Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help!
  Advanced
Register  |  Log in  
   Ask    
 Answer  
  Help  

Ask QuestionsprogressAnswer QuestionsprogressBuild ReputationprogressBecome an Expert
 
Free Answers in 3 Easy Steps

Register Now
3 Steps

At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you will be able to:
  • Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+ topics.
  • Accept money for answers that you provide.
  • Communicate privately with other members (PM).
  • See fewer ads.

Home > Society & Culture > Religion > Other Religion   »   Do not Murder vs Do not kill.

 
Question Tools Search this Question Display Modes
Question
 
 
#1  
Old Jun 8, 2006, 10:09 AM
Starman
-
Starman is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,352
Starman See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Starman See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Do not Murder vs Do not kill.

I was asked recently about Exodus 20:13 at another forum and promised to consider the matter here in order to keep the other thread on topic.
Why is one preferable to the other and is it OK to translate the word involved as murder? I looked up the word in the Hebrew lexicon and it turns out that the word can be translated as murder instead of kill. Since translating it as "kill" would be nonsensical in view of God's commandments to kill those who disobeyed certain of his laws as well as to kill animals for sacrifice and wage warfare against certain Caananites, translating the word as "murder" is the correct translation. One thing to keep in mind is that writers of the Bible weren't stupid or prone to say one thing on one page and a completely opposite thing on the next. So translating word as "kill" is illogical on the part of the translator and makes one wonder what his or her motives were in translating it that way. Any comments?

Below is some info:


Translations using "murder" instead of "kill".

Exodus 20: 13

(New Living Translation)
(New International Reader's Version)
(Amplified Bible)
(English Standard Version)
(New International Version)
(New King James Version)
(Holman Christian Standard Bible)
(Contemporary English Version)
(New International Version - UK)
(The New World Translation)



The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 07523
Original Word Word Origin
xcr a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ratsach TWOT - 2208
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
raw-tsakh' Verb
Definition
to murder, slay, kill (Qal) to murder, slay premeditated accidental as avenger slayer (intentional) (participle) (Niphal) to be slain (Piel) to murder, assassinate murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) (Pual) to be killed
</TD

King James Word Usage - Total: 47
slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + (0310) 1, slayeth 1, death 1

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...23&version=kjv


BTW
The New KIng James Version renders the word as "murder" not "Kill" as the original King James Version does.

Reply With Quote
 
     

Answers
 
 
Old Jun 8, 2006, 01:09 PM   #2  
RickJ
Administrator
RickJ is offline
 
RickJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cave 4, Qumran
Posts: 6,927
RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
The New KJV is correct; the translation should be murder.

The difference: Murder is premeditated. A person may be killed in an accident but a murder cannot be accidental.

Comments on this post
J_9 agrees: I totally agree
Krs agrees: very true
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 8, 2006, 02:52 PM   #3  
Jonegy
Junior Member
Jonegy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 169
Jonegy See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Thanks for the information Starman.

Thinking back to the times of all the new versions I seem to remember the Roman Catholics abandoning the Latin and using the different country languages - that one was an interesting exercise given the nuances between languages except the priests would have been at least bi-lingual / Latin and by rights should have been able to translate direct from latin into their native tongue.

Hmm - think I'll do a bit of Googling.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa - not all that interested.

As always - may your god be with you
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 8, 2006, 06:45 PM   #4  
Starman
-
Starman is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,352
Starman See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.Starman See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonegy
Thanks for the information Starman.

Thinking back to the times of all the new versions I seem to remember the Roman Catholics abandoning the Latin and using the different country languages -- that one was an interesting exercise given the nuances between languages except the priests would have been at least bilingual / Latin and by rights should have been able to translate direct from Latin into their native tongue.

Hmm - think I'll do a bit of Googling.

Naaaaaaaaaaaaa - not all that interested.

As always - may your god be with you

Hi Jonegy!

