Wouldn't the KJV have said "servant of Christ" instead of slave if that's what it originally meant?

Question

If that is what Paul really meant anyway. The English word hasn't change since then...


I'm sure King James and his translators knew the difference between slaves, servants and indentured servants.

Answer 1

"Slave" was more understandable to the Greek audience.

The NIV translates it as servant so that we too can relate to the true meaning today.

Answer 2

1. A slave owes service, where a servant, a hired hand, may or may not perform the service. Christ paid a high price for us and we owe Him service.

2. The Mosaic code makes the distinction that a servant receives wages. Thus he is more like today's hired hand.

3. The Mosaic code also says that a slave, as part of the family, was allowed to eat the Passover meal, etc., while a hirling was not. The slave was housed, clothed and fed.

The way you're using the terms is not the way that they were used back then. The KJV translators did know the difference. What they did not know is what we would make of the words today.

Answer 3

The actual word used in the original Greek would be best translated as a "bond-servant". It means one who has sold himself into slavery for a limited period in exchange for a payment or cancellation of debts. Such a person was a "slave" for a limited time and received wages. This was a common practice in the 1600's, and was called "slavery".

When we today think of "slavery", we think of the way it was practiced in the southern USA prior to the Civil War. That is not what the word Paul uses means. It was a very different form of "slavery" to which Paul referred. So the word "slave" has changed in it meaning between the time of the KJ version and today.

A better translation today would be "servant" or "bond slave".

Answer 4

There is always the possibility that the translator(s) at the time had an agenda. They are human, after all. Heck, King James could've had an agenda. The number of people who got their hands in that translation were few, so there were more chances for human error to be overlooked. The Bible's a huge document, after all.

Though meanings in relation to other languages *do* change. Especially in English. English changes quite a lot compared to other languages. "Servant" back in King James' time might not have had the all the connotations (or had the wrong connotations) to make it fit with the Greek word.

Answer 5

The English word has not changed, but the meaning we affix to the word has changed in the past 400 years.

To be a slave was to serve a master. To rely on the master for all your needs. We are all slaves to something, our jobs, our internet access, etc...

With the "slave" history in the USA, the word slave today does not bring up a mental image of a willing servant, but of a person forced to serve another.

Reading the intro to the KJV is very interesting. You see all sorts of translators notes.

Answer 6

The translators did know the difference between slave, servant, and indentured servants. That is-not very much. Indentured servants had a definite obligatory time schedule, servants and slaves did not.

Answer 7

Do you think by asking the king of probably the largest empire in the world at that time anything about slave or servant--get real

Answer 8

You have to remember that Paul wrote in Greek, not english. Greek has a number of words for "slave." The one Paul uses is "bondslave." In that culture, this was a slave who had been freed for whatever reason. He/She was then given a choice - they could stay with their former owner or go somewhere else. If they chose to stay, they would be given a mark (I believe they had their ear pierced against the doorpost) This was considered a badge of honor.

There is no equivalent for this concept in English, because there no cultural basis for it. Most of the time it is translate "bondslave" for just that reason.

Answer 9

Guess What ?

I agree with you !!

It was meant to be Slave. But I believe the Slave of The Bible is not the same as the Slave as we define it Today. It was a Bond Slave, in another Place it is rendered Love Slave.

Answer 10

Actually no they didn't know Sho-nuff, they didn't. the use and description of words used back in 1611 is different now then it was then.
For example: In the King James Bible this passage reads like this:

Isa 31:2 Yet he also [is] wise, and will bring evil, and will not call back his words: but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the help of them that work iniquity

Now God does not bring Evil, but in the context of this verse, The English people back in 1611 often refer to Natural Disasters like Earthquakes and floods and tornados and such and called them Evil, so a more correct interpretation of this verse would be

NKJV Isa 31:2 Yet He also is wise and will bring disaster,
And will not call back His words,
But will arise against the house of evildoers,
And against the help of those who work iniquity.

Or in the New Living Translation Isa 31:2 In his wisdom, the Lord will send great disaster; he will not change his mind. He will rise against those who are wicked, and he will crush their allies, too.

Or in the NIV version it reads : Isa 31:2 Yet he too is wise and can bring disaster;

he does not take back his words.

He will rise up against the house of the wicked,

against those who help evildoers.
,,Now then , did you get it?

Answer 11

what was written at the time of Jesus has to be taken in Context with the time at that time slaves were more coman than servants so that was the term used. but to be a christian means giving your life fully to Christ so to say christians are slaves to Jesus is not a bad thing he is a good master.