Is King James to Blame?

[White Fox]

I know that kind of ryhmed. Anyway..

Exodus 22:18 of the Christian bible says,

Original: thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live.
"Do not allow a traitor to live"

King James Version: thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
"Do not allow a sorceress to live"

Now what I've done here is shown the actual bibles text first, then quoted the next pages "international translation" to give a clearer view.

There was a lot of controversy when king James made this change but he was king so he basically ignored it. He even had many original bibles burnt because he wanted his to be the only version out there.

This entire situation is mentioned in another article I posted.

Anyhow, I see a lot of people explain why they think witchcraft is "devil worship" (huge misconception) and they often quote this bible verse to back up what they are saying.

And if it's in the bible, why, it MUST be true, right?
(obvious sarcasm..)

Well "traitor" is a lot different than "witch".

So my question is,
"is king James partly responsible for some of the misconceptions about witchcraft?"

I think, "more than likely, yes."

[Alexandria]

Well, I'm not sure it's so simple. Take a look at the New International Version you posted, they use the term sorceress. Very similar. The NIV was a direction translation, iirc, and not based on the KJV so much. A lot of different translations come up with similar, sorceress or woman who practices evil magic. So, go back to the root, what was the original Hebrew word used? Some say it was a word which meant poisoner, others say that had more to do with magic - specifically a woman who used magic to harm or kill others.

Witch may not currently be the best translation, but we also have to consider what witch meant to many people at the time this was being written. I don't think all the blame can be put on King James. Out of curiosity though, how much original research did you put into this? Do you have some good, primary or close to it sources you can link for some of this?

[Lunacie]

I just read something in the news about a project that's been going on for the last 50 years and will likely take another 200 years to complete - a group of scholors has been comparing different versions of the Christian bible with the oldest writing they can find - and there have been a lot of differences over the years ... from a missing letter changing the meaning of a word to basically rewriting some sections.

The word "witch" is just one example. I've heard that the original word was closer to sorcerer or maybe poisoner than to what is considered witchcraft. But try convincing those Christians who swear the the word of God has not been changed "one tittle or dot" in all these centures. Or don't bother wasting your energy and breath.

[arohk]

In my opinion you can't put the blame on one group by the way something is written as far as I am concerned it is just a way for leaders to put fear into people to follow their way or else. the bible if you want is just a book of stories like for instant the great flood there were scrools found that date hundreds of years before the bible with the telling of the same thing in almost exact detail except the names were changed and lets not forget books like the koran which is full of violence. As far as I am concerned if we followed the bible like people think we should why do we allow murderers and other dangerious criminals live it should be an eye for an eye like it was written.

I spent years of my life studing the bible and the longer I am away from Christianity the more my eyes are opened to all the flawed teachings.

[CelestialRain]

That's the thing, it's basically a dogmatic religion that contradicts itself on many levels :| That KJ version could have been one of the leading causes of discrimination against Pagans in general, as "witch" and "sorceress" were usually described to collect all people involved in divination and seeing what only God is meant to see. However, I might be wrong on that.

[Thebs]

I had to look this up. My oldest bible (yes I have more then one, nine in total I think) that dates to 1731 uses a word that can translate to women of witchcraft. In my newest from 2001 (that is a new translation from the Hebrew texts) it uses the exact same word.

But in the new version there is a foot note to look in Leviticus 20:27. And when I look there it is a much more extensive rule that says that any man or woman that is involved in conjuring spirits or does divination should be stoned to death and that his/her family inherent the sin. The same thing is said when I look in the old bible. Then a foot note in the new bible reefers me to Deuteronomy 18:10-11 where it says:

Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.

And from there on I get more footnotes telling me to go some where else. So even if KJ did get the first one wrong and it should be poisoner. It is not likely he would have made the same mistake when it refers to the things I quoted. And since it is the same translation in the Swedish bible (the old and the new) which are not based on KJ bible there has to be some truth in it.

