedly dichotomous statements are actually true. Elle could weigh in on this question, I'm sure, as she has studied part of the Levitical laws that open up one's understanding on this.

Let me give an example. Suppose I have a pet raccoon, and I live next to a school playground. The children love to come and visit my house during recess to see the raccoon's antics. One day, a rabid dog gives my pet a wicked bite, and my raccoon acquires rabies. I keep the raccoon fenced, but a neighbor who harbors a grudge against me, well knowing what might result, opens the gate at lunch time and the raccoon, with a nasty attitude, seeks the children with a vengeance. In the end, five children are hospitalized, and one dies. Who killed the child? According to the Bible, the one who let the animal out would be held responsible, and be punished as a murderer.

If God forms a hedge of protection around His people, as He did with Job, and prevents them from being bitten by serpents--whose responsibility is it when He lets the serpents loose? Yes, the people had it coming for their wayward murmuring, but God Himself accepts responsibility, and this is consistent with His own law given to the people. (See Exodus 21:29.)



The phrase "perfect will of God" almost never gets used in a forthright manner to uphold truth. Please avoid it. The "perfect" will of God never would have included the entrance of sin in the first place. God's "perfect" will would never have required Jesus to die on a cruel cross to save unworthy sinners. We live in imperfect times, and drastic measures must be taken to deal with the circumstances of sin. Therefore, it is not up to me to question God's will. If God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son, why should I stop to question if God should ask me to do something for which I can see no logical reason? If you know God's voice, as did Abraham, to question is to doubt.


Those are good statements from Mrs. White, and have their proper place in this discussion. Thank you.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Could you support that? I mean, why haven't you if you are going to proffer the statement?

Please do so.

Read Numbers chapter 35. We've had this particular discussion before elsewhere on this forum, and I don't have time to waste on doing your research for you, but that chapter is where God makes His definitions clear.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

Jesus proceeded to show His hearers what it means to keep the commandments of God--that it is a reproduction in themselves of the character of Christ. For in Him, God was daily made manifest before them. {MB 55.1}
"Everyone who is angry with his brother
shall be in danger of the judgment."
Matthew 5:22, R.V.

Through Moses the Lord had said, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart. . . . Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Leviticus 19:17-18. The truths which Christ presented were the same that had been taught by the prophets, but they had become obscured through hardness of heart and love of sin. {MB 55.2}

The Saviour's words revealed to His hearers the fact that, while they were condemning others as transgressors, they were themselves equally guilty; for they were cherishing malice and hatred. {MB 55.3}

Across the sea from the place where they were assembled was the country of Bashan, a lonely region, whose wild gorges and wooded hills had long been a favorite lurking ground for criminals of all descriptions. Reports of robbery and murder committed there were fresh in the minds of the people, and many were zealous in denouncing these evildoers. At the same time they were themselves passionate and contentious; they cherished the most bitter hatred of their Roman oppressors and felt themselves at liberty to hate and despise all other peoples, and even their own countrymen who did not in all things conform to their ideas. In all this they were violating the law which declares, "Thou shalt not kill." {MB 56.1}

The spirit of hatred and revenge originated with Satan, and it led him to put to death the Son of God. Whoever cherishes malice or unkindness is cherishing the same spirit, and its fruit will be unto death. In the revengeful thought the evil deed lies enfolded, as the plant in the seed. "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15. {MB 56.2}

"Whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [vain fellow], shall be in danger of the council." In the gift of His Son for our redemption, God has shown how high a value He places upon every human soul, and He gives to no man liberty to speak contemptuously of another. We shall see faults and weaknesses in those about us, but God claims every soul as His property--His by creation, and doubly His as purchased by the precious blood of Christ. All were created in His image, and even the most degraded are to be treated with respect and tenderness. God will hold us accountable for even a word spoken in contempt of one soul for whom Christ laid down His life. {MB 56.3}

Excellent. You are now a number of quotations nearer to comprehending the Biblical distinction between killing and murder. Keep searching! Check out Numbers chapter 35 when you get a chance.

Note: All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. So the word "kill" is a more general word, but Jesus' words regarding aspects such as "hate" show more specifically to which kind of killing He refers.

By the way, thank you for not expanding to the theological ramifications before defining the terms.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

God is EXACTLY like Jesus. Meek, mild, HARMLESS. IF you keep studying Christ, you will see the His Glory which is His character. Keep searching, lay aside your personal prejudices. See the truth as it is in Jesus. Perhaps then you will have a last message or mercy to the dying world, a message that is illuminating in its influence, saving in its power. God never kills away one. Sin is the cause of death. Christ came to save us from our sins, not what He will do to us if we reject Him. Thus the commandment IS "do not kill". The last ENEMY is DEATH. Shall we call God the purveyor of death? It cannot be. Satan is the cause of sin and death. God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

And if you think that sin does not have the power to perhaps you should study the definition of spiritualism.

YES - Ellen White is using the same style of writing as the Bible here.

Did God send the fiery serpents? Did God cause the earth directly to open up? What is going on? Any other scripture that can enlighten us to this event? YES. 1 Corinthians 10:10 Neither murmur you, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.

Is God the destroyer? NO. Satan is the destroyer. God is the source of Life. Satan is the source of death.

Why? Because we are also terribly blinded by transgression? That is what Israel fought. Not because wanted them to, but becaue of the hardness of their heart. Same with divorce. YES - I will use divorce as we are to read the Bible as a whole and how God treated divorce and polygamy shows how God worked with war and fighting. Jesus showed us the truth, that His followers would not use carnal weapons and would not fight. It is a hard truth to learn and most cannot give their own prejudice toward fighting. I pray that the Spirit will open the minds to the Truth.

Moses gave us a tooth for a tooth. What did Jesus say? Numbers 35 is for the hard of heart. We need to get rig of the heart of stone.

How readest thou? Luke 10:26.

How we interpret Scripture in critical. Do we allow the Bible to interpret itself? Or do we believe we can extrapolate the truth from a verse or passage?

I agree with you Elle, using the word "kill" was a bad choice.

Understood.

Satan did not try to destroy himself with the Flood. {PP99.3} But, how can this argument be avoided? "Kill" was the wrong word to start with I think.

I don't know if this fits along with this thread, but;

Matthew 5:22; But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. (KJV) (bold emphasis mine)

I believe this clause "without a cause" has a lot of meaning to this passage of Scripture.

Al - read again what EGW wrote and quoted in Mount of Blessing. Will you scold her for not quoting the right version and leaving out a part that has "a lot of meaning?" Is she taking away words from the book? I think the way she quoted it, that it does have a lot of meaning. Yes, she uses the verse in other places and the only anger that is justifiable is when God's character is slandered. And even then, physical fighting and killing are barred.

Good choice of quote Alchemy. I'm glad that you are interested in this subject also and you're agreeing with my perception that "kill" is a bad word choice to kick this off.

I haven't been involved with Green and APL multiple discussions; but I did read a couple of posts and know they've been at it for quite awhile.

Green, APL -- How long have you been on this subject of Kill verses murder? Has it been years now? and how many? Do you think you guys can resolve this in a couple of pages?

It is fine that you discuss about the word kill. I'm glad that you can exchange something that you both are interested in and both passionate about.

However, if this is something that cannot be resolved simply -- maybe the title of this discussion should be changed "The Power of the Word Kill -- Why Definitions Matter". That would be more descriptive.

APL,

This thread is for definition studies. Not theological debate, per se. Thank you for respecting that.

Alchemy,

I believe that every word of the Bible is significant. That is the message we find in Matthew 4:4 and Luke 4:4.

Elle et al.,

This discussion is important, even though some terms may be controversial, because, actually, every single word in the list I posted in the OP is controversial. The fact is, people come to the Bible with a predetermined opinion, then arbitrarily suggest the meaning for its words that appears to fit their personal theology. Satan knows that if he can just warp people's understandings of the meanings of the words, he has succeeded in a great measure with altering their theologies and doctrines. Here's an attempt to portray the situation graphically:

START HERE
|
|> Authority --> Word meanings/definitions --> Concepts --> Understandings --> Beliefs --> Theology --> Doctrines --> Life practice --> Character --> Eternal destiny

The first step is choosing an authority. I choose, by faith, to accept the Bible as my final authority for truth. This is a faith choice.

Once I have that, then I must understand its words. Definitions matter tremendously. This is the realm of focus for this thread. This impacts every subsequent level in the chain, and the devil knows this well.

After I understand the meanings of the words, my mind can frame their basic concepts/messages.

Following this, I translate those messages into understandings/interpretations.

This leads next to beliefs.

Beliefs directly impact one's theology and doctrines.

Out of these proceed, hopefully (if the beliefs are acted upon), one's life practices and habits.

Then comes character--and we all know our eternal destiny is at stake with the formation of our character.

It's fairly simple. You will notice that I have left out the "concept of God." That would come under "beliefs" and must necessarily follow an understanding of the meaning and message of the Word. If someone places the "concept of God" as preceding the understanding of the words of God, then one is essentially basing his or her views upon private opinion, by filtering everything through those "concept of God" glasses.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Even here, problems arise.

Words have multiple meanings.
People can find texts using the same word, but with a different meaning. Then by exchanging twist the meaning of texts yet still claim they are "getting their meaning from scripture".

Words can have their obvious meaning dismissed, and given symbolic meanings with total disregard as to whether a text is speaking symbolically or not.

Playing with semantics has been the devil's playground -- he is an expert Bible student.
Since the Bible has become readily available for all people, he has launched multiple schools of theology based on confusing semantics to undermine fundamental beliefs and truths that were clear, but are now thrown off into realms of "gnostic" confusion .

Actually the "gnostics" in early Christianity already started that trend in Christianity. Even earlier the Kabbalists in Judaism already launched "words" and with them truth, into confusion, prior to Christianity.

Not only must one be careful to find the "meaning of words", one must also be careful what school of thought they turn to that claims to know the meaning of those words.

Studying English words will not solve the problem --
Bible writers wrote in a different language.

If I read my German Luther translated Bible it sounds different from the English Bible.

John 3:16 Denn Gott hat die Welt so geliebt, daß er seinen eingeborenen Sohn gab, damit jeder, der an ihn glaubt, nicht verloren gehe, sondern ewiges Leben habe.
For God have the world so loved that He His indigenously son gave so that everyone, that on Him believes, not lost go, instead everlasting life has.

English version:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

There are several minor differences in the meaning of words.

eingeborenen has a closer meaning to indigenously
giving the meaning of being the only one "indigenous" (belong to or having the characteristic, a native of the same) to God.

Whereas the English "begotten" has a closer meaning to "generated" offspring.

The difference can have a profound effect on theology.

The other difference in Luther's translation is

verloren gehe = lost going (ending up lost)
while English uses the word "perishing".

Since "This thread is for definition studies. Not theological debate, per se"

Let's explore the word Luther translated as verloren gehe = lost going (ending up lost)
while English uses the word "perishing" in John 3:16

apollymi

According to Word Definitions apollymi means

destroy, to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to, ruin, a judgment of death, to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed

Now let's look at how the apostle John uses the word in his epistle.

It seems to appear FOUR times in John 3:15-16!




apollymi mee apollymi translated in English as
should not perish
Why the double use of the word?

It emphasis the completeness of the fate of all if it were not for God sending his Son they should utterly perish .

Other uses of the word by apostle John:


Jhn 6:12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. G622


Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, G622 but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you


Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose G622 nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day


Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: G622 I am come that they might have life,


Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall G622 never perish, G622


Jhn 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish G622 not


Jhn 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose G622 it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal


So from this study -- of context and use of the word
I see that whenever John uses the word G622 apollymi in conjunction with the term eternal life , it clearly has the opposite meaning of eternal life -- that is to perish, to be lost, ruined, utterly destroyed.

God's purpose is for believers to have eternal life. But to clarify this, we are given both the positive purpose (eternal life) and the flip side, the negative result which occurs to those who reject the gift.

3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already.

SYMBOLIC OR LITERAL

Should we take the word symbolic? That's the next question.
Is the context framed in symbolic language?
If not then we should probably not take its words symbolically.
For example--
Is "eternal life" symbolic?
If not then the "perishing" is not symbolic either.
The context shows that God's gift of His Son is to save believers FROM perishing.


In John there is no middle ground: believe in the Son (resulting in eternal life) or refusing to believe (resulting in destruction) are the only options. Since “perish” is contrasted with “eternal life,” it stands to reason that perishing is eternal as well.

Yes, I recall you wasting everyone's time in the past, but did not distinguish between the words then, either. Easy to say you already have, hard to prove it. Numbers 35 talk about refuge cities. That does not define the words. As stated to you in the past.

Since you start a thread about definitions, initiate that there is a difference between killing and murder, but flat out refuse to give the Biblical definitions, what are we to conclude? That you are unable to give a simple paragraph definition from the Bible showing such? That you cannot find any such distinction in the Bible? It's not my "research" but yours in starting the thread.

Should I request Daryl close the thread as you refuse to support your opening premise, refusing to give the definitions? I mean, the topic is "The Power of Words -- Why Definitions Matter", right?
Why not list the two?

kland,

Those who do not see the definitions because they would conflict with strongly held personal opinions (e.g. "God does not kill") are choosing to interpret scripture, including its definitions, in a manner inconsistent with the scriptures themselves. The Bible defines the distinctions between killing and murder. That some cannot see this does not mean the distinction has not been defined. The thread where this particular distinction has been discussed before can be found HERE. I think it is clear enough from the Bible, if one looks at the evidence objectively.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Yes, that is a consistent manner of understanding the meaning of a word from its context. This brings me to the question of why multiple words like "everlasting," "eternal," "perpetual," and "for ever" have been relegated by most Adventists to a rather unintuitive meaning of "until it is done/finished." If words are supposed to have meaning at all, why would we ignore their obvious purpose, including their contextual use in the Bible, in order to mis-define them? Misdefinitions of Bible words are all too common these days, and they come up because of people's preconceived opinions and in trying to make the Bible fit their view.

Instead of looking to see how something supports our view, we should look to see what the Bible is saying. Mrs. White tells us we should accept a "plain reading" of the Bible. If one must go to contortions to explain what something evidently means, chances are higher that the explanation is incongruent with the Bible's meaning or intent.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green - you are laying out ground rules which conform to your idea of how we should proceed. You want to divorce a definition from the theological meaning, but is that valid? I don't think so. Is that because of my preconceived ideas or yours? Kill - this means to cause death. But what does the Bible tell us about death? That it came from Satan, not God. We have to take the Bible as a whole.

One text teaches how man was first formed. Another text makes known the process of his dissolution. What God did in creating, death undoes by dissolving. How did death get the power to step in and undo the Creator's work? Man forfeited his right to live by sinning against God. Death entered by sin. Romans 5:12. Death, then, has an evil parentage. In fact, it has a bad character in the book of God; it is not a friend, but an enemy; and so serious and formidable a foe is it that its destruction is made the subject of special promise to the people of God. 1 Corinthians 15:26. The power of death Satan himself has controlled. Hebrews 2:14. Death came from the devil, just as life came from God.

God gave to man life, and instructed him that if he would obey him, he should continue to live. The devil told Eve that she should, by sinning, be introduced to a higher life, brought death upon our race. Death is the child of sin and Satan. What does Jesus call him because of this work? A murderer. John 8:44

The Lord God formed the man out of the dust of the ground. Death causes that dust to return to the earth as it was before it formed the man. If God does the first work, it is not God that destroys it. No; indeed. An enemy is the doer of all this.

To divorce your definition of kill from the Bible defintion will not work. God is the restorer. Satan is the destroyer.

I guess the only way to solve this and keep it from turning into massive EGW quoting in which the only result is to convince the casual visitors to this forum to think EGW contradicts herself -- is to collect examples of just how the different words are used in scripture.

Let's start with nakahH5221

to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill

Gen 4:15 And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill H5221 him.

Gen. 8:21 neither will I again smite H5221 any more every thing living, as I have done.

Gen. 14:5 (In account of kings attacking Sodom and Gomorrah) they smote H5221 the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim

Gen. 14:7 smote H5221 all the country of the Amalekites

Gen 14:17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter H5221 of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings

Gen 19:11 And they smote H5221 the men that were at the door of the house with blindness,

Exo 2:11 Moses... spied an Egyptian smiting H5221 an Hebrew, one of his brethren


Exo 2:12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew H5221 the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand


Exo 3:20 And I will stretch out my hand, and smite H5221 Egypt with all my wonders which I will do in the midst thereof: and after that he will let you go.

1 Samuel 7:11 And the men of Israel went out of Mizpeh, and pursued the Philistines, and smote H5221 them

1 Samuel 13:3 And Jonathan smote H5221 the garrison of the Philistines

1 Samuel 17:49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote H5221 the Philistine in his forehead,

1 Samuel 23:2 Therefore David enquired of the LORD, saying, Shall I go and smite H5221 these Philistines? And the LORD said unto David, Go, and smite H5221 the Philistines,

Well -- that's only a few of the 1360 times the word "nakahH5221" is used.

The meaning is obviously a violent action of "smiting" that does serious harm, not always deadly, but still serious harm. It is often used to describe acts of war.

nakahH5221 is not the word used in the ten commandments so lets look at that word next.




THE WORD USED IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

ratsach H7523

to murder, slay, kill, assassinate

It is used 47 times --
slayer (16x), murderer (14x), kill (5x), murder (3x), slain (3x), manslayer (2x), killing


Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. H7523


Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill. H7523


Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: H7523 the murderer H7523 shall surely be put to death.


Num 35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: H7523 when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.


Num 35:21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: H7523 the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, H7523 when he meeteth him


Deu 19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, H7523 which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth (nakahH5221) his neighbour ignorantly,


Jos 20:5 And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer H7523 up into his hand; because he smote {nakah H5221] his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime

Judges 20:4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, H7523


Jer 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, H7523 and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;

Thank you, Dedication. Those textual examples of the Hebrew word usages are very helpful. God doesn't "ratsach," which is against the Ten Commandments. In fact, if APL can find even one instance in the Bible where God is said to "murder" (Heb. ratsach), it could blow my entire theology on this point apart. However, the Bible does have a clear demarcation between these two concepts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Does the Hebrew word Ratsach H7523 always and only meam murder? No.

Numbers 35:11 Then you shall appointH7136 you citiesH5892 to beH1961 citiesH5892 of refugeH4733 for you; that the slayerH7523 may fleeH5127 thither,H8033 which killsH5221 any personH5315 at unawares.H7684
Numbers 35:12 And they shall beH1961 to you citiesH5892 for refugeH4733 from the avenger;H4480 H1350 that the manslayerH7523 dieH4191 not,H3808 untilH5704 he standH5975 beforeH6440 the congregationH5712 in judgment.H4941

Deuteronomy 4:42 That the slayerH7523 might fleeH5127 thither,H8033 whichH834 should killH7523 (H853) his neighborH7453 unawares,H1097 H1847 and hatedH8130 him notH3808 in times past;H4480 H8543 H8032 and that fleeingH5127 toH413 oneH259 ofH4480 theseH411 citiesH5892 he might live:H2425

So no, Ratsach does not always and only mean murder. Deuteronomy 4:42 even speaks of whether hatred is involved. To say that in the 10C that the word only and always means murder is not sustained.

Your deduction is based on English translation? I think that a very poor way to come to that conclusion.

Ratsach means "to break or dash in pieces"

The man in Number 35:11, 12 & are both in the case of a [pre-meditated] murderer.

