Your In Trouble

Interesting question. Although I am not KJV-only, I preach from the KJV... I have a sermon on Balaam I preached recently and substituted "donkey" for the old English word used in the KJV. I realize that there is nothing wrong with the word in that usage but chose to substitute simply because some in the audience may not be a) comfortable or b) familiar with that term since it has become so associated (sadly) with a derogatory term.

 

This is but another example of the "outdatedness" of the KJV. That language is unacceptable, even from the teens that make plumbers blush. The KJVOnlies, for all their cries about the reverence and beauty of the KJV, are willing to accept such undignified (and confusing) language.

I would be using another version ... for good.

BTW, very clever title ... If you intended it.

[ April 22, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry,

Maybe you would prefer the NIV in Ezekiel 23:20 for good preaching text. I guess since they're not outdated based on your definition, they must just be up-to-date, but crass. Talk about making a plumber blush, this verse in the NIV will do it. Now are you going to be hypocritical about this Larry, or are going to condemn both? Is this language acceptable to you Larry, and the KJB is not?

 

LOL!

HankD

 

RE: NIV Ezekiel 23:20.

Where is this "dynamic-equivalence" when you need it?

HankD

 

Why would I be hypocritical?? I have no particular allegiance to the NIV. I don't know that "crass" is the word that should be used for it however. It's language is not slang, as the KJV is. Incidentally, the NIV is the only version of the three I have up (KJV, NASB, NIV) that actually communicated what appears to be the point of the verse. "Flesh like a donkey" does not exactly communicate what seems to be the point. In fact, when I first read it, I was wondering how her lovers had flesh like a donkey. Not until I read the NIV did I know what it was referring to.

Having said that, I would certainly try for a better way to communicate it though I would have to give is some thought. The point is that the KJV was a use of a word that is now irreverent slang.

 

Pastor Larry,

I don't believe the point was about “irreverent slang”. That certainly was not made explicit at the onset. The point seems to be that the language would be considered "offensive" as Dr. Bob put it. Certainly you would not condemn the KJB so strongly in 1 Samuel 25 and then not condemn the NIV in Ezekiel 23 would you? In your own words you make it clear that your problem with wording of the KJB here is that it would “make plumbers blush”, and that it is “undignified”. Are you now going to condemn the NIV for doing the same in Ezekiel, or are you going to further demonstrate your bias against the KJB? You and I had an interesting discussion a while back where you stated that KJBO’s will not admit to being wrong even after they were shown explicitly their error. Are you now going to continue justifying yourself? You even went as far as to say “I would be using another version ... for good” over this issue. Are you going to follow your own advice and quite using the NIV?

 

Comparing the NIV in Ezek 23:20 and the now vulgar language that is in the KJV is apples and oranges, and my fellow Knoxvillian knows it.

But still, that's why God gave the ESV

 

Apples and oranges are both fruits, or did you not know this? Are you saying Ezek 23 in the NIV is not vulgar?

 

Did you read what I said? I will quote it to save you the trouble: Having said that, I would certainly try for a better way to communicate it though I would have to give is some thought. It is the most clear translation; it could perhaps be done in a better way.

The NIV is a proper translation of what the text says; I have no bias against the KJV so I can't demonstrate that for you.

Are you going to stop beating your wife? (IMPLICATION: I never started so I can't continue.)

The question was not about the NIV. I don't preach from the NIV. I will continue to read the NIV, just as I continue to read the KJV. What's there to change?

 

Can a "blushing plumber" say something here?

Oh, well, I guess you can't really stop me, I'm going to anyway.

I believe this is the oh-so common "trap" of the anti-KJB crowd. Taking the types of words used in these passages knowing that they are considered by the everchanging world as offensive is some what deceitful. Those words in question are not "vulgar" or offensive in the original text according to that time, and shouldn't be now. So are we going to let this ecumenical,everchanging, God-hating world dictate to the Church the Word of God as vulgar and offensive? Isn't that the motivation behind all this degradation and degeneration of the wording of the Holy Bible all along? All under the disguise of simplicity and easier read bibles? Get Real!

I'm just a "dumb ol'plumber" and I understand exactly the references in the passage, afterall, I'm not the rocket scientist so many accuse me of being!

How long do you "reckon", (one of those "archaic" KJB words), will it be before this world's system makes it vulgar and offensive to even mention "God" anywhere at anytime? ( those devils are working profusely at it). Relatively, the same concept applies here to these words being considered as offensive.

The devil and his crowd are taking many words and perverting them to mean something vulgar and offensive. A similar word is the one that refers to a female dog, the usage is now nearly extinct, except in the realm of many canine enthusaist, but the world has taken that same word and perverted it into being foul language. Of course it has always been offensive to refer to a woman as a dog, BUT it has never been offensive to a female dog, not that I know of, none have ever told me it was!

I learned those particular words in grammar school. I've known what they mean for 30 years or so. When I find them in my Bible, it doesn't offend me at all, and it shouldn't offend anyone with some sense of the Bible. It should bring to the attention of the reader the moral issues, (concerning those imparticular) or the gender related words, as well as the usage in that day, to relate the passage and the thought as well. Besides, I hear many professing Christians using many words today that have no other reference to anything but that which is vulgar and offensive, if that can be considered a form of rule in this matter.

To call a man a **expletive deleted*** has always been offensive, but to refer to a mule or donkey as an ass or a jackass has never offended any of them either, that is , none of them have ever told me that, How about you?

