Featured Encrypted or Unencrypted

Another candidate for study using our English study tools to decrypt confusing and ambiguous renderings, is 1 Corinthians 15:29.

1 Corinthians 15:29 (NASB)
For otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?​

Obviously the meaning of "baptized for the dead" is obscure! I think the actual message is to ask the rhetorical question, if the gospel promise (eternal life) is not true, they why keep preaching and baptizing new believers to replace us as we grow old and die.
So how could we translated the verse to make this message plain?

Otherwise, what would those baptized to replace the believers who have died do if those in Christ are not actually raised? Why continue to beat a dead horse? (Just kidding - but I am growing tired.)

 

By learning how to study on our own, we can quickly spot the "home cooking" found in some translations like the NWT.

 

The ESV provides an example of "home cooking" with its translation of Revelation 13:8.

and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.​

You will note many of the other English translations (NASB, CSB, NKJV) have either written "from" or "since" the foundation of the world. The Greek word is "apo" and means "out of" or "out from" and points to the origin of something. Obviously it cannot mean before its originator or source.

Why would such a major outlier be found in such an otherwise well respected translation? The ESV is based on RSV which also contains this error. However the NRSV fixed it.

The underlying reason for the introduction of destructive heresies, is that people are willing to alter God's word to make it fit with their beliefs. If you believe foreseen individuals were chosen before the foundation of the world, based on your understanding of Ephesian 1:4, then it might seem justified to say the names were written before as well, and then you do not have to explain why the names were not written when the individual election occurred.

 

Another Greek word translated "sin" has double meanings.

Most of us, I expect, think of sin as an action (thought or deed) of commission or omission which goes against of will of God. In other words, the human side of sin. But sin has consequences, the divine action, either of punishment, i.e. storing up wrath, or of pardon due to the reconciliation provided by the blood of Christ.

We can say sin is the act, even if pardoned, or we can say sin is both the act and the divine punishment as a consequence. If our usage refers to both sides, then we can say, as born anew reconciled believers we do not "sin" because our actions do not result in divine punishment.

The divine punishment has two components, first we are made unjustified, owing our punitive "debt," thus unholy, and therefore as a consequence, separated from our holy God. This separation of our "spirit/soul" from God is referred to as being "dead in our sin or trespass." The other divine consequence is that our "punitive debt" must be paid in the after lift, the "torment" in Hades and the second death in the Lake of Fire.

How could we untangle this complex mess with improved clarity of translation? Could we use one word for the human side action, absent the consequence of punishment or pardon, and a second word for the combined action of both the transgression of God's will and the divine punitive consequence, and a third word for the combined action of both the transgression of God's will and the divine pardon due to Christ?

 

When scripture says we were "made sinners" we were made with the consequence of Adam's sin, separated from God, in a sinful state, conceived in "iniquity."

If we use "trespass" to address the human side of sin, and "sin" to address both the trespass and punitive consequence, then as believers we could say we "trespass" but do not "sin. No need for a third designated word to successfully decrypt the double meaning ambiguity.

Lets look at a few verses, the Greek noun transliterated "hamartia," (G266) appears about 174 times in the New Testament, and is almost always translated as "sin(s)." However the verb (G264) is sometimes translated as trespass.

Matthew 12:31 (NASB)
“Therefore I say to you, every sin (G266) and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

Here the idea is that every trespass shall be forgiven, since no punitive consequence remains.

John 9:41(NASB)
Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin (G266); but now that you maintain, ‘We see,’ your sin (G266) remains.

Here the idea is those that were "blind" to the Good News, would embrace the news, thus having no "sin" due to forgiveness, and the Pharisees, blinded to the Good News by "seeing" their presuppositions, would receive no forgiveness. Thus "sin" referring to the act and divine consequence is in view.

Romans 6:1 (NASB)
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin (G266) so that grace may increase?

Here the human side is in view, thus "are we to continue in trespass so that grace may increase.

