Don't kill it!

"Killing" is such a relative term. In my view, sometimes a sharp, cutting word does more damage than an actual murder. I say "sometimes," because nobody truly knows what's going on in a person's soul—except God.

Here’s a little snippet from a comment on my blog:

In his book «ten commandments today», Andre Chouraqui adds this layer to the title, calling them «ten words for reconciliation man with humanity». He points out that these aren't written as strict orders or "do this/don't do that" commands, but more like a vision of what will happen. They aren't about bans; they describe the state of being for people who aren't twisted—people who don't distort life or its laws. Like, take the seventh commandment. It doesn't say "Don't commit adultery!" Instead, it says "Adultery you shall not do." He also talks about how these words mirror each other. The first reflects in the sixth, the second in the seventh, the third in the eighth, the fourth in the ninth, and the fifth in the tenth. Because of that explanation, I gotta go back to that seventh one. When mirrored against the second, it basically goes: "Neither idols nor any images of what is above in the heavens or below on the earth shall you make... You shall not bow down to them or serve them..." They all light each other up. Committing adultery means becoming one body with a woman who isn't yours, which means twisting and warping both yourself and her (I.Kor 6,16-19). On the flip side, someone who is twisted just can't reach God, or even other people, or anything else on earth or in heaven. Nothing actually matters to them; everything is just an object. Instead of connecting with God, people, or things, they’re just communicating with their own fixation of God, people, or things. They end up bowing down to those fixations and serving them. (Just a side note here: making images or idols is secondary in this context. The main issue is idolatry born from the inability to actually face God, people, or reality face-to-face. You could actually be stuck in the hell of that idolatry even if you stay away from physical idols and avoid all images. And it's not just the people who use images as a way to get to God).

swiftcobra15 said:It’s not really about deception here.
The answer lies partly in the etymology, though the truth goes a bit deeper than that.
In the Torah, the word used is ratsah, which leans more toward "murder" rather than just "killing" if you look at the root of the word.
In American Bible translations, you often see "do not kill" because, under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, the US relies heavily on the Latin translation, the Vulgate. That text uses the Latin root *occidere*, which translates more closely to "to kill" than to "to murder." So, if you're translating from Latin into English, *occidere* really does mean "to kill." Since many traditional translations stem from the Vulgate, I don't see any real issue with how those texts were translated.
Modern Protestant versions tend to use "do not commit murder," but some Jewish philosophers argue that "do not kill" might actually be the more accurate translation when you consider the full context of the Torah.
It's all a little more complicated than it looks, and honestly, nobody has definitively settled which commandment is the "correct" one: "Do not kill" or "Do not commit murder."

I don't see why this should bother you so much. When you look at the entire Bible in context, this linguistic ambiguity—or "deception" as you call it—isn't nearly as big of a deal as the other errors found in the Bible.

It’s not really about deception here.
The answer lies partly in the etymology, though the truth goes a bit deeper than that.
In the Torah, the word used is ratsah, which leans more toward "murder" rather than just "killing" if you look at the root of the word.
In American Bible translations, you often see "do not kill" because, under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church, the US relies heavily on the Latin translation, the Vulgate. That text uses the Latin root *occidere*, which translates more closely to "to kill" than to "to murder." So, if you're translating from Latin into English, *occidere* really does mean "to kill." Since many traditional translations stem from the Vulgate, I don't see any real issue with how those texts were translated.
Modern Protestant versions tend to use "do not commit murder," but some Jewish philosophers argue that "do not kill" might actually be the more accurate translation when you consider the full context of the Torah.
It's all a little more complicated than it looks, and honestly, nobody has definitively settled which commandment is the "correct" one: "Do not kill" or "Do not commit murder."

I don't see why this should bother you so much. When you look at the entire Bible in context, this linguistic ambiguity—or "deception" as you call it—isn't nearly as big of a deal as the other errors found in the Bible.

In my opinion, almost every modern translation of the
Bible is a massive stretch, but this particular commandment really sticks out.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds incredibly profound, yet the intended meaning is something else entirely,
and even when interpreted as "murder," I see plenty of Christians failing to live up to it.

