Don't kill it!

The sixth commandment of the Decalogue sounds incredibly powerful and authoritative,
but I honestly feel the translation is inaccurate—it’s almost intentionally misleading.

If we look at how the English version translates the original text:
"You shall not murder!" translates directly as "Do not commit murder!"
That specifically refers to the taking of a human life, not an animal.

In virtually every language, there is a clear distinction between killing people and killing animals.

It goes without saying that you don't "kill" plants.

You pluck them, chop them, or trim them, but we don't say they were killed (or are dead)
even though, biologically speaking, flowers in a vase are indeed dead.

Most languages utilize two different terms, sometimes more. For instance: murder, homicide refers to murder, while the corresponding verbs are used much less frequently (to assassinate); this is distinct from to kill—which applies to animals.

According to Merriam-Webster: murder 1) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
& 5) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or …

So, the point is about one human being intentionally (and illegally!) killing another human being.

Setting aside the legal technicalities for a moment, I wonder how vital this distinction between
killing humans versus animals truly is, and why this commandment has been translated incorrectly here.
Looking at the comments, everyone seems to be discussing only the murder of a person, or a fetus.

The "Do Not Kill" directive only applies to community members deemed to have a "soul." For everyone else, lethal force is authorized.

So here we go. Some people cling to the scientific idea that only humans possess a soul, while others argue that pets have them too. Then you have those who extend the concept to all animals, or vegetarians convinced that plants lack a soul, or even those claiming stones have one. In this absolute chaos—fueled by stories written in heavy academic volumes—people just kill whoever they want.

🙂🙂🙂

Honestly
everyone just grabs whatever version of the truth works best for them, you know?
they just pick the one that fits their own personality perfectly.

Yeah, let’s be honest, we’re just indulging in some serious wishful thinking here.

It actually just occurred to me... if you're looking for something that tackles this exact theme, there's an absolutely incredible film out there:

Earthlings

You’ll want to make sure you hit the 25-minute mark. 😲 It is honestly harrowing.

I don't really see much of a dilemma here. If we’re talking about the Ten Commandments, it's pretty straightforward—"Thou shalt not kill" refers to taking a human life. The Old Testament is quite explicit about which animals are okay to eat and which aren't, especially since man is considered "the crown of creation," granted dominion over everything on Earth. It’s just funny how the entire book feels like a total horror show that constantly tramples over its own commandment.🤷

-I don't think we need to take things so literally... I mean, it could be more specific, like how you can actually "kill" someone just with your words—totally crush them... ("words... cutting like a knife").

swiftcobra15 said:The sixth commandment of the Decalogue sounds incredibly powerful and authoritative,
but I honestly feel the translation is inaccurate—it’s almost intentionally misleading.

If we look at how the English version translates the original text:
"You shall not murder!" translates directly as "Do not commit murder!"
That specifically refers to the taking of a human life, not an animal.

In virtually every language, there is a clear distinction between killing people and killing animals.

You pluck them, chop them, or trim them, but we don't say they were killed (or are dead)
even though, biologically speaking, flowers in a vase are indeed dead.

Most languages utilize two different terms, sometimes more. For instance: murder, homicide refers to murder, while the corresponding verbs are used much less frequently (to assassinate); this is distinct from to kill—which applies to animals.

According to Merriam-Webster: murder 1) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
& 5) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or …

So, the point is about one human being intentionally (and illegally!) killing another human being.

Setting aside the legal technicalities for a moment, I wonder how vital this distinction between
killing humans versus animals truly is, and why this commandment has been translated incorrectly here.
Looking at the comments, everyone seems to be discussing only the murder of a person, or a fetus.

Back in the day, this commandment was truly revolutionary because it forbade the killing of humans—yet the slaughter and sacrifice of animals continued unabated in the name of God... even Jesus exposed that hypocrisy, though he used the symbolism of an innocent lamb being led to slaughter just to make his point more relatable to his audience...

swiftcobra15 said:The sixth commandment of the Decalogue sounds incredibly powerful and authoritative,
but I honestly feel the translation is inaccurate—it’s almost intentionally misleading.

If we look at how the English version translates the original text:
"You shall not murder!" translates directly as "Do not commit murder!"
That specifically refers to the taking of a human life, not an animal.

In virtually every language, there is a clear distinction between killing people and killing animals.

You pluck them, chop them, or trim them, but we don't say they were killed (or are dead)
even though, biologically speaking, flowers in a vase are indeed dead.

Most languages utilize two different terms, sometimes more. For instance: murder, homicide refers to murder, while the corresponding verbs are used much less frequently (to assassinate); this is distinct from to kill—which applies to animals.

According to Merriam-Webster: murder 1) the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another
& 5) to kill (someone) unlawfully with premeditation or …

So, the point is about one human being intentionally (and illegally!) killing another human being.

