Luke 1:37

[Van]

CSB
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

ESV
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

KJV
For with God nothing shall be impossible.

LEB
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

NASB
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

NET
For nothing will be impossible with God.”

NKJV
For with God nothing will be impossible.”

RSV
For with God nothing will be impossible.”

YLT
because nothing shall be impossible with God.'

The above translations of Luke 1:37 are from many of the most highly respected, formal equivalence versions.
So to claim they all represent a corrupt mistranslation seems dubious. After all, God is all powerful, able to do as He pleases, so the verse rings true. But is it?

The other interpretation of the text is With God no declaration will be impossible.

Which translation is most accurate?

 

[Van]

If we ask the question, what is the least God could be saying, we get with God no declaration will be impossible. So to expand the scope, we need some contexual basis. But verse 35 has a declaration, so I see no support for expansion in the immediate context.

 

[Van]

Several times in the NT, various translations have chosen to translate "rhema" (G4487) sometimes as "thing." For example in Luke 2:15 the shepherds say let us go to Bethlehem and see this "thing" that has happened, that God has made known to us.
Rather than "thing" this verse could be translated "this announcement" or "this news."

 

[Marooncat79]

Lol. Amazing

 

[Van]

Some translations of Luke 2:19 chose "Mary kept all these "things" in her heart, but many others chose Mary kept all these sayings (or all these words). If the translators do not play fast and loose with their choices and avoid adding to the intended scope, the translations are improved.

 

[Van]

In Acts 5:32 we are His witnesses of these remarks captures the actual idea.

 

[Van]

Basically, whenever we find "rhema" translated as "thing or things" a better more specific choice such as declaration, remark, announcement is available for the translators to use.

So we must return to the as yet unanswered question of the OP: Which translation, thing or declaration is more accurate, considering the apparent scope found contextually in Luke 1:37?

 

[37818]

Basically, whenever we find "rhema" translated as "thing or things" a better more specific choice such as declaration, remark, announcement is available for the translators to use.

So we must return to the as yet unanswered question of the OP: Which translation, thing or declaration is more accurate, considering the apparent scope found contextually in Luke 1:37?

It is more accurate and truthful of the two to use declaration.

 

[Van]

If we look at Matthew 19:26 we see that with God all are possible, referring to salvation of individuals. Ditto for Mark 10:27. Contextual information should be used to discern the intended meaning of "all" when translating the inspired word. If the subject is "who can be saved" and the answer is everyone, there is not need to say "all things."

 

[Van]

Candor requires that I acknowledge the dreaded NIV accurately translates this verse:
Luke 1:37 (NIV)
For no word from God will ever fail.”

 

[Van]

Luke 18:27 (NASB)
But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.”

Here again the text has been slightly altered, an accurate translation might read "The impossible with people are possible with God." Here the contextual idea is that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle, i.e very hard if not impossible, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. But God can accomplish what is impossible for people.