Did God Order The Death Of Whole Tribes And Nations (O.T.)?

[wenglund]

Yes, but my bottom line question is, would God actually ask someone to kill? Especially, innocent children and animals? But, I have big doubts that a loving God would command people to kill anyone, at all. Just seems very out of character.

Do you also consider it out of character for a loving God to allow the killing and rape of innocent children?

I ask because once a person steps on the slippery slope of the "problem of evil" it is not hard to see where it ends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 10, 2012 by wenglund

[Libs]

Do you also consider it out of character for a loving God to allow the killing and rape of innocent children?

I ask because once a person steps on the slippery slope of the "problem of evil" it is not hard to see where it ends.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's not out of character (IMO) for God to allow his children to commit evil acts. That is all in keeping with allowing us our agency. But, there is a HUGE difference between "allowing" and "commanding".

God has allowed many things that are not in keeping with his own nature or that he, himself, would "command".

Edited August 10, 2012 by Libs

[halconero]

I think the real question that I'm starting to see throughout this thread is "does God order His people, His church, to kill whole nations?" rather than "Does God order the death of...?"

From scripture, both biblical and restorationist it is evident that God himself has killed as well as Jesus Christ.

The crux is whether or not He just uses the elements of nature/miracles or uses his servants as well.

Which brings up another point. God sometimes uses the wicked to punish the wicked (Babylon, Lamanites, Assyria), why not use the righteous to do so?

[wenglund]

It's not out of character (IMO) for God to allow his children to commit evil acts. That is all in keeping with allowing us our agency. But, there is a HUGE difference between "allowing" and "commanding".

God has allowed many things that are not in keeping with his own nature or that he, himself, would "command".

Even granting the difference, I suspect your character as a loving parent is such that you wouldn't order one of your children to kill the other, but neither would your loving character, if possible, allow one of your children to kill the other. If you are going to hold God to your standard in the case of not ordering killings, then why don't you hold him to your standard in not allowing killings?

Can you see where this is headed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

I think the real question that I'm starting to see throughout this thread is "does God order His people, His church, to kill whole nations?" rather than "Does God order the death of...?"

From scripture, both biblical and restorationist it is evident that God himself has killed as well as Jesus Christ.

The crux is whether or not He just uses the elements of nature/miracles or uses his servants as well.

Which brings up another point. God sometimes uses the wicked to punish the wicked (Babylon, Lamanites, Assyria), why not use the righteous to do so?

Because, in my view "the righteous" become "unrighteous", when they kill their brothers and sisters for any reason, other than self-defense. And, in some religions, even self-defense is not justified. Better to die righteous than to take the life of another.

I'm not saying I would carry it that far, but I certainly do see some wisdom (and godliness) in that view.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

What exactly does "thou shalt not kill" mean? Maybe we could discuss that, for a bit?

[Libs]

Even granting the difference, I suspect your character as a loving parent is such that you wouldn't order one of your children to kill the other, but neither would your loving character, if possible, allow one of your children to kill the other. If you are going to hold God to your standard in the case of not ordering killings, then why don't you hold him to your standard in not allowing killings?

Can you see where this is headed?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, if I could prevent one of my children from harming another, I would. But, I sure would try everything short of killing them. Not sure I could do that, frankly, even in self defense...and especially not one of my own children.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Libs

[halconero]

Because, in my view "the righteous" become "unrighteous", when they kill their brothers and sisters for any reason, other than self-defense. And, in some religions, even self-defense is not justified. Better to die righteous than to take the life of another.

I'm not saying I would carry it that far, but I certainly do see some wisdom (and godliness) in that view.

I guess then my question is where does that leave God then? Does He, being righteous, become unrighteous when He himself kills His own children?

Was Jesus Christ doing evil in killing the wicked Nephites, his spirit brothers and sisters? Will he be doing evil in killing them at the cleansing of th earth?

Did God do evil in killing the firstborn Egyptian in every family?

At what point does something which is just and acceptable for Deity become unacceptable and evil for mortal man?

[halconero]

Double post

Edited August 11, 2012 by halconero

[Ron Beron]

What exactly does "thou shalt not kill" mean? Maybe we could discuss that, for a bit?

It's actually, "thou shall not murder". Some difference.