The language that is required in order to translate Exodos 20:13 is ancient Hebrew. The one required to translate the NT scriptures is koin Greek. The OT was also written in Aramaic so that also is another language translators have to work with.
Despite their best efforts the translators of the Old King James Version made some basic errors.


http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9ibyK3...b-kjv-only.htm

When the King James version was written, its mode of expression was modern. Now it isn't. So a modern language version has been provided.

BTW
Familiarity with the original language is only one of the qualifications needed to translate. Another is integrity. If integrity is missing then all the ability to translate in the world will make no difference at all since other factors besides what the text is saying will influence how the words are translated. For example, in an effort t buttress the hellfire doctrine many translators unjustifiably translated the word Gehenna, an incinerator outside the walls of Jerusalem as hell. Other words treated in a similar manner were, sheol, and tartarus. So translation evaluation must be solely based on how close to the original meaning the translation comes and not to how erudite the translator was.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 9, 2006, 04:08 AM   #5  
Jonegy
Junior Member
Jonegy is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 169
Jonegy See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Yep thanks again Starman

However - with all these new "corrected" versions about today, it amazes me how many people revert to the King James if it suits their point.

Do not take this as a snide remark - it is just an observation of some of the posts and quotations I've seen and heard.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 9, 2006, 04:14 AM   #6  
RickJ
Administrator
RickJ is offline
 
RickJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cave 4, Qumran
Posts: 6,927
RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.RickJ See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
While the KJV was the "standard" Protestant Bible for so long, most now agree that it's on the bottom of the list for textual accuracy; hence the NKJV and the many other worthy translations.
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 9, 2006, 11:19 AM   #7  
Fr_Chuck
Christianity Expert
Fr_Chuck is offline
 
Fr_Chuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta GA
Posts: 24,533
Fr_Chuck has disabled reputation
The problem with may translatoins, like the KJV is that people today don't understand 1600 english, heck if I droped you off in England today you would not understand alot of what they were saying.

So we read the word kill and think we know exactly what they writer is saying, that is far from the truth, the correct word is murder, since that was the meaning of the word kill in the orginal text.

That is why it is obvoius that an accidental killing, killing for your government as a soldier were not considered sins though the bible.

Comments on this post
RickJ agrees: Right. Then add to that the difficulty of those English going from 2000ish year old texts.
Jonegy disagrees: The SS were killing for their government. I you had added "in a theatre of war" - I would concur
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 11, 2006, 03:22 PM   #8  
Morganite
Senior Member
Morganite is offline
 
Morganite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 867
Morganite See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman
I was asked recently about Exodus 20:13 at another forum and promised to consider the matter here in order to keep the other thread on topic.
Why is one preferable to the other and is it OK to translate the word involved as murder? I looked up the word in the Hebrew lexicon and it turns out that the word can be translated as murder instead of kill. Since translating it as "kill" would be nonsensical in view of God's commandments to kill those who disobeyed certain of his laws as well as to kill animals for sacrifice and wage warfare against certain Caananites, translating the word as "murder" is the correct translation. One thing to keep in mind is that writers of the Bible weren't stupid or prone to say one thing on one page and a completely opposite thing on the next. So translating word as "kill" is illogical on the part of the translator and makes one wonder what his or her motives were in translating it that way. Any comments?

Below is some info:


Translations using "murder" instead of "kill".

Exodus 20: 13

(New Living Translation)
(New International Reader's Version)
(Amplified Bible)
(English Standard Version)
(New International Version)
(New King James Version)
(Holman Christian Standard Bible)
(Contemporary English Version)
(New International Version - UK)
(The New World Translation)



The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
Strong's Number: 07523
Original Word Word Origin
xcr a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Ratsach TWOT - 2208
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
raw-tsakh' Verb
Definition
to murder, slay, kill (Qal) to murder, slay premeditated accidental as avenger slayer (intentional) (participle) (Niphal) to be slain (Piel) to murder, assassinate murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) (Pual) to be killed
</TD

King James Word Usage - Total: 47
slayer 16, murderer 14, kill 5, murder 3, slain 3, manslayer 2, killing 1, slayer + (0310) 1, slayeth 1, death 1

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...23&version=kjv


BTW
The New KIng James Version renders the word as "murder" not "Kill" as the original King James Version does.