In my opinion, almost every modern translation of the
Bible is a massive stretch, but this particular commandment really sticks out.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds incredibly profound, yet the intended meaning is something else entirely,
and even when interpreted as "murder," I see plenty of Christians failing to live up to it.
In my view, pretty much every modern version (translation) of the
Bible is a massive fraud, but this specific commandment? It’s a real eyesore.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds majestic, sure, but the actual intent is something else entirely,
and even with that interpretation ("murder"), Christians don't exactly stick to it.
What else could that possibly refer to—if it isn't the killing of another human being?😕

There's no ambiguity in the CIA regarding the permission to kill animals (just like people are allowed to take out so-called "enemies"... adulterers... disobedient souls, etc.). I mean, doesn't Jesus eat fish?
So, I'm curious—what is this whole debate actually targeting, and where exactly are these "uncertainties" coming from?

What really strikes me is the nuance of communication—specifically, how we can be misled by word choice.

Why wouldn't that commandment be phrased in plain, modern American English as:
"Do not commit murder!" instead of just "Don't kill!"?

😕

I’ve got another question brewing here... what does this actually mean?

Let there be light, and there was light!

Because if you translate it as "let there be light, and then there was light"—doesn't that imply the light is already gone?!

By the way—don't stress too much about trying to parse the Bible perfectly. Just like any other piece of technology, the Bible has undergone its own evolution and refinement over the years, and honestly, deception has been part of the game since day one. They basically sold astrology under the guise of a "holy book" while simultaneously burning anyone who actually practiced it. Plus, when you consider how "idolatry" is treated as being way more significant than "murder," it really tells you everything you need to know about the underlying function of biblical technology.

Zachary Patel6 said:"Killing" is such a relative term. In my view, sometimes a sharp, cutting word does more damage than an actual murder. I say "sometimes," because nobody truly knows what's going on in a person's soul—except God.

So, are you saying His whole purpose is just to oversee "everything" from the sidelines without actually stepping in?

Edward Flores4 said:So, are you saying His whole purpose is just to oversee "everything" from the sidelines without actually stepping in?

😕You’re misinterpreting me—completely. I said only God knows what goes on in a killer's psyche or how much darkness is actually in there. It isn't our job to play judge (and by that, I don't mean killers shouldn't be thrown in prison), but as for the true depth of evil within them? Only God knows.

Zachary Patel6 said:😕You’re misinterpreting me—completely. I said only God knows what goes on in a killer's psyche or how much darkness is actually in there. It isn't our job to play judge (and by that, I don't mean killers shouldn't be thrown in prison), but as for the true depth of evil within them? Only God knows.

Wait, so throwing someone behind bars isn't "judging" them?

Zachary Patel6 said:😕You’re misinterpreting me—completely. I said only God knows what goes on in a killer's psyche or how much darkness is actually in there. It isn't our job to play judge (and by that, I don't mean killers shouldn't be thrown in prison), but as for the true depth of evil within them? Only God knows.

I don't think God has anything to do with it... honestly, there's an equal amount of "evil" in all of us. If things go sideways enough, any one of us could end up being a "killer." And if God even exists, He’s a much bigger killer than any human could ever be—which makes Him pretty hypocritical for "forbidding" others from doing exactly what He does. But hey, maybe nobody ever told Him that you don't raise kids with commandments, you raise them by setting an example. 🙄

Edward Flores4 said:Wait, so throwing someone behind bars isn't "judging" them?

I don't think God has anything to do with it... honestly, there's an equal amount of "evil" in all of us. If things go sideways enough, any one of us could end up being a "killer." And if God even exists, He’s a much bigger killer than any human could ever be—which makes Him pretty hypocritical for "forbidding" others from doing exactly what He does. But hey, maybe nobody ever told Him that you don't raise kids with commandments, you raise them by setting an example. 🙄

No—it's depriving them of liberty for the sake of public safety.

Edward Flores4 said:Wait, so throwing someone behind bars isn't "judging" them?

I don't think God has anything to do with it... honestly, there's an equal amount of "evil" in all of us. If things go sideways enough, any one of us could end up being a "killer." And if God even exists, He’s a much bigger killer than any human could ever be—which makes Him pretty hypocritical for "forbidding" others from doing exactly what He does. But hey, maybe nobody ever told Him that you don't raise kids with commandments, you raise them by setting an example. 🙄

Of course God has nothing to do with evil; He simply knows how much darkness resides within us—even if it's equally distributed among everyone.
The kind of god you seem to think MIGHT exist certainly doesn't, nor could such a being truly be called God.

