06-10-2010, 10:02 PM
As far as (2) goes, the word then may be also due to translator bias judging from how he translates this word in other places.
Murdock translates [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font] as follows:
The notable translations here are #2 and #4. But surely the best translation for [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d Nylh[/font] without modifiers (as is found in Colossians 2:17 would be best rendered things to come.
As for (3), as can be ascertained from my previous post, I would think that Murdock explicitly chose to render the verse this way due to his bias.
Now that I've said all I can on this, I'll let the experts in Aramaic say a word or 2 <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->
Murdock translates [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font] as follows:
- things that are to take place ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d Nylh[/font]): Luke 21:36
- were to take place ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Nywhnd Jdyt9d[/font]): Acts 26:22
- things to come ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font]): Romans 8:38, 1Corinthians 3:22, Hebrews 10:1
- things then future ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font]): Colossians 2:17
- things that were to be ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Ywh Jdyt9d[/font]): Hebrews 3:5
The notable translations here are #2 and #4. But surely the best translation for [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d Nylh[/font] without modifiers (as is found in Colossians 2:17 would be best rendered things to come.
As for (3), as can be ascertained from my previous post, I would think that Murdock explicitly chose to render the verse this way due to his bias.
Now that I've said all I can on this, I'll let the experts in Aramaic say a word or 2 <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="" title="Smile" /><!-- s -->