I agree with you about context being essential for good exegesis. Literal word-for-word translation means nothing without the context in which it was said.

My claim in the exegesis of Philippians 3:8 and Romans 6:1-2 is that contextually and literally, it's a hard sale to say that Paul is speaking profanely. There's good reason to believe that he was speaking very strongly and very negatively about those things. However, contextually I don't see reason to believe that Paul was speaking profanely. There's the possibility he was talking about feces in Philippians 3:8, but that doesn't mean he was speaking about it profanely. As for "ginomai" or "me genoito," it does carry a very strong and negative tone. However, it is contextually very far from the equivalent of "hell no."

I agree that it's very likely that skybalon was used in certain graffiti and other texts as a profane word. However, I don't think that's the context Paul was using it in. The overall tone of the passage doesn't imply or give reason for Paul to use profanity. Of all people, I would see reason for Paul to use such strong and offensive language (if at all) while speaking with pharisees and legalists... but the Philippian church- those who have professed faith and brought joy to Paul in the midst of his suffering? Contextually, that is a hard sale for me. In addition, Paul's method was never to shock and awe with eloquence and/or controversial language. He spoke the truth boldly, and let the Spirit do the rest. After all, there wasn't a need to use such language to keep people interested. The simple message of proclaiming all things as worthless when compared to the greatness of some carpenter who claimed to be God, died for sins, and resurrected from the dead, was a culture-shocking statement in and of itself.

But anyway, good discussion man. You're right, we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree (which I hate sometimes. lol). But let me just make clear that I don't think a person is a heretic or chief of sinners for disagreeing on this topic. It is a controversial topic, and there should be grace shown to both sides (even though we disagree and discuss why we disagree). There's also that whole thing with it not being an essential to the Christian faith. So all in all, it prolly wouldn't be my preference to hang out with believers who use such language (notice I say believers, not lost people. I don't expect non-believers to act like believers). However, I'm not ready to start a war or attempt to exile them for the church over it either.

Sorry I wasn't more clear in my response as to whether or not I agree with you. I do in fact agree with many points in your article. You were clear and concise, and not afraid to wrestle with some of the controversial aspects of this topic.

As for me, I am not against certain words as much as I am against the usage of certain words. I think it's flirting with legalism to say that certain words are always sinful. For example, at one time the word ass referred to a donkey. I think it would be extremely legalistic to say that referring to a donkey as an ass is a sin. But telling someone to kiss your ***.... well, I find a hard time justifying that statement. I think the key to whether or not something is a cuss word is context. In one sentence, a word may be vulgar and derogatory. In another sentence, it may be referring to an animal.

I think the big issue we would disagree on is whether Paul in fact used profane language. I don't think the question is whether or not Paul used "strong" language. That is a definite yes! However, I read the article you linked about Paul's Profanity and found it to be a little off. The problem I have is, the scriptures being discussed can be interpreted a different way (I'm not referring to isogesis, but rather interpreting it a different way while still being exegetical).

I'll address the main scripture that is most often quoted in defense of cussing.

Philippians 3:8
"What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them RUBBISH, that I may gain Christ"

- It's true, one way the greek word "skybalon" is translated is "dung." However, the overlying meaning of the word is "any refuse," meaning - "Items or material discarded or rejected as useless or worthless; trash or rubbish." The possible translations for "skybalon" are, "any refuse, as the excrement of animals, offscourings, rubbish, dregs, offal; of things worthless and detestable." As you can see, "dung" is not the only possible translation for the word. More so, the point is that all things have became worthless to Paul, when compared to the greatness of knowing Christ. Even more so, Paul using the word to mean feces would most likely be for the purpose of simply explaining how those are things that, like bodily waste, have left his body and are of no importance. I think it's a hard argument to make that he was looking to shock the Philippians with a cuss word.

The other big argument I saw from the article on "Paul's Profanity" was concerning Romans 6:1-2-
"(1) What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? (2) BY NO MEANS! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"

The argument made is that "by no means" is the equivalent of "hell no." However, I am convinced this is an even further example of reading our culture into the text. The greek word for that phrase is "ginomai." When the text says "by no means," that is a literal translation. There is no implication of it being a profane term, whatsover. It's a negative term, yes... but not a profane term. The argument made is that "ginomai" would mean essentially the same thing as "hell no" does today. However, this is a faulty argument. Why? "By no means" means essentially the same thing as "hell no" does today. The only difference is that one carries a profane tone, but this profane tone is not present or implied in Romans 6:1-2.

I hope that clears up more of my view on the topic. Again, I'm very appreciative of your willingness to Biblically approach controversial topics.

I personally don't think it's beneficial/wise to use such language. Here's why:

http://brianmont51.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/poiso...