What's new
By:
Filters
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!

How wrong is the KJV

K

kenmaynard

Guest
Exodus 20:1-17

It has been brought up in other threads that the commandment of though salt not kill is a mistranslation, and that it is more properly stated though salt not murder.

To me that is a big difference, and profoundly alters the commandment.

The article I posted about the church burning bibles other than the KJV got me thinking. If the KJV can't even get the 10 commandments right what good is it, and what other major errors are there? Also, how can one claim it is the absolute word of God if there is at least one obvious major mistranslation?
 
You know, ken, I don't think that we need to believe "kill" was a mistranslation of "murder". The KJV was printed in the 1600's. Language as you know, changes over time. Most likely reading "kill" back then was synonymous, in context, with murder. It still seems to be the same, in context, to me today. Of course, that could be because I mainly use the NASB in which the word is translated "murder".

However, if I'm getting the gist of your post right, the main thing is, is the KJV any better or any worse than any other translation. And the answer is, it isn't.

I don't believe that there are any substantive errors in any of the major translations of the bible. The key word being substantive, by which I mean, that the original idea of the text was truly corrupted in translation that what was once truth is now a lie.

That said, I do believe that all translations have certain minor discrepancies and one should compare and research the discrepancies in order to be sure of the intent of the text.
 
I fail to see any difference (other than your typos of "though" which should be "thou", and "salt" which should be "shalt"). Definitions of "kill" and "murder":

Kill - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
Murder - the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Murder is the same thing as killing; however, our modern laws have segregated killing into different degrees that are termed as murder (1st degree or 2nd degree). They are one and the same; causing the death of someone.
 
kevkelsar said:
Murder is the same thing as killing; however, our modern laws have segregated killing into different degrees that are termed as murder (1st degree or 2nd degree). They are one and the same; causing the death of someone.
Click to expand...
But they aren't exactly the same. Murder carries the idea of non-justifiable killing. Killing in self-defense is usually considered justifiable. Yes, the end result is the same but murder is a specific type of killing.
 
kevkelsar said:
I fail to see any difference (other than your typos of "though" which should be "thou", and "salt" which should be "shalt"). Definitions of "kill" and "murder":

Kill - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
Murder - the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Murder is the same thing as killing; however, our modern laws have segregated killing into different degrees that are termed as murder (1st degree or 2nd degree). They are one and the same; causing the death of someone.
Click to expand...


The difference between murder and killing is a profound one in the context of the ten commandments, and the stark difference has been pointed out to me several times in other threads.
 
Yes, but can anyone say with any accuracy that this nuance between "kill" and "murder" existed in the common English tongue of the 1600's?
 
According to webster.com, "kill" is an English word from the 14th century and "murder" is from before the 12th century.
 
handy said:
Yes, but can anyone say with any accuracy that this nuance between "kill" and "murder" existed in the common English tongue of the 1600's?
Click to expand...


Well here is some info I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentari ... of_England

The Commentaries on the Laws of England are an influential 18th century treatise on the common law of England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765-1769.

So it appears there has always be a difference.
 
The reason that I asked is because of Shakespeare's famous "First thing to do is to kill all the lawyers" line. It's not the only time in Shakespeare that "kill" would be in the context of murder. I makes me wonder if kill and murder were interchangeable in common language.
 
handy said:
The reason that I asked is because of Shakespeare's famous "First thing to do is to kill all the lawyers" line. It's not the only time in Shakespeare that "kill" would be in the context of murder. I makes me wonder if kill and murder were interchangeable in common language.
Click to expand...


The distinction between the two words has been around since the time of the translation of the KJV. So since they got the ten commandments fundamentally wrong how are to know what else is wrong. It also brings doubt about how the translators could be hearing directly from God if they made such a fundamental error.
 
the original greek and hebrew often have concepts the we english speakers dont, look up the word love. we say love for the concepts that greek has ie storge(family love),phileo(brotherly love)eros(romantic love) and agape(unconditional love) we have the concept but they use the words to say it. i think that's were we get confused.

look at the word old english hate, in verse if any man hateth not his father or mother he cannot be disciple, poor translation the greek word is for to love less. i read that verse without knowing that and prayed and the lord explained that it means one must love jesus more than one's parents.

jason
 
kenmaynard said:
handy said:
The reason that I asked is because of Shakespeare's famous "First thing to do is to kill all the lawyers" line. It's not the only time in Shakespeare that "kill" would be in the context of murder. I makes me wonder if kill and murder were interchangeable in common language.
Click to expand...


The distinction between the two words has been around since the time of the translation of the KJV. So since they got the ten commandments fundamentally wrong how are to know what else is wrong. It also brings doubt about how the translators could be hearing directly from God if they made such a fundamental error.
Click to expand...

You know Ken, even in today's language, if someone says, "He was shot and killed last night", almost everyone will assume murder. I could probably google hundreds of headlines that would use the word kill interchangeable for murder.

