Should Bible be Censored?

[Paul33]

Hi Gina,

Yeah, sometimes I need to take a chill pill.

 

[dianetavegia]

None of the moderator's remember moving this thread. I know I haven't! Not my forum, but certainly it wasn't done out of spite. Sometimes we move things to encourage more replies or to allow other denominations to have a say.

That being said, I'm growing DOWN! A little shorter than I used to be. Maybe my brain got heavier and pushed my vertabrae. EEK!

http://www.fantafilm.it/Schede/1981c/81-4d.jpg

 

[AVL1984]

LOL....I, like Gina, seem to be growing out, no matter how much weight I continue to lose.

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

Doesn't the above censorship of the transilation of SKUBALA demonstrate the very problem. The apostle Paul used the world deliberately to have impact through through the shock of its being used. Who are we to claim to be cleverer than God in dedcidng to remeove that shock simply becuase it offends 21st century Christian sensibilties? That's the point. Its meant to have that impact.

CS Lewis famously said that Jesus isn't safe-a lion isn't safe but He is good. The same is true of His word. Its not safe but it is good. I find it deeply ironic that the very same Christians who would place such a high standard on the inspiration and accuracy of scripture are the same ones would play fast and loose with transilating it accurately when it offends them.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Doesn't the above censorship of the transilation of SKUBALA demonstrate the very problem. The apostle Paul used the world deliberately to have impact through through the shock of its being used. Who are we to claim to be cleverer than God in dedcidng to remeove that shock simply becuase it offends 21st century Christian sensibilties? That's the point. Its meant to have that impact.

neuter of a presumed derivative of 1519 and 2965 and 906; what is thrown to the dogs, i.e. refuse (ordure):--dung.

This is from Strong's lexicon.
I honestly don't see the problem. The KJV did a fair and accurate translation of the word. Some here complain that it wasn't a strong enough word that was used. I don't agree. My argument throughout this thread is simply that one does not have to stoop to gutter language in the translation of the Word of God. I stand by that. Show me an example in the Bible where that is needed.
DHK

 

[mioque]

"This is from Strong's lexicon."
"
Strong's is a lexicon known for using inapropriate euphemisms to describe words, in fact that's a problem with most lexicons using 19th century scholarship (those English lexicons of that era that avoid euphemisms will give the translation of 'dirty' words in French, Italian or Latin presumably because anybody who speaks one of those languages is either a responsible fellow scholar, or a perverted libertine beyond saving).

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Doesn't the above censorship of the transilation of SKUBALA demonstrate the very problem. The apostle Paul used the world deliberately to have impact through through the shock of its being used. Who are we to claim to be cleverer than God in dedcidng to remeove that shock simply becuase it offends 21st century Christian sensibilties? That's the point. Its meant to have that impact.

neuter of a presumed derivative of 1519 and 2965 and 906; what is thrown to the dogs, i.e. refuse (ordure):--dung.

This is from Strong's lexicon.
I honestly don't see the problem. The KJV did a fair and accurate translation of the word. Some here complain that it wasn't a strong enough word that was used. I don't agree. My argument throughout this thread is simply that one does not have to stoop to gutter language in the translation of the Word of God. I stand by that. Show me an example in the Bible where that is needed.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Surely the key issue is that God in inspiring His word, decided such language was needed. It isn't for us to try and be cleverer than God simply because of our 21st century sensibilities. There are those would argue that biblical references to homosexuality should be chnaged because they were culturally detemrined and the language is now offensive. How is changing language such as this any different? Aren't we in danger of applying the same argument?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by The Undiscovered Country:
Surely the key issue is that God in inspiring His word, decided such language was needed. It isn't for us to try and be cleverer than God simply because of our 21st century sensibilities. There are those would argue that biblical references to homosexuality should be chnaged because they were culturally detemrined and the language is now offensive. How is changing language such as this any different? Aren't we in danger of applying the same argument?

Do you have the mind of God? How do you know what He said? Do you have greater scholastic knowledge than the KJV translators did in Hebrew and Greek? On what authority are you giving your opinion? Opinion is worth nothing unless you have facts to back it up with?
I will say it again. Where in the Bible did God use such crude language as to warrant gutter language, and can you prove it? Don't come back with "I think," or "It is my opinion." Because our opinions don't count. It is "thus saith the Lord" what counts. I don't find God using gutter language. If you do prove it.
DHK

 

[The Undiscovered Country]

I'm not arguing for 'gutter language' and I'm not arguing from any scholastic background for one transilation being more accurate than another. The issue for me is that I detect in some of the comments above an aversion to particular words even if they are the more accurate literal transilation of those words.

 

[DHK]

Then what are they?
As, for instance??