As to the larger issue I don't believe God ever ordered the genocide of the Canaanites or any other group of people. I think that was the wonderful PR offered by chroniclers of David, Joshua et al. In Joshua's case the mass destruction of the populace gave warning to the other city states to surrender before they too were destroyed. While God forbade the pillaging of the cities His orders were somewhat arbitrary. In some cases the Israelites were allowed to carry away the goods of the cities as well as the allowance to rape the women of those cities (Judges 21:10-24;Deuteronomy 20:10-14;Numbers 31:7-18 etc...)

To ask if God was acting morally in the OT is to question how ancient man saw God. Rather than defining God by the inward thinking of good and evil the ancient saw the gods or God acting with exterior relationship with man. In fact, early man had little interest in knowing how God thought only how God acted in his benefit. J.Bottero states In “Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia”., “…our insistence on isolated propositions somewhat deadens, in fact deforms, the thought of those people who had neither the need for logic nor our demands for clarity.”

Therefore, the question was not whether God acted justly, but did he administer justice for those on Earth? In other words what has God done for me? In Job we are confronted with this conundrum. Job is a good man, but God agrees to the adversary to his torture. What was God’s motivation? Job didn’t consider it. He only saw the exterior results around him. Had he sinned? Disobeyed God in some way? It didn’t matter: ““Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return there.The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.May the name of the Lord be blessed!” In all this Job did not sin, nor did he charge God with moral impropriety.”

And finally he acknowledges God with “As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and that as the last he will stand upon the earth.And after my skin has been destroyed,yet in my flesh I will see God”

Did God act in anger or was he unjust? Job never answer this, but to admit that life is unfair, but in the end we will know that God lives, He is our redeemer and we will see Him face to face.

God or the gods were praised for their power and strength, I Chronicles 16, but not for their goodness. Except for a few scriptures such as 2 Chronicles 30:18:

“The majority of the many people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun were ceremonially unclean, yet they ate the Passover in violation of what is prescribed in the law. For Hezekiah prayed for them, saying: “May the Lord, who is good, forgive.”

and Psalms 136:1 : “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his loyal love endures.”

God was seen as possessing strength, power and majesty.

In 1 Chronicles 16:4-7 Asaph is chosen to give thanks to God in which he sees God initially in Psalms 72 where good is simply the absence of pain and suffering, but in the end he can delare that , “Certainly God is good to Israel,and to those whose motives are pure!” God is good to those who serve Him: Verse 28 , “But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, That I may tell of all Thy works.”

Man wasn’t interested in God’s inner motivation only his outward demonstrations.

“For Yahweh the standard is Yahweh's own character, therefore making it impossible for him to do evil good is defined by what he does.”

Therefore, we can perhaps conclude that since God made up the rules then we cannot judge his motives or the outcome.

[Ron Beron]

What exactly does "thou shalt not kill" mean? Maybe we could discuss that, for a bit?

It's actually, "thou shall not murder". Some difference.

As to the larger issue I don't believe God ever ordered the genocide of the Canaanites or any other group of people. I think that was the wonderful PR offered by chroniclers of David, Joshua et al. In Joshua's case the mass destruction of the populace gave warning to the other city states to surrender before they too were destroyed. While God forbade the pillaging of the cities His orders were somewhat arbitrary. In some cases the Israelites were allowed to carry away the goods of the cities as well as the allowance to rape the women of those cities (Judges 21:10-24;Deuteronomy 20:10-14;Numbers 31:7-18 etc...)

To ask if God was acting morally in the OT is to question how ancient man saw God. Rather than defining God by the inward thinking of good and evil the ancient saw the gods or God acting with exterior relationship with man. In fact, early man had little interest in knowing how God thought only how God acted in his benefit. J.Bottero states In “Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia”., “…our insistence on isolated propositions somewhat deadens, in fact deforms, the thought of those people who had neither the need for logic nor our demands for clarity.”

Therefore, the question was not whether God acted justly, but did he administer justice for those on Earth? In other words what has God done for me? In Job we are confronted with this conundrum. Job is a good man, but God agrees to the adversary to his torture. What was God’s motivation? Job didn’t consider it. He only saw the exterior results around him. Had he sinned? Disobeyed God in some way? It didn’t matter: ““Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return there.The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.May the name of the Lord be blessed!” In all this Job did not sin, nor did he charge God with moral impropriety.”

