Hebrews 7:11
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Sepse, po të ishte përkryerja me anë të priftërisë levitike (sepse populli e mori ligji nën atë), ç’nevojë kishte të dilte një prift tjetër sipas rendit të Melkisedekut dhe të mos caktohet sipas rendit të Aaronit?
Nene andi ndedei nso nani, unuzu likuran Levi upirist (bara kadas nin unit nsere uduka) iyaghari nin du nbun upiziru nmon upirist fita kimal nbellun Malkisadak, a na iba ninghe lissan Haruna ba.
| فَلَوْ كَانَ بِٱلْكَهَنُوتِ ٱللَّاوِيِّ كَمَالٌ - إِذِ ٱلشَّعْبُ أَخَذَ ٱلنَّامُوسَ عَلَيْهِ - مَاذَا كَانَتِ ٱلْحَاجَةُ بَعْدُ إِلَى أَنْ يَقُومَ كَاهِنٌ آخَرُ عَلَى رُتْبَةِ مَلْكِي صَادَقَ؟ وَلَا يُقَالُ عَلَى رُتْبَةِ هَارُونَ. |
| إِنَّ شَرِيعَةَ مُوسَى كُلَّهَا كَانَتْ تَدُورُ حَوْلَ نِظَامِ الْكَهَنُوتِ الَّذِي قَامَ بَنُو لاوِي بِتَأْدِيَةِ وَاجِبَاتِهِ. إِلّا أَنَّ ذَلِكَ النِّظَامَ لَمْ يُوصِلْ إِلَى الْكَمَالِ أُولئِكَ الَّذِينَ كَانُوا يَعْبُدُونَ اللهَ عَلَى أَسَاسِهِ. وَإلَّا، لَمَا دَعَتِ الْحَاجَةُ إِلَى تَعْيِينِ كَاهِنٍ آخَرَ عَلَى رُتْبَةِ مَلْكِيصَادَقَ، وَلَيْسَ عَلَى رُتْبَةِ هَرُونَ! |
| ܐܠܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܓܡܝܪܘܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܟܘܡܪܘܬܐ ܕܠܘܝܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܗܘܬ ܕܒܗ ܤܝ ܢܡܘܤܐ ܠܥܡܐ ܠܡܢܐ ܡܬܒܥܐ ܗܘܐ ܟܘܡܪܐ ܐܚܪܢܐ ܕܢܩܘ ܒܕܡܘܬܗ ܕܡܠܟܝܙܕܩ ܐܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܕܒܕܡܘܬܗ ܕܐܗܪܘܢ ܢܗܘܐ |
Ուրեմն, եթէ կատարելութիւնը Ղեւտացիներու քահանայութեամբ ըլլար, (քանի որ ժողովուրդը Օրէնքին տակ դրուեցաւ անոր ատենը, ) ա՛լ ի՞նչ պէտք կար որ ուրի՛շ քահանայ մը ելլէր՝ Մելքիսեդեկի կարգին համեմատ, եւ չկոչուէր Ահարոնի կարգին համեմատ:
লেবীয়া পৌৰহিত্যৰ অধীনত লোক সকলে বিধান পালে; এতেকে সেই লেবীয়া পুৰোহিতৰ কার্যৰ দ্বাৰাই যদি পূৰ্ণতা লাভ কৰিব পাৰি, তেনেহলে আন এজন পুৰোহিতৰ প্রয়োজন নহ’লহেঁতেন, যি জন প্রথম লেবীয়া পুৰোহিত হাৰোণৰ ৰীতিৰ নিচিনা নহয়, কিন্তু মল্কিচেদকৰ ৰীতিৰ নিচিনা আছিল।
Beləliklə, əgər kamillik Levililərin kahinliyi vasitəsilə əldə edilsəydi – çünki xalq bu kahinliyə əsasən Qanunu alıb – Harun vəzifəli deyil, Melkisedeq vəzifəli başqa bir kahinin təyin edilməsi barədə danışmağa daha nə ehtiyac vardı?
chan nawo naki anmamdi natakkum nangeen mor nange'en nob bi waber wo lewi yawa che (dige bwiyeu chi ne bolango chinen) no nyori fetikali nii wabbe kange bou ki dir Malkisadak la yilo chi tok bo dir Harunar.
Beraz baldin perfectionea Sacrificadoregoa Leuiticoan içan baliz (ecen populuac Leguea haren azpian recebitu vkan du) cer behar cen goitiric berce Sacrificadorebat Melchisedech-en façoinera altcha ledin, eta ezladin Aaronen façoinera erran?
Gode da Lifai ea mano da gobele salasu dunu hawa: hamomusa: ilegeiba: le, amo baiga E da Sema amo Isala: ili fi ilima i. Be Lifai gobele salasu dunu ilia hawa: hamosu da ida: idafa ba: loba, eno gobele salasu dunu amo da Elane ea mano hame be Melegisedege ea fi dunu agoane ba: su Dunu, amo eno misunu da bai hamedeidafa agoai ba: la: loba.
এখন যদি লেবীয় যাজকত্বের মাধ্যমে পরিপূর্ণতা সম্ভব হতে পারত সেই যাজকত্বের অধীনেই তো লোকেরা নিয়ম পেয়েছিল তবে আরো কি প্রয়োজন ছিল যে, মল্কীষেদকের রীতি অনুসারে অন্য যাজক উঠবেন এবং তাঁকে হারোণের নাম অনুসারে অভিহিত করা হবে না?
লেবীয় যাজকত্বের মাধ্যমে যদি পূর্ণতা অর্জন করা যেত—কারণ এরই ভিত্তিতে লোকদের কাছে বিধিবিধান দেওয়া হয়েছিল—তাহলে হারোণের রীতি অনুযায়ী নয়, কিন্তু মল্কীষেদকের রীতি অনুযায়ী কেন আরও একজন যাজকের প্রয়োজন হল?
इना लेवी याजकेरे आधारे पुड़ कानून इस्राएली लोकन दित्तोरो थियो, अगर लेवी ते याजकेरू कम ठीक थियूं, त अलग किसमेरे याजकेरू बांदू भोनू ज़रूरी न थियूं, ज़ै मेलिकिसिदकेरो ज़ेरो आए। पन हारूनेरो ज़ेरो नईं।
लोकां जो उना याजकां दे आधार पर व्यवस्था मिलियो थी, जड़े लेवी गोत्र दे हारून ला आयो थे। पर उना जो इसा व्यवस्था जरिये सिद्ध नी बणाई सके, इस तांई इक होर याजके दी ओणे दी जरूरत थी, इक ऐसा याजक जड़ा हारून सांई नी पर मलिकिसिदक सांई हो।
ଆରେକ୍ ହେଁ, ଜୁୟ୍ ଲେବିୟ ଜାଜକ୍ହଃଦ୍ ତଃଳେ ଲକ୍ମଃନ୍ ବିଦି ହାୟ୍ଲାୟ୍, ସେ ଜାଜକ୍ହଃଦ୍ ଦଃୟ୍ ଜଦି ସିଦ୍ ଲାବ୍ ଅୟ୍ରିଲେକ୍, ସେତଃନ୍ ଅୟ୍ଲେକ୍ ହାରଣାର୍ ଇସାବ୍ ହଃର୍କାରେ ଗଃଣିତା ନଃୟ୍କଃରି ମଲ୍କିସେଦକାର୍ ହର୍ ବିନ୍ ଗଟେକ୍ ଜାଜକ୍ ବାରାଉତାର୍ ଆର୍ କାୟ୍ ଲଳା ରିଲି?
Ashuwotssh nemo ime Lewi kahaniyo weerone, Lewawino etefanoots kahni weeran s'een woto daatsere wotink'ere Aron kahny naasho b́woterawon Melkes'edik' naash detstso k'osh kahniyo b́woo geyirawnk'ee b́teshi,
zizaa ani bi mudu kiwa kle ni myi firistanci bi iwaiyawa to ina bi iwandi firist aye nitu kpe uti otli biwu malkisadak bana tre nitu kpi uti Haruna na?
Прочее, ако би имало съвършенство чрез левитското свещенство (защото под него людете получиха закона), каква нужда е имало вече да се издигне друг свещеник, според Мелхиседековия чин, и да се не счита според Аароновия чин?
Karon kung ang pagkahingpit mahimo pinaagi sa parianong laray sa mga Levita (kay ubos niini ang mga tawo nga nakadawat sa balaod), unsa pa may dugang pagkinahanglan nga maanaa sa laing pari nga pabarogon sumala sa laray ni Melchizedek, ug dili sa ngalan sumala sa laray ni Aaron?
Karon kon ang pagkahingpit nakab-ot pa pinaagi sa kang Levi nga pagkasacerdote (kay ubos niini gidawat man sa mga tawo ang kasugoan), nganong gikinahanglan pa man nga mobarug ang laing sacerdote sumala sa laray ni Melquisedec, ug dili ang usa nga sumala sa laray ni Aaron?
ᎾᏍᎩ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ ᎢᏳᏃ ᎠᏥᎸᎨᎳᏍᏗ ᎨᏒ ᎠᏂᎵᏫ ᏥᎨᎦᏒᎦᎶᏕ, ᏅᏍᎦᏅᎾ ᎢᎬᏩᏓᏛᏁᏗ ᏱᎨᏎᎢ, ( ᎠᏥᎸ-ᎨᎳᏍᏗᏰᏃ ᎨᏒ ᎠᎴ ᏗᎧᎿᎭᏩᏛᏍᏗ ᏚᎾᏚᏓᏖ ᏴᏫ ᎦᎾᏓᏂᎸᏨ ) ᎦᏙᏃ ᎠᏏ ᎤᏚᎸᏗ ᏂᎦᎵᏍᏗᏍᎨ ᏅᏩᏓᎴ ᎠᏥᎸᎨᎶᎯ ᎤᎾᏄᎪᎢᏍᏗᏱ ᎹᎵᎩᏏᏕᎩ ᏄᏍᏛ ᎾᏍᎩᏯᎢ, ᎡᎳᏂᏃ ᎾᏍᎩᏯ ᎦᏰᎪᏎᏗ ᏂᎨᏒᎾ ᎨᏒᎢ?
Kukanatheka kukhala wangwiro mwa unsembe wa Levi, pakuti Malamulo anapatsidwa kwa anthu mwa unsembe wa Levi, nʼchifukwa chiyani panafunikanso wansembe wina kuti abwere, wofanana ndi Melikizedeki, osati Aaroni?
Isarel khyange veia levih ktaiyü ninga Thum cun jah peta kyaki. Levih ktaiyüea bilawh hin a kümcei ania kyak üng ktaiyü akce a po law vai am hlü, acun hin Aron üngkhyüh am kya lü Melkhihzadek üngkhyüh vai ni.
Levinawk mah qaima toksakhaih rang hoiah akoephaih hnu o nahaeloe, (anih khae hoiah ni kaminawk mah kaalok to hnuk o) tipongah Aaron baktiah kawk ai ah, Melkhizedik baktiah kalah qaima angzoh han angai vop loe?
Levi khosoih lamloh hmakhahnah a om tangloeng atah pilnam loh amah soah ol a rhi coeng. Melkhizedek kah aitlaeng bangla a tloe khosoih aka phoe taengah banim a ngoe pueng? Aron kah aitlaeng bangla khue pawt nim?
Levi khosoih lamloh hmakhahnah a om tangloeng atah pilnam loh amah soah ol a rhi coeng. Melkhizedek kah aitlaeng bangla a tloe khosoih aka phoe taengah banim a ngoe pueng? Aaron kah aitlaeng bangla khue pawt nim?
Levikhqi a khawsoeih bibinaak ak caming soepnaak ce huh thai na a awm mantaw (vawh anaa awi peek ce thlangkhqi venawh peek na awm hy), ikaw ham Aaron a mih kaana Melkhizadek amyihna ak awm khawsoeih ak law hly kawi ce a mi na ngoe bai?
Tua ahikom Levi thiampi hina taw a kisai mihing te in thukham sang uh ahikom, tua minam tungtawn in picinna ah theng thei hile, Aaron bang thiampi dang sam ngawl in Melchizedek bang a dang thiampi banghang kul tu ziam?
Hiti chun Levi thempu hina Dana kingapna chun Pathen lunggon chu chamkimsah jou hitaleh Pathen in ipi dia themputna achombeh a Levi le Aaron thalhenga Melchizedek thempuhina tobang chu aphudoh ngaiding ham?
Hahoi, Levih miphun koehoi ka tho e vaihma phun hoi kâkuen lah taminaw ni kâlawk hah coe awh dawkvah, hote phun lahoi kuepcingnae koe phat thai pawiteh, Aron patetlah e laipalah, Melkhizedek patetlah e a tho hane bangkongmaw a panki rah.
