The Bible and guns

[ac-mech]

I'm glad you guys like it...

[txproud]

Definately a good read, but here's one point for discussion.

The author cites Exodus 22:2 - "if someone breaks into your house at
night and you kill him, you are not guilty of murder."

But here's the next verse.

Exodus 22:3 (NIV) - "but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."

Interesting. Is there a theologian in the house? Here's one point I noticed. In the NIV text it refers to a "thief" not a murderer or an armed thief or anyone who is there to do physical harm.

[srothstein]

Interestingly enough, when I read the Jewish versions, it is an entirely different concept.

1. If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.

2 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him--he shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

3 If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he shall pay double.


The way I understand the above, if the thief is killed, then his family owes nothing (that is what was meant by bloodguiltiness). If the sun rises on him, the thief either makes restitution or becomes a slave. And if he is stealing a live animal, the restitution is double the value of the animal.

I included all three lines to because I think it makes the entire concept more clear. Sorry, I cannot read the Hebrew anymore, so I went with a translation from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... dus22.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I point this out because it is in the translations that we get the different meanings. I do not know if this translation is any more correct than the King James or NIV versions.

[richbrismith]

Great Post- Thnx

[TDDude]

He left out Luke 22:35-38 which I like to paraphrase in my signature.-

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.
36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."
38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

And have a backup.

Jesus thought so much that his deciples should be able to protect themselves that even if they had to sell their cloak, they needed to get weapons.

In that day, their cloak was their shelter pure and simple. Without a good cover garment, one would probably die out in the elements. It was sleeping bag, tent, shelter from a sandstorm, cold, heat, and so on.

To me, Jesus is saying it is more important to be able to defend from human predators than it was to be comfortable.

This verse was also a warning that he would be gone soon but that's another discussion for another forum.

[barres]

Interestingly enough, when I read the Jewish versions, it is an entirely different concept.

1. If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.

2 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him--he shall make restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

3 If the theft be found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep, he shall pay double.


The way I understand the above, if the thief is killed, then his family owes nothing (that is what was meant by bloodguiltiness). If the sun rises on him, the thief either makes restitution or becomes a slave. And if he is stealing a live animal, the restitution is double the value of the animal.

I included all three lines to because I think it makes the entire concept more clear. Sorry, I cannot read the Hebrew anymore, so I went with a translation from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... dus22.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . I point this out because it is in the translations that we get the different meanings. I do not know if this translation is any more correct than the King James or NIV versions.

It looks like you actually quoted verses 2, 3, & 4, not 1 - 3. If you look at Exo. 22 verses 1 & 4 really go together and deal with a thief's restitution for stealing. How much he owes depends on whether what he stole is recovered alive or dead. Verses two and three are really a separate, but related, issue: what about the property owner who finds a thief in the middle of his theft? The Scriptures state fairly clearly (to my mind, anyway) that deadly force is authorized to protect property at nighttime, but not in the daytime. Bloodguilt is the debt (for want of a better way to put it) that a person owes when they are responsible for someone's death. Under the Jewish Law, if I were responsible for the death of your son somehow, I could pay off my bloodguilt by giving you my son or some other equitable exchange. But there were some circumstances where I might cause a death, but not incur the bloodguilt. That is what Moses was writing about here is Exo 22:2-3.

These verses simply do not deal with the use of deadly force to protect yourself or a third party from aggression.

[dukesean]

What I like bout this is he has applied biblical hermeneuticsto these verses. Too many times verses are taken out of context and twisted to try and mean something to fit their current view to make someone feel warm and fuzzy. You must understand what was happening at the time the verse was actually written and how it applied to the people and the culture of the time to really start to interpret the true meaning. This pastor has done this with many of these verses in the article which substantiates the true meaning.

Thank you Keith! Hermeneutics is essential to understanding any part of the Bible. Always be weary of people who justify their actions/rationale with cherry picked Bible verses and do not apply any contextual interpretation. But perhaps even more dangerous are people who apply incorrect hermeneutics