Romans 10:20: Are all English translations in error?

Steven Lo Vullo slovullo at mac.com
Mon Dec 2 01:14:33 EST 2002


On Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 04:03 AM, Richard wrote:

> Sure there is a lot of evidence that allows to translate hEUREQHN with 
> 'I
> was to be found'. I found the following examples (English translations
> from the RSV):
> - 2 Peter 3:14 SPOUDASATE ASPILOI KAI AMWMHTOI AUTW EUREQHNAI EN 
> EIRHNH:
> be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace.
> - Hebrews 11:5 writes about Enoch: KAI OUK HURISKETO DIOTI: and he was 
> not
> found. The translation 'and he was not to be found' lies at hand.
> - Revelation 16:20: KAI PASA NHSOS EYUGEN KAI ORH OUX EUREQHSAN: And 
> every
> island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.
> - Revelation 18:21: says about Babylon: KAI OU MH EURETH ETI: and 
> shall be
> found no more.
> Revelation 20:15: KAI EI TIS EUREQH TH BIBLW THS ZWHS GEGRAMMENOS: and 
> if
> any oneís name was not found written in the book of life. The 
> translation
> "was not to be found" lies at hand.
>
> In some examples the RSV has already chosen for translating 'to be 
> found'.
>
> What do you think of this evidence? Do these examples give way for the
> some recent Dutch translations: 'I was to be found for those who did 
> not
> seek Me; I was to be seen for those who did not ask for Me'?

No, they only illustrate that you are now depending on the words "to 
be" in an English translation as proof for your understanding of the 
underlying Greek! What is worse, you do not even seem to understand the 
sense of the English translation!
=============
Steven R. Lo Vullo
Madison, WI



More information about the B-Greek mailing list