 

Another multiple meaning word, translated as sanctify, (Greek verb,"hagiazō" G37) is used to convey three different meanings, to venerate, to set apart, and to purify. And at times the usage includes both to set apart and purify, such as when individuals are transferred into Christ. On the other hand, the Old Testament saints were set apart in Abraham's bosom, but not made perfect until Christ died and were washed with His blood. Only then could they enter the abode of our Holy God.

Lets look at a few examples:

Mathew 6:9 (NASB)
“Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father, who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.​

Here the usage is to venerate God;s name, everything about Him. (Honored be Your name)

John 17:17 (NASB)
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.​

Here Jesus requests that God set apart His disciples from the falsehoods of the world, and in the truth of God's word. (Set them apart in the truth.)

Hebrews 13:12 (NASB)
Therefore Jesus also suffered outside the gate, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood.​

Here both the actions of setting people apart in Christ, and purifying them (the washing of regeneration) are in view. (No change in the rendering needed)

If we use honored for veneration, and set apart for that action alone and sanctify for the combined actions. improved clarity may result.

 

The thoughtful and discerning naysayers seem intent on not trying to untangle needlessly ambiguous translations choices obscuring God's word, or trying to improve our understanding of how we can become more effective ambassadors of Christ.

 

Anytime a poster starts address my qualifications rather than the view I have presented, ignoring the many published scholars who share the view, we can conclude obfuscation rather than discussion is at hand.

Translation choices to clearly, plainly and boldly present God's truth often differ from presumptions based on ambiguous vague or errant translation choices.

To claim any published translation, the KJV or WEB or NASB does not contain poor or errant translation choices is nonsense. In these cases, by discerning the contextual historical meaning intended (or apparently intended) we can often find in alternate published translations improved choices.

 

1) When a translator chooses the English word to translate the contextual meaning of the source language (say Greek for this discussion) the Engish word should reflect the Greek grammar of the word translated, i.e. a noun for a noun, and reflect the historical meaning, as it was used to convey meaning when written.

For example, The NIV did not stick with the historical meaning of "children" for the Greek "teknon," (G5043). but altered the text to say "deserving." The actual idea is that Adam's sin resulted in the punitive (wrathful) consequence, as we were made sinners, conceived in iniquity, we are children of wrath in our very nature as fallen. This is before we have done anything good or bad.

2) As bible students, our "primary study bible" is the one we use and compare against others. For me, its the NASB because it does well at translating word for word, reflecting the source language grammar. But no matter which one we use, we will find verses, where our "favorite" does not do the best possible job.

3) Often you can find a comparison chart with the most literal "word for word" versions on one side and then showing the more literal one progressive, until you reach the other side where paraphrases are found. A Hebrew or Greek reverse Interlinear provides the best "word for word" renderings of the source text, and many people use the NASB or NET or WEB (World English Bible) for their primary study, others go with the KJV, NKJV or ESV but I do not recommend those choices.

4) The NASB and NET are based on the Critical Text, but the WEB is based on the Majority Text, so a comparison is certainly warranted

5) An additional advantage of the NET is it has very extensive and well researched footnotes..

 

Saying "taint so" does not make truth "taint so."

I offer my interpretation of bible verses based on my study of the words, context, and commentaries, such as the NET footnotes.

 

1) Here is a link to the method: Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia

2) The method includes an effort to minimize grammatical transformations where verbs, nouns adverbs and the like are recast as another type.

3) The number of examples where we cannot stick with the grammar is fall smaller the number of needless transformations to suit agenda driven efforts.

4) Lets look at your example of Matthew 4:2:

NKJV
And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward He was hungry.
NASB
And after He had fasted for forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry.
NET
After he fasted forty days and forty nights he was famished.
NRSV
He fasted for forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. ​

Your example presented grammatical the transformation of hungered (verb) into hungry (adjective).
However, that recast is totally unnecessary, as "he hungered more later" presents the idea using the actual grammar.

I would be remiss if I did not praise "Craigbythesea, for actually addressing the topic with candor.