And, if one is still unsure of what the commandment was, one only needs to continue reading the rest of the scriptures, and even in the KJV, the context that the commandment is speaking of murder becomes clear. I don't think that God allowed a "fundamentally wrong" text to mislead generations and generations of Christians over this matter. Seems to me that if there was that fundamental of a mistake in one of the 10 commandments, then the Church, the scholars, the ministers, the pastors, the teachers, all who teach Christians and all Christians who held the word of God as inerrant would have been pushing an extreme form of pacifism between the 1600's and now, and that simply isn't the case. Looking back over the bulk of Christian writing between the 1600's and now, one find that the understanding of the true meaning of the commandment is clear enough.
 
Murder is a legal term that is defined by humans. Murder is a subset of all people killed. That is to say all murder involves killing, but not all killing is murder. I find it odd that God would allow people to decide what is or is not a sin. I am not aware of where murder is defined in the bible, by God. So defining what is or isn't murder falls to man.

I will bring up the same point I brought up in another thread. If the commandment is one shouldn't murder, and not simply one shouldn't kill, than abortion in the U.S. is not a sin, as abortion is legal, and not defined as murder. I know many people feel it should be considered murder, but that is irrelivant to the discussion since it isn't legally murder.

Where is my logic wrong?
 
I think where I see you "going wrong", Ken, is that again we use "murder" and "kill" very interchangably. You're correct in that murder is a legal term, whereas I don't believe kill is. However, we aren't talking legally here, in the sense of jurisprudence. What I'm referring to is simply how we talk to each other.

If I said that "OJ Simpson killed his wife" everyone would know what I was talking about: OJ Simpson took the life of Nicole Brown for a wholly unjustified reason. Yes, I believe OJ murdered Nicole, even if I don't use the word "murder" but rather "kill".

On the other hand, if I said, "John Denver was in an airplane accident and was killed" I wasn't saying that he was murdered, but that he died.

See how language gets a bit confusing.

The Bible does speak of murder and of killing, both justified and unjustified. All unjustified killing of human beings, even if it was the result of careless neglect on the part of another human, was punishable under the Law of Moses. As there is rarely a justifiable reason for killing an unborn baby, abortion falls under the category of murder as the Bible defines it, even if the US court system doesn't define it that way.

Look at the account of David and Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. David, as king, ordered Uriah to the front lines, deliberately put him where the battle would be the most fierce, and Uriah was killed in battle. Now, was Uriah killed or was he murdered? David didn't stick a sword in him, neither did any other Israelite. He died in a war, struck down by an enemy.

However, God always judges the heart and God knew the heart of David and knew that David fully meant for Uriah to die. So, God judged David accordingly. David was guilty of the murder of Uriah, even though he didn't raise a hand against him.

I'm not sure where you are getting that God is allowing man to decide what is or isn't murder. I've read the Bible and know that when one reads through the law of Moses, one gets a very clear picture that the unjustified killing of another human is sin.

If you want, I'll post some texts that deal with the matter.
 
I personaly think that the KJV is the best translation for me. The issue around murder and kill does not cause me to feel unsure about it's translation. The reason for this is that I have 4 different versions of the Bible, my main one being the KJV, and then, I have Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible which helps with reference and translation regarding the Hebrew and Greek languages. I prefer to have the RSV for an easier context to read should I be struggling with the language of the KJV. You can then use a concordance for the original written language, compare, and make your own mind up on what is being spoken of in the scripture..That way, you do not have to rely on one version nor worry about mistranslation.
:study




http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/
 
kenmaynard said:
Exodus 20:1-17

It has been brought up in other threads that the commandment of though salt not kill is a mistranslation, and that it is more properly stated though salt not murder.

To me that is a big difference, and profoundly alters the commandment.

The article I posted about the church burning bibles other than the KJV got me thinking. If the KJV can't even get the 10 commandments right what good is it, and what other major errors are there? Also, how can one claim it is the absolute word of God if there is at least one obvious major mistranslation?
Click to expand...

If we are to say that because of an error in transcript that a bible cannot be accurate or accountable...we might as well say the same of every misprinted book of history as well.
 
coelacanth said:
Oh come on, the KJV has unicorns for crying out loud! :yes
Click to expand...
You're just saying that because you're an anti-unicornite.
 
Kill and murder are two different things. The KJV used the word kill and other versions use the word Murder. but when you put it in perspective. The Laws were given to the Jews. God was telling them not to kill each other as they were his chosen people.
When the punishment given to breaking the laws was death. If God meant not to kill as we understand it then how could the they enforce the law.
This makes it plain to see that the "kill" was referring to Murder as we understand it today.

All this fuss about the KJV is just an attempt to undermine the Bible as a whole. I don't think any version has it totally accurate and when we look at some later versions they have tried to translate it into modern language, again this has caused some of the text to be translated into a more sociably acceptable language, removing reference to gender.

The modern versions are more dangerous due to what I have mentioned above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top