从前百姓在利未人祭司职任以下受律法，倘若借这职任能得完全，又何用另外兴起一位祭司，照麦基洗德的等次，不照亚伦的等次呢？
從前百姓在利未人祭司職任以下受律法，倘若藉這職任能得完全，又何用另外興起一位祭司，照麥基洗德的等次，不照亞倫的等次呢？
如果借着利未人的祭司制度能达到完美（人民是在这制度下领受律法的），为什么还需要照着麦基洗德的体系，另外指认一位祭司，而不是按照亚伦的体系呢？
那時，如果藉著肋未司祭職能有成全──因為選民就是本著這司祭職接受了法律──為什麼還須要興起另一位，按照默基瑟德品位的司祭，而不稱為亞郎的品位呢﹖
Kopochela mu umbopesi wa Ŵalawi ŵandu ŵa ku Isilaeli ŵapegwilwe lilajisyo. Sambano iŵaga masengo ga umbopesi u che Lawi gamalile ngakukasachilwe kutyochela umbopesi wine waukuyiye umbopesi wa Melikisedeki ni ngaŵa umbopesi u che Haluni.
ⲓⲥϫⲉ ⲙⲉⲛ ⲟⲩⲛ ⲛⲁⲣⲉ ⳿ⲡϫⲱⲕ ⳿ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϣⲟⲡ ⲡⲉ ⳿ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϩⲓⲧⲉⲛ ϯⲙⲉⲧⲟⲩⲏⲃ ⳿ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲗⲉⲩⲓⲧⲏ ⲥ ⲉⲧⲁⲩϯ ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ⲅⲁⲣ ⳿ⲙⲡⲓⲗⲁⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲧⲥ ⲓⲉ ⲛⲉ ⳿ⲧⲭⲣⲓⲁ ⲟⲩ ⲧⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⳿ⲧⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⳿ⲙⲙⲉⲗⲭⲓⲥⲉⲇⲉⲕ ⲉⲑⲣⲉϥϣⲱⲡⲓ ⳿ⲛϫⲉ ⲕⲉⲟⲩⲏⲃ ⲟⲩⲟϩ ⲉⲛⲉϫⲟⲥ ⲁⲛ ϫⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⳿ⲧⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⳿ⲛ⳿ⲁ⳿ⲁⲣⲱⲛ.
ⲉⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛ ⲟⲩϫⲱⲕ ϭⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛⲧⲙⲛⲧⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ ⲛⲗⲉⲩⲉⲓ ⲡⲗⲁⲟⲥ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϫⲓ ⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲱⲥ ⲛⲉⲟⲩ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲭⲣⲓⲁ ⲉⲧⲣⲉϥⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲛϭⲓ ⲕⲉⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲧⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⲙⲙⲉⲗⲭⲓⲥⲉⲇⲉⲕ ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛⲥⲉⲧⲙϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲧⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⲛⲁⲁⲣⲱⲛ
ⲉⲛⲉⲟⲩⲛ̅ⲟⲩϫⲱⲕ ϭⲉ ⲉⲃⲟⲗ ϣⲟⲟⲡ ⲛ̅ⲧⲙⲛ̅ⲧⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ ⲛ̅ⲗⲉⲩⲉⲓ. ⲡⲗⲁⲟⲥ ⲅⲁⲣ ⲉⲛⲧⲁϥϫⲓⲛⲟⲙⲟⲥ ϩⲓⲱⲱⲥ. ⲛⲉⲟⲩ ⲧⲉ ⲧⲉⲭⲣⲓⲁ ⲉⲧⲣⲉϥⲧⲱⲟⲩⲛ ⲛ̅ϭⲓⲕⲉⲟⲩⲏⲏⲃ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲧⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⲙ̅ⲙⲉⲗⲭⲓⲥⲉⲇⲉⲕ. ⲁⲩⲱ ⲛ̅ⲥⲉⲧⲙ̅ϫⲟⲟⲥ ϫⲉ ⲕⲁⲧⲁⲧⲧⲁⲝⲓⲥ ⲛ̅ⲁⲁⲣⲱⲛ.
ⲒⲤϪⲈ ⲘⲈⲚ ⲞⲨⲚ ⲚⲀⲢⲈ ⲠϪⲰⲔ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ ϢⲞⲠ ⲠⲈ ⲈⲂⲞⲖ ϨⲒⲦⲈⲚ ϮⲘⲈⲦⲞⲨⲎⲂ ⲚⲦⲈⲠⲒⲖⲈⲨⲒⲦⲎ ⲤⲈⲦⲀⲨϮ ⲚⲞⲘⲞⲤ ⲄⲀⲢ ⲘⲠⲒⲖⲀⲞⲤ ϨⲒⲰⲦⲤ ⲒⲈ ⲚⲈⲦⲬⲢⲒⲀ ⲞⲨ ⲦⲈ ⲔⲀⲦⲀ ⲦⲦⲀⲜⲒⲤ ⲘⲘⲈⲖⲬⲒⲤⲈⲆⲈⲔ ⲈⲐⲢⲈϤϢⲰⲠⲒ ⲚϪⲈⲔⲈⲞⲨⲎⲂ ⲞⲨⲞϨ ⲈⲚⲈϪⲞⲤ ⲀⲚ ϪⲈ ⲔⲀⲦⲀ ⲦⲦⲀⲜⲒⲤ ⲚⲀⲀⲢⲰⲚ.
Da se dakle savršenstvo postiglo po levitskom svećeništvu - jer na temelju njega narod je dobio Zakon - koja bi onda bila potreba da se po redu Melkisedekovu postavi drugi svećenik i da se ne imenuje po redu Aronovu?
A protož byla-liť dokonalost skrze Levítské kněžství, (nebo za něho vydán jest lidu zákon, ) jakáž toho byla potřeba, aby jiný kněz podlé řádu Melchisedechova povstal, a nebyl podlé řádu Aronova jmenován?
A protož byla-liť dokonalost spasení skrze Levítské kněžství, (nebo za toho kněžství vydán jest lidu Zákon, ) jakáž toho byla potřeba, aby jiný kněz podle řádu Melchisedechova povstal, a nebyl již více podle řádu Aronova jmenován?
Lévijská služba nebyla s to přivést Boží lid k dokonalosti. Proto bylo třeba jiné služby a jiného kněze – a to podle řádu Malkísedekova. Je zřejmé, že přenesením kněžství zaniká zákonité oprávnění pro trvání lévijské služby.
Hvis der altså var Fuldkommelse at få ved det levitiske Præstedømme (thi på Grundlag af dette har jo Folket fået Loven), hvilken Trang var der da yderligere til, at en anden Slags Præst skulde opstå efter Melkisedeks Vis og ikke nævnes efter Arons Vis?
Hvis der altsaa var Fuldkommelse at faa ved det levitiske Præstedømme (thi paa Grundlag af dette har jo Folket faaet Loven), hvilken Trang var der da yderligere til, at en anden Slags Præst skulde opstaa efter Melkisedeks Vis og ikke nævnes efter Arons Vis?
Hvis der altsaa var Fuldkommelse at faa ved det levitiske Præstedømme (thi paa Grundlag af dette har jo Folket faaet Loven), hvilken Trang var der da yderligere til, at en anden Slags Præst skulde opstaa efter Melkisedeks Vis og ikke nævnes efter Arons Vis?
ଲେବିର୍ ନାତିତିତି ପୁଜାରି ଇସାବେ ବାଚ୍ଲାର୍ପାଇ ପର୍ମେସର୍ ତାର୍ ନିୟମ୍ ଜିଉଦିମନ୍କେ ଦେଇରଇଲା । ମାତର୍ ଲେବି ବଁସର୍ ପୁଜାରିମନ୍ ଜଦି ସିଦ୍ଲକ୍ ଅଇରଇତାଇ ଆଲେ, ଆରି ଗଟେକ୍ ପୁଜାରି ଆଇବାକେ ଦର୍କାର୍ ନ ରଇଲା । ସେନ୍ତାର୍ ଏ ପୁଜାରି ଆରଣ୍ ଜେ କି ଲେବିର୍ ନାତିତିତି ରଇଲା, ତାର୍ ପୁଜାରିପଦ୍ ନ ଦାରି ମଲ୍କିସେଦକର ପୁଜାରି ପଦ୍ ଦାରି ଆଇସି ।
Kapo ni tich dolo mar jo-Lawi nikech chik mane omi jo-Israel notenore kuome ne nyalo miyo dhano doko makare chuth, to koro ere gimomiyo ne pod nitie dwaro mondo oyud jadolo machielo koluwo kit Melkizedek? Angʼo momiyo ne nyaka jadolo mopogore gi Harun yudre?
Lino anoli bululami bwakali konzekene kwindila mubupayizi bwabu Levi (aawo muunsi azezi bantu bakatambula mulawo), ninzi eecho chakali kuyandikana kunembo eecho chinoli chakalelede kubawo kuti kube umbi mupayizi kuti abewo kunembo mubube bwa Melekizedeki, mpawo kitatolegwi kuti ibe kunembo kuliAaloni?
Indien dan nu de volkomenheid door het Levietische priesterschap ware (want onder hetzelve heeft het volk de wet ontvangen), wat nood was het nog, dat een ander priester naar de ordening van Melchizedek zou opstaan, en die niet zou gezegd worden te zijn naar de ordening van Aaron?
Zo dus de volmaaktheid bereikt was door het levietische priesterschap—want daarop berustte de wetgeving voor het volk waarom zou het dan nog nodig geweest zijn, dat er een andere Priester werd aangesteld "naar de Orde van Melkisedek," en dat Hij niet naar de orde van Aäron werd genoemd?
Indien dan nu de volkomenheid door het Levietische priesterschap ware (want onder hetzelve heeft het volk de wet ontvangen), wat nood was het nog, dat een ander priester naar de ordening van Melchizedek zou opstaan, en die niet zou gezegd worden te zijn naar de ordening van Aaron?
If indeed therefore perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people had received the law), what further need is there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?
If, then, there had been a perfect expiation by means of the Levitical priesthood, (for with reference to it, the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should be raised up after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on this basis the people received the law), why was there still need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?
Now if it was possible for things to be made complete through the priests of the house of Levi (for the law was given to the people in connection with them), what need was there for another priest who was of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under this priesthood the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek rather than the order of Aaron?
Therefore, if consummation had occurred through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), then what further need would there be for another Priest to rise up according to the order of Melchizedek, one who was not called according to the order of Aaron?
If indeed then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for the people had their law given to them in connexion with it, what need [was there] still that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedec, and not be named after the order of Aaron?
If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
Now then, if there could be perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people had received the Law), what further need would there be for a different kind of priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than being called according to the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection could have been achieved through the priesthood of Levi (for that's how the law was received), what was the need for another priest to come following the order of Melchizedek, and not following the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection had bene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites (for vnder it the Lawe was established to the people) what needed it furthermore, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchi-sedec, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?
Then indeed if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for unto it the people have been tithed, what need is there still that another priest shall rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If therefore there was perfection by the Levitical priesthood (for under that the people had the law given to them), what farther need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law) what farther need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law, ) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, ( for under it the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood—for the people under it had received law—what further need, according to the order of Melchizedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?
Now if there were perfection through the Levitical priesthood, (and it was under it that the people received the Law) why was it still necessary for another kind of priest to arise, after the order of Melchisedek, instead of being reckoned according to the order of Aaron?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Malki-Zedeq, and not be called after the order of Ahrun?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical system of cohanim (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another cohen to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If indeed perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people hath received the Law, ) what further need was there that a different priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called alter the order of Aaron?
If, then, perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood – and it was under this priesthood that the people received the Law – why was it still necessary that a priest of a different order should appear, a priest of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?
If, then, perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood – and it was under this priesthood that the people received the Law – why was it still necessary that a priest of a different order should appear, a priest of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?
Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?
If indeed, therefore, there had been, a perfecting through means of the Levitical priesthood, —for, the people, thereon, have had based a code of laws, what further need, according to the rank of Melchizedek, for a different priest to be raised up, and, not according to the rank of Aaron, to be designated?
If indeed then perfection through the Levitical priesthood were — the people for upon (it has received [the] Law — *N+kO) what still need [was there] according to the order of Melchizedek [for] another to arise priest and not according to the order of Aaron to be named?
if on the other hand therefore/then perfection through/because of the/this/who Levitical priesthood to be the/this/who a people for upon/to/against (it/s/he to give laws *N+kO) which? still need according to the/this/who order Melchizedek other to arise priest and no according to the/this/who order Aaron to say: call
If, therefore, Perfection were to be through the priesthood of the Levoyee, by which the law has been put upon the people, why was there another Priest required, who should arise in the resemblance of Malki-Zedek? For he had said, In the likeness of Aharun he shall be.
If, therefore, perfection had been by means of the priesthood of the Levites, in which the law was enjoined on the people; why was another priest required, who should stand up after the likeness of Melchisedec? For it should have said, He shall be after the likeness of Aaron.
[God] gave his laws to his people at the same time he gave regulations about the priests. So, if what the priests who were descended from Levi did could have provided a way for God to completely [forgive] people [for disobeying those laws], certainly no other priest like Melchizedek would have been necessary. [RHQ] Instead, priests who were descended from Aaron, [Levi’s descendant, would have been adequate].
If, then, Perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood — and it was under this priesthood that the people received the Law — why was it still necessary that a priest of a different order should appear, a priest of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?
Yf now therfore perfeccion came by the presthod of the levites (for vnder that presthod the people recaved the lawe) what neded it furthermore that an other prest shuld ryse after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection were possible through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the manner of Melchizedek, and not be considered to be after the manner of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need [was there] that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, ( for under it the people received the law, ) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if the crowning blessing was attainable by means of the Levitical priesthood--for as resting on this foundation the people received the Law, to which they are still subject-- what further need was there for a Priest of a different kind to be raised up belonging to the order of Melchizedek instead of being said to belong to the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Therfor if perfeccioun was bi the preesthood of Leuy, for vndur hym the puple took the lawe, what yit was it nedeful, another preest to rise, bi the ordre of Melchisedech, and not to be seid bi the ordre of Aaron?
