Featured Eliminating vague, arcane and obscure Words

Many English translations have added words to the inspired text.

Here is how the NIV renders the 1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

However, some English translations leave the message to be inferred.

Here is how the ASV renders the verse:
and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.

Thus the addition should be in italics in a version used for study, but the addition does not seem to alter the message.

Several translations use "atoning sacrifice" instead of "propitiation" but both choices use words which are outside the vocabulary of most lost readers. A much better translation would be "means of salvation."

 

LOL, how many put the addition in italics.
And again with the two wrongs make a right claim.

 

It seems Mr. Rippon is clueless as to the meanings of "hilasmos" which in this usage is "means of salvation."

 

AMPC
And He [that same Jesus Himself] is the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins, and not for ours alone but also for [the sins of] the whole world.

BRG
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

GNV
And he is the reconciliation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

JUB
and he is the reconciliation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

AKJV
and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

LEB
and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

NASB
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

WYC
and he is the forgiveness for our sins; and not only for our sins [and he is helping for our sins; soothly not only for ours], but also for the sins of all the world.

Claiming that the LEB and NASB did not in some manner identify the addition makes no sense.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right.

If a person does something wrong, they cannot make it right by pointing out another wrong by someone else.

Thing about the guy caught in a lie saying it is fine because everyone lies.

If the NIV makes a poor or corrupt translation choice, it is not corrected by saying other translations make that same bogus choice. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

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

Here the meaning can be unencrypted using the plain language meaning for "hilasmos:"

In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the means of salvation on account of our sins.

 

What does "atonement" mean? It means going from a separated state, two entities, to a united state, i.e. one state, or at one ment. Thus the actual word refers to God transferring an individual into Christ's spiritual body where they undergo the washing of regeneration, and arise a new spiritually alive creation, together with Christ.

However, that is not at all what many people who use this ill defined word mean. They conflate providing the means of salvation with providing individual salvation for those chosen.

 

Once again, this poster addresses me and not the topic.

Some translations use italics or other designations to indicate words or phrases added for clarity. They are the best ones to use for study of God's word.

No one I know of agrees that two wrongs do make a right!

The NIV is not wrong for not having my particular wording, its mistranslations are wrong because they mistranslate God's word.

Agenda driven mistranslations are poor choices that corrupt the text by alteration.

 

Yet another post addressing me because the poster has apparently no bible study findings of vague, arcane and obscure words.

 

You can deny the obvious until the cows come home, but if the means to appease [God] an offended party does not provide the means of salvation from God imposing the punitive consequences of our sins, I will have another cup of coffee.

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.
__________________
Footnote: i. e. "means of reconciliation with God by atoning for sins, or sin offering.

Thus the NASB says "hilasmos" refers to the "means of reconciliation" which of course refers to the means of salvation from the imposition of God's punitive consequences for our sins.

 

What is propitiation? A means of appeasement or a means of reconciliation, or a means of forgiveness, or a means of salvation, or a means of placating?

The result is the same, when the mechanism is used, the individual goes from God having something against the individual, to God having nothing against the individual. When God transfers individuals into Christ's spiritual body, they undergo the circumcision of Christ, where what God has against the individual is removed, delivering them from the wrath of God, thus saving them.

 

Translating "rhema" as declaration(s), remark(s) or matter(s) eliminates the need to use the same English term "word" for both rhema and logos. By the careful use of synonyms, transparency is enhanced. If the choice of declaration is used for an utterance of God and remark for an utterance of people, transparency seems enhanced.

Matthew 4:4
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY DECLARATION THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'”

Matthew 12:36
“But I tell you that for every careless remark that people utter, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment.

Matthew 26:75
And Peter remembered the declaration which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

There are a few examples where the general rule does not work well, for example when an Apostle is presenting the gospel, his speech is better rendered declaration than remark.