# was Paul a potty-mouth?



## dust_and_ashes (Jun 16, 2006)

if this is the wrong place to post this, please correct me... (i'm new here)...

i was checking out philippians 3:8 over at www.netbible.org and the footnote for the word "dung"(or "rubbish" in some translations) and i quote...

"The word here translated "œdung" was often used in Greek as a vulgar term for fecal matter. As such it would most likely have had a certain shock value for the readers. This may well be Paul´s meaning here, especially since the context is about what the flesh produces."


if this is true (and i'm not a greek scholar, but i believe the word is "skubala") then why do our english translations take away the "shock value" that Paul intended to convey? words like "rubbish", "trash", and "dung" just don't hit you quite the same... 

was Paul a potty-mouth?


----------



## fivepointcalvinist (Jun 16, 2006)

my dad is a greek expert. he and i had this discussion a while back and he conveyed to me that the word used in the passage is equivalent to saying dog**** in english.

also the word is skubalon...

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by fivepointcalvinist]


----------



## dust_and_ashes (Jun 16, 2006)

so if i changed my screen-name to dog-skubala i could "shock" everyone? 
haha


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by fivepointcalvinist_
> my dad is a greek expert. he and i had this discussion a while back and he conveyed to me that the word used in the passage is equivalent to saying dog**** in english.
> 
> also the word is skubalon...
> ...



I think there is a bit much protestation currently about  ÏƒÎºÏ…Î²Î±Î»Î¿Î½ . It is trendy lately to make this word have the most vulgar meaning possible. It is true that it is a blunt word, but it is not exclusively used by Paul, but also by more "sophisticated" and literary writers such as Plutarch and Strabo. They would not have used a word that solely had such a vulgar meaning (as Aristophanes would have, for example).

But then again, that does not allow us to be cute and snicker like Beavis and his friend when we read the verse.

[Edited on 6/17/2006 by fredtgreco]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 16, 2006)




----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 16, 2006)

The Puritanboard censors Beavis' friend's name...


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 16, 2006)

Yes, my understanding that it wasn't used for a vulgar sense for the shear sake of vulgar. Although today we use the term "vulgar" wrong too. But Paul did mean it forcefully and not the nice "dung", because his anger was against that which was denying the Gospel of blood of Christ. Only Luther has had the guts to give it a real translation in his German version, most others quite frankly wimp out.

Look at it this way on an earthly level (arguing from the infinitely lesser to the infinitely greater): If your mom or dad or brother or sister gave their life in a horrible death for the freedom of a group of murderers. And thus they were freed. If they began or others infiltrating them began to say in essence, "You need to add these "good works" to what they (your mother/dad/brother/sister) did to stay "free and just" or "prove your freedom and justice". What would you call it? Would you be composed and say, "Gentlemen, I count this as dung or feces." Or would you use a more explicit term? Now, put this on the infinite level with the righteous Lord of Glory who bled at the hands of his enemies and bore the wrath of God for us worse than murderers. Do you think the quite tame and inoquoious "dung" really captures what anything we might pretend to add to that is?

Paul wasn't a "potty mouth" nor was he being gentile or avoiding vulgarity. He was righteously furious and no amount of linguistic study can escape the fury and force of what he was saying, considering he was defending the Christ that bled for him.

Ldh

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Peter (Jun 16, 2006)

Didn't Paul say he wanted the Judiazers in the Galatian church emasculated? But there are also so many exhortations from his pen to bridle the tongue and to speak soberly.


----------



## Presbyrino (Jun 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by dust_and_ashes_
> was Paul a potty-mouth?



When I saw the title of the thread, initially I thought it was about Paul Manata and his upcomming debate (I was like "Way to go Paul!")


----------



## py3ak (Jun 16, 2006)

You know, before we wax too violent against the AV's dung we ought to consider how strong it sounded in their time.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> Didn't Paul say he wanted the Judiazers in the Galatian church emasculated? But there are also so many exhortations from his pen to bridle the tongue and to speak soberly.


You and I are on the same sheet of music on this.


