To: xzins; ReformedBeckite; sola gracia; vmatt; RnMomof7; Jean Chauvin; the_doc; theAmbassador; ...
Part 2.
I hope to hear from you all.
Nate
2 posted on
11/03/2002 9:40:22 AM PST by
nate4one
To: nate4one
Thanks for the analysis, Nate . Very interesting , especially the observation that the writings made more sense to contemporaries that to people a couple of thousand years away . We really are at the mercy of the translators in a lot of ways .
Look at how English (American) has changed in the last hundred years . If I told you about my "bitch" would you think I was talking about a female dog or a mean woman ?
If I told you about my "hoe", i would have to tell you it was an agricultural implement .
I certainly wouldn't refer to a joyful hetero-sexual man as "gay"
These are only the most obvious, of course , but it just shows that old translations are not necessarily the most easily understood .
However, "modern" translations probably contain the interpretations of the translator .
4 posted on
11/03/2002 2:54:05 PM PST by
dadwags
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson