Should a Bible translation "cuss"?

[Harold Garvey]

Quit acting so stupid, HG. I was explaining a little etymology. If you wanna live in the past, then invent & use a time machine.

Now I dunno WHO made that word a 'cussword', or who made "jazz" into a non-cussword. But that's the way it is in our society. Maybe in Germany, Christians openly drink beer with no one giving it a second thought, but in the USA that's not done. Just as Paul said, while there's nothing really wrong with certain actions, if they could cause someone weak in faith to stumble, one shouldn't do them, at least openly. The society I live in thinx the word in question is a cussword, so I don't use it, unless reading aloud from an old Bible version. Then, I explain it was not a cussword when that version was made.

And I certainly don't accept any modern BV with "S. *. B." in it, such as the earlier edition of the "Living Bible"! An English Bible version shouldn't have any English cussing in it, plain-n-simple! (Again, this goes backta "context" with words like 'hell' & 'd*mn'.)

OK, but since WHEN is it I am "acting stupid" to agree with you in the case of the LB?:type:

Are you acting like an anti-establishementarian?

I hesitantly quoted your exact words and feel I should have astericked them, but you're the one cussing, not me.


The fact remains that society views any version of the Bible to be obscene and the attack on God's word is speeding up rather hastily.

 

[Harold Garvey]

If HG is going to make this an agrument about KJV superiority (which is what he does in nearly every thread), the claim can easily be dispelled in that the KJV uses "p*ss", which in today's language is vulgar, but uses "dung" which isn't. In the source texts, however, the word translated "p*ss" simply means "to urinate", while the source word translated "dung" wasn't just manure, it was an explitive that today would be equivalent to the "s" word.

BTW, the phrase "him that p*sseth against a wall" is a figure of speech which simply meant a male. It doesn't have that context today. In fact, urinating against a wall today is considered uncouth, immodest, and lacking culture.

Either word for excretion of bodily fluid makes me wanna PUKE!

 

[AntennaFarmer]

No, it ISN'T, at least in mosta the USA. Say it in some elementary-school class & see what happens.

You're simply trying to carry over the KJV's usage into MVs as if they're wrong to use a socially-acceptable word that means the same thing.

An elementary school class - what does that have to do with it? Your answer is that you would probably get no reaction at all in most elementary school classes. Children often use words these days that would make a sailor blush.

You don't have any idea what I am trying to do. I have made no comment at all on your MV's.

 

[robycop3]

Either word for excretion of bodily fluid makes me wanna PUKE!

Well, you can always say "Whizz"!

It's nothing to be ashamed of. Every last person does it, either by the usual way, or by dialysis.

I think it'd be kinda silly to put "whizz" in a BV also!

 

[Trotter]

This is a perfect example of how words change. In 1611, p*ss was common usage. Today it is a vulgar and uncouth term used by those who are too lazy and immoral to use a different word.

So, should any translation use the word? It should be left in the KJV as it is locked into the time in which it was written, just as all other translations are locked into the time they are translated. But it should not be used in a modern translation, at least not in a decent one and not some off-the-wall cotton patch kind of rag.

 

[Harold Garvey]

This is a perfect example of how words change. In 1611, p*ss was common usage. Today it is a vulgar and uncouth term used by those who are too lazy and immoral to use a different word.

So, should any translation use the word? It should be left in the KJV as it is locked into the time in which it was written, just as all other translations are locked into the time they are translated. But it should not be used in a modern translation, at least not in a decent one and not some off-the-wall cotton patch kind of rag.

Hey watch it,Buddy, I resemble that remark.

 

[Trotter]

The truth's the truth, Harold. The KJV, as well as all other translations and all written material, are frozen in time. By this I mean that the documents are static, using the language and idoms of the time. If these documents were to be updated they would cease to be what they were.

So, do you use thee and thou and "-est" verbs in your normal conversation?

 

[tinytim]

What about this in The Message...???
Is it used properly in context, or is it cussing?


Micah 3:5
(5) Here is GOD's Message to the prophets, the preachers who lie to my people: "For as long as they're well paid and well fed, the prophets preach, 'Isn't life wonderful! Peace to all!' But if you don't pay up and jump on their bandwagon, their 'God bless you' turns into 'God damn you.'

 

[Amy.G]

What about this in The Message...???
Is it used properly in context, or is it cussing?


Micah 3:5
(5) Here is GOD's Message to the prophets, the preachers who lie to my people: "For as long as they're well paid and well fed, the prophets preach, 'Isn't life wonderful! Peace to all!' But if you don't pay up and jump on their bandwagon, their 'God bless you' turns into 'God damn you.'

Did he consult Rev. Wright on that? :laugh:

 

[Johnv]

It should be left in the KJV as it is locked into the time in which it was written, just as all other translations are locked into the time they are translated. But it should not be used in a modern translation...

