Leviticus 18 - Uncovering ... = Euphemism?

[franklinmonroe]

... I think Frank is saying it might not be a euphemism at all. I certainly can't point to a more explicit Hebrew term...

Correct, Phil. I think I've demonstrated that it is both difficult and unnecessary to know with certainty whether an expression is an euphemism; but if an expression has a known literal meaning (in the context in which it is found) it should be translated such as to convey that meaning in English phrase.

Literal words (may be fine in an interlinear study but) do not always convey literal meaning, and we hope to understand the scriptures the way that the original audience understood them.

I think the debate will continue as to the terms chosen are too modest, or too clinical, or too crude.

 

[Salamander]

Correct, Phil. I think I've demonstrated that it is both difficult and unnecessary to know with certainty whether an expression is an euphemism; but if an expression has a known literal meaning (in the context in which it is found) it should be translated such as to convey that meaning in English phrase.

Thus the need for literacy and the KJB!

Literal words (may be fine in an interlinear study but) do not always convey literal meaning, and we hope to understand the scriptures the way that the original audience understood them.

"Study to show thyself approved....." comes to mind.

I think the debate will continue as to the terms chosen are too modest, or too clinical, or too crude.

G'head, I'll stcik with proclaiming!:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

If this is directed at the OP, I think you misunderstand...

Nope.

• Translated literally

Most certainly

• Translated using present day euphemisms

• As long as the understanding remains intact

  [*]Translated more "to the point" as they are in dynamic equivalent translations

  That's why we have commentaries, in a sense, but then that is the reason for the Holy Ghost.

I think Frank is saying it might not be a euphemism at all. I certainly can't point to a more explicit Hebrew term using the only tool I know--the KJV + Strong's, however I hesitate to throw out the studies represented in the works already referenced.

Certainly not. I am open to all studies that don't attack the KJB in their effort to establish doctrine.

I am even open to the accusations against the KJB, it has helped me stand that much stronger on the KJB in that every accusation against it proves to be made according to malignities birthed from questioning the veracity of the Scriptures.

All I have ever found against the KJB and standing on it has no foundation, only built upon "sinking sand" as I've read others proclaim.

To understand a eupemism of the past, one must study, then allow the Holy Ghost to establish the use of it to be applied to hearts so we might live holy lives.

Therein lies the problem, men refuse to live holy and try everything imaginable in an attempt to disanul the very Bible God gave to them to show them how to acheive holiness unto the Lord.

I Sam 25 gives us a fine example.

The true sense tells us the Lord's hand to cut off all men in regard to leaving women and infants alive, thus showing the true mercy of the Lord.

Many will object to this passage calling it vulgar, yet any term substituted is just as vulgar, except in the vernacular and opinion of the objector.

I am speaking from the experience of a discussion with some one who said they were thinking of using the passage for a "Mother's Day" message. Let the truth be known, it wasn't his intent, but his underhanded attack on the KJB. I am not that naive!

I am interested in the word of God, yet I am not that naive to fail to suspect malignity in the motives of some when it becomes more evident by their very words.

No accusation has been made, but I will be quick to state my stand.

 

[rbell]

Now quit stalking me.:1_grouphug:

Thanks for yet another false accusation. I'm sorry that you lack the maturity to converse with me without lobbing grenades such as this. Oh well.

 

[Salamander]

Thanks for yet another false accusation. I'm sorry that you lack the maturity to converse with me without lobbing grenades such as this. Oh well.

Yet another example of the evidences against you for stalking me. Touche'

 

[rbell]

Sal, please approach the mods, and give them your "stalking evidence" so they can ban me from the BB. If I'm doing what you suggest (I'm not), then go show them (you can't). If I'm such a problem, you owe it to the BB to show the mods so they can appropriately take action.

Why not do a post-by-post comparison and see who has had to be edited more? Who is the bigger headache on this board regarding inappropriate posts? Who launches more personal attacks? That answer will quickly become clear.

I'm sorry you have issues with me. If staying angry at me is your choice, then I can't change that.

I'll bow out. Feel free to make your final "Stalking allegation" below.

 

[Trotter]

The question was asked whether "uncovering nakedness" is a euphemism. From what has been given thus far, it looks like it is in certain places, just as "know" and "knew" are used for the same thing. Uncovering feet has been referred to in much the same way.

I wonder why a euphemism was chosen, or does the Hebrew read that way?

 

[rsr]

The Hebrew reads that way. By retaining a literal rendering, translators have maintained it as a euphemism, whether it was in fact euphemistic when it was put down in Hebrew.

 

[rsr]

I Sam 25 gives us a fine example.

Well, since you brought it up ...

The phrase used there, as it is elsewhere, was translated literally by the KJV men. Those who "urinate against the wall" is either a dysphemism or cacophemism, on the opposite side of the spectrum from a euphemism.