All we can say is the people who wrote the bible and the ones who put it together about 1700 years ago did not like people who used magic.

[Lunacie]

I had to look this up. My oldest bible (yes I have more then one, nine in total I think) that dates to 1731 uses a word that can translate to women of witchcraft. In my newest from 2001 (that is a new translation from the Hebrew texts) it uses the exact same word.

But in the new version there is a foot note to look in Leviticus 20:27. And when I look there it is a much more extensive rule that says that any man or woman that is involved in conjuring spirits or does divination should be stoned to death and that his/her family inherent the sin. The same thing is said when I look in the old bible. Then a foot note in the new bible reefers me to Deuteronomy 18:10-11 where it says:



And from there on I get more footnotes telling me to go some where else. So even if KJ did get the first one wrong and it should be poisoner. It is not likely he would have made the same mistake when it refers to the things I quoted. And since it is the same translation in the Swedish bible (the old and the new) which are not based on KJ bible there has to be some truth in it.

All we can say is the people who wrote the bible and the ones who put it together about 1700 years ago did not like people who used magic.


And yet ... many of the important figures in the bible depended on divination. The story of Joseph and his many-colored-coat is one where his brothers raised him from the status of prisoner because of his divinations for them.

[Thebs]

And yet ... many of the important figures in the bible depended on divination. The story of Joseph and his many-colored-coat is one where his brothers raised him from the status of prisoner because of his divinations for them.

Yes and Miriam, the sister of Moses, is said to have had them to. But I guess it is diffrent when god shows you the way :whistling:

[Alexandria]

The story of Joseph and his many-colored-coat is one where his brothers raised him from the status of prisoner because of his divinations for them.

But I guess it is diffrent when god shows you the way

I know that's meant to be a sarcastic remark, but that's really the idea behind it. The first thing Joseph says to Pharaoh when he is brought up from the prison is that he can not interpret the dream, only God can. Other stoes show Aaron and Moses pretty much working magic, yet it is all at the command and through the power of God. Pharaoh's magicians, not working through God, are unable to compete with the Divine power.

There are other stories showing people who are divining not through God, and things usually don't go as well for them.

That is, of course, one of the problems Christians have with witches these days. They do not see witches power as coming from their God, so it must be coming from an evil source.

It does appear to be a fine line between what is and isn't okay at times, but we have to consider just how many years of history are packed into it all - and how many various languages and cultures as well. (And also that the Bible has more books in some denominations of Christianity - and all the information that should go along with the Old Testament from Judaism). It's a massive amount of information and research that can be done to really study it all, even just one topic of it all, and of course all the different interpretations of the information... it's really staggering. That's why I think it's really waaaay too easy to point to one guy and say "well, it's all his fault." It's just too simplistic of a view.

[White Fox]

The sources of my research, Alexandria, were the 18 different versions of the bible that I own. A word changes every once in a while until it's completely taken out of original context. It happens all the time.

It went from more general terms like "traitor/poisoner" until it was changed to "witch/sorceress"

[Alexandria]

The sources of my research, Alexandria, were the 18 different versions of the bible that I own.

Which would say nothing about King James and his history, which is what a fair bit of your post speaks about.

It went from more general terms like "traitor/poisoner" until it was changed to "witch/sorceress"

Do you know the original Hebrew term used and it's meaning?

I am currently looking at quite a few different translations of Christian Bibles. They all run along the same theme - sorceress, witch, woman who uses evil magic. I see no Bible translations that use poisoner - although I am familiar with the idea that this is what the original Hebrew meant. However, it could have also meant female who uses evil magic, harmful magic. (Which does align with poisoner a bit, as well.)

I'm thinking that if so many different translations come up with similar words, there's got to be something at the root which caused this.

[Thebs]

The sources of my research, Alexandria, were the 18 different versions of the bible that I own. A word changes every once in a while until it's completely taken out of original context. It happens all the time.

