Featured Challenging Common Translation Choices

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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."

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)​