Setting aside the legal technicalities for a moment, I wonder how vital this distinction between
killing humans versus animals truly is, and why this commandment has been translated incorrectly here.
Looking at the comments, everyone seems to be discussing only the murder of a person, or a fetus.

To me, the Ten Commandments are basically just a guide for humans to spot the animalistic side of themselves—
that part where we let our raw instincts take the wheel.
Once you recognize that, you’re finally ready for the next step, which shows you how to
actually tame that inner beast.
In my humble opinion, that next lesson is found in the story of Christ's life.
So, "Thou shalt not kill" really means, "You're acting like an animal driven by fear for your own survival;
just recognize that fear, and you won't have to react so violently or impulsively."

Historically speaking, the famous biblical Decalogue represents a decisive leap toward unifying a tribal consciousness. That’s why the first commandment demands worship of a single God—Moses' and Aaron's God—and requires abandoning any mixing with other tribes or participating in their various cults.
The moral obligations flowing from the Decalogue and the broader texts—like Leviticus—pertain strictly to regulating relationships among the Hebrews themselves, rather than their interactions with surrounding polytheists, let alone with animals. In fact, under the tenth commandment, animals are defined merely as property.
So, "do not kill" essentially means—don't kill your neighbor.
Others can be killed or robbed; in fact, God even explicitly commands such actions.

Treating the Decalogue as a universal moral compass is highly questionable.
What does "do not kill" actually mean? Never, not even in self-defense? If we translate it as "do not commit murder" (premeditated killing), ambiguities remain—such as during wartime or when the line between homicide and self-defense is blurry (for instance, in the case of Magaš).
Or "do not steal"? Is it truly more righteous to die of hunger than to steal food?
Or "honor your father and mother"? Always? Even when they aren't worthy of respect?
Or "do not commit adultery"? What does the sixth commandment signify without its specific historical context? Nothing, really, because the concept of "adultery" is incredibly relative. For the Hebrews of Moses' era, it meant adultery, premarital relations, or even certain acts with a legal spouse during specific periods, whereas today it might denote casual promiscuity or prostitution. To the surrounding nations of that time, it meant nothing at all—they maintained orgiastic cults and temple prostitution, where children born from such practices were considered "sinlessly conceived."

The Decalogue, therefore, has its own historical origin and purpose; it served as the foundation for a long-vanished tribal consciousness, and as such, it cannot function as a universal rule.

Donna Sullivan7 said:-I don't think we need to take things so literally... I mean, it could be more specific, like how you can actually "kill" someone just with your words—totally crush them... ("words... cutting like a knife").

👍

A few days ago, I happened to watch a rather compelling short film featuring a character who delivered a truly fascinating monologue. He concluded that theft is actually the only true sin, suggesting that every other transgression is merely a different variation on that single theme.

In his view, even murder is defined simply as the theft of one's right to exist.

I must admit that I found this conclusion deeply moving; it strikes me as a profound philosophical inquiry, while also serving as a perfectly reasonable principle to live by—essentially, just do not steal.

The translation isn't just off; it feels intentionally misleading. ...

... "Do not commit murder!"

This specifically refers to taking a human life, not an animal's.

I can't help but wonder why this commandment was translated so poorly in our version of the Bible.
In the comments here, everyone is strictly discussing the killing of people, or even fetuses.

My main concern is the communication aspect—specifically, the deception involved.

Why wouldn't this command (in standard American English) be phrased as:
"Do not commit murder!" instead of simply saying "Do not kill!"? 😕

hiddenhound3 said:A few days ago, I happened to watch a rather compelling short film featuring a character who delivered a truly fascinating monologue. He concluded that theft is actually the only true sin, suggesting that every other transgression is merely a different variation on that single theme.

In his view, even murder is defined simply as the theft of one's right to exist.

I must admit that I found this conclusion deeply moving; it strikes me as a profound philosophical inquiry, while also serving as a perfectly reasonable principle to live by—essentially, just do not steal.

That’s actually a deep way to look at it. Made me stop and think for a second. Most sins, if you strip them down, really do boil down to that basic principle of not taking what isn't yours.

DON'T KILL—you're just stealing their life...👍

PS. Are you talking about The Kit Runner?

neonowl7 said:That’s actually a deep way to look at it. Made me stop and think for a second. Most sins, if you strip them down, really do boil down to that basic principle of not taking what isn't yours.

DON'T KILL—you're just stealing their life...👍

PS. Are you talking about The Kit Runner?

The concept of theft itself hinges on ownership, whether you look at it through a legal lens or a moral one. And those standards shift constantly; they are often quite ambiguous...

So, let me expand on that slightly.

DO NOT TAKE

V.

swiftcobra15 said:

The translation isn't just off; it feels intentionally misleading. ...

... "Do not commit murder!"

This specifically refers to taking a human life, not an animal's.