The man in Deut 4:42 is in the case of a man that is innocent and did not murder, however, until the court can prove his innocence, he has to run to a city of refuge for if not the avenger of blood(ga'al) can murder[ratsach) him. So the text employs the word ratsach because he has to run as a murderer (ratsach).

As I was looking at all the Hebrew words for "kill" -- I was very surprise to see that scripture uses ratsach for the Avenger of Blood to murder(ratsach) the murderer(ratsach).

AV Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood(ga'al) find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood(ga'al) kill(ratsach) the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:

The ga'al is the family's defender in a court of law. He is either a redeemer of blood or an avenger of blood depending on the case. So in a case of a family member get's into debt due to an offense, or business misfortune; the ga'al is responsible to redeem His next of kin's debt. In the situation where any member of his family is a victim of a crime; the ga'al is responsible to make sure that full justice is rendered.

So in the case that someone murder(or kill by accident) someone of his family, the ga'al have the right to kill(ratsach) that person if he's outside a city of refuge.

In the case of the slayer is found innocent in the city of refuge court, that man has to stay in the city of refuge as long as the High Priest is alive. Once the High Priest dies, only then that man that killed accidently can return to his land. If the man leaves the city of refuge, despite he is found innocent before the High Priest death, the avenger of blood(ga'al) can kill(ratsach) him. That's what Num 35 says.

This all means something prophetically via how the Lord will judge at the Great White throne for cases of murder. Without digressing into that, I found it quite surprising that the Avenger of blood is said that he can murder (ratsach) that man. There's 5 other Hebrew "killing" words that could of been used instead; but for the Lord to use this word must mean something that I'm not seeing right now.

The ga'al, either redeemer of blood or the avenger of blood, both represent Jesus.

So Green we did find one place in the Bible where the Lord ratsach .... there it is. The Lord has allowed Himself to ratsach in His own law.

APL,

In the Levitical system, anyone who killed someone else was assumed to be a murderer until proven otherwise, i.e. "guilty until proven innocent." And here's the catch: Even IF the person had killed someone unintentionally, such as by an accident at work, the killer was required to live in one of the six cities of refuge until the death of the high priest, and if he or she was caught outside of the city, the nearest of kin to the one who had died was obligated to do his duty and kill the killer...and then go to the city of refuge himself!

If the murderer had fled to the city for safety, but then it was determined by witnesses before the judges that the murderer had intentionally killed, as by lying in wait, or with hatred, etc., then the city of refuge delivered him up to receive his capital punishment outside of the city.

So the Bible uses "murderer" for any killer before afterward declaring which cases were not murder: Guilty until proven innocent. Its usage in these cases is not incorrect, as APL alleges, and it does mean "murder."

Notice, for example, in APL's prime text, that it says "that the [murderer/ratsach] die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment." At the point of judgment, if he is found to truly be a murderer, he will die. If not, his life will be spared, as it was not "murder." Guilty until proven innocent means he was counted as a murderer until proven otherwise, hence the Biblical language depicting this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Deuteronomy 4:42 is describing a person who did not commit premeditated killing and did not hate his neighbor, and uses the term ratsach. That is not murder.

Elle,

You're running ahead to theological ramifications before having firmly established definitions. Once you have more completely defined the Biblical meaning of "murder," you will see that God does not do it. God does avenge, and He does kill. But look very carefully at the laws God gave for the avengers in doing their work, and you will see a better picture of the work God Himself will do as our future avenger. Yes, He says "vengeance is mine," and there is a spiritual lesson from this study. But don't jump ahead before the definitions are finished, remembering that we need to use the Bible's own definitions.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

APL,

That verse is referring specifically to the city of refuge system. It speaks of the "murderer" being able to live there, but the implication is still there that the guilty would be treated differently because this was already outlined in Numbers 35, a few chapters prior, and specific reference is made to factors that would judge the murderer to be not guilty of murder.

Deuteronomy 4 simply records that Moses fulfilled part of God's requirement of selecting cities to be cities of refuge that would accept pre-trial "murderers" and allow the ones who had not hated nor lain in wait (i.e. those determined to have committed "involuntary manslaughter" as opposed to "murder") to live in them.

If you try to insist this is not speaking of murderers, you only show that you have not understood the "guilty until proven innocent" system that God gave Israel for these cases of manslaughter, nor the manner in which the cities of refuge functioned in this system. I think, however, that you may understand more than you let on. Why not simply accept the truth?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Deuteronomy 4:42 That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbor unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing to one of these cities he might live:

What is the verse saying about the person fleeing to the city of refuge? That he is a murder? NO. He killed his neighbor unawares and hated him not. This verse shows the usage of the work ratsach. I know it does not fit with your ideas, but hey, only the Spirit can change you, not I. And Spirit, the Son and the Father do not kill anyone by any definition of the term, and the 10C, a transcript of Their character shows that. Why do you want to be able to kill so badly? Is it not Good News that God is not out to destroy us? Why is it so important to you that God kills?

You are correct that the Bible is not saying a person is a murderer for killing someone unawares. What it is saying here instead is that the person is considered a murderer, even if he may not be, until he's been tried, and, murderer or not, he must flee to the city for refuge.

Remember Jesus' words about the "dead" burying "their dead"? Obviously, dead people can't bury dead people. Why, then, does Jesus say it this way? There is a clue in the definitions there that applies to this in the same principle.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Very interesting post.

The best I can see right now is, the avenger of blood doesn't really know if the man he is seeking is innocent or guilty. But, even if the man he is seeking is found innocent, as long as that present High Priest is alive, the avenger of blood can still kill the man he seeks and it won't count as murder, or as blood.

I have always wondered and never understood what the life of the High Priest really had to do with this? I know the High Priest performs the rituals for the Day of Atonement, but, if that particular High Priest dies, then, and only then, is the man who killed someone accidentally completely free to live anywhere he wants. Even if he is found innocent, the Avenger of Blood can still kill him if he finds him outside the city of refuge.

I wonder how often one such man would move from one city of refuge to another? Or to another city of any kind?

Alchemy,

Remember, there were no sacrifices for willful sins, only for sins of ignorance. "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Jesus died that we might have pardon. The type here is consistent with the rest of the scriptures.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I have never thought of it that way before.

No sacrifice for willful sins? I must disagree. Unless I misunderstand something.

Not knowing what you understand, I don't know if you are misunderstanding or not, but perhaps so. Three chapters speak specifically to this: Leviticus 4 & 5, and Numbers 15. Check them out. Note from that latter chapter what happens to the one who sinned presumptuously, and not through ignorance.

Defining words for this topic: ignorance, presumptuously, willfully, sacrifice, atonement, forgiven, judgment, "cut off"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course that is not how the word is used in the verse. The verse is not calling the person a murder and is specifically showing the person is not a murder, yet is using the work ratsach. You are adding a layer on to the interpretation.

It is a sad commentary that the cities of refuge were needed to protect people from other Israelites, being so opposed to the truth that Jesus showed on how we treat others, even those that kill. Sin is an enemy, and it causes death. The cities of refuse are a type of Christ and should be understood that way.

APL,

For the sake of discussion here, suppose I accept your interpretation on this verse to be correct. Where is your second verse? Are you going to tell me that you would build up an entire theology on one verse alone? Where is the other verse that uses "ratsach" for a non-murderer that is already beyond question (tried and acquitted already)?

One of the key principles of Bible study means we mustn't base our doctrines on a single text alone. The scriptures define this for us by telling us that out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. So, we need another witness.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Numbers 35:11, not intentional.

But more importantly, what does the commandment, You shall not kill, really mean? It is much more than the immediate taking of life as Jesus has shown. Matthew 5:21-22 Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire.

Here is the true testimony of God.

Yes, I agree with APL ratsach definition is more than murdering or killing; it's about whether or not we hate our brother like Jesus brings forth the definition more deeply.

That "hate" factor in the definition was also given to Moses in the following as underlined:

AV Dt 4:42 "That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:"

and also in

AV Dt 19:4 "And this [is] the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;"

AV Dt 19:6 "Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he [was] not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past."

AV Dt 19:11 "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:"

The law of God is all about loving thy Lord and thy neighbor. Even if you technically didn't kill your brother and didn't have the need "to run to a refuge city" -- but still hated your brother and probably do take opportunity to "rise up against him"; Jesus is basically saying you are still guilty of the penalty of breaking the 6th commandment of "ratsach".

So that's going a little deeper into the surface literal definition of the word. There's a spiritual definition of that word also. And that's a principle that we find all over scriptures.

BTW -- can someone briefly update me of what's this looking up these words Kill and murder for exactly? What is Green trying to prove as a definition, and what is APL definition is. I'm not aware of what's all of this is about.

another BTW. there is 4 other Hebrew words that means kill that dedication didn't bring on the table.

The one that is closest in meaning to ratsach is harag.

H2026 - harag "to smite with deadly intent"
slay 100x, kill 24x, murder 2x

1-Cain slay(harag) Abel
2- Simeon and Levi when they slayed that whole city
3- The Lord slay the firstborn of Egypt
4- The people was slayed after the Golden calf
5- The Israelites slayed the Midianites
6- When the Israelites entered Canaan they slay(harag) the nations
7-the death sentences in the laws of judgments
8-to slay animals to eat during the Tabernacle feasts

H4191 -- mooth or muwth "to die (lit.or fig.); causatively, to kill"
die 424x, slay 100x, dead 130x, death 83x, kill 31x

1-This word is used when the Lord wanted to kill the nation of Israel.
2-when He said to Adam that if he eats the forbidden "he shall surely die".
3-Also the Lord used this word to say "I kill and make alive".

H2873 -- tabach "to slaughter"
kill 4x, slaughter 4x, slay 2x

1-to slaughter a sheep
2-for food

H7819 - Shachat "to slaughter, beat, or massacre"
kill 42x, slay 36x

1-kill the animals for the offerings
2-kill children for offerings to Baal

Elle,

The purpose of looking at definitions is to make sure that the theologies built upon these foundation stones are sound.

If we look carefully at the fact that the Bible defines "ratsach" as a type of killing involving hatred, and this is the word used in the Ten Commandments forbidding such acts, then we can understand better when a different word describes killing that God commands.

If we begin with the false assumption that all kinds of killing are essentially the same, and therefore are addressed by the sixth commandment, we soon find contradictions in the Bible, such as when God commanded that the Sabbath-breaker be stoned to death. A God who would break His own commandments would not be trustworthy, and this leads to many other wrong interpretations, such as that God did not command according to His "ideal will," and that He just told the people to do what He knew they would do anyway because of the "hardness of their hearts." Such interpretations cannot be supported by scripture.

The next logical step many make, based on their mis-definition of the "kill" in the KJV translation for the sixth commandment, is to say that God would never kill. This is a growing movement, and a false theology. APL is caught up in it, unfortunately, and thousands of others too. The problem in this theology actually traces all the way back to the initial definitions and/or mis-definitions upon which their view is based.

This thread is not particularly about whether or not God kills. It's about definitions. This is simply one definition that many people misunderstand. There are others. This topic is open for discussion on any type of Biblical definition upon which misunderstandings have led to wrong theologies.

Any Biblical definition that is misunderstood can have fearful effects on one's theology. Perhaps this is why we are told to study carefully in more than one passage.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Elle,

It is true that "ratsach" is linked to hatred. That is part of the Bible's definition for "murder." To "kill" without hatred is not the same as murder. Killing without hatred can assume several forms:

1) Killing as prescribed in the law for capital punishment, not for hatred, but simply of duty to keep the land pure (e.g. stoning the Sabbath-breaker; Heb. "muwth")

2) Killing as an act of war, to defend the people and/or God's honor (e.g. David vs. Goliath; "nakah" & "muwth")

3) Killing to defend one's family, a form of self-defense, as was allowed in the case of a robber entering the tent at night; ; "nakah" & "muwth" (see Exodus 22:2)

None of these three acts were "murder." Anyone convicted of murder received capital punishment, according to the law.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually, the Foundation Stone is Christ, and if your definitions contradict Christ's teaching, then there is a problem. Did Christ ever kill anyone? No. Did He ever fight in selfdefense? No. When you look at the kingdom of Israel, you are looking at a people who rejected God, where full of transgression and unbelief. In other words, they wanted to be like the kingdoms of this world. Christ's kingdom is not of this world, otherwise His followers would fight, see John 18:36. With Christ, our weapons are not to be carnel, 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. There is no fighting, killing, in war or self-defense. The nation of Israel had no reason ever to fight. The reason they fought is because of unbelief. When the people trusted God, they never needed to raise a weapon. They never lost a man. But unbelief blinded their eyes. Why should we continue to walk in darkness?

So if you are going to jump to conclusions by example, why not list where God does kill and show the words for such? What are you afraid of? Why be afraid of showing your thought clear distinctions? I think you are afraid that someone will look at the Hebrew or Greek words used elsewhere and easily prove you otherwise. Am I correct?

If you are saying God kills, why not list them?

Overall Green, you seem to be doing a pretty good job of making your case. Yet, you don't seem to be nailing this issue down? It seems you are being tentative for some reason.

Am I seeing and understanding clearly?

It's impossible to "nail" this subject down, because the two sides are on opposite extremes.

Death is the result of sin, there is no question about that.
To devalue human life is wrong.

Yet according to scripture "there is a time to kill"
but to be defending that all the time ends up in a horrible over statement that makes any Christian cringe at the blatant disregard for life that emerges.

The emphases on "a time to kill" really only ends up pushing everyone to the other side simply because Christians KNOW Christ placed an extremely high value on every person. War, abortion, and any killing is part of the evil in this world, not part of the good.

Yet that side whose main point is God would never take life away from anyone, is NOT logical, because all life is from God, He can prolong life as long as He wants to prolong it, reversing any ill effects. If it weren't for His life giving power, we won't even have life. Scripture, especially the OT has to be completely rewritten to defend that God never ended any human life. But He does it to deliver His people from sin and destruction. He KNOWS who has rejected life in Him and given themselves up to evil, we don't.

I'm actually surprised that Green brought this overworked and as far as I'm concerned "forum destroying" topic, back on the front lines of the forum.

There are a lot of other words that need defining -- other topics.

At least APL still believes that unrepentant sinners will cease to live -- eternal death is still DEAD not alive, and thus is still the opposite of eternal life.

There are others who think "eternal death" is simply dying spiritually to sin after the second resurrection and that everyone, no matter how they related to God in this life, will having eternal life in God's kingdom and live forever.

I do agree with dedication that there's other words. However, I'm happy that Green did pick that word for I didn't realized that I haven't looked at those words in the past. In the past 6 years I have studied a lot of Hebrew/Greek words but was surprised I had missed those ones. So that's why I jumped in the discussion for the sake to study these words.

But I'm ok to move on to other words if everyone wants to. But my wheels are turning right now for these words as I have a lot of unanswered questions about them. I think this could be a very good study for everyone if there are not trying to prove anything else by it; but only seek the biblical definitions of these similar words.


What I think is worst -- is no one is addressing the distinction between ratsach and harag.

harag--"to smite with deadly intent" has a very similar definition as ratsach

Do you believe Cain murdered Abel? Why was harag used to define his murder and not ratsach? Do you think that Cain didn't break the 6th commandment and that's why the Lord didn't give him the death penalty but instead seal him with a protection mark?

These questions cannot be ignored and will lead to a fuller understanding of the word ratsach if we are really seeking to know what is the Lord's definition and what the 6th commandment is all about.

We don't want to be someone that only want to find an answer that matches their pre-conceived idea. Right? We are seeking the Lord's definition nor ours. We know that pre-conceived idea are heart idols, and the Lord has a very serious warning for those who come to Him with inquiries while having heart idols(pre-conceived notion of His answer). He basically said He will answer you by multiplying those idols. Ezk 14:4 This lead to delusions. It also leads to a drought of knowing the word of God in the future. Very dangerous grounds for any Christians to find themselves in.

Elle,

To answer the core of your question, the key thought of it, let me illustrate with a separate Biblical example also based on definitions.

Clean and Unclean Meats.

Let's start with a logical sequence that everyone here likely understands and agrees with.

• Whereas clean and unclean meats are defined in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14; and
• Whereas the eating of unclean meats is forbidden; and
• Whereas eating a forbidden meat is sinful, even considered "abomination";
• Therefore, it is important to know which meats to avoid.

Now, let's apply that to a practical example.

• Swans are unclean.
• Swans are birds.
• Therefore, birds cannot be eaten.

Does everyone agree with this assessment? What? You don't agree? Why not?

You see, it is not incorrect to say that Cain killed Abel. It would not be incorrect to say that Cain murdered Abel. In his case, both are true. But it would be incorrect to say that the children of Israel murdered the Sabbath-breaker because, even though they killed him, they did not do it of hatred, but rather in obedience to God's command.

Cain did NOT obey God in killing Abel. David OBEYED God in killing Goliath. There is a fundamental distinction here between two kinds of "killing." Both Cain and David killed. But, in these two instances at least, they did not both murder. "Murder" is a more limited scope of "killing," just as "swan" is but one kind of "bird."

"Ratsach" is a kind of killing associated with hatred and injustice ("without a cause" as the Bible puts it). That is a specific category of killing. In Cain's case, the Bible uses a broader word that would include multiple categories of killing, including "ratsach." It also uses, referring to the same act in the Greek New Testament, a word associated with violence. Both are correct.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

When it comes to definitions and understandings, "conflation" seems to be the error du jour. Many have confused words of similar meanings that should be distinct. However, this sort of carelessness at the base of understanding produces considerable deviations and cracks in the theologies which develop from it.

As an example from an English teacher's repertoire, there is a distinction between "period" and "decimal point." While they might look the same in print, their meanings and functions are rather different.

Thus, we find the need to study carefully the very definitions which we use in Bible interpretation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I disagree with you Green.

Now thinking further on this words versus ratsach I believe the word harag was used in all these 8 instances because none of these cases was "hatred" involve in the killing "with deadly intent".

In all these 8 examples below; we can see that 7 of those there were no hatred involved. it is only the case of Cain that we have long been saying that Cain hated Abel; but the Bible doesn't say that no where. It's an 100% assumption. Cain was not happy with the Lord for not accepting his sacrifice.

That's the only thing that makes sense for if Cain did hate his brother previously and did commit ratsach; then that means the Lord didn't judge him according to His law. The Lord put a mark of protection on Cain. It made me think that maybe it is somewhat in the same nature of the cities of refuge which was establish to protect the slayer. So from the Lord's judgment, He treated Cain killing by giving him protection like we find in the case of someone who find refuge in those cities because their killing was not because they pre-hated that individual.

I need to relook of the wording used for when David "murdered" the husband of Bethsheba. For sure David didn't hate him previously; he just wanted him of the picture so to be able to take Bethsheba as a wife legally.

The same with Simeon and Levi who also didn't hate all these people previously, but they slaughtered them because of their "righteous legalist religious zealots" mindset. Simeon and Levi were not given the death penalty, but were disqualified to have the birthright like Rheuben was.(1Chr 5:2)

Then for sure we know the Lord didn't kill the firstborn of Egypt because He hated any of them previously. And the same with any of the remaining from #4 to #8.

Elle,

As far as Cain hating Abel, if scriptures were not explicit enough (and I believe they are) in telling that story, Mrs. White uses the wording that you are looking for.



Even if "hatred" were not involved in that killing, "ratsach" would still apply, because it also includes killing "without a cause."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That is a SWAN example.

