God, the killer

[.429&H110]

Rizzo, thanks for the kind words
my pastor reads this space and warns me
it is a waste of time.

My time is better spent visiting those who are glad to see me
doing their handy man stuff, driving, and listening.
Time better spent writing devotionals, learning English from my editor.
Better spent springing geezers imprisoned in solitary for life.
If you can walk, walk-out-of-the-hospital!
Have you been to a hospital lately? Not good.

Does God kill people? Why, yes, He does.
Does God save people? Why, yes, He does.

Y'all would do better showing up Wednesday nights;
that's when the heavy lifting is done.
Table washing is a new science.
All prayers!
nunc demittus

[Rizzo]

Are you certain? I believe that the correct translation is “murder” rather than “kill.”

Lots of killing in the old testament, both by God directly and by his orders.

Well, that does change things doesn't it.
I went to Catholic school and was taught Thou shalt not kill.
The Bible (KJV) that I am currently reading says Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not murder sounds more correct to me.
Like I mentioned before, it bothered me to think that God was sinning.
Thank you for making that point.

<sigh> So now we have a Bible that states one thing and man has decided that God meant something else.
The God inspired Bible is wrong?
Aren't translations God guided or inspired as well?

[Rizzo]

.....my pastor reads this space and warns me it is a waste of time.

<smile> Yet, your pastor reads here. That's kind of funny.

My opinion is that you can decide if it is a waste of time or not.
I have read posts that you have made in the past so that tells me it is not a waste of time.
You contribute your views, as others do, and it makes a good mix for discussions.

Speaking of contributing, it sounds like you are a very busy person helping others. Good for you!

I must say that some of your earlier posts I had some trouble understanding what you were saying.
Now I learn from you that you are learning English.
Ya know, I have often thought of how hard it would be to learn English.
I before E except after C.....most of the time.
To, too, two.
Stuff like that.
You are doing fine....,429.

Y'all would do better showing up Wednesday nights;
that's when the heavy lifting is done.
Table washing is a new science.
All prayers!
nunc demittus

Thank you 429$H110.

[JimB..]

Well, that does change things doesn't it.
I went to Catholic school and was taught Thou shalt not kill.
The Bible (KJV) that I am currently reading says Thou shalt not kill.

Thou shalt not murder sounds more correct to me.
Like I mentioned before, it bothered me to think that God was sinning.
Thank you for making that point.

<sigh> So now we have a Bible that states one thing and man has decided that God meant something else.
The God inspired Bible is wrong?
Aren't translations God guided or inspired as well?

I was also taught “thou shall not kill” in catholic school, but we also had discussions about moral wars and self defense, so even then we knew that something seemed off about it.

Translation isn’t straightforward. Native alaskan languages have many words for snow, each meaning something slightly different, but in english they are all pretty much snow. Americans can’t agree on what the language of the second amendment to the constitution means even though it was written only 250 years ago and in the language that most of us use every day. “We are killing them” means something entirely different in a letter home from a soldier than it does when said by a coach to his team in the locker room at halftime.

The question “does God protect his word, and if so, how?” Is way outside the scope of this thread, and I’m not the guy to provide the answer.

[Lloyd Smale]

Please keep it civil here guys...

thats another sad thing about the book so many hold as sacred. It causes so much argument and even hatred between people. Like i said i just cant buy into it being written by God is such a way as to cause this. I would think that God if he did write a book would want it to unite christians. Just look at this thread and youll see it does about the opposite.

[JimB..]

thats another sad thing about the book so many hold as sacred. It causes so much argument and even hatred between people. Like i said i just cant buy into it being written by God is such a way as to cause this. I would think that God if he did write a book would want it to unite christians. Just look at this thread and youll see it does about the opposite.

Does the divisiveness comes from the book, or from the readers?

[Lloyd Smale]

Does the divisiveness comes from the book, or from the readers?

mostly the readers Jim. The ones that somehow think memorizing it or think there so smart they have it figured out better then the next guy. Its kind of like a gun. Its not dangerous with no finger on the trigger. You know the type. the ones that use scriptures to win arguments and think there impressing others.

[Rizzo]

I woke up this morning thinking about Thou shalt not kill vs Thou shalt not murder.
I nosed around the web and found this:
(Source: https://www.differencebetween.com/di...and-vs-murder/)

Kill
Kill is a term that is used to denote death of human beings though it is also used for death of animals, as well.

Murder
Murder is a term that is reserved for intentional killing of a human being. Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder.

What is the difference between Killing and Murder?
The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent. A murder has the intent and is planned, whereas killing does not have intent.