It went from more general terms like "traitor/poisoner" until it was changed to "witch/sorceress"

Yes but that only counts for one of the places in which magic is condemned in the Bible (and the least specific one). The rest you can't discard as language "tweaks".

[Thebs]

I know that's meant to be a sarcastic remark, but that's really the idea behind it. The first thing Joseph says to Pharaoh when he is brought up from the prison is that he can not interpret the dream, only God can. Other stoes show Aaron and Moses pretty much working magic, yet it is all at the command and through the power of God. Pharaoh's magicians, not working through God, are unable to compete with the Divine power.

There are other stories showing people who are divining not through God, and things usually don't go as well for them.

That is, of course, one of the problems Christians have with witches these days. They do not see witches power as coming from their God, so it must be coming from an evil source.

It does appear to be a fine line between what is and isn't okay at times, but we have to consider just how many years of history are packed into it all - and how many various languages and cultures as well. (And also that the Bible has more books in some denominations of Christianity - and all the information that should go along with the Old Testament from Judaism). It's a massive amount of information and research that can be done to really study it all, even just one topic of it all, and of course all the different interpretations of the information... it's really staggering. That's why I think it's really waaaay too easy to point to one guy and say "well, it's all his fault." It's just too simplistic of a view.

You are right of course. The relationship between christianity and magic is very complicated whit many twists. One thing that is interesting in all of this is that if you reed the dead-sea scrolls (and I would recommend it if you are interested in this subject) you can see that most part of them where written by a christian sect that used different forms of magic such as sexual magic. Not in the term we use today but not that far away from The Sacred Rite.

[Alexandria]

Yes but that only counts for one of the places in which magic is condemned in the Bible (and the least specific one). The rest you can't discard as language "tweaks".

This is a very good point. Deuteronomy 18:10-14 is another clear place where it says witchcraft, spell casting, and other such things are forbidden. It's not the only place, either.

[mysticwildstar]

I am currently learning Hebrew, and the bible that i have the root word is:Qof,Samekh, mem
(קסם) which means magic or charm but also is the the root word for splinter
the word for witchcraft starts with this root word as well.
it can also mean to practice divination
to enchant also has this root
white fox if you can find out the word i can tell you what it means and the root word it comes from. I can look it up in my Hebrew dictionary

[White Fox]

The point is the change from one set of words to another. Keep in mind that the king James version is much more common so it may be hard to find the original version. I'll look through every version I've got to list any different words used.

[White Fox]

I got mixed, witch and sorceress in my bibles. Of course they were all NIV or KJV's so it's not surprising that i didn't find "poisoner".

But here is a site that quotes all the different versions:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_bibl2.htm

[Thebs]

The point is the change from one set of words to another. Keep in mind that the king James version is much more common so it may be hard to find the original version. I'll look through every version I've got to list any different words used.

But the interesting thing would be to find the original, hebrew, word. Then one can see if it is a misunderstanding or a correct translation. As my bibles also use witchcraft and are not based on the KJ bible (since they'r swedish) there must be some thing in that word that makes people use the word witchcraft or something similar.

And I don't understand why you think this passage in the bible is so important to how Christians views witches. The thing is so much more complex.

[Alexandria]

The point is the change from one set of words to another.

Please show how the KJV changes the words.

Keep in mind that the king James version is much more common so it may be hard to find the original version.

What do you think the original version is?

The original language that Exodus would have been written in is Hebrew, right? So let's look at a Hebrew version of the text (you can find them online). Here's what I get - מכשפה - run that through a dictionary, I get witch, sorceress, magician, etc. And for fun, copy that word and go ahead and see what comes up on Hebrew wikipedia, or in google images for that matter.

Now this doesn't get into the root of the Hebrew word, but it does tell me something important - the original word used obviously meant something like "woman/one who does evil magic." Otherwise why would so many different translations - some not relying at all on the KJV - come up with the same idea?

