KJV translation problem?

The fact that these all agree is merely a distraction and diversion to the whole of the issue. The above post makes no attempt to disprove the assertion of inconsistency of translation by the KJV in this thread. The above post does not dispel the notion that the AV men arrived at their inconsistent rendering by following the Latin rather than the Greek TR. The above post does not deny that this inconsistency causes apparent contradictions in the KJV text. It only serves to show that the KJV is joined by many other translations of this rendering at this single verse.

It is almost surprising that an appeal has been made to other admittedly imperfect versions for some kind of support or proof. It is my thought that truth cannot be discovered or be determined simply by consensus.

 

Was it "the truth of the original" that permitted the AV men to revise Deuteronomy 5:17 to "kill" ("slay" in the Bishops' Bible)?

The KJV translators made many changes from the Bishops' Bible that cannot be justified by "the truth of the original". The fact is that the king's revisers could have made all the references of the Sixth Commandment read "murder" if that had been their persuasion; but it is clear that they were convinced that phoneuo should be represented in English by "kill", and therefore for consistency it should have also been "kill" at Matthew 19:18.

Yes! Last time I checked, that was pretty much the ideal definition for literal (formal) translation.

Please, make your case for how the context of Matthew 19:18 is appropriately different than Mark 10:19 & Luke 18:20 (or even from Romans 13:9 & James 2:11).

 

I quote A.F. from Post #6 of this thread above.

It doesn't matter than I changed "killing" to "murdering", does it?

(no offense intended, just a demonstration)

 

On the contrary my friend, it is precisely the lack of context that makes it a fitting example for this discussion.

 

OK. I am not going to try to draw you back into the discussion; I am not here to declare victories.

 

The key question in the OP was: What justification can be offered for the KJV rendering of "murder" in the context of quotation of the OT's Sixth Commandment?

Initially an objection was raised that the criticism of "murder" in Matthew 19:18 was out of context. While "murder" might be acceptable in the immediate context of this passage, my response was that it is not an acceptable rendering in the general context of all Sixth Commandment articulations in the KJV text (which have "kill"). Therefore, this topic is not a criticism of "murder" per se, but a criticism of the overall resulting text.
1. The OP showed that the KJV rendering of "murder" in Matthew 19:18 does not correspond with the Sixth Commandment wording in the Old Testament. In later posts this lack of correspondence was restated in the form of the apparent conflict that is created between the spoken words of Jesus and the written words of the OT; and this could be extended to include a conflict between Paul or James and the OT.
2. The OP showed that the KJV rendering of "murder" in Matthew 19:18 does not correspond with quotes of the Sixth Commandment in other NT passages. In later posts this lack of correspondence was restated in the form of the apparent contradiction that is caused between Gospel accounts; and this could be extended to include the contradiction implied between Jesus and Paul or James.
3. Once it is understood that this is the context and the importance of the general context is grasped the 'contextual' objection should be eliminated.


The first potential justification offered was that translators are free to substitute terms where it is appropriate (as the KJV translators had stated they had not "tied themselves to an uniformity of phrasing"). My response was that I generally agreed but certainly with the exception that wherever a original language word is repeated in exactly the same context the same English word ought to be used and that this is an absolutely necessity when the translation is quoting another verse within its own text. The importance of this self-imposed exception has been recognized and observed by the vast majority of translators of the Bible.
1. The OP mentioned that it is the same Greek word in all the NT quotes of the Sixth Commandment including Matthew 19:18. In a later post it was shown that the AV men otherwise consistently translated the Greek word in the NT, and that the KJV only varies here due to the influence of the Latin version.
2. The OP showed that "kill" was the translation of some early English Bibles for Matthew 19:18. In a later posts it has been mentioned that post-1611 versions have also translated here as "kill" (and consistently in all Sixth Commandment articulations within their text). As has been shown, some post-1611 versions do translate the Greek word here as "murder", however these versions are not 'substituting' but rather have established "murder" as their primary rendering for the Greek word and (almost) without exception "murder" is soley used in articulations of the Sixth Commandment in the NT.
3. No one has demonstrated how the pericope of the Young Rich Ruler in Matthew is sufficiently different than the parallel accounts (or other biblical articulations of the Sixth Commandment) to justify the appropriateness of substituting "murder" here. Even if such appropriateness could be established, the OP has already shown that by definition "murder" is more a specific term than "kill" and therefore they are not completely synonymous English words (as perhaps "slay" might be, for example).


