This video is unbelievable. I’ve seen this guy post on the Fundamental Forums, and he is basically as extreme as one can get on the KJV. [HT: Ryan DeBarr]
In this clip, he’s using the phrase “him that pisseth against a wall” to emphasize manliness, and to claim the KJV is a superior version, since it literally translates the Hebrew euphemism. [He is right, only the ASV translates it similarly, but the HCSB does give the literal rendering in the footnotes (I used up 1 Sam. 25:22 for my comparison.)]
This is what you get when you cross KJV onlyism, extreme sectianism, and a nutty view of history. Crazy.
**Warning, the language is quite crude on this clip.
[vodpod id=Groupvideo.854173&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26] from rjhayton.vodpod.com posted with vodpod
This is insane. It’s scary actually, to think that this is the kind of nonsense coming from some pulpits today.
Funny, it reminds me of a time I was on a boating trip with a friend. His dad owned the boat, and had put a sign in the “head” that said something like, “sorry boys, this is a sitting toilet only.” This was simply because he didn’t want people making a mess of his toilet when the waves were rocking the boat a lot. A reasonable request.
If my friends’ dad had been using the KJV, he would have realized the error of his way!
One question: is he one of those IFB preachers on the forum that flame Schaap for the inappropriate Lord’s Supper illustration?
I heard a guy on the radio using Romans 13:1 on submitting to authorities as proof we must use KJV. Since King James had only authorized the KJV, thats what we are obligated to use.
The true test of a man, finally revealed. Pass it on to your sons, men. This is important stuff.
We’ve had enough trouble teaching our sons where to go. As long as they get that right, I don’t care how they do it.
That passage actually is a good argument for the KJV, but not for the bizarre reason this nut gives. It’s because that is the correct translation, not because it’s more manly. I don’t know why God chose to say it that way–and I think it ought to be translated literally–but it wasn’t to make some vulgar statement about manly manhood.
I’d hate to preach a sermon and have people leave mainly remembering that I pee standing up.
David,
I agree with you. I think that at the least a footnote should be inserted. Perhaps the phrase was a bit coarse or vulgar even in the Hebrew day. Knowing that such a phrase was used would help us understand the passage better, and gain a proper perspective on Scripture’s attitude toward similar phrases in our day.
It does seem that just translating it “male” is an attempt to clean up the text. Actually, The Message translates it as “cur”, and that kind of conveys the idea — perhaps. (Not really a Message fan, but just wanted to point it out.)
But there is no manlihood theme there– for sure!
Oh did you catch the wonderful “numerology” use?
Anyone notice how thrilled he was that no one liked what he said before, and that they weren’t going to like his ending to the message? Why is that something to be proud of, that people don’t like your message?
Reg Joe,
It’s pastor Steve Anderson — he occasionally posts on Fundamental Forums (or used to). Not sure his stance on Schaap, but from the sounds of it, he wouldn’t be averse to some strange seemingly perverse teaching — as long as he thought the KJB 1611 supported it.
Thanks for your thoughts, Leon. The Rom. 13:1 argument is quite novel. That could be right up there with this one!
One more thing, David. Doesn’t the passage teach “where” to go? As in not where you’ve been teaching your sons where? The typical middle school kid’s actions come to mind. Hey, here’s a wall…..
I still can’t believe we are talking about this!
Yes Bob, I did catch the wonderful numerology stuff:
“…you know there are different numbers that represent different things in the Bible… 5 is the number of death. You see that all throughout the Bible. People being killed under their 5th rib. Genesis 5:5, Acts 5:5 and on and on…”
It truly saddens me that there are people sitting under his teaching on a regular basis.
What do you figure this man’s bathroom looks like?
Don’t even go there!!!
I have a question for the all the KJV’ites or former KJV’ites… How do the KJV’ites view the addition of numbers and chapters in the text? They weren’t there in the original…so are they inspired now? I’m referencing his Gen 5:5…notion(numerology notion) that is. Just curious…if the addition of the verse and chapter numbers are now inspired right along with the text?
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
Good point, Gage. They don’t think about that very much. At least the numerology guys.
Stephanus in the mid 1500s added chapter and verse divisions to his Greek NT and the Geneva Bible first used them. There are some differences between the Geneva Bible’s and the KJV’s chapter and verse divisions.
