1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mechanics of a Perfect Translation

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by John of Japan, May 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    "Accurately" and "perfectly" are not synonyms.
    Contradicts what? What are you talking about?
    Huh???? Buddhism isn't a language!! :laugh:
    My guy is saved, right with God, mature (old in fact), knows his language well, has natural ability, was a professional linguist (is a retired high school English teacher).
    Neither of the books I mentioned teach dynamic equivalence. In fact, they both explicitly oppose the method. :type:
     
  2. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    But even if we were to accept that a particular translation was perfect, how can it remain perfect? Whether we like it or not, languages change over time. There are many words in the English language that mean something completely different now to what they meant a few centuries ago. Just a few examples:

    1. "Prevent" now means "to stop someone doing something, or stop something from happening. The AV/KJV translation of Psalm 119.147 is:

    I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried: I hoped in thy word.

    Is the psalmist really saying that he had stopped the day from beginning? Of course not! The English word "prevent" used to mean "to go or come before". The psalmist means that he got up before dawn to cry to the Lord.

    2. "Suffer" now means "endure pain", "have an illness". Is that what Jesus meant when he said those words translated into English as "Suffer the little children to come unto Me"? Again, of course not. It's just that the English word used to have the added meaning of "allow".

    3. "Quick" now means "speedy". But Psalm 124.3 says:

    Then they had swallowed us up quick, when their wrath was kindled against us:​


    Is it talking about greedy cannibals? No - it's the "us" who were quick, not the swallowing! And "quick" used to mean "living", as tin the biblical phrase "the quick and the dead", so the meaning is: "They swallowed us alive".

    Besides, there are some old English words in the KJV (granted, not many) which were quite acceptable in the 17th century, but which could not easily be read in public, because they have now become vulgar and obscene. Examples are 2 Kings 18.27, and (not here in Britain, but I imagine in the US) 2 Peter 2.16.

    I'm sure John will be able to tell us if the same sorts of changes have occured in the Japanese language.

    So even assuming a translation was perfect in 1611 does not mean that it is perfect now. But that is a big assumption to make anyway, as the translators themselves wrote in their preface:

    "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded."

    Every blessing,
     
    #62 David Lamb, May 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2007
  3. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your concerns are, I believe, why the Bible tells us to...

    "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 2:13

    Just because the world takes a word such as "gay" and perverts it into meaning something it did not previously mean, does not necessarily mean we should leave the original meaning to accommodate the world or create a new Bible based on what the world now believes the word means. Just because the world isn't holding fast to the form of sound words doesn't mean we shouldn't either.
     
  4. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If that were the meaning Christians should still be speaking Greek.
    The original meaning of "Gay" may have changed but we should look to the original meaning of the author.


    Rob
     
    #64 Deacon, May 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2007
  5. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hi, David.

    There have been tremendous changes in the Japanese language since the first complete Bible was published in 1880, the Motoyaku ("Original Translation"). Chief among the changes is that in those days all documents and books were written in extremely difficult classical Japanese. (I would say twice as difficult to the Japanese nowadays as KJV 1611 English is.) I couldn't begin to get into all of that on this thread.

    The Motoyaku was translated primarily from the KJV with reference to the TR and German and Chinese Bibles. A Baptist translator, a former associate of William Carey's, quit the committee because it decided not to translate from the original languages. Alas, it was far from perfect. Within 30 years it had been revised. Among other things it had baptismal regeneration in one verse, and "wine" was sometimes translated sake (sah-keh), a very powerful rice wine. So I can tell you that Japanese has never had a perfect Bible, and no Japanese pastor, theologian or historian has ever claimed any translation to be perfect. (I have done extensive research.)

    God bless.
     
  6. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rob, I call this "author intent" in my translation method (as opposed to emphasizing reader comprehension primarily). My goal is to accurately translate into Japanese what God and the human authors intended to say, whether the readers (including me!) understand it or not.
     
  7. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I think you have misunderstood what I meant. I was not saying for one moment that we should go against 2 Timothy 2.13. But neither English, nor any other particular language is mentioned in 2 Timothy 2.13. Do you really believe that verse to mean that no word in the English language should change its meaning? I'm sure you don't, for you know that (in English) the verse says that the "form of sound words" is that which "thou (Timothy) hast heard of me (Paul)", and neither of them spoke a single word of English, a language still many years in the future.

    Like you, I don't like the way in which words like "gay" have been hijacked, but none of the examples of changes in English that I gave were like that; as far as I know, the meanings of words like "quick", suffer" and "prevent" didn't change as the result of any anti-God pressure group hijacking them.

