How wrong is the KJV

[Free]

This isn't at all about undermining the Bible or the KJV. The problem is that if "kill" in this instance is akin to "murder," then it should read "murder" so as to avoid confusion. What we have to remember is that "kill" was the word chosen by the translators--and that at a time when "murder" was a word--and may not be at all what the Hebrew writer meant. If it really means "murder" then the translators of the KJV were wrong in choosing to translate it as "kill".

 

[LostSoul]

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.

Amen

 

[LostSoul]

This isn't at all about undermining the Bible or the KJV. The problem is that if "kill" in this instance is akin to "murder," then it should read "murder" so as to avoid confusion. What we have to remember is that "kill" was the word chosen by the translators--and that at a time when "murder" was a word--and may not be at all what the Hebrew writer meant. If it really means "murder" then the translators of the KJV were wrong in choosing to translate it as "kill".

If we are going to fuss over this one word...why not find another phrase we are not happy with the wording of and pick at it too? Please....come on people. If we are to knit pick at the written word of God we might as well take a few steps up and start telling God how He should be doing His job....
This is getting old very fast.

Murder...kill...both require the taking of a life. Perhaps that was the point in general was not to go taking life.

 

[Free]

I will add that certain references to gender are okay to have changed since the context and usage makes it clear that it is actually an inclusive word. For example, many uses of "mankind" are changed to "humankind" simply because "mankind" does refer to everyone, not just men.

Having said that, there are obvious times when a specific gender is in view and those references should not be changed. For example, God is spoken of as our Father, not Mother nor some gender neutral reference, and that should never be changed.

If we are going to fuss over this one word...why not find another phrase we are not happy with the wording of and pick at it too? Please....come on people. If we are to knit pick at the written word of God we might as well take a few steps up and start telling God how He should be doing His job....
This is getting old very fast.

Murder...kill...both require the taking of a life. Perhaps that was the point in general was not to go taking life.

But the fact remains that doctrines are formed around whether this word is "kill" or "murder". Language needs to be specific so that one can come to the truth of a matter. This is precisely why medical doctors, philosophers, theologians, etc., all use such crazy, big words. They need to be very precise and clear as to what it is they are talking about so as to leave as little doubt and ambiguity as possible.

 

[LostSoul]

I will add that certain references to gender are okay to have changed since the context and usage makes it clear that it is actually an inclusive word. For example, many uses of "mankind" are changed to "humankind" simply because "mankind" does refer to everyone, not just men.

Having said that, there are obvious times when a specific gender is in view and those references should not be changed. For example, God is spoken of as our Father, not Mother nor some gender neutral reference, and that should never be changed.

If we are going to fuss over this one word...why not find another phrase we are not happy with the wording of and pick at it too? Please....come on people. If we are to knit pick at the written word of God we might as well take a few steps up and start telling God how He should be doing His job....
This is getting old very fast.

Murder...kill...both require the taking of a life. Perhaps that was the point in general was not to go taking life.

But the fact remains that doctrines are formed around whether this word is "kill" or "murder". Language needs to be specific so that one can come to the truth of a matter. This is precisely why medical doctors, philosophers, theologians, etc., all use such crazy, big words. They need to be very precise and clear as to what it is they are talking about so as to leave as little doubt and ambiguity as possible.

Do not think it is a matter of wording. It is a matter of looking to God. Not solely our own interpretation of His word. Wording has nothing to do with it.

 

[Ed the Ned]

This isn't at all about undermining the Bible or the KJV. The problem is that if "kill" in this instance is akin to "murder," then it should read "murder" so as to avoid confusion. What we have to remember is that "kill" was the word chosen by the translators--and that at a time when "murder" was a word--and may not be at all what the Hebrew writer meant. If it really means "murder" then the translators of the KJV were wrong in choosing to translate it as "kill".