Another point would be paragraph divisions. As I understand it, the KJV only got through around Acts (in the NT) with delineating paragraph divisions.
FWIW, I always thought the reference to “him that pisseth against the wall” was a euphemism for little boys – the meaning being that there would be no inheritors of the family name/throne. It’s a remark about male children, not how the macho-man should make water.
Bob, yes, I did notice the numerology thing–just another KJVO peculiarity. I missed the “against the wall” point, though. If he’s going to be consistent, he’ll have to specify that as well as “standing up,” won’t he?
BismillaharRahmanirRahim
as-salaamu ‘alaikum. Bob, this is an interesting site you have here. I will say though the man in the video, however animated, has misunderstood the text. The phrase
refers to someone with no manners. In fact in the passage of Samuel 25:22 it is referring to “Nabal” as someone of heedlessness.
It has been poor manners to make water standing up in the Abrahamic traditions for thousands of years. Making water standing up remains today all over the world a sign of poor training and manners.
In Islam it is forbidden to make water standing. The Prophets (may Peace and Blessings be upon them) never made water standing and we try to imitate their excellent models, inshaAllah.
-Saifuddin
You have to see it to believe it! He actually had me in tears I was laughing so hard.
“This is what is wrong with America!” Really? This is our big problem? I wish I would have known this before.
“I’m not going to p– sitting down.” I really appreciate him taking a stand for manliness.
Just add one more sin to the hyper-fundamentalist list. Sitting down to go to the bathroom.
Gage,
On the numerology of the numbering of chapters and verses, that is classic Peter Ruckman-style KJV Onlyism. He promoted the idea of 5 being the number of death (my first Ruckman clue) and then it was cinched with the 5:5 references. If you don’t recall what I’d told you about him before, go to http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm.
Another prime example of this kind of nonesense is how that the number nine is the number of fruit bearing. This is proved by going to the ninth book of the New Testament (Galatians), chapter 5, verse 22 (5+2+2=9) and you’ll find the fruit of the Spirit listed. You see? Nine is the number of fruit bearing. Not only that, but because nine is the number of fruit bearing, you know that your King James Bible is inspired because notice how many letters are in the name King James (nine letters! Hallelujah!).
That means the KJV is the Bible that God has blessed with bearing more fruit (think of all the historic revivals and the launching of the modern missionary movement since the publication of the King James!) than any modern version, and because the King James is so blessed, KJV Onlyists often (as you know) question the salvation of those won to Christ through the use of modern translations and paraphrases (if you know what I mean).
H+O+L+Y+B+I+B+L+E = 9
Please please please explain to me what in the world this has to do with anything! This guy is a joke – his “pulpit” is his platform and he will be judged by God Himself accordingly. Lord show him mercy… seriously.
I tried the link and it failed to go to the article I intended for you to read. If it doesn’t go to the article, “What About Ruckman?” then put the name Ruckman in the search engine on the website and the first entry will be the article that will give you a glimpse of the madness that is Peter S. Ruckman.
I had to laugh, and laugh very hard, at the nonsense of Anderson. I would only point out (not sure why I have to do this) that Anderson represents KJVO’s the way Westboro Baptist represents Calvinists.
Anderson flames Schaap. We linked to it when we dealt with the Hyles issue on JackHammer. Whether Anderson p’s standing up or sitting down, he is a coward. Nobody shakes their fist quite so emphatically as a man who is safely shielded behind his keyboard.
As far as the numerology stuff, Gage, I (as a KJVO) would have to say that it depends on whether you believe that in 1611, God decided to stop preserving the Bible in the original languages, and began instead to preserve the Bible in English. If you believe that, then it is not hard to believe that the chapter and verse numbers are equally inspired.
If, on the other hand, you believe that preservation rests in the original languages (as I do), then no, you don’t consider chapter and verse numbers to have any kind of significance.
Furthermore, I would add, that this is what I see as the great danger of “English-only” preservation… the light we have revealed to us in Scripture is not enough. We must have more light… a code that is somehow encrypted in the chapter and verse numbers, and even in the arrangement of letters in the KJV.
As a KJVO, I speak out against such unbelieving nonsense.
What a freak. This kind of insanity is why IFBXdom is almost, if not already a cult.
I went on a covert mission into one of the NIV translator’s houses and took a picture of his bathroom. This is evidence that Anderson knows what he’s talking about.
I tried to put a link in the last comment that would show the proof. Maybe this will work.
