Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Colin, Feb 27, 2006.
Hi, does anyone know anything about how good or bad the latin vulgate is as a translation?
the text and a search engine are available on-line
I like 1 Thessalonians 4:17 there:
1 Thessalonians 44:17 The Latin Vulgate
deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis
in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus
The word 'Rapture' (in English) comes from the Latin word 'Rapiemur'.
(In Latin words have various endings showing: gender, mood, verb agreement,
quanity /singular or plural/, etc.) The English translation of
'rapiemur' is 'CAUGHT UP'.
1Th 4:17 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
Then shall we which liue and remaine, be caught vp with them
also in the clouds, to meete the Lord in the ayre: and so shall
we euer be with the Lord.
So when it is said to me "But the term 'rapture' isn't found in the
Bible, I point to the Latin Vulgate to show, the 'rapture' sure
is found in the Bible.
IMHO, each faithful translation in whatever language is the Holy Bible,
God's preserved inerrant written word. It just makes sense to me to have that
Bible written in a langauge I understand. I make a living
and provide for my family in the
21st Century (2001-2100) by dealing with words in 21st Century English.
Latin is a dead langauge, so it doesn't change.
English is a living language, it changes rapidly.
It is even changing differently in various
locations. My friend in Singapore speaks
English as his national language, he like the
NIV = New Internationl Version.
I have often joked about being LVO, since it was THE vernacular translation for 1100 years. Accurate and faithful to the Greek. Millions were saved by reading it. Thousands called into the ministry through its precious words. Hymns using its exact wording were the music of the church.
All the same "defense" that people use for KJVonly.
are ya still LVO?
Any of the "only" positions are best described by words that are NOT allowed to be used on the BB!
Wycliffe's first English Bible was based too literally on the Vulgate . But within a year or so John Purvey ( it is thought ) released a more vernacular version which became rather popular and understandable . Didn't Spurgeon say something to the effect about the RV " It's English is too Greek . " There is nothing like that wooden and stilted style for a Bible translation . ( By the way , I am not negating the strength of the Vulgate and the NASU ) .
I'll take that as a yes. lol
JK, Bro. Praying for your upcoming trip. Preach a convicting message that will have even the pastors teary eyes, Doc.
what I was really wondering was, are there any major discrepencies between the Vulkgate and the MT and Greek NT?
The Vulgate contains the Apocrypha.