Should Bible be Censored?

No. God's Word is profitable for the learning of the appropriateness of sex in marriage, and the inappropriateness of it outside of marriage.

 

DHK
"I don't believe what the KJV translators translated in 1611 was crude in the 17th century."
"
I agree.

"I don't believe that we have to go out of our way to be crude and vulgar."
"
Once again I agree.

"There is enough profanity in this world without deliberately putting it into the Bible where it is not needed, and then falsely claiming that that is the way it was "back then.""
"
Here is your problem.
You have no true respect for the original language texts. The notion that some parts of Scripture might contain an intentionally crude Hebrew word or 2 is so alien to your thinking that you would prefer to hide it in the translation.

 

That is not my problem at all.
#1. To set the record straight, I am not KJVO, but rather a KJV preferred.
#2. One reason I do prefer the KJV is that I believe it is an accurate translation.
#3. Compared to ugly paraphrases like the Living Bible, the KJV is not only accurate by a literary masterpiece.
#4. The Living Bible seems to go out of its way without consulting the Hebrew or Greek to make the Bible vulgar without rhyme or reason.

I am all for the Greek and Hebrew. I believe we ought to have an accurate translation. But I don't believe we ought to go out of our way to make it as vulgar and explicit as possible. Where do you get this idea from? There is a matter of discretion and decency involved in all things, no matter how vivid the account being told.
DHK

 

"Where do you get this idea from?"
"
It's a translation principle sometimes used:" a translation must be faithfull to the nature of the sourcetext.". Or in Dutch it must be 'brontekstgetrouw'.
In practical terms, if in the original Hebrew a given Biblebook is a dry legal text than it shouldn't be an exciting literary gem in translation. If a prophet stated shocking things in the original than you shouldn't use euphemisms in the translation, on the other hand if euphemisms were used in the original than the translation needs them as well.

 

Mioque,
I don't think that you are understanding the issue here.
First of all, show me one instance in the Bible that when translated literally and accurately must resort to vulgar street language. There isn't any. God didn't not inspire a Bible such as that. The KJV translators, as well as many other translations have already demonstrated that to be true beyond any doubt. It is only a small minority of paraphrases that want us to resort to using vulgar street language. Why should we give into this minority (like the Living Bible paraphrase) and resort to vulgar street language, when it isn't needed, when it isn't in the Hebrew, when it isn't in the Greek, when God never intended to be so. It only exists in the dirty minds of some who would find pleasure in putting it in the Bible in order to deliberatley corrupt it.
DHK

 

DHK: "First of all, show me one instance in the Bible that when translated literally and accurately must resort to vulgar street language. There isn't any. God didn't not inspire a Bible such as that."

On the contrary, in Php 3:8, Paul uses the term SKUBALA, which is not exactly as polite as the more usual KOPRIA. As TDNT (7:446) states, "The choice of the vulgar term stresses the force and totality of this renunciation."

In light of this deliberate usage of a vulgar term by Paul, should our translations opt for something stronger than the more refined "dung" or "refuse"? So far none have moved toward that option (but I certainly have heard it alluded to in expositional preaching, without the actual profanity).

 

You have made my point exactly. The KJV does use strong language where strong language is needed. And it does so without degrading the Bible. There are some paraphrases out there that what use street language and use worse language then "dung." That is what I am opposed to.

Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the priceless gain of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I may have Christ (LB)

Not only those things; I reckon everything as complete loss for the sake of what is so much more valuable, the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have thrown everything away; I consider it all as mere garbage, so that I may gain Christ (TEV)

Not only those things, but I think that all things are worth nothing compared with the greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. Because of him, I have lost all those things, and now I know they are worthless trash. This allows me to have Christ (Century)

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ (ESV)

What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ
(NIV)

Yes most assuredly, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse, that I may gain Christ (WWSB)

But surely I count also all things to be loss on account of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I have suffered the loss of all, and count them to be filth, that I may gain Christ; (Darby)

garbage, rubbish, refuse, filth; Is there much of a difference? Probably not.

"son of whore"? when Jonathan's mother was not a whore is a little out of line. Neither is that what the Hebrew said.

