Elle,



I will note that not a single version of the Bible I have found translates such that the murderer must be "murdered." The words "put to death" come from the Hebrew "muwth" coupled with the law that applied this to a murderer. The translators all, and rightly so, add this phrase to the earlier portion of the verse, for this is clearly the intent of the text based on the context of the entire chapter and the commands already given. The text itself is not focused on the punishment so much as the trial and conviction that would lead to said punishment. The key concept of Numbers 35:30, despite its three separate Hebrew words for "kill," is not that of killing--it is that of the witnesses and the requirement that no one be punished as a murder from the testimony of a single witness only.

You seem to protest against every evidence I provide, and claim it proves nothing. Then I will let you be fully persuaded in your own mind, even as I am in mine, for the Bible teaches me to do this. If you truly desire to see more evidence, instead of simply mocking what has been provided, please demonstrate this by your spirit. Both you and APL appear to cling to your persuasions, and who am I to remove them from you against your will? Nevertheless, others reading here have sufficient evidence in what has already been presented from which to establish the facts, or, at the least, to continue their studies in such a manner as to arrive at those facts.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

kland,

Let's establish a few points of agreement before we continue, shall we? Otherwise, we may simply be talking past each other, arguing as if we were mortal enemies about something upon which we have simply misunderstood each other and actually are in agreement. I have witnessed, and perhaps been party to, multiple such "conversations."

1) Do you agree with me that to break the Ten Commandments would be sin?

2) Do you agree with me that God would never command someone to break any of the Ten Commandments?

3) Do you agree with me that the Bible uses the Hebrew word "ratsach" in the sixth commandment, and not "muwth," "nakah," or any of the other Hebrew words for "kill"?

4) Do you agree with me that understanding the distinctions in Biblical usage among these words is important to a correct understanding of this issue?

5) Do you agree with me that God commanded non-ratsach types of killing?

For now, we will leave the application of these questions to a future discussion. I simply need a "Yes" or a "No" answer to each of these, but you are free to explain any of your answers as you see fit. As should be clear in each question, my answers are all in the affirmative for these.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Num 35:27 does :

AV Num 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill[ratsach] the slayer[ratsach]; he shall not be guilty of blood:

and Num 35:19 & 21 says it again that the Avenger of blood can "kill" the murderer-ratsach; but uses the general word muwth that means "to kill" instead.

AV Num 35:19The revenger of blood himself shall slay[muwth] the murderer[ratsach]: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him[muwth].

AV Num 35:21Or in enmity smite[nakah] him with his hand, that he die[muwth]: he that smote [nakah][him] shall surely[muwth] be put to death[muwth]; [for] he [is] a murderer[ratsach]: the revenger of blood shall slay[muwth] the murderer[ratsach], when he meeteth him.

So these 3 texts above supports what Num 35:30 says that the Avenger of Blood can murder-ratsach the murderer-ratsach :

AV Num 35:30Whoso 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[muwth].



Your looking for a specific ENGLISH translated that says "murdered" in Num 35:30? Again your reasoning is bound to English translated words that has no weight. We need to look at scriptures from its source words, not by English translated words.

Like I have noted in page 3(?), the judgment for murderers is very unique compare to all other crimes. Criminals who are sentenced to death usually get stoned by the congregation after the trial.

The only law where the judgment of death is done via the Avenger of Blood(ga'al) in the manner of slay-kill-murder(ratsach or muwth) is only found with the murdering-ratsach cases. No other crimes in the Lord's court is dealt in such a way.

The fact that it is so unique and set aside apart from all other crimes tells me there's a real important reason for the Lord to have treated such a case so differently.


Victim's Right to Forgive

One thing that is not mentioned in Num 35 but found elsewhere in scriptures it the victim has the right to decide whether or not a court order is executed or not. In another word the victim have the right to forgive their offenders. This can happen before a trial by choosing to not bring their offenders to trials and not press charges. Or it can happen after the trial by not imputing their debt or only asking a partial payment. Or they can demand that the whole debt be paid or verdict pronounced by the judge to be fully executed. The power of forgiveness is in the victims hands -- not in the judge's hands. The judge has to judge the case with impartiality and according to the law. So for the case of a murderer -- the judgement rendered is what Num 35:19, 21, 30 says.

Here's 3 prime case examples of the victim's right to forgive :

1. Jesus at the cross forgave His murderers.
2. Stephen at his stoning forgave.
3. Joseph, being a victim of Mary's suppose adulteress, didn't pursue his case in trial and forgave her beforehand.

