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.