Modern translations often clarify the sense of figures of speech used by the Hebrews or Greeks but with which we may not be familiar. So Jesus, in condemning those who hypocritically make a showing of their charity, said that they “are having their reward in full.” That is absolutely all they will ever get, the praise of men, which was just what they wanted.- Matt. Goodspeed has said that “Raca” was a foul name “which one sometimes heard on the lips of foul-mouthed people but never saw in print.” The New World Translation renders it “an unspeakable word of contempt.”Īnother example is that of the verb apeʹkho, translated “have” in older translations, but which means “to have in full,” being used “as a technical expression in drawing up a receipt,” as stated in Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. 5:22, AV margin) Now, however, because of the discovery of a papyrus letter, scholar E. Thus “Raca” was simply thought to mean “a vain fellow,” but that did not fit in with the severe condemnation of its use by Jesus. Ancient papyrus writings have been found that showed the everyday use of certain words not well understood. The progress made in understanding the Greek in which the Christian Scriptures were written has also made possible better translations. 1:27) And for most persons today “shambles” does not refer to a “meat market,” as it used to, but to a “scene of destruction.”- 1 Cor. 4:15) “Conversation” used to mean “conduct.” Today it most often refers to talking with another. 2:7) Likewise, to “prevent” used to mean to “go before” or to “precede.” Today it means to “keep from happening.” ( 1 Thess. For example, to “let” used to mean to “hinder.” Today the meaning usually attached to the expression is just the opposite, to “permit.” ( 2 Thess. One reason why modern translations may be better than such old ones as the King James of 1611 is that the English language itself has changed over the years. It would certainly be dangerous to give the form of the translation precedence over the meaning.”
which belong more truly to the first Elizabethan age in England than to the Hebrew originals. . . He should not try to inject a rhetorical quality. Yet, as has been well noted: “The first duty of a translator is to convey as clearly as he can what the original author wrote. Admittedly, it would be difficult to find an English translation of more literary beauty than the King James. Yes, there could be, and there are better translations of the Bible than the King James and Douay versions, and that for a number of reasons. WHY should there be modern Bible translations? Are not the old ones, such as the King James and the Douay versions, good enough? They are good, no doubt, and have helped countless numbers to have faith in God and in his Word, the Bible.
0 kommentar(er)
