KSI | Jadi, apa yang akan kita katakan? Apakah hukum Taurat itu dosa? Sekali-kali tidak! Justru aku tidak mengenal apa itu dosa kalau tidak ada hukum Taurat. Aku tidak tahu apa itu keinginan jahat kalau tidak ada hukum Taurat yang mengatakan, "Janganlah engkau mengingini milik orang lain."
|
TB | Jika demikian, apakah yang hendak kita katakan? Apakah hukum Taurat itu dosa? Sekali-kali tidak! Sebaliknya, justru oleh hukum Taurat aku telah mengenal dosa. Karena aku juga tidak tahu apa itu keinginan, kalau hukum Taurat tidak mengatakan: "Jangan mengingini!" |
BIS | Kalau begitu, apakah yang dapat kita katakan? Bahwa hukum agama Yahudi jahat? Tentu tidak! Tetapi hukum itulah yang mengajar saya tentang dosa. Saya tidak akan tahu tamak itu apa, kalau hukum agama tidak mengatakan, "Janganlah tamak." |
FAYH | Lalu, apakah saya seakan-akan bermaksud mengatakan bahwa Hukum Taurat itu jahat? Tentu saja tidak! Hukum itu bukan dosa, tetapi hukum itulah yang menyatakan dosa saya. Dosa-dosa saya, yaitu keinginan jahat yang tersembunyi dalam hati saya, tidak akan saya sadari seandainya tidak ada hukum yang mengatakan, "Janganlah mempunyai keinginan jahat dalam hatimu."
|
DRFT_WBTC | Kamu mungkin mengira aku berkata bahwa hukum Taurat adalah dosa. Itu tidak benar. Tetapi jika hukum Taurat tidak mengajarkan arti dosa, aku tidak pernah mengerti artinya. Umpamanya jika hukum Taurat tidak mengatakan, "Kamu tidak boleh menginginkan milik orang lain," aku tidak mengetahuinya, bahwa itu salah. |
TL | Apakah sekarang hendak kita katakan? Hukum Taurat itu dosakah? Sekali-kali tidak. Hanya aku tiada tahu dosa, jikalau tiada sebab hukum Taurat itu, karena tiada aku tahu akan hal tamak, jikalau tiada Taurat itu mengatakan: Janganlah engkau tamak! |
DRFT_SB | Maka bagaimanakah halnya? Hukum taurit itu dosakah? Sekali-kali tidak. Hanya tiada aku tahu akan dosa, melainkan oleh hukum taurit itu, karena tiadalah aku tahu akan tama' kalau tiada taurit itu berkata, "Janganlah engkau tama':" |
BABA | Kalau bgitu apa-kah kita boleh bilang? Hukum-taurit itu dosa-kah? Tidak skali-kali. Ttapi t'ada pun sahya tahu apa-kah dosa kalau tidak oleh hukum-taurit: kerna sahya t'ada tahu apa-kah tma'a jikalau hukum-taurit t'ada bilang, "Jangan-lah angkau tma'a." |
KL1863 | Maka sakarang kita maoe kataken apa? itoe toret apa dosa adanja? Didjaoeken Allah. Soenggoeh {Rom 3:20; Ibr 7:18} akoe tiada taoe sama dosa, melainken dari toret; karna tiada akoe taoe sama ingin itoe dosa, kaloe tiada kata toret: {Kel 20:17; Ula 5:21} "Djangan kamoe kepingin." |
KL1870 | Maka apakah jang hendak kita katakan? Adakah hoekoem itoe dosa? Didjaoehkan Allah! Maka tidak koeketahoei akan dosa itoe, melainkan olih hoekoem, karena tidak koeketahoei akan kainginan itoe dosa adanja, kalau tiada boenji hoekoem demikian: "Djanganlah kamoe ingin." |
DRFT_LDK | 'Apatah kalakh kamij 'akan berkata? 'adakah sjarixet Tawrat, 'itu dawsa? palijaslah: behkan sudah tijada 'aku meng`enal dawsa melajinkan 'awleh sjarixet Tawrat. Karana lagi sudahlah tijada 'aku meng`atahuwij ka`inginan 'ada dawsa, djikalaw sudah tijada sjarixet Tawrat bersabda: djangan 'angkaw 'ingin. |
ENDE | Djadi apakah kini hendak kita katakan? Bahwa hukum itu dosa? Tak mungkin. Tetapi dosa itu tiada kukenal, kalau kiranja tidak ada hukum jang menjuruh "djangan kamu inginkan". |
TB_ITL_DRF | Jika demikian <3767>, apakah <5101> yang hendak kita katakan <2046>? Apakah hukum Taurat <3551> itu dosa <266>? Sekali-kali <1096> tidak <3361>! Sebaliknya <235>, justru oleh <1223> hukum Taurat <3551> aku telah mengenal <1097> dosa <266>. Karena <1063> aku <1492> juga tidak <3756> tahu <1492> apa itu keinginan <1939>, kalau <1487> hukum Taurat <3551> tidak <3756> mengatakan <3004>: "Jangan <3361> mengingini <1937>!" |