I concur with Trotter here. If it wasn't a vugarity in the source text, it shouldn't be a vilgarity in the translation. If it was, however, a vulgarity in the source text, then it is permissible, imo, to use the corresponding vulgarity in the translation.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I think that sometimes we allow ourselves to be too easily offended. I see the phrase in question as a case in point. The Bible contains many phrases and records many events that are "shocking," they are intended to be shocking and I believe that to attempt to sanitize them in translation does a disservice to the reader.

I agree. And I think that King Saul used extremely vulgar language (call it 'cussing' in Hebrew if you will) when communicating his anger in 1 Samuel 20. Look at how it is translated in other versions and you get the sense of what he said about Jonathan (his birth-mother anyway). I'd be uncomfortable reading aloud some passages in some group settings (children, mixed company). Perhaps this in part explains why that the Jews only had men corporately worshiping with other men, and women in a separate court; additionally, Paul said wives should discuss stuff after worship services were over with their husbands in private.

 

[David Michael Harris]

Words as mentioned are not really cussing are they.

They are words of every day experience.

Paul used a word that has been translated as dung but the original word offends many.

Not me.

Many prudes today I think and mainly because of their upbringing.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... BTW, the phrase "him that p*sseth against a wall" is a figure of speech which simply meant a male. ...

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.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... I hesitantly quoted your exact words and feel I should have astericked them, but you're the one cussing, not me. ...

Then you're guilty of the same 'crime' (as roby was only citing dictionary information).

 

[Harold Garvey]

Then you're guilty of the same 'crime' (as roby was only citing dictionary information).

Yes, true, and condemned by you none the less, yet Jesus came not into the world to condemn the world and I am saved.

 

[Harold Garvey]

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.

It also makes a relevence to those who would go against a wall as less moral.

Regardless, the KJV has the best wording to give the full thought where other versions only might indicate the same meaning of the Hebrew; the above case in point.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Words as mentioned are not really cussing are they.

They are words of every day experience.

Paul used a word that has been translated as dung but the original word offends many.

Not me.

Many prudes today I think and mainly because of their upbringing.

Not really, we live in a degradaded society morally speaking and those who call others "prudes" are usually just as immoral as any other.

Neal Boortz/radio talkshow personality is a good example of exactly what I am talking about, he uses the termm "prude" alot. It's gotten to where he makes so many references to sexual perversion that I am no longer a "fan" of his.

What a person shows by calling out "prudes" is their own personal lack of holiness unto the Lord.

Prude:A prude (Old French prude)[1] is a person who is described as being concerned with decorum or propriety. They may be perceived as being uncomfortable with sexuality, nudity, alcohol, drug use or mischief.

The name is generally considered to suggest excessive modesty, and is hence unflattering often used as an insult by people who do not share the moral standards of the "prude". A person who is considered a prude may have reservations about nudity, participating in romantic or sexual activity, drinking alcohol or consuming other drugs, or participating in mischief. These reservations usually stem from, or are at least justified by, moral beliefs. Actions or beliefs that may cause someone to be labeled a prude include advocating or practicing abstinence, advocating prohibition, advocating censorship of sexuality or nudity in the media, disapproval of being nude in public, avoiding or condemning public display of affection, or exhibiting unusual levels of discomfort with sexuality, alcohol, drugs or mischief.

In contrast, prude was originally a noble compliment. Throughout history, it was usually associated with wisdom, integrity, usefulness, and profit.[2]

The degree of prudery can vary among different cultural frames.

Just call me a "prude" and I will be flattered.:type:

 

[Harold Garvey]

What about this in The Message...???
Is it used properly in context, or is it cussing?


Micah 3:5
(5) Here is GOD's Message to the prophets, the preachers who lie to my people: "For as long as they're well paid and well fed, the prophets preach, 'Isn't life wonderful! Peace to all!' But if you don't pay up and jump on their bandwagon, their 'God bless you' turns into 'God **** you.'

I've gone to church with preachers like that.:tear:

KJV Micah 35: Thus saith the LORD concerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, they even prepare war against him.

 

[Johnv]

the KJV has the best wording to give the full thought where other versions only might indicate the same meaning of the Hebrew; the above case in point.

That just ins't so with the aforementioned verse. It might have been the best wording in 1612 Early Modern Enlish. It is certainly not the best wording in today's Modern English.

 

[Harold Garvey]

The truth's the truth, Harold. The KJV, as well as all other translations and all written material, are frozen in time. By this I mean that the documents are static, using the language and idoms of the time. If these documents were to be updated they would cease to be what they were.

You sound just like a KJVO:smilewinkgrin:

So, do you use thee and thou and "-est" verbs in your normal conversation?

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