That is a SWAN example.

Israel fought wars, Israel was God's people, God then wants war. SWAN

Israel had kings, David was a king, David was a person after God's own heart, God wanted Israel to have a king.
SWAN

David had a many wifes. God approves of pleural marriages.
SWAN

Israel divorced their spouses, God gave rules for divorce, God approves of divorce.
SWAN

God gave laws for eating meat, thus eating meat is just fine.
SWAN

dedication quotes the Bible when it says there is a time to kill. She should also quote this: Psa_137:9 Happy shall he be, that takes and dashes your little ones against the stones.


An inner city kid can read the Bible and if lead by the Spirit can know the doctrine and never ever hear the term ratsach. The inner city kid can learn that hate is also murder. That kid can learn what God is really like by the testimony of Jesus. The Jews of Jesus time knew their Bible. Many had memorized it! And they killed the Son of God. Why? Because they did not have the right definition of the words? Word which were in their native language so there was no translation issues? Green, you think the worst error in the KJV is in the translation of the 10C, you have stated such in the past. Perhaps the problem is not with the KJV but with your preconceived ideas of what God really wants. Those Sabbath keeping, tithe paying, health reforming, Bible quoting Adventists of Jesus day, killed Him.

Here's the BIG DEAL, and perhaps the most important reason that one must exercise special caution in understanding these definitions:

The end result of believing that all killing is "murder," and therefore "sin," is the erroneous belief that one cannot safely obey God.

APL must, of necessity in order to be consistent with his view, rationalize that God's commands need to be filtered through his private interpretation first before they can be safe to follow. If any killing is "murder," as forbidden in the Ten Commandments, then it follows that:

1. God gave the wrong command to the people of Israel in telling them to stone the Sabbath-breaker;
2. God gave the wrong command to the people to destroy the Canaanites;
3. God did the wrong thing in destroying people like Nadab & Abihu, Korah, Dathan, & Abiram, the antediluvians, the Canaanites, Uzzah, the first-born sons of Egypt, Senacherib's army, and many more throughout the Bible; and
4. God will do the wrong thing in destroying the wicked in hell.

Usually, because those who have already gotten off the track of truth from the definition stage onward cannot accept that God would do anything wrong, they make another error in claiming that the Bible does not mean what it says, and that every time the Bible says God did one of these "evil" things, Satan was actually the one doing it, not God. Essentially, this view claims that parts of the Bible are lying, and cannot be believed. According to this view, Abraham should never have thought God would ask him to kill; the people should not have obeyed God in killing the Sabbath-breaker or Achan; and they only did these things of the hardness of their hearts. Again, private opinion supercedes the Bible.

In the end, private opinions on the topic become inconsistent. According to Mrs. White, the parts of the Bible that people prefer not to hear or believe are frequently the very parts they need most. As this particular error in theology, stemming from mis-definitions, is one I have never fallen prey to, I do not claim to understand what portion of the sinful nature might be gratified by such a belief. But there very likely is one, if Ellen White is to be believed.

We are in a battle for our souls. Only the truth will set us free. Jesus came to help us know the truth. He has been teaching His people since the beginning of their creation. Our only hope is to lay aside our prejudices, our biases, and our sins, and accept His truth and salvation by faith. We may not understand everything now, but He will make everything plain to us in His time.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Dedication,

One reason I've returned to this topic from the "definitions" standpoint is that I have realized just how crucial these definitions are, and their proper understanding may very well be salvific. This is not a discussion for debate, nor for fun, nor to "win." It is simply for truth. Satan is playing the game of life for our souls and for keeps--for eternity. We cannot let down our guard, and we cannot trust ourselves in this battle. Every one of us must surrender our judgment to the will of God, and be seeking that openly, honestly, and humbly. If we have misunderstood something in the past, we must not maintain our errors pridefully, but rather be grateful for God's mercy in bringing them to light that we might yet have a chance at His salvation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This might be a good example of the power of words--the topic for this thread. I don't believe I ever stated that. Please find my quote to back up your statement. I try to be careful with my words, knowing their potential significance. What you have quoted does not exhibit my usual care in selecting words that express my beliefs; therefore, I believe it is a misquote.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Would the contrast be that if it weren't for His death giving power, no one would die?

