# Any that p*ss*th against the wall



## Peairtach (Sep 25, 2011)

> 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.* (I Sam 25:22, KJV)



What's behind this slightly colourful expression. Is this how Hebrews normally referred to males or is it an expression of contempt or anger?

It is also used in I Sam 25:34, I Kings 14:10, I Kings 16:11, I Kings 21:21 and II Kings 9:8.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 25, 2011)

Hi:

It is the literal translation of the Hebrew: מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר־ל֛וֹ עַד־הַבֹּ֖קֶר מַשְׁתִּ֥ין בְּקִֽיר (1 "all who in the morning urinate towards the wall"

I think that it is mentioned to differentiate males from females.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 25, 2011)

> I think that it is mentioned to differentiate males from females.



I'm sure of that. 

But there are other ways of differentiating males from females in Hebrew are there not?

So why is this particular expression used?


----------



## MW (Sep 25, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> What's behind this slightly colourful expression. Is this how Hebrews normally referred to males or is it an expression of contempt or anger?



I take it as a distinctively male designation but not as an immediate expression of contempt. I suppose it might be used contemptuously but most sex designations refer to physical functions.


----------



## Micah Everett (Sep 25, 2011)

I was remarking to someone just the other day that our sensibilities regarding what is crude or inappropriate speech are sometimes more Victorian than biblical. Clearly the biblical writers (and thus the Holy Spirit) did not have qualms about the occasional use of what we would call a "colorful" expression in order to make a point.

That said, I don't believe that it would be appropriate or necessary for us to begin peppering our speech with "colorful metaphors."

View attachment 2339


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 26, 2011)

Hi:

There is a really bizzare sermon - I would not even call it a sermon. I would laugh if the poor wretched preacher did not tie the KJV debate up with it.

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNCoevpt5TE

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## bug (Sep 26, 2011)

Micah Everett said:


> I was remarking to someone just the other day that our sensibilities regarding what is crude or inappropriate speech are sometimes more Victorian than biblical. Clearly the biblical writers (and thus the Holy Spirit) did not have qualms about the occasional use of what we would call a "colorful" expression in order to make a point.
> 
> That said, I don't believe that it would be appropriate or necessary for us to begin peppering our speech with "colorful metaphors."
> 
> View attachment 2339



Perhaps, but the colourful expression is not the problem to my mind, but rather the choice of words used in transalting it, to my mind they are no longer considered respectable words in polite society - I am all for keeping the idiom but keeping it in a culturally appropriate fashion.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 26, 2011)

There is a similar expression in Icelandic, which simply means "men" and is not considered vulgar or inappropriate.


----------



## FenderPriest (Sep 26, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNCoevpt5TE


This is what I thought the thread was about. Yay for the internet!


----------



## LawrenceU (Sep 26, 2011)

It is not a contemptuous term, merely descriptive.


----------



## Rich Koster (Sep 26, 2011)

I was waiting for someone to dig up that YouTube classic. Why is it that when someone, or a group of people, doesn't like an expression or word, it gets considered crude or inappropriate? I'm waiting for the PC police to mark sin as an offensive term that may not be used in polite company.


----------



## bug (Sep 26, 2011)

Rich Koster said:


> I was waiting for someone to dig up that YouTube classic. Why is it that when someone, or a group of people, doesn't like an expression or word, it gets considered crude or inappropriate? I'm waiting for the PC police to mark sin as an offensive term that may not be used in polite company.



But then is it not fair to say that there is a world of difference between defending a biblical term like 'sin', as opposed to an idiomatic expression that be alternatively translated but still carries the exact same meaning? Where does the issue of not causing any offense except that which the gospel brings come into play in this type of case? Not to mention the question of when is does a literal translation of an idiomatic expresion actual obscure the truth of God's word for the majority of readers?


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 26, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> There is a really bizzare sermon - I would not even call it a sermon. I would laugh if the poor wretched preacher did not tie the KJV debate up with it.
> 
> ...



Interesting. 