I believe this also applies to the murdering cases of Num 35:30. The Avenger of Blood (ga'al) job is to represent the victim and make sure justice is rendered for his victim. So if the victim wants to extend forgiveness after the trial, then the ga'al doesn't need to kill(muth-ratsach) the murderer(ratsach).

This principle is seen today in our Babylonian earthly courts. Just because a judge sentence someone to pay a certain sum of money for damages incurred or other reasons; it is always in the right of the victim to demand the total sum the judge pronounced, or ask a partial payment or forgive the entire debt. In term of murder, our earthly court systems doesn't return the murderers to the ga'al like in the Lord's law.

So this is something else to ponder about the victim's right and the Avenger of Blood's role (which ultimately represents Jesus) regarding this sentence towards murderers.


I'm not sure I understand here. To me, "put to death" is an English translation that some translation used and others put it in other words. It has no relevance to me -- we need to look at the Hebrew words and seek its meaning within the context of how it is used throughout the Bible.


There is 5 or 6 Hebrew words translated as "to kill" or other similar words, not 3.

Number 35:30 focus on all the following :at least 2 witness, the death sentence, and how the death sentenced is conducted in this case to be murdered and not be stoned.


Don't take it personally GreenC. You know I have no reason to dislike you; in the contrary I always considered you as a buddy. We just haven't been involved in the same discussion for a long long time. I'm treating you no different than the others when it comes for discussion.

You know, our Church is really notorious in manipulating text. I did the same thing myself for so long. I have noticed this in myself for years and worked to get out of it. So really I understand where it is coming from. I don't always point out all text manipulation that I see. I let a lot go by. But if I'm involve in a discussion (like this one) and even more specifically if someone tries to disprove me (like you are doing) with some text they have manipulated (like you have done) or taken out of context, yes in those case I will point it out.


You cling to your own persuasions also Green, and you were the one that added to texts, that decided to change the meaning of Num 35:30 because it fitted more to your logic, and have twisted definition of Hebrews words to your liking, and etc... doesn't this show your persuasion.

We haven't even gotten into any the real meat of this word yet. But maybe we won't even get there because feelings gotten hurt. Again my apology for my lack of tack with kindness and coming out so straight and dry. I do hope we can all go to the end together and be blessed by the Lord's words and laws.

Elle,

Thank you for showing everyone clearly your logic. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. When it suits you, you refer to the English translations as "witnesses." When I do the same, you say "Your looking for a specific ENGLISH translated that says "murdered" in Num 35:30? Again your reasoning is bound to English translated words that has no weight."

How are you able to accept a different manner of interpretation for yourself than you accept in someone else? Personally, I agree more with this latter concept that you state. The ENGLISH means little to me. However, your looking to it for "witnesses" prompted me to reason with you from that perspective. As can be seen here, before we get to "definitions," we might be straight back at "hermeneutics." Unfortunately, that issue is also mired in semantics, opinions, and--biases.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you for showing everyone clearly your logic. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

What are you talking about? We're studying the words pertaining to killing-murder more specifically ratsach since it is the Hebrew word used in the 6th commandment.

We haven't touch or look at the word witnesses. I'm confused again.


If I'm understanding you -- you didn't agree that I ask anyone in the forum if they agree with your rendering of Num 35:30? And even invited them to look at any other translation to find any other scholar that I might of missed so to support your private translation of Num 35:30? Thus -- you prefer to not have any other witnesses to support what you say? That makes no sense to me, unless you believe you have some sort of authority over all of us and whatever you say we should not disagree??? Don't you call this a dictatorship?

I believe in authority. Our Lord is King of kings. And He gives authority to others -- however these kings on earth have to function according to the bigger King and His whole system and ways doesn't function without witnesses. Even the kings under him have to look for other witnesses to know if they are in line with the big King.


???

You haven't addressed Num 35:19,21,27 quoted above. Do you see that they agree with Num 35:30? Since you are so persuated that Num 35:30 is mis-translated....are you going to re-write these also because it doesn't agree with your logic and pre-conceived image you have of the Lord and your limited understanding of the 6th commandment.

These texts are also witnesses. And I would like to find some more as I've been saying numerous times -- we need to find a case study of this law where we see the Lord putting this in application elsewhere in the Bible. Once we find this, we will have more information about how the Lord applies what He said in Num 35:19,21,27,30.

Our investigation of ratsach have only begun for we have many other texts to look into. Are you game to continue our investigation or you had enough? It's ok to step back and if no one else want to continue this study; I will study it privatly on my own.

Maybe you have enough info to make your conclusion now without going further? If so, then define the word ratsach for us. So we can move on to other words; if the others interested in this study agrees to move on also.

