KJV innacurate on Exodus 20:13? [Archive]

Jefferson

01-03-2002, 02:06 PM

The rendering of the sixth commandment in the King James was very unfortunate. "Thou shalt not kill" in recent versions (like the NKJV, NIV, RSV, ASB, NASB, etc.) is accurately translated "You shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13). In Hebrew, as in English, the words for "murder" and "kill" can be used interchangeably, but their different meanings are easily understood from the context.

The Hebrew word for murder (ratsach, which appears in Ex. 20:13) is translated by the King James as murder/murderer 17 times, slayer/slain/slayeth 21 times, kill/killing 6 times, manslayer 2 times, and death once. The Hebrew word for kill (which appears in Ex. 13:15-harag) is translated by the King James as slay/slayer/slain 132 times, as kill 27 times, murder/murderer 3 times, destroyed once, out of hand once, and made/put/surely 3 times.

The Ten Commandments forbid murder, not killing. The chapter following the giving of the Ten Commandments has a number of commands from God to execute criminals, including:

"He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12

"He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:15

"He who kidnaps a man... shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:16

"He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:17

"[If an unborn baby is killed] you shall give life for life." Ex. 21:23

It is not plausible to suppose that God contradicted Himself just a few sentences after delivering the Ten Commandments to Moses. Clearly God prohibited murder but insisted upon execution of murderers and others.

The Sixth Commandment clearly is a prohibition against murder; not an injunction against capital punishment as Ezekiel 13:19 attests: "And will you profane Me among My people...killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live...?"

DocCas

01-04-2002, 06:11 PM

Just a little study would show that the word "kill" as used in 1611 implied a personal agency and/or the use of a weapon. It meant "to commit murder or slaughter."

Oxford English Dictionary, "K" volume, page 692.

Scott J

01-04-2002, 09:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Just a little study would show that the word "kill" as used in 1611 implied a personal agency and/or the use of a weapon. It meant "to commit murder or slaughter."

Oxford English Dictionary, "K" volume, page 692.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This responses would seem to suggest that one of the MV supporter's main contentions holds merit. Namely that the KJV uses antiquated language that needs to be updated. I doubt that very many KJV users could have known your answer nor do they have access to your resources. I would surmise that the average KJVO is not in possession of the dictionary you suggest.

Gina L

01-07-2002, 11:35 AM

Not really. smile.gif When you put someone to death for a crime they committed, do you say they were sentenced to be killed? Just a thought on the difference between killing and carrying out a sentence. If it said murder everyone would still use the same arguments they use now.
da Gina

DocCas

01-07-2002, 01:37 PM

Gina, I think you have put your finger on the problem. No matter what it said, somebody would complain about it! There seem to be people who make an entire life out of nit picking about how various translations of the bible were done. Personally I think it is time they grew up and got a real life! :D

nam4christ

02-21-2002, 05:03 PM

Why is it that certain individuals act like it is a crime to ask someone to use a dictionary when reading or studying their Bible? Correct me if I am wrong but is not that how we learn new things? To the arguement that a person might not have access
to a English dictionary is weak. And yes a revision is possible but where are you going to find someone to faithfully carry out the task? the NKJV is a good example. It was meant to be a revision but it became much more. It got so bad that Dr. Curtis Hutson, long time editor of The Sword Of The Lord, removed himself from the project. It seems what starts as a revision effort becomes a retranslation effort that always finds itself going to the Hebrew based on the Lenningrad manuscript instead of the Masoretic and the Greek text from Wescott-Hort rather than the Received Text. -ALM

Sam

02-21-2002, 05:30 PM

"Thou shalt not kill" means the sheadding of innocinent blood. Like Cain did with Abel.

Sam

02-21-2002, 05:31 PM

"Thou shalt not kill" means the sheadding of innocinent blood. Like Cain did with Abel.

Scott J

02-21-2002, 05:51 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nam4christ:
Why is it that certain individuals act like it is a crime to ask someone to use a dictionary when reading or studying their Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, and why is it that some people act as if it is a crime to try to bring the Bible into current English so that a person does not need a dictionary to study their Bible? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> To the arguement that a person might not have access
to a English dictionary is weak.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed but why should we require a dictionary to read God's Word...it was not that way in the beginning... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And yes a revision is possible but where are you going to find someone to faithfully carry out the task?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it can be established that several of the MV translation committees are far more "fundamental" (the way we understand the term) than the KJV translators were.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Scott J ]

Legacy

02-21-2002, 06:02 PM

....how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

You are correct Cassidy about picking nits or should it be nit picking.