We should ask this question of a rabbi. The Jewish understanding of Torah is that each mitzvah is written tersely and therefore requires expansion according to certain tried and trusted principles.

The ciommandment not to 'murder' is a ban against shedding inccocent blood. In this respect the word bears no difference to 'kill.' Arguments against that view are semantic but without worth.

The word translated as 'kill' in Exodus 20:13 is Ratsach from a Hebrew root meaning to 'dash into pieces,' applied here specifically against the killing/murder of human beings with the meaning of 'put to death,' 'kill,' 'slay,' or 'murder.'

That has to be understood against those occasions when Jehovah decreed that certain malefactors should be put to death. When it is a man is killed through judgement, then Jehovah considered it not to be murder. Killing in battle is another obvious exception. I havenever found that anyone has misunderstood the herem against killing innocent persons for gain,. jealousy, or insouciance, nor for sparing the lives of those who commit offences that do not carry the death penalty.

In the scriptures wilful murder is distinguished from accidental homicide, and was invariably visited with capital punishment (Num. 35:16, 18, 21, 31; Lev. 24:17). This law in its principle is founded on the fact of man's having been made in the likeness of God (Gen. 9:5, 6; John 8:44; 1 John 3:12, 15).

The Mosiac law prohibited any compensation for murder or the reprieve of the murderer (Ex. 21:12, 14; Deut. 19:11, 13; 2 Sam. 17:25; 20:10). Two witnesses were required in any capital case (Num. 35:19-30; Deut. 17:6-12). If the murderer could not be discovered, the city nearest the scene of the murder was required to make expiation for the crime committed (Deut. 21:1-9).

These offences also were to be punished with death,

1) striking a parent

2) cursing a parent

3) kidnapping (Ex. 21:15-17; Deut. 27:16).



MRGANITE[SIZE="5"][/SIZE]
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 11, 2006, 04:14 PM   #9  
Morganite
Senior Member
Morganite is offline
 
Morganite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 867
Morganite See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
The problem with may translatoins, like the KJV is that people today don't understand 1600 english, heck if I droped you off in England today you would not understand alot of what they were saying.


I was able to visit England and Scotland last year and understood every word, although the Co Durham accent can be a bit thick. But, provided the English and Scots speak English and not one of their fascinating ancient dialects, they are not hard to comprehend!


MRGANITE
  Reply With Quote
 
     
 
 
Old Jun 11, 2006, 04:16 PM   #10  
Morganite
Senior Member
Morganite is offline
 
Morganite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 867
Morganite See this member's comment history on his/her Profile page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickj
The New KJV is correct; the translation should be murder.

The difference: Murder is premeditated. A person may be killed in an accident but a murder cannot be accidental.

Murder in the furtherance of theft or murder to escape arrest are not premeditated but they are still murder.




MRGANITE
  Reply With Quote
 
     


Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

 
Similar Sponsors

Similar Questions
Question Asker Topic Answers Last Post
Murder or not? nugard Other Law 3 Feb 5, 2008 05:40 AM
Return of deposit in case of a murder upstairs mckeating Real Estate Law 4 Jul 24, 2006 05:45 AM
Movie About Murder Among Cast Members pamthesham Movies 0 Mar 19, 2006 05:38 PM
Was it suicide or murder? tiggerella Psychics 4 Dec 9, 2005 04:06 AM
The UK's 'The Murder Game' MiKeY Television 2 May 25, 2004 04:51 PM




Copyright ©2003 - 2007, Ask Me Help Desk.
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.