Questions with death

[Baitman]

i hear ya there, thats why I am not a vigilante,

but without a doubt those 3 things, if someone tried with my family, i would not feel guilty about taking there life.

or say if i was was in a store and someone tried to rob it, i would do whatever it took to stop them.

as a Man of God we are supposed to stand up for what is right, no matter the cost.

I had a neighbor that I grew up with, Tom, stand up to a guy that was beating a woman(he didn't know) Tom was run over and killed trying to help her, he left behind his own wife and couple of kids. I know his wife and kids miss him dearly. don't know if he could do it again if he would.

[SD67]

but that still does not change the fact that it is wrong to kill for no reason. 

Who's to say the crack head robbing the liquor store doesn't have a reason?

[mtnman]

well the commandment "thou shalt not kill" a more accurate translation is " thou shall not Murder" not every word of the King James bible, is translated perfect.

it is more to the lines of lying in wait to murder in "cold blood" for no good reason. some people need killing, but mankinds screwed up societies twists the word of God to suit there desires.

 but that still does not change the fact that it is wrong to kill for no reason. 

That in itself is interesting-  So, it's OK to "translate" the bible to suit the current need?  Does that apply for all parts of it, or just select parts?  What if your argument requires a "literal" meaning, but mine requires a "translated" meaning?  How do we decide who wins, and gets to use the version that works in their favor?

Since it was translated to begin with, is it OK to re-translate it?  Can we assume the original translators weren't careful enough with their wording, and didn't really write what they meant to say?  Or maybe they just didn't know any better?  Or maybe they skewed some parts in their favor, or to strengthen their own arguments?  Such muddy water...  especially if what was written can't be taken literally...

Before it was ever written, how long was it an "oral tradition"?  How often are oral traditions able to remain unchanged over time?  Ever try the whisper in someones ear, and pass it around the classroom game?

Did he really walk on water?  Or was it really on wet ground?  Is it the same in the end?  Are we sure nothing was exaggerated from the "original" story, or in translation?

What if my "reason" for killing isn't considered convincing enough to my victim?  Does it matter?  Or only matter if those left standing agree with me?

[SPKmes]

Damn MtnMan, so articulate, That's what my last post was supposed to sound like.

[Baitman]

What if my "reason" for killing isn't considered convincing enough to my victim?  Does it matter?  Or only matter if those left standing agree with me?

 

[wrag]

This has been a translation to suit... it is thou shalt not kill.... however, how can you kill another human being who has been molded from as they say god and therefore any killing would be a direct assault/killing on the power himself. Thou Shalt not murder and let's put a sub clause under the heading 'Holy War' .... Now let's go get them....


But hey that's only my version of events to help my argument

Might want to talk this over with a Rabi.

In the original language the word used/usage means MURDER.

Also the meanings of words in the English language can and does change very rapidly at times.  Probably due to slang becoming part of the dictionary from time to time.

Kill, at one time, was a synonym for murder............

Slay was used for taking life during battle, or when it was kill or be killed.

AND the translators of the ORIGINAL KJV placed in the ORIGINAL KJV right at the front, a letter to the readers WARNING all that they KNEW they had made mistakes during the attempt to translate, but had done their best, and to check them out regarding the translation................

[lazs2]

you don't need the bible or any religion.. God gave us morality.

lazs

[Baitman]

In the original language the word used/usage means MURDER.

Also the meanings of words in the English language can and does change very rapidly at times.  Probably due to slang becoming part of the dictionary from time to time.

Kill, at one time, was a synonym for murder............

Slay was used for taking life during battle, or when it was kill or be killed.

In other religions there is no distinction between murder, kill, slay, as they all really mean to take anothers life. Funny how we can have something that will allow us to slay but not murder

[ink]

That in itself is interesting-  So, it's OK to "translate" the bible to suit the current need?  Does that apply for all parts of it, or just select parts?  What if your argument requires a "literal" meaning, but mine requires a "translated" meaning?  How do we decide who wins, and gets to use the version that works in their favor?

Since it was translated to begin with, is it OK to re-translate it?  Can we assume the original translators weren't careful enough with their wording, and didn't really write what they meant to say?  Or maybe they just didn't know any better?  Or maybe they skewed some parts in their favor, or to strengthen their own arguments?  Such muddy water...  especially if what was written can't be taken literally...

Before it was ever written, how long was it an "oral tradition"?  How often are oral traditions able to remain unchanged over time?  Ever try the whisper in someones ear, and pass it around the classroom game?

Did he really walk on water?  Or was it really on wet ground?  Is it the same in the end?  Are we sure nothing was exaggerated from the "original" story, or in translation?

