Should a Bible translation "cuss"?

[Johnv]

No, but my speech is normal, God's speech is Divine.:type:

Irrelevant to the topic, since God's speech isn't Middle/Early Modern English of the 1600's.

sidenote: I do find it amusing when a person whose posts are so abundant with gramattical errors claims his speech is normal.

You sound just like a KJVO

A KJVOist usually uses phrases like "the KJV has the best wording to give the full thought where other versions only might indicate the same meaning of the Hebrew".

 

[sag38]

So God actually speaks in KJV english? Harold, thee and thou are translated words. God doesn't speak Old English anymore than He speaks Southern.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Harold, how dare you use the word nudity.

Where do we draw the line?

Lack of personal holiness,

Who said I was saying I am holier than thou?

You seem to take great offense at the word prude? Strange!

Bet your a big sinner too. Just won't admit it.

Btw, my Salvation was instantaneous. Christ did all for me.

Just because I mess up does not nullify what my Saviour did for me.

Big difference between being a prude and someone who knows his sins but living in the freedom Christ has given him.

We all know whats right and wrong as Christians, and there is nothing wrong in talking about these things.

Prude

 

[AntennaFarmer]

....

sidenote: I do find it amusing when a person whose posts are so abundant with gramattical errors claims his speech is normal.

....

"gramattical"?

Casting the first stone...eh Johnny boy?

 

[Thermodynamics]

Should a Bible translation "cuss"?

Yes, like a sailor.:laugh:

 

[Harold Garvey]

Crude comments snipped

 

[Harold Garvey]

Irrelevant to the topic, since God's speech isn't Middle/Early Modern English of the 1600's.

sidenote: I do find it amusing when a person whose posts are so abundant with gramattical errors claims his speech is normal.

A KJVOist usually uses phrases like "the KJV has the best wording to give the full thought where other versions only might indicate the same meaning of the Hebrew".

So, what you're saying is the KJV isnt God's word! Fascinating. The KJV only gives a more explicit and complete view and you object. No wonder God said the serpent was more subtile than any other creature in the garden. I wonder if that means even more subtle ones outside?

 

[rbell]

So, what you're saying is the KJV isnt God's word! Fascinating.

um, yes...I'll take "Incorrect conclusions" for $600, Alex...

 

[Harold Garvey]

um, yes...I'll take "Incorrect conclusions" for $600, Alex...

Um, last time I looked, I was addressing Johnv's comments who left it for anyone to come to that conclusion.

You seem to be able to speak for others to that effect while exemplifiying an insatiable desire to add nothing.

The KJV uses the words it does to give a more complete meaning.

Most MV's leave people in want, much like your posts.

Roby's example of the LB shows this due to the fact the remark found there conclusively gives the impression of a derogatory slurr towards another person. The KJV is not guilty there.

 

[Trotter]

God's speech isn't Middle/Early Modern English of the 1600's.

So, what you're saying is the KJV isnt God's word!

Nice jump to a conclusion there. The scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic (parts fo Daniel), and Greek, actually. Technically Johnv is correct as the KJV is just a translation of the scriptures into Jacobean English (which, incidentally, was not the language of the common people to start with).

What language does God speak? It doesn't matter to this discussion. Should any bible translation use "cuss" words or vulgarities DOES matter to the discussion.

What purpose would there be in degrading the bible by willing and overtly using such language? Instead of saying that Adam knew his wife, slept with his wife, had relations with his wife, should it read like something that would come out of the mouth of a low-brow gutter dweller? If the translators followed this line of thought the "bible" they would produce would be worthless to any of the faith. The bible has enough hard subjects (rape, incest, murder, adultery, etc) without stooping to the level of outright vulgarity.

Again, what is in the KJV is there. The terms were not regarded as vulgar at the time, but they are so regarded now. The same has happened to such works as those of Shakespeare and even Mark Twain, as words are frozen in time once written. This does not mean that anyone should follow the example and use vulgarities purposefully in translation. There will be enough words change meaning over time to add in those which are not offensive at this particular time.

 

[Amy.G]

I was checking other translations for this phrase in 1 Samuel 25:22 and if it refers to adult males, then the NLT seems to have translated it the same as the KJV, only worded differently.

NLT
May God deal with me severely if even one man of his household is still alive tomorrow morning!"


Most other translations say "male" or "male child", which could include infants.


The strangest one was this:

Youngs
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.'

Huh? :laugh:

 

[Harold Garvey]

There is truly nothing wrong with the terms In the KJV, there is something wrong woith this "freeze-dried" mentality expressed against it. The simple will pass on and fail to see all offered in the wordings of the KJV if they were left subject to only having all the much toutedmodern versions. Adam knew Eve. Adam's knowledge of her was certanly more than aquaintence or casually as a friend. Just follow the rest of the passage! "Freeze-dried"

 

[kubel]

Swearing is a cultural thing. The 'naughtiness' of some words grows and diminishes with time, within a certain language and culture (and even sub-culture).