Israel fought wars, Israel was God's people, God then wants war. SWAN

Israel had kings, David was a king, David was a person after God's own heart, God wanted Israel to have a king.
SWAN

David had a many wifes. God approves of pleural marriages.
SWAN

Israel divorced their spouses, God gave rules for divorce, God approves of divorce.
SWAN

God gave laws for eating meat, thus eating meat is just fine.
SWAN

dedication quotes the Bible when it says there is a time to kill. She should also quote this: Psa_137:9 Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.


An inner city kid can read the Bible and if lead by the Spirit can know the doctrine and never ever hear the term ratsach. The inner city kid can learn that hate is also murder. That kid can learn what God is really like by the testimony of Jesus. The Jews of Jesus time knew their Bible. Many had memorized it! And they killed the Son of God. Why? Because they did not have the right definition of the words? Word which were in their native language so there was no translation issues? Green, you think the worst error in the KJV is in the translation of the 10C, you have stated such in the past. Perhaps the problem is not with the KJV but with your preconceived ideas of what God really wants. Those Sabbath keeping, tithe paying, health reforming, Bible quoting Adventists of Jesus day, killed Him.

Here's the BIG DEAL, and perhaps the most important reason that one must exercise special caution in understanding these definitions:

The end result of believing that all killing is "murder," and therefore "sin," is the erroneous belief that one cannot safely obey God.

APL must, of necessity in order to be consistent with his view, rationalize that God's commands need to be filtered through his private interpretation first before they can be safe to follow. If any killing is "murder," as forbidden in the Ten Commandments, then it follows that:

1. God gave the wrong command to the people of Israel in telling them to stone the Sabbath-breaker;
2. God gave the wrong command to the people to destroy the Canaanites;
3. God did the wrong thing in destroying people like Nadab & Abihu, Korah, Dathan, & Abiram, the antediluvians, the Canaanites, Uzzah, the first-born sons of Egypt, Senacherib's army, and many more throughout the Bible; and
4. God will do the wrong thing in destroying the wicked in hell.

Usually, because those who have already gotten off the track of truth from the definition stage onward cannot accept that God would do anything wrong, they make another error in claiming that the Bible does not mean what it says, and that every time the Bible says God did one of these "evil" things, Satan was actually the one doing it, not God. Essentially, this view claims that parts of the Bible are lying, and cannot be believed. According to this view, Abraham should never have thought God would ask him to kill; the people should not have obeyed God in killing the Sabbath-breaker or Achan; and they only did these things of the hardness of their hearts. Again, private opinion supercedes the Bible.

In the end, private opinions on the topic become inconsistent. According to Mrs. White, the parts of the Bible that people prefer not to hear or believe are frequently the very parts they need most. As this particular error in theology, stemming from mis-definitions, is one I have never fallen prey to, I do not claim to understand what portion of the sinful nature might be gratified by such a belief. But there very likely is one, if Ellen White is to be believed.

We are in a battle for our souls. Only the truth will set us free. Jesus came to help us know the truth. He has been teaching His people since the beginning of their creation. Our only hope is to lay aside our prejudices, our biases, and our sins, and accept His truth and salvation by faith. We may not understand everything now, but He will make everything plain to us in His time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Dedication,

One reason I've returned to this topic from the "definitions" standpoint is that I have realized just how crucial these definitions are, and their proper understanding may very well be salvific. This is not a discussion for debate, nor for fun, nor to "win." It is simply for truth. Satan is playing the game of life for our souls and for keeps--for eternity. We cannot let down our guard, and we cannot trust ourselves in this battle. Every one of us must surrender our judgment to the will of God, and be seeking that openly, honestly, and humbly. If we have misunderstood something in the past, we must not maintain our errors pridefully, but rather be grateful for God's mercy in bringing them to light that we might yet have a chance at His salvation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This might be a good example of the power of words--the topic for this thread. I don't believe I ever stated that. Please find my quote to back up your statement. I try to be careful with my words, knowing their potential significance. What you have quoted does not exhibit my usual care in selecting words that express my beliefs; therefore, I believe it is a misquote.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Would the contrast be that if it weren't for His death giving power, no one would die?

But again, who killed Saul? The Bible states what happened and how. But yet it states, "And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."
Do we "rewrite" that? Or do we understand what the Bible is saying rather than taking some dogmatic odd and selfish position? And if we try to understand this verse, that God didn't "slay" Saul, but stopped protecting him, then what about other places where it talks of fire from God or what not?

So you say He kills some people to save others?
?
!

So why not list the definitions for all? Why be vague and tell people they should look elsewhere for them because you need to spend your time in being vague and ambiguous? If these definitions are so crucial and "salvific", why not be forthright and list them? How many people are going to be lost because you choose to hide these definitions?

What are you afraid of, Green?

I'm not afraid of anything, kland, except that people will reject the truth. Let me ask you a serious question:

What was Jesus afraid of that made Him cloak His most profound truths in parables? Why did He not simply "tell all"? ... lay out His definitions plainly for all to see?

He gave some definitions, yes. I don't claim to be so wise as He, by any means, but I do try to learn from His example. Sometimes I will present things plainly. Sometimes I will let people learn and study more for themselves. If one does not work a little to learn something, most probably he or she will little appreciate its value.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree with kland. That's a major problem when people don't accept what scriptures says and rewrites it, twist it, or add to it to say what they want it to say.

People that does that will never be able to see God's true definition of words.

I was in the camp of "God does not kill" for a few years in another forum. I have pulled all the tricks in the bag possible to make scriptures say what it didn't say just so I would preserve my pre-conceived picture of who God should look like and act like.

Show me where it says or implies that Cain hated his brother. I've looked before posting, and I found none.


Quoting Ellen when you can't find it in the Bible? No, no... Ellen said no, no. Well, you probably missed these counsels of Mrs. White. There's many more like that.



Green provide Biblical basis that Cain "hated" Abel. If we cannot find support in the Bible to define a word, then it just doesn't mean what you would like it to mean.



"ratsach" is not define as killing "without a cause". Where did you get that definition?



What I see coming out of these two words and its usage employed in the Bible :

1- ratsach means slaying because of previous hatred for someone, whereas
2- harag is slaying without any previous hate towards that person, but for other reason.

These are the two words that are the closest to our "Pre-meditated murdering" English word definition.

My brief Biblical Summary of what I got from these words up 'till now :(I'm sure there's more to find, we just need to keep reading and pondering on it letting the Spirit guide our thinking)

"ratsach" is proper definition is "to dash into pieces" and the Bible has defined it 5 times(including Jesus in NT) as killing thy brother because you hated him previously.



Whereas haragis "to smite with deadly intent" where the employement of #2 to #8 clearly show there's no "hatred" involve with the slaying of these people.

Elle,

I don't understand how someone could read the story of Cain killing his brother and not realize that hatred was involved. It was, in fact, the same kind of hatred that resulted in Jesus' death--the jealous kind.



Cain was jealous of his brother because his brother's offering was accepted and his wasn't. This is the reason he got so angry at his brother. It wasn't his brother's fault that Cain's offering had not been accepted. Cain was blaming Abel for his own error, and killed him over it. The story has "hate" written all over it, even though the actual word is not used here. However, in the New Testament, reference is made with a word nearer to this in meaning. Consider the following:



The Greek "sphazō" means to slay, slaughter, butcher; to put to death by violence. It is only used in the New Testament in cases where it was unwarranted and unjust. But the chapter of 1 John itself connects this kind of murder with the concept of hate, in actual words. Two verses later we read:



The word "murderer" there comes from the Greek "anthrōpoktonos" meaning manslayer/murderer. Jesus also taught that to hate is to murder, as APL correctly noted earlier.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Basically, I see an attempt to put those words in a "box" that is much too small for them.

Murder isn't just done out of hate, it is often done out of greed, for example the murder of Naboth was not done because of hate, but because of greed.

1 Kings 21:19 (Elijah goes to Ahab who has taken possession of Naboth's vineyard and says) Hast thou killed,ratsach and also taken possession? .. Thus saith the LORD, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine.


"lack of love", yes,-- purely selfish reasons, yes, but not necessarily "hate".

Job 24:14 The murderer H7523 rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief

Psalm 94:6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder H7523 the fatherless

Why? To steal
For sport
Because their minds are twisted by evil.

Thus yes, to "hate" is preparing the heart to "murder".
But "murder" can originate from other sinful causes as well.

Does sin cause death and destruction or it is really God that causes it? Which? If we don't know, how can we have capital punishment which seals that person's fate? Who should cast the first stone? Green maybe?
Green - have you read the Bible as a whole? What about 1 Corinthians 10:10? What about Psalms 78:49? All the work of God, right? Private interpretation, right? I think not.

There may have been some hatred there.

Perhaps what I thought I had already made clear was not actually clear. If so, please pardon me for writing too indistinctly.

"Murder" (ratsach) in the Bible denotes ONE or BOTH of the following TWO things: 1) hatred; or 2) injustice ("without a cause").

Remember, God did not command punishment as a murderer for the man who killed a thief that broke into his home at night. This was self-defense, defending his family, not hatred. It was not "without a cause" either, for certainly, there was a cause.

Naboth's vineyard may not have been a case of hatred, though certainly Ahab had no love lost for Naboth, but it was primarily about injustice. Ahab had no right to do what he did. That is why it was "murder."

Remember, "murder" also included the man who allowed his dangerous bull out, resulting in someone's death--if that man knew that his bull had a temperament like that and would be dangerous. Even though the man did not himself kill anyone, he was a murderer. These commands were given just after the Ten Commandments, by God Himself. In a way, they can been seen as further elucidation on the meaning of those commandments.



Obviously, if the man's own son or daughter had been gored, as is mentioned above, the man would not have been guilty of hating them. Yet this was still a case of murder if it involved negligence on his part, i.e. it was "without a cause." He knew better than to let his dangerous bull have such an opportunity. It didn't have to happen. Still, on account of God's mercy, in such a case as this, the man was allowed to redeem his life by paying howeversomuch as might be required of him. Presumably, from the passage, if he could not pay, he was punished with death per the law.

So, no, hatred is not the sole indicator of "murder." "Without a cause" figures heavily in the equation as well.



Combined with the "be ye angry and sin not" (Ephesians 4:26) text, we know that sometimes there is "cause" to be angry, and one can in such cases be angry without sin.

In like manner, as other words for "kill" in the Bible bring out, there are times when there is just cause for doing so. As Dedication mentioned, Solomon tells us there is a time to kill. There is never, however, a time to kill without a cause. Since hatred does not provide a just cause, the better word for defining "murder" might very will be "causeless."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No there's not hatred written all over. The Bible says Cain was wroth because his sacrifice was not accepted. There's no mention in the Bible or even insinuated that Cain hated his brother previous to this incidence. And that's is the determined factor for being guilty of ratsach according to what Moses has defined in Dt 4:42; 19:4; 19:6; 19:11 and what Jesus said in Mat 5.

The discussion that took place in the field shortly after the incidence, we do not know what was said either. But the Bible tells us there were a discussion that took place, and then that led to the killing of Abel. Nor does the Bible tells us that Cain had pre-meditated to Kill Cain before their discussion.

Regarding, the Lord's warning in Gen 4:7 concerning Cain's "wroth" it was about the Lord not accepting his sacrifice. It had nothing to do with Abel. The Lord's warning to Cain was if he didn't overcome this "wroth" of his, that it would open up a door to some sin. That's all.

For sure Cain sinned by exploding in the field. For sure Cain on the heat of the discussion did want "to smite Abel" with "deadly intent." according to the proper definition of harag that Moses chose to define the incidence with. Moses chose that word instead of the other because he meant what that word means.

And harag does not mean "to kill" in the general sense like you(Green) tried to define it. muwth is the word to choose to express "to kill" in a generic sense for it only means "to die" and in the causatively form it means "to kill". So Green you need to be careful to not overwrite the Lord's definition of words with your own definition.

Green, you are adding things that is not said in the Bible. And then, if ratsach(with pre-hatred) was the case as you suggest it to be, then why the Lord protected Cain with a mark as someone not guilty of ratsach that can find protection in a city of refuge. Then we would have to accuse the Lord of not applying His own laws in this judgment of His. The judgment of the Lord on Cain further defines the nature of the killing.

To me all points that Cain was guilty of a harag(no pre-hatred) type of killing and not a ratsach(with pre hatred towards Abel)


I did not imply that Cain didn't slay Abel without violence.


It is true that in 1 Jn 3:12 John makes a link to Cain situation to the world. And I'm sure if Cain wouldn't of killed Abel that day in the field while arguing, Cain's sin that layeth at the door would of been a nurtured hatred towards Abel from that day forward. And that's what the World does to us.

The point here is, no where in the Bible says that Cain hated Abel before that incidence. And that's the marking definition of ratsach and what seperates it from the word harag. Moses used the word harag because it was a harag killing and not a ratsach. And a harag type of killing gets protection in one of the city of refuge according to the Lord's judgment laws. There were no city of refuge at that time, thus the Lord applied His own law by putting a marking on Cain to protect him.

I think it was more of an issue of rebellion against Jacob's righteous judgment than any righteous hatred for what had happened to Dinah. These "young" men -- 10 of them and I'm sure Simeon and Levi were already over 30 years of age, had their own opinion how things should be run, and it is natural for any young people to disagree with their parents. The fact they did not discuss their plan with Jacob beforehand shows that they usurped his authority by which they probably did beforehand also.

Simeon and Levi justified their rebellion by using one segment of the law (and not the whole). This is what I view the proper definition of legalism to be.

Jacob judgment, based on seeing Shechem's house wanting to amend for their wrong and his son heart's in the right place for wanting to take Dinah as a wife, was according to the Lord's whole precepts and laws. To pursue inter-marriage between the two families, the entire house of Shechem's did righteously to accept the God of Jacob as their Lord and worship only Him and undergo the ritual of circumcision. That was no small decision and probably based on what they probably heard about the Lord, maybe throughout the known historical stories of Abraham who was well known in Canaan. I don't think it was a rash decision on Shechem's house part.

Thus Simeon and Levi could not see all this good, nor wanted to pursue the righteousness of the Lord, nor sought Dinah's honor, for there was something else in the way -- Jacob's leadership. This is shown that they didn't want to submit to Jacob's judgment call. This whole ordeal had more to do with Simeon and Levi rebelling against their father's judgment than any righteous hatred resulting from the incidence.

And their argument of Dinah's honor being defiled was unbased and full of baloney for Dinah's honor would of been preserved by becoming a princess and wife and potentially the future queen of the royal family of Shechem. You cannot ask for better honor than that. However, because of Simeon & Levi slaughtering, they caused Dinah's remaining life to be in dishonor and robbed her from an honorable future.

No...I do not see that this whole thing had to do with pre-hatred towards Shechem's son. If it was, then only kill the son and not the whole nation. That show another problem -- is that Simeon and Levi were basically blood thirsty.

And again, if it was a case of hatred -- then the Lord and Jacob did not judge Simeon and Levi according to the law. The fact that the whole house of Jacob had flee to find protection elsewhere, further shows the judgment of the law for what type of "killing" it really was about. If it was a case of ratsach, the Lord wouldn't of left that pass without addressing it somewhere even in for generation to come. The case was closed and no prophecies relates to it to rectify the wrong that Jacob did there.


Moses used the correct words harag and not ratsach to described the incidence. I think we need to trust that Moses knew Hebrew better than us and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit accurately defined the situation by choosing the right words by which it is further seconded by the witness of the law of judgment.

I don't want to imply here that the Bible is without error. We all know that there are a few -- not much but a few. Thus its probable that Moses could of done an error by choosing the wrong words. I know it is not the case because in both of these cases (Cain and Simeon & Levi) is we have a witness of the law -- meaning how the Lord judged the situation. I don't know if this is the technical legal term for it -- "a case study" that defines how the law was applied for a particular case with the court's verdict(application of the law).

The Lord will always judge a matter according to His laws by which is His character. So the case studies are our second witness that testify the law used for the situation, and how the Lord's applies it by His verdict rendered.

In both cases, the judgment rendered in that case confirms the word Moses used is correct.

AV Isa 8:20 "To the law[Torah] and to the testimony[t`uwdah]: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."

t`uwdah ("attestation, usage") is used in two other places in the Bible. And only one of those defines the word.

AV Ru 4:7 "Now this [was the manner] in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave [it] to his neighbour: and this [was] a testimony[t`uwdah] in Israel."

Boaz was not the closest kin of Ruth(well Naomi); there was another but he only wanted to redeem the land and not marry Ruth to fulfill the Levirate law and to give an heir to Naomi eldest son who died childless -- thus he wanted to partially applied the law like a good legalist. Whereas Boaz wanted rightfully to fulfill the whole law. This is how Boaz won the case and that became a testimony[t`uwdah, a case study] of the Levirate law in Israel.

So case studies are very important to spot in the Bible. It tells us many things -- especially how the Lord applies His law. We learn a bunch of stuff(the law) from these.

Elle,

Before you can make such a strong assertion that Cain's killing of Abel could NOT have been "murder" (ratsach) and was only a "killing", you must establish that "hatred" is the only way for something to qualify as murder.

Here's what you are missing. Hatred is not the only criterion. Injustice is another one. Would you say from the Bible that Cain was justified in killing Abel? Was it a righteous killing? In modern terms, which would best describe Cain's killing of Abel:

A) Involuntary manslaughter (accidental killing)
B) Murder (intentional, unjust killing)
C) Capital punishment (justified according to the law)

(All of the above involve "killing", would you agree?)

It would be best if we can establish the clear meaning of "murder" before trying to set it apart from "killing." We cannot hope to establish distinctions between words when every word definition remains murky and indistinct itself.

We also need to agree on an essential principle here: that the Hebrew/Greek should be our final authority, not the English translation made of it.

Interestingly, the word "murder" occurs only 9 times in all the Bible in English (KJV). If we extend that to all possible forms of the word (e.g. murdering, murderers, etc.), we come up with just 37 uses in the KJV. Conversely, forms of the word "kill" occur 219 times in the Bible, and then we have other words like "slaughter," "slay," "slew," etc., which give us another 532 word usages in the KJV. So, with a total of 758 verses mentioning some kind of killing in the Bible, only 37 use the term "murder." That's less than 5%. Either murder was uncommon, or the translation of "murder" was simply uncommon in English and many more uses might be indicated in modern English. While I don't like the NIV "translation," it illustrates this possibility in having 75 verses, more than double the KJV, using "murder" in some form. The NLT increases the use of "murder" to 144 verses, nearly four times that of the KJV.

In the NKJV, also based on the Textus Receptus, and therefore a version I largely accept, the Bible states that Cain "murdered" his brother.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

You may be giving Simeon and Levi too much credit in understanding the law, which wasn't fleshed out in great detail until hundreds of years later. It is possible that they were simply angry over what was done to their sister, and didn't consider her becoming a princess to be sufficient restitution for her rape.

The victims of abuse do not usually bother with using legalistic manipulation to justify their revenge.

Was not the 4 Deuteronomy texts enough that clearly defined what "murder"- ratsach is :

AV Dt 4:42 "That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:"

AV Dt 19:4 "And this [is] the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;"

AV Dt 19:6 "Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he [was] not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past."

AV Dt 19:11 "But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:"



For sure hatred is not the only criterion, but it is an important factor for a case of pre-meditative murder that deserves the death penalty as defined in Deut 19:11.

Another criteria that we haven't discussed is if the other (in this case Abel) provoke someone (Cain) to anger. The Bible is silence of what was discussed between Abel and Cain. Maybe Cain was trying to follow the Lord's instruction in Gen 4:7 to overcome his "wroth"(of his sacrificed not accepted) by talking to Abel (Gen 4:8). Then maybe Abel bragged about how good he is or ... whatever and provoked Cain with his words -- meaning he fuel the spark that Cain tried to extinguish.

