Check out the verses in the ESV & NIV 84
-
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!
Vulgar language in the KJV
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Check out the verses in the ESV & NIV 84
What about them?
I have. I should have noted, those were the 2 I looked at. ESV and NIV84 use "male" instead of those who "pisseth against the wall". I think the ESV and NIV84 did a fine job of translating to a more modern English. I don't see omission. I see translation.
Certainly it is translation, but IMO it is also omission.
The Bible's writers could have easily written "men" in those places, but they did not. Those who translate the phrase simply as "men" or "males" are making the assumption that the idiom is a simple equivalent for those terms.
Yet I think it is not. In all the cases where the idiom is used, it is deprecatory. Not once do the writers use it in reference to "good" men. It is clearly an insult, probably one that compares the men in question to dogs, who naturally take care of their business in that fashion. And being compared to a dog in the Old Testament was no light matter; the OT writers definitely had very low opinions of dogs. (A trend that continues in the New Testament, with Paul calling false teachers dogs and John noting that dogs — along withsorcerers, whoremongers, murderers and idolaters — will be outside the Holy City.)
Thus the folks in question are being likened to dogs, and I leave it to you to figure out what the natural English idiom is for describing those people.
Now, I have no quick and easy answer as to how this phrase should be rendered in English because that would require perhaps too much interpretation, but to simply wash it of its imprecations is to drain the life out of the text.
The Bible's writers could have easily written "men" in those places, but they did not. Those who translate the phrase simply as "men" or "males" are making the assumption that the idiom is a simple equivalent for those terms.
Yet I think it is not. In all the cases where the idiom is used, it is deprecatory. Not once do the writers use it in reference to "good" men. It is clearly an insult, probably one that compares the men in question to dogs, who naturally take care of their business in that fashion. And being compared to a dog in the Old Testament was no light matter; the OT writers definitely had very low opinions of dogs. (A trend that continues in the New Testament, with Paul calling false teachers dogs and John noting that dogs — along withsorcerers, whoremongers, murderers and idolaters — will be outside the Holy City.)
Thus the folks in question are being likened to dogs, and I leave it to you to figure out what the natural English idiom is for describing those people.
Now, I have no quick and easy answer as to how this phrase should be rendered in English because that would require perhaps too much interpretation, but to simply wash it of its imprecations is to drain the life out of the text.
On a side note, those who translate it as "males" are indeed correct so far as it goes. I've read several folks who think that the language exempts those who aren't able to accomplish the physical task, i.e. babies, choosing to take an idiom and translate it literally. The context makes it clear that the ability to perform the act is not required, that the purpose is to eradicate the line forever by wiping out all male descendants.
The practice continues into today. Those that have been fortunate enough to spend some time in the Middle East and actually become familiar with their lives and lifestyles, understand that dogs are still considered beggars and those that steal scraps; and those that pisseth against the wall have no more couth or culture than the dogs they unknowingly--or knowingly--emulate.
Thus, to translate it simply as males, loses the essence of the meaning as to how "low" the males being described are.
If you visit the parade grounds in Baghdad, you'll notice the giant crossed swords; and you'll notice the bags of helmets from Iranian soldiers at the base of each sword; and you might even notice that the parade ground is bumpy instead of flat, like most other parade grounds. This is because Iranian helmets were implanted in the pavement, so that each time the Iraqi troops marched over the parade ground, they stepped on the helmets of their fallen enemies.
When the Iraqi threw a shoe at G. Bush; when we're told not to expose the bottom of our shoes by crossing our legs; it's because there's nothing lesser beneath our feet than dirt. To march over the helmets, to throw a shoe, to simply show someone the bottom of your shoe--indicates you think of them as lower or lesser than dirt.
They do because some people might be offended. Much of what we call cuss words aren't. Out of respect for other's uninformed sensibilities I don't use them because I might offend someone. However, when I hear them I am not so much offended as I used to be. Take time consider the etymology behind many words considered curse words and you might not be as offended anymore. A lot of words became curse words because the upper caste decided they were. It was just another form of snobbery. :thumbsup:
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure what you want but here are the references in the OT.
1 Sam. 25:22, 24
1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21
2 Kings 9:8
Now if you want the transliterated Hebrew, for the words, here it is for 1 Sam. 25:22 "shathan" (make water or piss or urinate Strongs H8366) and "gyir" (against a wall, Strong's H7023).
According to Thayer's the idea of the idiom, is to refer to a boy, and in context, a group would be wiped out leaving "not even a boy." The idiom does have a derogatory component, in that adults (including males) would squat and urinate while still draped in their garment, but a little boy, would just let her fly.
Doesn't the Kjv use the word "piss" in the OT though?
Funny Story:
The first week or so I was in Bible college (where most of the classes were taught out of the KJV although it was not required) I was asked to read a passage of Scripture. I can't remember if it was Ass or Piss but I just got stuck at that word and was so embarrassed I could not say it in class. Since then I have used the KJV for about 10 years and got very comfortable with it, and then being a history major in University I found having read the KJV so much made reading other Middle English documents much easier to understand as well.
I do think though that the ESV is the best modern translation followed by the NASB. I really do not like the NIV as I think it takes to many liberties with the language even though that is what I grew up with prior to going to Bible college.
The first week or so I was in Bible college (where most of the classes were taught out of the KJV although it was not required) I was asked to read a passage of Scripture. I can't remember if it was Ass or Piss but I just got stuck at that word and was so embarrassed I could not say it in class. Since then I have used the KJV for about 10 years and got very comfortable with it, and then being a history major in University I found having read the KJV so much made reading other Middle English documents much easier to understand as well.
I do think though that the ESV is the best modern translation followed by the NASB. I really do not like the NIV as I think it takes to many liberties with the language even though that is what I grew up with prior to going to Bible college.
You are referencing the 1984 edition? What liberties in particular?
I'd suggest starting a thread on the topic since its not relevant to this OP.
Don't worry, no one is knocking your preferred version ...