> 12. Paul closes this brief paragraph with a rather startling expression: Would that those who upset you might make eunuchs of themselves!ï»¿ ï»¿
> 
> In view of the fact that the basic meaning of the verb which Paul uses in expressing his wish is to cut off, there are those who think that the apostle voices his desire that the opponents may be "œcut off" from the church ("œI would that they were even cut off which trouble you," A.V.), or, better still, that they would cut themselves off ("œ"¦ would cut themselves off from you altogether," Phillips; cf. Ramsay, Historical Commentary, pp. 437"“440). A more reasonable interpretation, however, one which (because it agrees with the use of the verb in such contexts in contemporary sources)ï»¿154ï»¿ is supported by most commentators both ancient and modern, interprets the meaning to be this, that the apostle is saying, "œAs for these agitators, they had better go the whole way and make eunuchs of themselves!" (N.E.B.). Paul reasons, as it were, as follows: Since circumcision has lost its religious value, it is nothing more than a concision (cf. Phil. 3:2), which differs only in degree but not essentially from the practices of pagan priests, practices well-known to the Galatians. But since the Judaizers who are upsetting the Galatians believe a little physical mutilation is of spiritual value, let them be consistent and cut away more radically. Let them go all the way, and castrate themselves, thus making eunuchs of themselves like the priests of Cybele in their wild "œdevotions."
> 
> ...


Whether or not Paul used vulgarity, he was not above expressing ideas in the most graphic manner.


----------



## srhoades (Jun 17, 2006)

If the word was vulgar, then Paul would be contradicting what he wrote in Ephesians 4:20 and 5:3-4. And since we know scripture can not contradict itself by its very nature, the word can not be vulgar. True, we may have no english translation without being vulgar, but that doesn't mean the original was.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 17, 2006)

Paul was making a joke in Galatians. Those who push for circumcision should emasculate themselves!


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 17, 2006)

That passage makes for the best sermon title: Christ or Crap? Think alliteration here. 

There are vulgarisms a plenty in the OT especially in the books of Samuel and Kings. I remember how shocked I was in college when I started reading those books in the original.

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by kevin.carroll]


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jun 17, 2006)

I agree that Paul was taking the ad absurdum route. 

If cutting off a little skin from that part makes you holy, how much more holy to cut off the whole thing! Git 'r done!

-JD


----------



## turmeric (Jun 17, 2006)

I think we are misusing the term *vulgar*. I don't have a dictionary handy but I don't believe Paul was being vulgar, although he was being graphic. In the first instance, he was comparing something to literal dung, which isn't the same as the way people use the Anglo-Saxon noun today, as in "Dung Happens". (vulgar, excuse me!). In the second case, I think he was comparing the Judaizers to pagans, as the quote in the above post brings out, again, not vulgar. I guess I mean, not gratuitous. Not very precise, am I?


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 17, 2006)

The term "vulgar" IS grossly misused today. It really means "common" language. Today it carries more the idea of "natsy" with it, which itself has dual meanings.

Paul's Galatian "cut off" was far more than an extension to the absurd regarding circumcision, that's superficial. He meant that they should be cut off entirely, so not to produce anymore seed, which is a great curse. It is a great curse to have one's line extinguished from "being". In this sense Paul was saying this false gospel of "working to heaven or maintaining one's self in God's favor by works of any sort (circumcision in this case) rather than resting nakedly in Christ alone - such a one is of the serpent's seed and should not be just cut of from life themselves but that their future seed eraticated entirely.

Paul wasn't using it in the modern concept of "emasculation" or as a mild "put down" concerning their manhood, rather like the enemy king of this world, their line completely obliterated for ever. So, again Paul's language is forceful and righteously furious, not dainty and "southern belle" like. Paul was being more "Braveheartish" if you will.

Ldh


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 17, 2006)

Brandon,

This excellent analysis was posted elsewhere some time back. You'll find it extremely helpful in the use of such language and what Paul really meant concerning the tongue.

Larry


Toward An Evangelical Theology Of Cussing


By: Michael J. Svigel , Th.M.

A Few Bad Words of Theological Humor

Conservative evangelical Christians have long been known for shunning all sorts of behavior considered by others to be morally neutral or enjoyable. Whether it´s drinking alcoholic beverages,1 smoking tobacco products,2 playing cards,3 going to movie theatres,4 dancing,5 or even drinking coffee,6 "œfundamentalist"7 Christians are often viewed by outsiders as having a God who is not only a white-clad, frowning prude, but also a "œCosmic Killjoy."