Zachary Patel6 said:No—it's depriving them of liberty for the sake of public safety.

Of course God has nothing to do with evil; He simply knows how much darkness resides within us—even if it's equally distributed among everyone.
The kind of god you seem to think MIGHT exist certainly doesn't, nor could such a being truly be called God.

That's a very pragmatic way of looking at it, I suppose, but unfortunately, it's also fundamentally flawed.

Zachary Patel6 said:No—it's depriving them of liberty for the sake of public safety.

Of course God has nothing to do with evil; He simply knows how much darkness resides within us—even if it's equally distributed among everyone.
The kind of god you seem to think MIGHT exist certainly doesn't, nor could such a being truly be called God.

If it were even half as easy to argue that point as it would be to claim that philosophy could just vanish overnight, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

shamantrixx said:A practical take—but unfortunately, it's completely off base.

And why's that?

shamantrixx said:If arguing that were even half as easy as claiming philosophies would just vanish overnight...

What's your issue with God? Maybe He just let you down?

Zachary Patel6 said:And why's that?

What's your issue with God? Maybe He just let you down?

Let’s say I kill someone—just as a hypothetical—and then you strip away my freedom because of what I did.

a) Does doing that actually bring the person I killed back to life?
b) Isn't taking someone's life and taking away their freedom essentially the exact same thing?
c) Does the end justify the means? Because if it does, maybe the killer had a noble goal in mind... so where does that leave us?
d) Isn't depriving someone of their liberty an act of judgment itself? And if it isn't, then how else would you define judgment?
e) If it is indeed judgment... who are you to sit in judgment of others? Don't you see that by doing this, you're just leveling the playing field with the killer?
f) Aren't you just acting out of fear for your own safety—locking up the killer under the guise of "justice"? Killers push their own version of "justice" too, so really, what's the difference?

If your logic holds water, you should have answers for all of these.

Zachary Patel6 said:And why's that?

What's your issue with God? Maybe He just let you down?

It’s pretty hard to be disappointed when you aren't expecting anything—and honestly, I go out of my way to avoid having expectations altogether. It makes being let down almost impossible, especially since you can't build expectations on something you don't even believe in. I mean, only a crazy person expects something from nothing, right?

I don't have a problem with anyone, let alone "anything." What I do have is a desire to talk only with people who are capable of backing up their claims with actual arguments—and I tend to steer clear of those who hide behind faith to avoid doing just that... I just avoid them.

memona said:c) does the end justify the means—because if it does, maybe the killer had a good reason... so what then?
- or maybe they didn't

Well, maybe they did... but you'll probably just dump all the responsibility for any mistakes onto whatever God you follow—which is exactly why you have Him in the first place, right?—to be responsible for your own lack of thought and the fallout of your actions based on "His" will. I just don't see how you'll face the devil if everything was already His will to begin with!?

memona said:d) isn't stripping someone of their freedom an act of judgment, and if it isn't, then what exactly is judgment?
- it isn't; it's more like partially restricting freedom to protect others—and maybe even the "offender" themselves

Maybe they are lost in the woods, sure, but what's certain is that you're locking up those who are dangerous to you—and being in danger means feeling fear... and only people with something to lose feel fear. An honest man doesn't fear anything, but you’re a sinner, so you feel fear out of religious duty... isn't that right?

memona said:e) if that counts as judgment... who are you to judge others? Don't you realize that by doing that, you're putting yourself on the same level as the killer?
- exactly so

Doesn't your God forbid hypocrisy, or is that more of a Holy Spirit thing?

memona said:f) aren't you doing this out of fear for your own life (by locking up the killer) under the guise of "justice"? Killers enforce their own version of "justice" too... so where's the difference?
- this is a democratic nation, but we aren't living in total anarchy

Once again, you're dodging the question with some nonsensical rambling about politics and democracy. Heaven knows you believe in a monarchy, yet at the same time, you believe in democracy. I can only imagine the mental gymnastics required to make sure those two beliefs never "clash" in your head... THAT is probably your true act of faith.🙄

memona said:I wouldn't go that far, considering what you've actually written on this thread before...🙄

Who wouldn't say that? You? And what exactly is the yardstick here—divine will, protecting your own ego, some sort of rigid dogmatism... or have you just fallen under the deep hypnosis of those monotonous sermons delivered by preachers in their perfectly tailored skirts, all wrapped up in past tense and imperatives?

