Thou Shalt Not Kill? Or is it Murder?

[boatsnguitars]

We've often seen Christians defend their lust for killing (either in war, or the death penalty, or when calling to rid the world of gay people, witches, atheists, or simply wanting to nuke Islamic countries), or defending Jesus's promise to come back and start massacring all the unworthy, or defending Yahweh's genocidal rampages.

The conversation is like this:

Atheist: I thought "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" How can you be for this killing?
Christian: No! You stupid moron! The translation is "Thou Shalt Not MURDER", you ignorant twat. What? Are you for murder, you evil, reprobate?!"
Atheist: Well, you have certainly hoisted me by my own petard, fine sir, and I deserve the vicious ridicule you have so un-judgmentally beset upon me!"

But, wait. Murder is a legal term. Murder is defined by the State. In fact, different States (both States in the USA, but also countries).

In some countries it is legal to kill gay people. In some countries Honor Killing is legal.

It would not be murder to kill ones child for embarrassing you in some countries.

Did God not know this when he inspired this line? Wouldn't it make more sense to say "Kill" and simply stop all killing? But that wouldn't satisfy the patriarchy's lust to kill, does it?

Seems to me, this is an obvious case of Christians trying to make the Bible sound better than it is, without noticing it makes it worse.


Thoughts?

[JehovahsWitness]

According to bible law and principle, abortion is murder.
...

I don't see a law.

I said bible law and principle , meaning how, God views terminating the life of an unborn child is evident taking all the passages in the bible related to the topic into account.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

DOES EXODUS 21:22-23 INDICATE THE LIFE OF AN UNBORN CHILD IS NOT EQUAL TO THATNOF AN ADULT?

Exodus 21:22-23 (NWT)

22 “If men should struggle with each other and they hurt a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely+ but no fatality results, the offender must pay the damages imposed on him by the husband of the woman; and he must pay it through the judges.+ 23 But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life

The Hebrew does not limit the death penalty to a potential fatality of the mother only ...

EXODUS 21:23

But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life,

Hebrew-English interlinear by Dr. G. R. Berry notes that the Hebrew does not limit the application of “injury” (fatal accident) to just the mother. Further, The commentary by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch points out that a fine was sufficient only when {quote} “no injury [fatal accident] was done either to the woman or the child that was born.” and points out that if the Law meant just the mother the Hebrew text would have added lah, meaning “to her.” they conclude: “The omission of LAH, also, apparently renders it impracticable to refer the words to [an] injury done to the woman alone.”

The point is the "fatality" [fatal] injury that must be repaid by a life is NOT limited to the mother in the text. It does not say if a [fatal] injury ocurrs "TO HER /if the woman suffers a [fatal] injury", it just states if a [fatal] injury ocurrs: PERIOD. Therefore if the baby dies as a result of the acts of an adult, the adult had to pay with his life.

Looking at the the script in the Hebrew, we can note the word WOMAN is nowhere to be seen in verse 23 which speaks of loss of life ; the life lost is therefore not restricted to her in the Hebrew text...



Source: Source: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/exodus/21-23.htm

New Living Translation
But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life,

English Standard Version
But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,

Berean Study Bible
But if a serious injury results, then you must require a life for a life—

King James Bible
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

New King James Version
But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

New American Standard Bible
But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

NASB 1995
“But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

NASB 1977
“But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,

Amplified Bible
But if there is any further injury, then you shall require [as a penalty] life for life,

Christian Standard Bible
If there is an injury, then you must give life for life,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If there is an injury, then you must give life for life,

American Standard Version
But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And if there is misfortune, he will give a life in exchange for a life,

International Standard Version
If there is harm, then you are to require life for life,

JPS Tanakh 1917
But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

Literal Standard Version
and if there is harm [to them], then you have given life for life,

New American Bible
But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life,

NET Bible
But if there is serious injury, then you will give a life for a life,

New Revised Standard Version
If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,

New Heart English Bible
But if there is injury, then you must take life for life,

World English Bible
But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life,

Young's Literal Translation
and if there is mischief, then thou hast given life for life,

SOURCE: https://biblehub.com/exodus/21-23.htm

CONCLUSION : Thus a fatality to either mother or child (or both) would demand the death penalty for those responsible. In short the life of an unborn child is presented in scripture as being of equal value to the life of an adult




FURTHER READING : https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1977570

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #51]

Yes LAW and principle. Meaning both.

[boatsnguitars]

You simply presume it's talking about a fetus too, but that's an interpretation.

You also seem to be taking as gospel a passage in Exodus that follows this gem:
20 “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

I suppose you agree with that, too.

You also ignore the Numbers passage which must be put in context with the Exodus passage. You're doing the classic out of context exegesis.

[Difflugia]

The Hebrew does not limit the death penalty to a potential fatality of the mother only ...

CONCLUSION : Thus a fatality to either mother or child (or both) would demand the death penalty for those responsible. In short the life of an unborn child is presented in scripture as being of equal value to the life of an adult

It's been previously explained to you why you're wrong. In a nutshell, if your interpretation were correct, the statute would require compensation to the father for a healthy birth in which no injury occured to mother, child, or anyone else. This seems quite out of line with the surrounding context.

Your only response was to repeatedly ask for links because you were embarrassed over being called out for plagiarizing the Watchtower Library. Perhaps you'd like to pick up the discussion where it left off?