 

DHK: "You have made my point exactly [...] garbage, rubbish, refuse, filth; Is there much of a difference? Probably not."

Perhaps my point was missed? Those paraphrases end up far *weaker* than the rendering "dung", when in fact the word SKUBALA should imply a *stronger* (and more vulgar) term.

 

So then the KJV, using the strongest possible word out of these translations, had the most accurate translation, without being offensive. What do you suggest? Use four letter words?? That is what some of the paraphrases would suggest, but did not do in this particular verse that you have used as an example.
DHK

 

"Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled." Ezek 23:19-21 (NIV)

That doesn't seem family-friendly.

 

DHK
The proper translation of SKUBALA isn't dung it is <prohibited word snipped>.

And the NIV and KJV are both more euphimistic than the Hebrew in their rendering of Ezekiel's description of the proclivities of his Mrs.

[ November 05, 2004, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

18 "She carried out her prostitution openly, and she lay around naked. I turned away from her in disgust as I had turned away from her sister.
19 She remembered how she had been a prostitute in Egypt when she was young. So she took part in even more prostitution.
20 She lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose semen was like that of horses.
21 So she longed to do the sinful things she did when she was young in Egypt, when young men caressed and fondled her breasts.

22 "Oholibah, this is what the Almighty LORD says: I'm going to stir up your lovers against you. They are the lovers you turned away from in disgust. I will bring them against you from every side. (God's Word to the Nations 1995)

Neither in this translation here.
DHK

 

The point in translation Mioque, is to be as accurate as possible and to maintain a certain amount of decorum at the same time. We don't deliberately go out of our way to be offensive with dirty slang words used on the street.
DHK

 

Come on folks, lets not have a contest to see who find the parts of the Bible most likely to offend. By doing so I think we are misusing His perfect, holy Word.

 

This thread originated in the Other Religions Forum, and for some reason got transferred here. The original question is: "Should the Bible be censored?" Here in the Versions Forum, open only to Baptists, I doubt if there is a single person who would give a negative answer to that question. If the thread is going to stay on that topic strictly then there would be no need to continue the thread. The question in mind is already been answered. Of course there is no need to censor the Bible. It was a ridiculous question in the first place--censor the very revelation of God's Holy Word--His communication to mankind? Never! That being the case, why go on any further. Perhaps just close the thread.
DHK

 

DHK
"The point in translation Mioque, is to be as accurate as possible"
"
Yes.

"and to maintain a certain amount of decorum at the same time."
"
No! The point is to be accurate to the original. If for some reason the original was crude back then, than it better be crude now. Especially if we are talking about a sacred text.

"We don't deliberately go out of our way to be offensive with dirty slang words used on the street."
"
Presumably God&Ezekiel also normally did not go out of their way to be crude. But that Biblebook they wrote is extremely crude at times (and yes it was extremely crude back then as well).

C4K
Oops. Sorry about that.

 

Your definition of extremely crude and my defintion of extremely crude seem to be two different things. I certainly don't disagree with a literal translation. It is something else that I have been trying to hi-light in this thread. Perhaps your background from the Netherlands has caused you to miss this point which is just as well with me.
DHK

 

DHK
"Your definition of extremely crude and my defintion of extremely crude seem to be two different things."
"
Not really, I'm just less shocked by it.

And by the way, what was your point?
And more important why is it just as well with you.that I missed it?

 

My point is simply this.
The KJV is a very good and accurate translation. When it comes to what this thread entitled "censored" passages, the KJV used as strong and as accurate language as was needed. There are some translations, (paraphrases in particular) that take more liberty than is warranted with the English language. A paraphrase is not a translation but simply what a man thinks the passage says in his own words. In that context he is at his own discretion to use words and phrases that we would never use, and the Holy Spirit would never inspire. The human mind is depraved. A study of the Living Bible brings some of these things to the surface, as I pointed out. I am in favor of having a literal translation of the Bible, not a vulgar and profane one.
DHK

 

DHK
"as accurate language as was needed."
"
It's up to God how strong the language needs to be, not you and not the KJV translating committee.