If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood — for the people under it had received law — what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?
Tial, se ekzistis perfekteco per la Levida pastreco (ĉar sub ĝi la popolo ricevis la leĝon), kia plua bezono estis, ke leviĝu alia pastro laŭ la maniero de Melkicedek, kaj ne estu nomata laŭ la maniero de Aaron?
Elabena to Levi ƒe viwo ƒe nunɔladɔwɔwɔ dzi, wona se la Israelviwo. Azɔ la, nenye be Leviviwo ƒe nunɔladɔwɔwɔ ɖe wòde blibo la, magahiã be woatsɔ nunɔla bubu vɛ o, ame si nye nunɔla le Melkizedek ƒe ɖoɖo nu, ke menye le Aron ƒe ɖoɖo nu o.
Sentähden, jos täydellisyys on Levin pappeuden kautta tapahtunut; (sillä sen alla on kansa lain saanut, ) mitä sitte oli tarvetta sanoa, että toinen pappi oli Melkisedekin säädyn jälkeen tuleva, ja ei Aaronin säädyn jälkeen?
Jos siis täydellisyys olisi saavutettu leeviläisen pappeuden kautta, sillä tähän on kansa laissa sidottu, miksi sitten oli tarpeen, että nousi toinen pappi Melkisedekin järjestyksen mukaan eikä tullut nimitetyksi Aaronin järjestyksen mukaan?
Als er dan nu volkomenheid was door het levitische priesterdom— want met het oog op dit priesterschap heeft het volk de wet ontvangen— wat was het dan nog noodig dat er een ander priester zou opstaan naar de ordening van Melchizedek, en die niet naar de ordening van Aaron zou gerekend worden?
Si donc la perfection avait pu être réalisée par le sacerdoce lévitique, — car c'est sous lui que le peuple reçut la loi, — quelle nécessité y avait-il qu'il surgît un autre prêtre " selon l'ordre de Melchisédech ", et non selon l'ordre d'Aaron?
Or, si la perfection a été obtenue par le sacerdoce lévitique (car c'est sous lui que le peuple a reçu la loi), quel besoin y avait-il encore pour qu'un autre sacrificateur se lève selon l'ordre de Melchisédek, et ne soit pas appelé selon l'ordre d'Aaron?
Si donc la perfection était par la sacrificature lévitique, (car c’est en relation avec elle que le peuple a reçu sa loi, ) quel besoin était-il encore qu’un autre sacrificateur se lève selon l’ordre de Melchisédec et qui ne soit pas nommé selon l’ordre d’Aaron?
Si donc la perfection s'était trouvée dans la sacrificature Lévitique, (car c'est sous elle que le peuple a reçu la Loi) quel besoin était-il après cela qu'un autre Sacrificateur se levât selon l'ordre de Melchisédec, et qui ne fût point dit selon l'ordre d'Aaron.
Si donc le sacerdoce lévitique (sous lequel le peuple reçut la loi) devait donner la perfection, qu’était-il besoin qu’il s’élevât encore un autre prêtre selon l’ordre de Melchisédech, et non selon l’ordre d’Aaron?
Si donc la perfection avait été possible par le sacerdoce Lévitique, car c’est sur ce sacerdoce que repose la loi donnée au peuple, qu’était-il encore besoin qu’il parût un autre sacrificateur selon l’ordre de Melchisédek, et non selon l’ordre d’Aaron?
Si donc la perfection avait pu être réalisée par le sacerdoce lévitique, — car c’est sous lui que le peuple reçut la loi, — quelle nécessité y avait-il qu’il surgît un autre prêtre « selon l’ordre de Melchisédech », et non selon l’ordre d’Aaron?
Si donc la perfection avait pu être réalisée par le moyen du sacerdoce lévitique (car le peuple a reçu une législation qui repose sur ce sacerdoce), qu'était-il encore besoin qu'il parût un autre sacrificateur «selon l’ordre de Melchisédec, » et non selon l'ordre d'Aaron?
Si donc la perfection s'était trouvée dans le sacerdoce lévitique (car c'est à celui-ci que se rapporte la loi donnée au peuple), qu'était-il encore besoin qu'il s'élevât un autre Sacrificateur, selon l'ordre de Melchisédec, et non selon l'ordre d'Aaron?
Si donc la perfection eût été réalisée par la prêtrise lévitique, (car c'est à celle-ci que se rapporte la loi donnée au peuple), il n'eût pas encore été nécessaire que ce fût selon le rang de Melchisédec que s'installât un autre prêtre, et qu'il ne fût pas désigné selon le rang d'Aaron;
Si l'on avait pu réaliser la perfection par le sacerdoce lévitique (car la législation donnée au peuple a pour base ce sacerdoce), pourquoi fallait-il qu'il parût un autre «prêtre» «selon l'ordre de Melchisédek» pourquoi pas selon l'ordre d'Aaron?
Si la perfection avait pu être atteinte par le sacerdoce lévitique — car la législation donnée au peuple a pour base ce sacerdoce, — qu'était-il encore besoin qu'il parût un autre sacrificateur, institué selon l'ordre de Melchisédec, et non selon l'ordre d'Aaron?
Paacey baynda poloy bettidayne wogay derezas immetiday Lewe qesetetha mala gididako Aaroone mala gidontta Malke-xedeqe shuumetetha malay hara qessey yaanas aazas koshidee?
Wäre nun freilich durch das levitische Priestertum Vollkommenheit erzielt worden — und auf diesem Priestertum beruht ja das Gesetz, das dem Volk gegeben ist —, warum mußte dann ein ganz neuer Priester "nach der Weise Melchisedeks" auftreten? Warum wurde nicht geredet von einem Priester "nach der Weise Aarons"?
Wenn nun das levitische Priestertum, auf das das Volk gesetzlich festgelegt war, schon die Vollendung gebracht hätte, wäre es dann notwendig gewesen, noch einen andern nach der Ordnung des Melchisedech als Priester aufzustellen und davon zu reden, daß er es nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons sei?
Wenn nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum wäre [denn in Verbindung mit demselben [O. gegründet auf dasselbe] hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen], welches Bedürfnis war noch vorhanden, daß ein anderer Priester nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks aufstehe, und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons genannt werde?
Wenn nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum wäre (denn in Verbindung mit demselben hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen), welches Bedürfnis war noch vorhanden, daß ein anderer Priester nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks aufstehe, und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons genannt werde?
Hätte es nun eine Vollendung durch das Levitische Priestertum gegeben (die Gesetzgebung des Volkes gieng ja auf dasselbe), wozu war es dann noch nötig, daß ein anderer Priester nach der Ordnung Melchisedek aufgestellt und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons benannt wird?
Ist nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum geschehen (denn unter demselbigen hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen), was ist denn weiter not zu sagen, daß ein anderer Priester aufkommen solle nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons?
Ist nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum geschehen (denn unter demselben hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen), was ist denn weiter not zu sagen, daß ein anderer Priester aufkommen solle nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons?
Freilich, wenn eine Vollendung durch das levitische Priestertum möglich wäre – auf diesem (Priestertum) beruht ja die ganze Gesetzgebung des Volkes –: welches Bedürfnis hätte dann noch vorgelegen, einen andersartigen Priester »nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks« einzusetzen und ihn nicht (einfach) »nach der Ordnung Aarons« zu benennen?
Wenn nun das Vollkommenheit wäre, was durch das levitische Priestertum kam (denn unter diesem hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen), wozu wäre es noch nötig, daß ein anderer Priester «nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks» auftrete und nicht einer «nach der Ordnung Aarons» bezeichnet werde?
Wäre nun die Vollendung durch das levitische Priestertum geschehen
Korwo ũkinyanĩru kũna nĩũngĩonekanire na njĩra ya ũthĩnjĩri Ngai wa Alawii-rĩ, (nĩ ũndũ kĩrĩndĩ kĩaheirwo watho na njĩra ĩyo), gwakĩrĩ bata ũngĩ ũrĩkũ gũũke mũthĩnjĩri-Ngai ũngĩ, ũtariĩ ta Melikisedeki, na ndatuĩke ta wa nyũmba ya Harũni?
Isra7eele asaas higgey Leewe kahinetethaa baggara imettis. Ha Leewe kahinetethay polo gididabaa gidiyakko Aaronayssa mela gidonnashin, Melkkexedeqe mela hara kahine shuumanaw ays koshshidee?
Levi buolu kopadicianba tuonli yaali yaapo ke U tienu den teni li balimaama Isaleleenba yaaba li yaabi tie ke ñani ki dagidi cain, naani li go bi tie tiladi kopadiciantoa n cua nani Melikisedeki yeni, ki naa tie Alono buolu yua?
UTienu bo teni Isaraheli yabi o yikodi ke li yikodi wangi ke Lefi cugili yaaba baba n baa tie sala yidikaaba. Ama li bo ya tie sala yua ke b ba yidi yeni te ke Isaraheli yaaba ŋani canyiin u bTienu nunga nni. Sala yidikaa yua bo ba cua kuli bo baa tie nani Harɔni yeni. Li sala bo kan fidi cedi ke bi niba n ya ŋani canyiin u Tienu nunga nni yeni po n bo cedi ke sala yidikatiano cua ki tie nana mɛlikisedɛki yeni.
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
Εάν λοιπόν η τελειότης υπήρχε διά Λευϊτικής ιερωσύνης· διότι ο λαός επ' αυτής έλαβε τον νόμον· τις χρεία πλέον να εγερθή άλλος ιερεύς κατά την τάξιν Μελχισεδέχ, και ουχί να λέγηται κατά την τάξιν Ααρών;
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
ει μεν ουν τελειωσισ δια τησ λευιτικησ ιερωσυνησ ην ο λαοσ γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τισ ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν· ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο· τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ ⸀αὐτῆς⸀νενομοθέτηται τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ, ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν—ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο—τίς ἔτι χρεία, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν — ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ νενομοθέτητο — τίς ἔτι χρεία, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα, καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, (ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, ) τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτης νενομοθετηται τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι
Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;
ଆକେନ୍ ଲେବୀୟଇଂନେ ପୁଜାରି କାମ୍କେ ରାସିଂଚେ ଇସ୍ରାଏଲ୍ ଜାତିକେ ମେଁନେ ନିୟମ୍ ବିଃବଗେ । ଲେବୀୟଇଂନେ କାମ୍ ଜଦି ସାରାସାରି ଡିଂପାୱେ ତେଲା ହାରୋଣନେ ଉଙ୍ଗ୍ଡେ ଆକେନ୍ ଲେବୀୟ ପୁଜାରିଇଂକେ ଆନ୍ତାର୍ବିଚେ ମଲ୍କିସେଦକନେ ଉଙ୍ଗ୍ଡେ ରକମ୍ ବିନ୍ ମୁଇଙ୍ଗ୍ ପୁଜାରି ଜାତିନେ ଦର୍କାର୍ ଆଲେଃଗେ ।
એ માટે જો લેવીના યાજકપણાથી પરિપૂર્ણતા થઈ હોત, કેમ કે તે દ્વારા લોકોને નિયમશાસ્ત્ર મળ્યું હતું, તો હારુનના નિયમ પ્રમાણે ગણાયેલો નહિ, એવો બીજો યાજક મેલ્ખીસેદેકના નિયમ અનુસાર ઉત્પન્ન થાય એની શી અગત્ય હતી?
Se sou baz travay prèt ras Levi yo Bondye te bay pèp Izrayèl la lalwa Moyiz la. Si travay prèt ras Levi yo te yon travay ki te bon nèt, pa ta gen nesesite menm pou yon lòt prèt ki menm jan ak Mèlkisedèk men ki pa menm jan ak Arawon ta vini.
Alò, si pèfeksyon an te nan sistèm prèt Levitik yo (paske se sou baz sa a ke pèp la te resevwa Lalwa), ki bezwen anplis ki te gen pou yon lòt prèt leve nan modèl Melchisédek la, ki pa t dezigne selon modèl Aaron an?
माणसां ताहीं जिन याजकां के आधार पै नियम-कायदे दिए गये थे, जो हारुन के परिवार का अर लेवी के गोत्र का था, पर ये याजक सिध्द न्ही बण सकै। इस करकै यो जरूरी था, के एक और याजक आवै, जो हारुन जिसा न्ही, पर मलिकिसिदक जिसा हो।
Ko da yake Dokar Musa ta ce dole firistoci su kasance zuriyar Lawi, waɗannan firistoci ba su iya sa wani yă zama cikakke ba. Saboda akwai bukata wani firist kamar Melkizedek ya zo, a maimakon wani daga iyalin Haruna.
Yanzu in da mai yiwuwa ne a sami kammala cikin aikin firistanci na Lawiyawa (domin ta wurin ta ne aka bada shari'a), to ina amfanin wani firist ya zo bisa ga ka'ida irin ta Malkisadak, ba'a kuma ambaci ka'idar Haruna ba?
