| Author | Message | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1395 Registered: 5-2007  |
This my be picking on nothing about nothing, but do have a question for those who can read and understand the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Question: In I Sam. 24:34, in the King James Version, a rather descriptive phrase is used to define "male" as used in most of the more modern translations. Is the blunt phrase more a accurate translation of the Hebrew text? If so, why do we find the word "male" used in newer translations? That is, wouldn't it be better to stay true to the original text rather than protect our concept of what a modern day Christian should read or speak? There is more to my motive for asking than this question implies, but this will do for now. Phil | ||
| Freedom55 Registered user Username: Freedom55 Post Number: 20 Registered: 3-2008 |
Phil, must be a typo since I can't locate a verse 34 in 1 Samuel 24. Thanks. | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 192 Registered: 8-2008 |
1 Sam. 25:34. I must admit I chuckled when I read this. According to the standards of propriety in our culture, we may not say something that was not considered wrong to say in another culture. For instance, Php. 3:8, many translations render "filth" or "rubbish," but it is really "dung." I am also told the "filthy rags" of Isa. 64:6 has a more stark meaning in the original. From what I understand of the culture, it was not considered improper to be more open about bodily functions. | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 1396 Registered: 5-2007 |
Bskillet, Yes, you get the hint at what I see. But, if that is how an inspired, Holy Spirit led author recorded it, why should it become wrong because of the standards of our modern culture? P.S. Yes Freedom55, it was typo. Phil | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 193 Registered: 8-2008 |
Well, Phil, I'd be inclined to say that it shouldn't become wrong. But the publishing houses are businesses, and unfortunately my guess is they succumb to pressure from modern puritans to render it according to the "correct" Victorian ideas of propriety. |
