Correspondence

[Van]

Correspondence refers the practice of translating the same source language word or phrase meaning into the same target language word or phrase. When more than one source language word or phrase meaning is translated into the same target language word or phrase, then the translation lacks "correspondence."

For example, many times posters have believed that names are blotted out (removed) from the Lamb's "Book of Life." This is because the exact same phrase "Book of Life" is used for another book found in scripture.

Ditto for Hades and Gehenna, two very different places, yet both are translated as "Hell" is several of our English translations, thus falling way short of the goal of Correspondence.

Ambiguity is the enemy of Truth.

 

[Van]

If we look at the NKJV or ESV for Psalms 69:28, we will see a reference to the book of the living. This is a vastly superior translation of the Hebrew word which means to be alive. Thus Correspondence is achievable with careful study.

Another unstudied claim is that names were written in the Lamb's book life before creation. However, both Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 refer to the names of individuals not written since creation, rather than before creation. Again, this bogus claim is to make bogus sense of names being blotted out of the Lamb's book of life, and so it goes as the bogus doctrine careens down the slope of disinformation.

Behold the fruit of Ambiguity, where dots are connected by speculation and presupposition, rather than careful study.

 

[Deacon]

Ambiguity is the enemy of Truth.

So you like simplicity.
You like clarity.
You like certainty.
You like directness.

Well that's not how Scripture works.
God's word is fine literature and chock full of ambiguities!

Simply the fact that our Scriptures were written in another language, in another culture and another time makes ambiguity a certainty.

thenaddthefactthatorigin
allytheywerewrittenwitho
utwordspacesorpunctuation

Ambiguity certainly can lead to confusion or misinterpretation.
It is a literary technique used to exploit multiple meanings, complexity, double entendre, and humor (such as a pun).

• Ambiguity can be intentional, created by the careful choice of material presented.
• Ambiguity can intentionally mislead or misdirect an audience (have you ever read a mystery novel?)
• Ambiguity means one must be open to considering multiple interpretations.
• Ambiguity allows the participant to use their imagination to personalize a message.

Scripture uses a variety of genres and sub-genres including narrative, poetry, wisdom, poetry, fiction, the Gospels, epistles/letters, and Apocalypse.
Each of these has different general guidelines to assist a reader to understand what was written.

Ambiguity means you have to ask the text questions - the six W's (Who, What, When, Where, Why, Wow)
You need to study. Meditate over the text. Internalize it.

Rob

 

[Van]

So you like simplicity.
You like clarity.
You like certainty.
You like directness.

Well that's not how Scripture works.
God's word is fine literature and chock full of ambiguities!

Simply the fact that our Scriptures were written in another language, in another culture and another time makes ambiguity a certainty.

thenaddthefactthatorigin
allytheywerewrittenwitho
utwordspacesorpunctuation

Ambiguity certainly can lead to confusion or misinterpretation.
It is a literary technique used to exploit multiple meanings, complexity, double entendre, and humor (such as a pun).

• Ambiguity can be intentional, created by the careful choice of material presented.
• Ambiguity can intentionally mislead or misdirect an audience (have you ever read a mystery novel?)
• Ambiguity means one must be open to considering multiple interpretations.
• Ambiguity allows the participant to use their imagination to personalize a message.

Scripture uses a variety of genres and sub-genres including narrative, poetry, wisdom, poetry, fiction, the Gospels, epistles/letters, and Apocalypse.
Each of these has different general guidelines to assist a reader to understand what was written.

Ambiguity means you have to ask the text questions - the six W's (Who, What, When, Where, Why, Wow)
You need to study. Meditate over the text. Internalize it.

Rob

I totally disagree. Jesus taught we are to speak boldly, and plainly, with our yes meaning yes and our no meaning no. If you cloak God's word in ambiguity, to facilitate spurious interpretation.

G3955, "parrēsiazomai" refers to speaking boldly, not timidly. even in the face of opposition. We should not put our light under a basket, so to speak.

In Luke 20:21and following, we have the example of speaking rightly, plainly on the basis of truth. The hidden agenda of the spies cloaked their message, but Jesus spoke plainly.

Your claims seem generalized, but no example of a verse that has been translated ambiguously because of some sound basis.

To translate the Book of the Living and the Lamb's Book of Life using the exact same phrase creates needless ambiguity. To translate both Hades and Gehenna using the exact same word creates needless ambiguity. Our English translations appear to me to be full of needless ambiguity which could be mitigated by a steadfast application of "Correspondence."

 

[Van]

Take the word "world" which in the NT frequently refers to humanity or fallen humanity, rather than the planet. Why not translation the word as society or human society rather than world? There is no good reason except provincialism.

Another example is the word "propitiation." This word is not in our modern vocabulary, so its meaning must be explained in a footnote, such as "the means of reconciliation." Why not just put "means of reconciliation" in the translation and avoid the ambiguity. We should not need a decoder ring to read our translation of God's word, the translation should be as clear,as plain and as accurate as we can achieve.

 

[Van]

When a translation introduces ambiguity such that this group can interpret it to mean this, but another group can interpret it to mean that, the translation is not translating on the basis of truth.

