Should a Bible translation "cuss"?

Irrelevant to the topic, since God's speech isn't Middle/Early Modern English of the 1600's.

sidenote: I do find it amusing when a person whose posts are so abundant with gramattical errors claims his speech is normal.

A KJVOist usually uses phrases like "the KJV has the best wording to give the full thought where other versions only might indicate the same meaning of the Hebrew".

 

So God actually speaks in KJV english? Harold, thee and thou are translated words. God doesn't speak Old English anymore than He speaks Southern.

 

Harold, how dare you use the word nudity.

Where do we draw the line?

Lack of personal holiness,

Who said I was saying I am holier than thou?

You seem to take great offense at the word prude? Strange!

Bet your a big sinner too. Just won't admit it.

Btw, my Salvation was instantaneous. Christ did all for me.

Just because I mess up does not nullify what my Saviour did for me.

Big difference between being a prude and someone who knows his sins but living in the freedom Christ has given him.

We all know whats right and wrong as Christians, and there is nothing wrong in talking about these things.

Prude

 

"gramattical"?

Casting the first stone...eh Johnny boy?

 

Yes, like a sailor.:laugh:

 

Crude comments snipped

 

So, what you're saying is the KJV isnt God's word! Fascinating. The KJV only gives a more explicit and complete view and you object. No wonder God said the serpent was more subtile than any other creature in the garden. I wonder if that means even more subtle ones outside?

 

um, yes...I'll take "Incorrect conclusions" for $600, Alex...

 

Um, last time I looked, I was addressing Johnv's comments who left it for anyone to come to that conclusion.

You seem to be able to speak for others to that effect while exemplifiying an insatiable desire to add nothing.

The KJV uses the words it does to give a more complete meaning.

Most MV's leave people in want, much like your posts.

Roby's example of the LB shows this due to the fact the remark found there conclusively gives the impression of a derogatory slurr towards another person. The KJV is not guilty there.

 

Nice jump to a conclusion there. The scriptures were written in Hebrew, Aramaic (parts fo Daniel), and Greek, actually. Technically Johnv is correct as the KJV is just a translation of the scriptures into Jacobean English (which, incidentally, was not the language of the common people to start with).

What language does God speak? It doesn't matter to this discussion. Should any bible translation use "cuss" words or vulgarities DOES matter to the discussion.

What purpose would there be in degrading the bible by willing and overtly using such language? Instead of saying that Adam knew his wife, slept with his wife, had relations with his wife, should it read like something that would come out of the mouth of a low-brow gutter dweller? If the translators followed this line of thought the "bible" they would produce would be worthless to any of the faith. The bible has enough hard subjects (rape, incest, murder, adultery, etc) without stooping to the level of outright vulgarity.

Again, what is in the KJV is there. The terms were not regarded as vulgar at the time, but they are so regarded now. The same has happened to such works as those of Shakespeare and even Mark Twain, as words are frozen in time once written. This does not mean that anyone should follow the example and use vulgarities purposefully in translation. There will be enough words change meaning over time to add in those which are not offensive at this particular time.

 

I was checking other translations for this phrase in 1 Samuel 25:22 and if it refers to adult males, then the NLT seems to have translated it the same as the KJV, only worded differently.

NLT
May God deal with me severely if even one man of his household is still alive tomorrow morning!"


Most other translations say "male" or "male child", which could include infants.


The strangest one was this:

Youngs
thus doth God do to the enemies of David, and thus He doth add, if I leave of all that he hath till the light of the morning -- of those sitting on the wall.'

Huh? :laugh:

 

There is truly nothing wrong with the terms In the KJV, there is something wrong woith this "freeze-dried" mentality expressed against it. The simple will pass on and fail to see all offered in the wordings of the KJV if they were left subject to only having all the much toutedmodern versions. Adam knew Eve. Adam's knowledge of her was certanly more than aquaintence or casually as a friend. Just follow the rest of the passage! "Freeze-dried"

 

Swearing is a cultural thing. The 'naughtiness' of some words grows and diminishes with time, within a certain language and culture (and even sub-culture).

Is there a need to censor older (but still popular) translations that have used language that is now offensive? Certainly not. Should a translation use culturally offensive language? That's not so easy to answer. For example, "knew", "went in unto her", "seed"- are all euphemisms for mature subjects (read as 'potentially offensive'). Today, they aren't really as clear. "Had sex with" might be a little offensive, but it conveys more truth than "knew".

The Bible has many hard truths and some topics meant to be read by more mature audiences. I don't think we should dance around the issue of political correctness when translating. So my opinion is, don't use naughty language if you don't have to. But some stuff needs to be said how it is. If people take offense to that, too bad. The gospel is already offensive.

 

You're subjecting everyone else to your opinion. Both those terms are equally the same and in offense. Where is this "rule" except in the vast expanse between the lobes?

 

Where did I say that? Oh, wait, I didn't. I said God's speech isn't Middle/Early Modern English of the 1600's.

Nice dodge, but it doesn't support your claim that God speaks only or primarily in the KJV.

Yet another common KJVOist falsehood. See "meat offering", for example. HG still thinks there was animal flesh in the "meat offering".

 

I can see by this thread's mainline of reasoning it wont be long and men will claim to be gods and the KJV will have become hate speech. Perversion of the truth by a wicked and Perverse society has this as their ultimate goal. Arise out of thy sleep and wipe thy slumber from off thine eyelids!

 

So, by not using terms that are viewed as vulgar and offensive but instead using perfectly legitimate alternatives that would not wound the conscience of the reader, we are making ourselves gods and denouncing the KJV? I cannot see how you made that jump, Harold.

No one has denounced the KJV. Several, myself included, have said that some of the words in the KJV were common usage at the time it was written but are now regarded among the vulgar due to the usage of the day. No one has condemned it. Several, myself included, have stated that these words would not be prudent in a translation of today because of their current usage.

The only one perverting/twisting anything would be you. You have taken the original topic and tried your best to make it a "everyone against the KJV" thread. Robycop mentioned an example of a word used in the KJV (no attack involved), but he also said something about the Living Bible and its usage of questionable language.

Accusing anyone of perverting the truth, especially in the context of the discussion of God's word, is serious business around here. There is a reason why there are guidelines posted for the BVT forum. Here's a few of note:

Source

Arise from your rut and climb down off your hobbyhorse. Your needle is stuck and you are just repeating the same thing over and over and over. If people were actually attacking the KJV I would be one of the first to jump in and put a stop to it. Comparing and contrasting it is not attacking it, nor is pointing out where it falls short. Contrary to what some believe, the KJV was not delivered down by the finger of God on Sinai; it, just like every other translation in the world, was put together by learned men who desired to see the word of God in their own language.

If you want to discuss the bible, then let's discuss. If you are just going to rant and rail and try to make every single thread you post in a stand for the KJV we can do without it.