Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, technically, "murder" isn't quite a correct translation either--it's just probably the word in English that best approximates the meaning of the Hebrew word. It is better than "kill" though.Then, there's Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL." The Hebrew 'ratsach', here rendered 'kill', generally refers to murder or wrongful killing. This KJV mistake has caused controversy & protests for many years, including "conscientious objectors" to military service, & protests at execution sites. Again, modern versions correctly render this verse as "You shall not MURDER."
This source has found 750 words in the KJV which have changed in meaning.Well, technically, "murder" isn't quite a correct translation either--it's just probably the word in English that best approximates the meaning of the Hebrew word. It is better than "kill" though.
However, I'm not sure this was a mistake in the KJV. It is my understanding that in the past, "kill" had a more limited meaning than it does now. Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says as to the meaning of the word kill:
"To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc."
It is a more accurate translation under the earlier definition of the term than the modern one.
Of course, this just turns it into a demonstration of a different problem, namely that when relying exclusively on a 400-year-old text, words shift meaning and thus you can come away with erroneous ideas if you're unaware of such shifts. It's why a lot of printings of Shakespeare's plays include footnotes to explain phrases that are no longer used or words that have shifted in meaning. For example, the puns in the opening dialogue of Romeo and Juliet are mostly lost on a modern audience if not explained. Unfortunately, I'm unaware of any printings of the KJV that include footnotes to inform changes in meaning.
"Kill" also applies (and applied) to LEGAL EXECUTIONS, as prescribed in the very next chapter of Exodus. And any time an animal eats, it kills something, plant or another animal. "Kill" is just too-general a term, as it means ending the life of something for whatever reason.Well, technically, "murder" isn't quite a correct translation either--it's just probably the word in English that best approximates the meaning of the Hebrew word. It is better than "kill" though.
However, I'm not sure this was a mistake in the KJV. It is my understanding that in the past, "kill" had a more limited meaning than it does now. Here's what the Oxford English Dictionary says as to the meaning of the word kill:
"To put to death; to deprive of life; to slay, slaughter. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon; later, extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life, as an accident, over-work, grief, drink, a disease, etc."
It is a more accurate translation under the earlier definition of the term than the modern one.
Of course, this just turns it into a demonstration of a different problem, namely that when relying exclusively on a 400-year-old text, words shift meaning and thus you can come away with erroneous ideas if you're unaware of such shifts. It's why a lot of printings of Shakespeare's plays include footnotes to explain phrases that are no longer used or words that have shifted in meaning. For example, the puns in the opening dialogue of Romeo and Juliet are mostly lost on a modern audience if not explained. Unfortunately, I'm unaware of any printings of the KJV that include footnotes to inform changes in meaning.
This source has found 750 words in the KJV which have changed in meaning.
King James Bible Wordlist & Definitions
According to that source, this is what we should be reading... but instead of updating the words, we are to learn the meanings of all the archaic words and maintain the original language...
View attachment 274217
My wife is Korean and I have served in Korean churches since the late 70s. If a persons's native language is not English the KJV is pretty much unintelligible to them, I use the KJV but also have to use modern translations.I'll never forget an incident of several years ago. A Korean doctor moved into my 'hood; he was also a new Christian, & new to the English language. He asked me if I could lend him a Bible til his Korean edition arrived. Without thinking, I gave him a KJV.
A coupla days later, he came by, being distressed bny "sulffer little children" in the KJV. I explained what that meant, & gave him a copy of the NASV to use.
There are many native English speakers who don't know an archaic meaning for "suffer" is "allow". (Its main usage in that respect today is "suffrage", the right to vote.)
While the Model T was fine for the roads of 1909 & the KJV was fine for the British of 1611, both are outdated now, replaced by better models.
But of course - it's a KJVO site!
I have a Hendrickson Edition replica AV 1611. The only differences between it & an original (besides the PRICE, of course!) is its physical size & its Roman font. (I was privileged to examine an original several years ago !)
And another thing...The KJV isn't actually "authorized" ! KJ, as titular head of the Anglican Church, merely gave the clerics permission to make a new translation.
The only "authorized" English Bible version is the "Great Bible " (named for its physical size) which Henry VIII commanded to be made.
But of course - it's a KJVO site!
I have a Hendrickson Edition replica AV 1611. The only differences between it & an original (besides the PRICE, of course!) is its physical size & its Roman font. (I was privileged to examine an original several years ago !)
The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.It's also based on the Geneva Bible. As for copyright, at least in the US the KJV is in the public domain. I can't speak for the UK.
Public domain means the copyright expired, or the author(s) published the work as a public service and did not apply for a copyright for their work.The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.
"Public Domain" means anyone can alter the work to suit themselves.
The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.
"Public Domain" means anyone can alter the work to suit themselves.
The copyrights issue is horse feathers. Personally, I'm GLAD to see the copyright in my Cambridge Edition KJV, which tells me I have a genuine, unaltered copy. Same for my NKJV, NASV, & other copyrighted versions I have.
"Public Domain" means anyone can alter the work to suit themselves.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?