• You can kill animals but in case of human beings, you murder them.

• When the loss of life is accidental, the term used is killing.

• Loss of lives because of natural disaster and epidemic is also killing.

• Soldiers kill, they do not murder in war.
--------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the Bible, it says Thou shalt not kill.
However, how were the people to carry out their burnt offerings without killing an animal?
Despite what it says (Thou shalt not kill) it does make sense that Thou shalt not murder would be more appropiate.

God is killing people and inspiring the killing of people in the Bible.
As troublesome as that is (to me) it seems that it is murder that is going on.

"Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder."

Help me with this please.
It still seems that those acts are sinful acts.

[Ickisrulz]

I woke up this morning thinking about Thou shalt not kill vs Thou shalt not murder.
I nosed around the web and found this:
(Source: https://www.differencebetween.com/di...and-vs-murder/)

Kill
Kill is a term that is used to denote death of human beings though it is also used for death of animals, as well.

Murder
Murder is a term that is reserved for intentional killing of a human being. Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder.

What is the difference between Killing and Murder?
The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent. A murder has the intent and is planned, whereas killing does not have intent.

• You can kill animals but in case of human beings, you murder them.

• When the loss of life is accidental, the term used is killing.

• Loss of lives because of natural disaster and epidemic is also killing.

• Soldiers kill, they do not murder in war.
--------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the Bible, it says Thou shalt not kill.
However, how were the people to carry out their burnt offerings without killing an animal?
Despite what it says (Thou shalt not kill) it does make sense that Thou shalt not murder would be more appropiate.

God is killing people and inspiring the killing of people in the Bible.
As troublesome as that is (to me) it seems that it is murder that is going on.

"Any instance where the death of a human being is because of malicious intent and action of another person is referred to as a murder."

Help me with this please.
It still seems that those acts are sinful acts.

As has been stated many times, "don't kill" should be "don't murder." Even if you disagree with that change to the translation, the biblical record shows this.

The first command after the flood was the death penalty for murderers. The Law lists many offenses that result in the death penalty also. The death penalty is a punishment, not a crime or murder when carried out.

Israel was involved in many wars. Some directed by God and others not directed by God. Killing opponents in war is not murder or a crime. No rebukes were issued for Israel killing her enemies in war.

The Bible records many times when God worked directly to remove evildoers. In these cases it was to remove/punish the wicked and eliminate bad influences. Again, punishment is not murder. I'll also point out that God mandated the death of every human being after the fall. This was to make sure man did not live forever in a fallen state and have to endure the unending misery it would have brought.

[1hole]

The first widely accepted English update to the KJV, the Revised Version of 1885, translated Ex 20:13 to "do no murders." Then the Americans made their input to the Revised Version in 1901 (calling it the ASV) and for some reason went back to "do not kill.

I know why the word change back to the KJV-AV was made. A friend who worked to give us the excellent New KJV says there were outraged howls of blasphemy because the translators had the audacity to "change God's word!" Meaning they had dared to correct many of the KJV-AV's translation errors.

Many good people were - and remain - certain that the KJV-AV itself was the infallible word-for-word Bible (it is not) and, from that, it follows to some folk that God spoke to man in Shakespearean English!

All of that's silly of course but, to a lot of people, the controversy itself made textual corrections of any kind a sin of high magnitude. (However, I've read that many of the KJV translators went home and right back to studying and preaching from their old favorite Bibles!)

The public uproar hurt acceptance and sales of the newer (and more accurate) American Standard Version so "murder" was changed back to the inaccurate "kill". And the same irrational positions about the KJV-AV are still with us today; that should not be.

If many people knew King James was a Scottish Presbyterian/Calvinist who simply authorized the work of his translator's for use in the pulpits of all British churches.

I fear a lot of my family's hide-bound adherents to the imperfect but beloved old KJV-AV would pass out or even have a heart attack if they knew my position about the better translations! I love 'em, they are good people and quite happy where they are so I do NOT try to open their eyes about its limitations. And nothing spiritual would be gained even if I could do it.

----------------------------------------------------

KNOW THIS: Not all modern "bible" translation versions are good. Especially so for these four and they for my reasons.

1. Avoid the Jehovah Witness' New World Translation. It's not a translation at all, it's a disjointed distortion of the KJV and it is not Christian.