A person is just as dead and for exactly the same length of time whether that person be killed, murdered or slain.

Christ knows the motivation for the taking of a life. It is Christ who will be the final judge of the motivations for taking the life.

TomVols

02-21-2002, 06:26 PM

It is interesting how we have changed what is "death," "Murder," and the like. A person who rips apart an unborn child's skull and vacums it out of the mother's body is not a murderer, but an enlightened doctor performing a valid public service. A soldier who is faithful to his country by defending his life and the life of his fellow countrymen by defeating enemy soldiers is called a murderer. Obviously, there is a difference it the language relating to death and murder. While the MVs are more clear, the KJV is still accurate. It's not a question of good vs. bad, just good vs. better :cool:

sjd

02-21-2002, 09:11 PM

I am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar. However, I can read an English dictionary. I looked up the word "kill" in three commonly used dictionaries They were American Heritage (4th edition), Merriam Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com) , and Encarta (http://dictionary.msn.com). All three gave virtually the same definition for the word "kill": to put to death, to cause the death of a human being. Merriam Webster and Encarta both give a list of synonyms which include murder but distinguish between murder and killing. For example from Encarta:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
kill a general word used to talk about causing the death of a person or animal; murder to take the life of another person in an intentional and often premeditated way that constitutes a serious criminal act; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

or from Merriam Webster:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
KILL merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner (killed in an accident) (frost killed the plants). SLAY is a chiefly literary term implying deliberateness and violence but not necessarily motive (slew thousands of the Philistines). MURDER specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility (convicted of murdering a rival).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is not to get into a discussion about the specifics about the definitions. It's all fine and good to say that people should use dictionaries during Bible study (no argument whatever) It makes no sense though when the dictionary doesn't give the answer that we expect. Whatever the semantics of the word was in 1611 is not what the dictionary is giving today.

Steve

DocCas

02-21-2002, 10:10 PM

Cut rate dictionaries produce cut rate theology. Try a comprehensive dictionary such as the Oxford English Dictionary. It is available online and at any good library.

ChristianCynic

02-21-2002, 10:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Legacy:
....how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A hairpin, a cotter pin, a rolling pin, or a bowling pin?

The waltz, the hula, the twist, or the jitterbug?

TomVols

02-22-2002, 01:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Cut rate dictionaries produce cut rate theology. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You get your theology from the Oxford Dictionary? This coupled with your conversion at the hands of the RSV, and I'm starting to get concerned about you :D

Seriously, this is the first time I've ever heard Webster's implied to be a cut-rate dictionary.

Chris Temple

02-22-2002, 09:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by nam4christ:
Why is it that certain individuals act like it is a crime to ask someone to use a dictionary when reading or studying their Bible? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is it that Tyndale said I will have it that the plowboy will know more of the Bible than the priest? Was he planning on handing out pocket OEDs to farmhands?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the NKJV is a good example. It was meant to be a revision but it became much more. It got so bad that Dr. Curtis Hutson, long time editor of The Sword Of The Lord, removed himself from the project. It seems what starts as a revision effort becomes a retranslation effort that always finds itself going to the Hebrew based on the Lenningrad manuscript instead of the Masoretic and the Greek text from Wescott-Hort rather than the Received Text. -ALM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is not true. The NKJV is based upon the very same texts as the KJV. See the NKJV preface.

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Temple ]

DocCas

02-22-2002, 05:27 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Seriously, this is the first time I've ever heard Webster's implied to be a cut-rate dictionary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>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? smile.gif

DocCas

02-22-2002, 05:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Why is it that Tyndale said I will have it that the plowboy will know more of the Bible than the priest? Was he planning on handing out pocket OEDs to farmhands?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, he was giving the people the bible in their own language. Up until this time, with the exception of Wycliff's work, which was never published to any great extent, and was in Middle English, the only bibles available were either the Middle English of Wycliff, or the Latin of the Vulgate, or the Greek MSS. Tyndale was simply giving English speaking people the bible in English. smile.gif <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This is not true. The NKJV is based upon the very same texts as the KJV. See the NKJV preface.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, somewhat true. The NKJV OT is based on BHS (Ben Asher text) while the KJV is based on Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible (Ben Chayyim text). However, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) differs from the Ben Chayyim text, (Bomberg) in only eight places that would affect translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12. smile.gif

As to the NT, the KJV was based on Stephens TR of 1551 as modified by Beza's edition of 1598, plus several other sources, including the Latin Vulgate. The NKJV is based on the 1894 TR of Scrivener, which is an eclectic TR that looked for, and found (in all but a half dozen instances) the Greek text underlying the KJV and edited it into one Greek text. (Don't tell anyone I said the KJV is based on an eclectic text!) :D

[ February 22, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

sjd

02-22-2002, 07:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Cut rate dictionaries produce cut rate theology. Try a comprehensive dictionary such as the Oxford English Dictionary. It is available online and at any good library.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, the OED is considered the premier dictionary. For those who may be unfamiliar with the OED, it is considered the premier English language dictionary. The dictionary gives the user not just definitions but word history and usage as well. The OED is available online for a hefty subscription fee.

