Away in a manger...

[peary1]

CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH VERSION: she gave birth to her first-born son. She dressed him in baby clothes and laid him on a bed of hay, because there was no room for them in the *inn. *

NEW KING JAMES VERSION (REVISED): And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

NEW CENTURY VERSION: She gave birth to her first son. Because there were no rooms left in the inn, she wrapped the baby in pieces of cloth and layed him in a feeding trough.

21ST CENTURY NEW KING JAMES VERSION: And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the* inn.*

AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION: And she brought forth her firstborn son; she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.

STRONGS LITERAL TRANSLATION BIBLE: And she brought forth her son - the first born, and wrapped him up and laid him down in a manger because there was not a room for them in the guest chamber.

DARBY BIBLE TRANSLATION: and she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

THE HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE: and she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

NEW INTERNATIONAL READER’S BIBLE: She gave birth to her first baby. It was a boy. She wrapped him in large strips of cloth. Then she placed him in a manger. There was no room for them in the *inn. *

WYCLIFFE NEW TESTAMENT: And she bare her firstborn son, and wrapped him in `clothes, and laid him in a feed-trough [and put him in a cratch], for there was no place to him in no chamber.

WORLDWIDE ENGLISH BIBLE: This was her first child, a son. She wrapped him in a cloth and laid him in a box where cows feed. There was no room for them in the house for strangers.

NEW INTERNATIONAL BIBLE - UNITED KINGDOM: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

TODAY’S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

DOUAY-RHEIMS ENGLISH BIBLE: And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

I HAVE NOW QUOTED FROM TWENTY-TWO (22) TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. IN EACH TRANSLATION, THEY EITHER IDENTIFY THE PLACE THAT THEY WERE TURNED AWAY FROM AS AN ‘INN’ (IN 16 OF THE TRANSLATIONS), HOSTEL (1), LODGING (1), GUEST CHAMBER (1), CHAMBER (1), HOUSE FOR STRANGERS (1), GUEST ROOM (1).

What you are telling us, then, is that out of 22 translations, only one is correct, and the closest to what you are saying comes from Today’s New Internation Version. But even here, it is translated as “guest room,” and not ‘room’.

And you sum it up yourself: it is not so much a matter of translation (although I think you are dead wrong on the translation you quote), but it is your personal view and perhaps maybe even your own translation on what is translated as ‘inn.’ Most translations are done by committee, sometimes 12-to-20 individuals who check and double-check each other’s translations. They have access to both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The vast majority of Catholics, Orthodox, and mainline protestant denominations all accept the translation as ‘inn’…except you, of course. What does THAT tell us?

I personally do not subscribe to your interpretation of the passage in question. I am content in the 17-18 translations as they exist in the Bibles listed above.

 

[Dokimas]

It’s not clear that the Magi came to see Jesus as a new born. It’s unclear how long Jesus was in the manger. As for when the Magi saw Him, He could have been up to 2 yrs old.

 

[schaick]

Think on this-

In the olden days inns were very often crowded- filled with people that were possibly not clean. Rooms were shared with strangers. There were probably **bedbugs, crabs **anything possible in the bed linens. There could have ben some pretty disgustung characters and we know there were sinners.

In the stable were animals but the stalls were probably cleaned everyday, animals were well taken care of as they were the food source, prized possessions. No disgusting people. No crowds of sinners.

Think of the special perfect lamb that Jews needed for sacrifices-think how clean that stable would have been!

 

[LindaSK]

The Bible translations never say “guest room”. They say ‘inn’ - a place for travelers to stay, the same as we have today. Animals were kept inside another part of the house dwelling or outside. The house or room may have been divided, or there was a lower room where the animals were kept. They were not kept INSIDE the same house area as where the family lived. And if they owned any land, it was outside on the outskirts of town, and that is where animals were kept. The same as it is today.

Check this out…

sacrificium-laudis.blogspot.com/2008/12/because-there-was-no-room-for-them-in.html

 

[Yerusalyim]

CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH VERSION: she gave birth to her first-born son. She dressed him in baby clothes and laid him on a bed of hay, because there was no room for them in the *inn. *

NEW KING JAMES VERSION (REVISED): And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

NEW CENTURY VERSION: She gave birth to her first son. Because there were no rooms left in the inn, she wrapped the baby in pieces of cloth and layed him in a feeding trough.

21ST CENTURY NEW KING JAMES VERSION: And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the* inn.*

AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION: And she brought forth her firstborn son; she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn.

STRONGS LITERAL TRANSLATION BIBLE: And she brought forth her son - the first born, and wrapped him up and laid him down in a manger because there was not a room for them in the guest chamber.

DARBY BIBLE TRANSLATION: and she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

THE HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE: and she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

NEW INTERNATIONAL READER’S BIBLE: She gave birth to her first baby. It was a boy. She wrapped him in large strips of cloth. Then she placed him in a manger. There was no room for them in the *inn. *

WYCLIFFE NEW TESTAMENT: And she bare her firstborn son, and wrapped him in `clothes, and laid him in a feed-trough [and put him in a cratch], for there was no place to him in no chamber.

WORLDWIDE ENGLISH BIBLE: This was her first child, a son. She wrapped him in a cloth and laid him in a box where cows feed. There was no room for them in the house for strangers.

