The KJVO Myth - Phony As A Ford Corvette !

[Radagast]

But they're not rendered in English, using English scatology.

Apart from the NLT and The Message, most recent English translations avoid "bad language" in 1 Samuel 20:30. The German Hoffnung für Alle has "son of a harlot," though. Some translations into other languages use mild bad language that doesn't literally translate the Hebrew.

But the Old Testament certainly does have some serious "cussing" in places.

 

[robycop3]

Apart from the NLT and The Message, most recent English translations avoid "bad language" in 1 Samuel 20:30. The German Hoffnung für Alle has "son of a harlot," though. Some translations into other languages use mild bad language that doesn't literally translate the Hebrew.

But the Old Testament certainly does have some serious "cussing" in places.

The "P" word was not cussing in those days.

 

[Radagast]

The "P" word was not cussing in those days.

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

And I can't tell you what I'm talking about because CF's profanity filter won't let me.

But let me refer you to Isaiah 7:20: In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also.

Unlike Hobbits, people don't have hair on their feet. It's talking about something else.

 

[Der Alte]

Apart from the NLT and The Message, most recent English translations avoid "bad language" in 1 Samuel 20:30. The German Hoffnung für Alle has "son of a harlot," though. Some translations into other languages use mild bad language that doesn't literally translate the Hebrew.
But the Old Testament certainly does have some serious "cussing" in places.

About 5 decades ago I was teaching a HS Sunday School class we were talking about different versions. One young lady had the NLT. Or as one full gospel pastor, who was the father of one of my SIL, called it "the green monster." I asked the young lady to read 1 Samuel 20:30. She opened her Bible turned beet red and said "I'm not reading that." The other students were curious so I let them read it.

1 Samuel 20:30 Hoffnung für Alle (HOF)
30 Als Saul das hörte, packte ihn der Zorn, und er brüllte Jonatan an: »Du Hurensohn! Meinst du eigentlich, ich habe noch nicht gemerkt, dass du mit diesem Sohn Isais unter einer Decke steckst? Schämen solltest du dich! Und auch deine Mutter, die einen solchen Nichtsnutz zur Welt gebracht hat!​

 

[robycop3]

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

And I can't tell you what I'm talking about because CF's profanity filter won't let me.

But let me refer you to Isaiah 7:20: In that day the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River—with the king of Assyria—the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also.

Unlike Hobbits, people don't have hair on their feet. It's talking about something else.

I was referring to the common 4-letter word for "urinate".

And I have hair on my feet, though quite-sparse.

The Hebrew literally translates to hair on the feet. I see no "cussing" there.

 

[Der Alte]

I was referring to the common 4-letter word for "urinate".
And I have hair on my feet, though quite-sparse.
The Hebrew literally translates to hair on the feet. I see no "cussing" there.

The word you are referring to occurs 6 times in the KJV.
1 Samuel 25:22, 1 Samuel 25:34, 1 Kings 14:10, 1 Kings 16:11, 1 Kings 21:21, 2 Kings 9:8

 

[Radagast]

I was referring to the common 4-letter word for "urinate".

Oh, OK. I was referring to something far more vulgar.

The Hebrew literally translates to hair on the feet. I see no "cussing" there.

That's because the Hebrew word translated "foot" is also used for another part of the anatomy that has hair. Any good lexicon will point this out, but most translators (except, of course, for Eugene Peterson) leave us with the rather incomprehensible "foot."

 

[pescador]

Does the above discussion have anything to do with the thread's subject? The thread is about the KJVO myth, not about the various English translations of a particular Hebrew word.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Everything stated in your post is wrong. IMHO

For starters, the canon wasn't written, it was collected and voted on by the Catholic Church. I hope you have thanked them for providing you with a Bible.

The canon was adopted by all churches. The papacy wasn't dominate at the time. It has also remained largely consistent over the centuries. What you're calling for is chaos, with no one knowing what the word of God is with new revelation that is either redundant or irrelevant. Scripture is focused on one singular event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ which fulfills the one thing important to God.

 

[Redwingfan9]

But God DID PRESERVE all those mss. & fragments.

While I have no prob with Elizabethan English, many others do, especially those whose first language wasn't English.

But he didn't give those fragments to the church to pass down for 1800 years. He did not keep his church in the dark for all those years. If he did, he would be a fraud and a liar which we know he is not.

 

[robycop3]

But he didn't give those fragments to the church to pass down for 1800 years. He did not keep his church in the dark for all those years. If he did, he would be a fraud and a liar which we know he is not.

Right. And the idea that the KJV is the pinnacle of English Bible translations is false.

 

[Swan7]

Sorry but hopefully others who might truly be confused will read it. Today it seems that the overwhelming majority of Americans are confused. Only Christ can set any of us free.

Well truthfully, context is what matters when reading anything. Please be careful with that otherwise you could do the opposite of what you meant to do.

 

[Der Alte]

But he didn't give those fragments to the church to pass down for 1800 years. He did not keep his church in the dark for all those years. If he did, he would be a fraud and a liar which we know he is not.

How many if any of those fragments have any meaningful effect on any church doctrine?

 

[solid_core]

I've seen Esther used in the interpretation of parts of Revelation.

I've seen the Song of Songs used allegorically to talk about Jesus.

I've seen the Song of Songs used not allegorically to counsel married couples.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

No doctrines are based on such books. They are not even mentioned in the NT.

But individuals can do all kinds of more or less strange things, I give you that.

 

[Redwingfan9]

Right. And the idea that the KJV is the pinnacle of English Bible translations is false.

I didn't say it was. I have no problem with updating language so long as it uses the original ancient texts.

 

[Redwingfan9]

How many if any of those fragments have any meaningful effect on any church doctrine?

It doesn't matter.

 

[Der Alte]

It doesn't matter.

Then you are arguing about nothing.

 

[lsume]

Well truthfully, context is what matters when reading anything. Please be careful with that otherwise you could do the opposite of what you meant to do.

Thank you but Truthfully making rhetorical statements on this site isn’t real cool either.

 

[JSRG]

Why would you claim that The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge is biased toward Universalism?

I meant the article on universalism was biased, as it was written by a universalist.

Do you question what The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge says about Damnationism and Annihilationism? Or only what it says about Universalism?

I question any claim if apparently the only scholarly sources someone can appeal to in order to prove are from so long ago.

 

[Saint Steven]

The canon was adopted by all churches. The papacy wasn't dominate at the time. It has also remained largely consistent over the centuries. What you're calling for is chaos, with no one knowing what the word of God is with new revelation that is either redundant or irrelevant. Scripture is focused on one singular event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ which fulfills the one thing important to God.

Calling for chaos? No, not at all.
Just a continuation of what the early church was about. The gifts in operation.
God has been kicked out of the vast majority of churches today.
A form of religion that denies his existence.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Everything stated in your post is wrong. IMHO

For starters, the canon wasn't written, it was collected and voted on by the Catholic Church. I hope you have thanked them for providing you with a Bible.