Talk:Thou shalt not kill

"references" vs. staying on topic
The blanket revert by is apparently motivated by keeping the passage stating that the Ten Commandments
 * "according to the Bible, were inscribed onto two stone tablets by the finger of God.[Exodus 31:18, Deuteronomy 9:10, Catholic Catechism 2056, http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm ]

It is unclear what this has to do with the article topic. This is about one specific commandments. The general mythology surrounding the commandments should be discussed at the Ten Commandments article. The "finger of god" thing looks rather out of place (even comical) in this context.

Even if you want to argue for keeping this passage, it is rather poor style to revert a number of perfectly straightforward cleanup edits and article improvements just to keep it. You have removed information on the Hebrew text of the commandment and its Greek translation, plus you have moved a point on the Talmud back to the section discussing the Torah. Don't do that. Explain why you want to keep the "finger of God" but don't deteriorate the discussion of the actual topic over such marginalia. --dab (𒁳) 07:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

npov
This seems to be nothing more than a piety display. There is nothing other than the religious view presented here. Nothing pointing to the contrast "Thou shalt not kill" in EXODUS and the killing of the captured midianites, (babies, grandmas, and all) a few chapters later.

We get it. You love your religion. You don't have to prove it by making these junk articles. Steve kap (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This is about bloodguilt within ancient Israelite society. Obviously such rules did not apply to enemy nations.

You will be hard put to find an Iron Age nation that extended its laws against murder to hostile tribes. There is also a reason why the title of this article has "murder", not "kill". In the Iron Age, "murder" is the killing of your peers or your betters, but you are mostly free to kill your slaves or your enemies, this has nothing to do with bloodguilt.

Of course we have different standards today (I hope), after 500 years of humanism, but these are laws of about 2700 years ago. --dab (𒁳) 07:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's about one of the Ten Commandments -- how could it be anything OTHER than religious? 72.86.42.38 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew
לא תרצח is actuallt pronounced 'lo tirtsah' and not 'la...'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.179.203 (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thou shalt not X
I agree that murder is a better translation than kill because some forms of killing are sanctioned in the Bible, but murder doesn't seem quite right either. It amounts to saying "Thou shalt not kill unlawfully" or "Obey laws that govern killing" rather than being a law in itself. I'm not an expert in Hebrew, so it could be that the commandment is accurately translated in these terms, but the vacuousness of this formulation suggests that it is not. If the word retzach in the original Hebrew is referencing a particular view of wrongful killing then it will presumably not vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction in a way that "unlawful killing" necessarily does.--Distinguisher (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This assumes that the Bible does not contradict itself. It does; frequently. --81.152.176.94 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed it does contradict itself, but to my knowledge the Hebrew word in question is never used in passages of the Bible that mention justifiable homicides, which suggests it wasn't being used with a meaning as broad as kill. It's not necessary to assume biblical consistency on this issue (and certainly not biblical consistency in general) to make this point, which I accept. Note that this is a linguistic point rather than a religious one.
 * The point I wanted to raise though was that murder (unlawful killing of a person, carried out intentionally) isn't such a great translation either because the kinds of killing that are subsumed under this category will depend in part on the particular laws that apply in a particular jurisdiction rather than the nature of the act itself. Otherwise, there would be no way of differentiating it from the various legal ways in which a person can be killed intentionally (self-defence, acts of war, and in some jurisdictions things like executions, suicides, euthanasia, etc.). --Distinguisher (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, you can't have "Thou shalt not take away life under the following conditions:" etc. as a page title. In my opinion, it should be "thou shalt not murder" as it is a better translation than kill, even if it isn't perfect. I also think, however, that this should be considered as a proper conflict of interest, and should be considered a place on wp:coin JacobTheRox (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"Thou shalt not negligent and unintentionally manslaughter" seems equally, or even more, appropriate, considering rtz is used to describe such, at least more commonly than murder, which is usually premeditated (ie. Cain hrg Abel) However I suppose one could argue that they treated both so similarly to negate any real difference (Redefine semantics to loosen their moral obligation?). As to whether it is justified by being lawful, that might depend on your government, but probably not the Creator. "Thou shalt not be unlawful" is another matter entirely. Perhaps "Thou shalt not dash each other into pieces (because that, in and of itself, is wrong)" would be a bit more appropriate. I'll agree that it's overly cumbersome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.5.156 (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sneaky vandalism" / Libel
I believe that Buzz1948's edits constitute Sneaky vandalism as well as Libel. Both of these cases are ones that should be removed immediately. I made changes to undo those edits and User:Mann jess reverted them back. Diff here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_shall_not_murder&diff=470846652&oldid=470845627

These changes involved a number of insertions of the word "Jewish" and "of Jews" as well as a two insertions of "for any/no reason", modifying the meaning of the existing text so as to state that:
 * the commandment as stated in the Torah only applied to other Jews and that
 * the killing of non-Jewish people was always acceptable under Jewish law.

