PDA

View Full Version : Did Paul use a cuss word?



reformedct
Jan 1st 2009, 11:08 PM
Just a randomn itching question that has always been on my mind from time to time.

There is a verse where Paul is speaking of his own righteousness, saying "i count it all rubbish" or dung in some translations.

However i have heard that the Greek word used there, and seeing how it was used in that time in the culture, was actually more equivalent to the "s" word that is used today.

Any information?

mikebr
Jan 1st 2009, 11:12 PM
I think that's exactly what Paul meant. That's why I like Paul. Remember the circumcisors in Galatia. He told them to cut the whole thing off.

He didn't mix words.

As for cussing, who says the "S" word as you put it is any worse than saying crap, or dung. It's just less acceptable not worse. The though is still there.

reformedct
Jan 1st 2009, 11:17 PM
I think that's exactly what Paul meant. That's why I like Paul. Remember the circumcisors in Galatia. He told them to cut the whole thing off.

He didn't mix words.

As for cussing, who says the "S" word as you put it is any worse than saying crap, or dung. It's just less acceptable not worse. The though is still there.


just for the record, i personally do not feel condemned or sinful if i use a word that is considered by culture to be "strong language". I am more concerned about the attitude of my heart.

There are times out of love and consideration for others I will watch the way i speak. However i know if we get into what words are right or wrong this thread will never end, so im tryna focus on what Paul has said. You made a good point with the circumcision piece. I think that Christianity looked way different in Pauls day than it does now. I believe we allow what culture says is acceptable/unnacceptable to determine what is good/bad, instead of the Good ol Bible

mikebr
Jan 2nd 2009, 12:03 AM
just for the record, i personally do not feel condemned or sinful if i use a word that is considered by culture to be "strong language". I am more concerned about the attitude of my heart.

There are times out of love and consideration for others I will watch the way i speak. However i know if we get into what words are right or wrong this thread will never end, so im tryna focus on what Paul has said. You made a good point with the circumcision piece. I think that Christianity looked way different in Pauls day than it does now. I believe we allow what culture says is acceptable/unnacceptable to determine what is good/bad, instead of the Good ol Bible


I think Paul was using strong language here to make a point. Its kinda like the filthy rags verse. It means soiled menstrual cloths.

VerticalReality
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:01 AM
No, I do not believe Paul is using a "curse" word in that passage of Scripture. I believe Paul is using very strong language to describe just how much confidence a person can put in their flesh. Dung is pretty worthless. Therefore, it's a pretty good word to describe the works of the flesh.

Paul is not just flipping out language for the sake of being profane (which is basically what curse words are used for). His words have a whole lot of purpose behind them. It isn't just a lot of slang obscenity that he's using.

scourge39
Jan 2nd 2009, 01:36 AM
The Greek word that Paul uses, 'skubala,' frequently rendered 'rubbish' or 'dung,' does indeed refer to human feces.

crossnote
Jan 2nd 2009, 03:00 AM
In any case we get the clear picture of what our righteousness amounts to...peee-uuuu

reformedct
Jan 2nd 2009, 04:03 PM
No, I do not believe Paul is using a "curse" word in that passage of Scripture. I believe Paul is using very strong language to describe just how much confidence a person can put in their flesh. Dung is pretty worthless. Therefore, it's a pretty good word to describe the works of the flesh.

Paul is not just flipping out language for the sake of being profane (which is basically what curse words are used for). His words have a whole lot of purpose behind them. It isn't just a lot of slang obscenity that he's using.

so you believe there is a difference between strong language and cursing. I also believe this. Sometimes i use "strong language" to make a point because my vocabulary is lacking and i want to portray what im thinking vividly. I dont think we should cuss people out in any way shape or form though

VerticalReality
Jan 2nd 2009, 05:51 PM
so you believe there is a difference between strong language and cursing. I also believe this. Sometimes i use "strong language" to make a point because my vocabulary is lacking and i want to portray what im thinking vividly. I dont think we should cuss people out in any way shape or form though

Yes, I believe there is a difference between strong language and cursing. Now don't get me wrong . . . some words are just flatout cursing no matter in what context you're using it. I can't see any way someone drops the F bomb and could say they are trying to identify something with strong language. That word is just obscene no matter which way someone wants to slice it. But the "D" word can be used in a context where it's not necessarily just random profanity. Forms of that word are used in the King James Version also as an actual verb used to describe the eternal separation from our Lord. The word "hell" can be used as both a biblical place of the lost or profanity. It's all about the context.

I, personally, would stay away from words like the "s" word and so forth mainly because there are better words that could be used to mean the same thing that other folks wouldn't find offensive or obscene, and additionally because I've never heard anyone use that word who either wasn't trying to be profane or wasn't using it for shock value.

Romber
Jan 2nd 2009, 07:41 PM
Just a randomn itching question that has always been on my mind from time to time.

There is a verse where Paul is speaking of his own righteousness, saying "i count it all rubbish" or dung in some translations.

However i have heard that the Greek word used there, and seeing how it was used in that time in the culture, was actually more equivalent to the "s" word that is used today.