Now, maybe you're saying - but witches don't have to be people who cast evil spells! Well, sure, we know that now... but again, what do you think witch meant in the year the KJV was done? The common idea of what a witch was? The translation was done in the 1600s. If you don't think witch already had a negative association by that point, go back to 1487 and check out the Malleus Maleficarum. Witches were demonized and people accused of witchcraft (guilty or not!) were killed for it long before King James showed up with his translation.

I got mixed, witch and sorceress in my bibles. Of course they were all NIV or KJV's so it's not surprising that i didn't find "poisoner".

Wait, what? Do you have 18 different translations or just the KJV and NIV?

But here is a site that quotes all the different versions:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_bibl2.htm

And you read this, right? Again, all those different translations are coming up with the same type of word - sorceress, witch, woman who does evil magic, etc. It doesn't really support your argument...

[White Fox]

I know it didn't support my argument. Although.. I don't have much of an argument. I asked what you all thought, if KJ was to blame. And apparently the answer is "No". O.o. Are you sure poisoner isn't in the Hebrew text? It couldn't have been.. Before it was in hebrew, could it have?

When I posted the link to the article in another thread I wasn't sure exactly which bible "poisoner" was in..

[Thebs]

I know it didn't support my argument. Although.. I don't have much of an argument. I asked what you all thought, if KJ was to blame. And apparently the answer is "No". O.o. Are you sure poisoner isn't in the Hebrew text? It couldn't have been.. Before it was in hebrew, could it have?

When I posted the link to the article in another thread I wasn't sure exactly which bible "poisoner" was in..

There isn't any before the hebrew one. The original text is in hebrew I would think as it was written by jews as sacred writing.

[Alexandria]

Although.. I don't have much of an argument. I asked what you all thought, if KJ was to blame. And apparently the answer is "No".

You didn't just ask, that was only part of the original post - you started off with a list of claims that have no support, to show why you think he was partly responsible. However, there's no real evidence given to back up why you think that.

Where does your original come from? You call it the "actual Bible's text" but you don't know where it comes from? What is the actual Bible?

Are you sure poisoner isn't in the Hebrew text? It couldn't have been.. Before it was in hebrew, could it have?

What do you think it was written in before Hebrew...?

[White Fox]

You didn't just ask, that was only part of the original post - you started off with a list of claims that have no support, to show why you think he was partly responsible. However, there's no real evidence given to back up why you think that.

Where does your original come from? You call it the "actual Bible's text" but you don't know where it comes from? What is the actual Bible?



What do you think it was written in before Hebrew...?

I don't know. O__O

I wonder if it changed from witch in the Hebrew text, to another text in which is was translated to poisoner, and then KJ translated it back to witch?

This is becoming confusing.

[Alexandria]

I have not been able to find solid evidence as to where poisoner comes from, if it is a correct way to view the word at all, or why the word would be translated as such. I have seen speculation that the word for witch shares roots with poisoner, and/or perhaps witches at the time this was written used herbs and poisons to harm people. So then it referred to that specific type of magic (used to harm/kill), which again, considering the general view of witches at the time of the KJV translation, it would have been an accurate translation.

[White Fox]

I have not been able to find solid evidence as to where poisoner comes from, if it is a correct way to view the word at all, or why the word would be translated as such. I have seen speculation that the word for witch shares roots with poisoner, and/or perhaps witches at the time this was written used herbs and poisons to harm people. So then it referred to that specific type of magic (used to harm/kill), which again, considering the general view of witches at the time of the KJV translation, it would have been an accurate translation.

You may wish to read this. Not really supporting any claims, just sharing this.
http://www.solidstatelight.com/polyorg/exodus22.htm

[Alexandria]

There is some dishonest scholarship or misunderstanding of the text going on there.

They are correct in that the verse is made up of three words, however the word they say means resurrection or revival? More commonly translated as live or exist. Sorcerer also has a few other possible translations. Seems a bit like cherry picking what they want out of it.