A, ina i loaa ka mea e pono ai ma ka oihana kahuna a Levi, (ua haawi pu ia mai ke kanawai i kanaka me ia, ) heaha la anei hoi ko laila hemahema e ku hou ai kekahi kahuna e mamuli o ke ano o Melekisedeka, aole hoi i kapaia mamuli o ke ano o Aarona?
| אילו כהונת הלווים, שמשמשת יסוד לתורה, יכלה להושיע אותנו, מדוע שלח אלוהים את המשיח ככהן במעמד מלכי־צדק? מדוע לא במעמד אהרון, שהייתה דרגתם של כל שאר הכוהנים? |
| על כן אלו היתה שלמות על ידי כהנת בני לוי אשר בה נתנה התורה לעם למה זה צריך לקום עוד כהן אחר על דברתי מלכי צדק ולא יאמר על דברתי אהרן׃ |
तब यदि लेवीय याजकपद के द्वारा सिद्धि हो सकती है (जिसके सहारे से लोगों को व्यवस्था मिली थी) तो फिर क्या आवश्यकता थी, कि दूसरा याजक मलिकिसिदक की रीति पर खड़ा हो, और हारून की रीति का न कहलाए?
अब यदि सिद्धि (या पूर्णता) लेवी याजकता के माध्यम से प्राप्त हुई—क्योंकि इसी के आधार पर लोगों ने व्यवस्था प्राप्त की थी—तब एक ऐसे पुरोहित की क्या ज़रूरत थी, जिसका आगमन मेलखीज़ेदेक की श्रृंखला में हो, न कि हारोन की श्रृंखला में?
Ha tehát a lévita papság által elérhető volna a tökéletesség, (mert a nép ez alatt kapta a törvényt), mi szükség még azt mondani, hogy más pap támadjon Melkisédek rendje szerint és ne az Áron rendje szerint?
Ha tehát a lévitai papság által volna a tökéletesség (mert a nép ez alatt nyerte a törvényt): mi szükség tovább is mondogatni, hogy más pap támadjon a Melkisédek rendje szerint és ne az Áron rendje szerint?
(e) Ef Gyðingaprestarnir og lög þeirra hefðu getað frelsað okkur, hvers vegna var þá Guð að senda Krist, sem prest á borð við Melkísedek? Hefði honum ekki nægt að senda einhvern sem hefði haft sömu tign og Aron – það er að segja þá tign, sem allir Gyðingaprestarnir höfðu?
Ọ bụrụ na a pụrụ ime ka mmadụ zuo oke site nʼọnọdụ ndị nchụaja ndị Livayị, nʼihi na ọ bụ site nʼiwu e nyere ndị mmadụ ka e ji hiwee ọnọdụ ndị nchụaja. Olee uru ọ bara ka onye nchụaja ọzọ bịa, dị ka usoro Melkizedek si dị, na-abụghị dị ka usoro nke Erọn?
Ita, no magun-od ti kinaan-anay babaen iti kinapadi dagiti kaputotan ni Levi, (ta inawat dagiti tattao ti linteg babaen iti daytoy) ania pay laeng ti kasapulan ti sabali pay a padi a tumaud manipud iti kinapadi ni Melkisedec a saan ketdi a mainaganan manipud iti kinapadi ni Aaron?
Di bawah pimpinan imam-imam Lewi, hukum agama Yahudi diberikan kepada umat Israel. Karena imam-imam Lewi dahulu itu tidak dapat melakukan dengan sempurna apa yang harus dikerjakannya, maka harus ada imam lain, yaitu yang seperti Imam Melkisedek, dan bukan dari golongan Imam Harun lagi!
Sekarang jika kesempurnaan dapat dicapai melalui keimaman Lewi (karena itulah cara hukum diterima), apa perlunya imam lain untuk datang mengikuti peraturan Melkisedek, dan tidak mengikuti peraturan Harun?
Karena itu, andaikata oleh imamat Lewi telah tercapai kesempurnaan--sebab karena imamat itu umat Israel telah menerima Taurat--apakah sebabnya masih perlu seorang lain ditetapkan menjadi imam besar menurut peraturan Melkisedek dan yang tentang dia tidak dikatakan menurut peraturan Harun?
Kesimpulannya: Ternyata kesempurnaan rohani tidak bisa dicapai melalui pelayanan para imam keturunan Lewi, biarpun pelayanan mereka sesuai dengan hukum Taurat. Seandainya kesempurnaan rohani memang bisa dicapai melalui mereka, Allah tidak perlu mengutus Imam lain yang bukan berasal dari keturunan Lewi dan Harun.
Itungili anga ukondaniili ai uhumikile kukiila mu ukuhani nuang'wa Lawi, (itigwa pihi akwe antu isingiilya ilagiilyo), ai ikoli nsula ki ikilo kung'wa kuhani mungiiza kunyansuka ze yakilaa i ntendo ang'wa Melkizedeki, hangi shanga kitangwa ze yakilaa uzipiiligwa nuang'wa Haruni?
Se adunque la perfezione era per il sacerdozio levitico (poichè in su quello fu data la legge al popolo), che [era egli] più bisogno che sorgesse un altro sacerdote secondo l'ordine di Melchisedec, e che non fosse nominato secondo l'ordine d'Aaronne?
Or dunque, se la perfezione fosse stata possibile per mezzo del sacerdozio levitico - sotto di esso il popolo ha ricevuto la legge - che bisogno c'era che sorgesse un altro sacerdote alla maniera di Melchìsedek, e non invece alla maniera di Aronne?
Ora, se la perfezione fosse stata possibile per mezzo del sacerdozio levitico (perché su quello è basata la legge data al popolo), che bisogno c’era ancora che sorgesse un altro sacerdote secondo l’ordine di Melchisedec e non scelto secondo l’ordine d’Aronne?
Ania da idake iwu akem umaza anyimo katuma kana akatuma ka Asere ka lawi ya (barki ahira ame ani nya u inko utize), uri me ura ba ure unu katuma ka Asere ma ey unu sanda ugamirka umalkisadak, da a kura abuka ugamirka u haru na ba?
もしレビの系なる祭司によりて全うせらるる事ありしならば（民は之によりて律法を受けたり）何ぞなほ他にアロンの位に等しからぬメルキゼデクの位に等しき祭司の起る必要あらんや。
ところで，もしレビの祭司職を通して完全にすることがあったとすれば（民はそのもとで律法を受けたのですが），どうしてこれ以上，アロンの位に等しいと呼ばれず，むしろメルキゼデクの位に等しい別の祭司が立てられる必要があるでしょうか。
もし全うされることがレビ系の祭司制によって可能であったら民は祭司制の下に律法を与えられたのであるがなんの必要があって、なお、「アロンに等しい」と呼ばれない、別な「メルキゼデクに等しい」祭司が立てられるのであるか。
さて、もしレビ系の祭司職によって完全に到達できたのだったら、――民はそれを基礎として律法を与えられたのです。――それ以上何の必要があって、アロンの位でなく、メルキゼデクの位に等しいと呼ばれる他の祭司が立てられたのでしょうか。
民はレヴィ族の司祭職の下に在りて律法を受けたれば、若人を完全ならしむる事レヴィの司祭職によりしならば、アアロンの如きと謂はれずして、他にメルキセデクの如き司祭の起る必要は何處にか在りし。
ଲେବିଅମରଞ୍ଜି ଆ ରାଓଡ଼ା ଗିୟ୍ଲେ ଇସ୍ରାଏଲନ୍ ଜାତିଞ୍ଜି ମୋସାନ୍ ଆ ବନାଁୟ୍ବର୍ ଞାଙେଞ୍ଜି, ରାଓଡ଼ା କାବ୍ବାଡ଼ାନ୍ ବାତ୍ତେ ଗଡେଲାଜେନ୍ ନଙ୍, ଆରୋଣନ୍ ଆ ଡାଙ୍ଗଡ଼ାଅନନ୍ ଅନ୍ତମ୍ କେନ୍ ଲେବିଅ ରାଓଡ଼ାଞ୍ଜିଆଡଙ୍ ଅମ୍ରେଙ୍ଲେ, ମଲ୍କିସେଦକନ୍ ଆ ଡାଙ୍ଗଡ଼ାଅନନ୍ ଅନ୍ତମ୍ ଆନ୍ନା ଅବୟ୍ ରାଓଡ଼ାନ୍ ଆ କେଜ୍ଜା ସନାୟ୍ସାୟ୍ ତଡ୍ ବନ୍ ।
Are ri Dios xyoꞌwik ri taqanik chike ri tinimit Israel. We taqanik riꞌ xbꞌanik rumal cher xchomax rij chi ri e rijaꞌl ri Leví keꞌkitoꞌ ri winaq rech kuꞌx sukꞌ. Xa kꞌu rumal cher man xekwin taj ri chꞌawenelabꞌ cho ri Dios xkibꞌan waꞌ we riꞌ, tzi choqꞌaqꞌ wi chi xpe jun kꞌakꞌ chꞌawenel cho ri Dios: jun chꞌawenel cho ri Dios ri man rijaꞌl taj ri Aarón xane rijaꞌl ri Melquisedec.
Hagi Mosese kasegemo'a huno, Livae nagapintike pristi vahera manigahie huno hige'za mani'nazanagi, ana pristi vahe'mo'za mago vahera zamazeri knarera osu'nazagu mago Melkisedekikna pristi ne'ma fore'ma haniana, Aron nagapinti rompage, ru nagapinti fore'ma hanigeno knarera hugahie hu'ne.
ಲೇವಿಯರ ಯಾಜಕತ್ವದ ಆಧಾರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಜನರು ನಿಯಮವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದರು. ಈ ಯಾಜಕತ್ವದ ಮೂಲಕವೇ ಪರಿಪೂರ್ಣತೆಯು ಉಂಟಾಗಿದ್ದರೆ, ಆರೋನನ ಕ್ರಮಾನುಸಾರವಾಗಿರದೆ ಮೆಲ್ಕಿಜೆದೇಕನ ಕ್ರಮದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಬೇರೊಬ್ಬ ಯಾಜಕನು ಎದ್ದೇಳುವ ಅವಶ್ಯವೇನಿತ್ತು?
ಇಸ್ರಾಯೇಲರಿಗೆ ಕೊಡಲಾದ ಧರ್ಮಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ ಲೇವಿಯರ ಯಾಜಕತ್ವದ ಮೇಲೆ ಆಧಾರಗೊಂಡಿದೆ. ಲೇವಿಯರ ಈ ಯಾಜಕತ್ವದಿಂದಲೇ ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಸಿದ್ಧಿ ಪ್ರಾಪ್ತವಾಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾದರೆ, ಆರೋನನ ಪರಂಪರೆಗೆ ಸೇರದ, ಮೆಲ್ಕಿಜೆದೇಕನ ಪರಂಪರೆಗೆ ಸೇರಿದ ಬೇರೊಬ್ಬ ಯಾಜಕನು ಬರುವುದರ ಅಗತ್ಯವೇನಿತ್ತು?
Woli labha obhukumiye bhatulikene okulabhila obhugabhisi bhwa Lawi, (kulwejo emwalo abhanu abhalamila ebhilagilo), bhaliga bhulio bhukeneki lindi omugabhisi undi okwimuka ejile alabhao Melkizedeki, atakabhilikiwe Haruni?
Inave uvokamelefu uvahawesehine uhugendela uvutawala wa Lawi, (Poapo avanu vipohela ululagelo), khuhale nulihitaji lihi hutawala uyunge ukhwinoha ufyano gwa Melkizedeki, sio ukhwelangiwa nopangelelo ugwa Haruni?
Henu kama bhukamilifu bhwawesekene kup'elela bhukuhani bhwa Lawi, (naha pasi a muene bhanu bhij'hamb'elela sheria), kwaj'hele ni lihitaji leleku kwa kuhani j'hongi kutupuka baada jha mfumu ghwa Melkizedeki, na sio kukutibhwa baada jha mpangililu bhwa Haruni?
레위 계통의 제사 직분으로 말미암아 온전함을 얻을 수 있었으면 (백성이 그 아래서 율법을 받았으니) 어찌하여 아론의 반차를 좇지 않고 멜기세덱의 반차를 좇는 별다른 한 제사장을 세울 필요가 있느뇨
레위 계통의 제사 직분으로 말미암아 온전함을 얻을 수 있었으면 백성이 그 아래서 율법을 받았으니 어찌하여 아론의 반차를 좇지 않고 멜기세덱의 반차를 좇는 별다른 한 제사장을 세울 필요가 있느뇨
Orekma lun mwet tol ke sruf lal Levi pa sie oakwuk yohk in Ma Sap ma tuh itukyang nu sin mwet Israel. Na, funu ku in oasr suwoswos lun mwet ke sripen orekma lun mwet tol Levi inge, lukun tia eneneyuk in oasr sie pacna mwet tol saya sikyak in oana Melchizedek, su tia ma ke sruf lal Aaron.
