Correct translation of Luke 1:37?

The like the way the King James Bible puts it. It coinsides with Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Besides, it just sounds better.

 

Which shows that no translation version is perfect including the KJV.

In this case, this passage, the ASV is more faithful to the original language than the KJB.

HankD

 

Amen and "would to God" (that's Scripture you know) we all felt that way.

HankD

 

God has spoken about Mary's cousin Elisabeth, which was going to conceive a child in her old age. Obviously Elisabeth was too old to conceive a child, but, verse 37 says, For with God nothing shall be impossible. Kinda reminds you of the story in the old testament about Abraham and Sarah. They did not believe that they could have a child in her old age, but, Luke 1:37 says, For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

Odd that the AV left off the "rhema" (spoken words, saying, commands - in the neuter) and translated as if the adverb "pas/pan" (all, every) was simply modifying an understood noun.

Not "all things" but "all spoken things/sayings/words" which is 100% in the context. Hmmmm

It's not left out, but the result of a hebraism paralleling how the hebrew word devar can mean both 'word' or 'thing' applied to the greek word hrayma.

Hence, not-any-thing, nothing.

 

Oops, didn't answer the question. I prefer the KJV's translation because the AV has been providentially, mightily used of God. My experience has been that the more people try to punch holes in my Bible, the more its perfection shines through.

 

I like the KJV verse. Sounds better.

 

Actually it is a very good translation if you supply the understood "spoken." I would prefer the word be included in the translation, but it is not a "very poor translation" without it if you read it in context.

 

re: hreyma = word or thing

I suspected that could be what was going on, based on my meager Hebrew training and Judaic background, but Thayer's Greek lexicon bares it out, with its second listed sense:

"2. In imitation of the Hebr. 'davar', the subject-matter of speech, thing spoken of, thing"

IMO you can't dismiss Hebrew idiom and usage in these very, well, Hebraic writings.

In any event, the KJV did NOT drop a word here.

[ December 25, 2003, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: timothy 1769 ]

 

BUT the AV can't HAVED any bad English translation.

heh, just caught that...

 

If that's what you're basing your KJVO upon, then you might want to consider learning Latin & using the Latin Vulgate. Latin is an unchanging language, so your LV will never become archaic, and it was mightily used of God for well over 1000 years.

Or, you might wanna consider learning German and using the Luther Bible, the Bible of the Reformation. That version was used mightily of God as much as was any translation of the Scriptures in history.

As for the translations of the verse issue, I fail to understand why the KJV and a few other versions left out any translation of the Greek 'rhema'. It was placed into the Greek for a reason, and I don't believe that reason was just to fill space.

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
If that's what you're basing your KJVO upon, then you might want to consider learning Latin & using the Latin Vulgate. Latin is an unchanging language, so your LV will never become archaic, and it was mightily used of God for well over 1000 years.

I wouldn't call being locked up in the apostate Roman church, unread by the people and most of its "priests", as being a good example of a version being mightily used of God.

 

Originally posted by robycop3:
Or, you might wanna consider learning German and using the Luther Bible, the Bible of the Reformation. That version was used mightily of God as much as was any translation of the Scriptures in history.

If I were German, I likely would. Even so, no Bible translation has had the impact of the King James, not even close. English is a world language in the way no other language is - that's one of the reasons why all German kids learn English but we don't all learn German.

As for the translations of the verse issue, I fail to understand why the KJV and a few other versions left out any translation of the Greek 'rhema'. It was placed into the Greek for a reason, and I don't believe that reason was just to fill space.

It wasn't left out, rhema can mean 'thing'. Read my pervious posts, and check out Thayer's Lexicon. The only thing the KJV left out here is a clumsy translation

 

Actually and IMO, the Vulgate has been wrongly discredited. It's beginings date back to Jerome(342-420AD) and Augustine (354-430AD), while not Southern Baptists they were well before the complete apostacy of the Church of Rome.

Jerome based the Vulgate upon the Old Latin and Itala MSS (some people make a distinction between Itala and Old Latin) correcting them with his copies of Greek and Hebrew MSS which were closer to the originals than Aleph and B.

The first English translations were translations from this translation, the Latin Vulgate. An abundance of the English text of the KJB comes directly from these early English Bibles.

The KJB translators used several readings unique to the Vulgate.

The more I read about this ancient Bible the more respect I have for it and Jerome (and Augustine whom he corresponded with concerning its translation from the Old Latin, Greek and Hebrew.)

It has undergone several revisions, I prefer the Clementine because it retains the johannine Comma.

To me, I consider it of having a greater impact upon Christianity than the KJB after all it is a KJB progenitor text Apocrypha and all.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/vu/Vulgate.html

HankD

 

Is this Clementine edition closest to the Jerome translation? Long, long ago I had a year of classical latin that unfortunately is very very atrophied, but it might be fun to get back into if I were reading/translating a bible version.

Also, do you know if there's a reasonably complete version of the Old Latin in print?

 

As far as I know at this moment the editions of the Vulgate are much like the KJB, very close.

No, I've heard that Codex Gigas (gig) is a complete Old Latin Bible but it is 12-13th century shrouded in myth and superstition.
I doubt if it has been reprinted and published.
To be honest the Old Latin and Itala are full of variants because of provincial dialects and apparently some commentary mixed in with the text for good measure.

There are at least 3 categories of "Old Latin" mss. Many of them are perpetuated into the 10-14th centuries, mixed with Vulgate Text.

Here is the Catholic encyclopedia URL for Manuscripts of the Bible, page down (several pages) to IV. LATIN MANUSCRIPTS.
For more info and a springboard to other publications.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm

HankD