Doublespeak

Here is the description of "doublespeak" from Wikipedia:

"Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs and "servicing the target" for bombing),[1] in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning. ​

When a word or phrase can be construed to mean two or more things, the difficult task of the Bible Student is to discern which meaning God intended.

And as interpreters of God's word, when we witness to others, we must guard against presenting God's truth in ambiguity, such that we say "A" but our audience hears "B."

One of the most well know examples of intentional doublespeak is the denial by Mr. Clinton. He said, as he shook his finger, "I did not have sexual relations with that women." He was using a euphemism for intercourse, but his implication was he had not done anything that would result in his semen adhering to her blue dress. Thus in his mind, he had not lied, as he was not responsible for our bogus inference.

Recently in a discussion with another believer on this board, I pointed out his statement could mean two very different thing. He responded with complete candor he thought it meant both things, thus doublespeak.

In another discussion, concerning the meaning intended by God, when Jesus said "It is finished," it was suggested that two or all three of the various meanings of the Greek word used were intended, rather than just one.

Jesus taught our "Yes" should mean "Yes" (and thus not also mean "No" or "Maybe"). Paul asked us to pray that he witnessed boldly. And Jesus advocated speaking plainly.

As we study God's Word, and we come across an ambiguous word or phrase, careful study of the word or phrase, for example how is it used elsewhere in scripture, is required to arrive at the one meaning that best represents God's message.

 

Aaron has introduced a Hebrew text, where translators do not consistently interpret the text. According to the NET footnotes the grammar could support whatever or whoever, and he or she or it. The issue seems to me to be whether he had to sacrifice his daughter, or could wiggle out of it because he only had an animal in mind. I think the whole issue misses the point of the account, because what is important for us to grasp is how we can avoid foolishness in our service to our Lord.

 

How to handle the case where two different original language words are used to refer to the same thing. It would seem to obscure the original language difference (falling short in the transparency department) to use the same English word for both cases. For example, world is used in John 3:16 to refer to people, and so could be translated more clearly as "humanity" but then what about Romans 8:21 where "creation" again refers to people. To use humanity would be accurate, but then any intended difference conveyed by the two different Greek words would be obscured. So humankind could be used.

 

Jesus is said to have spoken "openly" or "plainly" or "boldly." Often these translate the same Greek word which is to speak without concealment, it is saying what you mean, and meaning what you say. To the extent we can discern the plain meaning of scripture, we should "boldly," plainly," and "openly" present that specific message as we witness or teach.

 

In the NASB and KJV, several different words are all translated as fervent or fervently. However their historical meanings differ significantly. Thus the distinctions intended by the inspired author have been obliterated.

In Acts of the Apostles18:25 and Romans 12:11, we have "zeo" (G2204) with a literal meaning of "hot," and a metaphoric meaning of emotional commitment translated as "being fervent." That is certainly consistent with the modern meaning of fervent, i.e. passionate intensity.

However, if we look at 1 Peter 4:8, we find another Greek word, "ektenes" (G1618) which historically means stretching out also translated as fervent. The idea is we are to extend our love for the others of our group.

And if you look at other English translations, you will find additional Greek words also translated as fervent or fervently. For example the KJV translates G1754 as effectual fervent at James 5:16. Here all one needs to do is drop fervent and just say effectual prayer.

Would it not be nice if someone translated God's word concordantly, where each word or phrase meaning in the original, was translated distinctively into English. Thus "Hell" would be replaced by Hades and Gehenna.

 

The Orwellian culture of Doublespeak (Newspeak) should not be the norm for communication within the body of Christ.

 

Lets look at the usage of our English word "creature."
First the Greek word "therion" (G2342) is usually rendered as "beast" with an added clarifying word is the context requires, i.e. wild or venomous. So no real need to render it creature. See Acts 28:5 NASB

Next, the Greek word "ktisis" (G2937) refers to any and all of God's created universe. And again, if context identifies a specific part of God's creation, i.e. humankind, then the word should be translated specifically, in my opinion. For example, See Mark 10:6, where the verse could read from the beginning of humankind, He made them male and female.

 

Continuing with words translated in the English creation or creature, we have "zoon" (G2226) which may point to a living beast or to a brute beast. See Revelation 4:8.

Lastly the NASB renders "ktisma" (G2938) as creature. See Revelation 8:9

Thus the NASB list of Greek words all translated at one point or another as creature includes four different words.

Is all this overlap necessary or could our translations do better at transparency?

 

The issue above is discerning whether he actually had only animals in mind, or had not discriminated and was thinking whatever came out could be sacrificed. What we know is he felt obligated to sacrifice whatever came out, which was his daughter.
Therefore, since the grammar could support whoever or whatever, whatever best conveys the idea being presented, do not make generalized claims that can include unintended consequences.