2. Avoid anything provided by Christian Science. It's neither Christian NOR science.

3. Toss everything in the piles of print offered by Mormons, the so called Church of Latterday Saints). Started by Joe Smith, a horney young guy with delusions of grandure, followed by Brigham Young, a horney old guy seeking earthly power, followed in turn by a long string of same case followers. The LDS program is all based on Satan induced weird stories and huge piles of deceptive men's lies.

4. Toss any publications from the Seventh Day Adventists. They have a strange collection of legalist Bible distortions, all in support of a demented old woman's - Ellen White - lifetime pile of disjointed day dreams. Their doctrines are mostly a collection of easily provable foolish errors about the ends of times. (I say "ends" (plural) because they have an unbroken track record of failed projections about the specific day of Jesus' return.)

[.429&H110]

Oh, my. Rizzo!
I grew up speaking Yankee
a weird lingo to foreigners...all pronouns
(went ova ta his house and saw all them there)
and never learned to write
except "invoice-ese" and my job journal.
At church they speak Western Ozark
my deaf wife speaks Middle Connecticut and despairs.
My second draft goes through Grammerly
then past a grammar-nazi editor until
I hardly recognize the resulting prose.
English prose is my retirement hobby/job.
Do you know Devotionals are worth $0.30 a word?

My aim here was to try the Truth:
Repent
Redeem
Renew

and really really stop the idol worship:
but falls on deaf ears here.
Sorry for being annoying.
nunc demittis

[shooterg]

I only understand that there's a lot I don't understand ! I'm probably never going to learn Aramaic or Greek nor have access to original writings to decipher and I'm OK with that . I believe Jesus died on that cross for me and anyone else that truly believes and that'll just have to do me until I have my FTF with Him.

[Ickisrulz]

I fear a lot of my family's hide-bound adherents to the imperfect but beloved old KJV-AV would pass out or even have a heart attack if they knew my position about the better translations! I love 'em, they are good people and quite happy where they are so I do NOT try to open their eyes about its limitations. And nothing spiritual would be gained even if I could do it.

I attended a a private Bible school after high school in the mid-80's. They didn't care what translation you used, but many students stuck with the KJV. When studying some passages, the first thing the instructor would do is fix the KJV translation and explain what the archaic language meant. I always wondered why people were still messing with the KJV and handicapping themselves. There are so many better choices.

[Rizzo]

The Bible records many times when God worked directly to remove evildoers. In these cases it was to remove/punish the wicked and eliminate bad influences. Again, punishment is not murder. I'll also point out that God mandated the death of every human being after the fall. This was to make sure man did not live forever in a fallen state and have to endure the unending misery it would have brought.

Ickisrulz, thank you for your input on this issue.

All this killing going on by God directly or indirectly had clouded my logic.
I completely overlooked those actions as punishment, as you stated.

429&H110 posted earlier in this thread "The wages of sin is death"
That also makes more sense now.

My mind is at ease on the notion that God was sinning by those actions.
In this case, punishment is not murder.

It is interesting though that God directly did those things but also had Israel carry out His "punishments".
With all of that killing going on, I'd imagine if God had done it Himself, Fire and Brimstone the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah would have been a regular occurrence.

So, I picked up the Bible to continue reading this morning (I read 4-6 pages daily) and Lo and Behold, God is telling Moses to go kill all of the male Midianites (Numbers 31).
They do that and bring the captives back and Moses then tells them to kill all the young males and some of the women.
Argh-h-h!!!

This illustrates to me the contrast of God in the OT vs NT.
The NT and these modern days do not see such mass killings by God.
"The wages of sin is death" may still apply but not on the scale we saw before.

Anyway, thanks again for bringing up the "punishment" aspect.
I'll sleep better tonight. <smile>

[Lloyd Smale]

I only understand that there's a lot I don't understand ! I'm probably never going to learn Aramaic or Greek nor have access to original writings to decipher and I'm OK with that . I believe Jesus died on that cross for me and anyone else that truly believes and that'll just have to do me until I have my FTF with Him.

best answer

[popper]

To the orginal post, God kills. Yup and he brings life also. Not perfect? By which one of us's determination? States MANY times, reward for evil is death. He is, was and always will be, and one day this earth & maybe the universe will be destroyed. Don't like it? Tough. My EOL is when HE determines and end of universe is the same. Argue all you want, that's been done since Adam. Didn't make any difference, did it?

[dverna]

I only understand that there's a lot I don't understand ! I'm probably never going to learn Aramaic or Greek nor have access to original writings to decipher and I'm OK with that . I believe Jesus died on that cross for me and anyone else that truly believes and that'll just have to do me until I have my FTF with Him.

Really simple and hits the nail for me too.