The second justification offered was that the AV men simply left the text of the Bishops' Bible here unaltered per King James' instruction. My response was that it was this very instruction that would have allowed them to change all articulations of the Sixth Commandment to "murder" had that been their conviction (which evidently it wasn't), and that it can be easily demonstrated that the king's revisers did not hesitate to edit the Bishops' text in places were it was not demanded by the "truth of the original" languages. So, this improbable solution was doomed before the 'Submit reply' button had been clicked.

 

Let's examine the parallel case of the Ninth Commandment (KJV) --

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Deut. 5:20)​

The Hebrew word in Exodus is sheqer (Strong's #8267). The Hebrew word in Deuteronomy is shav' (Strong's #7723). Yet the AV men chose uniformity in translating these two different Hebrew words!

Did they have a choice? Yes! The KJV translators were willing to render sheqer and shav' as "lies" and "lying" in many places (can you tell which is which?) --

But ye [are] forgers of lies, ye [are] all physicians of no value (Job 13:4)

Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, [and] from a deceitful tongue (Psalm 120:2)

A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:17)

I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD (Psalm 31:6)

None calleth for justice, nor [any] pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies ; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity (Isaiah 59:4)​

The KJV translators have solidly confirmed by their own renderings that to "bear false witness" is synonymous with the speaking of "lies" or engage in the act of "lying". Yet, the AV men chose NOT to use synonymous terms (such as "lying" under oath or the speaking of "lies" in court) to substitute for "bear false witness" in either OT declaration of the Ninth Commandment.
____________

It is clear that the king's revisers were very familiar with the English words "lie", "lied", "liar", and "lying" with the meaning of speaking the 'opposite of the truth' or 'a deception' away from the facts. In the NT a few examples are --

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:4)

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:25)

Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (John 8:44)

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another. (Ephesians 4:25)

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; (Colossians 3:9)

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1:10)​

Yet the KJV translators chose to NEVER employ "lie" or an English synonym in any of the four NT articulations of Ninth Commandement. The root Greek word found in Matthew 19:18 behind "bear false witness" is pseudomartyreo (Strong's #5576) and the AV men consistently chose to ALWAYS render it as "bear false witness" in the KJV text (including the two parallel Gospel accounts).

Could they have made a different word selection? Yes! The KJV translators did exercise English word variety with very similar Greek words such as pseudes (Strong's #5571) which they translated as both "false" & "liar", and pseudomai (Strong's #5574) which they rendered as both "lie" & "falsely".

So, it seems that the KJV translators specifically rendered (even 'bending over backwards') the Ninth Commandment consistently in both the OT and the NT separately, as well as have agreement between the Testaments. This example should further dispel the notion that the KJV translators were merely exercising their 'right' to substitute "murder" for "kill" in Matthew 19:18.

 

Gail Riplinger writes in Chapter 5 of her book In Awe of Thy Word, "Very carefully read through the following pages charting the changes from the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 to the King James Bible of 1611. The Bishops’ words are common everyday language today. The words in the KJV are not." (source: sample PDF from AV Publications website, pages 16-19 as shown in document)

Here are just some of her examples taken from the Gospel of Matthew (Bishops/KJV) --

