Posted on 03/03/2014 9:43:45 AM PST by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Let me give you an illustration, perhaps to better explain what I’m getting at. The Bible says “thou shalt not kill”, in the common English translation. Now, in our modern language, if I said “Jerry Seinfeld killed me last night”, I don’t necessarily mean that he took my life. We have added a meaning to our word for “kill” that simply wouldn’t be present for the Hebrew word we translate as “kill”. So, if you read the Bible, it would be foolish to think, if it says “Cain killed Abel”, that maybe Cain just told some really good jokes. That possible meaning just would never have entered into the mind of the person writing it, because it didn’t exist in their language.
The Commandment not to take the Lord’s name in vain actually says not to lift up His Name in an unworthy manner, and I believe the Jews considered it beyond forgiveness.
The question here, though, is one of spirit, God’s Spirit. Even if what you say is correct to a point, right now I truly doubt that it is just as you say. One interprets thing from the mind and heart, and if both aren’t in agreement with God on something then we won’t interpret correctly. I will go study the meaning behind the different words, which I’ve considered in the past. (cont’d)
I agree.
The point here, though, is that someone used the tern cursing and was understood, and going by what the New Testament says about many things, including faith, unbelief, our talk, wholesomeness versus uncleanness, and our hearts, I’m far more inclined to believe that person’s usage correct and understand why that understanding is in use among Christians. I will look into it, but right now I believe you are largely wrong on it. To any extent you’re right on it, though, you sound like you’re not concerned about the evil in people’s hearts and their separation from God without Christ, but only with splitting hairs, and even the sole reason for that is quite questionable. What serves the Lord?
Yeh OKaaaay? Buh bye!!
This feels so strange. I thought we Conservatives were avoiding Hollywood films. How come people know so much about this? I have never heard any of this garbage. I wonder how come so many others do?
OK that does it. I am about to look for an article to tell me the winners of the Oscars. Shame on you people for making me look.
There’s a real apples and oranges element to that. Cursing and filthy language are much closer together in sense than murder and telling a joke. If a parent calls a child a piece of something that child will feel cursed. The distinctions that you argue for in human language I don’t see in God’s view of us, and His will for us. Jesus called anger in one’s heart against one’s brother murder. And on the Jerry Seinfeld example, how can you be so sure of that, even? Did people joke and laugh then, even to the point of laughing so hard it hurt? And wouldn’t there be people who liked to be telling jokes all the time? I’m not convinced that the jiking idea that someone is “killing” someone else with their jokes is a modern though.
“The question here, though, is one of spirit, God’s Spirit. Even if what you say is correct to a point, right now I truly doubt that it is just as you say.”
Well, that may be a secondary question, but the primary question must be: what does the written Word actually say on the matter? Only if you understand what the Word says, can you ponder the spirit of the words. If you are trying to figure out the spirit behind a mistaken understanding of a verse, it is certainly not the most effective way of studying the Bible.
“The point here, though, is that someone used the tern cursing and was understood, and going by what the New Testament says about many things, including faith, unbelief, our talk, wholesomeness versus uncleanness, and our hearts, I’m far more inclined to believe that person’s usage correct and understand why that understanding is in use among Christians. I will look into it, but right now I believe you are largely wrong on it.”
Yes, they used the term, specifically saying the Bible mentioned it, and their usage seemed obviously to imply that mention had to do with the topic of “bad language”. I simply pointed out, that Biblical mentions of “cursing” had nothing to do with our modern concept of “cussing”. What I said was correct, whether or modern Christians conflate the terms pretty freely, and thereby risk misinterpreting some passages of the Bible.
“To any extent you’re right on it, though, you sound like you’re not concerned about the evil in people’s hearts and their separation from God without Christ, but only with splitting hairs, and even the sole reason for that is quite questionable.”
Well, if you have to say “you sound like”, maybe you are reading more into my posts than I actually have written? I haven’t said much about evil in people’s hearts because that isn’t relevant to the point I was making, and I don’t want to get off topic. At least not until I have answered your objection to my point.
You might call that “splitting hairs”, but I call it standing by my statements. I made a factual, rather than a spiritual, statement, and you raised an objection to it. Naturally, I’m going to have to defend a factual statement on factual, not spiritual, grounds.
“What serves the Lord?”
