In 2nd year Greek we translated the entire book. What has continued to puzzle me ever since is why so many translations read the way they do. Panta is an accusative of reference, and in this sentence it is the only possibility because the verb, ischuo is intransitive. There is no do anywhere in this verse. The verb ischuo is used 28X in the NT and I can't find a single instance where it has a direct object. Redefining ischuo as "I can do" makes panta the direct object, not an accusative of reference. A look at the context of vs 13 indicates this passage (11-13) is all about being, coping, spiritual state of mind, not about doing. The renderings in Darby, Young, and the Amplified seem to be faithful to the Greek.
Darby: I have strength for all things in him that gives me power.
Young: For all things I have strength, in Christ’s strengthening me;
Amplified: I have strength for all things in Christ Who empowers me [I am ready for anything and equal to anything through Him Who infuses inner strength into me; I am self-sufficient in Christ’s sufficiency].
What's going on here? Am I completely off-base? Now I know that no one is going to fall into some kind of heresy over this. I would still like to have some help in understanding the reasoning behind this. Is this just a tipping of the hat at the KJV, trying not to upset the apple cart?
Edited by Julie Falling, 08 January 2012 - 09:17 PM.