Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 1 Corinthians 12:30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 1 Corinthians 12:30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? |
Subject: speaking in tounges |
Bible Note: Actually the context of verse 2 is verse 4. We are not ministering a spiritual gift to God, but edifying ourselves, I'm sure we are all in need of this. I also read V2 in Young's Literal Translation, Darby Translation, NASB, NIV, Amplified, and KJV. I'm thinking some translator somewhere would have caught there mistake. I also checked EVERY commentary I could find (Darby, Geneva, Gill, Jamieson Faussett Brown, Johnson, Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry Concise and Wesley) and none mentions V2 as referring to "a god" as opposed to speaking to God. I think at least one of the commentaries would have mentioned this. Can you help me to find where you arrived at your translation? I have read many of your posts in the past and I love your knowledge of the Word, but here I just can't agree with you. Vines (2) without (i.e., as an anarthrous noun). "The English may or may not have need of the article in translation. But that point cuts no figure in the Greek idiom. Thus in Act 27:23 ('the God whose I am,' RV) the article points out the special God whose Paul is, and is to be preserved in English. In the very next verse (ho theos) we in English do not need the articles" (A. T. Robertson, Gram. of Greek, NT, p. 758). As to this latter it is usual to employ the article with a proper name, when mentioned a second time. There are, of course, exceptions to this, as when the absence of the article serves to lay stress upon, or give precision to, the character or nature of what is expressed in the noun. A notable instance of this is in Jhn 1:1, "and the Word was God;" here a double stress is on theos, by the absence of the article and by the emphatic position. To translate it literally, "a god was the Word," is entirely misleading. Moreover, that "the Word" is the subject of the sentence, exemplifies the rule that the subject is to be determined by its having the article when the predicate is anarthrous (without the article). In Rom 7:22, in the phrase "the law of God," both nouns have the article; in ver. 25, neither has the article. This is in accordance with a general rule that if two nouns are united by the genitive case (the "of" case), either both have the article, or both are without. Here, in the first instance, both nouns, "God" and "the law" are definite, whereas in ver. 25 the word "God" is not simply titular; the absence of the article stresses His character as lawgiver |