However, the study of cussing, kakalogology, has a less refined history among Christians in general and evangelicals in particular. This lack of definition has caused many outright offenses and some extremely awkward social situations. These range from blurting out words that sound mischievously like curse words but are, in fact, not,8 to a teacher or preacher´s hesitancy to utter the word "œhell" in reference the place of eternal torment.9

What does the Bible teach concerning cussing? Can there be a Christian consensus on kakalogology? How are we to determine, in an age of words that did not exist in biblical times, what is appropriate and what is foul? If the Christian is to avoid uttering certain terms, we need to know what those are so we can at least keep an eye on them. And if there is a world of vocabulary available for communicating God´s message, shouldn´t we also be free to use it?

Symbol, Meaning, Referent, Meaning-Indicator, Meaning-Fulfillment, Sense, Sense-Intuition, Sense-Receptor, And The Phenomenological Expressiveness Of Kakalogology

To avoid being flushed down the hermeneutical spiral, I will evade the issue of hermeneutics altogether with the exception of the following. There is much ado in hermeneutical works concerning such things as symbol, thing signified, meaning, referent, sense, indicator, sign, undsoweiter. In my own scheme, and for the sake of simplicity, I am limiting my discussion of bad words to symbol, meaning, and referent. In this work the term "œsymbol" means the actual word itself. There are two types of symbols: oral (the spoken word) and written (the written word). For example, the written symbol "œcrap" is simply a particular ordering of the right-open-crescent "œc," right-facing-hook "œr," clockwise-spiral "œa," and circle-with-left-tail "œp." The oral symbol is the combination of sounds made when one utters the word "œcrap," that is, a short, silent tongue-scraping, semi-guttural sound (unvoiced velar stop), followed by a noisy bit of air passing over a lifted and retracted tongue and through a semi-pursed set of lips (voiced aveolar liquid syllabic), sliding smoothly into a smiley-faced, mid-length vowel tone (low front tense unrounded vowel), and ending in an abrupt and non-vocalized lip-popper (unvoiced bilabial stop).

The term "œmeaning" in this paper has both an objective and subjective sense. Objectively, "œmeaning" is the unaffected definition of the word, that is, the connotation that the word itself brings to the context. For the word "œcrap," the objective meaning is simply "œsomething unpleasant." The subjective meaning is the definition attached to a particular symbol by the user or receiver, which meaning is wholly dependent on context.

"œReferent" is the concrete or abstract "œthing" to which a particular symbol is applied with a particular meaning. Thus, one may apply the symbol "œcrap" with the specific meaning "œbad-tasting" to a Pizza Hut pizza.10 "œThis is [Censored]!" would then simply mean, "œThis pizza has failed to satisfy my culinary standards."

The significance of the symbol´s meaning as applied to a particular referent is the broader contextual import of the semantic situation. The significance of equating pizza to [Censored] is that it reveals the speaker´s general disdain for that particular pizza. If the person speaking is the president of Yum Brands, Inc., the owner of Pizza Hut, this statement has tremendous significance. If it´s your pet parrot, it´s not likely to be considered a paramount verbal event.

Although this extremely elementary discussion may fail to satisfy the hyper-intelligent cerebrals of the French and German philosophical hermeneutical schools, I must further point out to them that, after all, a sign is only significant when its referent signifies the expressive significance of its indicated meaning. When this happens, which is most often the case in phenomenological associative origins, the unity of the particular whole (and its parts inductively related to the whole´s particularity) functions as the sense of which the life-experience and expression of one´s own particular and general individuality relates to the significance of the sign, which, obviously, renders significance wholly meaningless.11

What is a Cuss Word?

What exactly is a cuss word? This is a matter of intense debate among scholars12 and lay-cussers13 alike, because while some words are considered taboo in certain cultures or countries, others are not. As a mild example, in some families quasi-cuss words include "œdumb" and "œshut up." In other families, these words and worse constitute polite dinnertime conversation. Foreigners, too, are known to make all sorts of verbal blunders. In fact, mastering the use (and non-use) of cuss words is a skill that indicates a high level of proficiency in any language.14

To Cuss Or Not To Cuss?

Clearly, the Bible forbids something called aijscrologiva (aischrologia), "œobscene speech." Colossians 3:8 says, "œBut now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech [aijscrologiva (aischrologia)] from your mouth" (NASB). The NIV translates the word as "œfilthy language." The KJV has "œfilthy communication." The ASV reads, "œshameful speaking." Luther, who is known for his affection for cussing, translates the word "œschandbare Worte."

