Translation practice

I doubt I could prove it to your satisfaction, but that the KJB more than any other version has been carried to foreign lands by missionaries is beyond dispute.

From another site:

 

Let me guess since you did not give it- your source is David Cloud.

 

Yes, one of the sources there was David Cloud. So what?

From another site:

As for not providing sources, that is intentional. You critics ask endless questions (as if that proved something). Well, if I have to search all over the internet to find answers which you could easily find yourself, I am not going to provide the source. If your questions were serious you could easily look this up yourself.

 

Interesting thread. Putting the version question aside (since I really don't care about that) and getting to the essence of the OP quote's claim, that missionaries translate from English not from the original languages... A few thoughts ought to be considered.

First, the cross-cultural, translating missionary has one of the most knowledge-intensive ministries that I can think of, requiring many years of preparation. For starters, they have to study the Bible, theology, ministry, etc. Then they have to spend time studying intercultural communications and acquire a sufficient level of culture and language acquisition skills (learning how to learn a language, especially one that does not have an alphabet). Then literacy-development training, etc. All that takes about four-five years, and then he is ready to hit the field.

Most missionaries have to learn two languages; the national language of the country and the target language. He needs to know the latter much better than the former, since he will be ministering primarily in that language (the national language is necessary to get around in and also use as a bridge to learn the target 'tribal' language, etc.). A language like Russian takes about 2 years of hard work to achieve a teaching proficiency. Then there is the target language, we'll call it Ivinki - another four years of intense work to be at a level where he can teach and then translate.

Now he is ready to translate. The problem is, it would take an additional 3-5 years to gain a translation-sufficient proficiency in New Testament Greek, and the same for the OT languages. Keep in mind, the proficiency level required to translate is much higher than most will achieve with 12 credit hours of study required for an average MDiv.

Thus, most missionaries must use their native-language translations (plural) heavily in the translation process. And it is probably wise. If they went directly from the Hebrew, Greek, etc. to their target language without considering their native-language translations (plural), my bet is that the end product would be substandard, as the missionary's requisite training is insufficient (usually) to complete such a scholarly task.

That said, most missionaries also spend a great deal of time studying the original languages, and they take advantage of the many original-language tools available. And most mission agencies that seriously engage in translation have translation consultants who employ translation-checks and other devices to maintain the accuracy of a translation (using reverse translation, et. al). The missionary, if he is to see his project through, usually spends 20 years on it (if he does the complete OT as well as the NT). And he would probably laugh at the arguments being posed in this thread about the KJV!

 

The problem with Winman's position is that no one uses Jacobean English as their native language. Toss in the liberties taken by the KJV translators and you have a real mess on your hads in this situation.

 

What a ridiculous comment. He only meant that an English speaking missionary would more likely use his English version of scripture whether it was the KJB or ESV to translate than the Greek or Hebrew.

And this argument against the English used in the KJB is lame, literally millions of English speaking peoples have used this version for 400 years now without great difficulty. Do you have to look up an archaic word once in awhile? Yes. Big deal.

The MVs also have many strange and unusual words that are not commonly used. So this is yet another bogus argument.

 

I think this statement is silly, but I will just point out two absolutely false points about it. The "find a translator" part is funny, since we are there to translate because the local populace cannot, especially not from our native language. And I have NEVER heard of missionaries teaching unreached people groups English!! Well, we used to joke about it, but that is as far as it went.

Claims like this betray a misinformed understanding of missions. Which, to me, makes your main claim not only unverifiable, but also highly suspect.

 

If you were a true scholar, you would provide your sources. Just sayin'.

 

Yup. I'm guessing you are a brother missionary? I was in Mexico for a few years.

 

Where in Mexico? Yes, I served as a missionary in Northern Asia. I was with NTM for about 12 years.

I saw on your profile that you work with the deaf. My wife and I were loosely connected with a deaf church in Asia. She is fluent with Russian sign, and I can get around (or used to be able). I learned Russian sign before I learned the spoken language because the grammar was a bit easier.

 

It is a very big deal. How can anyone honestly translate something they themselves are unsure of its meaning? Looking up a word's nuances in Greek is one thing, but to have to look up a word that is from a translation that came (somewhere along the line) from the Greek is compounding the error. Being off by one degree isn't that big of a difference but over the course of crossing an ocean you will miss your destination by quite a bit; doing so with the word of God is of even greater consequence.

Trying to use the age of the KJV earns you no points around here. considering that it was a state-sponsored translation and that the crown made printing or importing any other translation a crime helped to give the KJV its long legacy, but it's not something that the KJV crowd like to mention. A state church imposed monopoly does not give the KJV a very flattering history for you to fall back on.