We do not know what happened but if that sorta thing happened -- then Abel is responsible for Cain outburst of fire(Anger). This is taught in the laws of liability in Exodus 22:5,6; Ex 21:33,34 where liability is given to the one who caused the situation. Paul is applying this law by saying to the parents not to provoke their children to anger in Ephesians 6:4 & Colossians 3:21.

As we said we do not know what happened in that conversation, but the Lord knows. And how the Lord judged Cain tells us the nature of the crime by which Cain is guilty of. We see that the Lord gave protection to Cain and set him off as a fugitive. Exactly the judgment scenario for anyone that is innocent of a ratsach type of murdering and find refuge in one of the cities.

Cain received a judgment(Gen 4:11,12) because he was the first one to spill blood on the ground by killing Abel. He was cursed and the earth wasn't going to give him its strength, and he was to be a fugitive and vagabond in the earth.

No, not at all. Cain also shares responsibility in this crime, despite Abel might of fuel the spark to get Cain into a rage of anger. Cain went too far to strike him in the intend to kill him. That is Cain level of responsibility in this case. He was the oldest of the two, and he was his younger brother's keeper. Cain went too far in smiting his brother to death. He could of just given him just a good beaten. I'm not saying that this is the way to go, but better than to killing him.


I think it doesn't fit in any of these Babylonians terms and way of justice. I rather seek for the Lord's terms and His way of bringing justice.

The termed the Lord used was "harag"(striking with deadly intend but with no pre-hatred involved) and not a case of "ratsach"(striking with deadly intend because of pre-hatred)

The Lord way of bringing justice according to His laws was to put a mark on Cain for protection and let him be a fugitive and having to suffer the consequence that the ground no longer gives him this great & easy harvest he use to have.


Re-read the 4 texts quoted above that Moses has given us as definition and what Jesus says about the 6th commandment. That might help you.


Well, the Bible was not written in English nor does any of the many English translation fully and completely captivate the original text meaning. So isn't it obvious that we need to look at the original Hebrew and Greek words that the text was written in? And then what Strong and other scholars has defined these words to be, can be correct but they do disagree on some definitions and at times most are incorrect about the definition for their understanding of many text are limited. So their work can help us have a start on a definition; but this needs to be tested and we need to take a further step to extract the real definition from the context the word is employed in Scriptures....which requires the guidance of the Holy Spirit to understand the text it is used in.

Elle,

Your definitions do not add up. How could Cain have killed Abel by "striking with deadly intend but with no pre-hatred involved" when the reason Cain killed Abel was that God had accepted the righteous Abel's sacrifice but had rejected Cain's? And, what sort of new term is "pre-hatred" anyhow? Either one has hatred or one doesn't. If by this term you imply that up until this point Cain did not have hatred, but at the moment when he rashly killed his brother he did, why would this not justifiably fit the Bible's definition of "murder"?

I see. You do not wish to admit that Cain was a murderer. To do so, you would necessarily accept that "ratsach" would also describe his act well. There's an erroneous path in which you have entered, that not even APL has arrived at yet, which you must be influenced by in order to create your own definitions like this--that of believing that God will not allow anyone to actually perish in the end, but that all will be saved and none will be lost. Therefore, you must necessarily accept that Cain will be in heaven one day, and his "sin" was not really so evil as it appears. Am I accurately reading your perspective?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I think you underestimate how much of the law they knew before it was "fleshed out in great details" by Moses.

This is another assumption many Christian make that the law was only known in Moses times. That's not true. In Moses time, it was the first time the law was written down, before that the law was taught verbally and passed down from generation to generation from father to son.

Abraham kept -charge, commandments, statutes, and laws

AV Gn 26:5 "Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."

The Lord taught Abraham via His voice. Actually, this type of teaching is still what the Lord requires for us today. Many think they know the Lord's laws because they have a written form of it that has been interpretated by their Church, or by their pastors, or by their prophet, or by their own minds --- but all of these forms are totally INVALID. We all need to learn the Lord's Laws via His voice. This is what the Pentecost level of faith is all about. By recognizing His voice and receiving His teachings and obeying what we perceived He is saying, and by being corrected until we get it right --- that's how we get the Lord's true interpretation of the law and get it written on our heart.

Esau and Jacob and Isaac Knew that the Birthright went to the Eldest

The law is mentioned in AV Dt 21:17 "But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his."

Rebekah was given a revelation that "the older shall serve the younger". But its interpretation and its fulfillment timing is reserved to the Lord and not by the flesh. Thus Rebekah and Jacob were both wrong to try to fulfill this by the flesh and illegally take the birthright from Esau.


Judah already knew the Levirate Law

The law is found in Deut 25:5-10 by which I won't quote. The story of Judah and Tamar is found in Gen 38. This law was already known by Judah when Tamar's husband who was the eldest and the birthright carrier of the family died childless. So Judah acted according to the law by telling his next son to perform the Levirate duty to give Tamar a son & heir for his eldest brother.

AV Gn 38:6 "And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name [was] Tamar. 7 And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. 8 And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. 9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled [it] on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. 11 Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren [did]. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

Then years past by and it was obvious Judah wasn't going to give Shelah to Tamar. Then that's when Tamar took off her widow's garment and cover herself with a vail and went to Timnath for she knew that Judah was going to pass there. Judah assumed she was a prostitute and lay with her.


Judah's Judgment to burn Tamar

Then later on it became apparent Tamar was pregnant and everyone assumed she "played the harlot" and told Judah. "And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt" Here again we see Judah is judging her with a law of Moses found in Lev 21:9 "the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

This may reveal that Tamar was a daughter of a priest despite the Bible is silence about it. It's would be desirable to choose a wife with such background for his firstborn son who will be the one to pass on the charge and the laws of the Lord to the following generation. Joseph was given a daughter of a priest also to be his wife. She was a daughter of an Egyptian priest, nevertheless, she was a descent woman whose two children became the leader of two great nation of Israel.


Tamar's "Fire" hotter than Judah's "Fire"

Tamar's fire (application to fulfill the evirate law) was more hot (righteous) than Judah's fire(application of law to burn Tamar).

AV Gn 38:25 When she [was] brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these [are, am] I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose [are] these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. 26 And Judah acknowledged [them], and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.


Moses already taught the Lord's laws before receiving the 10Cs

AV Ex 18:16 When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make [them] know the statutes of God, and his laws.

Moses was already teaching the laws before the event of Mt Sinai came.


The Law being taught Verbally from Father to son

There's many more that can be quoted that shows that the Lord has been teaching His laws to the patriarch Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who were responsible to teach these to their children, so to pass the knowledge of the laws from generation to generation.

For sure I do not deny that the knowledge of the law increased thru generations to generation as the Lord reveal more details of a certain part or how to judge new situation establishing "new" laws (usually it is an extension of a elemental law but applied in different cases). I don't think new laws were ever established after Moses, and it is questionable that Moses established any "new" elemental laws that were not already known in some form in the past at least since the time of Noah & Shem. The sacrificial offerings, the firstfruits offerings, the marital laws, many of the judgments laws, etc... was taught since Adam. Enoch knew quite a bit of the law and I'm sure that knowledge was handed down to his grandson Noah who taught these to Shem and Shem to Abraham and Isaac who were still alive for Shem to teach them.

Sons of Jacob were aware of the Law concerning Rape

No I don't believe that Jacob and his sons were ignorant with the basic law of a man that seduced a woman that he likes and force himself onto her. This type of behavior was quite prevalent in those days. The law acknowledge this and its judgment for such a case is that he marries her but never can divorce her.

AV Dt 22:28 If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

There's another law that I cannot find right now, but it gives more detail of a case of a man that "seduced" a virgin by saying it is the Father's decision if his daughter should be given as a wife or not.


Sheshem did not Rape Dinah

I went to re-read Gen 34 and I have found that we have all assumed that Shechem raped Dinah. He did not. He loved her from the beginning when he saw her. No where the scripture even says that he forced himself unto her. 34:2 simply says that he lay with her and defiled her. Verse 3 says that his soul cleaved with Dinah and talked to her gently. In verse 4 Shechem ask his father to get him Dinah for his wife. He was willing to give any size of dowry Jacob would ask in verse 12.


We Assume too Often things that the Bible does not say

This "assuming" is quite a huge problem and it is quite typical. Thru the years I have found that I can NOT rely on my memory of what the scriptures says. Even when I read the text, if I don't read slowly by paying attention on every word, my mind will not recall what I just read, and it will recall only what I was taught in the past. There it is, I have read Gen 34 in the past and never paid good attention what verse 1-4 really said and still today in my mind, I had as a memory that Shechem raped Dinah because that's what I always heard and what was shared in Church. But that's not what the Bible says and it is another ASSUMPTION of ours. We need to be very careful because uch of what we deduced as doctrines is often based on assumption or filling the gaps of what scriptures doesn't say.


The Sons of Jacob consented to give Dinah as a Wife

Coming back to Sheshem desire to marry Dinah, the problem the sons of Jacob raised is that they were uncircumcised and both nations couldn't intermarry. Here again we see some knowledge of the law of Moses.

Then the sons of Jacob consented that if every male in their city would get circumcised that they would give Dinah and their people would intermarry and become one(v. 15 & 16). Here I was wrong to assumed that Jacob made that agreement; but the Bible says that it was the sons of Jacob that did so but deceitfully(v.13). Jacob was in agreement with how the conversation went between his sons and Hamor & Shechem for Jacob did not use his authority to overrule his sons' consent. But Jacob was not aware or in agreement with the deceitful layer of the plan beneath that Simeon and Levi had devised.


I made the same assumption as noted above. Dinah was not raped(v.2). She was spoken kindly, loved and Shechem soul cleaved to her(v.3) and he wanted her as a wife from v.4.


The only thing I can see that Shechem did wrong is he slept with her before marrying her. But even Paul doesn't treat this such a case as a sin in 1Cor 7:36.

The only thing that is considered "defiling" is that Schechem was not circumcised. We don't know if Shechem knew this law but that's the only level where he is guilty depending on his previous awareness. However, he and his whole nation were willing to be circumcised and make the situation right. Which was very righteous of them to resolve the situation to that extend to satisfy any part of the law.

I think your theory that Simeon and Levi were using their vast and detailed knowledge of an unwritten law for their legalistic pursposes is a far-fetched assumption. It is far more likely that they simply thought of a way to incapacitate all the men so they can exact revenge. I think there is more evidence that Jacob's sons were slaves of carnal passion than that they were legal experts.


I think it is possible to defile a woman even while circumcised. Absalom's sister was victimized by her circumcised brother.

I think you are now engaging in the sort of legal gymnastics you envision Simeon and Levi did. It doesn't take hundreds of words to say their sister was defiled so they got revenge.

BTW, I have heard of men killed as the defiled women begged for mercy because she loves him. Sometimes, the woman was killed also. Gentle talk doesn't always fix things.

The only reason the Bible give concerning Cain "wroth" is that the Lord did not accept his sacrifice.

That's my shorter version of the Moses statement of "as he hated him not in time past" in Deut 19:6 & Deut 4:42 and "whom he hated not in time past" in Deut 19:4.


No. That's not what Moses said. There's cases where you murder or kill someone with deadly intend but with no previous hatred of the person involved. Look at all the usage of the word "hareg" by which its definition is " to smite with deadly intent". An example of the usage of this word is killing an animal to eat at the feast of Tabernacle. You do not "pre-hate" the animal that you do "smite with deadly intend".


I have already answered this to you -- but maybe you didn't read it. Let me repeat by re-quoting:



Depends on your definition of murderer --
Cain did not "ratsach" Abel with "pre-hatred involve" -- no he did not.
Cain did "harag" Abel with deadly intend but no "pre-hatred" -- yes he did.


??? I always maintain that Cain did not "ratsach".


I have no idea what you and APL discussed in the pass. But I did witness in this discussion with the study of these words that you have shown yourself to add things that the Bible doesn't say and spin your own definition on words while ignoring what Moses have defined the word to be in the Law.

Up to now I have stuck to what the Bible actually said without adding or assuming(well I did assumed that Sheshem raped Dinah), and looked at how the Lord judged the situation to draw my understanding of the definition of the words.


Bringing another discussion into this???? Trying to shade me with my other beliefs so to pull the reader to your side???

I like the rules in Adventist Online Forum which do not allow this sort of behavior.

If you want to address my other beliefs, address them in the other discussion where I am involve.

I have supplied ample of scriptures and only scriptures for any point of my believes, and have been very detailed that puts me in an vulnerable situation so that anyone could challenge me on any points where I could slightly err in not representing correctly what scriptures is saying. That's my purpose of being so details with what I think by supplying the scriptures that led me to these understandings. No where I'm being general or just saying my opinion without multiple textual support including the law.

Thus is you think I'm in error somewhere, then you can tackle me on any point I have detailed my position. You have the opportunity and I welcome it.


No, not at all. Initially I didn't even want to engaged into such debates as "Does God kill or not" which seems to be the purpose of starting this by choosing such word as "kill" so you could continue with APL your old debates. I jumped in this discussion because I realized I never looked at these words beforehand. So it was for my own purpose of learning what these words meant while studying them with you guys. I'm not afraid to see what the Bible says because I have found it that the truth and character of the Lord is always consistent as I have discovered again with the story of Cain and Dinah with these words. It is when your pre-conceived interpretation doesn't match up with the Lord plan of salvation, that you are confronted with inconsistencies and problems that you need to add things to the Bible, spin it so to say what it doesn't say, or just plainly ignore those texts totally.

You obviously read my perspective totally wrong and have totally forgotten my little protest of your choice of word to kickstart this discussion and my reluctance to enter into it.

To me it looks like you are seeking too hard to find something to shade my motives so to make a strawman(right term?) and deviate the attention on the crucial points brought forth so far.

Don't go that route to attack the person instead of addressing the discussion at hand. OK. That's lame.

I do agree that Jacob's sons and most people at that time were slaves of carnal passion. As I said in two or three posts before hand, by their actions of killing all the men of that town it displayed another problem -- that Simeon and Levi were "blood thirsty". That doesn't require any "pre-hatred" towards someone to pick a good fight to draw the sword to satisfy such blood thirsty passion. Any reason will do. Plus scriptures gives another reason that we haven't discussed :

AV Gn 34:27 "The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister. 28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which [was] in the city, and that which [was] in the field, 29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that [was] in the house."

Pretty hefty profitable sizable winning and potential ulterior motive if you ask me.

I do not agree that killing the males of the whole town and stealing their wealth and taking the woman and children as slaves is an "exact revenge" for one man sleeping with their sister before marriage and clearly expressing his love and wanting to marry her and be circumcised along with the whole town. Looks like your judgment to properly weight the case righteously is failing you. It was totally without legal cause; and it was to satisfy other personal reasons that we can draw as probable with the info reveal from scriptures.

I never said that Simeon and Levi were "experts of the law" but that they knew these basic laws that were definitely addressed to any young men descendants from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who taught their children the Lords laws. That's what is involved when you "keep the charge" as told about Abraham as I quoted.

These are basic moral laws that is taught to a young man when(or before) their "carnal sex drives" starts kicking in so they know before hand how to properly treat a virgin or other women and how to take a wife when the time comes. The fact the sons of Jacob objected the inter-marriage when Habor and Sheshem came to ask Dinah's hand in marriage -- shows they already knew about the laws to not inter-marry amoungst the uncircumcised. Thus I have no doubt that they also knew very well knew the basic laws about rape, seducing a virgin before marriage, and not commiting adultery that any committed spiritual father would teach their growing young sons.


Well that was a real rape. If my memory is correct, I think the Bible says that this sister was in some sort of distressed about the situation.

Whereas, nothing of the sort is said about Dinah. Who knows, perhaps Schechem swept Dinah off her feet and she might of consented to the sexual act. The Bible is totally silence about Dinah's feeling during or after the incidence. The Bible only expresses the deep love Schechem had towards Dinah and his immediate soul cleaving to her and his request to his father to marry her before they went to Jacob.

The real problem with David's son (name?) and the nature of the defilement is it was his half-sister which the act was totally unlawful at that time and considered incest. There were no chance for him to marry her after the incidence by law -- thus no way to rectify or cleanse what he had done. Thus she remained defiled for life. Whereas, Schechem wanting to take Dinah as a wife to the extend to be circumcised including his whole nation -- thus this removes all defilement from Dinah and her family by he & Dinah fulfilling all matters of the law.


I think you are trying to evade what the Bible says and try to use any thing you can find to say what the Bible doesn't say -- like Dinah was raped(I did the same assumption) and that she was a victim and her brother acted in hatred. All of these things is not in the Word of God.


It does take a hundreds words to show from the Bible what you are trying to say that the Bible doesn't say without laying aside your pre-conceived notion like the Lord commanded us to do in Eze 14:4 when we tackle an inquiry.

??? I have no idea what you are referring to. Please be kind and bring forth Bible referenced so I can check if what you say is so in scriptures.

Elle,

I firmly believe that in these last times more than any other period in earth's history, God's people need the testimonies which He, in His wisdom, has given them through the writings of Mrs. White. You may choose to reject these at your peril, but most here on this forum still profess to accept them. She herself prophesied that many would turn away from them. In doing so, you ironically prove her true. You have misused the statements, as do many these days, saying her writings should not be quoted. If her writings were never to be used, then why were they given? God gave her messages for the church, and if we neglect to pass those messages along to other believers, are we not guilty of hiding our light under a bushel?

Ellen White was not a big stick to hit someone with. The Bible wasn't either. But BOTH do present truth, and sometimes truth conflicts with our established ideas and sinful practices. As we say sometimes in English, "truth hurts." I want to accept truth always, even if it hurts, because in the end it heals.

Mrs. White is clear regarding Cain. Personally, I see the Bible as clear too. You don't. We differ. Many churches spring up on the Bible alone, all claiming to follow it. Many apply "private interpretation" to the Bible, which is what the Bible says NOT to do. What kind of definitions of your own making do you feel will benefit yourself or others?

Ellen White does not say more than the Bible says on this issue. She just uses modern words. The Bible story provides ample evidence in saying that Cain was "very wroth." It so happens that "wrath" is the strongest word for anger in the English language--and we have many. Consider the following words:

distracted
bothered
annoyed
irritated
upset
flustered
indignant
frustrated
angry / angered
mad / maddened
irate
enraged
furious
infuriated
wrathful

While some of the words in that list may reasonably be reordered, there is little question regarding the final one. In my dictionary it is defined as "full of or characterized by intense anger," and the similar form of "wrath" is said to be "extreme anger."

If you are extremely angry at your brother, is that sinful?

You said:



In the above, you are rationalizing. I'm being straight to the point here. You are essentially saying there that Cain was innocent. And why? You use God's mercy in sparing Cain's life as evidence. Then are not all of us innocent? None of us, since God permits us to live, is a sinner? Can you see where that logic will lead? At the very least, you are downplaying the degree of sinfulness. Elle, whether you allow yourself to see this or not, I do not know. Once someone has opined something, it is human nature to not go back on it for the sake of pride. We hate to admit that we were wrong. I hope, for your sake, that you are big enough to correct your views when you recognize them to have been made in error.

In Matthew 5:22, Jesus says "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

You have made an attempt, Elle, to paint Abel as culpable for Cain's sin. You would blame the victim for the act of violence of the perpetrator of the crime which ended the victim's life? That sounds like those men of India who raped a woman and killed her and then blamed her for being out late at night and that's what made them do it. I'm sorry, Elle, but we may have to leave off this discussion. I cannot continue to reason so contrary to common decency and to proper Biblical interpretation.

