08-09-2011, 08:26 AM
A interesting variance, however, not found in the Greek translation, is found in Romans 1:27
All translations have 'natural use of woman'.
The aramaic however, also is used in 2 Corinthians 11:9, where the word is used for 'need(s)'.
Most modern translations, avoid translating 'use', but they translate it as if the Greek word for 'use' can be implicitely understood as 'dealings with women'. (which is a weird rendering, since it seems that no other instance in the NT using that Greek word, means the same).
In Greek, or most English translations, Paul seems to say: "Women, are utils of man." Which is quite offending.
In Payne Smith 162 we see that the same word also can be translated into a sentence like
"natural need of women".
What do you think about this?
All translations have 'natural use of woman'.
The aramaic however, also is used in 2 Corinthians 11:9, where the word is used for 'need(s)'.
Most modern translations, avoid translating 'use', but they translate it as if the Greek word for 'use' can be implicitely understood as 'dealings with women'. (which is a weird rendering, since it seems that no other instance in the NT using that Greek word, means the same).
In Greek, or most English translations, Paul seems to say: "Women, are utils of man." Which is quite offending.
In Payne Smith 162 we see that the same word also can be translated into a sentence like
"natural need of women".
What do you think about this?