Actually this is Richard Nixon’s comment on learning about John Dean’s testimony.
2
Petespews:
I didn’t think of it as “son” so much as “apprentice.” – The Son
3
Stevespews:
Heh. God must know our stupid son of whore trolls.
4
bobspews:
I wonder what the US Constitution would look like, were it to be translated into current-day use of the English language. But I digress.
Here’s another translation of the verse in question, from the same link you provided, Goldy:
1 Samuel 20:30 Hebrew You son of a perverse and rebellious woman.
Use one of the non-sexual definitions of ‘perverse’ and all of a sudden that woman becomes a headstrong rebel.
Gee. Like, say, Hillary. Or Michelle. Or my mother. Or countless other women who we have come to respect and admire.
There are so many reasons to trash the Bible. Perverting a verse shouldn’t be necessary to come up with one.
5
Roger Rabbitspews:
This passage doesn’t apply to rabbits because none of us know who for sure our mothers are. When I meet a rabbit I assume he might be my brother or sister. That’s why rabbits don’t have wars.
6
Petespews:
@5 Well, that, and because AK-47s are very difficult for a rabbit to fire accurately.
7
Blue Johnspews:
@5. Hey, Yes you do! I have seen “Watership Down”.
Y’know, when first read that, I somehow immediately heard it in Slim Pickens voice.
Somewhere, Smedley is cowering behind the closet door….
10
Roger Rabbitspews:
@6 You don’t have to fire an AK-47 accurately. All ya hafta do is snap in a 30-round magazine, set the selector switch to full auto, point, and hold down the trigger. That’s the whole point of the AK-47.
It was designed for militaries that don’t bother to train their conscripts.
11
Roger Rabbitspews:
Hey global warming deniers! How d’ya like this ICE AGE we’re having?!
@4 – Have you ever bothered to read the context of the verse? Um, Saul was trying to murder David. He’d already tried once and failed. He was mightily pissed that his son was helping David escape. So, yeah, he called his son a bad name. And the commentaries agree on the characterization in the version Goldy quoted.
It’s so funny to watch biblical illiterates clutch their pearls over things they just can’t believe(!) are in the bible.
Actually this is Richard Nixon’s comment on learning about John Dean’s testimony.
I didn’t think of it as “son” so much as “apprentice.” – The Son
Heh. God must know our stupid son of whore trolls.
I wonder what the US Constitution would look like, were it to be translated into current-day use of the English language. But I digress.
Here’s another translation of the verse in question, from the same link you provided, Goldy:
1 Samuel 20:30 Hebrew You son of a perverse and rebellious woman.
Use one of the non-sexual definitions of ‘perverse’ and all of a sudden that woman becomes a headstrong rebel.
Gee. Like, say, Hillary. Or Michelle. Or my mother. Or countless other women who we have come to respect and admire.
There are so many reasons to trash the Bible. Perverting a verse shouldn’t be necessary to come up with one.
This passage doesn’t apply to rabbits because none of us know who for sure our mothers are. When I meet a rabbit I assume he might be my brother or sister. That’s why rabbits don’t have wars.
@5 Well, that, and because AK-47s are very difficult for a rabbit to fire accurately.
@5. Hey, Yes you do! I have seen “Watership Down”.
7 – That’s anthropomorphizing..
Y’know, when first read that, I somehow immediately heard it in Slim Pickens voice.
Somewhere, Smedley is cowering behind the closet door….
@6 You don’t have to fire an AK-47 accurately. All ya hafta do is snap in a 30-round magazine, set the selector switch to full auto, point, and hold down the trigger. That’s the whole point of the AK-47.
It was designed for militaries that don’t bother to train their conscripts.
Hey global warming deniers! How d’ya like this ICE AGE we’re having?!
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n.....april?lite
@8 – And a typing rabbit isn’t?
The Cult Of Dusty’s freaking awesome.
http://tinyurl.com/86j8h5r
@4 – Have you ever bothered to read the context of the verse? Um, Saul was trying to murder David. He’d already tried once and failed. He was mightily pissed that his son was helping David escape. So, yeah, he called his son a bad name. And the commentaries agree on the characterization in the version Goldy quoted.
It’s so funny to watch biblical illiterates clutch their pearls over things they just can’t believe(!) are in the bible.