Pathetically sad and hysterically amusing. Void of hermeneutics, grace or substance. To think that people actually listen to this guy brings me to sadness.
Gotta go! I have to go “sit” in the bathroom! Just thought that I would give you something to preach on this Sunday Anderson!
Mike
Here’s a picture of Anderson’s bathroom. Sorry folks, I couldn’t resist.
Bob, thanks for posting this. I’ve been following your blog for about a week and have enjoyed the material. I’m similar to you in that I grew up in IFB circles and am now reformed. I would disagree with you on a few things (women/pants and worship music come to mind), but I am sure we agree on much more than we disagree on.
The above video is shameful. Like others here, I find it humorous in one sense and yet very sad that folks are being fed this sort of drivel on a weekly basis. May God be gracious to open their eyes to the truth and get them out from under that “preaching.” He is right that one of the things wrong with this country is the lack of male leadership, but this has nothing to do with where/how one urinates! At the risk of pulling this into the gutter further, I wonder how Mr. Anderson manages his affairs when he has to sit for a bowel movement. Is he still manly if he urinates at that time? I’m sorry…
Personally, I much prefer those translations (such as the NASB) that opt for “male” rather than “any that pisseth against the wall.” I don’t believe the latter phrase adds anything to the meaning of the text. What else could be derived from that phrase? Such language is deemed vulgar in our culture today, even amongst the majority of unbelievers. I would never approve of my children referring to males in that way, nor would I allow them to be around others who did. And though I have done no extensive research on this, my guess would be that the phrase was not considered vulgar in David’s day, thus its appearance in the Scriptures. Whether or not it was in King James’ day, I don’t know. But, in my thinking, this presents one of the most important arguments for an updated translation.
God bless.
I’m with Scott Henry in his argument for an updated translation.
Those pictures, Bro. Jeff, are priceless!
Regler Joe brought up the idea that the phrase means young boys. I looked up the 1 Sam. 25:22 in all the versions again and discovered that the ASV actually says “male-child” not one who urinates against a wall, as I had reported earlier.
In looking up what the phrase actually means, I found Keil and Delitzsch, the Hebrew scholars to be very helpful:
So every male — down to the last man– is the idea of the phrase.
For anyone interested, here is the list of verses with this phrase:
1 Sam. 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8
Pmallinak does bring up a good point: this guy is extreme to the nth degree. So he doesn’t represent a whole host of more reasonable KJV Only (or TR Only) proponents. He certainly didn’t represent me when I held to TR Onlyism.
Comment #34 on urinating. Fascinating.
On updating the language: I’m for that, but it still ought to say what it said, not what we think it probably means. “Piss” was not the vulgar term in 1611 that it is now. We can find a better one for our modern language without throwing out the inspired phrase. Remember, just because most ofus agree that simply means “every male” doesn’t mean that it does. (I’m wondering if there could be anything to Saifuddin’s comment #18. Maybe not, but it brings up the point that we can’t interpret Jewish Scriptures through Western culture.) Translators should translate, and, as much as possible, leave interpretation to teachers.
By the way, you’re not the first to post on this passage. I beat you to it, although mine wasn’t nearly as entertaining.
That’s a valid point, David. Better to keep the translation word-for-word (as much as is possible from Hebrew-to-English and Greek-to-English) and just update the language where necessary.
Personally, I think a footnote would be excellent for this. That way the translation conveys the point of the text, but also lets you see how the Hebrew phrases it. Then again, maybe a literal translation would be better. However if the Hebrew phrase doesn’t convey a vulgarity, then we should be careful in how our English translation phrases this.
By the way Scott. Glad to see you reading the blog. I have many readers like yourself who don’t agree with me on every point. Reformation is a process, and uniformity to my positions is not the goal. Unity in the Gospel of Jesus and faithfulness to His Word should be.
Feel free to comment, question, or even email me on issues. It’s a joy to have readers, and I want to be a blessing in any way I can.
John,
As for the number 9, you’re forgetting that Gal. 5:22 lists 9 fruits of the Spirit. So 9 is connected to fruitfulness without having to resort to chapter and verse numbers.
Nevertheless, overall, numerology is too wacky to be dependable. Especially when one can just make it say whatever they want!