Matt. 3:10 put layd
Matt. 4:6 lift beare
Matt. 5:44 hurt despitefully use
Matt. 7:5 pull out cast out
Matt. 8:5 And saying beseeching him
Matt. 8:28 graves very tombes exceeding
Matt. 11:17 sorrowed lamented
Matt. 11:22 easier more tolerable
Matt. 11:27 given delivered
Matt. 12:11 take hold of lay hold on
Matt. 13:52 taught in instructed unto
Matt. 13:49 bad wicked
Matt. 14:8 platter charger
Matt. 14:9 at the table at meate
Matt. 14:35 sicke diseased
Matt. 15:27 yes, Lord: for Trueth, Lord: yet
Matt. 15:28 same houre very houre
Matt. 16:8 understood perceived
Matt. 17:2 clothes raiment
Matt. 17:12 lusted listed
Matt. 17:18 same time very hour
Matt. 17:25 toll custome
Matt. 18:3 turne be converted
Matt. 18:15 wonne (won) gained
Matt. 18:17 will not shall neglect to
Matt. 24:26 pleces (places) chambers
Matt. 26:55 tooke me not laid no hold on me​

Are any of these changes justifiable by the "truth of the original"? She goes on with another 21 pages of examples out the New Testament where the KJV changes the Bishops' wording.

 

Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, and James 2:11 have identical wording: Μὴ φονεύσῃς (me phoneuses), a different inflection of the same Greek word φονεύω (phoneuo) found in the texts mentioned below, and this particular form is uniformly translated in the KJV as "Do not kill".

Both Exodus 20:13 & Deuteronomy 5:17 in the Septuagint agree with Matthew 5:21, Matthew 19:18, and Romans 13:9 of the New Testament having precisely the same two words Οὐ φονεύσεις (ou phoneuseis); rendered twice as "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV but then as "Thou shalt do no murder" only in Matthew 19:18. That is four English words versus five English words (three of which are different) in a short and simple phrase.

If there was just one 'perfect' way to translate the scripture into English, then there would never be a different translation result from the same underlying words whenever found in the same context.

 

Here the KJV translation problem at Matthew 19:18 is viewed from a different perspective {my underline} --
(source: http://www.andrewwommack.org/bible/mat_19_18)

Note 3 at Mt. 19:18: This verse is often cited to illustrate the inaccuracy of the King James translation. The same Greek word "phoneuo," which is translated "kill" in Mark 10:19 and here in Luke 18:20, it is translated "murder." Should the commandment that Jesus is quoting from in Exodus 20:13 actually be, "Thou shalt not murder?" Many people propose that and use this example to show that the King James Version contradicts itself.

There are ten Hebrew words and six Greek words translated as "kill" in the King James Version. These Greek and Hebrew words are much more descriptive than either of our English words "kill" or "murder." If only the word "kill" had been used to express God's intent, then that could have restricted any type of killing such as in war, in capital punishment, or in self-defense, etc. That certainly was not what God meant in Exodus 20:13, as can be seen by many examples in God's Word.

On the other hand, if only the word "murder" had been used, this would only limit God's restriction of killing to "unlawful" killing with "malice aforethought." That certainly is not what God intended either.

The only way to faithfully preserve what God originally meant in the translation from a very descriptive language to our English language is to use both of these words and by comparison, glean the full meaning. If the translation is taken as a whole and diligently compared, then the apparent contradictions are resolved and are found to actually complement each other.​

After introducing the problem, the writer procedes to make multiple mistakes in his defense of the KJV rendering --

Problem 1, Irrelevant information: it is simply immaterial that there are many Hebrew and Greek words that are translated "kill" in the KJV. It might be relevant to discuss the four (two Hebrew and two Greek) words that are also rendered "murder" in the KJV. But the real relevent number of words for this issue is only two (one in the OT, one in the NT).

Problem 2, Ambiguous and/or Inequitable: Did the writer mean that sixteen Hebrew and Greek words have a wider range of meaning than just two English words? Well, duh! The inequity of that comparison should be obvious.

Problem 3, Generalization and overstatement: Did the writer mean that individual Hebrew or Greek words are more descriptive than individual English words? Even that is not always true, as in this case where the two English words "kill" & "murder" do sufficiently represent the two relevant original language words.

