T
Tristan
Guest
Let it be known that I don't like the way the KJV translates the original texts.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Bible Study "Thou Shalt Not Murder" analysis
- Thread starter Nathanael Chong
- Start date
Let it be known that I don't like the way the KJV translates the original texts.
Deborah13
Member
But in these scriptures the Greek does'nt say, apokteino. It says, a form of phoneuo. So when they read it, it was the same word with the same meaning.
It doesn't Matter how it is translated in the English. The Greek says what it says.
So there you go, Have fun studying it out for yourself. It's very rewarding to do.
Blessings
You are not understanding what I am saying, nor do you seem to understand how biblical translation works. So please cut the condescending tone and be willing to listen.
Looking to the Hebrew, the word there is râtsach, and can mean "murder" or "kill," depending on the context, as well as several other related meanings. Within the immediate context of Ex. 20:13, there is nothing to suggest what the meaning should be, so technically speaking, "kill" is correct. When one takes that with the rest of what Scripture shows--the Law and other various OT commands to kill given by God--and understanding that to murder is to kill, one can then understand that the command to "not kill," is best understood to mean "do not murder." So if the translation being used says "kill," it must be understood as meaning "murder."
If you want to refute any of what I have said, address the points, and show why something is wrong. Simply saying it is wrong does not make it wrong. It makes me wonder if you have some agenda since you asked a question and when someone tries to help, you disagree as though you are set in your own answer already.
K
kevinmaynard
Guest
But in these scriptures the Greek does'nt say, apokteino. It says, a form of phoneuo. So when they read it, it was the same word with the same meaning.
It doesn't Matter how it is translated in the English. The Greek says what it says.
So there you go, Have fun studying it out for yourself. It's very rewarding to do.
Blessings
I can't read Greek. What I am dealing with is English. There is an error in an English version. Seems most think the error is the KJV.
K
kevinmaynard
Guest
See I am not arguing how translation works. I am saying there is an error in one of the competing translations. In English the words have fundamentally different meanings. It might be murder it might be kill. I tend to lean towards kill likely because that is what I heard first, but I could be wrong. If I am wrong then I am open to changing my mind. Looks like most think it is murder.
What I am arguing about is that if it is murder than kill is an error in translation. The fact there is at least one fundamental error in the KJV makes me wonder what else is wrong with it. What other fundamental things in meaning does it get wrong?
Deborah13
Member
New Testament. The same Greek word is translated in the KJV as Kill 10X, murder 1x, and slay 1X.
I guess somehow that is a big deal.
K
kevinmaynard
Guest
How could it not be a big deal. Wasn't God guiding the translators of the KJV? The words murder and kill mean very different things.
I know exactly what you're arguing and if you understand what I am saying, I am saying that it isn't necessarily an error. It takes at least a basic understanding of biblical interpretation and translation. It isn't as accurate or clear to say "kill," but even then the meaning that comes out in the end is "murder." That's my point. If one takes the command to mean only "kill," which ignores the greater context of the entirety of Scripture, such as you and many others (not of this forum) have done, then yes, it becomes a problem.
Deborah13
Member
Well, you could always download esword. Then if you have a question about a word you just push a button and the Strong's numbers come up, you click on it and the Greek with the definition comes up right on the screen.
It's pretty awesome.
Deborah13
Member
So try a different Bible or use several, most do.
As far as the translators go, guess what at least they could read Greek.
I know I don't always get it right when God's trying to guide me. Sometimes on these threads, I wish He would just take over my fingers and do all the writing, then I never make a mistake and look stupid. Wouldn't that be grand?
Tony Hyman
Member
Ouote" You may have come across the problem of: "If God commanded us not to kill, why did He command the Israelites to kill their enemies?"
I've thought of that too. Below is a link to the answer. God Bless!"
I found this exlanation in a book called "Great People of the Bible and How they Lived" by Readers Digest.They explain as follows:
"Although the Israelites won many peaceful converts to their cause ,the Conquest of Canaan was an undeniably bloody affair, and as such has left some readers of the Bible deeply perturbed.
How could the Lord ever condone such brutal slaughters as those descrbed in Joshua?
The answer, an important one in undrstanding the early Israelites , is that the Conquest was conducted as a harem or holy war.
According to the rules and principles of this ancient institution, a holy war was believed to have been proclaimed and led by the Lord himself.
His followers were promised victory as long as they observed his commandments exactly.A cardinal command was that no booty be taken,because the victory belonged to God alone.Since booty included prisoners as well as goods and livestock,no captives were ever taken in a holy war.
In practice,this meant that none of the defeated enemy population could be left alive.The war against Canaan was waged to gain a home for the Israelites, and the land could be purified only by the extermination of those who occupied it. 'Not because of your rightiousness ... are you going in to possess their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out before you' (Deuteronomy .9:5)."
unquote
Whooie now I understand where saying "take no prisoners" maybe originated.
I've thought of that too. Below is a link to the answer. God Bless!"
I found this exlanation in a book called "Great People of the Bible and How they Lived" by Readers Digest.They explain as follows:
"Although the Israelites won many peaceful converts to their cause ,the Conquest of Canaan was an undeniably bloody affair, and as such has left some readers of the Bible deeply perturbed.
How could the Lord ever condone such brutal slaughters as those descrbed in Joshua?
The answer, an important one in undrstanding the early Israelites , is that the Conquest was conducted as a harem or holy war.
According to the rules and principles of this ancient institution, a holy war was believed to have been proclaimed and led by the Lord himself.
His followers were promised victory as long as they observed his commandments exactly.A cardinal command was that no booty be taken,because the victory belonged to God alone.Since booty included prisoners as well as goods and livestock,no captives were ever taken in a holy war.
In practice,this meant that none of the defeated enemy population could be left alive.The war against Canaan was waged to gain a home for the Israelites, and the land could be purified only by the extermination of those who occupied it. 'Not because of your rightiousness ... are you going in to possess their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out before you' (Deuteronomy .9:5)."
unquote
Whooie now I understand where saying "take no prisoners" maybe originated.
Last edited:
Tony Hyman
Member
Big mistake on my part.The term for holy war is "herem" and not "harem" used in the previous post.