 

[Deacon]

Scripture is full of ambiguity, What else would students of the Bible be arguing about for the past 2500 years?
Some things "biblical" are just not as clear as we might want them to be.
Peter even had trouble reading and understanding the writings of Paul, is it any wonder that we do as well?

...just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, ... 2 Peter 3:15-16​

Biblical Wisdom has deep roots - sometime hard for us to comprehend.

The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple. Psalm 119:130, NASB 2020

Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! Romans 11:33​

Ambiguity is not the "enemy" if it is present in the original text.
>>>It is a biblical translators job to maintain the ambiguities in the original text while not creating any additional ambiguities in the translation.<<<

Translators usually provide a preface to their work, explaining the methods and goals of their translation.
Depending on their method and their audience, translations can have significant variation while maintaining the integrity of God's word.
Generally if you understand a translation's methods or philosophy, it will aid you in understanding any perceived ambiguities.

Scripture isn't always plain, simple and easy to understand. Is it any wonder that an authoritative scholastic book on biblical interpretation comes out so often?

The unfolding of Your words gives light; It gives understanding to the simple. Psalm 119:130, NASB 2020
​

There are plenty of examples of Jesus words being misunderstood, misinterpreted or simply passing over the intended audience, not being understood.

And yet they on their part did not understand the statement which He had made to them. Luke 2:50

The disciples understood none of these things, and the meaning of this statement was hidden from them, and they did not comprehend the things that were said. Luke 18:34 NASB 2020

But they did not understand this statement, and they were afraid to ask Him. Mark 9:32

But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them so that they would not comprehend it; and they were afraid to ask Him about this statement. Luke 9:45

For they did not yet understand the Scripture, that He must rise from the dead. John 20:9

Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not realize right now, but you will understand later.” John 13:7​

The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and yet You will raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking about the temple of His body. So when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken. John 2:20-22

Rob​

 

[Van]

Scripture is full of ambiguity,

SNIP
Rob​

Yes, Scripture contains statements that can only be discerned by speculation, a no no. Nothing I said should be misconstrued to suggest there is no ambiguity in scripture. What I have addressed is the needless ambiguity, introduced by sloppy translation.

Please address that facet of the problem

1) When translators translate two or more very different things, using the exact same word or phrase in English, they introduce ambiguity. See Hades and Gehenna, or book of the living and book of life.

2) When translators translate the same word or phrase meaning using multiple terms, rather than sticking with just one, or as few as they are able, they are introducing ambiguity.

3) When translators use a vague word or phrase, with several possible meanings, when the context clearly indicates one meaning, they are introducing ambiguity.

4) Ambiguity is the enemy of truth, as it is the avenue used by false teachers to introduce secretly destructive heresies. For example water baptism is necessary for salvation, rather than spiritual baptism into Christ is necessary for salvation.

 

[Deacon]

Yes, Scripture contains statements that can only be discerned by speculation, a no no. Nothing I said should be misconstrued to suggest there is no ambiguity in scripture. What I have addressed is the needless ambiguity, introduced by sloppy translation.

Please address that facet of the problem

1) When translators translate two or more very different things, using the exact same word or phrase in English, they introduce ambiguity. See Hades and Gehenna, or book of the living and book of life.

2) When translators translate the same word or phrase meaning using multiple terms, rather than sticking with just one, or as few as they are able, they are introducing ambiguity.

3) When translators use a vague word or phrase, with several possible meanings, when the context clearly indicates one meaning, they are introducing ambiguity.

4) Ambiguity is the enemy of truth, as it is the avenue used by false teachers to introduce secretly destructive heresies. For example water baptism is necessary for salvation, rather than spiritual baptism into Christ is necessary for salvation.

​

The Preface of the KJV notes:

We think it good to inform you, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to uniform phrasing, or to the use of identical words, as some, perhaps, would wish that we had done because they have observed that some learned men, somewhere, have been as precise as they could be in that regard. We were indeed particularly careful not to vary from the sense of a word which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there are some words that do not have the same sense everywhere). In this we were conscientious and dutiful. But our duty was to express the same notion in the same particular word; it was not, for example, if we translate a Hebrew or Greek word once by “purpose,” never to call it “intent,” or if we translated a word as “journeying,” never to call it “traveling”; if as “think,” never as “suppose”; if as “pain,” never as “ache”; if “joy,” never “gladness,” etc. That sort of approach seemed to us to savor more of eccentricity than of wisdom, and we reckon that it would breed scorn in the atheist rather than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God a matter of words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? Why use one exclusively when we may use another that is no less appropriate?
Barzon, Joshua. The Forgotten Preface: Surprising Insights on the Translation Philosophy of the King James Translators (pp. 20-21).
​

Strong's Concordance is based upon the King James Bible - you can observe the variation of word meanings.
The numbering in the text relates to single, simple original language word (a lemma).
You can see that the translators DID NOT use the same English word for a single Hebrew or Greek word, there are many words that have multiple different meanings.
I remember learning about homonyms in the third grade (Mrs. Witiker).