Elle,

Maybe you will now remember asking for the Bible witness above. Further to this, it appears that your request to use the Bible to define ratsach will have to be in Hebrew, not English, as you don't accept the English. Since Hebrew is a foreign language to me, and I am not a Hebrew scholar, we may have come to the end of ability to "define" this in a way which you would accept.

As for me, I accept English, but if the Hebrew clarifies beyond the English, it wins. Hebrew, obviously, is closer to the original.

Would you be willing to continue this discussion using English? Is the KJV acceptable for you? Can it be used to help define the Hebrew concept of "ratsach"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course when we communicate between us while we study we use English words but our English words that we use has to be clear to which Hebrew word we are referencing for a particular study. Since scholars uses many English words to translate one Hebrew words and then uses the same English words to translate other Hebrew words like in this study 6 Hebrew words are translated as "kill"-- it can become a real mess. So to avoid getting in to Babylon(confusion) as we study we have to be specific which Hebrew words our English word we use to communicate refers to.

I've been to some other forums with this "Does God Kills" debate where they slap on any translation using the English words of the translation to support what they say when no-one is looking at which Hebrew words the text is using. This type of debate is endless because there are so many translations using different words and even if we agree on one translation like the KJV -- you still find yourself in the same situation for the same English word is used for different Hebrew words and vice versa. These type of debate doesn't go anywhere. It doesn't work; because we are in a Babel type of situation.


Hebrew is a foreign language to me also. Nor am I a Hebrew scholar. However, the Lord have provided us with many great tools today :

1- the interlinear -- did you look at the scripture4all free software yet??? Rosangela highly recommends it and I do also. It's a great tool that helps us a lot to see the connection with the Hebrew with it suffix and prefix and the proposed English translation for all text where we can by one click check all text that has the certain prefix or suffix attach to the Hebrew word and etc...).
2- We have many lexicon at our disposal
3- We have Strongs identification code system and dictionary.
4- Commentaries of scholars

These helps us greatly. But we shouldn't limit ourselves with only these tools and how they have define words. The real work for defining a Hebrew word-concept has to be derived from the context these words are use in the Bible for that's how the Lord has define these. This is the purpose of looking at other scriptures where the same Hebrew words are used.

We all have those tools at the tip of our fingers to help us; but the real work to define words has to come in it's contextual form as "thus says the Lord" and let the Holy Spirit impress our minds and teach us His interpretation while we gather all that He has expressed in His chosen Hebrew language to express His mind.

Of course I don't read the text in Hebrew, I read it in English; however the word that I'm studying and trying to define is a particular Hebrew word used in a text. I may look at other Hebrew words that I see repeated in conjunction with the one that I'm studying. Like for example in our study of ratsach, I think we should also study the word "hate" (H8130 sane)for it is the main word that is used to define ratsach.


The KJV is my main study translation. But I don't limit myself to its English translation. I will always look at the Hebrew word behind the KJV English translated word. Is that what you mean? I'm ok with that.

Elle,

Ok. We're agreed that KJV is acceptable in lieu of needing to read Hebrew, since neither of us can actually read that. We also agree that studying the Hebrew may give us a better understanding than the English rendering of the word we may read, whether in KJV or anything else.

You appealed to the fact that English translations didn't support my transliteration-based paraphrase. I appealed to the fact that English translations didn't support your transliteration-based paraphrase. You then remarked that English was of no value. Where are we at now?

I still say that not a single English translation, including the KJV which I prefer most of the time, commands that anyone should be "murdered."

Elle, let's be reasonable. You know more than one language. So do I. I've done some translation work. Have you? If you have, then we should both be well aware of the fact that sentences frequently need to be reordered, with some phrases appearing earlier in the translation or else later in the sentence as compared to the original. This is in order for it to make sense in the target language. That is just what I see happening in Numbers 35:30. The word "muwth", meaning "put to death," appears later in the Hebrew text than is required in the English translation. This is why nearly 100% of English translations actually speak of putting to death twice in the English, whereas in Hebrew the word occurs but once.

In the original KJV textual translation, supplied words (words that didn't exist at all in the text) were italicized. Repeated words were not. Concordances, however, were not made until long after the KJV translators could be consulted as to why they translated as they did. I believe the concordances I am looking at incorrectly attribute the English "put to death" in its first occurrence in that text to the Hebrew "ratsach," and instead, it properly belongs to the "muwth" that occurs later. As the KJV translators, so far as I know, did not make a commentary on their word selections for this verse, there can simply be no proof one way or the other. In that case, we may have to look at another basic principle of Biblical interpretation:

We need two or three witnesses. We don't have them. Numbers 35:30 is unique in possibly using "ratsach" to command this "putting to death." Again, I don't believe it does this, but, again, I realize that my position cannot be fully proven. However, we don't have a second witness. No other text does this. What we have, instead, is many texts that use "muwth" to command capital punishment.