@Taylor Swift-Why do you keep dragging God and divine will into this when it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about? ...and then you have the nerve to claim you don't even believe in Him anyway

The whole idea of "Thou shalt not kill" being one of the Ten Commandments is really the heart of this discussion—and specifically, I think the commandment itself is pretty controversial because of how arbitrarily it’s been translated and interpreted over time. I feel like I’m sticking right to the core of what we're talking about here, trying to get as close to the original context as possible.

I honestly don't quite get where you're coming from... maybe if you took a second to look at the thread title and read through some of the earlier posts, it might be a little easier to see what the actual point is—and why I made that comment about "someone I don't even believe in."

Zachary Patel6 said:"Killing" is such a relative term. In my view, sometimes a sharp, cutting word does more damage than an actual murder. I say "sometimes," because nobody truly knows what's going on in a person's soul—except God.

The distinction lies in the fact that words have this incredible power to wound; sometimes they cut much deeper and more painfully than any literal blade ever could—metaphorically speaking, of course—whereas physical murder, as a direct action, doesn't carry that same kind of subjective weight when we start talking about how one "kills" through a look, a comment, a judgment, or a specific decision.

Zachary Patel6 said:😕You’re misinterpreting me—completely. I said only God knows what goes on in a killer's psyche or how much darkness is actually in there. It isn't our job to play judge (and by that, I don't mean killers shouldn't be thrown in prison), but as for the true depth of evil within them? Only God knows.

I totally get what you're getting at when you mention that nobody can truly grasp why someone does what they do, or understand the internal world a person carries with them—a world that's often a complete mystery even to the person living it—let alone expect some stranger to understand it all. Whether you're a believer or just using the term as a way to express the idea, it's clear you're attributing that ultimate insight to God as the only one capable of knowing the truth, and I agree that we shouldn't presume to judge the core of who someone is, though that certainly doesn't mean there aren't legal consequences for those actions.

I’ve always felt that most modern translations
of the Bible are a bit of a sham, but this specific commandment really hits a nerve.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds incredibly noble on paper, yet the actual intent behind it feels entirely different.
Even when people try to interpret it more specifically as "do not commit murder," you still don't see many Christians actually living by it.

In practice, the command almost always ends up being: Don't kill except:
and then follows an endless list of loopholes, where
a huge chunk of those exceptions target people who are deemed to "deserve" death.

Two words and you’ve got an entire essay on your hands. "Don't kill" is way too broad if we’re being literal about it. We're talking all kinds of life-ending stuff here—whether it’s violent or just looks non-violent on the surface. Bottom line? Nobody has the right to take someone else's life because you can't just hand it back once it's gone. Some people will argue that having a new baby somehow balances the scales, but that's just math. The kid being born isn't going to be the same person who was lost, especially since mainstream American Christianity doesn't buy into reincarnation anyway.

Robin Barnes21 said:Two words and you’ve got an entire essay on your hands. "Don't kill" is way too broad if we’re being literal about it. We're talking all kinds of life-ending stuff here—whether it’s violent or just looks non-violent on the surface. Bottom line? Nobody has the right to take someone else's life because you can't just hand it back once it's gone. Some people will argue that having a new baby somehow balances the scales, but that's just math. The kid being born isn't going to be the same person who was lost, especially since mainstream American Christianity doesn't buy into reincarnation anyway.

But wait—what happens if we’re talking about killing a Hindu or a Buddhist? Does the newborn baby become the reincarnation of the person who died, or does the Catholic Church somehow claim jurisdiction over them too?
🤣

Don't kill me within yourself, and don't kill yourself within me.
Well, that’s basically the gist of it, though I suppose if you look at those old commandments they handed down, they were way too heavy and cumbersome, so he just decided to trim the fat and make things a bit more concise...