I struggle with God, but do not struggle with Jesus. I have had people tell me they are the same, but I cannot get there. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost may exist in one entity, but they are different.

[popper]

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost may exist in one entity, but they are different. They have different purposes to us. Best I understand is God is the Ultimate, Jesus is the bodily/physical interface with us and Spirit is the spiritual/unseen interface with us.
when Moses and the Jews are in the desert God opens up the earth to a large pit where all of the people and their belongings fall into it and then God closes up the pit. The rebellion against Moses provided a demonstration to the people that Moses was chosen to lead, not others. Rebel against God and pay they price. Not so harsh. Jesus said He was the way and those that rebel against Him suffer the 2nd death.

[Ickisrulz]

Really simple and hits the nail for me too.

I struggle with God, but do not struggle with Jesus. I have had people tell me they are the same, but I cannot get there. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost may exist in one entity, but they are different.

God made weighty demands in the OT with stiff penalties for violators. But consider the endless chapters where he begs his people to repent and avoid the consequences of their actions. This was the purpose of the prophets and their messages. A reader can easily see God's love in the prophets' words. God does not want to punish.

A person once said the only possible legitimate criticism of Jesus was that his ethic was too high. He literally asked his followers for perfection in thought, attitude and behavior. Consider that his third most discussed topic was the destruction of the wicked (those that disregarded his words). But like his Father, he implored people to repent and avoid punishment.

Jesus' messages came from what he learned in the OT. The Father and The Son are the same in character, message and love for mankind.

[MT Gianni]

Not quite so but you repeat what many Bible conspiracy quacks proclaim.

Constantine gets a bad rap. He had nothing to do with the Old Testament canon as such ("canon" is the correct table of contents for both parts of the Bible). Jews had established the O.T canon several hundred years before ol' Conny was born. Conny was the emperor of the Roman Empire in the early 300 AD period; he at least leaned towards Christianity. He was well aware that Christianity was a growing force in his empire and many spurious writings claiming to be God's were floating around.

He called a meeting of Roman empire church leaders to Nicia, Turkey, in 325 AD, to establish approved canons of both the Old and New Testaments for use in all Roman churches. (They did but that approved list wasn't finalised until about 380 AD and Constantine was dead.)

The attending church leaders at Nicea submitted books for consideration. They studied, argued and voted over their favorite books until only those we now have were left.

Constantine was no theologian and didn't try to be; he simply approved one of the lists submitted to him by the council to become the approved canon.

Thus, no books were "banned" from use, at least not as such, because the Council didn't have that power; the other books were simply not approved for canon. Individual churches could use any books they wished but they did it without the thumbprint of the Church Council.



Well, I suppose every book ever written but not included in the NT canon was effectively "left out" or "banned." But the rejected writings at the time were deemed forgeries, and some were partly or largely uninspired by God (i.e., wrong), others were redundant to what was written in other already accepted books. Those wise men lived in times still close to the events and I trust their judgements. Meaning I don't believe God has allowed any part of his message to be lost.



What was rejected and what was included in the canon was based on a vote, book by book, by the Nicean council. Contrary to what some have written, no one man (or group) has had the legitimate authority to make such judgements on the canon.



"Gospel" is a Greek word that simply means "good news". For Christians gospel specifically means the good news of man's salvation by the grace (love) and mercy of God through faith in Lord Jesus, not according to our works.

I haven't viewed or read any of the "gospels" you find on youtube (and won't) but I greatly doubt any of them actually tell us anything different and truthful about the real gospel that's found in the first four books of the N.T.

Bottom line, youtube is a great source of some very good spiritual stuff and I often watch it. But, sadly, it also has some very bad religious poo pushers we should quickly reject. (Including those who proclaim they have found "forbidden/hidden/over-looked" bible books.)

Making money through religious "documentaries" and wonderful new "gospel books", and now TV, is and always has been a great way to pick up a lot of money by soliciting for false preachers and their special books. Do a web search for the likes of Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyer, Jim Baker, Joel Osteen, Benny Hind, et al.

Constantine was a death bed convert to Christianity. Previous to that he was tired of internal warring among the countries in his empire. He called a council to make sure that all the different churches agreed on what was doctrine and what wasn't so there would be no more internal fighting over it. He had nothing invested in what the outcome was just that the only fighting going on would be external rather than internal to the empire.

As I understand it, it was a typical I win some and you win some council. All had some input accepted and all had some rejected so that there was no more internal strife. I would love to see what was lost but knowing what the process was doesn't drive me away from my Savior.