What about the phrase "and that Pisseth against the wall"?
Another phrase that the Bible Correctors League likes to criticize is the one found several times in the King James Bible where we read of one cutting off and destroying "any that pisseth against the wall."
This phrase is found six times in the King James Bible, and is always used as an insult - 1 Samuel 25:22, 34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21, and 2 Kings 9:8 "For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab HIM THAT PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL, and him that is shut up and left in Israel."
Let's look at the first verse where this phrase is used, and make some observations; it is found in 1 Samuel 25:22. The context is where David and his men ask for some provisions from a wicked man named Nabal, who not only refuses to give them anything to eat, but also insults David as well.
Then David says: "So and more also do God unto THE ENEMIES OF David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light ANY THAT PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL."
The reason I capitalized the words "the enemies of" is because they are found in the Hebrew texts and in versions like the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, and the new ESV, but versions like the NIV, RSV, NET and Holman Standard omit them based on SOME Greek Septuagint copies.
The NIV and Holman read: "May God deal with David, be it ever so severely, if by morning I leave alive ONE MALE of all who belong to him!".
Then the NIV tells us in a footnote that they have omitted the words "the enemies of" based on "some Septuagint manuscripts" but that the Hebrew reads as does the King James Bible. The NIV, by omitting these God inspired words, completely changes the meaning and makes it sound as though God is dealing severely with David rather than David's enemies.
Daniel Wallace's NET bible version does the same thing, but he doesn't tell you this. His version says: "God will severely punish David, if I leave alive until morning even one male (22) from all those who belong to him!”
Then he footnotes: "(22) Heb “one who urinates against a wall” (also in v. 34); KJV “any that pisseth against the wall.”
Wallace's goofy NET version has the same problem as the NIV. It has God potentially punishing David rather than David's enemies!
It is more than a little hypocritical and inconsistent of the NIV to reject the Hebrew "the enemies of" David, based on "some" LXX copies, and then to mistranslate not only the Hebrew text but also the Septuagint reading for "him that pisseth against a wall". The Greek Septuagint itself reads "ουρουντα εις τοιχον". = the one pissing (or urinating) against a wall.
It is of interest to note the Jehovah Witness New World translations. The older one done in 1961 says: "may God do so to the enemies of David...that URINATES AGAINST THE WALL remain until the morning."
BUT the newly Revised New World Translation of 2013 now reads like the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB with: "if I allow any MALE of his to remain".
A fairly recent Jewish translation of 2004 is the Judaica Press Tanach. They have completely altered the meaning of the Hebrew and in their paraphrase of 1 Samuel 25:22 we read: "So shall God do to David's enemies, and so shall He continue, if I leave over of all that he has, by the morning light, EVEN ONE DOG." This is a complete paraphrase and misses the point entirely.
The New English Bible 1970 likewise omits words found in the Hebrew text and mistranslates the other part. It says: "God do the same to ME (Hebrew - to the enemies of David) and more if I leave him A SINGLE MOTHER'S SON alive by morning."
One recent critical text version called The Names of God Bible of 2011 says: "May Elohim punish ME[a] if I leave even one of HIS MEN[b] alive in the morning.”
And then it footnotes - Footnotes:1 Samuel 25:22 Greek; Masoretic Text “To David’s enemies.”1 Samuel 25:22 Hebrew USES A COARSE TERM for “men” here and at verse 34."
So, they are telling us right here in their footnotes that they have rejected the Hebrew text itself and gone with the Greek LXX, AND that "the Hebrew uses a coarse term for men". Well, guess what this "coarse term" is that GOD used here. That's right - "him that pisseth against the wall"!!!
Apparently a lot of today's "Bible scholars" think it is not only OK to change the meaning of the God inspired Hebrew texts, but also to omit them whenever they feel like it too.
"any that PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL"
Other Bible translations that agree with both the Hebrew and the King James Bible reading: "any that pisseth against the wall" are Wycliffe 1395 - "that perteynen to him til the morewe A PISSER TO THE WAL.", the Great Bible 1540 - "any thing that pisseth agaynst the walle.", Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568 -"any that pysseth against the wall, the Douay-Rheims of 1610 - "of all that belong to him till the morning, ANY THAT PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL.", the Geneva Bible 1599, the Bill Bible 1671, the Julia Smith Translation 1855 - "him PISSING AGAINST THE WALL", The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - "ANY THAT PISSETH AGAINST A WALL", The Smith Bible 1876, the Douay 1950, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999 - "anything that PISSES AGAINST THE WALL", The Revised Geneva Bible 2005 - "him that PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL", The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, The BRG Bible 2012 - "him that pisseth against the wall", The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 - "any that PISSES AGAINST THE WALL".