I just believe if I were to use that passage as the text for a Mother's Day message, I might reconsider my real motive instead. And if it is you true intention, then warn that crowd that those are Bible words, and only the world has made them vulgar or offensive, and we are not serving the world,or to give place to the devil as allowing him any dominion, all dominion belongs to the Lord! We are serving the Lord! It may give everyone a chance to realize some truth, besides, you'd be telling the truth anyway!

Can't we find something better to do with that "redeemed time"?

In Christ,

Brother Ricky

[ April 23, 2003, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: TomVols ]

 

So let me get this straight...you don't consider a slang term for urination vulgar? You can't even say it on public television. Do you use it in ordinary conversation? I doubt it. Reason is simple: words change meaning. We're not talking about a theological word. We're talking about a word that is now vulgar describing the process excess is discarded from the body. To equate theological words with body functions is ludicrous.

I'll give you an example of another word that used to have a good meaning: evolution (or its derivations). It used to be a beautifully descriptive word. Now it's been hijacked by quasi-scientists who have fashioned a god of their own desires and the word is now synonomous with heresy.

 

TomVols,

You said: “You can't even say it on public television”.

Not true. They can and do.

You said: “Do you use it in ordinary conversation? I doubt it”.

Ad hominem.

You said: “Reason is simple: words change meaning. We're not talking about a theological word. We're talking about a word that is now vulgar describing the process excess is discarded from the body. To equate theological words with body functions is ludicrous”.

Non sequitur. Much to the contrary my fellow Knoxvillian, theological (meaning God’s) words do discuss body functions, hundreds of times. Two very clear examples are given in this thread.

Now when you said evolution is heresy, and that quasi-scientists have fashioned a god out of it, now here is something we agree on.

 

So let me get this straight...you don't consider a slang term for urination vulgar? You can't even say it on public television. Do you use it in ordinary conversation? I doubt it. Reason is simple: words change meaning. We're not talking about a theological word. We're talking about a word that is now vulgar describing the process excess is discarded from the body. To equate theological words with body functions is ludicrous.

I'll give you an example of another word that used to have a good meaning: evolution (or its derivations). It used to be a beautifully descriptive word. Now it's been hijacked by quasi-scientists who have fashioned a god of their own desires and the word is now synonomous with heresy. </font>[/QUOTE]The action is what is vulgar, but still is a normal bodily function. The word describing that function is not vulgar. As far as your statement that the word can't be used on public t.v., do you have your head stuck in the sand? Those words are thrown around all over the hellivision. I've even heard some "preachers", and I use that term lightly, use that word in the vulgar, as a curse word. I call it a curse word when it is used as the expliative, and not as word proper. Like I said, are we going to let people change the root meaniongs of words and thereby make them vulgar and obscene? That would be letting the world manipulate us into exactly what it wants us to be, puppets.

Besides, when did it become "slang"? It wasn't a slang word back then, and it shouldn't be now. I agree it's not a matter of everyday speech, it wasn't then either. Modernism has dictated it to be slang, it certainly wasn't slang originally.

This one will blow you away! Evolution started way back yonder in Genesis, God's version that is. (after their kind is the key)

That word "evolution" has been perverted, just another example of what I am talking about. I believe we agree on this subject, but I'll never agree with the perversion of any word by changing it's root meaning into something obscene.


In Christ, (the world is trying to make Him obscene as we speak, are you going to let them get away with that too?),

Brother Ricky

 

Istherenotacause, if it was OK for people in 1611 to go to the greek in their day and make a translation that was not "vulgar or offensive", why can't I have one today that is not vulgar or offensive? Why do you grant them a privelege and deny it to me? </font>[/QUOTE]I didn't make it vulgar and offensive, the world in it's confusion has. So let me ask you, are you going to let this world dictate what is acceptable, allowing it to have dominion over knowledge, dictating what is truth contrary to what is established?

The same thing is being accomplished in history being changed by secular humanists; it's all an effort to refute the Bible, an attack on God's word. Removing the ancient landmarks a little at a time, thinking it goes un-noticed. I'm just glad there are those who keep their focus on the exact location of those "landmarks" to insure their positions.

I want to say this with the right attitude: If you want to have what you would call something less vulgar in the sense of a "newer" translation of God's Word, that is your entitlement, but I would go on to say that you are just bowing down to the very element behind it. I'm not saying you are doing this knowingly, but maybe just ignorant to the facts.

Also I know this opens up the universal discussion of manuscripts to translate the Word of God. The "1611" translators used primarily the Byzantine manuscripts, discarding the Alexandrian. The "BIG" excuse modernists always use is that we don't have the originals, that ideal comes straight form the pits of hell, eventually the powers of darkness will use that to deny the whole matter of the Word of God altogether, saying, that if the originals are missing, then no one can say what the Word of God is. Now doesn't that lead right into where the devil wants us? Right into a state of confusion!

Note that the Byzantine came from Jerusalem, Alexandrian came from Egypt, now the question is, Do you want to continue in the wilderness wanderings, or would you live over in Canaan's fair land? I'm not trying to improve on God's word by what the world dictates, I'm trying to let the Lord improve my life by responding to His already established word!

The saying,"him that pisseth against the wall" is of that language of that particular land, now it must be a matter of custom being related to all who read the word.Gender correct: it signifies the distinction of men, women can't, unless they stand side ways, now that might be humorous! (excuse me ladies, I try my best to remember to close the lid!)

Brother Ricky

 

So what were the urination mores of the Elizabethans and Jacobeans?

When I was a kid in Japan and the school was having Open House or Sports Day or whatever they always sent home notes reminding the parents to use the restrooms, since urinating anywhere else on the school grounds was not permitted. In this particular case, recent Japanese culture would seem to be more biblical than even the most fundamental Baptist behavior.

Haruo