The preacher misses the point somewhat because the Bible talks about p***ing against a wall , not _only_ standing up, so if he was going to be completely "faithful" in his toiletry habits he'd have to go further than p***ing while standing.

I wonder if in Elisabethan and Jacobean times the word "p***eth" was viewed in the way we use the word "urinate"?

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------




Micah Everett said:


> I was remarking to someone just the other day that our sensibilities regarding what is crude or inappropriate speech are sometimes more Victorian than biblical. Clearly the biblical writers (and thus the Holy Spirit) did not have qualms about the occasional use of what we would call a "colorful" expression in order to make a point.
> 
> That said, I don't believe that it would be appropriate or necessary for us to begin peppering our speech with "colorful metaphors."
> 
> View attachment 2339



What's with Kirk and Spock?


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 26, 2011)

Given the fact that there is another Hebrew word that is commonly used to more generically denote members of the male sex (za·char; e.g. Gen. 5:2; Ex. 13:12; 1 Kings 11:15; Ezra 8:7), it seems logical that this expanded, graphic description would intentionally have had certain connotations attached to it. I think a likely explanation was given by the 19th century Episcopal scholar Daniel Steel.


_Any that pisseth against the wall_—Here this proverbial expression first occurs, and we give the reader the several opinions on it Bochart, Rodiger and Keil understand by the phrase a male person. But it is a sufficient objection to this opinion that in the East men perform this office of nature in a sitting posture. And were this objection removed, there is no apparent rearson for characterizing men generally by this term. For similar reasons we regard as unsatisfactory the opinion that a little boy is meant. More plausibility attaches to the explanation of Ephrnem Syrus, Vatablus, and others, that the expression characterizes a dog. But it seems clear from 1 Kings xiv, 10, xvi, 11, and some other passages, that persons are intended; and Jahn, Furst and others have well inferred that, from being primarily applied to dogs, which are thus fittingly characterized, the expression was at length used of slaves and persons of the lowest class. Thus in [1 Sam. 25:22] the phrase would be used contemptously of an enemy whom one designed utterly to exterminate. He would cut off an entire household, even to the lowest, most insignificant, and contemptible member.​

I might add that some notable Jewish exegetes have agreed with this interpretation (Rashi, Maimonides).


----------



## Micah Everett (Sep 26, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> What's with Kirk and Spock?



In Star Trek IV Kirk, Spock, et al. traveled back to 1986 San Francisco. Spock noticed that people of that time constantly used profanity, and inquired about their excessive use of such "colorful metaphors."


----------



## J. Dean (Sep 26, 2011)

As I recall, the term used in the KJV for urination was not then considered a cussword, along with other words now affiliated with coarse language.

And this is why I don't miss the KJV


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 26, 2011)

Hi:

Just for the record: I do not consider the P-word to be vulgar nor offensive. My friends and I used it when we were younger to mean very angry - "p'ssd off." As far as the KJV translation is concerned it is highly accurate and brings the reader closer to the meaning than other translations.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Edward (Sep 26, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> I do not consider the P-word to be vulgar nor offensive.



It is a vulgarity. Whether or not our Anglo Saxon words are offensive with probably depend on circumstances.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Sep 26, 2011)

And as Pastor Stephen says, "'It's in the Bible six times. And you know the significance of the number six."


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 27, 2011)

Hi:

I cannot conceive how one can consider a word inspired by the Holy Spirit to be vulgar. Either we have to change our views of what vulgar is, or, we may have an aberrant view of who God is.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## JoannaV (Sep 27, 2011)

There is vulgar, and then there is vulgar. We should not alter our Bibles just because our culture has an _overly _negative view of certain bodily functions.


----------



## seajayrice (Sep 27, 2011)

Depends on whose wall is in question . . .


----------



## py3ak (Sep 27, 2011)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I cannot conceive how one can consider a word inspired by the Holy Spirit to be vulgar. Either we have to change our views of what vulgar is, or, we may have an aberrant view of who God is.
> 
> ...



