Corrupted Translation?

[Van]

Here are some of the modern translations of Luke 1:37:
ESV - For nothing will be impossible with God.”
NASB - “For nothing will be impossible with God.”
NIV - For no word from God will ever fail.”

Or

Nothing with every declaration of God will be impossible.

The question is how did the text get altered to say nothing will be impossible with God, rather than nothing God declares will be impossible?

Here are the modern translations that present the actual idea:
NIV, NLT, BSB, ASV, D-RB, ERV, WNT, and WEB. All the rest present an alternate idea.

If you take the meaning of "rhema" as "thing", then every "rhema" (declaration) becomes "every thing."

 

[37818]

@Van,
Look at broad way in which ρημα is being translated. There is your is answer. I wondered the same thing.

 

[Van]

@Van,
Look at broad way in which ρημα [rhema] is being translated. There is your is answer. I wondered the same thing.

Every "thing" corrupts the message, expanding it way beyond the intended scope. We are not looking for the "broad" way but for the narrow way that leads to life.

 

[Mikoo]

Here are some of the modern translations of Luke 1:37:
ESV - For nothing will be impossible with God.”
NASB - “For nothing will be impossible with God.”
NIV - For no word from God will ever fail.”

Or

Nothing with every declaration of God will be impossible.

The question is how did the text get altered to say nothing will be impossible with God, rather than nothing God declares will be impossible?

Here are the modern translations that present the actual idea:
NIV, NLT, BSB, ASV, D-RB, ERV, WNT, and WEB. All the rest present an alternate idea.

If you take the meaning of "rhema" as "thing", then every "rhema" (declaration) becomes "every thing."

KJV - 37 'For with God nothing shall be impossible.' (No footnotes)
YLT - 37 'because nothing shall be impossible with God.' (No footnotes)
NASB95 - 37 “For (a)nothing will be impossible with God.” (Footnote - Luke 1:37 Lit not any word)

 

[Van]

KJV - 37 'For with God nothing shall be impossible.' (No footnotes)
YLT - 37 'because nothing shall be impossible with God.' (No footnotes)
NASB95 - 37 “For (a)nothing will be impossible with God.” (Footnote - Luke 1:37 Lit not any word)

Hi Mikoo,

The KJV translates "no declaration" as "nothing."
YLT translates "no declaration as "nothing."
NASB95 footnotes "nothing" as literally "not any word."

But if we consider the context, this sentence addresses the fact (Luke 1:13) that God had declared Elizabeth would give birth even though she was beyond the normal age for conception.

So "Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren because no declaration of God is impossible, and God had declared she would conceive in Luke 1:13..

 

[37818]

Every "thing" corrupts the message, expanding it way beyond the intended scope. We are not looking for the "broad" way but for the narrow way that leads to life.

It is not just one reference. But at least all 4 places.

 

[canadyjd]

Here are some of the modern translations of Luke 1:37:
ESV - For nothing will be impossible with God.”
NASB - “For nothing will be impossible with God.”
NIV - For no word from God will ever fail.”

Or

Nothing with every declaration of God will be impossible.

The question is how did the text get altered to say nothing will be impossible with God, rather than nothing God declares will be impossible?

Here are the modern translations that present the actual idea:
NIV, NLT, BSB, ASV, D-RB, ERV, WNT, and WEB. All the rest present an alternate idea.

If you take the meaning of "rhema" as "thing", then every "rhema" (declaration) becomes "every thing."

So, just to be clear, you are saying God did not intend for us to believe nothing is impossible for Him to accomplish (a broad statement) but a very limited idea that nothing that God has declared will be impossible?

Well, OK, if that is the context of the verse.

My question is…. Is there really any difference between saying “nothing is impossible with God” and saying “nothing God has declared is impossible”?

They are both true statements, aren’t they?

Exactly how is a believers understanding of God’s power and ability “corrupted” by the first statement?

peace to you

 

[Van]

It is not just one reference. But at least all 4 places.

Right, every place "rhema" is translated as "thing" is a poor translation and when coupled with a positive (any, all, every) or negative (nothing, no thing) the resulting expansion is a corruption.

 

[canadyjd]

Right, every place "rhema" is translated as "thing" is a poor translation and when coupled with a positive (any, all, every) or negative (nothing, no thing) the resulting expansion is a corruption.

Is there a difference between saying “Nothing is impossible with God” and “nothing God has declared is impossible”?

As far as understanding that God has the authority and power to do whatever He wants, doesn’t both statements mean the same thing?

peace to you

 

[Van]

Is there a difference between saying “Nothing is impossible with God” and “nothing God has declared is impossible”?

As far as understanding that God has the authority and power to do whatever He wants, doesn’t both statements mean the same thing?

peace to you

No, both statements do not mean the same thing. Full Stop.

We should understand what scripture actually says, not what we could read into it if we had an agenda.

