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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 a lot 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 original 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.

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).



M:)RGANITE

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!


M:)RGANITE

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




M:)RGANITE

It isn't wrong to kill or murder. It can't be because if we accept that premise then we accept the premise that an act can be wrong in itself but that premise is flawed. An act cannot be wrong in itself it can only be wrong if performed under the wrong circumstances.

Fx. The act of sex isn't wrong unless performed with an unwilling partner. The act of murder isn't wrong unless performed without sufficient reason. The act of taking isn't wrong unless someone else owns the object you are taking.

Oh and the answer should theologically be murder but that's assuming that wasn't just a mistake made by the writers.