Preventing misunderstanding of God’s Word that can be easily avoided serves the Lord, no? What serves the Lord in arguing about a point you admit you aren’t very certain of, even presupposing others who are more certain to be “wrong”?
“There’s a real apples and oranges element to that. Cursing and filthy language are much closer together in sense than murder and telling a joke. If a parent calls a child a piece of something that child will feel cursed.”
It doesn’t matter how “close together” you believe these concepts are. The original languages don’t have the same associated meanings, and that is a fact. A child may feel bad if you call them a bad name, but your saying “the child will feel cursed” is just a continuation of using the English meaning of words to try and argue a point which English word meanings are irrelevant.
“The distinctions that you argue for in human language I don’t see in God’s view of us, and His will for us.”
Well, the distinctions are in His Word, and I would rather rely on that to inform me of His view and will, rather than your perceptions.
“And on the Jerry Seinfeld example, how can you be so sure of that, even? Did people joke and laugh then, even to the point of laughing so hard it hurt? And wouldn’t there be people who liked to be telling jokes all the time? I’m not convinced that the jiking idea that someone is “killing” someone else with their jokes is a modern though.”
You’ve missed the point of the illustration if you are trying to argue in this vein. It doesn’t matter if they did have that particular association in Hebrew, though I doubt that they did. I could cite a hundred other similar illustrations to make the same point, so attacking the specifics of one does not make a dent in my argument at all. There is certainly no shortage of divergent colloquial meanings between our languages that I could reference, since they are not closely related at all, as languages go.
” I’m not convinced that the jiking idea that someone is “killing” someone else with their jokes is a modern though.”
Well, here is what the experts say on that:
“killing (adj.)
mid-15c., present participle adjective from kill (v.). Meaning “very funny” is from 1844.”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=killing
1844 is pretty modern, a little more modern than the modern usage of curse that you are arguing for, but not by much:
“cuss (v.)
“to say bad words,” 1815, alteration of curse (v.). Related: Cussed; cussing. To cuss out attested by 1881.”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cuss
“How come people know so much about this? I have never heard any of this garbage. I wonder how come so many others do? “
Saw it on the news. I don’t go to movies.
Let’s go back to the beginning.
Post 4: demshateGod quotes from a review of the movie that talks of its obscenities and taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Post 16: pburgh calls all that cursing or profanity and says there’s nothing against cursing in the Bible and even using the F-word isn’t against God’s law.
Post 21: dhG says he didn’t watch the filthy movie but he knows the Bible and we’re forbidden to curse.
Post 33: you respond on a language point about cursing to dhG’s reply to pburgh.
Post 35: dhG replies to you along the lines of the concerns of pleasing God and not sinning, maintaining the understanding of cursing that’s been in use and is popularly used.
Post 39: you reply on the language point again.
Post 49: I comment on the point in question between dhG and pburgh, which is that God’s word does prohibit filthy language.
So, at this point, do you have any comments on this?
“So, at this point, do you have any comments on this?”
Sure, the same point I’ve made all along. What modern English speakers are calling “cursing” is not the same thing that is spoken of when the Bible mentions cursing. They are two separate concepts and it is important not to confuse them when we are speaking of the Bible.
You haven’t missed much, he is not much of an actor, imo.
In your Post 33 to dhG, and since then, you haven’t offered any evidence of your point on cursing, or on why what you believe to be true is relevant to Bible-believing Christians, including why it’s relevant in your view to the disagrrement between dhG and pburgh.
I look to the original languages and what was meant back then myself, and I typically don’t use “cursing” for “profanity,” but I’ve yet to see where any apparent difference matters, or even amounts to an actual difference in meaning. I’ve been concerned that not taking God’s name in vain has been reduced to just not using it as a swear word when there’s more to it than that. (Cont’d)
That seems to matter a great deal. But this, I don’t see the concern. I will look it up again when I’m on an actual computer and not my phone. All I found so far are two pieces, by gtoquestions.org and carm.org, that treat make no distinction between cursing and all the other terms used. Their concern, too, is how our talk comes from our hearts. That was the issue here, too, in this thread, not the language point. You’ve said it’s more than just a tangent here but you’ve made that claim without saying anything about how the language point is relevant to the heart issue all, as I said.
I have thought about seeing “Dallas Buyers Club”, dems, but with your review I will wait for an editing for televison if I see it at all.
I copied and pasted that from pluggedin.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.