Featured Is Ambiguity a Problem?

When asked what frustrates Bible readers, not understanding it ranks quite high, about 15%.

The four mostly read versions were the KJV, NKJV, ESV and NIV.

Kinda makes you wonder whether ambiguity to preserve a possible range of meanings is such a virtue?

Bible readers have a range of faults, including a desire to instant understanding rather than studied understanding.

I am looking at how we might improve the translations, rather than the readers.

I am not trying to make one translation look less frustrating than another, I am looking at how all translations might be improved to provide greater understanding of the readers.

 

Is sanctification referring to being set part for God's purpose, or being made holy by the washing of regeneration?

 

1 Corinthians 1:30 NASB
But it is [fn]due to Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, [fn]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
_________________
Footnotes:
1) But from Him you are in Christ...
2) and could be translated as "both."

Here is a typical ambiguous translation making God's word hard to comprehend.

Who puts individuals into Christ's spiritual body? Who is the Him? Is it God the Father or God the Holy Spirit?

What exactly is "the wisdom from God? Is the idea that those saved are indwelt with the Spirit of Christ?

Christ became to us righteousness. Does that mean Christ provided the righteousness of God to us?

Were we set apart in Christ by God or were we made holy by God?

How did Christ become our redemption?

 

1 Corinthians 1:30 (Interpretive translation)
But by God's agency you are within Christ Jesus, thus setting us apart, redeeming us, providing God's righteousness and the Spirit of Christ's indwelt wisdom to us.

This may not be the idea, but at least it presents an idea in a straight forward manner. It does not answer who put us into Christ beyond God did it. It proclaims the wisdom from God is our indwelt "helper." Its makes clear we receive the righteousness of God. And it says set apart is the contextual meaning in view.

 

I do not see any point in this post. For example, first "ambiguity may not be a problem, the "wide application does not make it ambiguous.

And if a statement is ambiguous, then an agenda driven interpretation can be read into it, not the other way around.

 

Right, functional non-equivalence does not necessarily make an ambiguous passage clear.

 

Returning to specifics:

1 Corinthians 1:30 NASB
But it is [fn]due to Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, [fn]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
_________________
Footnotes:
1) But from Him you are in Christ...
2) and could be translated as "both."

1 Corinthians 1:30 (Interpretive translation)
But by God's agency you are within Christ Jesus, thus setting us apart, redeeming us, providing God's righteousness and the Spirit of Christ's indwelt wisdom to us.

Ambiguity is not helpful when the goal is to present the actual message of God.

 

Yet another taint so post. Functional equivalence is functional non-equivalence. That is why actual devotees of scripture use formal equivalence translations.

Returning to specifics:

1 Corinthians 1:30 NASB
But it is [fn]due to Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, [fn]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
_________________
Footnotes:
1) But from Him you are in Christ...
2) and could be translated as "both."

1 Corinthians 1:30 (Interpretive translation)
But by God's agency you are within Christ Jesus, thus setting us apart, redeeming us, providing God's righteousness and the Spirit of Christ's indwelt wisdom to us.

Ambiguity is not helpful when the goal is to present the actual message of God.

 

Hebrews 4:3 NASB
For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“AS I SWORE IN MY ANGER,
THEY CERTAINLY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.

1) What is the "rest" in view? Is it the kingdom of God?
2) Who will not enter "My rest?" Those not saved?
3) What are the "works" that were finished?
4) When were those works finished and available to enter?

Ambiguity is the enemy of effective witnessing to the lost .

 

LOL, two posters think our translations are not ambiguous, the problem is the ignorant readers. I kid you not.

 

When asked what frustrates Bible readers, not understanding it ranks quite high, about 15%. The four mostly read versions were the KJV, NKJV, ESV and NIV.

Kinda makes you wonder whether ambiguity to preserve a possible range of meanings is such a virtue? Bible readers have a range of faults, including a desire for instant understanding rather than studied understanding.

How might these popular translation be improved, more easily understood? Improved, less ambiguous translation word choices, such as set apart rather than sanctify which has another meaning.

I am not trying to make one translation look less frustrating than another, I am looking at how all translations might be improved to provide greater understanding of the readers

Let us consider how this one might be better translated:

Hebrews 4:3 NASB
For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“AS I SWORE IN MY ANGER,
THEY CERTAINLY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrew 4:3 Interpretive translation
For we who have believed enter the kingdom prepared for us, just as He said,
"AS I SWORE IN MY ANGER,
THE DISOBEDIENT SHALL NOT ENTER MY REFUGE"
although His preparations had been finished since the down-casting of humanity. ​

 

Another vague translation choice is found in Romans 3:11 which reads "There is no one who seeks for God" or There is no one who seeks out God. Both renderings indicate no one searches for God. But does the verse say no one ever seeks for God? Nope. Or no one seeks for God at all times? Nope. So the scope of the statement must be discerned from the context of the passage, or more specifically how does this OT quote fit into Paul's argument that we are all under sin? The answer is found in verse 12 where all have turned aside. Thus there is no one who seeks for God when turned aside, i.e. sinning. If the verse read, "there is no one who seeks for God when sinning" another basis for mistaken doctrine would be eliminated.