Or we may consider that vulgarity is not a moral evil, but a rhetorical tool that the Holy Spirit is able to employ with perfect propriety, but which we too often abuse. In other words, the fact that the Holy Spirit spoke vividly (for instance in Ezekiel) doesn't mean that this same vividness should take place in our everday speech - but it does mean that there are occasions (if rare ones) where it is in fact proper so to speak.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 27, 2011)

We have a degree of debate as to whether the term is significant or not:



> *Lawrence*
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> ...



*Robert*


> I cannot conceive how one can consider a word inspired by the Holy Spirit to be vulgar. Either we have to change our views of what vulgar is, or, we may have an aberrant view of who God is.



We don't yet know if the word in the Hebrew is vulgar. The word "pi***th" is considered vulgar in today's English, but the translators of the modern version could have used the word "urinate" if they'd wanted to stick close to the Hebrew. It's another example of translators flattening things out for reasons best known to themselves.

If it was vulgar in the Hebrew, in two cases it is reported speech by the Holy Spirit of David. In the other cases the Holy Spirit would have had good reason for using the expression.

Those who use words like p*ss and sh*t in regular speech show despite for the body and its God-created functions and dignity, and enter and dwell in their own world of s*** through their language.



> The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, (I Cor 12:21-24, ESV)


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 27, 2011)

It may be noted that every place this particular idiom is used, it is in the context of judgment coming on an evil house(hold) (e.g. Nabal, Ahab). As Steel points out, this is a compelling indication that it has a certain negative connotation attached to it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 27, 2011)

Hi:

Ruben and Richard: 

I think you both bring up some excellent points. Ruben - the very fact that the word is not used that often is significant and substantiates your position. However, the word is used, and to condemn someone for occasionally using such a "vulgarity" may or may not be appropriate. Such would depend upon context I would think.

Richard when you wrote this, "Those who use words like p*ss and sh*t in regular speech show despite for the body and its God-created functions and dignity, and enter and dwell in their own world of s*** through their language." I think you are moving to an extreme, though you qualify it by saying "regular speech." We often use body parts in order to indicate emotion - "My heart reaches out to you," "His eyes flared in anger," "hardheaded," etc.... Using body parts to indicate emotion is not undignified. Generally urination and defecation are considered acts of rejection, and this may tie in with what others have reported that Steel has commented on in this verse, to use this type of language in reference to thoughts and ideas does not seem inappropriate in certain contexts, "bulls..." Certainly it is inappropriate in academic circles, but in normal discourse it may be very appropriate at times.

Just a thought: Are you not violating your own premise when you wrote, "enter and dwell in their own world of s*** through their language."?

Blessings,

Rob

PS: Quite frankly I am finished with this conversation, but I will read whatever replies anyone may have.

-RPW


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 4, 2011)

*Robert*


> Richard when you wrote this, "Those who use words like p*ss and sh*t in regular speech show despite for the body and its God-created functions and dignity, and enter and dwell in their own world of s*** through their language." I think you are moving to an extreme, though you qualify it by saying "regular speech." We often use body parts in order to indicate emotion - "My heart reaches out to you," "His eyes flared in anger," "hardheaded," etc.... Using body parts to indicate emotion is not undignified. Generally urination and defecation are considered acts of rejection, and this may tie in with what others have reported that Steel has commented on in this verse, to use this type of language in reference to thoughts and ideas does not seem inappropriate in certain contexts, "bulls..." Certainly it is inappropriate in academic circles, but in normal discourse it may be very appropriate at times.
> 
> Just a thought: Are you not violating your own premise when you wrote, "enter and dwell in their own world of s*** through their language."?



I suppose I was being ironic in the latter use.

I think those who use this kind of language as part of their regular discourse have entered a spiritual and intellectual atmosphere where Man made in God's Image, in the way that he has been made, with such bodily functions for processing and removing waste products, is being despised for being made thus, and therefore God Himself is being implicitly challenged.



> But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" (Rom 9:20, ESV)


----------

