Double meaning words

[Van]

In a recently closed thread, discussion of the needless use of English words or phrases that are ambiguous was curtailed by endless absurdities. Just because an ambiguous word or phrase is found in multiple translations does not suggest it is not ambiguous. Two or more wrongs do not make a right. Yet this claim is allowed to be made endlessly.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument which is based on affirming that something is real because the majority thinks so. Other names for the fallacy include common belief fallacy or appeal to (common) belief,[ appeal to the majority, appeal to the masses, appeal to popularity, argument from consensus, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, consensus gentium (Latin for "agreement of the people"), democratic fallacy, mob appeal, and truth by association

OTOH, An intelligent question might be what are some of the other frequently used English words or phrases with double meanings, in addition to "sake?"

1) Baptism - does this refer to our water baptism in obedience to Christ, or our spiritual baptism into Christ?
2) Sanctification - does this refer to being set apart spiritually in Christ, or being progressively conformed to the image of Christ?
3) Called - does this refer to being invited to put our trust in Christ, or being transferred into Christ by God?
4) Hell - does this refer to Hades or to Gehenna or to Tartarus?
5) Things - does this refer to all things or some of the things?

Correspondence refers the practice of translating the same source language word or phrase meaning into the same target language word or phrase. When more than one source language word or phrase meaning is translated into the same target language word or phrase, then the translation lacks clarity and "correspondence."

For example, take the English word "sake" or the phrase "for the sake of," when more than one Greek word is rendered in the same or very similar (i.e. for my sake) way, correspondence is sacrificed for no apparent reason. The NIV translated about six different Greek words into "sake" which is regrettable, but for the supposed more literal ESV and NASB to also obliterate whatever inspired nuance was intended by use of the differing words, is quite disappointing. And "sake" has two meanings, (1) because of or in accord with the requirements of, and (2) for the benefit of someone or something.

Here are at least some of the other Greek words also rendered as "sake:"
G1223 "dia" - Matthew 15:3 (NIV)
G3685 "onoma" - Matthew 10:22 (ESV)
G1753 "heneka" - Romans 8:36 (NIV)
G4392 "prophasis" - Mark 12:40 (NASB)
G4771 "sy" - John 11:15 (NIV)
G5228 "hyper" - Romans 9:3 (NIV)

Thus our modern translations are flawed, some more deeply than others, by the use of ambiguous words and coming well short of the goal of correspondence and transparency.

 

[Van]

Romans 4:23 (NASB95)
Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,

Romans 4:24 (NASB95)
but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,

In this passage, "his sake" could be better rendered "for him" (dia autos), and "our sake" could be better rendered "for those." The less ambiguous and better rendering would read:

"Now not only for him was it written that it was credited to him, but also for those, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe on Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. ​

 

[Van]

Another choice some translators make to improve the clarity of the translation is to substitute some of the pronouns with their actual antecedent, thus Romans 4:23-24 could be translated:
Now not only for Abraham was it written that righteousness was credited to him, but also for those, to whom righteousness will be credited, as those who believe on God who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

 

[John of Japan]

Here are at least some of the other Greek words also rendered as "sake:"
G1223 "dia" - Matthew 15:3 (NIV)
G3685 "onoma" - Matthew 10:22 (ESV)
G1753 "heneka" - Romans 8:36 (NIV)
G4392 "prophasis" - Mark 12:40 (NASB)
G4771 "sy" - John 11:15 (NIV)
G5228 "hyper" - Romans 9:3 (NIV)

Thus our modern translations are flawed, some more deeply than others, by the use of ambiguous words and coming well short of the goal of correspondence and transparency.

Dia (διά) in Matthew 15:23 does not mean "sake" but "for the sake of," or "for...sake." The original is a prepositional phrase, translated correctly (as are all of these renderings).

Onoma (ὀνομά) in Matthew 10:22 is "name," not "sake." Again we have a prepositional phrase with dia.

In Mark 12:40 in the NASB, prophasis (πρόφασις) is not "sake" but "for appearance's sake."

In John 11:15, I have no idea what your "Greek" word sy is, but "for...sakes" there is dia (διά) once again.

In Romans 9:3, huper (ὑπερ) is "for...the sake." Again, this is a prepositional phrase with huper.

 

[Van]

Dia (διά) in Matthew 15:23 does not mean "sake" but "for the sake of," or "for...sake." The original is a prepositional phrase, translated correctly (as are all of these renderings).

Onoma (ὀνομά) in Matthew 10:22 is "name," not "sake." Again we have a prepositional phrase with dia.

In Mark 12:40 in the NASB, prophasis (πρόφασις) is not "sake" but "for appearance's sake."

In John 11:15, I have no idea what your "Greek" word sy is, but "for...sakes" there is dia (διά) once again.