Is there a need to censor older (but still popular) translations that have used language that is now offensive? Certainly not. Should a translation use culturally offensive language? That's not so easy to answer. For example, "knew", "went in unto her", "seed"- are all euphemisms for mature subjects (read as 'potentially offensive'). Today, they aren't really as clear. "Had sex with" might be a little offensive, but it conveys more truth than "knew".

The Bible has many hard truths and some topics meant to be read by more mature audiences. I don't think we should dance around the issue of political correctness when translating. So my opinion is, don't use naughty language if you don't have to. But some stuff needs to be said how it is. If people take offense to that, too bad. The gospel is already offensive.

 

[robycop3]

Swearing is a cultural thing. The 'naughtiness' of some words grows and diminishes with time, within a certain language and culture (and even sub-culture).

Is there a need to censor older (but still popular) translations that have used language that is now offensive? Certainly not. Should a translation use culturally offensive language? That's not so easy to answer. For example, "knew", "went in unto her", "seed"- are all euphemisms for mature subjects (read as 'potentially offensive'). Today, they aren't really as clear. "Had sex with" might be a little offensive, but it conveys more truth than "knew".

The Bible has many hard truths and some topics meant to be read by more mature audiences. I don't think we should dance around the issue of political correctness when translating. So my opinion is, don't use naughty language if you don't have to. But some stuff needs to be said how it is. If people take offense to that, too bad. The gospel is already offensive.

I agree, Kubel. Yes, dung should be called dung and urine should be called urine. EVERY bodily excretion, function, and body part has an acceptable English term, and that's the term that should be used in a Bible translation. The KJV(as well as the Bishop's and Geneva versions) used what was acceptable in its day, but in making a modern translation, several terms that these versions used are now considered 'cussing' & shouldn't be used now.

 

[rsr]

EVERY bodily excretion, function, and body part has an acceptable English term, and that's the term that should be used in a Bible translation.

I wonder about that. How do you render Ezekiel 23 to be both "acceptable" and true to the text? The interlinear of the Apostolic Bible (from the Septuagint) does a pretty good job, but I doubt you would want that to be read in church.

I also would disagree that using the four-letter word in question constitutes "cussing." It may be indelicate and it may be a vulgarity, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of cursing.

This brings to mind an earlier discussion on the proper way to translate euphemisms (and their opposite, dysphemisms).

Almost, and this is what makes it clumsy to translate into English: it actually indicates a male mature enough to stand upright (which definitely excludes male infants); in practice it probably meant the class of males from the ages of about 12 years and up.

There is a good deal of agreement that the phrase does mean men, but there certainly is not unanimity. Some Jewish sources interpret it as referring to another creature known for urinating against the wall — dogs. Dogs, of course, were unclean to the Jews and considered worthless; to be left without so much as a dog was to be reduced to nothingness.

Metaphorically, of course, the writer may be referring to men, comparing them to dogs.

Why do we suppose that "mature" men are in view? Anyone who has been around small children knows that urinating against a wall (or anything else) comes pretty naturally to boys of tender years. In fact, one could argue that urinating against a wall (especially in a land where most of the buildings were made of mud brick and stucco) was a juvenile behavior, not a mature one.

(There is some material from an Assyrian dream book that could link the practice described with divination, which would buttress a claim that the text refers to men of the age of procreation, but that's perhaps a bit far afield.)

Some translation try to slide past the whole topic, rendering the entire phrase simply as "men" or "males." That bothers me. The original writer could have used the Hebrew for men or males, but he didn't: He used an earthy phrase that conveys something that another word choice wouldn't have provided.

Even if the phrase did mean simply "men" or "males," removing the literal translation robs the text of vitality. And to go further, I'm not sure that "urinating" adequately expresses the sense of the text, which appears to be imprecatory.

Pity the poor translators who have to make these kinds of decisions.

 

[Harold Garvey]

I agree, Kubel. Yes, dung should be called dung and urine should be called urine. EVERY bodily excretion, function, and body part has an acceptable English term, and that's the term that should be used in a Bible translation. The KJV(as well as the Bishop's and Geneva versions) used what was acceptable in its day, but in making a modern translation, several terms that these versions used are now considered 'cussing' & shouldn't be used now.

You're subjecting everyone else to your opinion. Both those terms are equally the same and in offense. Where is this "rule" except in the vast expanse between the lobes?

 

[robycop3]

You're subjecting everyone else to your opinion. Both those terms are equally the same and in offense. Where is this "rule" except in the vast expanse between the lobes?

The opinion comes from SOCIETY, whose 'lobes' are somewhat larger than ours. Now, what if I were to write a certain 4-letter word commonly used for sexual intercourse, in an ordinary post? Would you consider me to be cussing? Betcha the moderators would, & would unceremoniously toss me from this board. That word existed long before we did, and was once a proper everyday word which meant 'to pierce or go through'. Don't believe it? Just look up the old names for the bird we call the kestrel.

