Featured what is hardest known language to translate bible into?

Right on, right on.

 

For me its a toss up between Welsh & Brooklynese:laugh:

 

I've heard that before. But no honest translator would substitute pig for lamb. If a given culture is not familiar with sheep --no other animal should be used in its place in Scripture -- it represents too great of a loss. The English word sheep should probably be phoneticized in the receptor language and an explanatory footnote given.

 

Don't forget the heritage of our English language, John. William Tyndale had to invent some new words to convey biblical concepts that our language did not possess prior to his time. Remember, he came up with Jehovah,passover,atonement,scapegoat,mercy seat and shewbread along with some others I may be neglecting. New terms and phrases in English can still be used for English translations.

 

This happens in major languages as well as tribal languages. There are at least three options which do not mis-translate "lamb" with "pig" and the like.

(1) Invent a new word in the target language with target language morphemes (the minimum sound with meaning). Then you footnote it.
(2) Translate with a phrase: "white animal with good hair" for sheep, for example.
(3) Transliterate, taking the sound from the original into the target language, then add a footnote. This is what the Japanese Shinkaiyaku does with the Hebrew word for leprosy to avoid an older term which is insulting and a newer term which doesn't fit an ancient document. In our translation, we've done the same thing with the Greek word.

Incidentally, the old story that someone translating into an Alaskan language rendered "lamb of God" with "seal pup of God" is a myth. Never happened according to Eugene Nida. But similar renderings have been done elsewhere.

 

Like I said, I'm ambivalent about in English. There was a need to do so in Tyndale's time, but since he pioneered for us, and did it almost 500 years ago, I'm not sure there is a need for it in English nowadays. I'm not sure it's wrong to do so, but I ask, why would you?

 

That was a situation where at least two possibilities already existed in ancient language with existing Bible translations; quite different from the proposed scenario in this thread.

 

Oh, Sparky, where are you?

 

Perhaps there is no need at present to come up with new theological words in our English Bible translations. But alternative ways of expressing traditional wordings might be a good idea for some translations. Biblish gets in the way of conveying the real intent to folks without a church background.

For instance,why does it have to be "made righteous" in Romans 3:21,22? Couldn't "being right in his sight" or "made right in God's sight" do just as well? He (God) makes us right in his sight. He (God) gives us right standing in His eyes.

The word propitiation is used in traditional English Bible translations. But the 96 NLT renders Romans 3:25a as "For God sent Jesus to take the punihment for our sins and to satisfy God's anger against us." Wouldn't that reading serve to bring out the meaning better than the largely unfamiliar proptiation? Using substitute words like "the satisfaction" or "the appeasement" would hardly improve the idea of the original.

My point is that using age-old words might impede real understanding of the eternal truths of the Bible. Words like justification,righteousness,sanctification,reconciliation and repentance are not sacrosanct. By the way,William Tyndale thought it perfectly proper to use a variety of words and phrases to convey repentance. Even the word grace does not have to be used as the translated Greek word of charis on every occasion. The word favor does well sometimes.

Bible translation doesn't have to be a static enterprise. As a language changes --so should Bible translations so the common person can understand the sense. Tyndale sought to:"interpret the sense of the scripture and the meaning of the spirit" as Brian Moynahan has said.

No,I do not believe I am advocating throwing the baby out with the bathwater nor am I in favor of reinventing the wheel.

 

Like I say, I'm ambivalent about the English. Plus I don't want to derail the thread. So I'll not comment on your examples here. But I will say that I value accuracy in a translation more than I do ease of understanding.