Whether you accept Mrs. White's writings or not, I do. I treasure them. They draw me closer to God every time I read them. And they tell us plainly that Abel was murdered. They tell us plainly that Abel was righteous, not guilty as you would imply in your misguided attempts to justify Cain. But you know what? The Bible tells us the same thing.

Again, these are Jesus' own words: "That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." (Matthew 23:35)

Abel was murdered. The Bible tells us he was righteous. The Bible tells us Cain was "very wroth." Even though that word is already the strongest word for anger in English, the adverb "very" precedes it, as if to make it stronger. And Cain was not guilty of murder in your sight? Elle, the Bible is clear enough to me. I pray your eyes will be opened to see the bigger picture. While looking at definitions, it does not follow that a word of a larger category can preclude the meaning of one of its subcategories. True, Moses used a different word than "ratsach" in that story. However, don't you think it just might be that in understating the gravity of the situation by the use of that word, Moses has in reality underscored just how bad it was? In English today, politicians know how to do this, and do it well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I fully agree with you Green, on this post.

1. Most people who accuse EGW of "adding" to the Bible insisting that thus her writings must not be used to help understand truth, like to push her aside so they can add their ideas to the Bible -- it frees them so they can come up with all types of new interpretations (adding their own opinions as to what it says).
I agree, EGW's writings agree with scripture and use scripture in an honest, straightforward manner in which scripture harmonizes with scripture.

2. Lots of maybe's to change the story of Cain and Abel were presented by Elle, to excuse Cain. Yet as you pointed out the Bible is clear that Abel was righteous, and that Cain was cursed.

3. Because God allowed Cain to live is not proof that he was innocent. Was Lucifer innocent? Of course not.
But God allows sin to demonstrate itself, so humans will realize what sin is and where it leads.

Eccl 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.
8:12 Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his life be prolonged, yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear before him:
8:13 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall his life be prolonged beyond this shadow; because he feareth not before God. ,

The righteous blood of Abel, as well as all the righteous slain at the hands of the wicked will be avenged. (see Matt.23:35, Luke 11:51)
Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

Let's bring this discussion back to definitions.

Reference	Text	Hebrew Word Used
Exod. 20:13, Deut. 5:17	Thou shalt not kill.	H7523, "ratsach", רָצַח
Exod. 29:11	And thou shalt kill the bullock before the LORD, ...	H7819, "shachat", שָׁחַט
Lev. 20:16	And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: . . .	H2026, "harag", הָרַג
Deut. 12:21	If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gate whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.	H2076, "zabach", זָבַח
Exod. 21:12	He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.	H4191, "muwth", מוּת

The word "kill" in the Ten Commandments in the KJV is a mistranslation. The translators did a little better in the New Testament with Matthew 19:18: "He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness."

In any case, it is obvious given these separate Hebrew words for "kill" in a direct command from God that God should not be contradicting Himself. We must pay careful attention to which "kill" it is in the English, because Hebrew has more than one kind, and God Himself commands the majority of them, at least for stated circumstances that go beyond the scope of this brief post. One, and only one, form of killing is prohibited by God among these commands.

Note: Additional commands exist, but I have not found them to use a different Hebrew word, so these are provided as, hopefully, representative examples. I may not have found them all, as other words in English need to be considered still.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green, I for one agree with you on the importance of these definitions. I for one have longed believed that people define words how ever they want so they can use the words they want to deceive others. It's not; "How readest thou?", but, How meanest thou? And that can be very hard to impossible to discern because of the person's intent.

What can anyone do about that?!? It's classic Jesuit deception as far as I'm concerned. They are the masters at defining anything and everything the way they want!

By saying so doesn't prove it is so. You need to support your opinions with facts. If you want to pursue this -- open another discussion and we can explore if what I quoted is out of context and what else she has to say about the subject. I have read a few discussion on Adventist Online about this, and seen a SDA historian saying relatively the same....of what I recall, I think the evidence would be against what you think is.


For the Lord to prove you and all of us as said in Deut 13:3 if we would just take the prophets words without testing it ourselve against what was said before.

The light is the Word of God, not the words of Ellen White. It is the Word of God that we ought to study like Ellen & James has repeatedly told us.


Up to now you are the one that pull many things that the Bible doesn't say like :

- Cain pre-hated Abel before the killing

- to arrive at a private interpretation to define the word "hareg" as a "general word for killing" that the Bible doesn't even define that word as such nor does any of the scholars

- to says that Cain committed murder of the definition of "ratsach" when the Bible has employed the word "hareg"

- to try to say that "ratsach" type of murder doesn't necessary involves pre-hatred when Moses has defined that specifically in 3 texts and that Jesus also defined that word in such in the NT.

- since you had no Biblical support from your private interpretation, you used an Ellen White quote to hope that will have authority over what the Bible actually says.


Yes -- and the Bible qualify what the "wroth" was about and it was about Cain sacrifice not being accepted. Nothing more.

AV Gn 4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. 6 . And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

You add to this "wroth" that he was wroth against Abel and jealous of his sacrifice... Nothing of the sort is said in the Bible. This is all your ADDITION -- your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.


The Bible doesn't say or imply that Cain was wroth at Abel. He was wroth at God for the fact the Lord did not accept his sacrifice.



I was not rationalizing, I was responding to your rationalizing of Adding to Scripture that Cain pre-hated Abel before the murder by which the Bible doesn't say.

You said the following :


And I responded with the following that you excluded in my statement above:



So you added a Supposition in the Bible by saying that Cain hated Abel before the murder by which the Bible doesn't say. And I responded with another supposition that is also not said in the Bible by qualifying my statements with "we do not know" and the "if" and the "maybe" in the above. All was relating to the conversation Cain & Abel had before the murder that the Bible doesn't give any details about. Anything could of happened and what I said above I was treating it totally as a supposition. Whereas you treat your supposition that there was a pre-hatred involved in the crime as TRUTH without even one Biblical support for it.

Your supposition and my supposition are both possibilities that exist but are not existent in scriptures. So either of us can use these supposition of possibilities or things not in Scriptures as PROOF to support our interpretation.

What we have as tangible facts is the word "hareg" to describe the crime and the Lord's judgment on Cain's crime and the Lord's prescribed judgment on types of crimes in the law and other information provided in the story.

All of these points to a "hareg" crime and not a "ratsach" crime. That's all I'm saying, but you Green you want to change what the Bible says that it was a "ratsach" type of crime. I don't agree and you do not have anything to support your interpretation.


During this whole discussion, I never imply or even come close to saying that Cain was innocent. I always maintain that Cain was guilty of the "harag" type of murder but not a "ratsach" type of murder.

And I confirmed this with what I said after that statement above in the following statements from my quote you have quoted to mis-represent what I have said:




God's mercy is in His laws. He spared Cain's life because Cain did not "ratsach" (kill with pre-hatred) Abel. Moses used the word "hareg" not "ratsach". If Moses would of used the word "ratsach" to describe the nature of the killing, then we have another problem in our hand for the Lord did not judge Cain for a "ratsach" type of crime according to his law. But since Cain was guilty of a "hareg" type of crime like the Bible says, then the Lord judged Cain according to the judgment in His laws. There's no issues, no conflict, no problem -- the Lord's judgment matches the crime according to His law.


Your loosing your common sense. I never implies nor believe any such things. I believe we are all sinners and we have all received the death penalty since Adam's fall. Anyone that are saved is 100% because of Jesus righteousness.


You have lost touch of the discussion. And you show that you don't even know what I have said during this discussion or have any clue what I believe in.


I do believe that you will be able to correct your errors Green, because I believe in the Lord's abilities and His words.


I have not. I said very clearly and repeated multiple times that we do not know what happened in that conversation between Cain and Abel.

I said the Lord only knows what happened and what was in Cain's heart. The Lord judged Cain according to what He knows and the verdict that He gave to Cain -- a "hareg" verdict and not a "ratsach" verdict -- represents what He knows.

You painting Cain as a "ratsach" murderer is both going against the Lord's word and the Lord's judgment. You are showing yourself as an adversity to the Lord. You are the one who is in disagreement with the Lord chosen words and what He has reveal in the story for us to put our focus on. You want to rewrite the story with your own chosen words and with your own emphasis by adding that Cain hated Abel -- things that the Lord didn't say -- when you weren't even there to witness what really has happened. Don't you think the Lord knows better?


You're loosing it.





If the Bible show us the same thing, why can't you show it.


Yes a "hareg" type(no pre-hatred involved) of murder, but not a "ratsach" type(with pre-hatred involved).


I agree also.


The Bible tells us he was wroth at the Lord not at Abel.


Cain was quilty of "hareg" type of murder, but not of "ratsach" type of murder.


Moses used the word "hareg" in Cain and Abel story, not "ratsach".

And again I need to repeat myself, I think this is the 2nd if not 3rd time I'm correcting you on this, "hareg" does not mean "to kill" in a general sense. It is the word "muwth" that means "to die" and is used in a causative form to mean "to kill" in a general sense. "muwth" was not used in Cain and Abel story -- "hareg" was.

You didn't even studied to see what "hareg" meant. And you haven't studied to see what "ratsach" means either or "muwth" or any other words relating to killing and murder. You are too much in a hurry to draw your own interpretation and conclusion without doing the necessary pre-investigative work required to understand how the Bible uses these words.

Then your feelings gets hurt when someone like me, French no background in English, a poor communicator and writer -- that comes along and points out the obvious that you haven't seen because you plainly didn't do the work of investigating. And you haven't put aside your pre-conceived ideas (opinions & interpretation) like the Lord told us to do in Ezk 14:4 before starting an inquiry-study. These two things plus adding things that the Bible doesn't say is what puts you in trouble.

I'm very sorry to have hurt your pride in the process, but I strongly believe without a doubt that you will overcome these in the future and your gifts will be a great assets to the Kingdom.

Hm - do you think the translators of the KJV were so truly blinded or perhaps their knowledge of God worse than yours? Do take your view that since as EGW says, the 10C are a transcript of God's character, that God must then kill sinners in order to eradicate sin? Or will sin cause the death of the sinner? As dedication, EGW writings agree with scripture and in her writings, she is clear that the natural consequences of sin is death, not execution of God Read {ST April 14, 1898}. She also has interestings to day about the deep study of Greek. Read {Lt303, 1903} a letter, parts of which green has misinterpreted before, as to what it says about learning Greek, or Latin. She has written others places about this. What does she say to study? Study the life of Christ. Follow Him from the manger to Calvary. Act as He acted. The great principles which He maintained, you are to maintain. Your standard is to be the character of Him who was pure, holy, and undefiled. That is how we should interpret the Law for the true meaning. Yes, the translators of the KJV got it right when viewed from Christ who is THE TRUTH.

I have a confession to make. I used to worship Baal of Peor (in KJV Baalpeor). He's a powerful god that offer immediate satisfaction. I repented however at times I still find myself being drawn to him for what he offers.

Did anyone here ever fancy him or still fancy him?

Perhaps we are attributing an unwarranted precision to words. In math, the language is very precise - you mean exactly what you say. But it is not so with English, Hebrew, or Greek. Failure to take this into account can lead to focusing on the letter rather than the spirit.

Consider this parable.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, don't hit your sister.
Jack: OK.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. I struck her.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. I smote her.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. I punched her.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. I kicked her.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. I bumped her.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. The stick did.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. The pole did.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. The rod did.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. The hammer did.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't. The ground did.
Jill: Ow!
Mommy: Jack, I told you not to hit your sister.
Jack: I didn't.......

It may be that God used a particular word at a particular time. But we can't conclusively say that He only meant one thing. Neither can we say that the word always means the same thing every time He used it. If we are looking for that kind of precision, the 10C would have needed a mountain of stone to write.

There is but one path to heaven--the strait and narrow way. Of those who enter this path the Lord says, "Ye are My witnesses." Those only who love God supremely and their neighbor as themselves can walk in this way. Christ says, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." We are to follow Christ in everything, conforming our lives to His teachings. {Lt68-1903}

I am instructed to say to our people, Let us follow Christ. We may safely discard all ideas that are not included in His teachings. {BCL 99.4}

Objections to the Bible

Human minds vary. The minds of different education and thought receive different impressions of the same words, and it is difficult for one mind to give to one of a different temperament, education, and habits of thought by language exactly the same idea as that which is clear and distinct in his own mind. Yet to honest men, right-minded men, he can be so simple and plain as to convey his meaning for all practical purposes. If the man he communicates with is not honest and will not want to see and understand the truth, he will turn his words and language in everything to suit his own purposes. He will misconstrue his words, play upon his imagination, wrest them from their true meaning, and then entrench himself in unbelief, claiming that the sentiments are all wrong. {Ms24-1886}

This is the way my writings are treated by those who wish to misunderstand and pervert them. They turn the truth of God into a lie. In the very same way that they treat the writings in my published articles and in my books, so do skeptics and infidels treat the Bible. They read it according to their desire to pervert, to misapply, to wilfully wrest the utterances from their true meaning. They declare that the Bible can prove anything and everything, that every sect proves their doctrines right, and that the most diverse doctrines are proven from the Bible. {Ms24-1886}

The writers of the Bible had to express their ideas in human language. It was written by human men. These men were inspired of the Holy Spirit. Because of the imperfections of human understanding of language, or the perversity of the human mind, ingenious in evading truth, many read and understand the Bible to please themselves. It is not that the difficulty is in the Bible. Opposing politicians argue points of law in the statute book and take opposite views in their application and in these laws. {Ms24-1886}

The Scriptures were given to men, not in a continuous chain of unbroken utterances, but piece by piece through successive generations, as God in His providences saw a fitting opportunity to impress man at sundry times and divers places. Men wrote as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is "first the bud, then the blossom, and next the fruit," "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." This is exactly what the Bible utterances are to us. {Ms24-1886}

There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. The miracles of Christ are not given in exact order, but are given just as the circumstances occurred, which called for this divine revealing of the power of Christ. The truths of the Bible are as pearls hidden. They must be searched, dug out by painstaking effort. Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures will, with their superficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictions of the Bible and question the authority of the Scriptures. But those whose hearts are in harmony with truth and duty will search the Scriptures with a heart prepared to receive divine impressions. The illuminated soul sees a spiritual unity, one grand golden thread running through the whole, but it requires patience, thought, and prayer to trace out the precious golden thread. Sharp contentions over the Bible have led to investigation and revealed the precious jewels of truth. Many tears have been shed, many prayers offered that the Lord would open the understanding to His Word. {Ms24-1886}

The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. {Ms24-1886}

The stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike. Some understand the statements of the Scriptures to suit their own particular minds and cases. Prepossessions, prejudices, and passions have a strong influence to darken the understanding and confuse the mind even in reading the words of Holy Writ. {Ms24-1886}

The disciples traveling to Emmaus needed to be disentangled in their interpretation of the Scriptures. Jesus walked with them disguised, and as a man He talked with them. Beginning at Moses and the prophets, He taught them in all things concerning Himself, that His life, His mission, His sufferings, His death were just as the Word of God had foretold. He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. How quickly He straightened out the tangled ends and showed the unity and divine verity of the Scriptures. How much men in these times need their understanding opened. {Ms24-1886}

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. {Ms24-1886}

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions, but on the man himself, who under the influence of the Holy Ghost is imbued with thoughts. But the words and thoughts receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God. {Ms24-1886}

That's a cute parable -- until Jack started to use the hammer. Did you write that?



That's a good way to water down the power of the Word; if that's your objective. But from what I've known you from this forum, you don't strike me as such an individual. I believe you seek to behold the Lord's power.

Jesus is the Word. We know He spoke creation into existence with Words. There's power in His words and language. To say such statement does show that you haven't tasted the Hebrew language. If you had, you would understand the following :

"The study of the Bible in a translation is incomparable to that of the original. So much is lost in the understanding that no person can be considered a man of understanding unless he has a fluent understanding of Hebrew."

The "fluent understanding of Hebrew" doesn't mean you need to speak it or write it; but the study of the meaning of one word at a time will add so much insight. It is a window to the Lord's mind. Many time there's a phylosophy (don't like that word- "His ways" is a better expression) that emerges from the words that is totally upside down from any Babylonian language. It's really totally different from any other language. You cannot compare it.

This is a good little explanation : http://www.jewishmag.com/58mag/hebrew/hebrew.htm

I was looking at that text and all other texts of ratsach yesterday. I think you have a good approach dedication and that's what we need to do to understand even further what ratsach means. I was impressed last week that this word is really important for us to study. I'm glad that Green brought this discussion.

There's only 47 occurrences of this word. Personally the way I usually tackle this is to group these occurrences by similarities. And then study each group at a time to derive its meaning.


Hatred is another word we need to look closer because it seems this is the key word employed by Moses that separates a ratsach murderer that deserves the death penalty versus not for other slayers because they haven't pre-hated previously.

Where is the line drawn for hatred? That's my current question as I was reading the other texts and stories.

Is anger, greed, selfishness the same as hatred? The line have to be made more clear.

I would recommend to use BlueLetterBible search tools https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7523&t=KJV
and/or Scriptures4all that is free to download.

I've been using on my computer scriptures4all for the past 6 (or +?) years. Great very amazing simple tool with interlinear of Hebrew(or Greek) words, Leningrad Codex, transliteration, English text, Strong codes, concordance, search tools,etc.... all in one view for a text. Rosangela uses this software also and she highly recommends it. http://www.scripture4all.org/

Here's the full rundown on "ratsach" in the Bible, without any of the commentary I usually like to add.