Problem 4, Factual error: there are at least seven words in Greek translated "kill" in the KJV (Strong's #337, 615, 1315, 2289, 2380, 4969, and 5407).

Problem 5, Unsubstantiated claim: the writer does not establish that: God didn't intend to limit His restriction to just unlawful killing. Where is his biblical evidence? The Sixth Commandment is a part of a very specific Code of Law that primarily defines those actions considered unlawful. Either the law applies, or it does not apply; there can be no ambiguity.

Problem 6, Logical error: the writer has claimed that (and this more clearly seen when inverted and made into a positive statement): God "intended" to also restrict lawful killing. Did you catch that? This is not the more common Single-Meaning Solution (where "kill" is made synonymous with "murder"); this writer made no attempt to harmonize the two English words but merely procedes without overtly acknowledging the fact that they have different meanings. This writer is asserting a Dual-Meaning Solution (this is "kill" plus "murder").

Problem 7, Selective application: if "the only way to faithfully preserve what God originally meant" is to translate parallel passages with different English words because the original languages are so extremely "descriptive", then we cannot be certain that verses without parallels are always fully translated.

Problem 8, Existing limitations: "to use both of these words and by comparison, glean the full meaning" cannot be done by those that may have only limited access to the Scriptures, for example.

Problem 9, Special pleading: the appeal that "taken as a whole and diligently compared, then the apparent contradictions are resolved and are found to actually complement each other" could be used in almost any situation.

The writer is stating that the teaching of the Sixth Commandment prohibits both lawful killing (war, capital punishment, etc.) and unlawful killing (murder, manslaughter, etc.). This argumentation leads to the conclusion that God intended to restrict ALL killing. Yet, the writer had previously argued that God "certainly" did NOT restrict killing "as can be seen by many examples in God's Word". Through this self-contradiction, the writer has offered no solution at all!

 

The Bishops' text is accompanied by the text of the Great Bible in using "kill" in 5 of 6 articulations of the Sixth Commandment in the NT; the Great Bible employs "manslaughter" at Matthew 19:18 according to my New Testament Octapla (an eight English version parallel of the New Testament in the Tyndale-King James Tradition edited by Luther A. Weigle). The Matthew's Bible applies "kill" consistently in all NT articulations of the Sixth Commandment. I do not have a source to check the OT text of Matthew's or the Great Bible.

Tyndale, Matthew's, Coverdale, and Geneva consistently have "kill", while Wycliffe, Rheims, Great, Bishops', and the AV have one exception to "kill" and that is "murder/murther" (or "manslaughter/mansleying") at Matthew 19:18. All (almost) post-1611 versions exclusively use one term; the only version I found that was inconsistent in its renderings was Young's Literal Translation. Young has "murder" in the OT and in 4 of the 6 places in the NT, but has "kill" at both Matthew passages.

 

The more common way in which the problem of "murder" or "kill" is presented is in the form of a contadiction between different versions. It is usually a complaint that some versions use "kill" against other versions which feature "murder" (which is true, of course). For example, in the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy skeptic author C. Dennis McKinsey bemoans that (page 44) --

... Are we going to interpret a verse by how it is written or how biblicits say it should have been written? This kind of defense has to be squashed immediately; otherwise, apologists will be able to run from version to version as expediency dictates and choose the wording they prefer. Before people can even discuss or debate the Bible, there must be some common ground upon which to operate. There must be one version of each verse, otherwise chaos will reign. How can people discuss a book upon which there is no agreement as to the words that are on the page? If one version says that the correct word in the Sixth Commandment is "kill", while another version says the correct word is "murder", there is no sense in proceeding until that fundemental conflict is resolved. Until the words are agreed upon, all else is for nought and theres is no use in continuing further.​

I guess it has escaped Mr. McKinsey's attention that "kill" and "murder" both occur in the KJV's Sixth Commandment articulations.