Correct translation of Luke 1:37?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Jesus is Lord, Dec 24, 2003.

  1. Jesus is Lord

    Jesus is Lord
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    -KJV (and others)

    -ASV

    I know that both are possible translations.But which do you prefer and why (talking anout this verse, not the versions).
     
  2. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Greek = literal English (using 1550 Stephanus)
    hoti = for
    ouk = not
    adunatesei = shall be impossible
    para = with
    to = the
    Theo = God
    pan = every
    rhema = thing spoken, command, saying

    So if BOB were translating this from the Greek underlying the AV I would take out the emphatic negatives and simply say

    "For nothing spoken by God shall be impossible."

    Which, is, of course, what Mary was saying. God had spoken to her some "impossible" words and she had the faith to believe God would do it.

    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
     
  4. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    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
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    1901ASV was my study version of choice because of its translations. Also used in our seminary (in the 1960's) which at the time was the premier IFB Seminary among northern Baptists.

    And they took the combined word a-dunetesei (from the root "a" = no and "dunemus" = power) and explained the verse in even simpler terms.

    But all that said, I still love the lilt and flow of the KJV! Always will. Probably will NEVER memorize a verse from another translation. It's part of my psyche, just like the Geneva was part of the Pilgrims and the Vulgate part of Bernard of Clarvioux!
     
  6. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    Amen and "would to God" (that's Scripture you know) we all felt that way.

    HankD
     
  7. RaptureReady

    RaptureReady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2002
    Messages:
    1,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  8. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. tinytim

    tinytim
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like the KJV verse. Sounds better.
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    But this is NOT Hebrew, was NOT Hebrew. The only record we have is Greek. So I'm really into looking at the Greek phrase and not worried about how a Hebrew word might translate into Greek.

    BTW, understand where you're coming from, but that is a typical cop out. Really BAD English translation in the AV. BUT the AV can't HAVED any bad English translation. Therefore we have to convolute other reasons, thinking, etc, because the AV is perfect.

    We've fussed on this board with "God Forbid" in Romans 6:2 which has neither the word "God" or "forbid". But since the AV CAN'T be wrong, blah blah blah.

    It's about time we all agree that the AV is not always the best translation!

    GOD FORBID! [​IMG] ;) [​IMG]
     
  12. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ]
     
  14. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    BUT the AV can't HAVED any bad English translation.

    heh, just caught that... [​IMG]
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
  16. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ;)
     
  18. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    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
     
  19. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  20. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,144
    Likes Received:
    321
    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
     

Share This Page

Loading...