NEW INTERNATIONAL BIBLE - UNITED KINGDOM: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

TODAY’S NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION: and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

DOUAY-RHEIMS ENGLISH BIBLE: And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

I HAVE NOW QUOTED FROM TWENTY-TWO (22) TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. IN EACH TRANSLATION, THEY EITHER IDENTIFY THE PLACE THAT THEY WERE TURNED AWAY FROM AS AN ‘INN’ (IN 16 OF THE TRANSLATIONS), HOSTEL (1), LODGING (1), GUEST CHAMBER (1), CHAMBER (1), HOUSE FOR STRANGERS (1), GUEST ROOM (1).

What you are telling us, then, is that out of 22 translations, only one is correct, and the closest to what you are saying comes from Today’s New Internation Version. But even here, it is translated as “guest room,” and not ‘room’.

And you sum it up yourself: it is not so much a matter of translation (although I think you are dead wrong on the translation you quote), but it is your personal view and perhaps maybe even your own translation on what is translated as ‘inn.’ Most translations are done by committee, sometimes 12-to-20 individuals who check and double-check each other’s translations. They have access to both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The vast majority of Catholics, Orthodox, and mainline protestant denominations all accept the translation as ‘inn’…except you, of course. What does THAT tell us?

I personally do not subscribe to your interpretation of the passage in question. I am content in the 17-18 translations as they exist in the Bibles listed above.

This only demonstrates that tradition and habit are hard to break. Go to a greek interlinear and look at the word used here for “inn” and the one later used for “upper room” …it’s exactly the same. Then ask a person with a degree in Greek if there’s ANY REASON to use these varying translations in English.

Here’s the New Jerusalem Bible’s translation which is approved for liturgical use in England:

and she gave birth to a son, her first-born. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the living-space.

The greek word is “Kataluma”…it’s used for upper room and guest room. When Luke relates the story of the good samaritain and mentions an establishment where you paid to lodge (an actual INN) he uses a DIFFERENT greek word “pandocheion.”

It makes sense that there was no room in the guest room. Joseph was from Bethlehem…he had family there…why would he stay at a place where he had to pay to stay (presuming Bethlehem even had an actual INN)…when he had family in town.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The thing about symbols is that they mean what the user thinks they mean. So if you want to use this as a symbol of transubstantiation, and it works for you, fine. Given that this thread is in NON-Catholic religions, though, I thought that a non-Catholic view might be appropriate, as well as this view being proposed here that putting HIm in a manger was a type of His later offering Himself as food, quite literally, to the human race.

I was inviting non-Catholic reflections on it. Your (name removed by moderator)ut is much appreciated.

dianaiad:

Now me, personally, having given birth and having had to deal with the entire situation of juggling babies and one’s own needs, I am, perhaps, more aware of the sheer practical problems Mary faced than you might be. I think that Mary used the manger because…she couldn’t hold Him all the time. There was a great deal to be seen to–there were, evidently, no midwives to help her out any. She and Joseph were rather busy seeing to the needs of both the newborn–and of Mary.

Hey, you certainly haven’t cornered the market on that experience. I have two young ones of my own and I do see the practicality of the situation as well.

dianaiad:

I believe that she used the manger because…there was no cradle. As well, Mary would not have held Him with her when she slept, for fear of ‘overlaying’ the child, and smothering Him in His sleep…and there was this naturally cozy, protected space.

A warm thought indeed. I can’t think of a better place to put a newborn baby if you’re forced to hold up in a stable. It does make for a very pretty manger scene. Thanks again for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

Hope you had a Merry Christmas,
Robert

dianaiad:

I’m sorry I reacted the way I did to the sincere expression of faith expressed here in regard to what some see as a type of Eucharistic sacrifice in His being placed in a manger. I can only plead a mild shock–and an unfortunate tendency to let my fingers run away with the keyboard.

No offense taken.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I shows the humility of the Savior. Kings aren’t born in stables.​

It was the initial way God identified with His human creations.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Certainly, I agree that His beginning was a humble one, in which the common man and woman can readily identify.

Peace,
Robert

 

[richardbowcher]

For many years the text was credited to the German reformer Martin Luther. Research has shown, however, that this is nothing more than a fable. In the book Dainty Songs for Little Lads and Lasses (1887) it bears the title “Luther’s Cradle Hymn” and the note, “Composed by Martin Luther for his children, and still sung by German mothers to their little mcdba questions ones.” A possible reason for the spurious attribution to Luther is that the 400th anniversary of his birth was in 1883. The words were either based on a poem written for this anniversary or were credited to Luther as a clever marketing gimmick. This song has never been found in Luther’s works. The first half of the melody, it should be noted ccie certification, is identical to the beginning of the second theme of Waltz , transposed down a fourth, in G’schichten aus dem Wienerwald, Op. 325 by Johann Strauss Jr., composed 19 years earlier The third stanza, “Be near me, Lord Jesus” was first printed in Gabriel’s Vineyard Songs (1892), where it appeared with a tune by Charles H. Gabriel (simply marked “C”), thus these words are probably by Gabriel. Gabriel ccna exam credited the entire text to Luther and gave it the title “Cradle Song.” This verse is sometimes attributed to Dr. John McFarland, but since the popular story dates his contribution to 1904 (postdating the 1892 printing by 12 years), his contribution is highly questionable