None of the sources for the paragraphs changed give any mention of a difference between innocent blood of Jewish people versus any other people. The sources (from prior revisions) included:
 * 1) http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_03145.html
 * 2) ’’The Ten Commandments’’, William Barclay, Westminster John Knox Press, 1998, pp. 52-57 (which is visible through Amazon's "Look inside this book" feature here: http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Commandments-William-Barclay-Library/dp/0664258166 )
 * 3) And several references from the Bible, which I validated against many translations and revisions of the text from bible.cc here:
 * http://bible.cc

If you feel that I am in error, please show anywhere in any one of those sources where it is stated that there is a distinction between any different types of "innocent" blood.

In fact, according to the book cited, in the past the Jewish law was far ahead of the current culture in providing amnesty to criminals, and that life was held so sacred that the death penalty was avoided.

Since the material was not sourced, and inserted as if it were sourced, including adding a reference in a paragraph where it was not present that did not support the false information being presented, I considered this vandalism. I am aware of the "good faith" policy of Wikipedia but I do not see how it can apply to this case.

Bookface (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I updated this page to include User links and a diff link.
 * Perhaps a better diff, showing the changes made by Buzz1948 instead of the reversion back by Mann jess:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_shall_not_murder&action=historysubmit&diff=462438692&oldid=449839883&xxAutoPagerimmedialate-load-count=3
 * If I am missing any additional information, please let me know.
 * Bookface (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I reverted this back to your version. I mean, really?
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * style="width:50%;vertical-align:top;"| The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.
 * The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing of Hasidic Jews, but also allows for justified or unjustified killing of all others in the context of warfare, capital punishment, self-defense, for any other reason, and for no reason.
 * }
 * I don't recall the commandments containing any particular mention of Hasidic Jews. If someone wants to re-add that, they'll need references (and good luck on that!). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't recall the commandments containing any particular mention of Hasidic Jews. If someone wants to re-add that, they'll need references (and good luck on that!). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One further other thought: I have no problems describing by User:Buzz1948 as vandalism. "Jew blood" is not a phrase that should be in an encyclopedia. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 22:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:I am the Lord your God which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

r-s-h vs. n-k-h
Half way through the discussion of the meaning of retzach (r-s-h) the word n-k-h suddenly crops up ... what does it mean and how does it relate to r-s-h? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.196.17.197 (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

These commandments may relate to murder, but it's unclear how
There are a number of interesting commandments related to murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, due process, refuge, etc. At the bottom of the list are these additional five commandments that, if the relate to murder, relate in a way that is not clear from the text itself.

494. Build a parapet (in roof of house) (Deuteronomy 22:8)

495. Don't mislead with advice which is a stumbling block (Leviticus 19:14)

496. Help a man remove the load from his beast which can no longer carry it (Exodus 23:5)

497. Help him load his beast (Deuteronomy 22:4)

498. Don't leave him in a state of confusion and go on your way (Deuteronomy 22:4)

Totally unballanced
Guy's, put in what you like but there are SERIOUS issues with this page.

You guys are using the NIV. a source that by its own design is a right wing interpretation of the bible. If you are interested in accuracy you would use the kjv.

Exodus 20:13 You shall not murder. (Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence) (English Standard Version (ESV)) You shall not murder. (New International Version (NIV)) Thou shalt not kill. (21st Century King James Version (KJ21)) Thou shalt not kill. (American Standard Version (ASV)) You shall not commit murder. (Amplified Bible (AMP)) Do not kill. (Or Murder) (Common English Bible (CEB)) Do not murder. (Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)) Do not murder.(Contemporary English Version (CEV)) Thou shalt not kill. (Darby Translation (DARBY)) Thou shalt not kill. (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)) You must not murder anyone. (Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)) You shall not murder (The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence) (English Standard Version (ESV)) You shall not murder (The Hebrew word also covers causing human death through carelessness or negligence) (English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)) You must not murder anyone. (Expanded Bible (EXB)) And it goes on. Some say kill. Some say murder. Some define murder slightly differently. kill verb (used with object) 1. to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay. Synonyms: slaughter, massacre, butcher; hang, electrocute, behead, guillotine, strangle, garrote; assassinate. 2. to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes. 3. to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor. 4. to spoil the effect of: His extra brushwork killed the painting. 5. to cause (time) to be consumed with seeming rapidity or with a minimum of boredom, especially by engaging in some easy activity or amusement of passing interest: I had to kill three hours before plane time.

mur•der verb (used with object) 1. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder. 2. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously. 3. to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria. So murder seems to refer back to killing, but only in those cases where it is inhuman or barbarous or in defiance of the law of the state. One translation basically says that police killing a criminal is a sin, one does not. Or that a soldier killing in a war is ok if it is legally sanctioned.

So let’s go back to the original. οὐ φονεύσεις (Greek translation of Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo (lo tirtzack). Dr. Reuben Alcalay wrote in his mammoth book the Complete Hebrew /English Dictionary that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever." The word "lo," as you might suspect, means "thou shalt not.", There must have been other people, from the same time and culture, that spoke the same language (ancient Greek) that have spoken on this matter before.