Can we agree on this much?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I compared your transliteration-based paraphrase to other scholars translation. I couldn't find any other translation that came close to what you were suggesting.

I quoted the text below, so to have a handy copy of what you have suggested.


This is what I said to you -->

"Most if not all Hebrew scholar would disagree with your rendering. I say this with assurance by looking how many have rendered it in many translation. Not one scholar has rendered it as "witnesses of murder" or "is a murderer" like you have. If there would be one, maybe I would give your translation some credence, but there's not even one I could find. "

Since I haven't checked all translations and only maybe 30 of the most popular, I opened the invitation to anyone on this forum to seek any translation that comes close to your rendering so to help you find another witness.



You mean this below?


If so, you must of not seen what I have bolded and underlined above. It was not my transliteration-based paraphrase, it was the one given by the scripture4all software. I copied word per word what they have provided.

This is the basic transliteration-based paraphrase provided by software that most scholars use. It is an academic recognized transliteration-based paraphrase employed by Biblical software and scholars. Not mine at all and far from it. I haven't even attempted to do such paraphrase yet.


I think I have explained this many times. The last time is in my previous post to you. I'm not going to repeat myself again. Please re-read that post.


For sure in translation there's rearragement of words so to make sense. But during the translation the meaning of what the Hebrew text says should not be compromise or as little as possible. Of course there are always some lost of meaning thru the translation. Also there's some texts that are more difficult to translate than others where the scholar biases and opinions will be used what they think the difficult text means. So that's why you will have very different rendering at times from scholars to scholars. However, since there's so much translation today, we can see many agreeing to a certain rendering, while others agreeing with other rendering. That's ok in my opinion to have opinions. And that's how I view any translation -- as an opinion of some man. And that's the main reason why I will do my own studies and test all things which i believe is our Christian Duty.

But your transliteration-based paraphrase of Number 35:30 have totally lost the meaning of the original that no other scholars has match yours or come near to it. If you had preserve the meaning or come close to any other scholars rendering I would of give some credence to your rendering.


I think you shouldn't be looking at a particular English translation to validate if the translation is correct. It makes no sense and to me its a waste of time. You need to only look at the word used in the masoretic text.

That word -- ratsach appearing twice in Num 35:30 many scholars has rendered it the way they saw it fit. That's ok if they used "put to death" or "kill" or "murdered" or "slay" or "slaughtered" as long as they preserve what the original text says as closely as they can. Most scholar are genuine in doing their best that they can to preserve the original in their translation.

If someone like myself or yourself, have done a Hebrew word study deriving its definition from context and usage; then we may have a stand to view that some English words are better than others to express this Hebrew word. That's ok also to express our opinion that resulted from a study.

But I don't waste my time criticizing the scholars work, nor their English word choice. For that doesn't stop me from looking at the Hebrew word and checking out other occurrences where this same Hebrew word is used to derive its definition from the context.

I will retain that definition derived from a personal study led by the Holy Spirit(as much as I can hear His small still voice while studying) over any scholar's say or choice words. I'm not saying that I won't consider or use their work especially for words I haven't had time to look at yet, but if my personal study took me to a different definition than the scholars, well to me I need to trust the Lord's teaching and retain what I have perceived from Him. For sure I could be wrong, but there's always many ways the Lord can correct me later on.

The value of this exercise, beside learning the original language that the Lord used to express His mind, is to develop our ears to hear Him and to learn from Him while detaching ourselve from learning from MAN or from our own logic that can be the voice of the deceiver.

If I don't do any study of a particular Hebrew words; then I really cannot have an educated opinion on English words any translators have chosen. I will accept whatever English word the translation I'm using provides until I have time to look into it closely via a thorough study. There's many words to study and each words takes time. But with years(for me I think it's been 9yrs) of doing this, it does add up.


You haven't considered or commented on Num 35:19,21,27 by which to me support clearly Num 35:30. Also, we haven't finished our investigation by looking at other texts that uses ratsach that may provide other information and perhaps another witness.


Sorry, no I cannot because

#1 of Num 35:27 and 19, 21

#2 we haven't finished our investigation of ratsach used in other text -- thus I refuse to draw some conclusion-judgment before a full thorough investigation is done like the Lord has commanded us. In another word -- to me it's like you are asking me to sin against the Lord. I cannot do this.

#3 I would like to find a case study where the Lord has applied this law to someone or some nation that have commit a ratsach crime in the Bible. Any suggestion?