|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:48 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:37 pm
|
|
|
|
Well, the word 'stuff' apparently derives from the Old French estoffe, which in turn comes from the Germanic estoffer, putting the word's origins at over 1,000 years old. That aside, I don't think that a word can be 'too modern': it's a word's meaning that is important, not its age. Still, in modern English, 'stuff' is often used in a very informal or slangy manner, which may be why it seems to be out of place in a book like the bible that many people expect to have a more formal tone.
By the way, if you take a look at the New American Standard Bible, Genesis 25:30, you'll see an example of the word 'stuff' where 'possessions' would not work as a substitute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:23 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:08 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:18 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:20 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|