Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual!
#17
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:
  1. things that are to take place ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d Nylh[/font]): Luke 21:36
  2. were to take place ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Nywhnd Jdyt9d[/font]): Acts 26:22
  3. things to come ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font]): Romans 8:38, 1Corinthians 3:22, Hebrews 10:1
  4. things then future ([font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]Jdyt9d[/font]): Colossians 2:17
  5. 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 <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile -->
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Colossians Misunderstood - As Usual! - by Aaron S - 06-10-2010, 10:02 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)