And finally he acknowledges God with “As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, and that as the last he will stand upon the earth.And after my skin has been destroyed,yet in my flesh I will see God”

Did God act in anger or was he unjust? Job never answer this, but to admit that life is unfair, but in the end we will know that God lives, He is our redeemer and we will see Him face to face.

God or the gods were praised for their power and strength, I Chronicles 16, but not for their goodness. Except for a few scriptures such as 2 Chronicles 30:18:

“The majority of the many people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun were ceremonially unclean, yet they ate the Passover in violation of what is prescribed in the law. For Hezekiah prayed for them, saying: “May the Lord, who is good, forgive.”

and Psalms 136:1 : “Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his loyal love endures.”

God was seen as possessing strength, power and majesty.

In 1 Chronicles 16:4-7 Asaph is chosen to give thanks to God in which he sees God initially in Psalms 72 where good is simply the absence of pain and suffering, but in the end he can declare that , “Certainly God is good to Israel,and to those whose motives are pure!” God is good to those who serve Him: Verse 28 , “But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, That I may tell of all Thy works.”

Man wasn’t interested in God’s inner motivation only his outward demonstrations.

“For Yahweh the standard is Yahweh's own character, therefore making it impossible for him to do evil good is defined by what he does.”

Therefore, we can perhaps conclude that since God made up the rules then we cannot judge his motives or the outcome.

[Tacenda]

I believe God takes out evil men and allows deaths to occur to even the most innocent.

But he knows where they will go right after death. And I believe the innocent will join him, as naive as that may sound.

And when natural disasters take thousands of people and we ask why? I think God lets the earth do it's thing because he knows where these spirits will go. He knows earth life is miniscule compared to eternity.

And I believe he provides angels to help the innocent that have been sexually/physically abused, to have out of body experiences so they aren't experiencing it while it happens.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Tacenda

[wenglund]

No, if I could prevent one of my children from harming another, I would. But, I sure would try everything short of killing them. Not sure I could do that, frankly, even in self defense...and especially not one of my own children.

Why don't you hold God to that same standard?

Do you see where this is going?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

Why don't you hold God to that same standard?

Do you see where this is going?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know where you think it's going, but I DO hold God to the same standard (actually, a much higher standard), which is why I don't believe he commanded anyone, ever, to kill off his children.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Libs

[MormonMason]

The Old Testament was not fixed as Christians have it today until long after the death of Jesus.

Evidence?

A lot of things I had read over the years claimed that the OT canon was more or less fixed by A.D. 90 at Jamnia. However, having read the Talmuds, there was evidence of continued disputes over whether or not other writings also were scripture, or as put in Talmudic parlance, "made the hands unclean." Some wanted to reject the Songs of Solomon but others insisted in their argumentation that the Song of Songs was the holiest of all scriptural texts (even though they later put it into the last category of books, the Writings).

The writings of Tobit and Ben Sira also come to mind. The archaeological evidence suggests that these works were quite popular. These never made it into the Hebrew Bible when all was said and done. Additionally, the order of books and arrangement of some chapters changed over the years, as well as some texts being dropped from the official, accepted copies. This can be seen in the manuscripts and in the Talmuds, and among the Dead Sea Scrolls, where there were differing versions of some of the books of the Old Testament found, as well as remains of a number of what are now classed apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books.

Yet, even further back, the books of the Hebrew Bible--a common misnomer since entire sections of some books (Ezra and Daniel, along with a verse in Jeremiah and a phrase in Genesis) were written in Aramaic dressed up to look like Hebrew, or, should I say the Hebrew was dressed up to look like the Aramaic passages since the script of the whole Hebrew Bible is known as "Aramaic Square Script"--quoted from books that no longer exist. But, the fixing of the content came later, even though some Hebrew manuscripts had some of the books among "the Writings" in slightly differing order.

Which specific evidence would you like to discuss? (Note: I cannot give you references from the Talmuds at the moment because where I am at present I cannot access my personal, original language texts or my notes. I am sure that someone else here is aware of the locations and can share them here, if you want them. Sorry I cannot do more than mention them right now).