- Free

If you don't like the KJV then read another version as long as you know and have committed yourself to Jesus.
In saying this it is important to remember that later versions tend to socialize the gospel, making it acceptable to different sexual orientations etc. I read different versions and really don't understand what the fuss is about in this thread. Unless you want to travel back in time and scold the translators for not being as accurate as you would want them to be.

 

[Free]

I don't understand why some can't see the importance of this. I read many different versions but the fact remains that some people only read the KJV and understand "Thou shalt not kill" to mean that we ought not ever kill under any circumstance. Language is of central importance since that is how we communicate with each other and how God communicates with us.

Yes, we need to look to God, no one is saying that we shouldn't, but if it were that simple, there shouldn't be any disagreement on any doctrine. And obviously that is not the case. God has communicated to us through the written Word and so we need to strive to understand what it is he is communicating and that involves proper use of language.

Denominations and schisms happen due, in large part, to the meaning of certain words and phrases. If those words are not correct to begin with, then at least some of the bickering is pointless and could be done away with.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Free, I understand your concerns and yes things would be so much easier if translations were perfect, but unfortunately we are Human and we make errors. Even strong Christians are still sinners and many have been deceived and have succumb to temptations. Just look at how Jesus taught us to pray with the Lord Prayer. It is frustrating and can create all sorts of disagreements. I always try and put it in context to what is written around it. If people read it as thou shalt not kill as in kill, it can only be better, not worse. Understanding Gods word is very important, our actions should be based on his word. (easier said than done)

 

[Free]

I am not at all saying that translations need to be perfect, since that is impossible. However, where there is something that is obviously an error, it needs to be corrected. They should at least strive to be as accurate as possible.

If people read it as thou shalt not kill as in kill, it can only be better, not worse.

I am not sure how that can only be better. Do you ever wonder where the world would be today if all the Christians in WW1 and WW2 believed that it was wrong to kill in every circumstance?

 

[LostSoul]

I am not at all saying that translations need to be perfect, since that is impossible. However, where there is something that is obviously an error, it needs to be corrected. They should at least strive to be as accurate as possible.

If people read it as thou shalt not kill as in kill, it can only be better, not worse.

I am not sure how that can only be better. Do you ever wonder where the world would be today if all the Christians in WW1 and WW2 believed that it was wrong to kill in every circumstance?

This is where I think people blow this out of proportion. For in saying this...or believing this one cannot believe the full context of the bible or perhaps feel the bible contradicts itself. For it is also written that there is a time for war and a time for peace. War is not something commonly practiced without bloodshed.

 

[shad]

[since that For it is also written that there is a time for war and a time for peace.

I hope you are not using this verse to justify Christians joining the military because Jesus clearly says to "love your enemy". If we love our enemy, we won't wage war against them.

.

 

[Ed the Ned]

Shad I don't even think we should take this thread in that direction. It is about the definition of Kill and Murder in relation to the KJV. Free has valid points and Lostlamb in my view was correct in her comment about war. If you wish to live in a country being protected by unbelievers against your enemies then don't be shocked when they take away your right to worship. If as Christians we determine that we shalt not Kill, then why would I protect my family. If I am put in a position where I have to kill to protect my family, I will. It wont be murder and I will not deem it a sin.
I have already had one of my extended family members, brutally raped and left for dead.

 

[LostSoul]

[since that For it is also written that there is a time for war and a time for peace.

I hope you are not using this verse to justify Christians joining the military because Jesus clearly says to "love your enemy". If we love our enemy, we won't wage war against them.

.

Where did I say killing or murdering was okay? I do so wish people would quit twisting my words around. Seriously.

In addition if we are to pick and pry at every living soul that drew up arms to protect family, friends, nation, country, kingdom, even faith...we would find a great deal of our own BIBLICAL heroes at fault for the same thing that you are getting riled up about. Not to say in the least that those actions were the most loving. Yet, as I indicated before...there is a time...reason....place, and even season to everything under Heaven. Right or wrong. After all...was it not David who kiled Goliath for making fun of God and was still a man after God's heart?