Lexicon Results Strong's H7523 - ratsach רָצַח Transliteration ratsach Pronunciation rä·tsakh' (Key) Part of Speech verb Root Word (Etymology) A primitive root TWOT Reference 2208 Outline of Biblical Usage to murder, slay, kill (Qal) to murder, slay premeditated accidental as avenger slayer (intentional) (participle) (Niphal) to be slain (Piel) to murder, assassinate murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) (Pual) to be killed Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 47 — slayer+16, murderer+14, kill+5, murder+3, slain+3, manslayer+2, killing+1, slayer(+0310)+1,+slayeth+1, +death+1 Strong's H7523 - ratsach Strong's Number H7523 matches the Hebrew רָצַח (ratsach), which occurs 47 times in 40 verses in the Hebrew concordance of the KJV Exo 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. H7523 Num 35:6 And among the cities which ye shall give unto the Levites there shall be six cities for refuge, which ye shall appoint for the manslayer, H7523 that he may flee thither: and to them ye shall add forty and two cities. Num 35:11 Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer H7523 may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. Num 35:12 And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer H7523 die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. Num 35:16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: H7523 the murderer H7523 shall surely be put to death. Num 35:17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: H7523 the murderer H7523 shall surely be put to death. Num 35:18 Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: H7523 the murderer H7523 shall surely be put to death. Num 35:19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: H7523 when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. Num 35:21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: H7523 the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, H7523 when he meeteth him. Num 35:25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer H7523 out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil. Num 35:26 But if the slayer H7523 shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill H7523 the slayer; H7523 he shall not be guilty of blood: Num 35:28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer H7523 shall return into the land of his possession. Num 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer H7523 shall be put to death H7523 by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Num 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, H7523 which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. Deu 4:42 That the slayer H7523 might flee thither, which should kill H7523 his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live: Deu 5:17 Thou shalt not kill. H7523 Deu 19:3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer H7523 may flee thither. Deu 19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, H7523 which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past; Deu 19:6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, H7523 while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. Deu 22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth H7523 him, even so is this matter: Jos 20:3 That the slayer H7523 that killeth any person unawares and unwittingly may flee thither: and they shall be your refuge from the avenger of blood. Jos 20:5 And if the avenger of blood pursue after him, then they shall not deliver the slayer H7523 up into his hand; because he smote his neighbour unwittingly, and hated him not beforetime. Jos 20:6 And he shall dwell in that city, until he stand before the congregation for judgment, and until the death of the high priest that shall be in those days: then shall the slayer H7523 return, and come unto his own city, and unto his own house, unto the city from whence he fled. Jos 21:13 Thus they gave to the children of Aaron the priest Hebron with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; H7523 and Libnah with her suburbs, Jos 21:21 For they gave them Shechem with her suburbs in mount Ephraim, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; H7523 and Gezer with her suburbs, Jos 21:27 And unto the children of Gershon, of the families of the Levites, out of the other half tribe of Manasseh they gave Golan in Bashan with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; H7523 and Beeshterah with her suburbs; two cities. Jos 21:32 And out of the tribe of Naphtali, Kedesh in Galilee with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; H7523 and Hammothdor with her suburbs, and Kartan with her suburbs; three cities. Jos 21:38 And out of the tribe of Gad, Ramoth in Gilead with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; H7523 and Mahanaim with her suburbs, Jdg 20:4 And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, H7523 answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. 1Ki 21:19 And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Hast thou killed, H7523 and also taken possession? And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the LORD, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine. 2Ki 6:32 But Elisha sat in his house, and the elders sat with him; and the king sent a man from before him: but ere the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, See ye how this son of a murderer H7523 hath sent to take away mine head? look, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door: is not the sound of his master's feet behind him? Job 24:14 The murderer H7523 rising with the light killeth the poor and needy, and in the night is as a thief. Psa 62:3 How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain H7523 all of you: as a bowing wall [shall ye be, and as] a tottering fence. Psa 94:6 They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder H7523 the fatherless. Pro 22:13 The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall be slain H7523 in the streets. Isa 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. H7523 Jer 7:9 Will ye steal, murder, H7523 and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; Hos 4:2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, H7523 and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood. Hos 6:9 And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so the company of priests murder H7523 in the way by consent: for they commit lewdness.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Since green is being arrogant and freely admits he won't give a definition, hows this from Numbers 35?

Nu 35:30 Whoso killeth <nakah> any person, the murderer <ratsach> shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

If you got a definition from me, kland, why should you accept it? Don't you want it from the Bible? Then you can use your Bible to find it right? It is not within my power to stop you from reading your Bible, and I wouldn't want to. On the contrary, I would encourage you to keep studying it and finding these definitions there.

The verse you give does not provide a definition, although it does provide a distinction between two Hebrew words that is very useful for this discussion. Thank you.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I am instructed to say to our people, Let us follow Christ. We may safely discard all ideas that are not included in His teachings. {BCL 99.4}

All that man needs to know or can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son. {8T 286.1}

Christ is the definition of truth.

Very well, then, shall we seek to define which teachings are Christ's? To acknowledge that this is an important definition may be within the scope of this thread. However, to seek to filter the huge body of material that might be relevant to such a discussion is beyond the scope of this thread. Please start a new thread on this if you wish. To illustrate the potential need of clarification on this definition, consider the following three questions:

Did Christ teach people not to eat fish and meat?
Do we then need to teach people differently than He did?
Why did Ellen White teach people to give up the meat diet?

NOTE: These questions are not intended to be discussed here, they are only included to illustrate the need of defining what Christ taught that Mrs. White would be referring to in her statement. Consider, too, that it may be ironic, depending on one's definitions, that Ellen White is needed to teach that only Christ's teachings should apply to us.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tx Green for listing all the texts in the table with the info for ratsach. That will be a good reference point for us.

I went thru your table to group similar texts so we can further tackle looking into that word more deeply. This is what I came up with and what I'm recommending. If anyone have any other suggestion, let us know.

1.From Ex 20:13 & Deut 5:17 : Basic law that we seek to understand by looking into other texts.

2. From Num 35 to Jos 21:38 is all about the cities of refuge for those that murdered ratsach or being mistakened as a ratsach murderer -- both being pursued and finding refuge in those cities so they can be trial.

3. Jud 20:4 (with Hos 4:2; 6:4; Is :21; Jer 7:9}: -- the story of an Levite from Ephraim who went to BehtlehemJudah(19:16) to persuade his concubine to go back with him and on the way back stops to lodge in Gibeah a Benjamite city. There the Benjamites wants to kill the man(20:5), but he toss his concubine and they murder her instead. I have studied this in the pass a few times. I would be good to re-study it while pondering on the word ratsach.

But the crime of this story is connected to the crimes to the House of Israel(Hos 4:2; 6:4; 9:9; 10:9) and the crimes of the House of Judah-Jerusalem(Is :21; Jer 7:9).

4. The poor and the needy (Job 24:14, Ps 94:6) : My quick speculative impression is the crimes the Priests has committed against the poor & needy (Job 24:14, Ps 94:6)is similar in nature to the crimes the people of Gibeah did towards that concubine. I could be wrong, but I would study the poor & needy ratsach type of crime after completing looking at #3.

5. Naboth Killed for his vineyard(1Kg 21:19): Naboth could connect to category #4 but I have a hunch this story would bring a deeper meaning to the word.

6. ??? the sloth who thinks he will be murdered Prov 22:13? I have no clue. But we might understand it when we did #3-#5.

7. ??? Elisha in 2Kg 6:32. I didn't look at the context.



Since we have already discussed briefly the texts found in #2 which is the laws how to handle a person guilty (or perceived as guilty) of breaking the 6th commandment(#1 texts); I would recommend we come back to this once we finish looking at the texts found in #3 to #7.

So I would recommend we start looking at the story found in Judge 20:4 (#3) and proceeds to look at the 4 other texts that makes a connection to the crime committed in Gilbeah.

Yes, I just made that up. It is meant to show how one can disobey in heart while obeying with the body.


I appreciate the value of studying the Bible in its original form, but I don't agree that the words themselves have inherent power. Their true power is their ability to help us understand Jesus, the Word.

Just review this thread. Can't we find a better use of time than to argue whether or not Cain broke the law by killing Abel? Is it reasonable to imagine that Simeon and Levi had no hatred for the man who defiled their sister, but were merely seeking a legalistic way to disobey Jacob? Or that it was some form of misguided righteous hatred? As one with extensive experience in disobedience, I can tell you that the passions of the carnal heart and mind are sufficient to lead one to sin.

Jesus warned us of the danger of focusing on the words while rejecting the Word. Let's not entertain the idea that His words are some kind of magical incantation with inherent power. The power is in the Word, not the words. If it were not so, there would have been no need to expound beyond the Ten Words on stone.

The article you posted postulates that Hebrew is the language God used at creation, but cited no biblical proof. It gives examples of words with related meanings to show that Hebrew is special, but anyone who has studied for standardized tests knows that Latin-based languages do the same thing (e.g. transgress, progress, regress, etc). If Hebrew is the only way, God could have figured out a way to use it for the NT also.

Well said, Arnold, thank you. While the word definitions are important, they are not the sum. Without the Word, via the working of His Holy Spirit, the words themselves have no intrinsic value.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And what a terrible mis-tranlation of the 10C in the KJV, the version you love, you hate how it portrays the Law. You focus on the words, we should focus on The Word. You think that all the killing in the OT is really what God wanted. You think that killing was necessary in order to gain Cainan, yet we know from this was not God's plan and was not necessary if they had believed God. There is power in The Word, not the words.

APL,

What the Word commands is necessary.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did you just use more than 100 words?

I agree with you.


There is some truth in there. Then yet, not even that much power can be given in the word for we know that no one can even understand Jesus (or receive any spiritual truth) unless the Lord open up his mind.

That was basically the problem with Israel. They had received the law on "stone" (instead on their hearts) and were 40 years in the desert seeing first hand the Lord's leading in the pillar of smoke and fire and receiving all the Lord's corrections ... and Moses still said the following : AV Dt 29:4 "Yet the LORD hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day." (see also Is 6:10; Jer 5:21) Until the Lord opens the mind, words are only words despite they can be pure truth.

The power from the Word comes only when that "Word becomes flesh" in us. But that requires an ability to hear-obey(shama) His words FIRST which requires the Lord to open up that spiritual ears to be able to hear. We may hear and read the law given on "stone" or on paper a million times and still yet have not really heard it or understood it. Without those spiritual ears opened, our understanding is limited to an "intellectual" understanding of some words -- like the Jews received for millennias by which never gave them any power whatsoever. The only gain they got is a superiority complex.


sure


I agree up to the underlined-bolded section. I don't really know what you mean by it. Could you rephrase it for me?


I agree that there's no proof that Hebrew was the language used at creation; but the Lord still used words to create things into existence. I'm sorry but I believe there is power in His Word -- the power only comes when the Lord speaks them versus us reading the same.

Despite we do not know the original language of Creation; we do know the Lord did use the Hebrew language and concept to convey the law, the OT and the NT (in Aramaic which is a Hebrew dialect) to us.



I will disagree here. It is not the same at all as your example of the latin-based languages. I do agree that there are some derivatives of sources words at time in other languages as with your example. But this is not the same "essence" the article writer was trying to convey in that link.

The Hebrew words derives its meaning from the essence of the letters that forms the word. Each letter is a word of its own. And the combination of these letter-words make up the Hebrew words. No other language have that basic structure that I'm aware of.

I was trying to save myself some typing and explaining by pointing to this link. The article didn't really explained this very clearly. Sorry about that.

I have given some example of this further down and other differences found in the Hebrew language compare to other languages.


He did do a transfer of this OT-Hebrew with all the writer's in the NT being fluent in Aramaic. They were all Jews (well all Benjamites with the exception of Judas) who were familiar with the Laws, traditions, and customs. Most weren't men of the law in the exception of Paul. However, they weren't ignorant of it because much of the law is embedded in the traditions and customs and their economic system.

This fundamental understanding is what Christianity lost after the first apostles, disciples, and early Church fathers had past away. This Hebrew background-understanding was gone and replaced by a Greek or Latin background & philosophy that is embedded in their own words.

The writers of the NT did have a good understanding of the Law by which it is conveyed in all their writings. Despite all we have left is copies of a translated Greek source text -- the text has still the Hebrew concept and understanding of the law that transpires God's character and the plan of salvation in it.

The problem is all of us today, after 1700+ years being incalculated by the teachings of men, none of us have barely any understanding of the law. The translations have watered down the gospel message with today's Babylonian words that have different meanings than those defined in Scripture or behind the Hebrew words.

Here's some example :

1. Redemption : We use this words all the time, yet our definition-concept is not the same than what is defined in Lev 25. What we have as concept is a reduced superficial version of the word. This leads that we miss a good understanding of what the Lord really means when we read texts using that word.

2. Destroy: Another word that is widely employed that means something to us -- annihilated, done away, terminated, etc... -- that is totally different from the essence of abad in Hebrew which means -- "to wander away... lose oneself" -- causative form, "destroy". There's a big difference here in the definition.

The definition of ABaD derives from the 3 capitalized Hebrew character that constitute the word :

A -- Aleph means : ox,strengh
B -- Beth means : house, family
D -- Daleth means : door,opening.

A house or family is a place of refuge and strength. Also a place of safety from the bad weather, of unfriendly people, or wild animals. We become lost when we go through that door leaving the strength and safety of the house.

All Hebrew words derives its meanings from the letters that constitute the word. That's the "essence" of the word the article was talking about. Switching the letters around or adding another Hebrew letter gave slightly another meaning.

This is what I did to try to get the meaning of Khawlaf h2498 from Gen 35:2 in the discussion "Giving up Jewelry. Strong's definition and the biblical context usage wasn't clear to me what the word meant. So resorting to extract the meaning from the Hebrew characters is another means that we can use. It's not always easy to employ that method, but sometimes the meaning pops up at you whereas other times it's not so obvious since our Hebrew background is shallow.

3. hear & obey : These two English words means one word in Hebrew Shama. It is not that shama means either hear or obey, it means both of these words together. You cannot obey without hearing or vice versa. This type of concept I have found repeated in many words in Hebrew; so I haven't yet determined if this applies to all words.

So we do an error when we say that abad means either lost or destroy. No abad primarily means "to wander away" or "to lose oneself", and yes when you are not in the security of the household, yes you do suffer some destruction; but it doesn't necessarily means its a terminal destruction like our English language implies. Not the same concept behind it at all.

So when Jesus said "The Son of man came to save the lost". His usage of "destroy" (=apollumi in Greek) is totally Hebrew and He's also saying that He came to save those that have been destroyed by being away from the security of the household.

Green why do you do this?

You state the Bible gives a definition.
I asked you to show it.
And then you now think I want your definition?

Whaaaa!?

And then again, the verse I give shows no distinction. It says those who kill any person are murderers. Why do you misconstrue the text? Show how you think it makes a distinction.

Green says Numbers 35 is clear.
Numbers 35:30 says who kills a person is a murderer.
Green says God kills people.

Therefore, Green says God is a murderer.

kland,

Consider the passage you quoted above again, and allow me to emphasize a different portion of it.

Nu 35:30 Whoso killeth <nakah> any person, the murderer <ratsach> shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

You see, actually, a "murderer" gets that classification after being witnessed against by at least two persons. One witness was not sufficient to define that killer as a "murderer." How could that be? While this verse does not actually define "murder" in terms of what the witnesses would have to say (obviously even the killer himself/herself would have already made it painfully clear by having fled to the city of refuge that he/she had killed someone, so the witnesses are not merely saying "he killed her"). God has given His criteria for what distinguishes between a "murderer" and merely a "killer." Those criteria have already been referenced, in nice readable tables, in the thread I cross-linked for this definitions study, so it cannot reasonably be claimed that I have not provided them.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Numbers 35:30 Whoever kills <nakah> any person, the murderer <ratsach> shall be murdered <ratsach> by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.

The penalty for murder<ratsach> is being murdered<ratsach>. That should settle the definition, right? As long as 2 or 3 agree, then murder is OK. But the commandment says you shall not ratsach.

Does Green believe the Lord kills people? Well I think so too. But to say someone that kills is a murderer -- then I think you missed out on some points made in this discussion.

Well, if you read exactly how the death sentenced is conducted for a murderer; it is not by stoning as the majority if not all other death sentences. A murderer(ratsach) is not stoned by the congregation but handed to the avenger of blood. It is the avenger of blood that murders the murderer.

That's what I pointed out at the beginning of the discussion. The avenger of blood (ga'al) is the same word(individual) as the redeemer of blood (ga'al) -- thus this points to Jesus somehow. I don't claim that I know how. But like Green rightly said, we are going ahead of ourself. We should properly define what is ratsach - a murderer first.

Any other god is a false god, which, if he seems to offer satisfaction, is the same one who deceived Eve, and is deceiving you.


Could this be the reason for all this questionable doctrine that you are posting about here?

Blessings Elle,

I have to say "No" to your question. I am so glad you have repented of that and have chosen to seek the face of Jesus.

But, it is very important to remember, There is only one God, and that is the Godhead! No other god even exist!

So, any satisfaction you may have experienced came from Satan, my sister. Do not be deceived on this point.

Only the One, True God can give love and mercy is return for our filthy rags. Only the Father, Son and Holy Spirit can do the work we unworthy sinners need to have eternal life.

I love you Elle, so, don't look anywhere else at such a time as this.

I'm glad you spot my confession. The questionable doctrines came after I repented serving Baal of Peor.

Do you know who is Baal of Peor?

Maybe you know him and serve him without knowing you are serving him.

Thank you for your kind words Alchemy. Very brotherly of you. I appreciate your support!

I will ask you [and others here] the same question I ask Daryl.

Do you know who is Baal of Peor?

Maybe you know him and serve him without knowing you are serving him.

The reason I brought up Baal of Peor is because now that I know who he is (you may differ); I now can see that many is worshiping him unknowingly like I did for 45+ years. He's a big powerful and very popular [hidden-secret because people don't see him or know him with that name] god that gets in the way of knowing the Lord (or His language-words) as He is.

I've brought him up because to my perception he's in the way of our quest to find the Biblical definition of words.

Sorry to sidetrack the discussion from the word ratsach as we still need to do some more work to really nail that one down. BTW, ratsach is one those very challenging word I ever encountered. In a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the most difficult) I think he is a 10.

Sorry for not given you the answer of who is Baalpeor. This is a word I have studied in the past and of course I had plenty of time to chew(meditate) on it for many years. So I don't expect anyone to just understand or accept who he is quickly.

So to know who he is you need to look up the Hebrew word-definition of Baalpeor(kjv) h1187. If someone could spell out how Strong or other scholars has defined him would be helpful. Also, the Lord has defined him (this word) in 1 of those 5 occurrences found in the Bible. Can anyone find this text and bring it here for everyone to read? I think these two things should nail this word down. I think this word is more straightforward than ratsach. I would rate this word only a 3 in the difficulty level.

Green, why do you keep on doing this? (And your tables fall short of anything. As was pointed out in the past which you refused to accept. Nothing given for distinguishing anything. But I do realize you had fun doing something else others aren't allowed to.)

A "murderer" does NOT get that classification after being witnessed against by at least two persons.

A "murderer" gets murdered after being witnessed against by at least two persons.

Read the sentence again. You say things are clear, but then the clearest things you have trouble with?

You are mixing the definition with the punishment. Otherwise, you are saying that if only one person sees you murder someone else, you are not a murderer. But that is not what the verse says. The verse says you can't be murdered for murdering someone based upon one witness.

Actually I was referring to the verse, Numbers 35:30, rather than points attempted in the discussion. To say as long as 2 or 3 agree, then murder is OK, is not a definition, but an example of majority opinion.

If 2 or 3 people agree that black is white, does that make it so?

If you believe that there should never have been such an agreement, you need to find scriptural support for why God established this system and why God made a mistake in doing so--or why it wasn't a mistake.

In other words, where is your plain "thus saith the LORD" to support your anti-biblical view? God established the law of two or three witnesses. If you disagree with it, on what basis can you support your view?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Did God do wrong in not murdering Cain when he murdered Able? Did God do wrong when He did not murder Satan when he sinned, for Satan has been a murderer from the beginning? Shall we murder murderers today on the testimony of multiple witnesses? Are you willing to take part? Does Jesus's teaching give us any other view of what God really wants? Does Numbers 35:30 negate the 6th commandment which says not to kill (murder in your translation), yet this says you may murder if 2 or 3 agree.

There is a deeper reality here, and it is called the Great Controversy. And the answer to the controversy is illuminating in its influence and saving in its power, "Behold your God."

APL,

None of the above is a "thus saith the LORD" to support your opinion.

I have many texts that provide a "thus saith the LORD" to answer some of that, however. Some have already been posted here, but you did not reply.

FACT: God commands us not to murder (Ex. 20:13).
FACT: God commanded certain types of killing (Num. 15:35, Ex. 19:12-13; 21:12,15-17,29; 22:19; 31:14-15, etc).
FACT: God does not lie (Num. 23:19).
FACT: God tells us He is the same and does not change (Mal. 3:6, Heb. 13:8).