Edited September 5, 2012 by MormonMason

[bcuzbcuz]

It's actually, "thou shall not murder". Some difference.

Oh, does it really say that? When was the word "kill" changed to "murder"? Not in the KJV I can assure you. And isn't the distinction of kill to murder a modern convention? And why, may I ask, do you see a distinction between "kill" and "murder"? And do you see God splitting hairs?

[MormonMason]

Oh, does it really say that? When was the word "kill" changed to "murder"? Not in the KJV I can assure you. And isn't the distinction of kill to murder a modern convention? And why, may I ask, do you see a distinction between "kill" and "murder"? And do you see God splitting hairs?

It does mean murder--in the Hebrew original-language text. Yes, God does sometimes split hairs in legal texts. The five books of Moses are legal texts.

The difference is in intent and purpose. Killing can happen purely by accident, as a consequence of fighting in war or otherwise, or in any number of other circumstances. Murder, on the other hand, involves premeditation and related constructs. There is a lot more that could be said about this but learning Hebrew would be a good start.

[bcuzbcuz]

It does mean murder--in the Hebrew original-language text. Yes, God does sometimes split hairs in legal texts. The five books of Moses are legal texts.

The difference is in intent and purpose. Killing can happen purely by accident, as a consequence of fighting in war or otherwise, or in any number of other circumstances. Murder, on the other hand, involves premeditation and related constructs. There is a lot more that could be said about this but learning Hebrew would be a good start.

I cannot read Hebrew, nor is it a language I'm interested in learning so I'll stick to the interpretation of others. I find many contradictory opinions about what you seem to think is rather straightforward. Are you not reading scripture as 'you think it should read' rather than what it actually says?

http://www.crivoice.org/terms/t-kill.html

The Word "to kill"

Dennis Bratcher

This page is still being developed

The argument is often made in various applications of "You shall not kill" that this Commandment is really a specific prohibition of murder. This evokes a range of connotations for the English word murder with a primary emphasis on unlawful killing, the premeditated and deliberate killing of another human being. This would be opposed to other forms of killing, which are them presumably legal or acceptable such as execution, war, or self defense. Appeal is usually made to the original Hebrew by arguing that the word used,ratsach, does not mean killing in general but refers specifically to murder. This view seems to be supported in some modern translations, such as the NRSV (a change from the original RSV):

Exod 20:13 You shall not murder.

Deut 5:17 You shall not murder.

However a close examination of the Hebrew word used here raises questions about this translation, or at least the rationale for using the word alone to distinguish between various kinds of killing such as murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide. The Hebrew word used in both versions of the Ten Words (Commandments), ratsach, is not nearly as specific as the English word "murder" and has a much wider range of meaning.

For example, in the Priestly Code of Numbers, the word is used twice (35:27, 30) for killing done by the blood avenger, which was considered "legal" in Israelite society. Also, there are several places in Deuteronomy (4:41-42, 19:3-6) as well as 15 or so other passages scattered throughout Numbers and Joshua that use the word to refer to unintentional killing or causing accidental death, what in English we call, manslaughter (Num 35:6-31, Josh 20:3-5). While the English language uses different terms with different nuances to distinguish different types of killing, the same word in Hebrew can refer to all without distinction in the word itself. The term ratsach can have the connotation of "murder" or "assassinate" (Jud 20:4, 1 Kings 21:19, 2 Kings 6:32). However, that meaning is usually determined by clear markers in context. The term can also mean something much milder, "to beat" or "to assault" (Psalm 62:3). A cognate noun in Psalm 42:10 (Heb. 42:11) means “shattering” or “mortal wound,” while the same cognate noun in Ezekiel 21:22 refers to the slaughter of a battle. These related meanings suggest that the basic word connotes the act of violence, not whether the action was legal or premeditated. Premeditation had to be determined by a judicial process, yet both those found guilty of premeditation and those deemed innocent of premeditation were both described by the same Hebrew term, "the one who kills."

The English word "murder" may or may not be an appropriate translation in the Ten Words. However, we honestly need to recognize that it is not the Hebrew word itself that demands this translation. As a result, the often made distinction between "murder" and other justifiable killing, such as war, execution of criminals, or to protect ones life or family cannot be supported by appealing to the meaning of the Hebrew word alone. Such a move requires a much wider contextual and interpretive reading of a specific text within its context.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=31043

Does Scripture Really Say “Thou Shalt Not Kill”?