    And because words like that have so radically changed their meaning, with "prevent" now meaning the opposite of what it once did, for instance, we would not be "holding fast the form of sound words" if we are to ignore that change in English. If we use a translation like the AV/KJV which translates the Greek word phthano as "prevent", we must surely explain that it used to mean "go before", otherwise we give completely unsound words. For example, with no explaination, a verse like 1 Thessalonians 4.13 would seem to mean that Christians who are alive at the Second Coming will not stop Christians who have died:

    For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. ​


    I hope I have made myself a bit clearer this time, and apologise for not doing so before.
     
    #67 David Lamb, May 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2007
  8. Deacon

    Deacon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,469
    Likes Received:
    1,228
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Even the "biblical" words changed meanings over time, Rufus.
    Consider that fact that in Hebrew, there was more than a thousand years between the first recorded writings and the last.

    An good resource to check the way the word meaning changed over time is the Theological Dictionaries of the Old and New Testament [LINK] (but much cheaper on CD)

    Rob
     
  9. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, I do believe that no word in the English language contained in the Holy Bible, should change its meaning. If the world wants to mess with the meaning of "Cowabunga" no problem, that's the world's word. However, if they want to change the meaning of a word, such as "gay", or "marriage" or even "prevent", then we should hold fast. If the Holy Bible is truth, then we should trust that its definitions of words are true.

    True, the examples were not like that as it is an extreme example. However, let's set aside the contemporary anti-God politically correct word "gay" and look at a more innocuous two-letter word such as "in". All one has to do is change the "i" to an "o" and you have a completely different meaning, with just the most minute of changes. Is it the same author that meant to say "in" as the author that meant to say "on"? Did He have different intentions or did the meaning of the words change? Thus, whether it is "quick", "prevent", "suffer" or "in", manipulating the meanings of these words, or changing the words altogether, causes confusion and far better it is to understand the meanings of these words according to the Holy Bible's definitions.

     
  10. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rufus_1611 quotes this verse:

    "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou
    hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 2:13//

    and makes this statement:
    //Just because the world takes a word such as "gay" and perverts it into meaning something it did not previously mean, does not necessarily mean we should leave the original meaning to accommodate the world or create a new Bible based on what the world now believes the word means. Just because the world isn't holding fast to the form of sound words doesn't mean we shouldn't either.//



    1. ABOUT 2 TIMOTHY 2:13

    2 Timothy 2:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
    If we beleeue not, yet he abideth faithfull, he cannot denie himselfe.

    Which obviously is NOT the scripture quoted.
    Now I remember why I have been called to check
    every scripture that I read on this BB (Baptist Board).
    Again, I appeal to all who quote the scripture to use
    the Version & Edition data (as well as the Book,
    Chapter and Verse which were given here, even if
    in error).

    Here is the real scriture quoted:

    2 Timothy 1:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
    Holde fast the fourme of sound words,
    which thou hast heard of mee, in faith and loue,
    which is in Christ Iesus.





    2. ABOUT 'gay':
    Here is the only occurance of 'gay' in the KJV1769:

    James 2:2-4 (KJV1611 Edition):
    For if there come vnto your assembly a man
    with a gold ring, in goodly apparel,
    and there come in also a poore man, in vile raiment:
    3 And yee haue respect to him
    that weareth the gay clothing,
    and say vnto him, Sit thou here in a good place:
    and say to the poore, Stand thou there,
    or sit here vnder my footstoole:
    4 Are yee not then partiall in your selues,
    and are become iudges of euill thoughts?

    Note this one scripture has the same meaning if
    'gay' means 'joyful' or if 'gay' means 'homosexual'.



    3. DAVID LAMB's COMMENTS:
    Amen, Brother David Lamb -- Preach it!


    4. About 'WORDS' in the written word of God.

    2 Ti 1:13 Holde fast the fourme of sound words,
    which thou hast heard of mee, in faith and loue,
    which is in Christ Iesus.

    "Words" here is the Greek 'LOGOS' which could have
    been translated 'doctrine'. 'Sound' cannot mean
    the robustness of the physiscal words but the
    virtual meaning (i.e. doctrine) of those physcial words.

