To the first poster: the rhyme doesn’t exist at all, nor is it meant to. Hebrew poetry does not rhyme (and this passage is debatable whether it is Hebrew poetry), nor does the translation - it is the metre that makes it poetic in English (blank verse is nonrhymed iambic pentameter), and parallelism that makes it poetic in Hebrew.
To the second: the word translated “unto” is the preposition וְאֶל (weh-'el) which can be translated several ways, most commonly “and to”, “about”, “to”, or “unto”. It is the word translated as “will be for” in Genesis 3:16, in the passage: “And your desire will be for your husband”. “Into” seems to fit in to the semantic range (in context, even, so I don’t believe translating it such is the fallacy of “unwarranted expansion of an already-expanded semantic field” [DA Carson, *Exegetical Fallacies, 88]), so it’s a valid translation in its own right, but, as a translation, is not the proper grounds for a translation or an exegesis of said translation in to another language. The Latin (or other translations) can give us ideas for how to translate a tricky part by seeing solutions previously arrived-at: but they can not abrogate the part itself, no matter how hallowed by tradition or Tradition, even (and often) through long use in establishing doctrines with no real Biblical basis (in the original languages). A good example of a proper, ministerial use of translation is how to translate the emphatic doubling in Genesis 2:17, translated by the AV as “thou shalt shall surely die”, literally “die the death”, and by Jerome, in a masterful balance, as “you shall, dying, die”.
Augustine’s false doctrine of creation was based off of a mistranslation in Ecclesiasticus (which in the Latin is made to say “God created all things at one time”, …aeternum creavit omnia simul); Origen’s heresy caused him to mutilate the Scriptures left and right according to a higher criticism that would make even the editors of the New American “Bible”, inserting and deleting and re-ordering verses and pericopes, blush (and Jerome was largely a student of Origen in textual matters); most of the mediaeval doctrine of justification and repentance/penance and the resultant sacramental architecture was based off of a mistranslation of the Greek μετάνοια (this does not mean the sacramental architecture is incorrect: it means only that it is not spoken of in this place in the Bible, where it was traditionally sought).
Remember that the Vulgate is mostly a translation of a translation in the OT, and a translation in the NT, although a mostly reliable translation of another mostly reliable translation - like our English King James Bible in the areas where the Vulgate translates the MT and not the LXX (disregarding the Douay-Rheims which is a translation of a translation of a translation in most of the OT and Apocrypha) or New King James Version - and not the original (but not yet like a corrupt “version” such as the New Revised Standard or New American). Latin had a much harder time translating Greek than it did Hebrew, leading to some absurdities especially in Paul’s letters which became acceptable Latin (even though nonsensical) because of their very inclusion in the Bible. Certain Hebrew and/or Greek phrases and idioms, “translated” (loosely using the word) in to English, but being incorrect and/or nonsensical English (such as “apple of my eye”, “reap the whirlwind”, “publish and blaze abroad”, “thorn in the flesh”) have become acceptable English through their inclusion in the Tyndale-Geneva-King James (i.e. completely dominant) tradition of English Bible translation.
A translation in to Latin, whether it be the language of the Church or not, is no greater or lesser than a translation of equal accuracy in to English; it can not be used to correct the original language (not even in cases of doubt, I believe, although scholars of the “critical eclectic” methodology do believe that one can sub out the Greek or Latin or Peshitta whenever it agrees with one’s own views better than the original, and, failing that, we can do it today by “conjectural emendation” *). As you will see below, English is actually able to translate certain passages more accurately than Latin.
False renderings such as “she” in Genesis 3:15 (to start a short list of indefensible readings defended by Catholics for doctrinal reasons) are gotten by taking the Vulgate, Septuagint, or some other ancient version as equal with the “Hebrew verity” when it comes to the OT, or by taking the Vulgate or some other ancient version instead of the “Greek wellspring of the words of eternal life” for the NT. This is how “do penance” came to be regarded by some Catholics as a correct translation for μετάνοια (“turning of mind”) out of wishful thinking to appropriate dominical sayings as a prop for the sacramental system of confession. Jerome mistranslated the word, because Latin can not express “repent” as an imperative using any construction - it is outside of Latin’s entire semantic range. The closest that can be come to the Greek is Erasmus’ “be penitent”. This is also how “full of grace” became the proper Catholic translation of Luke 1:28, because of the “gratia plena” of Jerome; the “kecharitomene” of Greek requires a flexible grammar and an acrobatic grammarian to make it primarily mean “full of grace” in the sense of the Latin. None of those three renderings are the primary meaning of the God-inspired originals, and two of them are absolutely indefensible according to the original (“full of grace” is defensible, even if not primary, much as “young woman” for almah is defensible, even if not primary). We shouldn’t read our doctrine in to the Bible, the Bible should read its doctrine in to us.
Now I’m very much off-topic, and ceasing to write.*