By: SCRIBE

04-12-2003

Most Christians have been led to believe that Scripture forbids the Taking of a life; that is to kill. That it forbids the taking of a life under any circumstance; even in Self Defense. If this is so, why would GOD tell Israel “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, yet then turn around and tell then to kill their enemies? This would seem to be a Glaring Contradiction, would it not? UNLESS, GOD Never said “Thou Shalt Not Kill” to begin with! Even though the Bible may actually say the word “Kill” in several places, is this what the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts actually say? Or, do we once again have some serious translation errors? Let’s investigate. The first place to start is in Exodus 20; the giving of the Ten Commandments.

Then Fifth Commandment)

In Exodus 20:13 we have the Fifth Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Take a good look at that word “Kill”. In the Hebrew Manuscript the word is “Ratsach” which means: Murder; ie - to Murder, a Murderer; to dash to pieces. Thus, Exodus 20:13 Actually reads “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”. Next, look to Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. Here, the Hebrew word translated ‘Smiteth’ is “Nakah”, which means: Murder, To Slay, to make slaughter. Thus, Exodus 21:12 Actually reads “He that Murders a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”.

Next, look to Exodus 21:14 “But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die”. The Hebrew word translated ‘Slay’ here is “Harag”, which means: To Smite with Deadly Intent; To Murder. The Hebrew word translated ‘Guile’ here is “Ormah”, which means: Trickery, Craftiness; Deceitful Strategy. Thus, Exodus 21:14 Actually “But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor to Murder him with a Deceitful Strategy; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die”.

Now move over to Deuteronomy 19:11 + 12 “But if any man hate his neighbor, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and Smite him mortally that he die, and flee into one of these cities: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the Avenger of Blood, that he may die”. Again, the Hebrew word translated ‘Smite’ here is “Nakah”, which means: Murder, To Slay, to make slaughter. But what is this ‘Avenger of Blood’? The Hebrew word translated ‘Avenger’ here is “Ga'al”, which means: To Redeem (According to the Ancient Law of Kinship) The Next of Kin, Kinsfolk; To Redeem Blood for Blood: ie - Revenge - The Kinsman Redeemer. So, the Murderer was to be put to death by the Nearest of Kin! But what if the death was an accident? Deuteronomy 19:2 thru 6 tells what to do with those who kill by mistake; by accident. They were to be moved away to a far off city, thereby giving the relatives of the one accidentally killed time to cool off, and to not seek revenge.

Thus you will see again and again, when the Old Testament speaks of Kill, it many times actually says ‘MURDER”, and that the Murderers were to be put to Death; by the Kinsman Redeemer! But what about the New Testament?

The Word ‘Kill’ in the New Testament

First, let’s look to Matthew 5. In verses 17 and 18, Jesus says “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”. In other words, until the Eternity begins, not even the smallest punctuation mark changes in the Law! What Law? The Ten Commandments! Next, in Matthew 5:21 Jesus says “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou Shalt Not Kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the Judgment”. Once again, we have translation problems! The Greek word translated ‘Kill’ here is “Phoneuo”, which means: To be a Murderer, to Murder - 'Phoneuo' a form of 'Phoneus' which means: A Murderer; Always a Criminal or at least Intentional Homicide. The Greek word translated ‘Judgment’ here is “Krisis”, which means: (When referring to the Divine Law) Damnation, Condemnation; Justice – Tribunal. Thus, Matthew 5:21 actually reads “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou Shalt Not Murder; and whosoever shall Murder shall be in danger of Eternal Damnation”. In other words, no Murderer can have eternal life abiding in him; and even Jesus Christ can not change this fact! He states so himself. Why is Murder so serious a crime? You not only Murder that person, but any Children the person might have had, thus destroying a whole lineage; not just that person.

Lastly look to 1John 3:15 “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no Murderer hath eternal life abiding in him”. This word ‘Hateth’ actually means: To Persecute to the Death. Thus, 1John 3:15 actually reads “Whosoever Persecutes another to their death (as Stephen was) is a murderer: and ye know that no Murderer hath eternal life abiding in him”.