    5. FORCED WORD MEANING VARIATION

    I love the word 'Fundamentalist' and it's obvious
    observed history (for me it was news) of meaning:

    A.
    circa 1920: The FUNDAMENTALS of Christianity
    were specified among especially the Liberal Baptists.

    From WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY (1978)

    FUNDAMENTALISM n.
    1. religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of
    everything in the Bible and regarded as fundamental
    to Christian faith and morals
    2. the 20th-cent movement among some
    American Protestants, based on these beliefs.

    B.
    In the 1980's I began to see words like 'fundamentalist
    Islamic Terrorist'. How can that be a 'movement
    among American Protestants' ? It cannot.
    obviously a new meaning was added:

    FUNDAMENTALIST n.
    3. An adherant of any of the book religions
    emphasising the fundamentals of their faith

    C.
    In the 1990s the 'drive-by press' (AKA: Liberal Presss)
    and the Gulf War caused this definition to be added:

    FUNDAMENTALIST n.
    4. A bigot of what ever kind

    E. As can be seen, the enemies of Messiah Jesus
    have changed the (non-Biblical) term: 'fundamentalist'.

    But does that really contaminate the word?
    It still means the same things it used to mean.
    No, it is not the physical words that are unsound,
    it is the virtual meaning (doctrine) that should
    be sound.

    But as David Lamb said, there are words NOT changed
    by the enemies of Messiah Jesus -- IMHO the new meaning(s)
    are as sound as the old meanings


    6. MECHANICS OF A PERFECT TRANSLATION

    Recall you are working on a translation of
    the Bible into 21st Century Japaneese. It will be
    inerrant when it is done. I belieive that the physical
    words you translate from the inerrant original sources will
    produce an inerrant translation -- because that belief is
    AXIOMATIC. So I'll be supporting in prayer, the author of the
    opening post who will make an inerrant translation
    shifting the inerrancy from the original sources by
    God's omnipotent preservation of his Holy Written Word.
    Amen & Amen!

    (the exact mechanics of that are beyond my forte)
     
    #70 Ed Edwards, May 11, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 11, 2007
  11. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    There really isn't a section called 5D above???

    In this context, 'above' means post #70.
    Post #70 may be 'down' at the bottom of the previous page
    for you.
     
  12. David Lamb

    David Lamb Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rufus, if you can give me just one bible reference that teaches that English words, even English words found in any particular translation of the bible, must never ever change, then of course I will gladly believe it. Can you do that? Note that I'm not referring to concepts, like marriage, a God-given institution sadly downgraded by society at large, or liberal views on things like homesexuality, or any denial that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour; I'm talking about the words we use in our languages to represent such concepts.

    You wrote: "If the Holy Bible is truth, then we should trust that its definitions of words are true." Yes certainly the bible is truth, but it was original written in Greek and Hebrew. It doesn't give binding definitions of English words. I stress again that it does give binding truths, but if the words used to express those truths stayed exactly the same, we wouldn't have an English (or French or German or Japanese or....) bible at all.

    You argue against yourself in the language you employ when writing to this Board. (I'm not being critical, just stating a fact). For example, you wrote "If the world wants to mess with .....". "Mess" is used in the AV/KJV bible only to refer to food, not "interfere with". OK, hardly a vital difference, but the principal is there. If a particular English translation of the bible uses "mess" to mean "food", you seem to be going against your own beliefs about language to use the word to mean "interfere with". Indeed, I don't notice you using 17th century English at all, except in quoting the AV/KJV.

    Your example of changing "in" to "on" is important, but that would be a mistake in translation, not a case of a word in English having changed its meaning since the translation was made. (As far as I am aware, "in" and "on" meant the same in 1611 as they do today).
     
    #72 David Lamb, May 12, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2007
  13. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Ed's parable of the sack & groceries.

    Friday I went to the grocery store. I bought some groceries.
    They put them in a paper sack (usually they use plastic
    sacks). I put the groceries in
    the refrig or pantry according to where they needed to be.
    I stored away the sack. Please don't confuse the sack
    with the groceries. It will indeed be hard times if I'm
    forced to eat my sack (they say it is high in fiber ;)
    BTW, we used to call it 'ruffage' but today it is called
    'fiber'). It would be impossible to carry my sack in
    my groceries.

    Modern English is like unto the plastic sack.
    The English of the KJVs is like unto
    the paper sack. The Biblical truth is like unto the
    groceries. The physical words carry the
    virtual message, truth, doctrine, etc.
     
  14. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
    I quoted the verse that I feel compels us to hold to the original meanings of words.

    Why not refer to a concept/word such as "marriage"? "Marriage" in the Bible has a very specific meaning. The world is trying to change the meaning of this word, should we change along with it? How is it different from "prevent" or "gay"?