Something Jim1999 said elsewhere comes to mind:

The language difference between 1611 and 1688 is vastly different (which was not helped by the KJV team choosing to use Jacobean English instead of the actual language used by the people). That difference is even larger today 400 years later. Your prestigious history is also a huge stumbling block that you refuse to see or acknowledge. You may not have a problem with the KJV, but the vast majority of English speakers do... much less those who speak another language entirely.

 

Well, there must be others who are misinformed like me.

Again, another bogus argument. I have witnessed missionaries and preachers speaking through translators.

 

I must say I find it interesting that at least two of us with missions experience- Siberian and myself would consider a translation from the KJV English to a target language to be inferior. Certainly it would be better than nothing, but it would amount to nothing more than a paraphrase, IMHO.

 

Why does it have to be inferior?

I don't know if this is off subject, but I found this interesting article on translating the scriptures:

http://sharperiron.org/article/perspicuity-of-scripture-as-applied-to-bible-translation-part-1

This writer seems to have a different view than many here.

If I understand what this writer is saying, he is saying the scriptures are not that difficult. They are for the most part written in very simple language geared to the common man. He is saying they can be understood, and therefore one should be able to translate them into another language.

Now, I know nothing about translating, but looking in from the outside this makes a lot of sense. If the scriptures can be understood, then it should be possible to translate them. This writer is not saying there are not difficulties, but he is saying a translator should be able to overcome them.

All I ever hear here is that a translation must contain error. I reject this argument, and I believe this writer does as well.

Part 2

http://sharperiron.org/article/perspicuity-of-scripture-as-applied-to-bible-translation-part-2

Part 3

http://sharperiron.org/article/perspicuity-of-scripture-as-applied-to-bible-translation-part-3

 

No, you really don't understand translating. There is a gap os 2000 years (for the NT) and much more for the OT. Much has changed in that amount of time... people, languages, geography, idioms, customs, you name it. What was common knowledge then is unknown today, things like people, places, stories, whatever. Add to that the depth of the bible itself. A verse may read as something very simple, but the truths it contains could take days to explore and years to fully comprehend. It is far from "simple".

As long as fallible men are doing the translating there will be errors found within it. And that includes the KJV. It doesn't matter if you or said author agrees or not.

 

I understand there are difficulties, but I agree with that writer that if the scriptures are understandable (which they are), then they are translatable.

I do not disagree that things were different thousands of years ago and that customs were different... But that does not mean a person cannot translate the scriptures as shown. An example:

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Now, I will be quite frank here, I do not understand this tradition called Corban. Somehow this tradition was a way for children to escape the responsibility of taking care of their parents.

Now the scriptures do not need to explain this ancient tradition to me, only tell me accurately about what transpired here. If I want to know what this tradition is, there are books and scholars who can more fully explain it. I do understand that this was some sort of tradition started by the priests where if persons gave them a gift they were freed from responsibility. And that is basically all I need to know, and that it is wrong not to take care of your parents when they are old is communicated to me. That is the purpose of this passage.

And if a person translated this passage into Japanese, they should do the same, just explain this passage literally as shown. Will the reader necessarily understand it? No. But with further study a person can come to know ancient customs and traditions like this.

 

Yes and no. By taking the easy road you have lost a lot that can be gleaned from that passage. Corban reflects a lot on today's world in more than one way and you just ignored all of that by taking only the surface of what was said.

Compound this by not using the original languages as the basis for a translation and it really gets messy. Greek words can contain paragraphs within themselves, as well as have multiple meanings depending upon the situation and usage. to attempt to make a translation of a translation is like trying to show a movie from pictures taken by a cellphone of it in the theater. you miss out on most of it, and you don't actually see what's going on because it is of a much poorer quality and without motion. It wouldn't matter what translation you used to make the other translation, be it the KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, whatever. You would still be serving up much less than the whole of God's word.

 

As I have written before, I do not know other languages and therefore have no knowledge of the difficulties of translating scriptures, although I have read of the difficulties at that site and others.

But it seems to me that in translating the job is not to necessarily translate meaning, but the text itself. In other words, translate as closely as possible word for word what the text says, and let the reader interpret what they say.

As in this example of Corban, not many today understand this tradition. I looked it up on several sites and still did not come to a full understanding of how this tradition worked.

But that is not what is important in this passage. The Pharisees had just criticized Jesus's disciples for eating with unwashed hands. Jesus pointed out their hypocrisy, as this was a man-made tradition not shown in the scriptures, all the meanwhile they were disobeying the known scriptures of honoring your mother and father by creating yet another man-made doctrine that was clearly far more sinful than eating with unwashed hands.

That is the point of this passage, that we cannot create man-made doctrines, that we should not be hypocrites as well.

So, it doesn't matter that I don't fully understand this ancient tradition, that is not the lesson being taught in this passage.

So, I believe a translator should just translate what is shown, even if in some instances this is a custom or tradition we do not understand today. The scriptures explain themselves as this passage shows.

I still agree with that writer, if the scriptures can be understood (the words of the text), they can be translated.