Elle,

You may need to go back to the beginning of this thread and read carefully for understanding. God commands "Thou shalt not 'ratsach'." To 'ratsach', therefore, regardless of its meaning, is to break the Ten Commandments. The Bible defines breaking the commandments as "sin." Therefore, regardless of what 'ratsach' means, we KNOW it is sin. For God to command it would be for Him to be commanding sin.

Please consider this clear logic. The definitions are important. In this case, the definition that matters more is that of "sin is the transgression of the law"--the definition of sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh! so your definition of "ratsach" is sin??? To me that's not a definition at all.

So what's the difference with the sin of "ratsach" and the sin of "hareq"? It's probably all the same thing to you. Sin is enough of a definition for you for these two words and all the other "killing" words.

So if I "hareq" in killing an animal for Tabernacle have I just sinned?


Oh, so the definition is important -- but yet you haven't defined it besides it is sin???? I'm confuse. To me that's not logical at all.

You're probably not ready to understand deeper truth that the Lord gave us by using 6 different words to say "kill" or "murder". Only one of them -- "ratsach" -- is the one in the 6th commandment. The other 5 are not. I guess it's easier to just play it safe and not sin by not doing any of the 6? Is that the logic?

I guess that could work; however the Lord won't be able to use you as a teacher of the law or pick you for a judge to rule with Christ for you do not understand the 6th commandment with the mind of Christ. That's ok... there's other purposes you can serve.

But for me, not that I seek to become a ruler, but I want to know more than "it is a sin". Because I want that law with the deep mind of Christ's understanding to be written in my heart.

Elle,

If you don't think "ratsach" is a sin, why bother to read the Ten Commandments to find out what is sin? Again, this was addressed earlier in this thread. God commands certain forms of killing. God never commanded "ratsach." He commanded against it.

There is a difference between "murder" and other forms of killing. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If you wish to believe otherwise, here is where we may have to part ways. I fail to see how you can see yourself as having a deeper experience and yet believing that God will contradict Himself in commanding people to do and not to do the same thing. And it's not in the Bible.

The definition of sin is in the Bible. I don't need to define it. "Sin is the transgression of the law." What does the law say? It says "thou shalt not [ratsach]." Therefore, "ratsach" is sin. It's simple. It is a plain "thus saith the LORD." It is one of the plainest, having been written by God's own finger in durable stone. This is not something to spiritualize away.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Where did you get that. I never said "ratsach" wasn't a sin, nor did I perceived anyone here saying that. To know that Ratsach is a sin -- that is a no-brainer. Everyone knows the basic of the 6th commandment == it is sin. However not many knows what exactly it means. That's why Does God Kill is a hot discussion and divides people in two camps. Then what about slaying or slaughering that occur in the words "sachet" or "nakah" or "hareg"? Is that the same as "ratsach" is it sin? But that's too complicated....let's just ignore that there's even such differences in Hebrew words that are translated in so many English words that is a real mess when looking or trying to defined these with our English derived Babylonian dictionary.


"murder"???? what are you specifically talking about "ratsach" or "hareg"? You need to be specific.


I know that it doesn't contradict itself and that's why I will always perceived that it is my lack of understanding(99.999%) of the Lord when there is a seemingly contradiction.

However when you where confronted with the seeming contradiction found in Num 35:30 :

#1 you don't even want to do the full investigation to know how the Bible has defined ratsach
#2 you want to slap a superficial "it is a sin" definition
#3 you want to rewrite those texts over with your own words to say what you perceive as "logic" to you.


You want to rewrite the Bible because you do not want to inquire to the Lord why He said in Num 35:30 "the murderer shall be murdered [by the Avenger of Blood]". Don't you see this as a problem? Shouldn't you inquire of the Lord and press on in the study of a word that you still don't fully understand instead of rushing into your own conclusion and rewriting the Bible???


Yeah! not only the 6th commandment is sin, but the whole LAW[Torah -- not only the 10Cs, but all the other stuff that was given to Moses].

It's no great accomplishment in defining "ratsach" (6th commandment) as a sin. We teach this to little children.


Get with it Green. It is obvious. Whether ratsach is a sin or not -- wasn't even part of our looking into the definition of ratsach.


You need to tell this to the Lord not I. He's the one that spiritualized the 6th commandment in Matthew in saying that only hating (not literally murdering-ratsach) your brother is sin. And you better tell Jesus about stopping to spiritualized all the other things He has spiritualized. And you need to talk to Paul and Moses and all the prophets who has spiritualized things also. Actually, since they are not around, then are you going to re-write those passages like you did with Num 35:30?