Linu haiba kuba yobuzwile mubuhalo bwachilumeli chintu chiwoleka chenzila yabuprisita bwa Chilivi (mukuti mwikonde lateni bantu babaamuheli mulao), bulotu nzi buchitokwahala kuba kwateni kwamuprisita zumwi kuba kwateni mumasule enzila ya Melekisedeke, ni kusahewa itokomelo kuba yichilila mikwa ya Aaroni?
| ئێستا ئەگەر بە ڕێگەی کاهینیێتی لێڤی تەواوەتی بەدەستبهاتبایە، کە گەلیش لەسەر ئەمە تەوراتی وەرگرت، ئایا پێویستە کاهینێکی دیکە لە پلەی مەلکیسادق و نەک لە پلەی هارون دابنرێت؟ |
ଈ ଲେ଼ବିୟ ଲ଼କୁତି ପୂଜେରା ପା଼ଣା ତଲେ ଇସ୍ରାୟେଲ କୂଡ଼ାତି ଲ଼କୁ ତାକି ମ଼ସାତି ମେ଼ରା ହୀପ୍କି ଆ଼ହାମାଚେ । ଅ଼ଡ଼େ ଲେ଼ବି ଲ଼କୁତି କାମା ନେହିଁ କିହାଲି ଆ଼ଡିତିହଁମା, ହାରଣତି ଅଦିକାରାଗାଟି ଈ ଲେ଼ବି ପୂଜେରାଙ୍ଗା ପିସାନା ମଲ୍କିସେଦକ ଅଦିକାରା ଲେହେଁ ଅ଼ର କୂଡ଼ାତି ପୂଜେରା ଲ଼ଡ଼ା ହିଲାଆତେ ।
Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?
Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?
Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?
Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?
si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium leviticum erat populus enim sub ipso legem accepit quid adhuc necessarium secundum ordinem Melchisedech alium surgere sacerdotem et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici
Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?
Ja tad nu tā pilnība būtu caur to priestera amatu no Levja cilts, (jo līdz ar to tie ļaudis bauslību ir dabūjuši), kam tad vēl vajadzēja citam priesterim celties pēc Melhizedeka kārtas, un netikt sauktam pēc Ārona kārtas?
Boye, soki bato oyo bazwaki mobeko bakokaki kokoma ya kokoka na nzela ya bonganga-Nzambe ya Balevi, mpo na nini kotia Nganga-Nzambe mosusu, kolanda molongo ya Melishisedeki, kasi kolanda molongo ya Aron te?
यदि लेवी याजकता को परम्परा को द्वारा सम्पुर्नता हासिल करयो जाय सकत होतो कहालीकि कोयी दूसरों याजक ख आवन की का जरूरत होती? कहालीकि येकोच आधार पर लोगों ख व्यवस्था भी दी गयी होती, एक असो याजक की का जरूरत होती जो की मलिकिसिदक की परम्परा को होना, नहीं की हारून कि परम्परा को।
Kale singa okutuukirira kwaliwo lwa bwakabona obw’Ekileevi, kubanga abantu baaweebwa amateeka nga gasinzira ku bwo, kiki ekyetaaza kabona omulala okuva mu lubu lwa Merukizeddeeki, mu kifo ky’okuva mu lubu lwa Alooni?
हालाँकि मूसे रा बिधानो रे बोली राखेया कि पुरोईत सिर्फ लेविए रे गोत्रो तेई ऊणे चाईयो, पर सेयो पुरोईत केसी खे बी सिद्ध नि बणाई सकदे। इजी खे लेविया रे वंश हारूण पुरोईतो रे परिवारो रे बदले मलिकिसिदको रे जेड़े एक पुरोईतो री जरूरत ए।
Koa raha nisy fanatanterahana tamin’ ny fisoronan’ i Levy (fa tamin’ izany no nahazoan’ ny olona ny lalàna), ahoana no mbola ilana mpisorona hafa hiseho araka ny fanaon’ i Melkizedeka ihany, izay tsy hotononina ho araka ny fanaon’ i Arona?
Aa naho nahafonitse ty fisoroña’ i Levy (toe ama’e ty nandrambesa’ ondatio Hake) le inoñe amy zao ty ipaiañe mpisoroñe hitroatse amy famosora’ i Melkizedekey, fa tsy amy famosora’ i Aroney?
ലേവി പൗരോഹിത്യത്താൽ ജനത്തിന് ന്യായപ്രമാണം ലഭിച്ച് സമ്പൂർണ്ണത വന്നെങ്കിൽ, അഹരോന്റെ ക്രമപ്രകാരം എന്നു പറയാതെ മൽക്കീസേദെക്കിന്റെ ക്രമപ്രകാരം വേറൊരു പുരോഹിതൻ വരുവാനുള്ള ആവശ്യം എന്തായിരുന്നു?
ലേവ്യപൌരോഹിത്യത്താൽ സമ്പൂൎണ്ണത വന്നെങ്കിൽ — അതിൻ കീഴല്ലോ ജനം ന്യായപ്രമാണം പ്രാപിച്ചതു — അഹരോന്റെ ക്രമപ്രകാരം എന്നു പറയാതെ മൽക്കീസേദെക്കിന്റെ ക്രമപ്രകാരം വേറൊരു പുരോഹിതൻ വരുവാൻ എന്തൊരാവശ്യം?
ഇസ്രായേൽജനത്തിന് ദൈവം നൽകിയ ന്യായപ്രമാണത്തെ അടിസ്ഥാനമാക്കിയുള്ള ലേവ്യാപൗരോഹിത്യത്താൽ ഉദ്ദേശിച്ച സമ്പൂർണത കൈവരുമായിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ, ലേവിയുടെയും അഹരോന്റെയും പൗരോഹിത്യക്രമത്തിനു പുറമേനിന്ന് മൽക്കീസേദെക്കിന്റെ ക്രമപ്രകാരം ഒരു പൗരോഹിത്യം സ്ഥാപിക്കേണ്ടതിന്റെ ആവശ്യം ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നോ?
Levi-singgi purohitki phamda yumpham oiraga Wayel Yathang adu Israel-gi misingda pibani. Adubu Levi-singgi thabak adugi mapanna mapung phahanba ngamlamlabadi, Aaron-dagi nattaba Melchizedek-ki mawongda oiba atoppa makhalgi purohit amamuk thorakpagi kanaba leiramloidabani.
लेवीय वंशजांच्या याजकीय पद्धतीने लोकांस नियमशास्त्र दिले गेले, पण तशा प्रकारच्या याजकीय पद्धतीने लोक धार्मिकदृष्ट्या परिपूर्ण बनू शकले नसते. म्हणून आणखी एका याजकाच्या येण्याची आवश्यकता होती. तो अहरोनासारखा नसून मलकीसदेकासारखा हवा होता.
ନେ ଲେବୀକଆଃ ଯାଜାକ୍ ହବାଅଃ ହରାତେ ଇସ୍ରାଏଲ୍ ହଡ଼କକେ ଆନ୍ଚୁ ଏମାକାନା । ଲେବୀକଆଃ ଯାଜାକ୍ କାମି ହରାତେ ପକ୍ତାକାନ୍ ହବାଅଃତେୟାଃରେଦ, ହାରୁନ୍ଆଃ ଆକ୍ତେୟାର୍ତେ ନେ ଲେବୀକଆଃ ଯାଜାକ୍ କାମି ହକାକେଦ୍ତେ, ମଲ୍କିସେଦକ୍ଆଃ ଆକ୍ତେୟାର୍ ଲେକାତେ ଏଟାଃ ଆଡଃମିଆଁଦ୍ ଯାଜାକ୍ଆଃ ଲାଗାତିଙ୍ଗ୍ କା ତାଇକେନା ।
Bhai ibhaga kukamilika kwatendaga patikana kwa liengo lya bhishila lya Bhalawi, pabha kwa tolelela genego shalia jashinkubhikwa ku Bhaishilaeli, ikanapinjikwe kabhili bhaishe bhaabhishila bhana bha malinga a Melikishedeki, nngabha bhaabhishila kopoka kwa a Aluni?
ဣသရေလအမျိုးသားတို့၏ပညတ်တရား ကိုပေးအပ်ရာ၌ လေဝိအနွယ်ဝင်ယဇ်ပုရော ဟိတ်များကိုအခြေခံ၍ပေးအပ်ခြင်းဖြစ်၏။ အကယ်၍လေဝိအနွယ်ဝင်ယဇ်ပုရောဟိတ် တို့သည်ပြီးပြည့်စုံလင်အောင်ဆောင်ရွက်နိုင် ကြပါမူ အာရုန်၏အရိုက်အရာအစားမေ လခိဇေဒက်၏အရိုက်အရာကိုဆက်ခံသူ အခြားယဇ်ပုရောဟိတ်တစ်ပါးပေါ်ထွန်း လာရန်မလိုပေ။-
တနည်းကား၊ လေဝိမှဆင်းသက်သော ယဇ်ပုရောဟိတ်အမျိုးနှင့် စပ်ဆိုင်လျက်လူများတို့သည် ပညတ်တရားတော်ကို ခံကြသောကြောင့်၊ ထိုအမျိုးအားဖြင့် စုံလင်ခြင်းသို့ ရောက်နိုင်သည်မှန်လျှင်၊ အခြား သော ယဇ်ပုရောဟိတ်သည်၊ အာရုန်နည်းတူ မခေါ်ဝေါ်ဘဲ၊ မေလခိဇေဒက်နည်းတူ ပေါ်ထွန်းစရာအကြောင်း အဘယ်သို့ရှိသေးသနည်း။
တနည်းကား၊ လေဝိ မှဆင်းသက်သော ယဇ် ပုရောဟိတ်အမျိုးနှင့် စပ်ဆိုင်လျက်လူ များတို့သည် ပညတ် တရားတော်ကို ခံကြသောကြောင့် ၊ ထိုအမျိုးအားဖြင့် စုံလင် ခြင်းသို့ ရောက် နိုင်သည်မှန် လျှင် ၊ အခြား သော ယဇ် ပုရောဟိတ်သည်၊ အာရုန် နည်းတူ မ ခေါ်ဝေါ် ဘဲ၊ မေလခိဇေဒက် နည်းတူ ပေါ်ထွန်း စရာအကြောင်း အဘယ်သို့ ရှိ သေး သနည်း
Na, ki te mea na ta te Riwai mahi tohunga i tino rite ai, a i na runga hoki i tera te rironga o te ture i te iwi, he aha atu te mea e whakatika ake ai tetahi atu tohunga i runga i to Merekihereke ritenga; te kiia ai i runga i to Arona ritenga?
Jodi Levi khandan laga purohit kaam pora he sob bhal aru thik hoise koile -juntu pora he manu khan niyom aru niyom paise-, titia Aaron laga niyom hisab te nohoikena kele Melchizedek laga niyom hisab te aru bhi kele dusra ekjon purohit ahibole nimite dorkar hoise?
Ijirel mina suh kota Hootthe jun di, romwah ah Leewi jaat apaat nawa angtheng. Amadi, leewi nok hah romwah loong mootkaat ah epun angta bah, belam Aroon jaatang likhiik lah ang thang Melkijadek jaatang likhiik we dong jamtheng tah taat angta.
Nxa ukuphelela kwakungatholakala ngobuphristi babaLevi njalo ngempela umthetho owaphiwa abantu wasungula lobobuphristi, pho kungani kwakulokhu kudingeka ukuba omunye umphristi abuye evela emkhondweni kaMelikhizedekhi, engasiwemkhondweni ka-Aroni na?
Ngakho-ke uba kwakukhona ukuphelela ngobupristi bukaLevi (ngoba isizwe sanikwa umlayo ngaphansi kwabo), kwakusaswelekelani ukuthi kuvele omunye umpristi ngokohlobo lukaMelkizedeki, lokungatshiwo ngokwendlela kaAroni?
Kati ukamilifu utiwezekana patya kwa ukuhani wa Lawi, (Kwa eyo pae yake bandu hupokya saliya), pabile ni hitaji lyaako zaidi kwa kuhani ywenge kuinua baada ya nfumo wa Melkizedeki, na kemelwa kwaa baada ya mpangilio ba Haruni?
अब यदि लेवीको पुजारी पदद्वारा पूर्णताको सम्भव भएको भए (किनकि जसबाट मानिसहरूले व्यवस्था प्राप्त गर्दछन्), हारूनको दर्जाबमोजिम नभएर मल्कीसेदेकको दर्जाअनुसार अर्को पुजारी स्थापित गर्न किन आवश्यक पर्थ्यो?
Vandu va Isilaeli vapewili malagizu mumkingisa wa uteta wa Valawi. Ngati lihengu la uteta lavi kamilifu, ngayiganikiwi lepi kuhumila mteta yungi wa Chapanga mweiwanangana na Melikisedeki, na lepi Aloni.
Var det da fullkommenhet å vinne ved det levittiske prestedømme - for dette var folket bundet til ved loven - hvad trang hadde det da vært til at en annen prest skulde opstå efter Melkisedeks vis og ikke nevnes efter Arons vis?
Jødene har for lenge siden hatt en lov som bygger på at prestene fra Levis stamme gjør tjeneste for Gud. Dersom tjenesten deres kunne gjøre oss feilfrie, behøvde ikke Gud å sende en annen prest, en som var lik Melkisedek, og ikke lik Aron, den første presten fra Levis stamme.
Var det då fullkomenskap å vinna ved det levitiske prestedømet - for det var folket bunde til ved lovi - kvi turvest det då at ein annan prest skulde verta uppstelt etter Melkisedeks vis og ikkje verta nemnd etter Arons vis?