The question is What does Colossians 3:8 specifically forbid when it tells us to put away aijscrologiva (aischrologia)? The word itself is made up of two Greek words: aijscrov" (aischros) meaning "œdisgraceful, shameful, dishonest," and lovgia (logia), meaning "œoracles." In every use in the NT, lovgia (logia) refers to "œoracles," or the revealed message from God. It is not the word lovgo" (logos), which can refer to actual words themselves (Matt 12:36), a message (Matt 13:19), or speech in general (Matt 5:37). So, it appears that Paul is actually forbidding false prophesying.15

Putting "œCrap" Back in the Bible

Although many liberal scholars and non-Christians believe the Bible is full of [Censored],16 there´s actually only one place where the word occurs, though it is often scooped up or covered over by modern English translations.

In Philippians 3:8 Paul tells his readers that all the things of religious value in his former life are regarded to him now as skuvbalon (skubalon), that is, "œcrap." While liberals, neo-orthodox, post-liberals, feminists, historians, Methodists, and other heretics may feel obliged to remove "œcrap" from the Bible by flushing it away with euphemisms such as "œrubbish" or "œrefuse" evangelicals who believe every word is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16) should refuse to flush. Instead, we should embrace a translation that conveys the rhetorical effect intended by the author, as crass and base as it may seem to our perhaps overly-pious ears (cf. Eccl 7:16).

The King James Version had no qualms about translating skuvbalon (skubalon) with a more suitable"”though emotively sub-standard"”"œdung."17 Only Luther had the guts to translate the noun with Kot in his landmark German translation.18 The problem with translations like "œrefuse" and "œrubbish" in today´s idiom is that the recent movement by earth-worshippers, tree-huggers, witches, Democrats, and other pagans towards recycling implies that almost all refuse or rubbish has some value. Likewise, even "œdung" could be construed as having usefulness at least as fertilizer. Only a harsher term like "œcrap" would indicate the utter uselessness that Paul had in mind.

What does the [Censored] we find in the Bible teach us about our emerging biblical kakalogology? Simply this: that however we seek to apply passages that forbid "œunclean" speech, it must be done in such a way that allows Paul to utter the word skuvbalon (skubalon) in reference to Judaistic religious practices.

Conclusion

In light of this introductory discussion toward an evangelical theology of cussing (practical kakalogology), we must conclude with the NT that the utterance of a cuss word in and of itself is neutral (Rom 14:14), that there is nothing inherently sinful about a particular verbal symbol. Rather, its filthiness or appropriateness is derived from its referent and significance. Paul demonstrates this in his use of "œcrap" in Philippians 3:8, where the symbol skuvbalon (skubalon), has a metaphorical referent of his former religious practices, with the significance that these practices are worthless.

1 The ban on alcoholic beverages has several levels of extremity. The first, which we will call the Level 1 Ban, is universal and categorical and includes everything from cordial cherries to rubbing alcohol. Level 1 Bans usually include other rules against selling alcohol, patronizing businesses that sell alcohol, reading magazines that advertise alcohol, and even making jokes about alcohol. If you´re a Level 1 Banner, the chances are you haven´t made it far enough in this paper to read these words. Even apart from their psychotic approach to a naturally-forming chemical, these people are generally bores to be around. A Level 2 Ban would be abstinence from the consumption of alcoholic beverages or other products containing alcohol. However, the avoidance of restaurants, magazines, and alcoholics is considered extreme. A Level 3 Ban involves forsaking alcohol as a beverage. That is, one could not consume a glass of beer, wine, or any other alcoholic beverage as such. However, alcohol may be used for cooking, for medicinal purposes, and in liturgical or ceremonial contexts. (One convenient loophole in the Level 3 Ban is pouring the alcoholic beverage into a bowl and calling it "œsoup.") Finally, a Level 4 Ban would be something like, "œAlways say "˜yes´ to the first and "˜no´ to the second." The drinking of alcoholic beverages is left up to the conscience and tolerance of the individual Christian within his or her cultural and social context. Thus, Level 4 calls for wise, temperate, Spirit-filled living with Christian love as the guiding principle. This is, of course, grossly unpopular.