To know exactly what is the definition of ratsach or other words according to the Bible is what I thought was the purpose of "the power of words--Why definition matter" discussion.

I think you should re-title your discussion to "What words in the law are sin". It's not about looking into definition of words at all.

For sure we know there's only one Lord and all other false gods doesn't exist. However, all false images of the Lord that we have fabricated is a false god. We all have many as none of us know Him s He is. The number of false gods is in proportion to our ignorance of Him. We worship these -- not intentionally but we still worship an image of our pre-conceived ideas.

The most popular ones are identified in the OT as Molech, Peor, and the Queen of Heaven. It's not for nothing that these are identified in the OT. These false gods are in our doctrines and our worship towards the Lord. We do not think we worship them because we have no idea what they mean. We do the error to see those stories as those OT people's problem thinking that it doesn't relate to us because we do not bow down to some physical statue or make bread or offer sacrifices to them. These gods are in most(if not all) today's Christians life. We are just ignorant of the presence of these gods in our life.

As you probably know, ignorance is not an excuse for the quilt of any sin. However, the penalty is less than being aware of them.

If anyone is interested to identified Baal of Peor; they will show their sincerity of interest by doing looking into the Hebrew word and find that text that defines it. But if no one wants to know, then it only means it is not the time for you to know. Like the old saying goes "ignorance is bliss".

Elle,

Perhaps I have made some faith-choice assumptions based on certain Bible texts that I apply broadly. Perhaps you have not noticed those texts. In any case, the principles from there are as follows:

1) God does not lie (Num. 23:19);
2) God does not change (Mal. 3:6);
3) God cannot be tempted with evil (James 1:13);
4) God does not tempt anyone (James 1:13); and
5) To disobey any of God's commands is a sin (1 John 3:4; Ex. 20:6; Deut. 30:16; John 14:15).

If God, therefore, commanded killing, did He command sin? By definition, to disobey God's command is to sin. Would you agree with this?

We're still on the definition of sin here. Once we know what is sin, then we can return to the definitions of the Hebrew words for "kill", some of which God commanded, and at least one of which God prohibited.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That's not faith??? Your definition of faith is not Biblical.... "So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word[rhema, utterance] of God."

Yes, it is an assumption and a choice of yours to follow your logic, but don't call it faith. Faith comes from hearing the utterance [that 95% of the time is that small still voice] of God. You didn't even ask the Lord His help that then requires giving Him time to answer-teach you.



You could list 100 or even 200 more relevant texts -- but the fact that you are tampering on one of them, even if it is a small text but in your case it is a key one established in the law how to judge a "ratsach" case of a crime -- those 5, 100, or 200 does not justify you by your action to trample on the one. Because you have put aside One of God's word -- you do not live by "every word that proceeded by the mouth of the Lord". This you call legalism. not even close to any faith.

Legalism (my view) is when you apply the law PARTIALLY like those Jewish leaders that came to Jesus ready to stone the adulteress. They were ready to cast those stones when the law says to bring BOTH the man and the woman guilty of the crime to court. They had 2 witnesses, but not the man caught in the act. Jesus judged her by another law -- the law of Jealousy found in Num 5:16-31


We didn't even finish the study. We don't even know what ratsach means or how the Lord applies the judgment of ratsach in a case found elsewhere in the Bible. There's nothing to agree or disagree yet. According to the law, a priest-judge has to have all the evidence in front of him before he can judge. We do not have all the pieces in front of us to even enter the final stage of a judgment.

You are breaking that law (thus sinning) because you want to make a conclusion-judgment without doing your priestly duty that the Lord commanded of us of doing a full thorough investigation prior. Plus you are pressing this sin on others to do the same.

The proper thing to do, is to put Num 35:30 aside for the time being, and proceeds to look at the other texts where ratsach is used. Those texts will give us further understanding and I'm sure will shed some light on Num 35:30. The improper thing to do is what you have done - rewrite the text, come to a conclusion(judgment) before finishing the full investigation.


All we know is the 6th commandment say thou shall not ratsach. Something we all learn when a child. However the irony of this, we do not even know, as an adult, what the word ratsach really entails. And yes, we all know the Lord doesn't want us to ratsach, but what exactly are we not suppose to not do??? Where's the line of ratsach and not ratsaching lay?