ଆହୁରି ମଧ୍ୟ, ଯେଉଁ ଲେବୀୟ ଯାଜକତ୍ୱ ଅଧୀନରେ ଲୋକମାନେ ମୋଶାଙ୍କ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ପ୍ରାପ୍ତ ହେଲେ, ସେହି ଯାଜକତ୍ୱ ଦ୍ୱାରା ଯଦି ସିଦ୍ଧି ଲାଭ ହୁଅନ୍ତା, ତାହାହେଲେ ହାରୋଣଙ୍କ ଶ୍ରେଣୀ ଅନୁସାରେ ଗଣିତ ନ ହୋଇ ମଲ୍କୀଷେଦକଙ୍କ ସଦୃଶ ଅନ୍ୟ ଜଣେ ଯାଜକ ଉତ୍ପନ୍ନ ହେବାର ଆଉ କଅଣ ଆବଶ୍ୟକ ଥିଲା?
Utuu sirni lubummaa Lewwii kan hirʼina hin qabne taʼee, silaa lubni biraa kan akka sirna lubummaa Aroonitti utuu hin taʼin lubni akka sirna lubummaa Malkiiseedeqitti filatame dhufuun isaa maaliif barbaachise ree? Seerri sirna lubummaa Lewwii kana irratti hundeeffamee sabaaf kennameetii.
ਸੋ ਜੇ ਲੇਵੀ ਵਾਲੀ ਜਾਜਕਾਈ ਨਾਲ ਜਿਸ ਦੇ ਹੁੰਦਿਆਂ ਕੌਮਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਬਿਵਸਥਾ ਮਿਲੀ ਸੀ ਸੰਪੂਰਨਤਾਈ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੁੰਦੀ, ਤਾਂ ਫਿਰ ਕੀ ਲੋੜ ਸੀ ਜੋ ਮਲਕਿਸਿਦਕ ਦੀ ਪਦਵੀ ਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਕੋਈ ਹੋਰ ਜਾਜਕ ਉੱਠਦਾ ਅਤੇ ਹਾਰੂਨ ਦੀ ਪਦਵੀ ਦੇ ਅਨੁਸਾਰ ਨਾ ਗਿਣਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ?
ଇ ଲେବିୟର୍ତି ମାପ୍ରୁହେବା କିନାକାନ୍ତି ପିସ୍ତି ଇସ୍ରାଏଲ୍ ଜାତିତିଂ ତା ବିଦି ହିୟାଜ଼ି ମାଚାତ୍ । ଲେବିୟର୍ତି କାମାୟ୍ ଜଦି କୁଲାସ୍ ଆତାତ୍ମା, ତେବେ ହାରଣ୍ତି ମାଜ଼ି ଇ ଲେବିୟ ମାପ୍ରୁହେବାକିନାକାରିଂ ପିସ୍ତି, ମଲ୍କିସେଦକ୍ତି ମାଜ଼ି ଲାକେ ବିନ୍ ର ମାପ୍ରୁହେବାକିନାକାର୍ କୁଟୁମ୍ନି ଲଡ଼ା ହିଲ୍ୱାତାତ୍ ।
| و دیگر اگر از کهانت لاوی، کمال حاصل میشد (زیرا قوم شریعت را بر آن یافتند)، باز چه احتیاج میبود که کاهنی دیگر بر رتبه ملکیصدق مبعوث شود و مذکور شود که بر رتبه هارون نیست؟ |
| پنجم، اگر کهانت لاویان که بر پایۀ شریعت بود، میتوانست انسان را به کمال برساند، دیگر چه نیازی بود که کاهنی دیگر که همانند مِلکیصِدِق است و نه همانند لاویان و هارون، ظهور کند؟ |
Kulawirana na utambika wa Walawi, wantu wa Israeli wapananitwi Malagaliru. Vinu handa utambika wa Walawi meuweri ndiri na likosa, meuweri ndiri kayi mafiliru ga kulawira utambika umonga wa ntambu yingi, uwera ndiri gambira utambika wa Aruni kumbiti uwera gambira utambika wa Melikizedeki.
Ari, ma dodok en samero Lewi unsokela — pwe i ansau irail aleer kapung o — da katepan amen samero en pwarado ni al en Melkisedek, a kaidin ni al en Aron?
Ari, ma dodok en jamero Lewi unjokela pwe i anjau irail aleer kapun o da katepan amen jamero en pwarado ni al en Melkijedek, a kaidin ni al en Aron?
A przetoż byłali doskonałość przez kapłaństwo lewickie, (gdyż za niego wydany jest zakon ludowi), jakaż tego jeszcze była potrzeba, aby inszy kapłan według porządku Melchisedekowego powstał, a nie był według porządku Aaronowego mianowany?
Zgodnie z Prawem Mojżesza, kapłanami mogą być ci, którzy pochodzą z rodu Lewiego. Jeśli jednak tacy kapłani mogliby w doskonały sposób wypełniać Bożą wolę, to w jakim celu Bóg posyłałby innego kapłana, przypominającego Melchizedeka i niebędącego potomkiem Aarona?
Gdyby więc doskonałość była [osiągalna] przez kapłaństwo lewickie – gdyż lud otrzymał prawo oparte na nim – to jaka byłaby jeszcze potrzeba, aby pojawił się inny kapłan według porządku Melchizedeka, a nie był mianowany według porządku Aarona?
Portanto, se a perfeição tivesse sido de fato pelo sacerdócio Levítico (pois com base nele o povo recebeu a Lei), que mais necessidade havia de se levantar outro Sacerdote segundo a ordem de Melquisedeque, e não ser chamado segundo a ordem de Arão?
De sorte que, se a perfeição fosse pelo sacerdocio levitico (porque debaixo d'elle o povo recebeu a lei), que necessidade havia logo de que outro sacerdote se levantasse, segundo a ordem de Melchisedec, e não fosse chamado segundo a ordem de Aarão?
De sorte que, se a perfeição fosse pelo sacerdócio levítico (porque debaixo dele o povo recebeu a lei), que necessidade havia logo de que outro sacerdote se levantasse, segundo a ordem de Melchisedec, e não fosse chamado segundo a ordem de Aarão?
[Deus ]deu suas leis ao seu povo na mesma ocasião em que entregou os regulamentos sobre os sacerdotes. Por isso, se aquilo que faziam os sacerdotes descendentes de Levi pudesse ter proporcionado um meio para Deus [perdoar ]integralmente as pessoas [por terem desobedecido a essas leis, ]com certeza não teria sido preciso nenhum outro sacerdote como Melquisedeque./ por que teria sido preciso algum outro sacerdote como Melquisedeque?—[RHQ] Pelo contrário, os sacerdotes descendentes de Arão, [descendente de Levi, teriam sido plenamente satisfatórios.]
Então, se a perfeição tivesse sido alcançada por meio do sacerdócio de Levi, pois foi assim que a lei foi recebida, por que haveria a necessidade de vir outro sacerdote, que seguisse a ordem do sacerdócio de Melquisedeque e, não, a de Arão?
Agora, se a perfeição foi através do sacerdócio levítico (pois sob ele o povo recebeu a lei), que necessidade adicional havia de outro sacerdote surgir após a ordem de Melquisedeque, e não ser chamado após a ordem de Aarão?
Дакэ дар десэвырширя ар фи фост ку путинцэ прин преоция левицилор – кэч суб преоция ачаста а примит попорул Леӂя – че невое май ера сэ се ридиче ун алт преот „дупэ рындуяла луй Мелхиседек”, ши ну дупэ рындуяла луй Аарон?
Și dacă desăvârșirea a fost prin preoția levitică, căci sub ea a primit poporul Legea, ce nevoie mai era ca un alt preot să se ridice după rânduiala lui Melchisedec, și să nu fie chemat după rânduiala lui Aaron?
Leleꞌ Lewi tititi-nonosin nara dadꞌi malangga agama, Lamatuaꞌ pili baꞌi Musa aꞌan Harun, dadꞌi atahori kaesan mana dadꞌi malangga agama monaeꞌ mana sia ataꞌ lenaꞌ. Malangga agama ra ue-tataon nara, naeni ratudꞌu dalaꞌ fo atahori rasodꞌa no ndoo-tetuꞌ, ma malole ro Lamatuaꞌ. Mae sira tao tungga basa hohoro-lalaneꞌ fo Musaꞌ simboꞌ ra o, malangga agama onaꞌ Harun nda bisa tao nameu se no matetuꞌ sa. Naa de ara parlu malangga agama laen, mana onaꞌ Melkisedek.
Итак, если бы совершенство достигалось посредством левитского священства, - и с ним сопряжен закон народа, - то какая бы еще нужда была восставать иному священнику по чину Мелхиседека, а не по чину Аарона именоваться?
Eshi nkashe whawezehene ashilile wakuhani wa Lawi, (pansiyakwe abhantu bhaposhela endajizyo), whali awhanzeshi sana whakuhani owenje abhoshe yali mfano wa Melkizedeki, sio akwiziwe apanjilile wa Haruni?
Israel mingei kôm han levirûi ochai nina nuoia Balam pêk ani. Atûn, ha ngei sintho hah achukphar aninte, Aaron anga niloiin Melchizedek anga ochai dang hon lang rang ite anângna omak.
aparaM yasya sambandhe lokA vyavasthAM labdhavantastena levIyayAjakavargeNa yadi siddhiH samabhaviSyat tarhi hAroNasya zreNyA madhyAd yAjakaM na nirUpyezvareNa malkISedakaH zreNyA madhyAd aparasyaikasya yAjakasyotthApanaM kuta Avazyakam abhaviSyat?
অপৰং যস্য সম্বন্ধে লোকা ৱ্যৱস্থাং লব্ধৱন্তস্তেন লেৱীযযাজকৱৰ্গেণ যদি সিদ্ধিঃ সমভৱিষ্যৎ তৰ্হি হাৰোণস্য শ্ৰেণ্যা মধ্যাদ্ যাজকং ন নিৰূপ্যেশ্ৱৰেণ মল্কীষেদকঃ শ্ৰেণ্যা মধ্যাদ্ অপৰস্যৈকস্য যাজকস্যোত্থাপনং কুত আৱশ্যকম্ অভৱিষ্যৎ?
অপরং যস্য সম্বন্ধে লোকা ৱ্যৱস্থাং লব্ধৱন্তস্তেন লেৱীযযাজকৱর্গেণ যদি সিদ্ধিঃ সমভৱিষ্যৎ তর্হি হারোণস্য শ্রেণ্যা মধ্যাদ্ যাজকং ন নিরূপ্যেশ্ৱরেণ মল্কীষেদকঃ শ্রেণ্যা মধ্যাদ্ অপরস্যৈকস্য যাজকস্যোত্থাপনং কুত আৱশ্যকম্ অভৱিষ্যৎ?
အပရံ ယသျ သမ္ဗန္ဓေ လောကာ ဝျဝသ္ထာံ လဗ္ဓဝန္တသ္တေန လေဝီယယာဇကဝရ္ဂေဏ ယဒိ သိဒ္ဓိး သမဘဝိၐျတ် တရှိ ဟာရောဏသျ ၑြေဏျာ မဓျာဒ် ယာဇကံ န နိရူပျေၑွရေဏ မလ္ကီၐေဒကး ၑြေဏျာ မဓျာဒ် အပရသျဲကသျ ယာဇကသျောတ္ထာပနံ ကုတ အာဝၑျကမ် အဘဝိၐျတ်?
aparaM yasya sambandhE lOkA vyavasthAM labdhavantastEna lEvIyayAjakavargENa yadi siddhiH samabhaviSyat tarhi hArONasya zrENyA madhyAd yAjakaM na nirUpyEzvarENa malkISEdakaH zrENyA madhyAd aparasyaikasya yAjakasyOtthApanaM kuta Avazyakam abhaviSyat?
अपरं यस्य सम्बन्धे लोका व्यवस्थां लब्धवन्तस्तेन लेवीययाजकवर्गेण यदि सिद्धिः समभविष्यत् तर्हि हारोणस्य श्रेण्या मध्याद् याजकं न निरूप्येश्वरेण मल्कीषेदकः श्रेण्या मध्याद् अपरस्यैकस्य याजकस्योत्थापनं कुत आवश्यकम् अभविष्यत्?
અપરં યસ્ય સમ્બન્ધે લોકા વ્યવસ્થાં લબ્ધવન્તસ્તેન લેવીયયાજકવર્ગેણ યદિ સિદ્ધિઃ સમભવિષ્યત્ તર્હિ હારોણસ્ય શ્રેણ્યા મધ્યાદ્ યાજકં ન નિરૂપ્યેશ્વરેણ મલ્કીષેદકઃ શ્રેણ્યા મધ્યાદ્ અપરસ્યૈકસ્ય યાજકસ્યોત્થાપનં કુત આવશ્યકમ્ અભવિષ્યત્?
aparaṁ yasya sambandhe lokā vyavasthāṁ labdhavantastena levīyayājakavargeṇa yadi siddhiḥ samabhaviṣyat tarhi hāroṇasya śreṇyā madhyād yājakaṁ na nirūpyeśvareṇa malkīṣedakaḥ śreṇyā madhyād aparasyaikasya yājakasyotthāpanaṁ kuta āvaśyakam abhaviṣyat?
aparaṁ yasya sambandhē lōkā vyavasthāṁ labdhavantastēna lēvīyayājakavargēṇa yadi siddhiḥ samabhaviṣyat tarhi hārōṇasya śrēṇyā madhyād yājakaṁ na nirūpyēśvarēṇa malkīṣēdakaḥ śrēṇyā madhyād aparasyaikasya yājakasyōtthāpanaṁ kuta āvaśyakam abhaviṣyat?
aparaM yasya sambandhe lokA vyavasthAM labdhavantastena levIyayAjakavargeNa yadi siddhiH samabhaviShyat tarhi hAroNasya shreNyA madhyAd yAjakaM na nirUpyeshvareNa malkIShedakaH shreNyA madhyAd aparasyaikasya yAjakasyotthApanaM kuta Avashyakam abhaviShyat?