Any information?

This is an interesting point brought up, but I think you can dismiss it as a possible contradiction of teaching/fallacy of the bible and just accept it how it is.

1.)Paul is just a human. Literally he is not Jesus. With this being said "all fall short of the glory of God". If Paul did curse (which we're not even quite sure about) he only did what humans do best. However Paul can just ask for forgiveness for what he has done and he clean.

2.)The Bible is does always portray such heroic facts about the heroes. This one of the reasons all should believe the Bible is a true revelation from God. "History is written by the victors" The Bible does not omit facts/stories that may the "hero" look bad. It tells it how it is and is quite blunt. In this case Paul does not look the best if he truly did curse but what does it matter? He is quite blunt with his wording and how the subject made him feel. One can even say he felt quite strongly about it since he might of slipped a choice word.

3.)Remember that just because the bible has it listed that doesn't necessarily mean it is condoned by God. Example is Polygyny. There are several cases of it in the bible. However the person participating in it does not receive any blessings from God for it and in fact falls into misfortune later on their life. Just like Paul, God does not bless him for using choice words (again, we are not 100% sure if that was even the case).

Just remember that because Paul "might" of cursed doesn't mean it is necessarily ok for us to curse.

Partaker of Christ
Jan 2nd 2009, 09:55 PM
just for the record, i personally do not feel condemned or sinful if i use a word that is considered by culture to be "strong language". I am more concerned about the attitude of my heart.

There are times out of love and consideration for others I will watch the way i speak. However i know if we get into what words are right or wrong this thread will never end, so im tryna focus on what Paul has said. You made a good point with the circumcision piece. I think that Christianity looked way different in Pauls day than it does now. I believe we allow what culture says is acceptable/unnacceptable to determine what is good/bad, instead of the Good ol Bible

Hi reformedct!

I one began a thread, asking what is a cuss word?
Who determines what word is a cuss, and what is not a cuss.

If two or more words mean the same thing, then why is one ok and the other not ok. As you say, it is the intent of the heart that counts.

1Sa 25:34 For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

1Sa 25:34 And, indeed, as Jehovah the God of Israel lives, who has kept me back from doing evil to you, for unless you had hurried and had come to meet me, surely there would not have been left to Nabal one who urinates against the wall till the light of morning.

ProjectPeter
Jan 2nd 2009, 10:44 PM
Just a randomn itching question that has always been on my mind from time to time.

There is a verse where Paul is speaking of his own righteousness, saying "i count it all rubbish" or dung in some translations.

However i have heard that the Greek word used there, and seeing how it was used in that time in the culture, was actually more equivalent to the "s" word that is used today.

Any information?
That's exactly what it was equivalent to. Today... some folks decided that it was a cuss word... so there you go. Back then... it was a word that described stuff passing out the body. Now... we call it poop and that doesn't freak folks out. Sort of weakens Paul's point though in saying "I count it all poopoo!" ;)

I actually used that passage in a sermon a couple of Sundays ago... used the word "crap" for effect. It worked. Had I used the other word... strokes would have happened! As it was with the word 'crap' I kept it down to sharp intakes of breath, heads spinning, and mild heart attacks with no long term effects. :)

VerticalReality
Jan 3rd 2009, 12:35 AM
That's exactly what it was equivalent to. Today... some folks decided that it was a cuss word... so there you go. Back then... it was a word that described stuff passing out the body. Now... we call it poop and that doesn't freak folks out. Sort of weakens Paul's point though in saying "I count it all poopoo!" ;)

I actually used that passage in a sermon a couple of Sundays ago... used the word "crap" for effect. It worked. Had I used the other word... strokes would have happened! As it was with the word 'crap' I kept it down to sharp intakes of breath, heads spinning, and mild heart attacks with no long term effects. :)

I preached on this a few Sundays ago as well. I used poop. It didn't seem quite as tough. :lol:

Gregg
Jan 3rd 2009, 08:05 AM
I prefer my preachers not to swear or use filthy language from the pulpit. A bit of salt to get a point acrossed, probably no big deal. But it might just make me want to shout out a salty amen!:D

kenrank
Jan 5th 2009, 03:20 PM
No, I do not believe Paul is using a "curse" word in that passage of Scripture. I believe Paul is using very strong language to describe just how much confidence a person can put in their flesh. Dung is pretty worthless. Therefore, it's a pretty good word to describe the works of the flesh.

Paul is not just flipping out language for the sake of being profane (which is basically what curse words are used for). His words have a whole lot of purpose behind them. It isn't just a lot of slang obscenity that he's using.

It is interesting to me to see how certain cultures count certain words as profane. Indeed, YHWH in direct quote, many prophets, Yahushua, and Paul, all used the word "dung" to describe works, actions, and thoughts.

Mal 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.

The word dung here (and this is YHWH speaking in this verse) is fecal matter, "dung" the acceptable English word used at the time in translation. So what is the difference between dung and S^%$ in this verse? Nothing at all, actually. Where it becomes profane folks, is when it is used profanely! When the heart directs that word (any word) in a profane way to something or a person.

Peace.
Ken