OrthodoxPresbyterian writes, "The Commandment is, 'Thou Shalt Not Murder'. Bad Translations do not Good Theology make."
If the translation was "bad," it was by someone who probably knew a
h@lluva lot more about ancient Hebrew than you do. (Since the translation, "Thou shalt not kill" apparently first came about circa 420 AD.)
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
From that website:
"Viewed from this perspective, we may appreciate that the translation 'thou shalt not kill' was not the result of simple ignorance on the side of Jerome or the King James English translators. Rather, it reflects their legitimate determination to reflect accurately the broader range of meanings of the Hebrew root."
"As usual, careful study teaches us that what initially appeared ridiculously obvious is really much more complex than it seemed at first glance. We should be very cautious before passing hasty judgement on apparent bloopers."
OrthodoxPresbyterian also writes: "Defense of Family is not Murder, it is Duty."
Yes, and if and when Quakers ever have the opportunity to fight for "defense of family," we'll see what they do. (Please don't insult post readers' intelligences, by claiming Korea, Vietam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, etc., were wars involving "defense of family"...unless you mean Korean, Vietnamese, Kuwaiti, and Kosovar families.)
I'll go ahead and respect your advice to defer the "thou shalt not kill" debate to the authority of the Hebrew experts, but I am going to reserve in advance that any "expert" who imagines "kill" is used in a universal sense here is obviously wrong -- no matter how many linguistic PhDs on his wall.
If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.
The same would apply to thieves (plural), including entire National Armies of marauding thieves. It is Moral for a defender to smite them.
Please don't insult post readers' intelligences, by claiming Korea, Vietam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, etc., were wars involving "defense of family"...
I wouldn't dream of it. On what conceivable theonomic basis do you imagine I could possibly see those Wars as being Biblically justified?