# Toward an Evangelical Theology Of Cussing



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)

> Toward An Evangelical Theology Of Cussing
> 
> By: Michael J. Svigel , Th.M.
> 
> ...



http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3055


Thoughts?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 28, 2005)

I may be the one and only person on this board to say this, but I LOVE that article! Thank you for posting it!!!

Your timing is amazing. Believe it or not, I was just discussing Philippians 3:8 in this context with my cousin this past weekend. I told him that I would like a translation of the Bible accurate enough to actually translate Philippians 3:8 correctly. 

The same goes for some other places in the Bible. Consider 1 Samuel 20:30, where Saul says, "Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman . . ." --- Believe me, that is _not_ the best job that could have been done in translation! The closest I've seen to accuracy here happens to be in the New English Translation, where the footnote to that verse reads as follows:



> 39tn Heb "œson of a perverse woman of rebelliousness." But such an overly literal and domesticated translation of the Hebrew expression fails to capture the force of Saul´s unrestrained reaction. Saul, now incensed and enraged over Jonathan´s liaison with David, is actually hurling very coarse and emotionally charged words at his son. The translation of this phrase suggested by Koehler and Baumgartner is "œbastard of a wayward woman" (HALOT 796 s.v. hwu), but this is not an expression commonly used in English. *A better English approximation of the sentiments expressed here by the Hebrew phrase would be "œYou stupid son of a bitch!" * _However, sensitivity to the various public formats in which the Bible is read aloud has led to a less startling English rendering _which focuses on the semantic value of Saul´s utterance (i.e., the behavior of his own son Jonathan, which he viewed as both a personal and a political betrayal [= "œtraitor"]). But this concession should not obscure the fact that Saul is full of bitterness and frustration. That he would address his son Jonathan with such language, not to mention his apparent readiness even to kill his own son over this friendship with David (v. 33), indicates something of the extreme depth of Saul´s jealousy and hatred of David.



But if we really trust that God's Word is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then why do WE need to be second-guessing Him? If the original Hebrew was coarse and shocking, then why would we WANT to convert it into a "less startling English rendering"?

And, as you probably know, Philippians 3:8 and 1 Samuel 20:30 are not the only two places in Scripture where the original language would have been considered "cussing". The Holy Spirit wanted the Bible written that way. So what gives us English-speakers a right to soften what God intended to be harsh?

I certainly do not suggest that Christians should pepper every conversation with 4-letter words. I am not saying that "cussing" should be taken lightly, with no thought given. But I am saying that we should respect the way God chose to reveal His Word. And in both Hebrew and Greek, God chose to reveal it with some coarse language. So when we translate to English, we should do our best to leave the passages just the way He wrote them.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)

Good thoughts and points. I found this part of the article the most interesting:



> 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*.


----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 28, 2005)

The Dutch already have a theology of Cussing. If it is done on a farm then you can say it. Ask any good Dutchman and he will tell you exactly what the four letter word is.

[Edited on 6-29-2005 by Michael Butterfield]


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 28, 2005)

I really liked the article, and agree with most of what the author says.

Here's my take on cussing. Anything that the Lord hasn't deemed holy (i.e. his name, marrital relations etc.) is fair game. 

Does God care that we "blaspheme" dung/poop etc.? It seems as if we don't define the language condemned by scripture, it's left up to subjectivity, which is not good In my humble opinion.

That being said, out of respect for others, I will refrain when in proper company.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 28, 2005)




----------



## Michael Butterfield (Jun 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I really liked the article, and agree with most of what the author says.
> 
> Here's my take on cussing. Anything that the Lord hasn't deemed holy (i.e. his name, marrital relations etc.) is fair game.
> ...



An additional  In the form of a question.

What role does culture play in the use of such words? What I mean is, can culture dictate when the use of such "cuss" words are actually wrong? Interested.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jun 28, 2005)

Gabe,

Great article. I agree with it. As a scientist his points are obvious and very similar to alcohol arguments I've made with people and chemicals.

Gabe I couldn't sell Calvinism on one side of my family, they will know for certain I'm deceived now

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. -Read the article, it is eye opening.

That's too rich!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 29, 2005)

:bigsmile:


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Michael Butterfield_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



My opinion is that culture plays the role in the definition of words. For example, if I made up the term Yourksterbum and the definition of the word was something meant to blaspheme something holy, then I would consider Yourksterbum a cuss word. However, if you went to Italy, and said Yourksterbum, they would look at you quite strange I imagine.

Words have different meanings from country to country. It is the meaning behind the words that are sinful. No particular mouth movements/sounds are necessarily sinful in and of themselves.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> Words have different meanings from country to country. It is the meaning behind the words that are sinful. No particular mouth movements/sounds are necessarily sinful in and of themselves.



Very good point, Jeff.

For example, if everything is "OK", sometimes I will make the "OK" hand sign, just like the gal is doing in this picture:






This is OK in America, because it means "OK".

But the same hand sign means "zero" or "worthless" in France.

It means "money" in Japan.

And it means calling someone a very bad name in Germany. 


One of my friends unknowingly used the "OK" sign in Italy one time, and really offended someone!


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 29, 2005)

By the way, I apologize the if the above hand sign offended anyone in Germany or Italy who read my post. I promise that sign doesn't mean anything bad here in Texas where I live. 

[Edited on 6-29-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 29, 2005)

You might enjoy taking a look at this doc: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~renglish/377/notes/chapt04/

Scroll down a little ways, and check out the cultural differences in head-nodding, hand-shaking, eye-contact, etc.

It's a pretty interesting and informative doc.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jun 29, 2005)

I had a pastor in the past who insisted thay saying "gosh" and "darn" was every bit as wrong as cursing because they were "by-words".


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> I had a pastor in the past who insisted thay saying "gosh" and "darn" was every bit as wrong as cursing because they were "by-words".



I concur. They are euphemisms or minced oaths of blasphemous or curse words. The former at least takes the Lord's name in vain.

[Edited on 6-29-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 29, 2005)

I was like age 21 or 22 before I knew "damn" and "yankee" were two separate words...


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I was like age 21 or 22 before I knew "damn" and "yankee" were two separate words.



They are???


----------



## Arch2k (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by houseparent_
> ...



I didn't see "cottin' pickin' [insert word]" on that list Andrew....how would that phrase fit in?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

There are also people who say, "That blankety blank . . . " --- literally using the words "blankety" and "blank", so that the listener can fill in the blanks.

That reminds me, some little kids like to walk around holding their "blankey" (blanket). When they say "blankey", are they cussing, since the word is so similar to the "blankety" put in place of a minced oath?

:bigsmile:


----------



## Augusta (Jun 30, 2005)

Inflection and context do matter Joseph.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jun 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Augusta_
> Inflection and context do matter Joseph.


----------