ಅಪರಂ ಯಸ್ಯ ಸಮ್ಬನ್ಧೇ ಲೋಕಾ ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥಾಂ ಲಬ್ಧವನ್ತಸ್ತೇನ ಲೇವೀಯಯಾಜಕವರ್ಗೇಣ ಯದಿ ಸಿದ್ಧಿಃ ಸಮಭವಿಷ್ಯತ್ ತರ್ಹಿ ಹಾರೋಣಸ್ಯ ಶ್ರೇಣ್ಯಾ ಮಧ್ಯಾದ್ ಯಾಜಕಂ ನ ನಿರೂಪ್ಯೇಶ್ವರೇಣ ಮಲ್ಕೀಷೇದಕಃ ಶ್ರೇಣ್ಯಾ ಮಧ್ಯಾದ್ ಅಪರಸ್ಯೈಕಸ್ಯ ಯಾಜಕಸ್ಯೋತ್ಥಾಪನಂ ಕುತ ಆವಶ್ಯಕಮ್ ಅಭವಿಷ್ಯತ್?
អបរំ យស្យ សម្ពន្ធេ លោកា វ្យវស្ថាំ លព្ធវន្តស្តេន លេវីយយាជកវគ៌េណ យទិ សិទ្ធិះ សមភវិឞ្យត៑ តហ៌ិ ហារោណស្យ ឝ្រេណ្យា មធ្យាទ៑ យាជកំ ន និរូប្យេឝ្វរេណ មល្កីឞេទកះ ឝ្រេណ្យា មធ្យាទ៑ អបរស្យៃកស្យ យាជកស្យោត្ថាបនំ កុត អាវឝ្យកម៑ អភវិឞ្យត៑?
അപരം യസ്യ സമ്ബന്ധേ ലോകാ വ്യവസ്ഥാം ലബ്ധവന്തസ്തേന ലേവീയയാജകവർഗേണ യദി സിദ്ധിഃ സമഭവിഷ്യത് തർഹി ഹാരോണസ്യ ശ്രേണ്യാ മധ്യാദ് യാജകം ന നിരൂപ്യേശ്വരേണ മൽകീഷേദകഃ ശ്രേണ്യാ മധ്യാദ് അപരസ്യൈകസ്യ യാജകസ്യോത്ഥാപനം കുത ആവശ്യകമ് അഭവിഷ്യത്?
ଅପରଂ ଯସ୍ୟ ସମ୍ବନ୍ଧେ ଲୋକା ୱ୍ୟୱସ୍ଥାଂ ଲବ୍ଧୱନ୍ତସ୍ତେନ ଲେୱୀଯଯାଜକୱର୍ଗେଣ ଯଦି ସିଦ୍ଧିଃ ସମଭୱିଷ୍ୟତ୍ ତର୍ହି ହାରୋଣସ୍ୟ ଶ୍ରେଣ୍ୟା ମଧ୍ୟାଦ୍ ଯାଜକଂ ନ ନିରୂପ୍ୟେଶ୍ୱରେଣ ମଲ୍କୀଷେଦକଃ ଶ୍ରେଣ୍ୟା ମଧ୍ୟାଦ୍ ଅପରସ୍ୟୈକସ୍ୟ ଯାଜକସ୍ୟୋତ୍ଥାପନଂ କୁତ ଆୱଶ୍ୟକମ୍ ଅଭୱିଷ୍ୟତ୍?
ਅਪਰੰ ਯਸ੍ਯ ਸਮ੍ਬਨ੍ਧੇ ਲੋਕਾ ਵ੍ਯਵਸ੍ਥਾਂ ਲਬ੍ਧਵਨ੍ਤਸ੍ਤੇਨ ਲੇਵੀਯਯਾਜਕਵਰ੍ਗੇਣ ਯਦਿ ਸਿੱਧਿਃ ਸਮਭਵਿਸ਼਼੍ਯਤ੍ ਤਰ੍ਹਿ ਹਾਰੋਣਸ੍ਯ ਸ਼੍ਰੇਣ੍ਯਾ ਮਧ੍ਯਾਦ੍ ਯਾਜਕੰ ਨ ਨਿਰੂਪ੍ਯੇਸ਼੍ਵਰੇਣ ਮਲ੍ਕੀਸ਼਼ੇਦਕਃ ਸ਼੍ਰੇਣ੍ਯਾ ਮਧ੍ਯਾਦ੍ ਅਪਰਸ੍ਯੈਕਸ੍ਯ ਯਾਜਕਸ੍ਯੋੱਥਾਪਨੰ ਕੁਤ ਆਵਸ਼੍ਯਕਮ੍ ਅਭਵਿਸ਼਼੍ਯਤ੍?
අපරං යස්ය සම්බන්ධේ ලෝකා ව්යවස්ථාං ලබ්ධවන්තස්තේන ලේවීයයාජකවර්ගේණ යදි සිද්ධිඃ සමභවිෂ්යත් තර්හි හාරෝණස්ය ශ්රේණ්යා මධ්යාද් යාජකං න නිරූප්යේශ්වරේණ මල්කීෂේදකඃ ශ්රේණ්යා මධ්යාද් අපරස්යෛකස්ය යාජකස්යෝත්ථාපනං කුත ආවශ්යකම් අභවිෂ්යත්?
அபரம்’ யஸ்ய ஸம்ப³ந்தே⁴ லோகா வ்யவஸ்தா²ம்’ லப்³த⁴வந்தஸ்தேந லேவீயயாஜகவர்கே³ண யதி³ ஸித்³தி⁴: ஸமப⁴விஷ்யத் தர்ஹி ஹாரோணஸ்ய ஸ்²ரேண்யா மத்⁴யாத்³ யாஜகம்’ ந நிரூப்யேஸ்²வரேண மல்கீஷேத³க: ஸ்²ரேண்யா மத்⁴யாத்³ அபரஸ்யைகஸ்ய யாஜகஸ்யோத்தா²பநம்’ குத ஆவஸ்²யகம் அப⁴விஷ்யத்?
అపరం యస్య సమ్బన్ధే లోకా వ్యవస్థాం లబ్ధవన్తస్తేన లేవీయయాజకవర్గేణ యది సిద్ధిః సమభవిష్యత్ తర్హి హారోణస్య శ్రేణ్యా మధ్యాద్ యాజకం న నిరూప్యేశ్వరేణ మల్కీషేదకః శ్రేణ్యా మధ్యాద్ అపరస్యైకస్య యాజకస్యోత్థాపనం కుత ఆవశ్యకమ్ అభవిష్యత్?
อปรํ ยสฺย สมฺพนฺเธ โลกา วฺยวสฺถำ ลพฺธวนฺตเสฺตน เลวียยาชกวรฺเคณ ยทิ สิทฺธิ: สมภวิษฺยตฺ ตรฺหิ หาโรณสฺย เศฺรณฺยา มธฺยาทฺ ยาชกํ น นิรูเปฺยศฺวเรณ มลฺกีเษทก: เศฺรณฺยา มธฺยาทฺ อปรไสฺยกสฺย ยาชกโสฺยตฺถาปนํ กุต อาวศฺยกมฺ อภวิษฺยตฺ?
ཨཔརཾ ཡསྱ སམྦནྡྷེ ལོཀཱ ཝྱཝསྠཱཾ ལབྡྷཝནྟསྟེན ལེཝཱིཡཡཱཛཀཝརྒེཎ ཡདི སིདྡྷིཿ སམབྷཝིཥྱཏ྄ ཏརྷི ཧཱརོཎསྱ ཤྲེཎྱཱ མདྷྱཱད྄ ཡཱཛཀཾ ན ནིརཱུཔྱེཤྭརེཎ མལྐཱིཥེདཀཿ ཤྲེཎྱཱ མདྷྱཱད྄ ཨཔརསྱཻཀསྱ ཡཱཛཀསྱོཏྠཱཔནཾ ཀུཏ ཨཱཝཤྱཀམ྄ ཨབྷཝིཥྱཏ྄?
| اَپَرَں یَسْیَ سَمْبَنْدھے لوکا وْیَوَسْتھاں لَبْدھَوَنْتَسْتینَ لیوِییَیاجَکَوَرْگینَ یَدِ سِدّھِح سَمَبھَوِشْیَتْ تَرْہِ ہارونَسْیَ شْرینْیا مَدھْیادْ یاجَکَں نَ نِرُوپْییشْوَرینَ مَلْکِیشیدَکَح شْرینْیا مَدھْیادْ اَپَرَسْیَیکَسْیَ یاجَکَسْیوتّھاپَنَں کُتَ آوَشْیَکَمْ اَبھَوِشْیَتْ؟ |
apara. m yasya sambandhe lokaa vyavasthaa. m labdhavantastena leviiyayaajakavarge. na yadi siddhi. h samabhavi. syat tarhi haaro. nasya "sre. nyaa madhyaad yaajaka. m na niruupye"svare. na malkii. sedaka. h "sre. nyaa madhyaad aparasyaikasya yaajakasyotthaapana. m kuta aava"syakam abhavi. syat?
Ако је, дакле, савршенство постало кроз левитско свештенство (јер је народ под њим закон примио), каква је још потреба била говорити да ће други свештеник постати по реду Мелхиседековом, а не по реду Ароновом?
Ako je dakle savršenstvo postalo kroz Levitsko sveštenstvo jer je narod pod njim zakon primio kaka je još potreba bila govoriti da æe drugi sveštenik postati po redu Melhisedekovu a ne po redu Aronovu?
Fa e le gore baperesiti ba Sejuta le melao ya bone ba ne ba na le nonofo ya go re boloka, ke eng jaanong fa Modimo o ne wa bona go tshwanetse gore o rome Keresete e le moperesiti yo o lekanang le Melekisedeke ka maemo, go na le gore o rome mongwe yo o lekanang le Arone ka maemo, a e leng gore baperesiti botlhe ba bangwe ba ne ba na nao?
Naizvozvo, kana kupedzeredzwa kwaivapo neupristi hwaRevhi (nokuti pasi pahwo vanhu rwakapiwa murairo), ko umwe mupristi waifanira kuzomukirei kubva kurudzi rwaMerikizedheki, uye asingaidzwi werudzi rwaAroni?
Kana kukwaniswa kwaigona kuvapo nenzira youprista hwaRevhi (nokuti vanhu vakapiwa murayiro nokuda kwahwo), ko, mumwe muprista aifanira kuzomuka sei, iye ari worudzi rwaMerikizedheki, asiri worudzi rwaAroni?
Аще убо совершенство левитским священством было, людие бо на нем взаконени быша: кая еще потреба по чину Мелхиседекову иному востати священнику, а не по чину Ааронову глаголатися?
Če je bila torej popolnost po Lévijevem duhovništvu (kajti pod njim so ljudje prejeli postavo), kakšna je bila nadaljnja potreba, da bi nastopil drug duhovnik po Melkízedekovem redu in ne bi bil imenovan po Aronovem redu?
Če je bilo torej popolnjenje po Levijevem duhovništvu (ljudstvo namreč je na njegovi podlogi postavo prejelo), kaj še treba, da, "po redu Melhizedekovem" vstane drug duhovnik in se ne imenuje po redu Aronovem?
Pabushimilumbo bwa Balevi epalikuba pebakwa Milawo ya Lesa njalapa Baislayeli. Lino nekwalikubeti ncito ya beshimilumbo yalikuba yelela kwine, nshinga nekwalabula kuyandiketi shimilumbo naumbi ese, uyo lafumunga mu bushimilumbo bwa Melekizedeki, bwabula kuba bwa Aloni.
Haddaba haddii kaamilnimo ku jirtay wadaadnimadii Laawi, waayo, iyada ayuu dadku sharciga ka hoos helaye, maxaa weli loogu baahnaa in wadaad kale ka kaco derejadii Malkisadaq oo aan lagu magacaabin derejadii Haaruun?
Pues si la perfección era por el sacerdocio levítico (porque bajo él recibió el pueblo la Ley) ¿qué necesidad había aún de que se levantase otro sacerdote según el orden de Melquisedec, y que no fuese llamado según el orden de Aarón?
Ahora, si hubiera sido posible lograr la perfección por el sacerdocio de Leví (pues así fue como se recibió la ley), ¿Por qué había necesidad de otro sacerdote que siguiera el orden de Melquisedec, y no del orden de Aarón?
Ahora bien, si la perfección fue por medio del sacerdocio levítico (porque bajo él el pueblo ha recibido la ley), ¿qué necesidad había de que se levantara otro sacerdote según el orden de Melquisedec, y no fuera llamado según el orden de Aarón?
