Should a Bible translation "cuss"?

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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.

And this moderator does and will swiftly move to action should the KJV be attacked.

I wonder if those who persist in the KJV usage of p*** use the same word in every day conversation. If not, why not? Should our speech, to the best of our ability, not mirror God's speech?

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

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!

now, now, u're not wearing your respectable g*y clothing this morning, are u (James 2:3)?

most of us living in this wicked n perverse society have arisen n wiped the slumber from our eyes in regard to the KJB's lingo.

but some keep wearing the same clothes n hitting the snooze button.

 

[Harold Garvey]

And this moderator does and will swiftly move to action should the KJV be attacked.

I wonder if those who persist in the KJV usage of p*** use the same word in every day conversation. If not, why not? Should our speech, to the best of our ability, not mirror God's speech?

Maybe because you don't go around saying," This really urinates me off" and "Dung happens"

 

[Harold Garvey]

At least one Other member sees why the Hebrew makes use of the phrase to indicate the view of the ones as dogs while everyone else is in a tizzie

 

[Johnv]

So, let me get this straight... to say the KJV should have used a harsher word than "dung" in Philippians 3:8 is an attack on the KJV, but to say the NIV should have used a harsher word than "rubbish", it's not an attack on the NIV?

 

[robycop3]

Maybe because you don't go around saying," This really urinates me off" and "Dung happens"

Do YOU? Or, do ya use the other words?

I NOW say, "That makes me ANGRY" and "What the hey?" or similar. I was once a sailor, and I can tellya that "cuss like a sailor" is NOT just a figura speech. the only sailors I was ever around that could out-cuss us were the BRITISH, with the Diggers(Aussies) right behind.

To me, cussing was the hardest-to-break habit I ever had. (I was never a drinker nor tobacco user.) It's a pretty insidious habit that can be a handicap in obtaining employment, etc. It took GOD'S POWER to end it in me.

But you're getting off the topic, HG. Some words that were 'proper English' 400 years ago no longer are. That's the opinion of SOCIETY, not any one person, so even if YOU see nothing wrong with a given word, you should take your audience into account before ya use it, lest you cause another to "stumble". I gave you the example of "bloody", a quite-proper word in American English, but quite offensive to most British & Australians. Thus, I try to avoid using that word at all on a public Internet board or any other public communication.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Do YOU? Or, do ya use the other words?

I NOW say, "That makes me ANGRY" and "What the hey?" or similar. I was once a sailor, and I can tellya that "cuss like a sailor" is NOT just a figura speech. the only sailors I was ever around that could out-cuss us were the BRITISH, with the Diggers(Aussies) right behind.

To me, cussing was the hardest-to-break habit I ever had. (I was never a drinker nor tobacco user.) It's a pretty insidious habit that can be a handicap in obtaining employment, etc. It took GOD'S POWER to end it in me.

But you're getting off the topic, HG. Some words that were 'proper English' 400 years ago no longer are. That's the opinion of SOCIETY, not any one person, so even if YOU see nothing wrong with a given word, you should take your audience into account before ya use it, lest you cause another to "stumble". [\Quote] nah, as much as you like to believe that, I am at peace in knowing the difference between God's word and common vulgarity expressed in slang.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Well, I see the moderator hasn't acted so "swiftly" in your misuse of the term "gay" as we find the context in the KJV to be that of apparel and you have attacked the KJV by insinuating it means something related to sodomy

I'm not "living" in the same society you do, [personal attack]

actually, as is plain for all to see, any misuse or insinuation is on the part of the respondent. the context (James 2) was provided. and in spite of that, someone who purportedly lives in a 1611 world could jump to rather postmodern conclusions.

but the point's been proven concerning the 1611 King's Lingo. and it was ironic to see, with a well-placed allusion to the KJB's own words, this KJBOist getting all bent outta shape n attacking the KJB's language.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

....

I wonder if those who persist in the KJV usage of p*** use the same word in every day conversation. If not, why not? Should our speech, to the best of our ability, not mirror God's speech?

Certainly, if the occasion comes up. On the other hand I don't have a habit of casually conversing about such bodily functions. I seldom use the word.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

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).



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.

Thanks RSR. That was an interesting post.

A.F.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Urine is urine, dung is dung, he that pisseth against the wall is likened to a dog, and no matter how perverse some people get God's word will stand. Rubbish is sometimes sorted through and good can be found,yet dung in its present state has no value. Amazing the extent so many go to attacking and maligning the word of God. Sad, truly sad : (

 

[annsni]

yet dung in its present state has no value.(

I guess you've never gardened before, huh?

Or ask my bunny what he thinks of his dung. Did you know that rabbits EAT their dung to get all of the nutrients they need to?

Not all dung is bad. :wavey:

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Yuck, now I can't eat rabbit!

 

[Harold Garvey]

I guess you've never gardened before, huh?

Or ask my bunny what he thinks of his dung. Did you know that rabbits EAT their dung to get all of the nutrients they need to?

Not all dung is bad. :wavey:

I use manure. Rabbits are rabbits but the passages are speaking of human dung as useless.

 

[robycop3]

Do YOU? Or, do ya use the other words?

I NOW say, "That makes me ANGRY" and "What the hey?" or similar. I was once a sailor, and I can tellya that "cuss like a sailor" is NOT just a figura speech. the only sailors I was ever around that could out-cuss us were the BRITISH, with the Diggers(Aussies) right behind.

To me, cussing was the hardest-to-break habit I ever had. (I was never a drinker nor tobacco user.) It's a pretty insidious habit that can be a handicap in obtaining employment, etc. It took GOD'S POWER to end it in me.

But you're getting off the topic, HG. Some words that were 'proper English' 400 years ago no longer are. That's the opinion of SOCIETY, not any one person, so even if YOU see nothing wrong with a given word, you should take your audience into account before ya use it, lest you cause another to "stumble". [\Quote] nah, as much as you like to believe that, I am at peace in knowing the difference between God's word and common vulgarity expressed in slang.

Evidently you're NOT, HG, as you're still hollering about the switch in newer Bible versions to current socially-acceptable words.

Roger, it might be time to close this thread, as it appears all the various points have been presented & it's degenerating inta another argument.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Roger, it might be time to close this thread, as it appears all the various points have been presented & it's degenerating inta another argument.

Closed at author's request