    The OT in Hebrew and the Greek in NT does not make the NT+OT in English any less a Bible. The Holy Bible is either true in English or it isn't and would thus be hard to claim the title of "Holy".

    You are correct, I used the word "mess" improperly.

    Fair enough.
     
  15. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    Now you are telling us that we cannot use modern day English to express ourselves, we must confine our speech to KJV 1863 definitions?

    This KJVO stuff is a mess!
     
  16. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Rufus_1611 (and you other guys), you've not commented at all on the OP, and it looks like this thread is straying.

    Please share with me your view on the mechanics of a perfect translation. How does the translator achieve it?
     
  17. Snitzelhoff

    Snitzelhoff New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rufus, shall we indeed proceed with thine approach (for the word your is limited to plural in the KJV because of Elizabethan grammar) unto its logical end?

    In thine own sentence, If the world wants to mess with..., thou hast wrongly used two words. The word mess hath already been explained; the word wants, however, hath both changed in its signification and thy usage of the ending s. Indeed, it ought not be s, but rather eth, for wants hath no definition whereof I am aware in the King James Bible, lest it refer to more than a single want. Moreover, the world in thy sentence was said not to lack to mess with the word cowabunga but rather to desire to change the meaning of the word cowabunga.

    Seriously, now. You don't talk like that. You don't verify to make sure every word is being used exactly the same way it was used in the KJV. You use "you" in second person singular. You use "want" to mean "desire". You use quotation marks. I'm sure a quick purusal of your posts will show you many more examples where you have not, heretofore, followed your own principle. Out of curiosity, is a stop sign's color red or is that its colour? After all, the form of the words would include their spelling, would it not? Do you always use British and archaic spellings?

    Your argument seems a bit silly, especially since you yourself don't live up to it.

    Michael
     
    #77 Snitzelhoff, May 13, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2007
  18. Snitzelhoff

    Snitzelhoff New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    0
    John, I'm sorry for contributing to the straying of the thread. Honestly, I'm no translator, so I don't know how useful my post will be. The only foreign language I've studied long enough to be functional in (as in, can hold intelligent conversation with a native and am generally literate) is Spanish. Even from that, though, I can tell you that there is no perfect translation. An acquaintence and I were discussing just a couple of weeks ago how to translate a certain nuance into English, and we came to the conclusion that it's impossible.

    At the risk of taking the post off course and losing your interest, the sentence in question was: "Se me enfermo' mi amigo." (the apostrophe is an accent) Now, the sentence translates "My friend got sick". But that "me" is a nuance that English simply doesn't have. It means more like, "My friend got sick, and somehow that affected or is connected with me". Literally, it would be, "My friend got sick to me." There is no perfect translation of that sentence, though, without spending several words explaining what I just explained.

    I imagine the same thing occasionally happens in the transition from any language in the world to any other language. There are nuances and bits of grammar--sometimes somewhat significant (the use of two different forms of "love" in the Greek of the "Do you love Me?" passage comes to mind) that don't translate well, if at all. So you do the best you can, and include translational notes where the translation itself is lacking.

    Your method (soaked in prayer!) is the best I could recommend for an accurate translation, but I don't believe a perfect translation is possible. May God bless your work over there!

    Michael
     
  19. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Amen Michael - great answer.
     
  20. John of Japan

    John of Japan Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    19,349
    Likes Received:
    1,772
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You are forgiven. Go and sin no more, my son. :saint: :smilewinkgrin:
    At last, someone on the thread who knows another language! Good point. There many more illustrations of this sort that we could give. Every language has it's own idiom and culture.

    Language is all wrapped up in culture. There are many aspects of 1st century culture that don't translate very well into the 21st century. For example, the fact that a denarius was about a day's pay is something we have to put in a footnote, unless you want to translate, "a coin that is worth about a day's pay!"

    I once interpreted for an American seminary professor who used as an illustration a joke about a spittoon. Now, the Japanese smoke like chimneys, but no one in Japan chews tobacco. You can't even buy it! So I had no clue how to translate the word! They told me later I said, "a vessel to throw up into." :laugh:
    As I've been saying, it is the nuances that are hard. We can translate "all have sinned" quite easily, but the Japanese associate the word "sin" with "crime." So, for the word "sinner" we put ruby marks (pronunciation marks above the word) which mean "sinner" instead of "criminal" over the Japanese word for sinner, since the Chinese characters can be read either way.
    Thank you, Michael.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...