When you can, like me, align those facts with Bible texts to support them, you'll be on your way to a better understanding.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

REFERENCE	ANNOTATED AND CROSS-LINKED TEXT
Exo 1:16	And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill (muwth) H4191 him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
Exo 19:12	And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely (muwth) H4191 put to death: (muwth) H4191
Exo 19:13	There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely (caqal) H5619 be stoned, (caqal) H5619 or shot (yarah) H3384 through; (yarah) H3384 whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: (chayah) H2421 when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
Exo 21:12	He that smiteth (nakah) H5221 a man, so that he die, (muwth) H4191 shall be surely (muwth) H4191 put to death. (muwth) H4191
Exo 21:15	And he that smiteth (nakah) H5221 his father, or his mother, shall be surely (muwth) H4191 put to death. (muwth) H4191
Exo 21:16	And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Exo 21:17	And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Exo 21:29	But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed (muwth) H4191 a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, (caqal) H5619 and his owner also shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Exo 22:19	Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Exo 29:11	And thou shalt kill (shachat) H7819 the bullock before the LORD, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Exo 31:14	Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death: (muwth) H4191 for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off (karath) H3772 from among his people.
Exo 31:15	Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Exo 35:2	Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Lev 1:5	And he shall kill (shachat) H7819 the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, (dam) H1818 and sprinkle the blood (dam) H1818 round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 14:13	And he shall slay (shachat) H7819 the lamb in the place where he shall kill (shachat) H7819 the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering is the priest's, so is the trespass offering: it is most holy:
Lev 14:19	And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him that is to be cleansed from his uncleanness; and afterward he shall kill (shachat) H7819 the burnt offering:
Lev 19:20	And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, (muwth) H4191 because she was not free.
Lev 20:2	Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death: (muwth) H4191 the people of the land shall stone (ragam) H7275 him with stones. ('eben) H68
Lev 20:9	For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely (muwth) H4191 put to death: (muwth) H4191 he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood (dam) H1818 shall be upon him.
Lev 20:10	And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Lev 20:11	And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death; (muwth) H4191 their blood (dam) H1818 shall be upon them.
Lev 20:12	And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death: (muwth) H4191 they have wrought confusion; their blood (dam) H1818 shall be upon them.
Lev 20:13	If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death; (muwth) H4191 their blood (dam) H1818 shall be upon them.
Lev 20:15	And if a man lie903 with a beast, he shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death: (muwth) H4191 and ye shall slay (harag) H2026 the beast.
Lev 20:16	And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill (harag) H2026 the woman, and the beast: they shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death; (muwth) H4191 their blood (dam) H1818 shall be upon them.
Lev 20:20	And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die (muwth) H4191 childless.
Lev 20:27	A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death: (muwth) H4191 they shall stone (ragam) H7275 them with stones: ('eben) H68 their blood (dam) H1818 shall be upon them.
Lev 24:16	And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death, (muwth) H4191 and all the congregation shall certainly (ragam) H7275 stone (ragam) H7275 him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Lev 24:17	And he that killeth (nakah) H5221 any man shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Lev 24:21	And he that killeth (nakah) H5221 a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth (nakah) H5221 a man, he shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Lev 27:29	None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be redeemed; but shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 1:51	And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 3:10	And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 3:38	But those that encamp before the tabernacle toward the east, even before the tabernacle of the congregation eastward, shall be Moses, and Aaron and his sons, keeping the charge of the sanctuary for the charge of the children of Israel; and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 14:35	I the LORD have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die. (muwth) H4191
Num 15:35	And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely (muwth) H4191 put to death: (muwth) H4191 all the congregation shall stone (ragam) H7275 him with stones ('eben) H68 without the camp.
Num 18:7	Therefore thou and thy sons with thee shall keep your priest's office for every thing of the altar, and within the vail; and ye shall serve: I have given your priest's office unto you as a service of gift: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 20:26	And strip Aaron of his garments, and put them upon Eleazar his son: and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people, and shall die (muwth) H4191 there.
Num 35:16	And if he smite (nakah) H5221 him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, (muwth) H4191 he is a murderer: (ratsach) H7523 the murderer (ratsach) H7523 shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 35:17	And if he smite (nakah) H5221 him with throwing a stone, ('eben) H68 wherewith he may die, (muwth) H4191 and he die, (muwth) H4191 he is a murderer: (ratsach) H7523 the murderer (ratsach) H7523 shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 35:18	Or if he smite (nakah) H5221 him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, (muwth) H4191 and he die, (muwth) H4191 he is a murderer: (ratsach) H7523 the murderer (ratsach) H7523 shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Num 35:21	Or in enmity smite (nakah) H5221 him with his hand, that he die: (muwth) H4191 he that smote (nakah) H5221 him shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death; (muwth) H4191 for he is a murderer: (ratsach) H7523 the revenger of blood (dam) H1818 shall slay (muwth) H4191 the murderer, (ratsach) H7523 when he meeteth him.
Num 35:30	Whoso killeth (nakah) H5221 any person, the murderer (ratsach) H7523 shall be put to death (ratsach) H7523 by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. (muwth) H4191
Num 35:31	Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, (ratsach) H7523 which is guilty of death: (muwth) H4191 but he shall be surely (muwth) H4191 put to death. (muwth) H4191
Deu 12:21	If the place which the LORD thy God hath chosen to put his name there be too far from thee, then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock, which the LORD hath given thee, as I have commanded thee, and thou shalt eat in thy gates whatsoever thy soul lusteth after.
Deu 13:5	And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; (muwth) H4191 because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.
Deu 13:10	And thou shalt stone (caqal) H5619 him with stones, ('eben) H68 that he die; (muwth) H4191 because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
Deu 17:6	At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death (muwth) H4191 be put to death; (muwth) H4191 but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (muwth) H4191
Deu 17:12	And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: (muwth) H4191 and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
Deu 18:20	But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. (muwth) H4191
Deu 21:21	And all the men of his city shall stone (ragam) H7275 him with stones, ('eben) H68 that he die: (muwth) H4191 so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deu 21:22	¶ And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, (muwth) H4191 and thou hang him on a tree:
Deu 21:23	His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
Deu 22:25	But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: (muwth) H4191
Deu 24:7	If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; (muwth) H4191 and thou shalt put evil away from among you.
Deu 24:16	The fathers shall not be put to death (muwth) H4191 for the children, neither shall the children be put to death (muwth) H4191 for the fathers: every man shall be put to death (muwth) H4191 for his own sin.
Jos 1:18	Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death: (muwth) H4191 only be strong and of a good courage.
Jdg 6:31	And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he that will plead for him, let him be put to death (muwth) H4191 whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for himself, because one hath cast down his altar.
Jdg 21:5	And the children of Israel said, Who is there among all the tribes of Israel that came not up with the congregation unto the LORD? For they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up to the LORD to Mizpeh, saying, He shall surely (muwth) H4191 be put to death. (muwth) H4191
1Sa 11:13	And Saul said, There shall not a man be put to death (muwth) H4191 this day: for to day the LORD hath wrought salvation in Israel.
2Sa 8:2	And he smote (nakah) H5221 Moab, and measured them with a line, casting them down to the ground; even with two lines measured he to put to death, (muwth) H4191 and with one full line to keep alive. (chayah) H2421 And so the Moabites became David's servants, and brought gifts.
2Sa 19:21	But Abishai the son of Zeruiah answered and said, Shall not Shimei be put to death (muwth) H4191 for this, because he cursed the LORD'S anointed?
2Sa 19:22	And David said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that ye should this day be adversaries unto me? shall there any man be put to death (muwth) H4191 this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?
2Sa 21:9	And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death (muwth) H4191 in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
1Ki 2:24	Now therefore, as the LORD liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death (muwth) H4191 this day.
2Ki 14:6	But the children of the murderers (nakah) H5221 he slew (muwth) H4191 not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death (muwth) H4191 for the children, nor the children be put to death (muwth) H4191 for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death (muwth) H4191 for his own sin.
2Ch 25:4	But he slew (muwth) H4191 not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die (muwth) H4191 for the children, neither shall the children die (muwth) H4191 for the fathers, but every man shall die (muwth) H4191 for his own sin.

 

Blessings,

 

Green Cochoa.

Why did you ignore Numbers 35:30 in your reply? Is that because it goes against your argument? Also why are you ignoring the testimony of Christ?

I am addressing one thing at a time, as I have time. However, let's address this verse in a very careful, scholarly manner.

Num 35:30	Whoso killeth (nakah) H5221 any person, H5315 the murderer (ratsach) H7523 shall be put to death (ratsach) H7523 by the mouth H6310 of witnesses: H5707 but one H259 witness H5707 shall not testify H6030 against any person H5315 to cause him to die. H4191

Look carefully at the wording there in the Hebrew. Essentially, the Hebrew is saying this:

". . . the murderer murderer by the mouth of witnesses . . ."

Murderers were to be put to death, but that wording was added to this verse. It's not in the original. The original, instead, says simply that a murderer was a murderer by the mouth of witnesses.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I wasn't understanding what you guys were arguing about.

I disagree with Green rendering of Num 35:30. I read it as, once the murderer has been trialed and has been proven guilty by the mouth of two witnesses, the murderer[ratsach] will be murdered[ratsach] [by the avenger of blood].

Not stoned like most cases of the other judgments, but the murderer[ratsach] will be murdered[ratsach]. This is specified in Number 35:19; 21; and 27. Basically an eye for an eye or in this case a murder for a murder.

AV Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill[ratsach] the slayer[ratsach]; he shall not be guilty of blood:

Elle,

Murder is sin. Murder for murder would be like saying if someone sins, someone else must sin also to "get even" with them. God never commanded sin. Why you and APL both argue for this makes no sense to me. If you want God to both command murder and command against it in the Ten Commandments, what exactly are you wanting? To be honest, that's quite a bit worse than simply believing that the KJV mistranslated the word as "kill" (my belief), or that ALL killing is "murder" (APL's belief). To believe, at one and the same time, that God commanded both for AND against murder would be unacceptably illogical for me.

But let's get more scholarly about this and see if we can clear it up a bit better.

Numbers 35:30 does not use the word "murder" (ratsach) to say "put to death" at this point in the text. Verse 30 uses H4191 "muwth" just like Numbers 35:12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 31, to say what is translated as "die" or "put to death." Numbers 35:30 is the ONLY verse in the KJV where ratsach appears to have been translated as "put to death." I believe this is simply an incorrect rendering. The Hebrew says simply:

כָּל־מַכֵּה־נֶפֶשׁ לְפִי עֵדִים יִרְצַח אֶת־הָרֹצֵחַ וְעֵד אֶחָד לֹא־יַעֲנֶה בְנֶפֶשׁ לָמֽוּת׃

Remember that Hebrew reads from right to left, backwards from English. So here are the words given there:


וְעֵד/עֵדִים = witness (`ed) (H5707)
אֶחָד = one / only ('echad) (H259)
יַעֲנֶה = testify (`anah) (H6030)
נֶפֶשׁ = soul / person (nephesh) (H5315)
לְפִי = mouth (peh) (H6310)
מוּת = kill / put to death (muwth) (H4191)
מַכֵּה = kill (nakah) (H5221)
יִרְצַח = murder (ratsach) (H7523)
כָּל = all (H3605)
אֵת = [untranslated accusative-case grammatical particle; sign of the definite direct object] ('eth) (H853)
לְ / לָ = prefixed preposition: to, for, towards, belonging to, in regard/according to (H9009)
הַ / הָ / הֶ = definite article "the" (H9005)
בְּ / בַּ / בָּ / בֶּ = prefix or inseparable preposition; combined with the definite article - in, at, to, on, among, with, towards; according to, by, because of. (H9004)
וְ / וַ / וָ / וּ = conjunction - and, and therefore, also, then, yet. (H9007)
לֹא = no / not (H3808)

If we start, then, with the Strong's numbers for each word in that verse, we can plug in their definitions and get a transliterated version of the verse that is much nearer the original than our Bibles will show. First the numbers:

3605-5221-5315 9009+6310 5707 7523 0853-9005+7523 9007+5707 0259 3808-6030 9004+5315 9009+4191

Now, the transliteration:

All-kill-soul/person according-to+mouth witness murder the+murder also+witness one/only not-testify towards+soul/person to+(put to death/kill).

When I look at that, I see it basically saying the following:

«Anyone who kills a person, according to the mouth of witnesses of murder, is a murderer; also the witness of only one cannot testify towards the person to put him to death.»

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's a simple fact:

Numbers 35:30 has not two but THREE Hebrew words for killing. They are nakah, ratsach, and muwth. The word "muwth" is used to speak of putting the murderer (ratsach) to death for having killed (nakah) someone. Given that "muwth" speaks of putting the murderer to death, there is no need to say that the murderer is murdered before speaking of putting him to death. A murdered person cannot be subsequently put to death!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

No. I don't know Baal of Peor at all. I know I don't live up to Christ as I should at all times, but, there isn't anyway of getting to know Baal of Peor. He doesn't exist.

Murder for murder may be in the same line of thought as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot"Ex 21:24

I don't claim I understand this text, but if I do draw some speculative interpretation, I will not consider it even close to truth while clearly confessing -- "I don't know".

There's many things we do not understand Green and we need to be patient and let the Lord teach us and reveal His word to us. If we usurp His teaching position and draw our own conclusion; then we will become blind.

Also, we need to remember that "the law is spiritual". Meaning that the LETTER doesn't literally mean what the Lord's spiritual intend of it. What's helpful is to find a "court case" or an application of the law by which will reveal more of the Lord mind behind the law by the way He has applied it.


We don't even understand what ratsach means yet; then how can we say this is sin or this is not sin. I'm sure none of us plan to ratsach or hareg or muwth anyone right? So we are safe for the time being. Let's us try to understand the Lord's language and to have a deeper understanding of His law.

I'm not aware of APL belief or argument, but personally I'm interested to understand what the Lord is saying. And that starts from not changing what scripture says.

The scriptures says what it says. If it doesn't make sense to me, then 99.999% of the time its because there is something I do not understand about the Lord. We need to keep our minds open to what else He has declared elsewhere that relates to this that may shed some light.


Do you seek to re-write the Bible for Moses? Do you think Moses didn't understand the Lord? Because as far as what the Lord has declared to Aaron and Miriam about Moses in Numbers 12:8 He said Moses knew Him as He is.

"With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"

Moses beheld the Lord. Moses understood the Lord's speech language ("dark speeches") and they spoke mouth to mouth. Thus, I am still far from even understanding the Lord's dark speech language and I haven't yet had one mouth to mouth conversation with Him; thus I do submit to Moses chosen words of expression for I acknowledge that I have much to learn yet.


We are not dealing with translation here.


Remember, the mind of man cannot comprehend spiritual things. (1Cor 2:14) It is our spirit that can understand spiritual things. Our spirit and mind often have opposing views. Just because it doesn't fit your mind's logic, you should not change the text. That's the wrong approach that only leads to heart idols and blindness. The correct approach is to acknowledge we do not understand and ask the Lord to explain the text to us. It might take some time. Even it could take years .... but while waiting, we ponder on His word and we study other texts that we haven't looked at that employs the word "ratsach". And who knows, the other texts may shed some little light to what the Lord had spoken to Moses in Num 35:30 and other related texts.


You shouldn't rely at what the KJV or other translations rendering. We need to look what Hebrew word is used. Up to now, with the amount of study we have done, we only have a partial understanding of the word. We need to do a full investigation of the word before we can come around and critize any translation. We need to try to extract the definition of a word from the context it is employed.

Youngs Literal Translation renders Num 35:30 as "one slay[ratsach] the murderer[ratsach]"YLT


You did a good job distorting the text to say what your logical mind can handle to understand. And you did this without finishing your investigation of the word!

Most if not all Hebrew scholar would disagree with your rendering. I say this with assurance by looking how many have rendered it in many translation. Not one scholar has rendered it as "witnesses of murder" or "is a murderer" like you have. If there would be one, maybe I would give your translation some credence, but there's not even one I could find.

The interlinear software that many scholar uses -- the rendering is the following: (btw suffix and prefix are not inserted)

Every-of(3605) one-smiting-of(5221) soul(5315) to.mouth-of(6310) witnesses(5707) he-shall-murder(7523) >>(0853)the-one-being-murderer(7523) and.witness(5707) one(0259) not(3808) he-shall-respond(6030) in-soul(5315) to.to-die-of(4191)

Do note that the ">>(853)" ath(aleph & tav) is the first and last letter of the Hebrew alphabeth. Basically it is the "alpha & Omega" translated in Hebrew. There's thousands of these in the Hebrew text and these are not translated. When these are mentioned, in front of a word; some say it is a SIGN put on the word to accentuate it. Notice the "ath" sign is put on the murderer.

Elle,

You may need to go back to the beginning of this thread and read carefully for understanding. God commands "Thou shalt not 'ratsach'." To 'ratsach', therefore, regardless of its meaning, is to break the Ten Commandments. The Bible defines breaking the commandments as "sin." Therefore, regardless of what 'ratsach' means, we KNOW it is sin. For God to command it would be for Him to be commanding sin.

Please consider this clear logic. The definitions are important. In this case, the definition that matters more is that of "sin is the transgression of the law"--the definition of sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh! so your definition of "ratsach" is sin??? To me that's not a definition at all.

So what's the difference with the sin of "ratsach" and the sin of "hareq"? It's probably all the same thing to you. Sin is enough of a definition for you for these two words and all the other "killing" words.

So if I "hareq" in killing an animal for Tabernacle have I just sinned?


Oh, so the definition is important -- but yet you haven't defined it besides it is sin???? I'm confuse. To me that's not logical at all.

You're probably not ready to understand deeper truth that the Lord gave us by using 6 different words to say "kill" or "murder". Only one of them -- "ratsach" -- is the one in the 6th commandment. The other 5 are not. I guess it's easier to just play it safe and not sin by not doing any of the 6? Is that the logic?

I guess that could work; however the Lord won't be able to use you as a teacher of the law or pick you for a judge to rule with Christ for you do not understand the 6th commandment with the mind of Christ. That's ok... there's other purposes you can serve.

But for me, not that I seek to become a ruler, but I want to know more than "it is a sin". Because I want that law with the deep mind of Christ's understanding to be written in my heart.

Elle,

If you don't think "ratsach" is a sin, why bother to read the Ten Commandments to find out what is sin? Again, this was addressed earlier in this thread. God commands certain forms of killing. God never commanded "ratsach." He commanded against it.

There is a difference between "murder" and other forms of killing. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If you wish to believe otherwise, here is where we may have to part ways. I fail to see how you can see yourself as having a deeper experience and yet believing that God will contradict Himself in commanding people to do and not to do the same thing. And it's not in the Bible.

The definition of sin is in the Bible. I don't need to define it. "Sin is the transgression of the law." What does the law say? It says "thou shalt not [ratsach]." Therefore, "ratsach" is sin. It's simple. It is a plain "thus saith the LORD." It is one of the plainest, having been written by God's own finger in durable stone. This is not something to spiritualize away.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Where did you get that. I never said "ratsach" wasn't a sin, nor did I perceived anyone here saying that. To know that Ratsach is a sin -- that is a no-brainer. Everyone knows the basic of the 6th commandment == it is sin. However not many knows what exactly it means. That's why Does God Kill is a hot discussion and divides people in two camps. Then what about slaying or slaughering that occur in the words "sachet" or "nakah" or "hareg"? Is that the same as "ratsach" is it sin? But that's too complicated....let's just ignore that there's even such differences in Hebrew words that are translated in so many English words that is a real mess when looking or trying to defined these with our English derived Babylonian dictionary.


"murder"???? what are you specifically talking about "ratsach" or "hareg"? You need to be specific.