And this Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament - "any THAT PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL"
Foreign language Bibles that correctly translate the literal Hebrew as "him that pisses against the wall" are the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, La Santa Biblia Version de Cipriano de Valera 1602 Revisada y Corregida 1865, the Reina Valera 1909 - "no tengo de dejar de todo lo que fuere suyo ni aun meante á la pared.", the 2010 Reina Valera Gómez - "no he de dejar ni a UN MEANTE A LA PARED, de todos los que le pertenecen.", Luther's German Bible of 1545 -"der an die Wand pisset, aus allem, das er hat!", the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 - "der an die Wand pisst!"
By the way, the verb used in these Spanish versions is "mear", which is the course and "uncouth and coarse" way of saying to urinate. Ask any Spanish speaker about this. The "nice" way to say this is "orinar".
As well as the Greek Septuagint and the Modern Greek translation - "ουρουντα εις τοιχον". You can consult a modern Greek dictionary and the verb used here means "to piss against the wall".
The KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the World English Bible, Green's Modern KJV 1998, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003, Green's Literal KJV 2006, the Context Group Version 2007 - ONE URINATING AGAINST THE WALL", The Mebust Bible 2007 - "ones URINATING AGAINST THE WALL", the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version, The New Heart English Bible 2010, The Holy Scriptures VW Edition 2010 - "any of those who URINATE AGAINST THE WALL", the Orthodox Jewish Bible of 2011, Common English Bible 2011, The Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 - "him that URINATES AGAINST THE WALL". The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011 reads: "any THAT URINATES AGAINST THE WALL." and so does the World English Bible 2012 as well as the Hebraic Roots Bible 2012 - "one WHO URINATES AGAINST A WALL".
Coverdale of 1535 read: "as one that maketh water agaynst ye wall.
Young's so called "literal" version completely misses the mark and actually says: "THOSE SITTING ON A WALL"
Those versions like the NKJV, RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, and Holman that read "against A MALE" are the ones that are not following the literal Hebrew reading. The literal "any that pisseth against the wall" is what GOD wrote and inspired in His words. God knows perfectly well how to say "pisseth against the wall" and how to say "male", and He said "pisseth against the wall". Look it up for yourself.
The Lexham English Bible 2011 says: "and I shall cut off ALL MALES from Ahab", but then it Footnotes: "Literally the one who urinates against the wall".
God chose His words very carefully, and "pissing against the wall" does NOT refer to every male; it refers to every male of a certain age. Babies and toddlers were in all likelihood not included in this slaughter.
The Common English Bible of 2011 is another one of these latest critical text new Vatican Versions to come down the pike and it shows us in their own footnotes what these modern, uninspired versions are doing.
It reads: 1 Samuel 25:22 Common English Bible (CEB)
22 "May God deal harshly with ME, David,[a] and worse still if I leave alive even ONE SINGLE MALE [b] belonging to him come morning!”
1 Samuel 25:22 LXX; MT with David’s enemies
1 Samuel 25:22 Or who urinates on a wall; also in 25:34
So, right here they are telling you that they have both rejected the Hebrew Masorretic text, followed the so called Greek Septuagint reading of "David" and paraphrased even this as "ME"; omitted the word "enemies" and by altering the literal meaning of the God inspired text that says "pissing, or urinating against a wall", even though the Greek Septuagint itself reads "pissing against a wall"!!
The Catholic Connection
The Catholic versions are all over the board as well. The earlier Douay-Rheims 1582 and the Douay of 1950 both read like the King James Bible with "ANY THAT PISSETH AGAINST THE WALL".
Then the Jerusalem bible of 1968 and the St. Joseph NAB both say "any MALE" but the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says "ANY MANJACK alive of all who belong to him." Then it footnotes that the literal translation of the Hebrew is "one who urinates against the wall."
Oh, but wait. Now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version has come out and it has gone back to a more literal reading of the Hebrew text with: "...if I leave behind until morning, out of all that belongs to him, ANYTHING THAT URINATES AGAINST A WALL." and The Revised Douay-Rheims Bible 2012 - "him THAT PISSES against the wall"
Another instance of where the NKJV in particular and other modern versions tamper with the Hebrew texts is found in a repeated phrase in the Old Testament. In 2 Kings 18:27 and again repeated in Isaiah 36:12 the Scriptures record the words spoken by Rabshakeh, the representative for the king of Assyria, against the Jews in Jerusalem. He says: “Hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that THEY MAY EAT THEIR OWN DUNG, AND DRINK THEIR OWN PISS with you?” (See also Isaiah 36:12)
Agreeing with the reading found in the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible 1587, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “they may eate their owne doung, and drinke their owne pisse with you?”, and Wycliffe 1395 also has the word “piss’ in it., The Jewish Family Bible 1864 - "their own piss", The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, the Bond Slave Version 2009, The Jubilee Bible 2012 - "dung and piss", The Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 - “eat their own dung, and drink their own piss”
ASV 1901 - This version misses it by translating the Hebrew word meaning ‘piss’ or urine’ to ‘water’. - “to eat their own dung, and to drink their own WATER with you?