2 There are no examples of the use of tobacco in the Bible (with the possible exceptions of Psalm 18:8; 68:2; and Rev 19:3). Neither are there any prohibitions against it. Advocates of the habit often appeal to arguments such as, "œWell, if smoking tobacco is such a sin, why do you read books by C. S. Lewis?" or "œIt´s only harmful if you inhale," or "œGod graciously provides all things for our enjoyment. I enjoy tobacco. Therefore, God graciously provides it. Who am I to resist God?" Unlike the use (or non-use) of alcohol, Christians tend to either completely abstain from or completely indulge in tobacco. The latter are considered by the former to be very carnal, unsaved, or Minnesota Lutherans.

3 Sometimes this is nuanced to include only "œTarot cards" and "œtraditional" playing cards, i.e. cards that are used in witchcraft or gambling. Card games such as "œUno," the German favorite "œSet," and educational flash cards are generally regarded as acceptable by most, except the ardent ascetic who believes leisure activity and advancement out of cultural ignorance are inherently sinful. For Christian organizations and institutions that ban traditional playing cards, the argument is usually something like this: "œPlaying cards are actually morally neutral, but because they are associated with gambling and because some weaker brothers believe they are inherently sinful, we must abstain from them to avoid the appearance of evil and offense to the weaker brother." In response to the first point, consistency would dictate that Christians shun the use of money as well, since money is the single common element of all gambling while playing cards are not. Regarding the second objection concerning the weaker brother, who really cares about him anyway?

4 While some Christians regard movie theatres as sinful, they often permit the viewing of videos at home, where we´re accountable to nobody and can watch anything we want all day long without getting caught.

5 As many other Christian prohibitions, the policy against dancing has been variously interpreted. Some disallow all types of dancing. Others allow only dance in worship or formal dancing, rejecting social dancing. Bans on dancing by educational institutions have been interpreted in a variety of ways by students: while some apply the rule to all dancing as long as one is enrolled at the institution, others take the ban to mean "œno dancing during class."

6 For a thorough examination of the Christian view of coffee, see Michael J. Svigel, "œCoffee As a Means of Grace," a paper presented to the Southwest Region of the Evangelical Theological Society, March 21, 2003, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas. Available online at www.bible.org.

7 "œFundamentalist" and "œfundamentalism" have themselves become bad words. While evangelicals today tend to hold most of the "œfundamentals" that gave these people their name, few want to be called "œfundamentalists." E. J. Carnell once defined a "œfundamentalist" as simply "œa conservative." In another place he defined it as "œorthodoxy gone cultic," illustrating the difficulty of defining the term even by the same person. While I could be called by many a "œfundamentalist" in my theology, I´m one of those small but growing number of conservative evangelicals who wants to put the "œfun" back into "œfundamentalism" while cutting down on the "œmental."

8 Anecdotal evidence for this abounds. One example from personal experience is the Church History lecture where the professor was droning on about the heretic Marcion. Sensing that the class was drifting off, the professor decided to animate his voice and re-capture attention. Unfortunately, the point at which he decided to employ this new strategy was at the phrase "œhe was the son of a bishop," which, when spoken loudly and quickly, sounds like a phrase that says much more about the immorality of one´s mother than the holiness of one´s father.

9 As can be expected, this has led to heterodox views of the eternal punishment of the lost. The terms "œoblivion" and "œannihilate" are less prone to linguistic offense than the traditional "œhell" or "œdamn."

10 I am using Pizza Hut as an example because of the obvious inferiority of their pizzas. This inferiority is demonstrated in two ways: 1) Papa John´s, Inc. has run an advertisement for some time wherein their slogan is "œBetter Ingredients. Better Pizza." This obviously implies that Pizza Hut´s pizza in particular is inferior because it uses inferior ingredients (see Steve Malloy, "œPepperoni, Cheese and Whining; Pizza Hut Targets the Competition," Washington Times, January 18, 2000, which can be accessed online at http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-22-00.html; "œPapa John´s Win´s a Round over Pizza Hut," AP article, accessed online at http://www.usatoday.com/news/court/ 2001-03-19-pizza.htm). 2) Pizza Hut is constantly introducing new products, be it the cheese-stuffed crust or the "œBig New Yorker." Companies that have to incessantly change or add products are obviously struggling with an inferior product line to being with. This last line, of course, doesn´t apply to evangelical churches and ministries that are constantly modifying their marketing while pretending to preserve their message.