I have no doubt that the verse can be given a few meanings and debated - what verse in the Bible couldn't be? I don't mean that as a jab to the Bible, I think it's just to be expected when you have thousands of years of language changes (including when words in the same language change meaning), cultures changes, etc going on. I do think the common translation is common for a reason though, and we have to take into account the time and culture that translated it as well.

[mysticwildstar]

Please show how the KJV changes the words.



What do you think the original version is?

The original language that Exodus would have been written in is Hebrew, right? So let's look at a Hebrew version of the text (you can find them online). Here's what I get - מכשפה - run that through a dictionary, I get witch, sorceress, magician, etc. And for fun, copy that word and go ahead and see what comes up on Hebrew wikipedia, or in google images for that matter.

Now this doesn't get into the root of the Hebrew word, but it does tell me something important - the original word used obviously meant something like "woman/one who does evil magic." Otherwise why would so many different translations - some not relying at all on the KJV - come up with the same idea?


I looked this one up to, as mine had a diff. word used
מכשפה is first a fem. word so it ismeant towards just females, i would think that it would really be written מכשף if it was for a male.
m'khashepah(מכשפה) would not then be the same word used in KJV
the Hebrew word for poison in my dictionary is סמם(verb, to poison) or סם(noun, poison)

[Alexandria]

I feel like we need a Rabbi (or several). :D


MysticWildStar, the religioustolerance.org link earlier in the post talks a bit about m'khashepah. I think given that information it's understandable how for the culture at the time of the KJV, witch probably would have been their closest word (even though men were also accused of being witches). Today though, I do think it's a poor translation since the meaning of "witch" has shifted a bit again. Not totally, you still see the negative stuff, but we start to see some more positive things too.

[mysticwildstar]

I feel like we need a Rabbi (or several). :D


MysticWildStar, the religioustolerance.org link earlier in the post talks a bit about m'khashepah. I think given that information it's understandable how for the culture at the time of the KJV, witch probably would have been their closest word (even though men were also accused of being witches). Today though, I do think it's a poor translation since the meaning of "witch" has shifted a bit again. Not totally, you still see the negative stuff, but we start to see some more positive things too.

i agree with you there, more then likely the two (sorceress and witch) in those days were considered interchangeable with each other.

I had not read the religioustolerance.org link part first about m'khashepah, i actually got it out of my Hebrew dictionary, when i saw the link i read more about it. It was fun to look up some words and stuff though:ylflower:

[Nameless]

Yes, it sounds like "witch" in the social context of the past was nothing but bad. A witch is someone who is going to strike you down and hurt you.

Although this stigma hasn't passed, would this same context apply to someone who does magick only for good? Perhaps not, since the bible has stories of people using magick for good intent, but losing the grace of God. (like old king Solomon and his divination)

Even if/though the bible itself has internal inconsistancies, it still has a bunch of gems of wisdom in it. Yes, an organized faith can take what they want from it, but that is why I liked what Martin Luther had to say about it. We should individually read and take what we can out of it.

[Euchre]

The Bible, it has been changed...corrupted and tarnished by man so much that it is not the word of any Omnipresent power. It is the word of man.

I do not doubt this whole witch ordeal in the Bible was added in later in the road, or the original text took out of context.

[Lunacie]

The Bible, it has been changed...corrupted and tarnished by man so much that it is not the word of any Omnipresent power. It is the word of man.

I do not doubt this whole witch ordeal in the Bible was added in later in the road, or the original text took out of context.

Even if it had come down unchanged - much had changed over the years and from one culture to another. The rules for that society at that point in time don't make sense as rules for our society in this point in time. Things like not eating shellfish - now that we have refrigeration and better cooking techniques, shellfish are not as deadly as they once were. And in the days when the old testament was being written, enslaving your enemy was considered just fine. Nowadays our society thinks the idea of enslaving any other human being is an atrocity.

[MotherOfDamian]

If King James did purposely add that for his own motives, then it is to say that he was responsible in many ways. Yet people need to think for themselves.
Religion in the old days, particularly, and even now of course, is a lot of politics.