EXAMPLES:
Sozo—save (93×), make whole (9×), heal (3×), be whole (3×)
Agape—love (86×), charity (28×), dear (1×), charitably (1×)
Charis—grace (130×), favor (6×), thanks (8×), pleasure (2×)
Kurios—Lord (667×), lord (54×), master (11×), Sir (6×), sir (6×)​

Oh my, I can't find a book in my library by D.A. Carson that might be helpful, (I might have given it away UGGH!), "Exegetical Fallacies".
Anyway, he mentions a number of translational stumbles, one of which is translating a particular word the same way without noticing that the context demands a different meaning... semantic ... anachronism ... that's it! The meaning of words change over time. Since our Scriptures were written over such a long time, meanings of some of the words changed. Think about how the word, "gay", has changed meanings in your own lifetime.
Particularly in the Hebrew Scriptures, in places, particular words were used for their sounds as much as they were for their meaning: they played with word sounds.

Ah, I found it! Chapter: Word Study Fallacies, p. 33. also 'semantic obsolescence' (p. 35), Good stuff, Van, well worth reading. You can pick it up on Amazon used for about $7.

Rob

 

[Van]

​

The Preface of the KJV notes:

We think it good to inform you, gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to uniform phrasing, or to the use of identical words, as some, perhaps, would wish that we had done because they have observed that some learned men, somewhere, have been as precise as they could be in that regard. We were indeed particularly careful not to vary from the sense of a word which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there are some words that do not have the same sense everywhere). In this we were conscientious and dutiful. But our duty was to express the same notion in the same particular word; it was not, for example, if we translate a Hebrew or Greek word once by “purpose,” never to call it “intent,” or if we translated a word as “journeying,” never to call it “traveling”; if as “think,” never as “suppose”; if as “pain,” never as “ache”; if “joy,” never “gladness,” etc. That sort of approach seemed to us to savor more of eccentricity than of wisdom, and we reckon that it would breed scorn in the atheist rather than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God a matter of words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free? Why use one exclusively when we may use another that is no less appropriate?
Barzon, Joshua. The Forgotten Preface: Surprising Insights on the Translation Philosophy of the King James Translators (pp. 20-21).
​

Strong's Concordance is based upon the King James Bible - you can observe the variation of word meanings.
The numbering in the text relates to single, simple original language word (a lemma).
You can see that the translators DID NOT use the same English word for a single Hebrew or Greek word, there are many words that have multiple different meanings.
I remember learning about homonyms in the third grade (Mrs. Witiker).

EXAMPLES:
Sozo—save (93×), make whole (9×), heal (3×), be whole (3×)
Agape—love (86×), charity (28×), dear (1×), charitably (1×)
Charis—grace (130×), favor (6×), thanks (8×), pleasure (2×)
Kurios—Lord (667×), lord (54×), master (11×), Sir (6×), sir (6×)​

Oh my, I can't find a book in my library by D.A. Carson that might be helpful, (I might have given it away UGGH!), "Exegetical Fallacies".
Anyway, he mentions a number of translational stumbles, one of which is translating a particular word the same way without noticing that the context demands a different meaning... semantic ... anachronism ... that's it! The meaning of words change over time. Since our Scriptures were written over such a long time, meanings of some of the words changed. Think about how the word, "gay", has changed meanings in your own lifetime.
Particularly in the Hebrew Scriptures, in places, particular words were used for their sounds as much as they were for their meaning: they played with word sounds.

Ah, I found it! Chapter: Word Study Fallacies, p. 33. also 'semantic obsolescence' (p. 35), Good stuff, Van, well worth reading. You can pick it up on Amazon used for about $7.

Rob

Yet another long post making an effort to justify poor translation choices.
Please address that facet of the problem

1) When translators translate two or more very different things, using the exact same word or phrase in English, they introduce ambiguity. See Hades and Gehenna, or book of the living and book of life.

2) When translators translate the same word or phrase meaning using multiple terms, rather than sticking with just one, or as few as they are able, they are introducing ambiguity.

3) When translators use a vague word or phrase, with several possible meanings, when the context clearly indicates one meaning, they are introducing ambiguity.

4) Ambiguity is the enemy of truth, as it is the avenue used by false teachers to introduce secretly destructive heresies. For example water baptism is necessary for salvation, rather than spiritual baptism into Christ is necessary for salvation.

Here is how your citation attempted to justify using multiple synonyms rather than using one word or phrase for each source word or phrase meaning:

That sort of approach seemed to us to savor more of eccentricity than of wisdom, and we reckon that it would breed scorn in the atheist rather than bring profit to the godly reader.​

That Sir is a nonsensical word salad.

And I addresses multiple word or phrase meanings! So all that verbiage concerning that issue is simply off target.

But you were kind enough to provide some examples where multiple words were said to be needed when one or less that indicated would work.

There is no valid reason for rendering of "His dear Son" rather than "his loved Son. Colossians 1:13

Also note that charity can just as simply be rendered love as in many modern translation.

Bottom line, nothing presented justifies needless ambiguous translation choices.