11 But in a hermeneutical light, essential distinctions of this kind must be regarded with open suspicion, for the independence of unjustified intentional and phenomenological distinctions, which pertain to expressions and signs (whether they express a sense on the one hand or remain ambiguous on the other) are intentional expressions only insofar as they express the mental life of the individual, whose communication must be seen as a kind of ambiguous sense of meaningfullessness (If this made no sense to you, try reading Heidegger, whose writings on hermeneutics scholars only pretend to understand.)

12 See the recently-edited work of Martin Heidegger, SchwÃ¶ren und Dasein, (Marburg: FrankendrÃ¼ck, 1999) and the all-but-ignored work of Hans-Georg Gadamer, Vielleichtigkeit und Schlechtigkeit (Berlin: Schwortz, 1950) as well as Karl Barth´s forceful response, Nein, verdammt! (Berlin: Schlagen, 1951). Of less significance is Franz Bibfeldt´s Martin Luther´s "œDas ist Mein Po" und frÃ¼he evangelische Rhetorik (Bad-Lauterberg: Am Hausberg, 1962) and Hans KÃ¼ng´s critical work, D. Luthers Theologie der Gerechtigkeit: "œAuff-" oder "œAus-deisem-Kloake?" (KÃ¶ln: Katolische, 1980).

13 One is reminded of the rather exhaustive list of foul words and phrases of the sinfully raucous comedian, George Carlin. It is still a matter of debate in the field of philosophical kakalogology whether his list ought to be regarded as the standard (cf. Richard Wannabagel, Dale Carnegie Meets Carlin at Carnegie, or, How to Lose Friends and Insult People [Dallas: D-Press, 2001], 140-142).

14 The reader is directed to the delightful works by Gertrude Besserwisser, Scheisse!: The Real German You Were Never Taught in School (New York: Dutton/Plume, 1994); Ralph A. Lewin, Merde: Excursions in Scientific, Cultural, and Sociohistorical Coprology (New York: Random House, 1999).

15 Thus, rather than reprobates like George Carlin, Eddie Murphy, and Buddy Hackett, the condemnation pertaining to the aijscrologiva (aischrologia) rather applies to the practices of such men as Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Hagin, and Kenneth Copeland.

16 Cf. inter alia, Gary Greenberg, 101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, 2000) and Gerd Ludemann, The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible (London, SCM, 1997).

17 This may be construed as yet another evidence for the supremacy of the King James Version among English translations. One may reason from the lesser to the greater (the Rabbincal practive of qal w´homer): if the translators of the KJV were conscientious enough to leave [Censored] in the Bible, how much more would they be eager to retain quality!

18 It is interesting that Luther´s translation of the Bible standardized the German language. It is also interesting to note that Germans today, including German Christians, rarely hesitate to use colorful, earthy language in every-day conversation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Brandon,
> 
> This excellent analysis was posted elsewhere some time back. You'll find it extremely helpful in the use of such language and what Paul really meant concerning the tongue.
> ...



Also see this thread and this.


----------



## Peter (Jun 17, 2006)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> That passage makes for the best sermon title: Christ or <b>[Censored]</b>? Think alliteration here.
> 
> There are vulgarisms a plenty in the OT especially in the books of Samuel and Kings. I remember how shocked I was in college when I started reading those books in the original.
> ...



On the other hand, though I haven't read anything in the original, I've found that in literal translations the OT uses interesting idiomatic euphemisms like, "Excuse me, I gotta go cover my feet."


----------



## kevin.carroll (Jun 18, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> 
> On the other hand, though I haven't read anything in the original, I've found that in literal translations the OT uses interesting idiomatic euphemisms like, "Excuse me, I gotta go cover my feet."



Yes, thats an interesting one. The KJV leaves a number of those vulgarisms intact, though a few of them need to be interpreted:

1 Samuel 25:22 So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Most modern translations (dynamically!) translate the last phrase "male," which is what it means.

KJG 1 Samuel 20:30 Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman.

Actually, here the Living Bible comes closest to the meaning of the curse by rendering it "son of a b*****."

I could go on. The Jews were colorful in their speech.


----------

