If the bible states an eye for an eye and thou shall not kill which one is right?

Question

this web page states the original hebrew version says that "tirtzach" refers to "any kind of killing whatsoever." The word "lo," as you might suspect, means "thou shalt not."

http://www.thenazareneway.com/thou_shalt_not_kill.htm

Answer 1

And there you have it, one of the paradoxes in the bible that Christians refuse to, or just plain can't, explain.

If an eye for an eye is right then you can kill if someone kills, but if thou shalt not kill is right then you can't.

And they say their god is all knowing, yet he couldn't even sort this out.

Answer 2

The statement of "an eye for an eye" is part of a longer set of instructions given by Moses for judge's to use when sentencing people in court cases. It said that in a civil case, the punishment should not exceed the actual damage done. If you caused the death of a cow, it said that you owed the cost of a cow. If you caused the loast of a tooth, you owned the price of a tooth. If you caused the lost of an eye, you owed the cost of an eye. You were to repay the cost of the damage "a cattle for a cattle, a tooth for a tooth and an eye for eye". It meant that the pucnishment was to fit the crime.

The second scriputre refers to inidividuals. No individula has the right to "take the law into their own hands", and kill another person.

So there is no contradiction between them unless you try to use the "eye for an eye" as an individual, or the "thou shall not murder" on a state.

Answer 3

Neither. This is just one of the many paradoxes in the Bible which goes to prove it wasn't written by God but by many men over the centuries in order to frighten and empower. If you are a good person then you wouldn't seek revenge as in an 'eye for an eye' and God would never condone this. You also have no right to take another person's life regardless of what the Bible says, only God can do that.

Answer 4

The bible mentioned that there was such a law as eye for an eye which, is actually the Hammurabi Law. The bible mentioned it but the bible never condoned it. The bible was simply giving historical information in order to allow the readers to understand the laws of Mesopotamia and of that time in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

The law was very vicious. If someone broke into your house, raped your wife, robbed your house and burned your land, the Hammurabi Law would require the victim to break into the criminal's house, rape the criminal's wife, rob the criminal's house and burn the criminal's land as justice. Now do you understand how "eye for an eye" is flawed. The wife of the criminal did not commit the crime. Why should the criminal's wife be punished for his crimes? Why should the criminal's wife be raped? It's not fair. Innocent people who don't commit crimes suffer punishment anyway under the Hammurabi Law.

Answer 5

Actually ,"An eye for an eye " was more just than you might think.Back in that day,you could be killed for a wrong look.If you popped a guy in the kisser and cracked a tooth ,he might pick up a sword and chop you up.This law kept man from doing so.(At least that was the intention).
3000 years before the 10 commandments were written,in Genesis 9 after the flood,it is stated.Thou shalt do no murder,if a man sheds anothers blood ,then his blood is required.That's not murder,that's Capital Punishment.That's "eye for eye".You're not exacting anymore from the man than he exacted from you.

Answer 6

The two precepts you are referring to need a closer look at the original language.

"Thou shalt not kill." would be more accurately translated today as "Thou shalt not murder."

Premeditated killing is wrong. Self-defense is acceptable, as is State sponsored executions, according to Genesis 9 when God established human government.

An eye for and eye would be summarized this way:
The punishment shall suit the crime.

Hope that helps.

Answer 7

Actually, folks, the Bible DOES clarify the differences between these 2 statements. The eye for an eye was part of the Old Testament and, therefore, part of the law of the Old Testament. The Bible also states that Jesus was the fulfillment of that law and we, as His followers, are no longer subject to that law. Lastly, Jesus Himself said, " You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also...You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven." Therefore, thou shall not kill is not a contradiction of the old law.

Answer 8

"You shall not MURDER" says exactly that. The Bible certainly gives the courts the ability to use the death sentence.
"An eye for an eye..." is in the context of court.
Even an individual in a war or in self-defense can kill. Clearly not every taking of a life is murder.

Answer 9

For EVERY statement in the bible there is a counter statement. Read it I unfortunalty had to with sunday school and christain family and found it to be the most hypocrytical work EVER the saying suit what ever they want to say.

Answer 10

yet another biblical contradiction.
The bible is written in such a way that there are dozens of interpretations of the same thing and you will always find a biblical passage to suit your needs as this shows, even killing is condoned in the bible.