Exactly why this colorful language was used is variously interpreted, with some saying it is to show contempt by likening the objects to dogs.

Be that as it may, many translations have chosen to render it simply as "males."

The true sense tells us the Lord's hand to cut off all men in regard to leaving women and infants alive, thus showing the true mercy of the Lord.

Salamander has chosen to interpret the phrase so as to exclude infants, though I can only guess the grounds. I would suggest that this is a novel interpretation and perhaps takes the language a bit too literally.

Many will object to this passage calling it vulgar,

Well, it is slightly vulgar (vulgar is itself an interesting bit of idiom; it originally meant only that something was of the common people and eventually morphed into a synonym for coarse or ill-bred) though not so vulgar as it would have been considered a quarter century ago; it could show up on prime time TV these days and not even be noticed.

yet any term substituted is just as vulgar, except in the vernacular and opinion of the objector.

Vulgarity is always "in the vernacular and opinion of the objector." Words and phrases that were acceptable in one era are off limits in another; words that cause consternation in one age are acceptable in other periods. Victorians frowned upon "legs," preferring "limbs."

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The phrase used there, as it is elsewhere, was translated literally by the KJV men. Those who "urinate against the wall" is either a dysphemism or cacophemism, on the opposite side of the spectrum from a euphemism...

The Hebrew word shathan (Strong's #8366) literally means to 'make water'. It occurs just 6 times in the OT, always along with the Hebrew word qiyr (Strong's #7023) which is translated 'wall' over 60 times in KJV. Many versions that render shathan as "male" also leave qiyr untranslated (as a separate word); clearly, these versions treat the two words as a single expression --

May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive one male of all who belong to him! (NIV)

May God do so to the enemies of David, and more also, if by morning I leave {as much as} one male of any who belong to him (NASB '95)

God do so to David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him. (RSV)​

Again, is it certain that this expression was intented to be disparaging or deliberately offensive in ancient Hebrew? Perhaps at that time it was a very specific term referring to a restricted people group (possibly boys of particular ages). If this phrase implies urination in public, it could refer to young boys which might engage in such (since in most cultures it is indecent for an adult to be exposed while relieving himself). Young boys (about ages 8-14) are notorious for their aggressive behavious and lack of conscience, which is why they almost exclusively recruited by political terrorists, Columbian drug lords, and criminal street gangs. Even some secular psychologists confess that these 'natural' characteristics of young boys must be 'trained out' of them, else they would all become murders, rapists, and robbers.

Incidently, Robert Young has a unique translation here --

thus doth God do to the enemies of David, and thus He doth add, if I leave of all that he hath till the light of the morning -- of those sitting on the wall.​

 

[Salamander]

Sal, please approach the mods, and give them your "stalking evidence" so they can ban me from the BB. If I'm doing what you suggest (I'm not), then go show them (you can't). If I'm such a problem, you owe it to the BB to show the mods so they can appropriately take action.

Why not do a post-by-post comparison and see who has had to be edited more? Who is the bigger headache on this board regarding inappropriate posts? Who launches more personal attacks? That answer will quickly become clear.

I'm sorry you have issues with me. If staying angry at me is your choice, then I can't change that.

I'll bow out. Feel free to make your final "Stalking allegation" below.

I have to admit you are so much better than me, I think I'll just cry!

You have done all the attacking, friend. Your last post is evidence enough, although I am not that immature to play this little game of yours.

I have no "issues" with you and I am not "angry" either. Your conjecture remains the same typical garbage as it's always been.

You seem to carry alot of accusations in your purse is all I have observed. Then as if it validates yopur cause, you play as if you're the victim.

May I suggest if you can't discuss the topic to remain silent? I've offered much on this topic to which you have yet to respond, well, except this slandering of my person in some sordid effort of yours.

 

[Salamander]

Are we name calling again?

The question was asked whether "uncovering nakedness" is a euphemism.

Of course it is.

From what has been given thus far, it looks like it is in certain places, just as "know" and "knew" are used for the same thing. Uncovering feet has been referred to in much the same way.

Um, uncovering feet doesn't seem to have the same sexual conotations though, huh?

I wonder why a euphemism was chosen, or does the Hebrew read that way?

The euphemism was chosen because it was understood to mean just what it does.

I don't wonder at the word of God, I just WONDER at God who inspired it!

 

[Salamander]

Well, since you brought it up ...

The phrase used there, as it is elsewhere, was translated literally by the KJV men. Those who "urinate against the wall" is either a dysphemism or cacophemism, on the opposite side of the spectrum from a euphemism.

Exactly why this colorful language was used is variously interpreted, with some saying it is to show contempt by likening the objects to dogs.

You're right, er, or they are right. I did omit that aspect and since much can be said in reference to the heathen as dogs, it fits perfectly.

Be that as it may, many translations have chosen to render it simply as "males."


