JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
Ruth 4.3 records the conversation of Boaz with the 'closer relative', and he advises that Naomi has either sold, or is selling, the land belonging to her husband.
That is my question - most translations keep the sense of something current, apart from NKJV which says 'Naomi...sold the piece'. The AV says 'Naomi selleth' which gives it an open interpretation. ESV says 'Naomi ... is selling'.
Is this an open point? If find it frustrating in trying to understand the transaction in the redemption, and the need for it. Why must the land be sold if it is in the family? Why can it not be given, etc. Anwyay, ignore that, my question is - is the language open to either intepretation so that we cannot be sure whether Naomi had already sold the land, or whether she was currently seeking to sell for the benefit of Ruth?
thanks
J
That is my question - most translations keep the sense of something current, apart from NKJV which says 'Naomi...sold the piece'. The AV says 'Naomi selleth' which gives it an open interpretation. ESV says 'Naomi ... is selling'.
Is this an open point? If find it frustrating in trying to understand the transaction in the redemption, and the need for it. Why must the land be sold if it is in the family? Why can it not be given, etc. Anwyay, ignore that, my question is - is the language open to either intepretation so that we cannot be sure whether Naomi had already sold the land, or whether she was currently seeking to sell for the benefit of Ruth?
thanks
J