Here is a question for you, why are we so darn judgemental of one another over a point of view...?

Yes, to kill is wrong. To inflict harm on an enemy is not right. However, even the evil in this world serves a purpose. Otherwise scripture would not say so. If you want to claim I am wrong in that, fine. I am not going to argue when there is clearly going to be no agreeing.

 

[Steve76]

Apart from the KJV being the closest authentic translation which may or may not have translation errors, it is so much more grounded in the original scriptures than any of the modern versions, especially the NIV which has had 64,000 words taken out! Try reading - 1 John 5v7 in the NIV for instance, where the very important statement of the 'God-head' is mentioned (it is not there!). Modern Bibles are dangerous and as stated earlier they are diluted and God's word becomes perverted to conform to society.
KJV with mistakes or not is still by far the closest you are going to get to true scripture unless you want to learn Hebrew and Greek.



http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[Free]

Let's not turn this into a debate about different versions. There are other threads around somewhere where that can be done. Besides, you shouldn't believe everything you read about newer versions and the KJV.

 

[shad]

Where did I say killing or murdering was okay? I do so wish people would quit twisting my words around. Seriously.

In addition if we are to pick and pry at every living soul that drew up arms to protect family, friends, nation, country, kingdom, even faith...we would find a great deal of our own BIBLICAL heroes at fault for the same thing that you are getting riled up about. Not to say in the least that those actions were the most loving. Yet, as I indicated before...there is a time...reason....place, and even season to everything under Heaven. Right or wrong. After all...was it not David who kiled Goliath for making fun of God and was still a man after God's heart?

Here is a question for you, why are we so darn judgemental of one another over a point of view...?

Yes, to kill is wrong. To inflict harm on an enemy is not right. However, even the evil in this world serves a purpose. Otherwise scripture would not say so. If you want to claim I am wrong in that, fine. I am not going to argue when there is clearly going to be no agreeing.

I would like to discuss this but I believe we have to have our own thread because it is off topic.

I will title it "Lostlamb".

.

 

[Steve76]

Let's not turn this into a debate about different versions. There are other threads around somewhere where that can be done. Besides, you shouldn't believe everything you read about newer versions and the KJV.

I am guessing that you use the NIV? That is your choice, but how can you dismiss the fact that 64,000 words have been removed. I believe it because it is quite simple, as the verses are not there..

This topic is about the KJV and if I am allowed then I can compare authenticity. The fact still stands that the KJV is by far the most authentic version whether there are mistakes in it or not. I use 'Strong's exhaustive concordance' to translate from Hebrew and Greek, and when a modern Bible that so many are using has taken out 32 scriptures inspired by God, it is worrying.

How wrong is the KJV? Not as wrong as modern versions..




http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[turnorburn]

I'm with Vic on this one..

 

[Free]

Let's not turn this into a debate about different versions. There are other threads around somewhere where that can be done. Besides, you shouldn't believe everything you read about newer versions and the KJV.

I am guessing that you use the NIV? That is your choice, but how can you dismiss the fact that 64,000 words have been removed. I believe it because it is quite simple, as the verses are not there..

This topic is about the KJV and if I am allowed then I can compare authenticity. The fact still stands that the KJV is by far the most authentic version whether there are mistakes in it or not. I use 'Strong's exhaustive concordance' to translate from Hebrew and Greek, and when a modern Bible that so many are using has taken out 32 scriptures inspired by God, it is worrying.

How wrong is the KJV? Not as wrong as modern versions..

Again, this topic is not about different versions. This is about how a mistranslation, or poor translation, of a word affects theology and the trustworthiness of the KJV.

If you want to discuss different translations, there are plenty of other topics buried around here that can be brought back to life. In them you will find answers to the fallacies in your argument.

 

[Steve76]

Ok, no problem and thanks..
;)





http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/