Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should Shakespeare?Originally posted by Paul33:
Should the Bible be censored because of explicit sexual references?
That is not true. A knowledge of the Bible is absolutely necessary. A person cannot be saved, cannot be born again without the direct message of the word of God. The simple outward testimoy of your life is not enough.Originally posted by Seth3:
You know... It does not matter in my eyes where the book itself is allowed. But theres no way to stop living letters (or living epistles) penned by the Spirit of the living God, to be known and read by all... Therefore you can win others without a word because your known and read by the Love of God not the book under your arm.
God bless
Seth3
What do you mean by censored?Originally posted by Paul33:
Should the Bible be censored because of explicit sexual references?
Very true!Originally posted by av1611jim:
God made sex beautiful. The devil made it dirty. If you see it as dirty, check yourself.
Originally posted by DHK:
Not to get into a translational debate here, but one of the beauties of the KJV, is that it holds a literary art of putting some of the more explicit sexual references in more discreet terms. Other modern translations... don't hold much back even using vulgar languange that we would steer our children away from. They degrade God's Word.
Certainly. And taken in the proper context, they may still be offensive today. Many people still know what it means "to know a woman," when said in the right context. Context is everything.Originally posted by Johnv:
I would disagree. If one does an indepth study of the Greek and hebrew phrases, you'll find that certain phrases in the original scriptural languages did indeed carry a vulgar content to the people of the time. Hence, if a contemporary translation translates the vulgarity in like fashion, it is not a degrading of God's word. I do agree with your comment that some phrases in the KJV are translated in less vulgar fashion, but must of that is also because the vulgar context no longer applies in the English language. If you were to tell a man in the 1600's that he "spills his seed" or "knows a lot of women", your comments would have been offensive and downright vulgar to many ears.
No. Properly understood from a Catholic/pre-1935 protestant view marital relations are a holy act and shed light on our relationship with Christ.(I discussed this in a post from a while ago which I will repost here)Should the Bible be censored because of explicit sexual references?
I don't believe what the KJV translators translated in 1611 was crude in the 17th century. I don't believe that we have to go out of our way to be crude and vulgar. 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." Perhaps now, our society is so degenerated and desensitized to sin that therre is a thirst for crude, vulgar language, and a desire for sexual voyeursim such as there never has been before. And now people want that reflected in the Bible. Jesus said that when he comes again: "Will I find faith?"Originally posted by mioque:
DHK
If the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaïc used what in those days were seen as euphemisms than a translation should use them as well. If the original was crude back then, than so should the translation be nowadays. One has to accurately translate the original text after all.
Depends on what you mean by "censored."Originally posted by Paul33:
Should the Bible be censored because of explicit sexual references?