NIV 1984 - “eat their own FILTH and drink their own urine?" What exactly is their own “filth”? There is lots of filth around my house but I wouldn’t classify it as “dung”.
So the TNIV 2005 apparently had to ‘update and clarify’ the old NIV for us, and it now reads: “to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?"
NASB 1995 - “to eat their own dung and drink their own urine with you?"
Holman CSB 2003 - “to eat their own excrement and drink their own urine?"
The Message 2002 - “eating their own turds and drinking their own pee right along with you."
The NKJV 1982 - “will eat and drink THEIR OWN WASTE with you?” Here the NKJV just omits the Hebrew words and combines the two ideas into the single word “waste”. Does the NKJV mean that they will eat and drink garbage?
The King James Bible is always right, and "sensitive, politically correct preachers" who steal the words of God out from under the Lord's people should repent of their sin and get back to the real Holy Bible.
1 Samuel 24:3 "to cover his feet"
A Bible Agnostic ignorantly criticizes the King James Bible.
Marlin J. writes: The 1611 is not as good as the later translations for today’s readers. It is still not in today’s English and can be hard to understand at times. Such as saying King Solomon went to cover his feet. Not even my friend in England had a clue what that means."
Marlin, Face the FACT that you do NOT believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible in ANY language.
And as for Saul going into a cave "to cover his feet", that is literally what the Hebrew text says. Maybe you should take it up with God about why He had them write it this way. Ya think?
I know what it means. All you have to do it think about it a bit. Many modern versions have simply paraphrased what God wrote instead of translating it.
1 Samuel 24:3 -“And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in TO COVER HIS FEET: and David and his men remained in the sides of the cave.”
In case you didn’t know, a sheepcote is a sheepfold. It is not an archaic word at all, and it is the reading of the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, Webster’s translation 1833, the Revised Version 1885, ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) 1917 O.T., the 1938 Hebrew Publishing Company translation, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, The Jewish Virtual Library Tanach 1994, and the Third Millennium Bible 1998 to name but a few.
The phrase “TO COVER HIS FEET” is the literal Hebrew text. To “COVER” is #5526 say-chach and is used in places like “and COVER the ark with the vail” (Ex.40:3); “the cherubims COVERED the ark” (1 Kings 8:7); “He shall COVER thee with his feathers” (Psalm 91:4) and “the shady trees COVER him” (Job 40:22).
The word for FEET is #7272 reh-gel and is used hundreds of times as literal “feet” or “foot”. “the dove found no rest for the sole of her FOOT” (Genesis 8:9); “tarry all night and wash your FEET” (Gen.19:2); “thou hast put all things under his FEET” (Psalm 8:6) and “his FEET shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives” (Zechariah 14:4)
“Saul went in TO COVER HIS FEET” is the literal Hebrew text. It is a euphemistic way of saying that he went to the bathroom. “Saul went in TO COVER HIS FEET” is the reading of Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, Webster’s translation 1833, Darby 1890, Young’s literal 1898, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, The Jewish Virtual Library Tanach 1994, English Jubilee Bible 2010, The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010, and the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011.
The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907 - "And he came to the SHEEPCOTES by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in TO COVER HIS FEET"
The Jewish Virtual Library Tanach [Full Text] 1994 - "And he came to the sheepcote by the way, where was a cave; and Saul went in TO COVER HIS FEET."
The Hebrew Transliteration Scriptures 2010 - "and Sha'ull went in TO COVER HIS FEET"
However many other versions paraphrase these words. They come up with essentially the same meaning, but nonetheless they are paraphrases, and some are quite awkward.
Wycliffe had the quite odd phrase “that he should purge the womb”. The Bishops’ Bible 1568 read - “to do his easement” and the Geneva bible had “to do his excrement”.
The NKJV has “to attend to his needs”, the RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET have - “to relieve himself”, Douay - “to ease nature” and the Common English Bible (a critical text version) 2011 says “Saul went into the cave TO USE THE RESTROOM”, and then it footnotes the literal “to cover his feet” (a euphemism).
The reason I mention this is to point out that the King James Bible is far more literal when it comes to naming body parts than are most of the modern versions.
For many examples of the accuracy of the King James Bible in identifying specific body parts in contrast to the far less accurate and incorrect paraphrases of the modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV see
“You Better Hope Your Surgeon Is Not A Modern Versionist”
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm