Challenging Common Translation Choices

[Van]

Humanity is diverse, made up of believers and non-believers, Jews and Gentiles, male and female. Humanity is made up of fallen people, some of which have been born anew. Christ is the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world, all of humanity. Can there be a valid reason to hide this reality?

Humanity's value system is corrupt, but within it are beacon's of light, the salt of the earth. We are in the world, among the persons comprising humanity, but are not of the world, not sharing humanity's value system.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Some do not want to answer, others have no answer. Is anyone willing to divulge an alternate reason for the error?

It is not an error. You are the mistaken one Van.

 

[Van]

Yet another off topic gratuitous insult posted to disparage.

Another Greek word to consider challenging the common translation choice is "kosmos" (G2889). The literal meaning refers to the components of a system, thus our planet, composed of water and soil and other non-organic or organic material is a "kosmos." So the challenge is to determine what system is in view from the context. By using the ambiguous English word "world" the translators have chosen to leave the interpretive understanding to the reader.

Let us consider John 3:16. God loved the "kosmos" in this way, He gave is unique Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have eternal life. Was the object of God's love for animals, trees, rocks or water? No. His love was directed toward humanity. So the system in view is humanity, not our planet.

If the idea had been only the Elect, then the verse should have read "... so that they would not perish..." But that is not how it reads, instead the verse addresses a subset of the "system." Therefore why not translate Kosmos here as "humanity?" One reason is to avoid the firestorm that would be waged by those holding the "Elect" view. Do other reasons come to mind?

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Yet another off topic gratuitous insult posted to disparage.

You are something else. I simply said "It is not an error. You are the mistaken one Van." You need to get a grip. You are the one who disparages actual translators frequently with the inane remark of "deeply flawed." Stay in your lane.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Yet another off topic gratuitous insult posted to disparage.

Another Greek word to consider challenging the common translation choice is "kosmos" (G2889). So the challenge is to determine what system is in view from the context. By using the ambiguous English word "world" the translators have chosen to leave the interpretive understanding to the reader.

Let us consider John 3:16. God loved the "kosmos" in this way. So the system in view is humanity, not our planet.

Duh. We could never have figured that out without your help. It's not a challenge at all.

The English word world is quite flexible. It covers a range of meanings depending on the context.

I will be borrowing from John Appleby's booklet Life By His Death. And that is a condensation of John Owen's work The Death Of death In The Death Of Christ.

Romans 3:6 : All without exception
John 7:4 : all without difference
Matthew 18:7 : Many people
Most people : Romans 1:8
The Roman Empire : Luke 2:1
Good people : John 6:33
Bad people : John 14:17 and many other places
The World as a corrupt system : Gal. 6:14 and many other places
The human state : John 18:36 and many other places
Satan's kingdom : John 14:30 and many other places

And it goes on and on. The word world is quite serviceable in many contexts. No one using common sense will be led astray thinking it means something other than what the context demands.

 

[Van]

A few examples...
John 1:10, He was in human society, and humanity came into being through Him, and humanity did not acknowledge Him.
John 1:29 The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of humanity.
John 3:16 God loved humanity in this way, He gave His uniquely divine Son so that everyone believing into Him would not perish but have everlasting life.
John 6:33 For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven and gives life to humankind.
John 6:51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats from this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give for the life of humankind also is My flesh.”
John 8:26 “I have many things to say and to judge regarding you, but He who sent Me is true; and the things which I heard from Him, these I say to humanity.
John 12:47 “If anyone hears My teachings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge humanity, but to save humanity.
John 13:1 Now before the Feast of the Passover, Jesus, knowing that His hour had come that He would depart from this human society to the Father, having loved His own who were in human society, He loved them to the end.
John14:31 but so that humanity may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let’s go from here.
John 16:28 “I came forth from the Father and have come into human society: again, I am leaving human society and going to the Father.”
John 17:6 “I have revealed Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of humanity; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have followed Your word.
John 17:21 that they may all be united; just as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that humanity may believe that You sent Me.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

A-W-K-W-A-R-D. Stick with the tried and true.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

One of the many problems with all this is that 'humanity' is a very bad translation of kosmos.

 

[Van]

Two posts devoid of content, claiming subjective attributes, awkward and bad. But no answer to the question "why not translate the contextual meaning directly?" Do they seek ambiguity to sneak in false doctrine?

Moving on:

1 John 2:2 (NASB) and He Himself is the [fn] propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1John 4:10 (NASB) In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the [fn] propitiation for our sins.

The footnotes explain God sent His Son to be the means of reconciliation with God by atoning for sins. So once again the question arises, why choose an English word that then must be interpreted as to its intended meaning, rather than just using the intended meaning, i.e. the means of reconciliation with God, or more succinctly, the means of salvation?

Instead we get, in addition to "propitiation," "atoning sacrifice" (indicating the atonement has been accomplished, which is not the meaning), "God's way of dealing with our sins," "the satisfaction for our sins," "the reconciliation for our sins," "the payment for our sins," "means by which our sins are forgiven," "expiation for our sins," "the sacrifice that atones for our sins," "the sacrifice God offered to pay for the wrong we have done" and "the forgiveness for our sins."

It seems the effort was to avoid the obvious meaning (means of reconciliation) and offer ill considered alternatives.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

"why not translate the contextual meaning directly?" Do they seek ambiguity to sneak in false doctrine?