The first one I came across was Hippolytus of Rome (Hippolytus of Rome (170–235) was the most important 3rd-century theologian in the Christian Church in Rome) and his statement on the matter can be summed up by this “A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected for baptism. A military commander or civic magistrate must resign or be rejected. If a believer seeks to become a soldier, he must be rejected, for he has despised God.” After finding that, I found more that seem to say the same thing. I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command... Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.—Tatian’s Address to the Greeks Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies…. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians.—The Apology of Aristides For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature.—Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale.—Cyprian of Carthage And it goes on. But getting honesty or even balance out of Wikipedia is almost impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.146.203.210 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs serious work by neutral experts
This article is not in a good state. About half the references go to original Bible texts, and most of the rest goes to sources long out of date, from John Calvin to Martin Luther to Matthew Henry. The links to the Catechism of the Catholic Church all seem to be broken. Dods et all, 1903 is cited as authoritative. The very few modern sources are mostly from exotic niche publishers. As a result, much of this is original research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There also needs to be more discussion about other interpretations, including literal ones. I do believe some religions ban killing in any circumstance due to it, leading to members taking conscientious objector status when called to military service. There are also those who use "Thou shalt not murder" as an alternate wording, leading to differing definitions of what "murder" means. Since this Commandment has been cited in everything from people refusing to defend themselves against attack to veganism to opposition to capital punishment (some of which is addressed here in religion-specific terms) I think more can be added on this topic, including the fact that it is one of only a couple of Commandments that has cachet even among non-religious people. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Kreeft
In this edit the following content about Kreeft was added. In this very high level article, the discussion about 1 theologian's formulation and another's shooting down of it, is a bit UNDUE

The basis of all Catholic teaching about the fifth commandment is the sanctity of life ethic, which Peter Kreeft argues is philosophically opposed to the quality of life ethic, a philosophy which he characterizes as introduced by a book entitled Die Freigabe der Vernichtung des Lebensunwerten Lebens (The Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life) (see Life unworthy of life) and which he asserts was the "first to win public acceptance ... by German doctors before World War II—the basis and beginning of Nazi medical practices." This interpretation is supported by modern medical journals that discuss the dilemma posed by these opposing philosophies to physicians who must make life or death decisions. Some bioethicists characterize the use of the "Nazi analogy" as inappropriate when applied to quality of life decisions; Arthur Caplan called this rhetoric "odiously wrong".

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Bloodguilt
Searching for "bloodguilt" in Wikipedia redirects to this article with this message: "(Redirected from Bloodguilt in the Hebrew Bible)"

If Wikipedia editors are going to set up a redirect, then actually include and maintain a section on the topic. Doing a "find" command for bloodguilt did not provide any coherent information on what it is. As an example, one gets: "The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt..." So how is one to understand the questions of bloodguilt when the concept itself is not defined?

Surely originally there was information about how it was defined in the Old Testament and how that was distinguished from the concepts in other cultures? After doing a Google search, I went back to the original search box in Wikipedia and broke "bloodguilt" into two words. On the "Blood Guild" page I find redirects again, also including: "Weregild (blood money), paid in atonement for blood guilt"

This suggests Wikipedia should even include information distinguishing the concept in other cultures, rather than hiding any definition and history of the concept of bloodguilt. What on earth is going on with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.103.101 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Killing of non-humans
This article also fall short of discussing the key word of murder/kill. The Torah uses it only to speak of of human death. It is not used of killing animals, or other conscious beings who would suffer. This should be part of the discussion as the same word 'Kill' can be used of those. Also, there needs to be a discussion of what and when killing WAS allowed and commanded (which also included other animals). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.182.150.123 (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Moved from the lead
This edit caught my eye. Following on that, I've removed the following paragraph from the lead section and moved it here for discussion:

The nutshell description of the lead section says that it "should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight.", and this paragraph I've moved here does not fit that description. Perhaps, in expanded form and with supporting cites, it ought to be added as an initial body section titled something like "Interpretation".

The edit I linked above indicates some tension about this; I considered adding who after Some and clarify after pacifest Christians, but thought that moving this paragraph here for discussion by regular editors of this article would be better. I did do some digging for info and found, among other items, this article and this response, apparently from Christians who disagree re divine pacificism.

I won't be hanging around for the discussion myself, as I don't have any more to contribute beyond a request that WP:DUE be observed re the article content. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

KJV Miquoted
The article begins: "Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew: לֹא תִּרְצָח ‎; lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV)". This gives the impression that the KJV says "You shall not kill". It does not. It says "Thou shalt not kill". ( https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-13.htm ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.189.104 (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Dawkins did a whole chapter explaining how the original commandment only forbade the killing of Hebrews, killing everyone else is fine, can this article have a section about that
It's the original interpretation 121.98.201.125 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

New Testament doctrine
I have removed the following two sentences from the New Testament doctrine section, as they are patently untrue and belie the original author's bias. The sentences are:


 * "Like the Old Testament, the New Testament seems to depict the lawful use of force by soldiers in legitimate battles as justified."


 * "There is no indication in the New Testament that it is unjust, immoral, or inappropriate for secular civil governments to execute those guilty of shedding innocent blood."

There are no such depictions or indications. Jesus preached nonviolence consistently and uniformly: 38You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

(Matthew 5:38–42)

27But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. 30Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

(Luke 6:27–31) Gcjnst (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)