In Romans 9:3, huper (ὑπερ) is "for...the sake." Again, this is a prepositional phrase with huper.

Thanks for your input. I agree dia never means sake. It also never means "for the benefit of!" Thus choosing to translate dia as for the sake of creates ambiguity unnecessarily.

I agree, Onoma does not mean sake or "name's sake." It means "name."

I agree, prophasis does not mean sake. It also does not mean "for the benefit of." It refers to deception.

I agree sy (G4771) does not mean "sake" or "your sake." And I see why you have no idea what "sy" is in John 11:15. The Blueletter Bible "Reverse Interlinear" has "sy (G4771) but the Scripture 4 All Reverse Interlinear has "humas" (G5209). However "because of (dia) you (humas)" is the correct translation. John did not rejoice for their benefit. He rejoiced because of them.

And I agree Huper (G5228) has as one of its meanings, "for the benefit of" and therefore could be translated as "for the sake of" but that choice creates ambiguity. Better to go with "for the benefit of."

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks for your input. I agree dia never means sake. It also never means "for the benefit of!" Thus choosing to translate dia as for the sake of creates ambiguity unnecessarily.

When my students learn dia as a vocabulary word in Lesson 8 of Dr. Black's textbook, they will learn these glosses:
with the genitive: through; by
with the accusative: because of, on account of

The usage of this preposition is complicated, maybe too complicated for anyone on the BB who does not know Greek. BAGD has a huge entry for it, more than four columns. Personally, I can see where "for the sake of..." is not necessarily mistaken.

 

[John of Japan]

I agree sy (G4771) does not mean "sake" or "your sake." And I see why you have no idea what "sy" is in John 11:15. The Blueletter Bible "Reverse Interlinear" has "sy (G4771) but the Scripture 4 All Reverse Interlinear has "humas" (G5209). However "because of (dia) you (humas)" is the correct translation. John did not rejoice for their benefit. He rejoiced because of them.

I get it now. The Strong's number refers to the singular pronoun συ, "you," which in the traditional transliteration is sy, which makes no sense to me. I transliterate it as su, because that is how it is pronounced. However, the word in John 11:15 is ὑμας, humas, accusative plural "you", which in koine Greek is quite different in form from the singular.

 

[Van]

When my students learn dia as a vocabulary word in Lesson 8 of Dr. Black's textbook, they will learn these glosses:
with the genitive: through; by
with the accusative: because of, on account of

The usage of this preposition is complicated, maybe too complicated for anyone on the BB who does not know Greek. BAGD has a huge entry for it, more than four columns. Personally, I can see where "for the sake of..." is not necessarily mistaken.

Right, dia does mean because of and sake has as one of its meanings "because of." Not the issue. The issue is "dia" never means "for the benefit of" but "sake" does. Thus the less ambiguous and more accurate translation choice to translate "dia" as indicating instrumentality is "because of" or "caused by."

However the Greek construction "dia humas" appears to be used to convey the idea of "for the benefit of." I stand corrected. Here are the verses, which includes John 11:15, where "for the benefit of" seems (to me) to be the intended meaning.

1) John 11:15 should read, "I rejoice for your benefit, that I was not there, that you might believe. Never the less, let us go to him."

2) John 12:30 should read, "Jesus answered and said, “This voice has not come for me, but for your benefit.

3) Romans 11:28 should read, "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your benefit, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved because of the fathers;

4) 1 Corinthians 4:6 should read, "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos, for your benefit that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other."

5) 2 Corinthians 2:10 should read, "Now whom you forgive anything, I also forgive. For indeed, what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your benefit in the presence of Christ,"

6) 2 Corinthians 4:15 should read, "All these things are for your benefit, that grace, having spread through the many, may cause thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God.

7) 2 Corinthians 8:9 should read, "For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your benefit He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich.

8) 1 Thessalonians 1:5 should read, "for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your benefit."

 

[Van]

I get it now. The Strong's number refers to the singular pronoun συ, "you," which in the traditional transliteration is sy, which makes no sense to me. I transliterate it as su, because that is how it is pronounced. However, the word in John 11:15 is ὑμας, humas, accusative plural "you", which in koine Greek is quite different in form from the singular.

According to the bogus Bluebook listing, "sy" is 2 person plural.

 

[John of Japan]

According to the bogus Bluebook listing, "sy" is 2 person plural.

The Greek second person singular nominative personal pronoun is su (sy, συ). The plural nominative is humeis (ὑμεις), with the accusative being humas (ὑμας ) as used in this verse.

 

[Van]

The Greek second person singular nominative personal pronoun is su (sy, συ). The plural nominative is humeis (ὑμεις), with the accusative being humas (ὑμας ) as used in this verse.