What if my "reason" for killing isn't considered convincing enough to my victim?  Does it matter?  Or only matter if those left standing agree with me?

well the King James Bible was written in 1611, from the earliest known manuscripts, there are no surviving original words left by the writers.

saying that, the KJV most feel is the best translation out there, i have read at least 5 different Christen bibles and they are so close as to be the same, but if you really want to understand Gods words its good to try to bring it back to the Manuscripts.
 the best way to do that is with Strongs concordance. 

one thing that i found many years ago that was a convincing argument in favor of the Bible,   

in Isaiah he describes God
this one passage
Isaiah 40-22  "it is he who sits above the circle of the Earth"

back than (almost 3000 years ago)  people thought the world was flat, how did this man know the world was circular ?  he God and when you know God you know the truth.

it reads different in each bible that ive checked out, but it all says the same thing. the world is round.


SD

ya the Crack head has a reason, but it does not make it right.
that old saying "Might makes right" is not truth.

[Baitman]

The bible is a story of how we were put on Earth by the giant mother ship that is going to come back for us

[wrag]

In other religions there is no distinction between murder, kill, slay, as they all really mean to take anothers life. Funny how we can have something that will allow us to slay but not murder

How is it funny?

If someone comes to your home with the intention of doing you or your family some serious harm, their reason doesn't matter!  And you SLAY them instead....(You could ask Sharon Tate if she were alive)

Vs.

You (not sayin you would do this! using it to answer your question) walking up to someone at a automatic teller and MURDER them for the money they just got out of the machine......

the two stated scenarios are VERY different to me, what do you think?

And how is either one funny?

Not all languages have different words or meanings for different variations of a thing.  English however does.

A quick example ... execution by lethal injection...  some consider this state sponsored MURDER while others do not.

In either case it is a DIFFERENT word used to describe a different form/way of taking life.

English can be a difficult language to master even for native speakers..............

[Baitman]

How is it funny?

If someone comes to your home with the intention of doing you or your family some serious harm, their reason doesn't matter!  And you SLAY them instead....(You could ask Sharon Tate if she were alive)

Vs.

You (not sayin you would do this! using it to answer your question) walking up to someone at a automatic teller and MURDER them for the money they just got out of the machine......

the two stated scenarios are VERY different to me, what do you think?

And how is either one funny?

I find it funny  that we can manipulate the english language to make thing OK that really are not.

Does a person have to die in your house because he is attacking you. Is it your place to say he lives or dies. Take him to an inch of death surely but not kill him. I know I have had these feeling before and stopped just short, wasn't my call, even though at the time I surely felt like it.

In our society we seem to be able to justfiy some weird things

[wrag]

I find it funny  that we can manipulate the english language to make thing OK that really are not.

Does a person have to die in your house because he is attacking you. Is it your place to say he lives or dies. Take him to an inch of death surely but not kill him. I know I have had these feeling before and stopped just short, wasn't my call, even though at the time I surely felt like it.

In our society we seem to be able to justfiy some weird things

OK?

How is it OK?

Not sure I'm following your reasoning here?

IMHO the taking the life of or causing the demise of another human being is NEVER OK ... and if possible should be avoided..............

BUT if one individual,without a justifiable cause, deliberately places another individual or several individuals in a situation where it becomes kill or be killed then it becomes necessary that a choice be made.  One can choose to die, or perhaps more correctly be MURDERED, or one can SLAY, if they are able, their attacker........

To me there is a BIG difference there! 

One person is choosing to end the life, or lives of others for, NO apparent or justifiable reason.

OR a person, or persons, finds they are under attack with the ending of their life as the purpose of that attack............

AND the English Language reflects that difference.

When SLAYING another there is, by meaning, a type of justification for the action.

When MURDERING another there is NOT, by meaning, ANY justification for the action.

[Baitman]

IMHO the taking the life of or causing the demise of another human being is NEVER OK ... and if possible should be avoided..............

I understand the Kill or be killed saying but we as a society are moving towards non lethal force like it or not. Just because today we can get away with it doesn't mean in the future we will be able to. Slayings will go the same way as honor killings and the old wild west gunfight.

The deep problem with this way of thinking is that it is going to be a virus that will spread to the militaries of the world. We have already started with precision bombing to reduce casulties. Armies used to plunder and take the spoils now we give it back? We are at the beginning of a huge change and there is nothing we can do about it.

[SD67]

Right and wrong are just words. Concepts used to bind and restrict, as are good and evil, they have absolutely no bearing on life but that which you give to them.
There are however a few edicts in Christian mythology that do not have their basis in social control. The one that I like is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" now THAT"S a human concept.