But again, who killed Saul? The Bible states what happened and how. But yet it states, "And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse."
Do we "rewrite" that? Or do we understand what the Bible is saying rather than taking some dogmatic odd and selfish position? And if we try to understand this verse, that God didn't "slay" Saul, but stopped protecting him, then what about other places where it talks of fire from God or what not?

So you say He kills some people to save others?
?
!

So why not list the definitions for all? Why be vague and tell people they should look elsewhere for them because you need to spend your time in being vague and ambiguous? If these definitions are so crucial and "salvific", why not be forthright and list them? How many people are going to be lost because you choose to hide these definitions?

What are you afraid of, Green?

I'm not afraid of anything, kland, except that people will reject the truth. Let me ask you a serious question:

What was Jesus afraid of that made Him cloak His most profound truths in parables? Why did He not simply "tell all"? ... lay out His definitions plainly for all to see?

He gave some definitions, yes. I don't claim to be so wise as He, by any means, but I do try to learn from His example. Sometimes I will present things plainly. Sometimes I will let people learn and study more for themselves. If one does not work a little to learn something, most probably he or she will little appreciate its value.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I agree with kland. That's a major problem when people don't accept what scriptures says and rewrites it, twist it, or add to it to say what they want it to say.

People that does that will never be able to see God's true definition of words.

I was in the camp of "God does not kill" for a few years in another forum. I have pulled all the tricks in the bag possible to make scriptures say what it didn't say just so I would preserve my pre-conceived picture of who God should look like and act like.

Show me where it says or implies that Cain hated his brother. I've looked before posting, and I found none.


Quoting Ellen when you can't find it in the Bible? No, no... Ellen said no, no. Well, you probably missed these counsels of Mrs. White. There's many more like that.



Green provide Biblical basis that Cain "hated" Abel. If we cannot find support in the Bible to define a word, then it just doesn't mean what you would like it to mean.



"ratsach" is not define as killing "without a cause". Where did you get that definition?



What I see coming out of these two words and its usage employed in the Bible :

1- ratsach means slaying because of previous hatred for someone, whereas
2- harag is slaying without any previous hate towards that person, but for other reason.

These are the two words that are the closest to our "Pre-meditated murdering" English word definition.

My brief Biblical Summary of what I got from these words up 'till now :(I'm sure there's more to find, we just need to keep reading and pondering on it letting the Spirit guide our thinking)

"ratsach" is proper definition is "to dash into pieces" and the Bible has defined it 5 times(including Jesus in NT) as killing thy brother because you hated him previously.



Whereas haragis "to smite with deadly intent" where the employement of #2 to #8 clearly show there's no "hatred" involve with the slaying of these people.

Elle,

I don't understand how someone could read the story of Cain killing his brother and not realize that hatred was involved. It was, in fact, the same kind of hatred that resulted in Jesus' death--the jealous kind.



Cain was jealous of his brother because his brother's offering was accepted and his wasn't. This is the reason he got so angry at his brother. It wasn't his brother's fault that Cain's offering had not been accepted. Cain was blaming Abel for his own error, and killed him over it. The story has "hate" written all over it, even though the actual word is not used here. However, in the New Testament, reference is made with a word nearer to this in meaning. Consider the following:



The Greek "sphazō" means to slay, slaughter, butcher; to put to death by violence. It is only used in the New Testament in cases where it was unwarranted and unjust. But the chapter of 1 John itself connects this kind of murder with the concept of hate, in actual words. Two verses later we read:



The word "murderer" there comes from the Greek "anthrōpoktonos" meaning manslayer/murderer. Jesus also taught that to hate is to murder, as APL correctly noted earlier.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.