My contention is that the average person reading their Bible probably would not know of the OED. If they did know about the OED and had access to it, the average person also wouldn't use the OED for looking up a relatively common word like "kill". The average person would grab for the dictionary that was on their desk or possibly on line. Merriam Webster and American Heritage are two of the most popular dictionaries. The key word here is average. What a person who may be more versed in Bible study might do would probably be more extensive.

Finally, a word like "kill" can be deceptive in that over a period of time the meaning shifts ever so slightly. Although under most circumstances the nuanced meaning isn't all that different from the previous, it can make a big difference when applied Biblically.

Steve

sjd

02-22-2002, 07:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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? smile.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comprehensive, definitely. :eek: However, the vast majority of OED's extra heft is not in additional definitions, but rather word etymology and examples of use. Useful, but of questionable value when one needs a simple definition. smile.gif

TomVols

02-22-2002, 08:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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? smile.gif<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!!! :eek:

DocCas

02-22-2002, 08:53 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Anyway, how did we get off on this!!! :eek:<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! :D

cobra74

02-22-2002, 10:17 PM

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 (http://www.centralbaptistweb.org)

tericl2

02-24-2002, 03:49 AM

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

sjd

02-24-2002, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by tericl2:

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 killingI 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 ]

DocCas

02-24-2002, 12:56 PM

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. smile.gif

TomVols

02-24-2002, 03:20 PM

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.

Chris Temple

02-24-2002, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
"study to show ourselves approved unto God." smile.gif Don't you mean "Study to shew thyself approved unto God" (KJV) :D

DocCas

02-24-2002, 08:56 PM

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). :D

sjd

02-24-2002, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
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. smile.gif Dr. Cassidy- I am not in disagreement with using a dictionary, concordance, and a commentary or two or three smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif 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

sjd

02-24-2002, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by TomVols:
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.Didn't realize that 1611 was part of the Biblical era... smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

Steve

DocCas

02-24-2002, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by sjd:
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.
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. smile.gif

Scott J

02-24-2002, 11:04 PM

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?

DocCas

02-25-2002, 12:01 AM

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.

Chris Temple

02-25-2002, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Just goes to show you can teach an old dog new tricks (unless they are amillenial, of course). :D Hey, that was a shot, wasn't it? :confused: ;)

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;

Chris Temple

02-25-2002, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
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.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]

:D ;)

TomVols

02-25-2002, 11:20 AM

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

Scott J

02-25-2002, 12:14 PM

DocCas

02-25-2002, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Hey, that was a shot, wasn't it? ;) Who? Me? Take a cheap shot at you? Well, I never! :D But isn't the very verse in question erroneously translated?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. smile.gif

Chris Temple

02-25-2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
smile.gif[/img] 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! :eek: :D

DocCas

02-25-2002, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
Study defnitely meant nothing to me in Jr. High! :eek: :D See! See! My position is completely vindicated! :D :D

sjd

02-25-2002, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
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.Where have I run down any version of the Bible? I just stated that I felt that the word "murder" was a better translation for today than "kill". I don't think that's "running down" a Bible.

You mention your expertise in Hebrew.Actually, I said that I knew little about Greek or Hebrew (ref: my first post in this thread). I know enough about the languages to know that Greek (in particular) is more precise than English.

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." But in each example you do have context to help define the word. With the commandments you don't. All the more reason to be exacting with the translation.

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! Don't you think that's a little too melodramatic? :rolleyes: I'm not proposing anything that hasn't been translated by others.As a matter of fact translations are pretty much split 50/50 on "kill" and "murder" . I'm hardly questioning the Virgin Birth. smile.gif

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. smile.gif 1- "Kill" has shifted meaning by your own quote:

Just a little study would show that the word "kill" as used in 1611 implied a personal agency and/or the use of a weapon. It meant "to commit murder or slaughter." To me that means that the word has shift towards a less specific use.

2- I am not suggesting that the usage isn't legitimate, just a little imprecise.

Steve