TL_ITL_DRF | Apakah <5101> sekarang <3767> hendak kita katakan <2046>? Hukum Taurat <3551> itu dosakah <266>? Sekali-kali <3361> tidak <1096>. Hanya <235> aku tiada <3756> tahu <1097> dosa <266>, jikalau <1487> tiada <3361> sebab <1223> hukum Taurat <3551> itu, karena <1063> tiada <3756> aku tahu <1492> akan hal tamak <1939>, jikalau <1487> tiada <3361> <3756> Taurat <3551> itu mengatakan <3004>: Janganlah <3361> <3756> engkau tamak <1937>! |
AV# | What <5101> shall we say <2046> (5692) then <3767>? [Is] the law <3551> sin <266>? God forbid <3361> <1096> (5636). Nay <235>, I had <1097> (0) not <3756> known <1097> (5627) sin <266>, but <1508> by <1223> the law <3551>: for <1063> <5037> I had <1492> (0) not <3756> known <1492> (5715) lust <1939>, except <1508> the law <3551> had said <3004> (5707), Thou shalt <1937> (0) not <3756> covet <1937> (5692). {lust: or, concupiscence} |
BBE | |
MESSAGE | But I can hear you say, "If the law code was as bad as all that, it's no better than sin itself." That's certainly not true. The law code had a perfectly legitimate function. Without its clear guidelines for right and wrong, moral behavior would be mostly guesswork. Apart from the succinct, surgical command, "You shall not covet," I could have dressed covetousness up to look like a virtue and ruined my life with it. |
NKJV | What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." |
PHILIPS | It now begins to look as if sin and the Law were the same thingcan this be a fact? Of course it cannot. But it must be admitted that I should never have had sin brought home to me but for the Law. For example, I should never have felt guilty of the sin of coveting if I had not heard the Law saying "Thou shall not covet". |
RWEBSTR | What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? By no means. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. |
GWV | What should we say, then? Are Moses' laws sinful? That's unthinkable! In fact, I wouldn't have recognized sin if those laws hadn't shown it to me. For example, I wouldn't have known that some desires are sinful if Moses' Teachings hadn't said, "Never have wrong desires." |
NET | What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I* would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else* if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”* |
NET | 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I288 sn Romans 7:7-25. There has been an enormous debate over the significance of the first person singular pronouns (“I”) in this passage and how to understand their referent. Did Paul intend (1) a reference to himself and other Christians too; (2) a reference to his own pre-Christian experience as a Jew, struggling with the law and sin (and thus addressing his fellow countrymen as Jews); or (3) a reference to himself as a child of Adam, reflecting the experience of Adam that is shared by both Jews and Gentiles alike (i.e., all people everywhere)? Good arguments can be assembled for each of these views, and each has problems dealing with specific statements in the passage. The classic argument against an autobiographical interpretation was made by W. G. Kümmel, Römer 7 und die Bekehrung des Paulus. A good case for seeing at least an autobiographical element in the chapter has been made by G. Theissen, Psychologische Aspekte paulinischer Theologie [FRLANT], 181-268. One major point that seems to favor some sort of an autobiographical reading of these verses is the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit for empowerment in the struggle described in Rom 7:7-25. The Spirit is mentioned beginning in 8:1 as the solution to the problem of the struggle with sin (8:4-6, 9). would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else289 tn Grk “I would not have known covetousness.” if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”290 sn A quotation from Exod 20:17 and Deut 5:21.
