- This topic has 79 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@dragon-snapper Exactly. XD
@writefury Captain Haddock’s insults are funnier in french… if you understand them 🙂
@Daeus wow. That was some post. It’s so good how deep you’re going to really try and find the answer.
Yep, I know Ephesians 4:29 (memorizing verses is dangerous, but only if you’re afraid of your conscience. 😛 Which is totally natural to be, I know. Human nature.). We use NKJV too. What’s awesome about NET (and what does that stand for)?
With that verse then, you came to the conclusion ‘corrupt word’ means not specific bad words, but anything unwholesome, whether in idea or in actual word. I think that’s what I’d thought of that verse, though I hadn’t done the digging into linguistics you did. I agree then that swear words are included in that.
Anyway, so with the example you gave of unwholesome speaking in the Bible—the wicked men who lie in wait, saying those awful plans of wicked intent—do you think that’s the same as saying swear words? They’re saying unwholesome things, but none of the actual words they are using mean wicked things; it’s the idea behind how they put the words which is wicked. With a swear word though, the actual word is bad. The idea behind it is too, but the word by itself is bad. I hope that makes sense (and that I didn’t just contradict myself. Lemme go back and check.)
Hm…okay now, it looks like I was contradicting myself. I said earlier I agree swear words are included in the command of that verse (which as you found doesn’t look to include writing), but the stuff I just laid out it trying to prove that swear words shouldn’t be put in a book.
I guess then the logical conclusion to my argument would be that the verse doesn’t ban unwholesome speech in idea (wicked plans spoken) in writing, but does ban swear words in writing because they’re actually bad in form. There’s not really a way to test that though since I don’t think there are any more linguistic roots to get behind concerning this in that verse. ‘Word’ is general speech, and that’s as deep a definition of that word you can get, right?What do you think?
If it can’t come clearer, could it just be safer to avoid the words anyway since there are none in the Bible, so you can’t be sure?
And sure, I’ll be praying.
Here’s the verse, everyone, for convenience. NKJV.
Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. Ephesians 4:29
@emma-flournoy Er, well, I don’t know of any word that’s wrong simply because of form. Damn, for instance, is a perfectly legitimate word, it’s only wrong when it is used with the wrong intent that it’s bad.
Now, I guess I should go ahead and explain my thoughts on the second half of the verse. I actually don’t like the NKJV rendering of it because it uses the term “necessary edification” whereas none of the others I looked at used such strict wording. The NET translation is the closest to the literal greek and says, “but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Now, as I see this, this means you should only include clean stuff in your writing or unclean if it helps develop the theme. Now, I think I could argue that language could play a small role in that way, but that’s just where the issue lies. It’s a small role, and so I have to ask myself, is it really worth it? And I’m not so sure it is. I’m still unsure whether it’s something to be absolutely purist about or only strongly critical, but at least strongly critical.
Now, you may say if I’m unsure between absolutely purist and strongly critical, I should play better safe than sorry. Well, yeah. Now currently I haven’t finished thinking about this, so I’m hoping to come to a firm decision between those two. I like things black and white. If I can’t come to a firm conclusion though, I’ll go ahead and play better safe than sorry.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
And there’s three great things about the NET (New English Translation). First of all, it’s a solid translation. I’ve read through their rules and philosophy of translation and it’s all very good stuff. Second, although it’s a literal translation which means they try to translate the actual words of the text, rather than what they think the meaning is. Now, none of the translations most people use are actually completely literal because that would be very difficult to understand in some places. That’s what they strive for though, which is good. Now actually, my point here wasn’t about how literal they are, but how smooth it is to read for a literal translation. Seriously, the NET translation always sounds better than the others. But the absolute best thing about the NET is it’s translator notes. They have over 60,000 notes on the translation — more than there are verses in the bible. The notes explain the literal translation, how others think the phrases should be rendered, and why the NET translators chose the phrasing they did. It’s basically the next best thing to actually knowing greek and hebrew. I realized how important those translator notes are when I found there were some renderings in the NET which, after reading their translator notes, I found I disagreed with. There are other great translations out there, but this is the only one I know of where they’re actually completely transparent.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
@Daeus Okey-doke. There goes that. 😛 Sometimes I have a thought that seems really legitimate but when I look back on it seems simply grasping at straws.
“but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Now, as I see this, this means you should only include clean stuff in your writing or unclean if it helps develop the theme.
Yup, totally agree with this. So then comes the evaluation of importance, and whether or not to use it.
Welp, I hope you can navigate this to a black or white choice. I know it’s hard to make decisions about greys.The NET sounds great. I love accuracy and objectivity. Must be a pretty thick Bible with all those notes. 😉
Must be a pretty thick Bible with all those notes.
Not really. The pages are super thin, though durable.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgement. For by you words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. ~ Matthew 12:36-37
@daeus Wow! I don’t know if you’re over thinking this or if I’m underthinking it (probably the latter). Either way I respect whatever choice you make. And I’ll be sure to pray for you. As for Bible translations, I think the best is the ESV (and their study Bible is boss!), but I love reading different translations and comparing them.
I blog on story and spiritual things at mkami.weebly.com
I do not know much about this at all, but I never use God’s name in vain, and I have basically no language at all in my books. I don’t even use shut up, like at all. I might be able to think of one place. I don’t have a problem with people that say dang or shut up, as long it’s not nasty/mean/degrading/evil, cause really it’s just slang, but I’ve just never said them myself or around the house we don’t say it, so I just don’t write it. I do hate it when you’re reading a book and suddenly $%@#&^%&$ and you quickly cover it up but it doesn’t matter cause you still read it. Darn is another word I thought of that I don’t especially mind, but I just don’t say or write it. Damn and hell are bordering on don’t use, but you could argue forms of it are used in the Bible, so why is it bad, but I just prefer not to read or hear them. Then of course you get to really profane words, and those are an absolute no. So, I never use God’s name in an exclamation or anything but about Him at all, some words are slang and okay for others I just don’t do them myself, and then there are bad ones.
Yah, that’s my take on it.ENFP - "One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
Also, on a lighter note, funny exclamations from fictional characters can be either good, or really lame. Like Trumpkin says things like ‘Beards and Bedsteads’ and stuff like that. But some people can not do it well, and it ends up sounding goofy and out of character. You know, like ‘Crackling Bacon!’ from a serious character can sound really goofy and stupid.
Another thing, two more words, blasted and bloody. If you live in England, bloody is more of a curse word than it is here. Again, I don’t use it, but I don’t mind other people using it so much. Blasted is slang I think, and I’ve never used it but once, and I don’t mind others using it.
ENFP - "One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
@bluejay That verse pretty much sums this topic up for me. 😉
But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give an account of it in the day of judgement. For by you words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. ~ Matthew 12:36-37
☀ ☀ ☀ ENFP ☀ ☀ ☀
@anne-of-lothlorien Interesting that you brought up “blasted.” I’m reading a series where the main character’s main “swear” word is Blast, and he’s clergy! 😀 The characters in this series have lots of little “sayings” they use when surprised or making a point. For example, a common one is “I’ll be ‘et for a ‘tater!” or, when encouraging others, it had been said a few times “Philippians 4:13, for Pete’s sake!”
Another character that comes to mind when having made-up “sayings” for surprise or something like that is Bernard Walton from Adventures in Odyssey. He says some pretty silly things, like “Well stuff me with feathers and call me a pillow.”
Currently reading Les Miserables
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.