Featured What does this scripture mean and how do you interpret it?

Context is a great thing when it comes to root of all evil, the context is that it is about false prophets. Also i fail to see the issue with exodus 20:13

 

It should be noted that ALL the versions, including the NKJV, NIV, ESV, and NASB, translate this same Hebrew word as " TO KILL" in other passages. One such example is found in Numbers 35:27. Throughout this chapter the same word found in Exodus 20:13, is used 16 times and variously translated as "kill, slayer, manslayer, murderer, and put to death."

Regarding Exodus 20:13, not only does the King James Bible read "Thou shalt not kill" but so also do Tyndale 1534 (he translated Exodus before his death), Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540 - "Thou shalt not kyll.", Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's translation 1833, the Brenton Bible 1851, Lesser Bible 1853, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Catholic Douay 1950, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, Darby 1890, the American Standard Version 1901, the Revised Standard Version 1952, Lamsa's 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "You shall not KILL.", the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the New Life Bible 1969, the Updated Bible Version 2003 - "You shall not kill.", the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Green's Modern KJV 1998, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, The Complete Apostle's Bible by Paul Espositio 2005 - "You shall not kill.", the Context Group Version 2007, the Heritage Bible 2003 and the brand new critical text Common English Bible of 2011 - "Do not kill."
The most common form of the so called Greek Septuagint in print - The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha with an English Translation, Zondervan Publishing House, Published by special arrangement with Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd. London, Fourth Zondervan printing 1977 says in Greek ou Phoneuseis and then translates it as "Thou shalt not KILL."

Among foreign language Bibles that also say "Thou shalt not KILL" are , the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 - "no matarás", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Tu ne tueras point.", the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991 and the 2006 Nuova Riveduta - "Non uccidere.", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Du sollst nicht töten." and the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada (Modern Almeida), A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the 2000 O Livro - "Não matarás."

 

Personally, as with so many renderings, I do not have a problem with either "kill" or "murder." Both are a proper translation of the Hebrew word "raw-tsakh" and have to do with putting another person to death. The King James Version translates this word as "kill" (Exod. 20:13 and Deut. 5:17) and as "murder" (Jer. 7:9 and Hos. 6:9). The two are used synonymously in English and the Scripture. For example, if a man shoots another man in front of a witness, the witness may say, "You killed him." That is true, but he will be charged with murder. Common sense and our English dictionaries demonstrate that these two words mean the same thing.

 

Both the 1828 and 1975 Webster Dictionaries inform us that the word "kill" means, "to deprive of life." The word "murder" means, "the crime of unlawfully killing a person." Both can be used interchangeably, in that it is impossible to murder a person without killing them. However, there are those who still object to the phrase, "thou shalt not kill" insisting that it must be "you shall not murder." Therefore, so they state, modern versions have clarified the difference for us. But have they really?

The English word "kill" means to deprive of life. The word "murder" means to unlawfully kill a person." Therefore, by English definitions, the word murder involves an unlawful act. However, if it is lawful it would not be murder to deprive someone of life. With this in mind, I certainly think the phrase "thou shalt not kill" is much better. For this simple reason, abortion is the law of the land. It is not illegal for a doctor to deprive a living child of its life if the mother consents to this act. I can almost hear the liberal theologian justifying abortion on the grounds that it is not murder because it is not unlawful. The same may be said of euthanasia. While it is not the law of our land yet, it is the law of the land in many countries and it not an unlawful act in those nations. Nevertheless, both acts deprive a living being of their life. Both acts KILL. With this in mind, which do you think is really the better translation?

 

If, as the KJB critics affirm, there is a distinct difference between "to kill" and "to murder", they are contradicted by the very versions they promote. Other words are also translated as both "to kill" and "to murder", and often when describing the clear act of what we would call "murder", the NKJV, NIV, NASB use the word "to kill".

The Hebrew word 'harag' # 2026, is translated by all these versions as both to kill and to murder, showing them to be synonymous terms. Notice these few examples of the many that could be given.

Genesis 4:8 "And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and SLEW him." NASB, NIV, NKJV - "KILLED him". See also Genesis 4:23, 25.

Genesis 27:41 "And Esau hated Jacob because of the blessing wherewith his father blessed him: and Esau said in his heart, The days of mourning for my father are at hand: then will I SLAY my brother Jacob." NASB, NIV, NKJV - "I will KILL my brother Jacob."

Genesis 34:25-26 This incident occurred when Shechem the Hivite had taken Dinah, the sister of the sons of Jacob, and lay with her. He then wanted to take her as his wife and the sons of Jacob lied to the people, saying they would join them if they were circumcised. "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, (after being circumcised, and were defenseless), that the two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and SLEW all the males. And they SLEW Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out." NKJV, NIV, NASB - "KILLED all the males", "KILLED Hamor and Shechem".

Genesis 37:20 Here the brothers of Joseph envied him and wanted to kill him. Another clear case of what we would call "murder". "Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now therefore, and let us SLAY him, and cast him into some pit, and we will say, Some evil beast hath devoured him; and we shall see what will become of his dreams." NIV, NASB, NKJV - "let us KILL him".