Así que, si [la] perfección fuera por medio del sacerdocio levítico, porque basado en él, el pueblo recibió [la] Ley, ¿qué necesidad había aún de que se levantara otro sacerdote según el orden de Melquisedec, y que no fuera nombrado según el orden de Aarón?
Si, pues, la perfección se hubiera dado por medio del sacerdocio levítico, ya que bajo él recibió el pueblo la Ley ¿qué necesidad aún de que se levantase otro sacerdote según el orden de Melquisedec y que no se denominase según el orden de Aarón?
Si pues la perfección era por el sacerdocio Levítico, (porque debajo de él recibió el pueblo la ley, ) ¿qué necesidad había aun de que se levantase otro sacerdote según el orden de Melquisedec, y que no se dijese según el orden de Aarón?
Si pues la perfección era por el sacerdocio Levítico (porque debajo de él recibió el pueblo la ley) ¿qué necesidad [había] aún de que se levantase otro sacerdote según el orden de Melchîsedec, y que no fuese llamado según el orden de Aarón?
Pues si la perfeccion era por el sacerdocio Levítico (porque debajo de él recibió el pueblo la ley) ¿qué necesidad [habia] aun de que se levantase otro sacerdote segun el órden de Melchisedech, y que no fuese llamado segun el ó rden de Aaron?
Ahora bien, si era posible que las cosas se perfeccionan por medio de los sacerdotes de la casa de Leví (porque la ley se le dio a las personas en relación con ellos), ¿qué necesidad había de otro sacerdote que era del orden de Melquisedec y no del orden de Aarón?
Sasa kama ukamilifu uliwezekana kupitia ukuhani wa Lawi, (hivyo chini yake watu hupokea sheria), kulikuwa na hitaji gani zaidi kwa kuhani mwingine kuinuka baada ya mfumo wa Melkizedeki, na siyo kuitwa baada ya mpangilio wa Haruni?
Kutokana na ukuhani wa Walawi, watu wa Israeli walipewa Sheria. Sasa, kama huduma ya Walawi ingalikuwa kamilifu hapangekuwa tena na haja ya kutokea ukuhani mwingine tofauti, ukuhani ambao umefuata utaratibu wa ukuhani wa Melkisedeki, na si ule wa Aroni.
Kama ukamilifu ungeweza kupatikana kwa njia ya ukuhani wa Walawi (kwa kuwa katika msingi huo, sheria ilitolewa kwa watu), kwa nini basi imekuwepo haja ya kuja kuhani mwingine: kuhani kwa mfano wa Melkizedeki, wala si kwa mfano wa Aroni?
Vore det nu så, att fullkomning kunde vinnas genom det levitiska prästadömet -- och på detta var ju folkets lagstiftning byggd -- varför hade det då behövts att en präst av annat slag, "efter Melkisedeks sätt", skulle uppstå, en som icke nämnes "efter Arons sätt"?
Är nu fullkomlighet skedd genom det Levitiska Presterskapet, ty derunder fick folket lagen; hvad behöfde sägas, att en annar Prest uppkomma skulle, efter Melchisedeks sätt, och icke efter Aarons sätt?
Vore det nu så, att fullkomning kunde vinnas genom det levitiska prästadömet -- och på detta var ju folkets lagstiftning byggd -- varför hade det då behövts att en präst av annat slag, »efter Melkisedeks sätt», skulle uppstå, en som icke nämnes »efter Arons sätt»?
Ngayon kung may kasakdalan nga sa pamamagitan ng pagkasaserdote ng mga Levita (sapagka't sa ilalim nito ay tinanggap ng bayan ang kautusan), anong kailangan pa na magbangon ang ibang saserdote, ayon sa pagkasaserdote ni Melquisedec at hindi ibilang ayon sa pagkasaserdote ni Aaron?
Ngayon kung ang pagiging ganap ay maaari nang makamtan sa pamamagitan ng pagiging pari ng mga Levita (sapagkat sa ilalim nito ang mga tao ay tumanggap ng kautusan), ano pa ang kailangan para sa isang pari na lumitaw ayon sa pagkapari ni Melquisedec, at hindi mapangalanan ayon sa pagkapari ni Aaron?
Lebi vdwgv nyibu buli lokv Israel nyi vdwa Pvbv nga jitoku. Vjak, Lebi vdw gvlokv nyibubv rila rinamlo jvjvbv rvbwng nvgobolo, hv Aaron gvbv mimabv, Pvbv gv lvlam ha manv Melkijedek gv buli lokv angusinv nvgwngnv nyibu go kaatamla daklwk dubv dinchi madunvpv.
அல்லாமலும், இஸ்ரவேல் மக்கள் லேவி கோத்திர ஆசாரிய முறைமைக்கு உட்பட்டிருந்துதான் நியாயப்பிரமாணத்தைப் பெற்றார்கள்; அந்த ஆசாரியமுறைமையினாலே பூரணப்படுதல் உண்டாயிருக்குமானால், ஆரோனுடைய முறைமையின்படி அழைக்கப்படாமல், மெல்கிசேதேக்குடைய முறைமையின்படி அழைக்கப்பட்ட வேறொரு ஆசாரியர் எழும்பவேண்டியது என்ன?
லேவியரின் ஆசாரிய முறையின் அடிப்படையிலேயே, மோசேயின் சட்டம் இஸ்ரயேல் மக்களுக்குக் கொடுக்கப்பட்டது. லேவிய ஆசாரியன் முறையின் மூலமாகவே பூரண நிலையை அடையக்கூடியதாக இருந்திருந்தால், வேறொரு ஆசாரியன் வரவேண்டிய அவசியம் ஏன் ஏற்பட்டது? ஆரோனுடைய முறையில் இல்லாது, மெல்கிசேதேக்கின் முறையின்படி, ஒரு ஆசாரியமுறை ஏன் ஏற்படுத்தப்பட்டது?
లేవీయులు యాజకులై ఉన్నప్పుడే దేవుడు వారికి ధర్మశాస్త్రాన్ని ఇచ్చాడు. కాబట్టి ఒకవేళ ఆ యాజక వ్యవస్థ వల్లనే పరిపూర్ణత కలిగిందీ అనుకుంటే లేవీయుడైన అహరోను క్రమంలో కాకుండా మెల్కీసెదెకు క్రమంలో వేరే యాజకుడు రావలసిన అవసరమేంటి?
Ko ia ka ne ai ha haohaoa ʻi he kau taulaʻeiki ʻoe faʻahinga ʻo Livai, (he naʻe maʻu ai ʻe he kakai ʻae fono, ) ko e hā hono ʻaonga ʻoe fokotuʻu mo e taulaʻeiki ʻe taha ʻi he lakanga ʻo Melekiseteki, kae ʻikai ui ʻi he lakanga ʻo ʻElone?
Eğer Levililer'in kâhinliği aracılığıyla yetkinliğe erişilebilseydi –nitekim Kutsal Yasa bu kâhinliği öngörerek halka verildi– Harun düzenine göre değil de, Melkisedek düzenine göre başka bir kâhinin gelmesinden söz etmeye ne gerek kalırdı?
Esiane Lewi asɔfodi nti na wɔde Mmara no maa Israelfo. Ɛno nti sɛ Lewifo asɔfodi no tumi de pɛyɛ brɛ nnipa a, anka ho nhia sɛ wɔbɛfa ɔsɔfo foforo bi sɛ Melkisedek a omfi Aaron abusua mu.
Ɛnam Lewi asɔfodie so enti na wɔde Mmara no maa Israelfoɔ. Ɛno enti sɛ Lewifoɔ asɔfodie no tumi de pɛyɛ brɛ nnipa a, anka ɛho nhia sɛ wɔbɛfa ɔsɔfoɔ foforɔ bi sɛ Melkisedek a ɔmfiri Aaron abusua mu.
Якби досконалості можна було досягти через священство Левія (адже воно було частиною Закону, який був даний народу), то чому мав з’явитися інший Священник, за чином Мельхіседека, а не за чином Аарона?
Отож, коли б досконалість була через свяще́нство леви́тське, — бо люди Зако́на оде́ржали з ним, — то яка ще потреба була, щоб Інший Священик повстав за чином Мелхиседе́ковим, а не зватися за чином Ааро́новим?
Коли ж звершеннє було через Левійське сьвященствб (бо під ним люде озаконені стались), то яка ж іще потреба иншому встати сьвященикові по чину Мелхиседековому, а не по чину Аароновому звати ся?
अगर लावी की कहानित (जिस पर शरी'अत मुन्हसिर थी) कामिलियत पैदा कर सकती तो फिर एक और क़िस्म के इमाम की क्या ज़रूरत होती, उस की जो हारून जैसा न हो बल्कि मलिक — ए — सिद्क़ जैसा?
| ئەمدى لاۋىي قەبىلىسىنىڭ كاھىنلىق تۈزۈمى ئارقىلىق مۇكەممەل ھەققانىيلىق كېلەلەيدىغان بولسا (چۈنكى شۇ تۈزۈمگە ئاساسلىنىپ تەۋرات قانۇنى ئىسرائىل خەلقىگە چۈشۈرۈلگەنىدى)، كېيىنكى ۋاقىتلاردا ھارۇننىڭ كاھىنلىق تۈزۈمى بويىچە ئەمەس، بەلكى مەلكىزەدەكنىڭ كاھىنلىق تۈزۈمى بويىچە باشقا بىر كاھىننىڭ چىقىشىنىڭ نېمە ھاجىتى بولاتتى؟ |
Әнди Лавий қәбилисиниң каһинлиқ түзүми арқилиқ мукәммәл һәққанийлиқ келәләйдиған болса (чүнки шу түзүмгә асаслинип Тәврат қануни Исраил хәлқигә чүшүрүлгән еди), кейинки вақитларда Һарунниң каһинлиқ түзүми бойичә әмәс, бәлки Мәлкизәдәкниң каһинлиқ түзүми бойичә башқа бир каһинниң чиқишиниң немә һаҗити болатти?
Emdi Lawiy qebilisining kahinliq tüzümi arqiliq mukemmel heqqaniyliq kéleleydighan bolsa (chünki shu tüzümge asaslinip Tewrat qanuni Israil xelqige chüshürülgenidi), kéyinki waqitlarda Harunning kahinliq tüzümi boyiche emes, belki Melkizedekning kahinliq tüzümi boyiche bashqa bir kahinning chiqishining néme hajiti bolatti?
Əmdi Lawiy ⱪǝbilisining kaⱨinliⱪ tüzümi arⱪiliⱪ mukǝmmǝl ⱨǝⱪⱪaniyliⱪ kelǝlǝydiƣan bolsa (qünki xu tüzümgǝ asaslinip Tǝwrat ⱪanuni Israil hǝlⱪigǝ qüxürülgǝnidi), keyinki waⱪitlarda Ⱨarunning kaⱨinliⱪ tüzümi boyiqǝ ǝmǝs, bǝlki Mǝlkizǝdǝkning kaⱨinliⱪ tüzümi boyiqǝ baxⱪa bir kaⱨinning qiⱪixining nemǝ ⱨajiti bolatti?
Nếu có thể được sự trọn vẹn bởi chức tế lễ của người Lê-vi (vì luật pháp ban cho dân đang khi còn dưới quyền chức tế lễ), thì cớ sao còn cần phải dấy lên một thầy tế lễ khác, lập theo ban Mên-chi-xê-đéc, không theo ban A-rôn?
Nếu có thể được sự trọn vẹn bởi chức tế lễ của người Lê-vi (vì luật pháp ban cho dân đang khi còn dưới quyền chức tế lễ), thì cớ sao còn cần phải dấy lên một thầy tế lễ khác, lập theo ban Mên-chi-xê-đéc, không theo ban A-rôn?
Nếu công việc của các thầy tế lễ dòng họ Lê-vi đã hoàn hảo và có thể cứu rỗi chúng ta, sao phải cần một thầy tế lễ khác, theo dòng Mên-chi-xê-đéc chứ không theo dòng A-rôn, họ Lê-vi? Luật pháp ban hành cho người Do Thái được xây dựng trên chức quyền của thầy tế lễ.
Lino ndavule uvukwilani lukaghwesisie kukila kwa n'tekesi u Lawi, (pa uluo pasi pa mwene avanu vikupila indaghilo), kulyale nuvufumbue vuliku kukila kwa ntekesi ujunge kukwima pa mbele pa kihwanikisio ikya Melikizedeki, kenge na kwekukemelua mufupinyua fya Haruni?
Enati diluaku didi mu ba wufuana mu nzila yi kinganga ki ba Levi, bila mu kiawu batu bavanunu Mina, buna mfunu mbi widi mu buela bieka diaka nganga Nzambi yinkaka mu ntanda wu Meleshisedeki vayi kasia bieko ko boso buididi Aloni e?
Ǹjẹ́ ìbá ṣe pé pípé ń bẹ nípa oyè àlùfáà Lefi (nítorí pé lábẹ́ rẹ̀ ni àwọn ènìyàn gba òfin), kín ni ó sì tún kù mọ́ tí àlùfáà mìíràn ìbá fi dìde ní títẹ̀lé àpẹẹrẹ tí Melkisedeki, tí a kò si wí pé ní títẹ̀lé àpẹẹrẹ tí Aaroni?
Verse Count = 333