I know that it doesn't contradict itself and that's why I will always perceived that it is my lack of understanding(99.999%) of the Lord when there is a seemingly contradiction.

However when you where confronted with the seeming contradiction found in Num 35:30 :

#1 you don't even want to do the full investigation to know how the Bible has defined ratsach
#2 you want to slap a superficial "it is a sin" definition
#3 you want to rewrite those texts over with your own words to say what you perceive as "logic" to you.


You want to rewrite the Bible because you do not want to inquire to the Lord why He said in Num 35:30 "the murderer shall be murdered [by the Avenger of Blood]". Don't you see this as a problem? Shouldn't you inquire of the Lord and press on in the study of a word that you still don't fully understand instead of rushing into your own conclusion and rewriting the Bible???


Yeah! not only the 6th commandment is sin, but the whole LAW[Torah -- not only the 10Cs, but all the other stuff that was given to Moses].

It's no great accomplishment in defining "ratsach" (6th commandment) as a sin. We teach this to little children.


Get with it Green. It is obvious. Whether ratsach is a sin or not -- wasn't even part of our looking into the definition of ratsach.


You need to tell this to the Lord not I. He's the one that spiritualized the 6th commandment in Matthew in saying that only hating (not literally murdering-ratsach) your brother is sin. And you better tell Jesus about stopping to spiritualized all the other things He has spiritualized. And you need to talk to Paul and Moses and all the prophets who has spiritualized things also. Actually, since they are not around, then are you going to re-write those passages like you did with Num 35:30?



To know exactly what is the definition of ratsach or other words according to the Bible is what I thought was the purpose of "the power of words--Why definition matter" discussion.

I think you should re-title your discussion to "What words in the law are sin". It's not about looking into definition of words at all.

For sure we know there's only one Lord and all other false gods doesn't exist. However, all false images of the Lord that we have fabricated is a false god. We all have many as none of us know Him s He is. The number of false gods is in proportion to our ignorance of Him. We worship these -- not intentionally but we still worship an image of our pre-conceived ideas.

The most popular ones are identified in the OT as Molech, Peor, and the Queen of Heaven. It's not for nothing that these are identified in the OT. These false gods are in our doctrines and our worship towards the Lord. We do not think we worship them because we have no idea what they mean. We do the error to see those stories as those OT people's problem thinking that it doesn't relate to us because we do not bow down to some physical statue or make bread or offer sacrifices to them. These gods are in most(if not all) today's Christians life. We are just ignorant of the presence of these gods in our life.

As you probably know, ignorance is not an excuse for the quilt of any sin. However, the penalty is less than being aware of them.

If anyone is interested to identified Baal of Peor; they will show their sincerity of interest by doing looking into the Hebrew word and find that text that defines it. But if no one wants to know, then it only means it is not the time for you to know. Like the old saying goes "ignorance is bliss".

Elle,

Perhaps I have made some faith-choice assumptions based on certain Bible texts that I apply broadly. Perhaps you have not noticed those texts. In any case, the principles from there are as follows:

1) God does not lie (Num. 23:19);
2) God does not change (Mal. 3:6);
3) God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13);
4) God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13); and
5) To disobey any of God's commands is a sin (1 John 3:4; Ex. 20:6; Deut. 30:16; John 14:15).

If God, therefore, commanded killing, did He command sin? By definition, to disobey God's command is to sin. Would you agree with this?

We're still on the definition of sin here. Once we know what is sin, then we can return to the definitions of the Hebrew words for "kill", some of which God commanded, and at least one of which God prohibited.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That's not faith??? Your definition of faith is not Biblical.... "So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word[rhema, utterance] of God."

Yes, it is an assumption and a choice of yours to follow your logic, but don't call it faith. Faith comes from hearing the utterance [that 95% of the time is that small still voice] of God. You didn't even ask the Lord His help that then requires giving Him time to answer-teach you.



You could list 100 or even 200 more relevant texts -- but the fact that you are tampering on one of them, even if it is a small text but in your case it is a key one established in the law how to judge a "ratsach" case of a crime -- those 5, 100, or 200 does not justify you by your action to trample on the one. Because you have put aside One of God's word -- you do not live by "every word that proceeded by the mouth of the Lord". This you call legalism. not even close to any faith.

Legalism (my view) is when you apply the law PARTIALLY like those Jewish leaders that came to Jesus ready to stone the adulteress. They were ready to cast those stones when the law says to bring BOTH the man and the woman guilty of the crime to court. They had 2 witnesses, but not the man caught in the act. Jesus judged her by another law -- the law of Jealousy found in Num 5:16-31


We didn't even finish the study. We don't even know what ratsach means or how the Lord applies the judgment of ratsach in a case found elsewhere in the Bible. There's nothing to agree or disagree yet. According to the law, a priest-judge has to have all the evidence in front of him before he can judge. We do not have all the pieces in front of us to even enter the final stage of a judgment.

You are breaking that law (thus sinning) because you want to make a conclusion-judgment without doing your priestly duty that the Lord commanded of us of doing a full thorough investigation prior. Plus you are pressing this sin on others to do the same.

The proper thing to do, is to put Num 35:30 aside for the time being, and proceeds to look at the other texts where ratsach is used. Those texts will give us further understanding and I'm sure will shed some light on Num 35:30. The improper thing to do is what you have done - rewrite the text, come to a conclusion(judgment) before finishing the full investigation.


All we know is the 6th commandment say thou shall not ratsach. Something we all learn when a child. However the irony of this, we do not even know, as an adult, what the word ratsach really entails. And yes, we all know the Lord doesn't want us to ratsach, but what exactly are we not suppose to not do??? Where's the line of ratsach and not ratsaching lay?

That grey line is super huge as we can see by the debates over it on the forums. Many Christian has refused to go to war because they viewed killing in war as murder. Then most Christian do not know what to think about all the Bible texts where it is plainly written the Lord killed here, and there. Then what about accomplice murderers? Where's the line there? Are we an accomplice murderer when we do not help our brother or we have provoke him or contributed in some measure his fall into that sin? What about when our own nation commits murdering crimes to other countries and we do not protest these -- does our silence makes us responsible for these crimes?

And etc... the list is long that shows this grey area is huge because we do not know what "ratsach" really means and how the Lord has defined it in scriptures and how He has apply this law in some cases that we must find in His word.


I disagree with your process of investigation-study by re-writing scriptures with your own logic when it conflicts with the little of what you think you know about ratsach. Then to immediately draw conclusion when we only begun the investigation???

We are not very effective at all in our study-investigation, because we are already at page 14 in looking at this word, and we haven't even went beyond what is written in the Law.

My time up to now wasn't used to study this word but mainly used to object to poor studying-investigation skills -- like

1-do not add to scriptures
2-do not rely on English translation -- look at the source words
3-falsely defined Hebrew words by relying on English language and phylosophy
4-do not re-write scriptures
5-do not jump into conclusion until the full investigation is completed
6-putting pre-conceived ideas aside.

However, I don't mind as these needs to be establish and maybe now we can be more effective in our study. I refuse to go ahead of anyone by studying this word on my own, because there are tremendous blessings in studying as a group. However, if everyone gives up on the study; then I'll just have to do it alone.

Elle,

Let me be clear here. YOU may not know what "ratsach" means, but you cannot properly say "WE" don't. My words here may not convey all that I know or believe, and they may do poorly at so-called expression. However, I can say with confidence that I KNOW "ratsach" means "murder." I have studied enough that the Word is plain.

Furthermore, I was saying "faith-choice assumptions" to give you a little room, as the gentleman that I was trying to be, to have a differing view and express it here. Again, I can say with full confidence that the word "assumptions" actually understated my position, and that in reality, to me these are "facts." Once I choose the Bible as my guide, the rest of its teachings are then facts to me. So, when God says "Thou shalt not 'ratsach,'" and He says that to break this commandment is sin, and He says that God never sins--I believe Him. I feel no need to question if God would later command "ratsach." In fact, I can be assured that it is a misinterpretation of the text which would presume to claim that God ever commanded such. In other words, I have already defined the word as being "sinful." To "ratsach" is to sin. Simple. That is taking God at His Word, and understanding the plain "thus saith the LORD" that each of us must have to stay on the straight and narrow.

Because I have taken this view, you have criticized me. You have said I have not studied carefully or deeply enough. Feel free to excoriate me all you wish. Your salvation does not depend on my belief, but rather on YOURS. Are you sure you're not going down the wrong path in rejecting God's truth here? I would urge you, as did Paul, to examine yourself, whether ye be in the faith.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Bible says the following :

KJV Num 35:30 "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer[ratsach] shall be put to death[ratsach] by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person [to cause him] to die."

GreenC says the following :


Anyone, agreeing with GreenC rendering of this text? We need at least two witness to establish this -- anyone in the forum can agree with this?

Someone can find another witness by checking other translation to see if any other scholar agrees with GreenC rendering. I haven't found any that came even close to rendering the two underlined and bolted section.

Also, GreenC do us a favor and define ratsach according to the Bible for us. Then we can do another call to see if there's anyone here that can agree on your definition you have found.

Then, perhaps you can tell us if we have completed in our investigation of the word ratsach.

Are you saying that God established that if 2 or 3 people agree that black is white, that makes it so?

Really?

I think you're adding things to scripture that are not there.

Perhaps they are arguing for the Bible.

The Bible does not say, ". . . the murderer murderer by the mouth of witnesses . . ."

Show that the word tense is as you say and not as Elle shows.

I have

This is in agreement with Elle.


Based upon your opinion? What is the standard you go by do determine the truth?


All-kill-soul/person, (according-to+mouth witness)
murder the+murder
(also+witness one/only not-testify towards+soul/person to+(put to death/kill)).
All who kill, according to witness, the murderer shall be murdered, but there needs to be more than one witness.

Could you do one of your tables showing for and against the two different renderings of the verse? That is
1. For the definition of murder being determined by witnesses.
2. Against the definition of murder being determined by witnesses.
3. For guilt of action being determined by witnesses.
4. Against guilt of action being determined by witnesses.

Assuming, if you are seeking to find out what truth is. Or do you already know the truth, before considering the verse?

Elle,



I will note that not a single version of the Bible I have found translates such that the murderer must be "murdered." The words "put to death" come from the Hebrew "muwth" coupled with the law that applied this to a murderer. The translators all, and rightly so, add this phrase to the earlier portion of the verse, for this is clearly the intent of the text based on the context of the entire chapter and the commands already given. The text itself is not focused on the punishment so much as the trial and conviction that would lead to said punishment. The key concept of Numbers 35:30, despite its three separate Hebrew words for "kill," is not that of killing--it is that of the witnesses and the requirement that no one be punished as a murder from the testimony of a single witness only.

You seem to protest against every evidence I provide, and claim it proves nothing. Then I will let you be fully persuaded in your own mind, even as I am in mine, for the Bible teaches me to do this. If you truly desire to see more evidence, instead of simply mocking what has been provided, please demonstrate this by your spirit. Both you and APL appear to cling to your persuasions, and who am I to remove them from you against your will? Nevertheless, others reading here have sufficient evidence in what has already been presented from which to establish the facts, or, at the least, to continue their studies in such a manner as to arrive at those facts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland,

Let's establish a few points of agreement before we continue, shall we? Otherwise, we may simply be talking past each other, arguing as if we were mortal enemies about something upon which we have simply misunderstood each other and actually are in agreement. I have witnessed, and perhaps been party to, multiple such "conversations."

1) Do you agree with me that to break the Ten Commandments would be sin?

2) Do you agree with me that God would never command someone to break any of the Ten Commandments?

3) Do you agree with me that the Bible uses the Hebrew word "ratsach" in the sixth commandment, and not "muwth," "nakah," or any of the other Hebrew words for "kill"?

4) Do you agree with me that understanding the distinctions in Biblical usage among these words is important to a correct understanding of this issue?

5) Do you agree with me that God commanded non-ratsach types of killing?

For now, we will leave the application of these questions to a future discussion. I simply need a "Yes" or a "No" answer to each of these, but you are free to explain any of your answers as you see fit. As should be clear in each question, my answers are all in the affirmative for these.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Num 35:27 does :

AV Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill[ratsach] the slayer[ratsach]; he shall not be guilty of blood:

and Num 35:19 & 21 says it again that the Avenger of blood can "kill" the murderer-ratsach; but uses the general word muwth that means "to kill" instead.

AV Num 35:19The revenger of blood himself shall slay[muwth] the murderer[ratsach]: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him[muwth].

AV Num 35:21Or in enmity smite[nakah] him with his hand, that he die[muwth]: he that smote [nakah][him] shall surely[muwth] be put to death[muwth]; [for] he [is] a murderer[ratsach]: the revenger of blood shall slay[muwth] the murderer[ratsach], when he meeteth him.

So these 3 texts above supports what Num 35:30 says that the Avenger of Blood can murder-ratsach the murderer-ratsach :

AV Num 35:30Whoso killeth any person, the murderer[ratsach] shall be put to death[ratsach] by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person [to cause him] to die[muwth].



Your looking for a specific ENGLISH translated that says "murdered" in Num 35:30? Again your reasoning is bound to English translated words that has no weight. We need to look at scriptures from its source words, not by English translated words.

Like I have noted in page 3(?), the judgment for murderers is very unique compare to all other crimes. Criminals who are sentenced to death usually get stoned by the congregation after the trial.

The only law where the judgment of death is done via the Avenger of Blood(ga'al) in the manner of slay-kill-murder(ratsach or muwth) is only found with the murdering-ratsach cases. No other crimes in the Lord's court is dealt in such a way.

The fact that it is so unique and set aside apart from all other crimes tells me there's a real important reason for the Lord to have treated such a case so differently.


Victim's Right to Forgive

One thing that is not mentioned in Num 35 but found elsewhere in scriptures it the victim has the right to decide whether or not a court order is executed or not. In another word the victim have the right to forgive their offenders. This can happen before a trial by choosing to not bring their offenders to trials and not press charges. Or it can happen after the trial by not imputing their debt or only asking a partial payment. Or they can demand that the whole debt be paid or verdict pronounced by the judge to be fully executed. The power of forgiveness is in the victims hands -- not in the judge's hands. The judge has to judge the case with impartiality and according to the law. So for the case of a murderer -- the judgement rendered is what Num 35:19, 21, 30 says.

Here's 3 prime case examples of the victim's right to forgive :

1. Jesus at the cross forgave His murderers.
2. Stephen at his stoning forgave.
3. Joseph, being a victim of Mary's suppose adulteress, didn't pursue his case in trial and forgave her beforehand.

I believe this also applies to the murdering cases of Num 35:30. The Avenger of Blood (ga'al) job is to represent the victim and make sure justice is rendered for his victim. So if the victim wants to extend forgiveness after the trial, then the ga'al doesn't need to kill(muth-ratsach) the murderer(ratsach).

This principle is seen today in our Babylonian earthly courts. Just because a judge sentence someone to pay a certain sum of money for damages incurred or other reasons; it is always in the right of the victim to demand the total sum the judge pronounced, or ask a partial payment or forgive the entire debt. In term of murder, our earthly court systems doesn't return the murderers to the ga'al like in the Lord's law.

So this is something else to ponder about the victim's right and the Avenger of Blood's role (which ultimately represents Jesus) regarding this sentence towards murderers.


I'm not sure I understand here. To me, "put to death" is an English translation that some translation used and others put it in other words. It has no relevance to me -- we need to look at the Hebrew words and seek its meaning within the context of how it is used throughout the Bible.


There is 5 or 6 Hebrew words translated as "to kill" or other similar words, not 3.

Number 35:30 focus on all the following :at least 2 witness, the death sentence, and how the death sentenced is conducted in this case to be murdered and not be stoned.


Don't take it personally GreenC. You know I have no reason to dislike you; in the contrary I always considered you as a buddy. We just haven't been involved in the same discussion for a long long time. I'm treating you no different than the others when it comes for discussion.

You know, our Church is really notorious in manipulating text. I did the same thing myself for so long. I have noticed this in myself for years and worked to get out of it. So really I understand where it is coming from. I don't always point out all text manipulation that I see. I let a lot go by. But if I'm involve in a discussion (like this one) and even more specifically if someone tries to disprove me (like you are doing) with some text they have manipulated (like you have done) or taken out of context, yes in those case I will point it out.


You cling to your own persuasions also Green, and you were the one that added to texts, that decided to change the meaning of Num 35:30 because it fitted more to your logic, and have twisted definition of Hebrews words to your liking, and etc... doesn't this show your persuasion.

We haven't even gotten into any the real meat of this word yet. But maybe we won't even get there because feelings gotten hurt. Again my apology for my lack of tack with kindness and coming out so straight and dry. I do hope we can all go to the end together and be blessed by the Lord's words and laws.

Elle,

Thank you for showing everyone clearly your logic. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When it suits you, you refer to the English translations as "witnesses." When I do the same, you say "Your looking for a specific ENGLISH translated that says "murdered" in Num 35:30? Again your reasoning is bound to English translated words that has no weight."

How are you able to accept a different manner of interpretation for yourself than you accept in someone else? Personally, I agree more with this latter concept that you state. The ENGLISH means little to me. However, your looking to it for "witnesses" prompted me to reason with you from that perspective. As can be seen here, before we get to "definitions," we might be straight back at "hermeneutics." Unfortunately, that issue is also mired in semantics, opinions, and--biases.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for showing everyone clearly your logic. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

What are you talking about? We're studying the words pertaining to killing-murder more specifically ratsach since it is the Hebrew word used in the 6th commandment.

We haven't touch or look at the word witnesses. I'm confused again.


If I'm understanding you -- you didn't agree that I ask anyone in the forum if they agree with your rendering of Num 35:30? And even invited them to look at any other translation to find any other scholar that I might of missed so to support your private translation of Num 35:30? Thus -- you prefer to not have any other witnesses to support what you say? That makes no sense to me, unless you believe you have some sort of authority over all of us and whatever you say we should not disagree??? Don't you call this a dictatorship?

I believe in authority. Our Lord is King of kings. And He gives authority to others -- however these kings on earth have to function according to the bigger King and His whole system and ways doesn't function without witnesses. Even the kings under him have to look for other witnesses to know if they are in line with the big King.


???

You haven't addressed Num 35:19,21,27 quoted above. Do you see that they agree with Num 35:30? Since you are so persuated that Num 35:30 is mis-translated....are you going to re-write these also because it doesn't agree with your logic and pre-conceived image you have of the Lord and your limited understanding of the 6th commandment.

These texts are also witnesses. And I would like to find some more as I've been saying numerous times -- we need to find a case study of this law where we see the Lord putting this in application elsewhere in the Bible. Once we find this, we will have more information about how the Lord applies what He said in Num 35:19,21,27,30.

Our investigation of ratsach have only begun for we have many other texts to look into. Are you game to continue our investigation or you had enough? It's ok to step back and if no one else want to continue this study; I will study it privatly on my own.

Maybe you have enough info to make your conclusion now without going further? If so, then define the word ratsach for us. So we can move on to other words; if the others interested in this study agrees to move on also.

Elle,

Maybe you will now remember asking for the Bible witness above. Further to this, it appears that your request to use the Bible to define ratsach will have to be in Hebrew, not English, as you don't accept the English. Since Hebrew is a foreign language to me, and I am not a Hebrew scholar, we may have come to the end of ability to "define" this in a way which you would accept.

As for me, I accept English, but if the Hebrew clarifies beyond the English, it wins. Hebrew, obviously, is closer to the original.

Would you be willing to continue this discussion using English? Is the KJV acceptable for you? Can it be used to help define the Hebrew concept of "ratsach"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.