You are a hoot Van. The vast majority of English Bible translators, probably 99%, use the word world in various contexts throughout the N.T and have done so for about 700 years. And yet you make the absurd claim that these hundreds of translators intentionally cloaked the real meaning in ambiguity in order to sneak in false doctrine. Your claim is utter foolishness.

 

[Van]

In the same vein as post #51, Hebrews 9:5 uses a related Greek word, "hilastērion" which refers to the place of reconciliation, thus under the Old Covenant, the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. Of course, under the New Covenant, the place is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 9:5, "and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the place of reconciliation; but about these things we cannot now speak in detail.

In Romans 3:25 God publicly displayed the place of reconciliation (hilasterion), Christ covered with His own blood.

But, once again, instead we get an array of arcane translation choices, including "mercy seat," "lid of the Ark," "the place of mercy," "the propitiatory," "atonement seat," "the throne of mercy," "place of atonement," "seat of reconciliation," "the place of forgiveness," "atoning cover" and "seat of grace."

 

[Yeshua1]

You are a hoot Van. The vast majority of English Bible translators, probably 99%, use the word world in various contexts throughout the N.T and have done so for about 700 years. And yet you make the absurd claim that these hundreds of translators intentionally cloaked the real meaning in ambiguity in order to sneak in false doctrine. Your claim is utter foolishness.

The Theology and translation of Van would be must reading!

 

[Van]

Some apparently believe bible knowledge through bible study is esoteric, and only the credentialed can derive biblical truth. God and Christ advocate individual study of God's written word. Believers should try to present God's word clearly and accurately, and eschew arcane or ambiguous verbiage.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

eschew

Gesundheit.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some apparently believe bible knowledge through bible study is esoteric, and only the credentialed can derive biblical truth. God and Christ advocate individual study of God's written word. Believers should try to present God's word clearly and accurately, and eschew arcane or ambiguous verbiage.

You are confusing Bible translation with Bible commentary. The work of the translator is to translate accurately but not to impose his own views on the text. Where there is ambiguity in the original, we may be sure that God has put it there for His own high purposes, so that ambiguity should remain in the translation.
It is the commentator whose job it is to try to explain the meaning of the text. The translator needs as a sine qua non a thorough knowledge of the language he is translating. Such a knowledge is also very useful for the commentator, but he also needs a thorough and solid grasp of theology.

 

[Van]

If a person was able to translate a word, phrase, verse, paragraph or book of the bible without interpreting it, he or she would be a dandy translator. However, that person is a fictional creation. Provincialism claims what we have is just dandy, and efforts to replace ambiguity with clarity are misguided. Translating both Gehenna and Hades as Hell creates ambiguity. To claim that flawed choice was for "God's high purpose" is malarkey. Questioning the premise that translator choices cannot be improved is sound, and part of bible study. Looking at several choices and picking the one that seems to best fit the context is fundamental, and those who argue against it are indeed confused.

If "hearing" sometimes means responding such as "I hear you" then heeding rather than hearing is the better choice in that context. If "world" sometimes means "domain or society of humankind" then "human society or humanity" is the better choice in that context.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Gesundheit.

 

[37818]

One of the many problems with all this is that 'humanity' is a very bad translation of kosmos.

In the New Testament can you present one case which you believe definitively shows this to be true?

I think that not to be true.
John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

"For God so loved humanity, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the New Testament can you present one case which you believe definitively shows this to be true?

1 John 2:15-17. If you translate kosmos as 'humanity' there, it might just contradict Matthew 5:43-48.
John 17:9 might also present difficulties for @Van.

Kosmos is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts of the Apostles 17:24
Kosmos is used of Planet Earth: John 13:1; Ephesians 1:4, etc.
Kosmos is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc.
Kosmos is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Romans 3:6
Kosmos is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Romans 11:12 etc.
Kosmos is used of believers only, Jews and Gentiles together: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; 2 Corinthians 5:19.

One place where 'humanity might be OK is Romans 3:19.

Most of the latter part of this post was borrowed from A.W. Pink to save time.

 

[Van]

1 John 2:15-17. If you translate kosmos as 'humanity' there, it might just contradict Matthew 5:43-48.
John 17:9 might also present difficulties for @Van.

Kosmos is used of the Universe as a whole: Acts of the Apostles 17:24
Kosmos is used of Planet Earth: John 13:1; Ephesians 1:4, etc.
Kosmos is used of the world-system: John 12:31 etc.
Kosmos is used of humanity minus believers: John 15:18; Romans 3:6
Kosmos is used of Gentiles in contrast from Jews: Romans 11:12 etc.
Kosmos is used of believers only, Jews and Gentiles together: John 1:29; 3:16, 17; 6:33; 12;47; 2 Corinthians 5:19.

One place where 'humanity might be OK is Romans 3:19.

Most of the latter part of this post was borrowed from A.W. Pink to save time.

Did anyone say Kosmos has only the meaning of human society? Nope. So the above is simply a strawman argument, misrepresenting the issue which is par for the course.

Then the effort to claim 1 John 2:15-17 does not have human society in view is of course malarkey. What aspect of human society is in view? The lust of the flesh? Yes! The lust of the eyes? Yes! The boastful pride of life? Yes.

Do not love human society nor the things of human society. If anyone loves human society, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in human society, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from humanity. Fallen human society is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever. (Interpretive translation of 1 John 2:15-17)​