The Politics of Bible Translations

Along with assumption that a translation is a political statement, the political statement is also seen as a stereotypical political statement, and the most negative stereotype possible.

 

We also have many different translations, but people themselves come to the conclusion that the best version of the translation is the Russian Synodal Translation of the ROC MP or the Translation of Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov) is still allowed. They are the most professional and correspond to the literary-literalistic transmission of the meaning of Scripture.

I think that there would not be all these disputes if there were not people who try to impose their views on everyone at the level of translations.
Examples:
Jehovah's Witnesses with their translations, representatives of sodomy made their translation, in Germany some smart guy made a translation with youth jargon, feminists shove their translations, and so on, and so on.

 

This author could often be jumping to a wrong conclusion.

The pew Bibles in a local church may have been purchased to match the Bible that a prior pastor preached from while the present pastor may preach from a different Bible translation, may have been purchased to be in agreement with something in the church's statement of faith from many years earlier, or may have been purchased to be in agreement what the older members prefer. In many present congregations, all the members do not carry the same Bible translation as the pew Bible in their church.

 

I agree with this statement. Even in the IFB churches I have been part of, not everyone has a KJV in their lap. Most folks I know even if they are IFB, will use other translations in their personal study. I am a "KJV preferred" person. From a historical standpoint, it's been in use for 400 years or so. I love the old English prose, and find it easier to memorize for some reason. However, I am not opposed to other bibles. Personally, I own many different translations both hard copy and electronically. I find the NIV easier to read for study, and often use the NASB and ESV also.

I am IFB by theology, as I find the beliefs stated closest to Biblical Christianity. The only issue I have with the IFB (and other churches) is when they choose to get into politics. It is my understanding that the Kingdom of God is not of this world.

 

All of our English translations have flaws, so for this group or that group to claim their choice should be the only choice is simply provincial. OTOH, when we come together to study, it is important we share in our understanding of the text. Otherwise you get the study derailed with "that is not how MY bible reads" distractions.

 

I enjoy studying with others who use different translations...we talk about the word choice, how the meaning MAY have changed or if it becomes clearer with another translation.

I speak, read and write fluently in a couple of different languages...trying to translate from one to the other can get crazy. In one language, word order is different than in English...so a word for word translation would not make sense to either speaker. In some languages, there is a certain nuance to certain words, where if translated literally would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. So...trying to figure out the most "faithful" translation from another language is iffy at best. A good example of this is in Spanish, i would say "el coche rojo". A literal translation into English is "the car red". That makes NO sense at all, right? So, when I translate it, I also fix the word order to fit in English and it comes out "the red car". THAT is one of the main things that precludes a true "word for word" translation...

 

I speak "Spain" Spanish. It's what I learned growing up (I am of Latino descent). I'm first generation born in the US. What you're talking about is "Spanglish" which is pretty common in the US. When I moved to the southwest USA, it started rubbing off on me. Yes, Spanish has different dialects, same as in the US or almost any other country. I'm originally from the south...and use phrases that are pretty much unheard of elsewhere in the US. Even those have to be "translated" into a more understandable idioms elsewhere. Same with how certain words are pronounced in different parts of the US. A favorite one of mine is the word "oil". Most folks pronounce all three letters...I don't. It comes out like "oll". Same with some other words. A "house" is a "hoose". Then there's understanding how "y'all" can be used. "You" is one, "y'all" is more than one and "all y'all" is a bunch of people.

 

Try addressing a word or phrase meaning for word or phrase meaning translation effort. The meaning of "the car red" in the source language is the same as "the red car" in the target language.

And the claim, "precludes a true word for word translation" needs to cite a Greek NT verse as illustration.

 

I think I'm not making my point very well...to me, a "word for word" or literal translation is exactly that. Word for word. If I were translating "word for word" from one language to another, I would not alter the word order, the gender of the word (common in many languages), etc. MOST translations are not this way, they'd make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even with the "word for word" that is talked about above where the word order is changed...it still isn't "word for word" or literal.

Truth is, translations lose a lot in meaning. A joke in one language isn't funny at all in another even if you translate it "word for word". The songs my mother sang to me as a child make no sense whatsoever in English. Yes, they can be translated but they make no sense at all. My mother used to tease me about the "cucuey" in the basement. There is no direct "word for word" translation for this...it could be a ghost, a boogeyman, a monster...whatever. I can think of a dozen words that have no direct translation from Spanish to English...making that alleged "word for word" translation darn near impossible if you want to really get the "flavor" of the word.

 

I wish I were fluent, but for now I only have a working knowledge of both Spanish and French,
and can recognize Italian and Portuguese when I see them written.

Italian, Spanish and French I can also recognize when I hear them spoken...
Portuguese is more difficult, as I often mistake it for Spanish ( like I do Dutch with German ) until my familiarity with some of the words makes me realize that it's not Spanish.

Catalan?
That sounds even closer to Spanish and I can actually understand a few words when I hear it spoken.

I agree.

Again, I agree.
For example, grammar in Latin-based languages puts the noun first and then the adjective, as you've described.

I maintain that it can be done, as "iffy" as it may seem.
To me, it takes fluency in both languages to make it happen.

But I do understand your point, believe it or not.

 

I think that you gave a good example with "el coche rojo" ( el carro rojo? ), "the red coach / car", and there are many.
But in other places it carries directly over to the English.

For example, FR " je suis fatique" / ESP "estoy cansado" = ENG "I am tired",
or "mi espanol es muy terrible" ( my Spanish is very terrible ) which I get to practice quite often.
Then we can throw it all out of whack when we add " que me grites " to " estoy cansado" and it changes the whole thing to " I am tired that at me yelling" ( I believe I got that right ), which means " I am tired of you yelling at me", because the "of you" and "at" are more implied through context than outright spoken as words.

While I believe that "word for word" can be achieved ( for the most part ),
I also know that it is very hard to completely carry out when translating.

But one thing I cannot abide by is Dynamic Equivalency, which takes the closeness of word-for-word and replaces it with "close enough" in the target language.
To me, Bible translations should be performed with an eye towards carrying the source language ( whether Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek ) over to the target language with as little variance as possible, and there should be no room for "close enough".

Rather, "as close as possible" should be the rule because we are dealing with God's words, not man's words.

That is why I take paraphrases like the NLT in English and completely dismiss them as the word of God, and Dynamic Equivalency translations such as the NIV in English and treat them in much the same manner.


There should also be no politics and no agendas other than a direct carry-over with as much accuracy as possible, either.

 

I'd never thought that anyone outside the United States would look at it that way, but I guess that I'm not all that surprised.
In some countries even today, it's nigh on to impossible to even get a Bible, much less one in one's own language.

 

I'll have to disagree a bit with the author here, as to me, Bible translations have more under the surface than simply preferring one over the other...at least in the case of "Received Text" versus "Critical Text" differences in their New Testaments.

But in my case, I'd have to concede a bit of agreement as well...
My "tribe" is "TR-Only / KJV-Preferred Calvinist", and there aren't that many of us running around.

 

Preferred or Only?

 

I would say that some of this issue revolves a financial issue of using a translation they have not done. The SBC translated their own because of NIV royalities.