So, Murder, not Killing, is forbidden by Scripture! And those who do commit Criminal Homicide (verified by at least 2 witnesses) are to be Executed, and sent to GOD. And NO MURDERER can have Eternal Life abiding in him while in the FLESH!!! The Murderer’s salvation is up to GOD the Father alone, at the final Judgment!!

http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/the-whole-killing-vs-murder-contradiction/

I was doing some lexical writing today and figured I’d share a lexical refutation to the whole “God commands not to kill and then commands killing” stupid ‘contradiction’ in the Bible that many skeptics bring up. The passage in question is Exodus 20:13, and this apparently contradicts other passages like Exodus 32:27 or 1 Samuel 15:2-8.

This whole contradiction boils down to a silly and incompetent lexicographical and exegetical ability in the skeptic. Hebrew, like every language, uses synonyms. Synonyms don’t mean exactly the same thing, but often carry similar meanings with differences in semantic range or nuance. Like all words in all languages, the words for “killing” and “murder” derive their meaning and nuance from the context in which they are found. This seems to be a concept that simply escapes the understanding of many skeptics (whether consciously or not is a question though).

The word in Exodus 20:13 is רצח (ratsach), and it can mean kill, slay, murder, etc. depending on context and stem (Qal, Niphal, Piel, Pual). Hebrew doesn’t have 1 word for killing and 1 word for murder; it has multiple words that can be rendered either one.

In Hebrew, “murder” can be rendered from רצח (ratsach) or הרג (harag). Okay, that’s two words…not really a large multiple of words. Either way, Harag is a much more common term, occurring 167 times in the Old Testament verses the 47 occurrences of ratsach.

Ratsach has a semantic range in the verbal form of “to murder, slay, kill” and carries a connotation of taking a life, or one who takes life. It occurs, by far the most, in the nominal form as opposed to the verbal form, and this nominal form is almost always translated along the lines of “slain” (as in a person who is killed) or “murderer” (one who has killed another person). This is the verb appearing in Exodus 20:13.

Harag has a semantic range in the verbal form of “to kill, slay, murder, destroy” and carries a stronger connotation than ratsach, one of violent death (due to sword, attack from wild beast, etc.), often in the context of battle. The verbal form is more frequent than the nominal form, and this is the verb appearing in Exodus 32:27. in a nutshell, ratsach carries more of the nuance of “murder/manslaughter” where as harag carriesmore of the nuance of “murder/kill in anger/kill in battle”, and ratsach usually describes the person committing harag.

Lots can be said, but essentially 2 different words in 2 different context is not a clear and obvious bible contradiction, especially given their semantic ranges.

Also, in Hebrew “kill” can be rendered from:

רצח (ratsach)

הרג (harag)

זבח (zabach) – mostly carries connotation of “sacrifice/offer sacrifice”

חלל (chalal) – mostly carries connotation of “slay/fatally wound” (generic term)

טבח (tabach) – mostly carries connotation of “slaughter/butcher/kill ruthlessly”

מות (mot[h]) – mostly carries connotation of “die/kill/put to death”

נכה (nakah) – mostly carries connotation of “hit/beat/strike/attack”

קטל (gatal) – only appears 3 times in the OT, but mostly carries connotation of “slay”

שחט (shachat) – mostly carries connotation of “kill (a sacrifice)”

Hebrew has no shortage of words that could be translated “kill”, though the nuances of the words varies and depends on context, but likely because death was no stranger to Ancient Near Eastern life. What this boils down to is that God didn’t outlaw all killing in the OT in Exodus 20:13. There was still wars, still temple sacrifices, etc. What God outlawed was the unjust taking of one person’s life by another person.

We understand this difference in modern times. Nobody would confuse the difference between the taking of life by the man who beats his wife to death and the taking of life of the police officer who arrives on scene, is attacked himself and shoots the assailant, fatally wounding him.

The assailant committed tabach (or nakah), but the policemen committed harag.

The assailant is a ratsach, but the policeman is not.

[DavidB]

Seems to me that to claim thou shall not kill to mean murder is a post hoc redefinition; unless one can show from Moses hand that it meant murdered.