Scripture does not say Nothing is impossible with God, but it does say what ever God says He will do, He can and will do it.

Having the power and authority to do something in no way suggests God has chosen to do it. I could say God has put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. You say wait a minute. And I say, show me in scripture where it says God does not have the power and authority to do it!!!

 

[canadyjd]

No, both statements do not mean the same thing. Full Stop.

We should understand what scripture actually says, not what we could read into it if we had an agenda.

Scripture does not say Nothing is impossible with God, but it does say what ever God says He will do, He can and will do it.

Having the power and authority to do something in no way suggests God has chosen to do it. I could say God has put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. You say wait a minute. And I say, show me in scripture where it says God does not have the power and authority to do it!!!

I am not talking about invisible pink elephants.

In the context of Luke 1:37, how does saying “nothing is impossible with God” different from saying “what God has declared is not impossible”?

I am sincerely attempting to understand what you see as a difference in the context of Luke 1:, that would generate the accusation of corruption.

peace to you

 

[Van]

I am not talking about invisible pink elephants.

In the context of Luke 1:37, how does saying “nothing is impossible with God” different from saying “what God has declared is not impossible”?

I am sincerely attempting to understand what you see as a difference in the context of Luke 1:, that would generate the accusation of corruption.

peace to you

Did I say you were talking about invisible pink elephants? Nope. Please address what I actually say!

You claim "nothing is impossible" does not expand the scope of a claim "no declaration of God is impossible."

Can God change His immutable attributes? After all, nothing is impossible with God.

 

[canadyjd]

Did I say you were talking about invisible pink elephants? Nope. Please address what I actually say!…

….Can God change His immutable attributes? After all, nothing is impossible with God.

First, this is what you said in post#10:

No, both statements do not mean the same thing. Full Stop…..

…. I could say God has put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. You say wait a minute. And I say, show me in scripture where it says God does not have the power and authority to do it!!!

So yes, you were talking about invisible pink elephants.

I will try one more time to get you to clarify and if you can’t answer directly everyone will know you have no answer.

In the context of Luke 1 (not pink elephants, not God’s immutable attributes) how is saying “nothing is impossible with God” different from saying “what God has declared is not impossible”?

peace to you

 

[Van]

First, this is what you said in post#10:

So yes, you were talking about invisible pink elephants.

I will try one more time to get you to clarify and if you can’t answer directly everyone will know you have no answer.

In the context of Luke 1 (not pink elephants, not God’s immutable attributes) how is saying “nothing is impossible with God” different from saying “what God has declared is not impossible”?

peace to you

Did I say you were talking about invisible pink elephants? Nope Stop wasting posts with falsehoods.
I answered your question several times. Why are you wasting posts with falsehoods.

Having the power and authority to do something in no way suggests God has chosen to do it. I could say God has put invisible pink elephants in orbit around Mars. You say wait a minute. And I say, show me in scripture where it says God does not have the power and authority to do it!!!

You claim "nothing is impossible" does not expand the scope of a claim "no declaration of God is impossible."

Scripture does not say Nothing is impossible with God, but it does say what ever God says He will do, He can and will do it.

 

[canadyjd]

Did I say you were talking about invisible pink elephants? Nope Stop wasting posts with falsehoods.
I answered your question several times. Why are you wasting posts with falsehoods.

Ok, no direct answer to my question.

I will leave you with your thread

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

 

[37818]

Is there a difference between saying “Nothing is impossible with God” and “nothing God has declared is impossible”?

God cannot do anything contrary to His nature.

 

[canadyjd]

God cannot do anything contrary to His nature.

God will not do anything contrary to His nature.

peace to you

 

[Van]

Ok, no direct answer to my question.

I will leave you with your thread

Thanks for the conversation

peace to you

Thanks,

 

[Van]

All things, everything, anything, nothing and such expressions leave open the interpretation that more is included then actually intended by God. When you see such terms, look carefully at the immediate context and see if you can determine what things are actually in view. In Luke 1:37, only the statements or declarations (rhema) of God are in view, not everything imaginable.

In 1 Corinthians 2:14, "the things" of the Spirit of God does not refer to all the things, but only the spiritual solid food (meat) things. However a whole false doctrine has been built partially on the erroneous interpretation that the things means all the things.

There are many opportunities for the Bible student of go astray in his or her understanding of the text by inadvertently expanding the intended scope of an ambiguous phrase or word. A question we should all keep in mind is "what is the least God is saying."

For "the things" which might mean all the things or only some of the things, such discernment might of kept many a believer on the straight and narrow.

 

[Van]

For example, when we see "with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26) it might be more accurately and contextually translated as "with God all salvations are possible."

Note that in the prior verse, the question is asked, who can be saved? And then the answer, with people "this" is impossible, but with God all "things" are possible.

However, "things" is not in the text, it just reads with God all are possible. So the question leaps from the page, "all what?" And looking back at the sentence structure we see "this" referring to salvation.