Right, I found several bogus entries listing sy, (G4771) as a plural. Sorry for the confusion...

 

[Van]

Consider 1 John 2:12 (NASB1995), "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.

But in the NASB 2020 version, "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you on account of His name."

A literal translation of the last part of the verse might read "through" or because of (dia) "the (to) "name" (onoma) "of him" (autou).
A simple translation could read, "through His name." To unwind the stack, His name refers to what we believe concerning Him, i.e. Savior, Son of God, died for us, etc. Next, our belief must be credited as righteousness by God. Then God puts the individual into Christ, where they undergo the circumcision of Christ, the washing of regeneration, and arise a new creation, made righteous, justified, forgiven etc. Therefore the most accurate translation of "dia" in this usage is "through."

 

[Van]

I see I blundered in my post #5. Here is what I mistakenly said:

I agree sy (G4771) does not mean "sake" or "your sake." And I see why you have no idea what "sy" is in John 11:15. The Blueletter Bible "Reverse Interlinear" has "sy (G4771) but the Scripture 4 All Reverse Interlinear has "humas" (G5209). However "because of (dia) you (humas)" is the correct translation. John did not rejoice for their benefit. He rejoiced because of them.

I was in error, and corrected my mistake in post #8. The benefit, obviously, was that they would believe Jesus could raise people from the dead... Therefore the most accurate choice for John 11:15 is "and I [Jesus] am glad for your benefit that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.”

 

[Van]

What are the double meanings of the idiom "for the sake of?"
1) First "for the benefit of" where someone or something is put in better circumstance, i.e. for the sake of good health...
2) Second "for the purpose of" or "for the result of" such as in "for the sake of argument.
3) And the third possible meaning of "for the sake of" is to do something according to the requirements of someone or something, such as loving one another for the sake of Jesus.

Since all these possible meanings can be expressed with clarity, phrases using "sake" should be avoided. For example, in 1 Corinthians 4:6, the NIV avoids "for the sake of" and goes with "for your benefit."

 

[Van]

Another word, "baptism" is found about 20 times in the NASB New Testament. But the word can mean different things depending on what a person is immersed in, water, Christ's Spirit, or an ordeal such as Christ endured for our benefit. Usually the context provides clarity and so "water baptism" or spiritual baptism or baptism of suffering can be construed. A few cases exist when scholars differ as to whether the baptism in view is a water baptism or our spiritual baptism into Christ.

In Mark 10:38, 39 and Luke 12:50 the ordeal baptism - giving one's life for the cause of Christ - could be more clearly expressed.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

In Mark 10:38, 39 and Luke 12:50 the ordeal baptism - giving one's life for the cause of Christ - could be more clearly expressed.

The word ordeal means a difficult or painful experience.

 

[Van]

The word ordeal means a difficult or painful experience.

Thus as stated, the three "ordeal" baptisms could be better translated as baptism of suffering.

 

[Van]

In Romans 6:3, Ephesians 4:5, Colossians 2:12 and 1 Peter 3:21, I believe the baptisms refer to our spiritual baptism into Christ.

Romans 6:3
Or do you not know that all of us who have been spiritually baptized into Christ Jesus have been spiritually baptized into His death?

Ephesians 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one spiritual baptism into Christ

Colossians 2:12
having been buried with Him in our spiritual baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

1Peter 3:21
Corresponding to that, your spiritual baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Van]

Turning to the double meaning word "sanctification" the first thing to note is that this English word is being used to translate a Greek word which also has a double meaning. First the word is used to refer to God setting apart something for His divine purpose. And second, this Greek word also refers to making someone or something holy. Based on context, the Greek word should be translated so the intended, contextual meaning is conveyed with clarity. Lets look at some of verses where our word appears:

Romans 6:19 (NASB95) I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

Here the idea is the process of becoming more like Christ, behaving in a more holy manner, leading to holiness.

Romans 6:22 (NASB95) But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.

Here, the result of being placed in Christ and undergoing the washing of regeneration is in view, thus "resulting in holiness" best conveys the intended message.

 

[Van]

1Corinthians 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

This verse tells us we did not put ourselves into Christ, God did! And the result is listed in the most recent order, with the first being listed last. Redemption refers to being transferred from the domain of darkness (in Adam) and into the kingdom of His Beloved Son.

Next, our word "sanctification" here refers to being set apart in Christ. This is a one time event, to be set apart spiritually into the body of Christ. Thus Christ became our spiritual abode.

And after we are placed into Christ, we undergo the washing of regeneration and arise in Christ a new creation, made righteous.

And lastly, after we are sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit, we learn and grow in wisdom with the aid of our "helper." After being sealed in our spiritual abode, we are "in Christ" and Christ is in us.