Saifuddin,
I’m glad you stumbled onto my blog. Your point is interesting and worth considering. However my quote from Keil and Delitzsch would seem to counter it. This is not to say that Muslims and others took verses like this and possibly other factors and developed a manners-system as you describe. I know Muslims don’t utilize toilet paper (sorry but the subject matter of our thread is so strange, I thought I’d mention it). This is not bizarre, it reflects Muslim beliefs about cleanliness by water, etc.
I respect those (and your) views, although I see them as traditional and not based in authoritative Scripture.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see if other Hebrew/Jewish sources mentioned anything on this point.
One more thing to mention here. We passed the 3,000 comments mark for my blog in this post. Jeff Voegtlin’s comment (#26) was the lucky one.
Still I agree that 30 comments on such a topic is amazing. Then again, we haven’t come close to matching the incredibility-factor of the video I posted here yet!
BismillaharRahmanirRahim
as-salaamu ‘alaikum Bob, you wrote:
Bob, you seem to be forgetting that the two traditions which we are referring are from the same region. The “manner-system” is in fact quite similar have you ever read much on ancient Jewish religious practices, the reformed Judaism is something else, but there is definitely reason to look into the tradition worship of Jews, enjoy :).
-Saifuddin
Since this is the 41st reply to this topic, I thought I’d point out something very important. The #41 is very important in the Bible, as it is the number of Egypt. As proof of this important scriptural numeric key, you can see that the land of Egypt is the topic in Genesis 41:41.
Saifuddin,
Scripture reveals many acceptable postures of prayer in the Bible. It does not expressly mandate one posture only.
Also, while Islam draws from Judaism, and may stem from some Jewish influences that can be traced back to actual Judaism, it nonetheless was heavily influenced by Arabic customs.
Again this is my view, and I understand that Islam fundamentally holds that it has a legitimate connection back to Judaism, as Islam understands Allah to be the God of Abraham. Jews and Christians dispute these claims, however.
Blessings from Jesus Christ, Son of God,
Bob Hayton
Mr. Anderson,
What concerns you more…whether a male sits on the toilet or a man stands up to p—…or whether a male or man dies and suffers an eternity in hell apart from God?
Enjoy your trip to Germany. I’m sure glad you told your people that you are going to disobey the laws of the land there.
You are the MAN…not
Mike
I didn’t know Luke Wilson pastored a house church.
Fred
If this gentleman (sic) is truly committed to literalism via the KJV, his own bathroom must be a real mess. After all, if he is really serious about taking the KJV literally, then he necessarily has to piss against the wall of his own bathroom, for the passage is not about “standing up” per se, but about “pissing against the wall,” and anything less would be total hypocrisy. Of course, I assume that he would make his wife clean up the mess, since she is the lesser creature. And oh, by the way, he really should tie his necktie so the ends are somewhat shorter–they are quite apt to get wet, given his technique.
I’m assuming, of course, that he also reads the apocrypha, since it was printed in the KJV for the first century or so. And one more thing–when he gets to Germany, where he intends to travel, he must be sure that all Germans learn English in order to read the KJV, since the KJV is an English version and is unintelligible to Germans, Chinese, Africans, etc. What a wonderful and amazing thing: God wrote the Bible in Shakesperean English hundreds of years before that language even existed! But of course, if the KJV was good enough for Paul…
One of the effects of gross ignorance of language and linguistics, is that you get attempts to understand a passage of scripture without the very obvious things being taken into account, things that all bible translators are aware of.
The phrase in question is idiomatic, as the commenters above point out. The clearest way to render idioms is not literally, but by determining from the context. Nevertheless, crackpot theologies fall apart when you try to shift them from the KJV to something else.
Flannery O’Connor was thinking of people like this when she wrote her books. Y’All reckon?
W
I’m not familiar with O’Connor, unfortunately. I think you make a good point, however.
Blessings,
Bob
Another awkward text is Ezekiel 23:20. I first happened to notice it in the HCSB. When I asked my pastor about it, he said that they had actually studied it in his Hebrew class, and that the HCSB translated it accurately, uncomfortably so.
An aside here: I notice frequent references to “KJV 1611”, or variations thereof. The KJV we use now is NOT the 1611 version. The KJV underwent several revisions, the last in 1776, IIRC (check the title page). That was a period of significant linguistic change, so the revisions were intended to keep up. Sounds remarkably like the use of MODERN versions. The 1611 version is available, for example on Amazon.