Salamander has chosen to interpret the phrase so as to exclude infants, though I can only guess the grounds. I would suggest that this is a novel interpretation and perhaps takes the language a bit too literally.

A literal Bible taken too literally? I assessed the passage as that where we have obtained the life and death ultimatum to preserve life; as women and children first.

Although there are certain passages that God commands that an entire people be cut off without decendent, it is most likely these were to be given a chance to receive God's mercy after "cleansing" the elder males from existence. Understanding that infants, (or puppies, in the realm of this passages alluding to them as dogs) would be unable to "hike the leg"

Well, it is slightly vulgar (vulgar is itself an interesting bit of idiom; it originally meant only that something was of the common people and eventually morphed into a synonym for coarse or ill-bred) though not so vulgar as it would have been considered a quarter century ago; it could show up on prime time TV these days and not even be noticed.


Vulgarity is always "in the vernacular and opinion of the objector." Words and phrases that were acceptable in one era are off limits in another; words that cause consternation in one age are acceptable in other periods. Victorians frowned upon "legs," preferring "limbs."

You'd be very surprised as to all we agree upon.:wavey:

 

[franklinmonroe]

Trotter wrote: "The question was asked whether "uncovering nakedness" is a euphemism."
The OP actually asked: "So, first question, do you think this is a euphemism?"

I had attempted previously to show that the question is really only relevent as applied to the ancient Hebrew use of the phrase, and not any current interpretation of an English rendering. If the Hebrew was an euphemism, then the KJV English follows. However, if the Hebrew was not originally an euphemism but the common terminology of the age, then the KJV English is merely a word-for-word translation. Current English words alone cannot be used to determine the past intention of the Hebrew expression. Elizabethan terms are often unfamilar, making many of them seem euphemistic to contemporary readers.

The KJV translated these Hebrew words strictly literal, which sounds like an euphemism in English ears. But that is not proof. First, we seem to be lacking a more explicit Hebrew expression for human sexual intercourse by which to place beside this phrase. Second, there is the issue of multiple definitions for these words: in some contexts this Hebrew word (just one of 11 Hebrew words used for "nakedness") also means literal nudity, or spiritual uncleaness, or even shame (see Genesis 9, Exodus 28:42, Isaiah 47:3, Lamentations 1:8, etc.). Remember that readmore, myself, and others when reading have understood "uncovering nakedness" many times simply as unclothed exposure without realizing that it might mean something else. A more familar example may be that in some NT passages "asleep" is simply the natural state of rest (literal), and other times in the scriptures the same Greek word "asleep" really means to be dead (almost certainly an euphemism in the original language because of the availability of about a dozen other more explicit words for "dead").

Of course it is.

Will you present in this forum some evidence for your confident affirmation that the ancient Hebrew expression was an intentionally euphemistic designation for coitus, please?

 

[Salamander]

In study of the Jewish tradition, we find the words rendered "to know" has far more implications than meets the English understanding with out incorporation of that tradition.

The Hebrew langauge is full of euphemisms.

One is the English word Heaven, it is also "God" in the Hebrew

The Hebrew is full of euphemisms. I suppose if there were a burden of proof, it would be more the possibility of proof that the Hebrew doesn't use them.

All languages incorporate them.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The Hebrew langauge is full of euphemisms.

One is the English word Heaven, it is also "God" in the Hebrew...

Book, chapter, and verse?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The Hebrew is full of euphemisms. I suppose if there were a burden of proof, it would be more the possibility of proof that the Hebrew doesn't use them...

I don't find any post in this thread that even suggests that Hebrew has no euphemisms at all; it is just that no one has offered any objective proof that the OP one is an euphemism. However, Salmander is very certain that it is, but he won't present any evidence here.

Neither has he supported his statement that one of the many Hebrew euphemisms "is the English word Heaven, it is also 'God' in the Hebrew" with actual examples in scripture.

 

[Salamander]

Book, chapter, and verse?

Try doing a little web search for Hebrew idioms and euphemisms.

 

[John of Japan]

This is a weird thread. I was going to apologize for getting on it late (I was sleeping while you guys were arguing), but since there has only been about one full page or so out of the four of relevant discussion I don't feel bad.

I just want to point out that all Japanese Bibles so far translate the OP phrase as okasu, or "rape." This is quite problematic morally speaking. Translated literally the phrase has great meaning in Japanese society, since Japanese families literally bathe together. I won't even begin to get into the moral cesspool that is the country of Japan, partly due to this practice I believe. Suffice it to say that if the phrase were translated literally instead as an idiom or euphemism, it would certainly help Japanese believers to know the dangers.

My vote is for literal translation, even in English.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Try doing a little web search for Hebrew idioms and euphemisms.

First, you should be willing to support your own claims.
Second, if its so easy to find, you shouldn't mind doing it. Just provide the web address.
Third, you should assume I have already done a search and found nothing, or else I wouldn't ask.
Fourth, I think you're attempting to dodge the issue.