Exodus 21:14 "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, TO SLAY him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die." NKJV, NIV, NASB - "KILL HIM".

In addition to this, we have the Bible itself to read as a whole to get the mind of God on any particular subject. The Bible tells us "thou shalt not kill" but we also see the intent of this commandment by reading other portions of the Bible and comparing Scripture with Scripture. In Deuteronomy 19:4-6 we read: "Whoso KILLETH his neighbour IGNORANTLY, whom he hated not in time past, as when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down a tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die...he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past." So we see there is a difference between killing someone and killing someone accidentally. Just use some God given common sense.

Numbers 35:30 " Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.


Numbers 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death."

Notice that scripture defined what sort of killing God forbids.

"Who so killeth any person, THE MURDERER SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH..."

 

how many evils are included in the phrase "ALL kinds" or "ALL sorts of evil"? Well, it seems obvious that this would include ALL kinds of evil, not "many kinds" or "lots of different sorts", or "various types of evil". If you going to criticize the King James reading because the literal meaning doesn't make sense to you, then to be fair, we would have to conclude that neither does the literal sense of your favorite versions. "All kinds of evil" still means ALL evil, and your modern versions are right back to meaning the very thing you criticized. How can the love of money be A root (and there necessarily must be other roots too that do the same thing) of ALL kinds of evil? This would also include the fall of man, rape, hatred, pride, and sexual lust.

ALL EVIL is not referring to every kind of evil or sin but rather to a state of evil without mixture of any good. The word evil here denotes the consequences of sin, like unrest of the soul, a guilty conscience, a lack of contentment and other calamities both internal and external.

Notice the context: v.2 "And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren: but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. THESE THINGS TEACH AND EXHORT. 3 If any man TEACH OTHERWISE, and consent not to the wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, AND TO THE DOCTRINE WHICH IS ACCORDING TO GODLINESS; 4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, surmisings. 5 PERVERSE DISPUTINGS of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, SUPPOSING THAT GAIN IS GODLINESS:from such withdraw thyself. 6 But GODLINESS WITH CONTENTMENT is GREAT GAIN. 7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. 8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. 9 But they that be rich FALL INTO TEMPTATION and snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. 10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, THEY HAVE ERRED FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."

The context is clear...it's about teaching false doctrines for monetary gain.

This person falls into a state of 'all evil' with no mixture of anything good in his life. He is drowned in destruction and perdition by many foolish and hurtful lusts. He is pierced through with many sorrows. There is no consciousness of anything good in this persons life and all he feels and experiences is a state of evil. The immediate context of 1 Timothy 6 is that of a Christian's attitude toward money, and in this context the root of all evil is the love of money. It is not speaking about the origin of sins in general.

Compare the following verses to see that the phrase 'all evil' does not refer to every imaginable form of evil or sin, but rather to a state of being which consists of unmixed evil.

In Joshua 23:15 Joshua tells the children of Israel: "Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all good things are come upon you, which the LORD your God promised you; so shall the LORD bring upon you ALL EVIL THINGS, until he have destroyed you from off this good land which the LORD your God hath given you."

Likewise in Proverbs 5:14 "I was almost in ALL EVIL in the midst of the congregation and assembly." And in Genesis 48:16 Jacob testifies: "The Angel which redeemed me from ALL EVIL, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them."

In James 3:16 we are told: "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work." Are we to conclude from this verse that where there is envy and strife, there also exist the fall of man, rape, incest, greed and murder? No, rather the presence of these two sins contaminate and affect everything else going on around them, and result in a state of evil.

The experience of most Christians is living in a state of blessings of good along with the presence of evil or difficulties in our lives. But the Christian who pursues the love of money will soon find himself in a state of only evil, sorrows and hurtful lusts and will lose the sense of God's presence and approval in his life. He has erred from the faith. I understand this to be the true sense of the passage as is found in the King James Bible, and many others as well.

Apparently even back in the days of John Calvin some were criticizing the reading of "the root of all evil". John Calvin translated it as it stands in the King James Bible and then makes these comments: "For the root of all evils is avarice" There is no necessity for being too scrupulous in comparing other vices with this. It is certain that ambition and pride often produce worse fruits than covetousness does; and yet ambition does not proceed from covetousness. The same thing may be said of the sins forbidden by the seventh commandment. But Paul’s intention was not to include under covetousness every kind of vices that can be named. What then? He simply meant, that innumerable evils arise from it; just as we are in the habit of saying, when we speak of discord, or gluttony, or drunkenness, or any other vice of that kind, that there is no evil which it does not produce. And, indeed, we may most truly affirm, as to the base desire of gain, that there is no kind of evils that is not copiously produced by it every day; such as innumerable frauds, falsehoods, perjury, cheating, robbery, cruelty, corruption in judicature, quarrels, hatred, poisonings, murders; and, in short, almost every sort of crime. Statements of this nature occur everywhere in heathen writers; and, therefore, it is improper that those persons who would applaud Horace or Ovid, when speaking in that manner, should complain of Paul as having used extravagant language."