KJV innacurate on Exodus 20:13?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Think about it for a minute, Tom. How can a small, one volume, desk top dictionary be as comprehensive as a 16 volume gigantic tome such as the OED? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not denying that OED has more than Webster's, but it's not like Webster's isn't highly usable and widely accepted. Anyway, how did we get off on this!!!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Anyway, how did we get off on this!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The usual way! After all, this is the Baptist Board! Remember the old adage, where there are two baptists you will find three opinions!

 

I don't know...call me simple but I had no trouble figuring out what my KJV meant when I read "Thou shalt not kill."

And I'll admit that I had trouble reading the KJV for years (and tried just about every other version out there) until I started earnestly praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance when reading my bible.

Now, it's a piece of cake and extremely easy to disern what is what. If you want to read another version, go ahead. I've got no problem with that. But I'll just keep my old "non-modern" KJV just the same...

cobra74
Central Baptist Church of Amarillo, Texas

 

You looked up the definition of kill. Okay. Now here is the definition of murder and kill from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

Murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

KILL
1 : to deprive one of life

While killing is definitely a part of murder, murder is not necessarily in the act of killing

 

I think this is the heart of the matter. If the word "KILL" is taken in it's modern meaning, then the implication is that any death by personal agency is against the Ten Commandments. This isn't so, since murder requires malice. Hence, the verses in Matthew 5 that speak to the state of the heart as opposed to just actions.

Steve

[ February 24, 2002, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: sjd ]

 

sjd, you have put your finger on the problem. If we understand the bible using only what we think the words mean, we will be in trouble. However, if we research it a bit, and find out what the words in question really mean, we will have no trouble with the KJV or any other version. It is only when we arrogantly assume we "know it all" and refuse to look up words in a good, comprehensive dictionary that we get into trouble. We seem to have forgotten that we are to "study to show ourselves approved unto God." We should not read the bible the same way we read the sunday funny papers, but reverently, studiously, and seriously.

 

Good point. And we have to look at the word meanings and usage at the time of writing. We cannot assume that the Biblical era usage of a word is exactly akin to our usage.

 

Don't you mean "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" (KJV)

 

I once got into a discussion with a radical KJVO regarding the word "shew." He was visiting our church and when I read this word I pronounced it "show." After the service he came running up to me and asked me what perversion of the bible I was reading from. I told him KJV. He told me I was a liar, for the KJV says "shoe" (pronounciation, not spelling) not "show." I asked him "Does your wife sew?" He said "yes." I said, "Can you spell 'sew'?" He did. I said, "Now put an 'h' in it and say it again!" He then looked at me funny and said "You mean it really is pronounced "show" and not "shoe?" Just goes to show you can teach an old dog new tricks (unless they are amillenial, of course).

 

Dr. Cassidy- I am not in disagreement with using a dictionary, concordance, and a commentary or two or three with my Bible study.

English is an imprecise language in comparison to Greek and Hebrew. The closer we can get to the original, the better. I'm sure that we're all in agreement that the intent of the sixth commandment was to prohibit malicious, willful, premeditated taking of life of one human by another. If that's the case the English word that fits that definition is "murder" not "kill". Whatever the definition of "kill" was in 1611, it has changed. I really don't understand why people who wish to be as accurate as possible in translation would accept what has become an imprecise word.

Steve

 

Didn't realize that 1611 was part of the Biblical era...

Steve

 

And I really don't understand people who spend the majority of their time running down the bible of choice of a significant portion of Christiandom, and assuming their understanding is better than anyone elses. You mention your expertise in Hebrew. I am sure you know there are numerous words in Hebrew which can (and are) legitimately translated as "kill." They would include harag, zabach, chalal, tabach, muth, nakah, naqaph, qatal, and, of corse, ratsach, which is used in Exodus 20:13, and shachat. All of these Hebrew words can be legitimately translated as "kill" and are in many English bibles. The KJV translates this word "kill" in the above passage, as well as in Numbers 35:27, Deuteronomy 4:42 and 5:7, 1 Kings 21:19, and Hosea 4:2. Each time the context gives us some indication of what is meant by the word ratsach which means "to pierce." To try to pick one usage of this word apart in the KJV is to do injustice not only to that version but to the ERV, ASV, RSV, not to mention Wycliff, Tyndale, Geneva, and all of the other pre KJV bibles! I am sure you don't believe all of the men who did those great versions to have been idiots, nor has the language changed so much that "kill" means something entirely different than it did in 1382, 1525, 1560, 1611, 1881, 1901, and 1946! There is nothing wrong with the word "kill." It is a legitimately rendering into English of the Hebrew word ratsach.

 

Dr. Cassidy, If you wanted to accurately communicate to your congregation today in one word the concept that is expressed by this Hebrew word, what word would you use?

 

I would do what every good preacher does, "So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." Nehemiah 8:8. What I wouldn't do is cause the people to doubt the word of God or doubt their soul competency or to doubt their ability to understand it. I believe it is a sin run down the bible and tell people they can't trust what it says.

 

Hey, that was a shot, wasn't it?

But isn't the very verse in question erroneously translated?

2 Timothy 2:15 (AV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 (ASV) Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 (NKJV) Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 (RSV) Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
2 Timothy 2:15 (YLT) be diligent to present thyself approved to God—a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth;

 

C.H. Spurgeon:

"Believers in verbal inspiration should be studiously careful to be verbally correct. The gentlemen who see errors in Scripture may think themselves competent to amend the language of the Lord of hosts; but we who believe God, and accept the very words He uses, may not make so presumptuous an attempt. Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it will be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version [The KJV] fails to give the sense. [Greatest Fight in the World book pg. 23]

"Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work taking it for all in all, and it is unwise to be making every old lady distrust the only Bible she can get at, or what is more likely, mistrust you for falling out with her cherished treasure. Correct where correction must be for truth's sake, but never for the vainglorious display of your critical ability. [Commenting and Commentaries from Lectures To My Students pg. 31]

"...Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorized Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, & an accurate interpretation of the Old/New Testaments. For many years Baptists have insisted upon it that we ought to have the Word of God translated in the best possible manner, whether it would comfirm certain religious opinions and practices, or work against them. All we want is the exact mind of the Spirit, as far as we can get it. Beyond all other Christians we are concerned in this, seeing we have not other sacred book; we have no prayer book or binding creek, or authoritative minutes of conference — we have nothing but the Bible — and we would have that as pure as ever we can get it. By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, that so the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand. [from Heart-Disease Curable MTP Vol 27, Year 1881, pgs. 341, 342-3, Isaiah 61:1]

 

Chris,
AMEN & AMEN! Well said and worth saying. Course you didn't say that, Spurgeon did.

 

Dr. Cassidy, I am not trying to be antagonistic but you didn't answer the question I was asking. I will re-phrase it: What is the best word for translating the scripture in question from Hebrew into the vernacular of the average American reader? Kill, murder, or something else?

 

Who? Me? Take a cheap shot at you? Well, I never!

Only if you don't know what "study" means. But a good dictionary would help you realize that "study" means more than what you did in Junior High School.

 

In Jr. High I cut classes half the year - until they caught me fishing down by the canal. Study defnitely meant nothing to me in Jr. High!