What about the wording? Again, there are more similarities than there are differences. The wording is direct, God speaks to Ezekiel in a very frank, direct manner as is appropriate for a God-prophet relation: "You, son of man" (NAB 33:7). The next interesting word here is "watchman" which appears in both versions. The definition given to us by the COD is: "a person employed to guard buildings or property". The house of Israel needs someone who is to play the role of guardian, someone to stay vigil. Does this befit the calling of a prophet? As conveyor of God's voice and intentions the prophet is also called upon to warn the believers that they're ways are no longer in tune with righteousness. If no one takes up this responsability, then the …show more content…
He is in complete control of the former and acts as the deciding factor. The wording is different in the NAB because not many people would make sense of the expression: "thou shalt hear the word at my mouth" (KJV 18:7). That does not make it impossible. The idea is reinforced that different cultures need access to different texts, different versions. The next verse puts direct stress unto the prophet. God himself warns the sinner to put an end to his sinful ways but it is the prophet's duty to encourage him to cease and desist. For if the sinner is not fully encouraged to change his ways he will die but it is the prophet who will change the burden. Let us now turn to the Gideon …show more content…
Wenn ich nun zu dem Gottlosen sage: Du Gottloser mußst des Todes sterben! und du sagst ihm das nicht, um den Gottlosen vor seinem Wege zu warne, so wird er, der Gottlose, um seiner Sünde willen sterben, aber sein Blut will ich von deiner Hand fordern.
9. Warnst du aber den Gottlosen vor seinem Wege, daß er von ihm umkehre, und er will von seinem Wege nicht umkehren, so wird er um seiner Sünde willen sterben, aber du hast dein Leben errettet.
Now that we have all three versions it is time to ponder on the choices the different translators made and make some assumptions as to the effects these might have had on the readership.
Does the German deviate in any particular way from the two English versions I chosen to analyze? Can we talk about a loss of meaning and would someone who is adept at both languages be frustrated in his or her efforts to find strong similarities between all three versions? I do not believe there can ever exist something called a perfect Bible. We search endlessly for a translation that is as close to the original text as possible without stopping to consider just how distant in terms of customs the civilization that gave birth to the holy text was. The proper attitude to handling this book is given to us by Douglas