That grey line is super huge as we can see by the debates over it on the forums. Many Christian has refused to go to war because they viewed killing in war as murder. Then most Christian do not know what to think about all the Bible texts where it is plainly written the Lord killed here, and there. Then what about accomplice murderers? Where's the line there? Are we an accomplice murderer when we do not help our brother or we have provoke him or contributed in some measure his fall into that sin? What about when our own nation commits murdering crimes to other countries and we do not protest these -- does our silence makes us responsible for these crimes?

And etc... the list is long that shows this grey area is huge because we do not know what "ratsach" really means and how the Lord has defined it in scriptures and how He has apply this law in some cases that we must find in His word.


I disagree with your process of investigation-study by re-writing scriptures with your own logic when it conflicts with the little of what you think you know about ratsach. Then to immediately draw conclusion when we only begun the investigation???

We are not very effective at all in our study-investigation, because we are already at page 14 in looking at this word, and we haven't even went beyond what is written in the Law.

My time up to now wasn't used to study this word but mainly used to object to poor studying-investigation skills -- like

1-do not add to scriptures
2-do not rely on English translation -- look at the source words
3-falsely defined Hebrew words by relying on English language and phylosophy
4-do not re-write scriptures
5-do not jump into conclusion until the full investigation is completed
6-putting pre-conceived ideas aside.

However, I don't mind as these needs to be establish and maybe now we can be more effective in our study. I refuse to go ahead of anyone by studying this word on my own, because there are tremendous blessings in studying as a group. However, if everyone gives up on the study; then I'll just have to do it alone.

Elle,

Let me be clear here. YOU may not know what "ratsach" means, but you cannot properly say "WE" don't. My words here may not convey all that I know or believe, and they may do poorly at so-called expression. However, I can say with confidence that I KNOW "ratsach" means "murder." I have studied enough that the Word is plain.

Furthermore, I was saying "faith-choice assumptions" to give you a little room, as the gentleman that I was trying to be, to have a differing view and express it here. Again, I can say with full confidence that the word "assumptions" actually understated my position, and that in reality, to me these are "facts." Once I choose the Bible as my guide, the rest of its teachings are then facts to me. So, when God says "Thou shalt not 'ratsach,'" and He says that to break this commandment is sin, and He says that God never sins--I believe Him. I feel no need to question if God would later command "ratsach." In fact, I can be assured that it is a misinterpretation of the text which would presume to claim that God ever commanded such. In other words, I have already defined the word as being "sinful." To "ratsach" is to sin. Simple. That is taking God at His Word, and understanding the plain "thus saith the LORD" that each of us must have to stay on the straight and narrow.

Because I have taken this view, you have criticized me. You have said I have not studied carefully or deeply enough. Feel free to excoriate me all you wish. Your salvation does not depend on my belief, but rather on YOURS. Are you sure you're not going down the wrong path in rejecting God's truth here? I would urge you, as did Paul, to examine yourself, whether ye be in the faith.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Bible says the following :

KJV Num 35:30 "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer[ratsach] shall be put to death[ratsach] by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person [to cause him] to die."

GreenC says the following :


Anyone, agreeing with GreenC rendering of this text? We need at least two witness to establish this -- anyone in the forum can agree with this?

Someone can find another witness by checking other translation to see if any other scholar agrees with GreenC rendering. I haven't found any that came even close to rendering the two underlined and bolted section.

Also, GreenC do us a favor and define ratsach according to the Bible for us. Then we can do another call to see if there's anyone here that can agree on your definition you have found.

Then, perhaps you can tell us if we have completed in our investigation of the word ratsach.

Are you saying that God established that if 2 or 3 people agree that black is white, that makes it so?

Really?

I think you're adding things to scripture that are not there.

Perhaps they are arguing for the Bible.

The Bible does not say, ". . . the murderer murderer by the mouth of witnesses . . ."

Show that the word tense is as you say and not as Elle shows.

I have

This is in agreement with Elle.


Based upon your opinion? What is the standard you go by do determine the truth?


All-kill-soul/person, (according-to+mouth witness)
murder the+murder
(also+witness one/only not-testify towards+soul/person to+(put to death/kill)).
All who kill, according to witness, the murderer shall be murdered, but there needs to be more than one witness.

Could you do one of your tables showing for and against the two different renderings of the verse? That is
1. For the definition of murder being determined by witnesses.
2. Against the definition of murder being determined by witnesses.
3. For guilt of action being determined by witnesses.
4. Against guilt of action being determined by witnesses.

Assuming, if you are seeking to find out what truth is. Or do you already know the truth, before considering the verse?