him that pisseth against a wall
I think I really need to share this sermon. I'm still not sure if this is for real, or a very clever knock off. Some of the comments seem to indicate that it is for real but I am not too sure. However, it is an excellent commentary on a crucial difference between the KJV and the NKJV, where "him that pisseth against a wall" is translated as the "male." You really shouldn't miss this. Learn how the NKJV takes out anything that has real power in it. Okay, literally the tears are streaming down my face - and I am not crying. This preacher is gooood.
posted by Suzanne McCarthy at 11:24 PM
10 Comments:
WWJD?
And what would any man or woman do to answer from the KJV or the NKJV whether sitting or standing?
(funny funny funny Ms. McCarthy)
The Bayly brothers recently blogged on this phrase, insisting that it should be retained in translation.
Suzanne, I have now found the time to listen to this sermon. I think the preacher is serious. But he sounds all wet to me.
And he preaches it with a straight face. Amazing!
What I want to know is does this mean that the best Christian men have urinals in their bathrooms?
Personally, I'm just going to sit this one out...
...
ummmmm
...
Stand. I'm going to stand this one out. Obviously. I would never sit. No way.
;-)
There's a joke in there somewhere about a life verse; but, let's not go there. OK?
ROFL
Am I the only one who wonders who was cleaning all those walls which men were peeing on (shows my middle aged female sensibilities using 'pee')? And where were these walls that were being peed against? Near people's houses? Imagine the smell over time? Surely it did not mean that all men peed (?correct spelling?) against any wall anywhere? And what did women do with their pee and where did they dispose of it?
My other comment is:
Is this what preaching to the converted is supposed to include? An announcement that, when he returns to Germany, this young man is going to break the law of the land to "be a man according to the Bible" so that he does not have to do something that he finds emotionally uncomfortable?
Wayne,
Your link is to where one of the brothers writes of urination by standing men and of menstruation by women in the Bible. He write more: "Honestly, the more I see such things, the more I wish Bible translators would stop trying to clean up the work of the Holy Spirit." If translators use euphemisms, considering their audiences, then is that a Better Bible Translation or just the attempt to "clean up" what the Holy Spirit inspires? But if there are references in the Bible to women who assist others like God does, like warriors do, then is this brother doing a clean up job himself? Is he cleaning up the language used for women and by women?
He is definitely for real. Have a look at his blog - http://faithfulwordbaptist.blogspot.com/
This guy's a real KJV-only hyper-fundamentalist. He thinks Billy Graham is going to hell, and people who use the NIV and NKJV aren't reading the Bible.
He thinks . . . people who use the NIV and NKJV aren't reading the Bible.
They aren't. The Bible was not written in English.
I've read two works of Plato in Greek, the Symposium and the Apology. I've also read (either in their entirety or large sections of) the Phaedo, the Meno, the Gorgias, the Protagoras, the Republic, the Statesman, the Crito, the Theaetetus, the Parmenides, the Laches, the Euthyphro. I've probably forgotten some too. I've read quite a lot of Plato, mostly in translation. The fact that most of it was in translation doesn't mean I didn't read those works. I just didn't read them in the original language.
But none of that is relevant. Steven Anderson is claiming that if you read the KJV you're reading the Bible, but if you read the NKJV, NIV, or any other English translation you're not reading the Bible. That view is insane no matter what you think about the issue in the previous paragraph.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home