|
BHSSTR | |
LXXM | |
IGNT | ti <5101> {WHAT} oun <3767> {THEN} eroumen <2046> (5692) {SHALL WE SAY?} o <3588> {[IS] THE} nomov <3551> {LAW} amartia <266> {SIN?} mh <3361> {MAY} genoito <1096> (5636) {IT NOT BE!} alla <235> thn <3588> {BUT} amartian <266> {SIN} ouk <3756> {I} egnwn <1097> (5627) {KNEW NOT} ei <1487> mh <3361> {UNLESS} dia <1223> {BY} nomou <3551> {LAW:} thn <3588> te <5037> {ALSO} gar <1063> {FOR} epiyumian <1939> {LUST} ouk <3756> {I HAD} hdein <1492> (5715) {NOT BEEN CONSCIOUS} ei <1487> {OF} mh <3361> {UNLESS} o <3588> {THE} nomov <3551> {LAW} elegen <3004> (5707) {SAID,} ouk <3756> {NOT} epiyumhseiv <1937> (5692) {THOU SHALT LUST;} |
WH | ti <5101> {I-ASN} oun <3767> {CONJ} eroumen <2046> (5692) {V-FAI-1P} o <3588> {T-NSM} nomov <3551> {N-NSM} amartia <266> {N-NSF} mh <3361> {PRT-N} genoito <1096> (5636) {V-2ADO-3S} alla <235> {CONJ} thn <3588> {T-ASF} amartian <266> {N-ASF} ouk <3756> {PRT-N} egnwn <1097> (5627) {V-2AAI-1S} ei <1487> {COND} mh <3361> {PRT-N} dia <1223> {PREP} nomou <3551> {N-GSM} thn <3588> {T-ASF} te <5037> {PRT} gar <1063> {CONJ} epiyumian <1939> {N-ASF} ouk <3756> {PRT-N} hdein <1492> (5715) {V-LAI-1S} ei <1487> {COND} mh <3361> {PRT-N} o <3588> {T-NSM} nomov <3551> {N-NSM} elegen <3004> (5707) {V-IAI-3S} ouk <3756> {PRT-N} epiyumhseiv <1937> (5692) {V-FAI-2S} |
TR | ti <5101> {I-ASN} oun <3767> {CONJ} eroumen <2046> (5692) {V-FAI-1P} o <3588> {T-NSM} nomov <3551> {N-NSM} amartia <266> {N-NSF} mh <3361> {PRT-N} genoito <1096> (5636) {V-2ADO-3S} alla <235> {CONJ} thn <3588> {T-ASF} amartian <266> {N-ASF} ouk <3756> {PRT-N} egnwn <1097> (5627) {V-2AAI-1S} ei <1487> {COND} mh <3361> {PRT-N} dia <1223> {PREP} nomou <3551> {N-GSM} thn <3588> {T-ASF} te <5037> {PRT} gar <1063> {CONJ} epiyumian <1939> {N-ASF} ouk <3756> {PRT-N} hdein <1492> (5715) {V-LAI-1S} ei <1487> {COND} mh <3361> {PRT-N} o <3588> {T-NSM} nomov <3551> {N-NSM} elegen <3004> (5707) {V-IAI-3S} ouk <3756> {PRT-N} epiyumhseiv <1937> (5692) {V-FAI-2S} |