But over the years, this word has become one of the most offensive words in American English, while we use the terms 'sex' and 'sexual intercourse' for the act by which every one of us came to be born.

(The use of the word 'sex' for 'sexual intercourse' didn't start until the 1920s.)

Now, I didn't make that rule...SOCIETY AS A WHOLE did.

Many of us know how passionate the feelings in Columbus, Ohio can run during the week before the annual Ohio State University-University of Michigan football game. During the 1970s, someone in Columbus made & displayed on his truck a large bumper sticker that read "F*** Michigan". He was busted by the cops for public vulgarity. In court, the prosecutor asked the judge to consider the true meaning of the offensive word, its arousal of prurient interest, and find the accused guilty. However, that judge made a laughing stock outta the prosecutor. He stated that, "taking the prosecution's request to consider the true meaning of the word, I must therefore look at the whole phrase. A pure dictionary meaning would be to copulate with the whole state of Michigan, which is, of course, absurd, and arouses humor without any logical prurient interest. Also, I cannot ignore the overall feeling of the population of Columbus days before an Ohio state-Michigan football game to be played in Columbus. Therefore, given the timing of the display of this phrase, and the absurdity of its meeting any dictionary definition criteria, I find the defendant, "----_----", NOT GUILTY of displaying vulgarity. However, I caution the defendant to use care and common sense in his public use of the word in question." This locally-famous court case caused several entrepeneurs to sell "M*** Fichigan" T-shirts & bumper stickers. They still do.

Again, SOCIETY determines what is "cussing".

Now, most non-Christians in the USA still believe that cussing is something Christians don't do, and would be very shocked to fine 'cusswords' in a modern Bible. That's why I believe that modern Bibles should NOT use certain words found in older versions, as it could cause some to 'stumble'.

Again, I am not condemning the older English versions for using certain words, but I would certainly condemn their use in newer versions, as "the times, they are a' changin' ".

 

[Johnv]

So, what you're saying is the KJV isnt God's word!

Where did I say that? Oh, wait, I didn't. I said God's speech isn't Middle/Early Modern English of the 1600's.

The KJV only gives a more explicit and complete view and you object.

Nice dodge, but it doesn't support your claim that God speaks only or primarily in the KJV.

The KJV uses the words it does to give a more complete meaning. Most MV's leave people in want, much like your posts.

Yet another common KJVOist falsehood. See "meat offering", for example. HG still thinks there was animal flesh in the "meat offering".

 

[Harold Garvey]

I can see by this thread's mainline of reasoning it wont be long and men will claim to be gods and the KJV will have become hate speech. Perversion of the truth by a wicked and Perverse society has this as their ultimate goal. Arise out of thy sleep and wipe thy slumber from off thine eyelids!

 

[Trotter]

I can see by this thread's mainline of reasoning it wont be long and men will claim to be gods and the KJV will have become hate speech.

So, by not using terms that are viewed as vulgar and offensive but instead using perfectly legitimate alternatives that would not wound the conscience of the reader, we are making ourselves gods and denouncing the KJV? I cannot see how you made that jump, Harold.

No one has denounced the KJV. Several, myself included, have said that some of the words in the KJV were common usage at the time it was written but are now regarded among the vulgar due to the usage of the day. No one has condemned it. Several, myself included, have stated that these words would not be prudent in a translation of today because of their current usage.

Perversion of the truth by a wicked and Perverse society has this as their ultimate goal.

The only one perverting/twisting anything would be you. You have taken the original topic and tried your best to make it a "everyone against the KJV" thread. Robycop mentioned an example of a word used in the KJV (no attack involved), but he also said something about the Living Bible and its usage of questionable language.

Accusing anyone of perverting the truth, especially in the context of the discussion of God's word, is serious business around here. There is a reason why there are guidelines posted for the BVT forum. Here's a few of note:

5. Remember that we're presenting ideas and not destroying people. Teach patiently as 2 Tim 2 says, or don't post at all.

6. Do not attack the other poster; if you want to question the opinion, that's fine. But do so in a God honoring way. Don't attack the person; the goal is to build up and win for the truth's sake.

8. Stop turning every single thread into a KJV vs. all other versions discussion. If it's off topic, it's going in the trash. Continual violations of this will result in discipline.

9. a. The KJVO crowd will not not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.

Source

Arise out of thy sleep and wipe thy slumber from off thine eyelids!

Arise from your rut and climb down off your hobbyhorse. Your needle is stuck and you are just repeating the same thing over and over and over. If people were actually attacking the KJV I would be one of the first to jump in and put a stop to it. Comparing and contrasting it is not attacking it, nor is pointing out where it falls short. Contrary to what some believe, the KJV was not delivered down by the finger of God on Sinai; it, just like every other translation in the world, was put together by learned men who desired to see the word of God in their own language.

If you want to discuss the bible, then let's discuss. If you are just going to rant and rail and try to make every single thread you post in a stand for the KJV we can do without it.