I can't help but wonder why this commandment was translated so poorly in our version of the Bible.
In the comments here, everyone is strictly discussing the killing of people, or even fetuses.

My main concern is the communication aspect—specifically, the deception involved.

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.

rustywalker36 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.
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.

Since the original text doesn't rely on Latin,
how it was translated into Latin shouldn't even matter.

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.

Tyler Reyes86 said:Historically speaking, the famous biblical Decalogue represents a decisive leap toward unifying a tribal consciousness. That’s why the first commandment demands worship of a single God—Moses' and Aaron's God—and requires abandoning any mixing with other tribes or participating in their various cults.
The moral obligations flowing from the Decalogue and the broader texts—like Leviticus—pertain strictly to regulating relationships among the Hebrews themselves, rather than their interactions with surrounding polytheists, let alone with animals. In fact, under the tenth commandment, animals are defined merely as property.
So, "do not kill" essentially means—don't kill your neighbor.
Others can be killed or robbed; in fact, God even explicitly commands such actions.

Treating the Decalogue as a universal moral compass is highly questionable.
What does "do not kill" actually mean? Never, not even in self-defense? If we translate it as "do not commit murder" (premeditated killing), ambiguities remain—such as during wartime or when the line between homicide and self-defense is blurry (for instance, in the case of Magaš).
Or "do not steal"? Is it truly more righteous to die of hunger than to steal food?
Or "honor your father and mother"? Always? Even when they aren't worthy of respect?
Or "do not commit adultery"? What does the sixth commandment signify without its specific historical context? Nothing, really, because the concept of "adultery" is incredibly relative. For the Hebrews of Moses' era, it meant adultery, premarital relations, or even certain acts with a legal spouse during specific periods, whereas today it might denote casual promiscuity or prostitution. To the surrounding nations of that time, it meant nothing at all—they maintained orgiastic cults and temple prostitution, where children born from such practices were considered "sinlessly conceived."

The Decalogue, therefore, has its own historical origin and purpose; it served as the foundation for a long-vanished tribal consciousness, and as such, it cannot function as a universal rule.

That’s basically it.
It isn't until we get to Saint Paul that this universal shift happens, where the Ten Commandments actually become part of our tradition through Christianity, which isn't just a Jewish thing. So, check out this quote from Catholic ethics:

In Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans we read: ''For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they, though they do not have the law, are a law to themselves. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts exchanging accusations.' (Romans 2:14-15) Here, Saint Paul establishes that there is another source for moral principles besides Revelation (the Law). This source is simply human rational nature (''doing what the law requires''), which obligates any normal person to perform the actions that constitute the content of the moral law in Revelation.

So, if there really is a ''Law written in everyone's heart,'' then why bother treating Revelation as moral guidance in the form of an imperative? I mean, I'd like to think your own heart is a bit closer to you than the Holy Bible is, even if you keep it right there on your nightstand.
🤷

neonowl7 said:That’s actually a deep way to look at it. Made me stop and think for a second. Most sins, if you strip them down, really do boil down to that basic principle of not taking what isn't yours.

DON'T KILL—you're just stealing their life...👍

PS. Are you talking about The Kit Runner?

Yes. 🙂

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.
I personally think every modern version (translation) of the
Bible is a total scam, but this specific commandment really sticks out.
"Thou shalt not kill" sounds grand, but it means something else entirely,
and even when interpreted as "do not commit murder," Christians don't exactly follow that command either.
Christians... rarely actually follow Biblical law.

You wanted to dive deeper into the issue of American translations. Given that Bibles printed in the States often stem from Latin translations—basically the Vulgate—it’s hardly surprising that American Bibles carry the "do not kill" translation.
And which commandment is the right one: "Do not kill" or "Do not commit murder"? It's still up in the air. While one group of translators, philosophers, and whatnot argue that "Do not kill" is correct, others insist it should be "Do not commit murder."

mistyfox812 said:That’s basically it.
It isn't until we get to Saint Paul that this universal shift happens, where the Ten Commandments actually become part of our tradition through Christianity, which isn't just a Jewish thing. So, check out this quote from Catholic ethics:

In Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans we read: ''For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they, though they do not have the law, are a law to themselves. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts exchanging accusations.' (Romans 2:14-15) Here, Saint Paul establishes that there is another source for moral principles besides Revelation (the Law). This source is simply human rational nature (''doing what the law requires''), which obligates any normal person to perform the actions that constitute the content of the moral law in Revelation.

So, if there really is a ''Law written in everyone's heart,'' then why bother treating Revelation as moral guidance in the form of an imperative? I mean, I'd like to think your own heart is a bit closer to you than the Holy Bible is, even if you keep it right there on your nightstand.
🤷

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to be burned, but do not have love, nothing benefits me."

Or, "love your neighbor as yourself." Therefore, morality stems from empathy.