He That Pisseth Against the Wall

| | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (1)

As I was catching up on some old posts that I'd saved in my RSS reader to come back to later, I stumbled upon a fun and informative post by Tyler Williams called Dogs, Urine, and Bible Translations: On the Importance of Translating Connotative Meaning. It involves Jesus giving attitude to his mother, dentistry in Amos, and pissing in the KJV. See also his earlier post Going Potty in Ancient Times that isn't about language.

(For those unfamiliar with the reference, the title of this post comes straight out of the KJV. Read Tyler's post for the context and for what it amounts to. I have to wonder what KJV-onlies who think 'piss' is a dirty word think about this one. Or maybe they just aren't reading their Bibles.)

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: He That Pisseth Against the Wall.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://movabletype.ektopos.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2133

January 11, 2006 from Best of the GodBlogs on January 10, 2006 9:47 PM

What kinds of blogs do you like best? Theo-blogs? Mommy-blogs? HomeSchool blogs? Teen-blogs? Practical? Funny? Apologetics? Cultural analysis? Missionary blogs? Ethics? BGB scans the globe to bring you the best of every flavor of Godblog. But we need y... Read More


I'm relatively old to PC's, but new to blog...
I've long been facinated by the oddities of God's Word, and this posting entitled "Dogs, Urine, and Bible Translations (On the Importance of Translating Connotative Meaning)" is one of those that most people aren't familiar with. I had a discussion in my office with some people yesterday about whether "piss" was in the bible, and, well, here I am. It's funny how people who "read the bible" and "go to church" are largley ignorant of what the bible says. In their (my?) defense, how can we *really* know what God is saying?
My questions are: 1.) How do I respond to the author of that post (Posted by Tyler F. Williams)? By posting here? 2.) What are the opinions of others to the question: What translation are we supposed to read if all the modern translations are clearly and deliberately erroneous?

Tyler probably won't be reading the comments here. I would just leave any comments on his post. He should be notified whenever comments get left there.

As for modern translations, I don't think it's true that all the modern translations are clearly and deliberately erroneous. Surely no one has set out to make a translation that is intentionally bad. That's what it would take for it to be deliberately erroneous. But even aside from that, I don't think the kinds of differences between translations amount to clear errors. Most of them are just legitimate differences in translation philosophies. I'd prefer most modern translations to the KJV, however, if that's what you are contrasting with modern translations. The modern ones (except the NKJV) rely on the wealth of textual information we now have, whereas the NKJV uses the dearth of textual information the KJV relied on, which was fine for the time but is inexcusable in our day.

I discussed some of these issues in my review of Bible translations a couple years ago. I've changed my mind on some things since then as I've become more familiar with some translations. I also recommend Rick Mansfield's reviews of Bible translations. You can find links to all of them so far at the top of this post.

Actually, Jeremy, there are many intentional mistranslations. You assume that Satan does not have an army of pawns working to subvert Christianity. He does, and they are. They are called Jesuits and Freemasons. If you don't believe me, watch Walter Veith's video called "Battle of the Bibles". I think you can find it by performing a Google video search for "Total Onslaught 215B".

Go with God,
David Stratton

1. I was talking about translation philosophy, and I was pointing out that different translation philosophies are compatible with intending to translate accurately. I very much doubt that Jesuits would deliberately seek to undermine Christianity, since they consider themselves part of Christianity, and I don't think Freemasons really care. They're pretty much a social good works group at this point. Whatever you think of them, though, the translation philosophies I was talking about were ones held by evangelical Christians who have no interest in undermining the Bible or Christianity. If a translation happens to do so in one respect, it's not because of a deliberate attempt to be erroneous on the part of the translator. That's compatible with Satan having an agenda in what he intends behind a mistranslation, but you changed the subject to talk about that.

Leave a comment


    The Parablemen are: , , and .



Books I'm Reading

Fiction I've Finished Recently

Non-Fiction I've Finished Recently

Books I've Been Referring To

I've Been Listening To

Games I've Been Playing

Other Stuff


    thinking blogger
    thinking blogger

    Dr. Seuss Pro

    Search or read the Bible

    Example: John 1 or love one another (ESV)

  • Link Policy
Powered by Movable Type 5.04