A Doctrine of Translation

[Yeshua1]

Yes you did!!

I have interviewed people who wanted to be involved in our Japanese translation who should not go near a Bible translation effort. On the other hand, I graded some beginning Greek papers last week, a translation assignment, and marveled at the work of one young lady who shows obvious translation ability. Not coincidentally, she is surrendered to be a missionary to India, where she should have ample opportunity to use her obvious gift of translation ability.​

Thus those without the "gift" should not go near a bible translation effort, like picking the most valid choice, unless the person has the "gift of translation ability." Your words, not mine.

And btw, your name calling also hinders the ministry of Christ.

God does not grant gifts to translate then the same way He gifts some to be teachers and pastors?

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, folks, I have to finish grading my Greek 101 test. You know, some of that "specialized knowledge" that Van mistakenly thinks of as Gnosticism, which then allows my students to actually translate the Bible. They were excited to be able to translate in their homework the other day John 14:6. It will take 42 class hours for them to finish this class, and at least 100 more of study, and this is only Greek 101. So then, next semester will be the same, then they will have 2nd year Greek with more of the same. (Unlike in some Bible colleges, all of our students are required to take Greek, men and women both.) Thus, each student who graduates here having done well in Greek will have put around 600 hours of study into the efforyt.

To make "A's" all the way through, as I predict several of my students will, is an incredible accomplishment. If the one young lady I see as gifted does that, then goes on to take tens of thousands of hours to learn an Indian language, and many years to translate the Bible into a language in India that has never had the Bible, that will be incredible and awesome! It will be worthy of our highest praise. Why someone would call that "Gnostic" (an evil religion), or denigrate that, or think that such an accomplishment is possible without these efforts, is a total mystery to me.

Bible translation is a noble calling of the Lord!

 

[Yeshua1]

Actual non-miraculous languages, spoken by actually bilingual or trilingual people.

Are you saying that people then stand up and expound on the scriptures under the anointing of the Spirit ?

 

[Yeshua1]

How is this different? In other words, if God gave someone the ability to interpret Japanese, why is that not the same as the miracle of Acts 2? In other words, the miracle of Acts 2 was the giving of a language (without anyone going to language school!) miraculously. In your scenario, the language is given miraculously to one individual, who is then able to interpret. But that's not the gift of interpretation, is the gift of the Japanese language, which then enables one to interpret.

So, in other words, you are putting an unnecessary step into the process. Why would God not simply give that gift of Japanese to the whole group? What would be the purpose of giving it to just one person so that person could interpret? And what would he interpret? A Japanese sermon so that the English speakers could get saved?

So, in Acts 2 the gift was for the particular goal of telling people about Jesus, of proclaiming the Gospel in the various languages. If the gift had been interpretation instead of languages, there would have been an extra step in the process. "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (v. 11).

The gift was that the Apostles at Pentacost could speak forth the Gospel in unlearned languages that the hearers very well knew!

 

[Yeshua1]

You say "miraculously" and then "This is God's providence." I fully believe that it is God's providence, but I have never seen a miracle happen in my translation work. I have seen God's guidance many times, but I don't call that miraculous.

A miracle takes place in a moment of time. It is an event. God's providence is a process, taking time as God works everything out for good (Rom. 8:28).

A Miracle would the Kjv as the KJVO see it!

 

[Van]

JoJ does NOT hold to charismatic gifts though, does not state that only the elect can know and discern the scriptures, and you know as much about translation as you do about Calvinism it would seem!

Yet another completely bogus off topic false charge post.

 

[John of Japan]

Doctrinal Error in Thayer's Lexicon | SHARPER IRON

Thank you.

 

[John of Japan]

Are you saying that people then stand up and expound on the scriptures under the anointing of the Spirit ?

You could put it that way.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you.

Still a useful tool, but just showing the truth about its author!

 

[Van]

God does not grant gifts to translate then the same way He gifts some to be teachers and pastors?

Yet another completely bogus claim. Of course God provides gifts, including language skills. The issue, being avoided apparently by all is God gives every believe our indwelt Spirit which allows us to understand spiritual solid food, such that we can study God's word and rightly divide God's word. No one denies this!!!!!!!!

 

[John of Japan]

Bible translation is a noble calling of the Lord!

Absolutely, and mostly ignored in systematic theology, and even missiology.

 

[Van]

What should be our translation doctrine?

Should we be originalists, seeking to understand what the intended message was to the initial audience? Yes
Should we translate using the word meanings used when written? Yes
Should we strive to preserve the implications provided by the grammar? Yes
Should we alter the message to make it fit better with our presuppositions? Nope.

We have more than two dozen English translations, which sometimes differ in translator choices, and therefore should we seek to determine which choice is best? Of course.

Pay no attention to those who claim they have special knowledge so only the specially gifted can go near any sort of translation study.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another completely bogus claim. Of course God provides gifts, including language skills. The issue, being avoided apparently by all is God gives every believe our indwelt Spirit which allows us to understand spiritual solid food, such that we can study God's word and rightly divide God's word. No one denies this!!!!!!!!

that does not include ability to translate though for all!

 

[Yeshua1]

Absolutely, and mostly ignored in systematic theology, and even missiology.

Which is ironic, as is not a primary call of the missionary many times to be a translator?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

How is this different? In other words, if God gave someone the ability to interpret Japanese, why is that not the same as the miracle of Acts 2? In other words, the miracle of Acts 2 was the giving of a language (without anyone going to language school!) miraculously. In your scenario, the language is given miraculously to one individual, who is then able to interpret. But that's not the gift of interpretation, is the gift of the Japanese language, which then enables one to interpret.

So, in other words, you are putting an unnecessary step into the process. Why would God not simply give that gift of Japanese to the whole group? What would be the purpose of giving it to just one person so that person could interpret? And what would he interpret? A Japanese sermon so that the English speakers could get saved?

So, in Acts 2 the gift was for the particular goal of telling people about Jesus, of proclaiming the Gospel in the various languages. If the gift had been interpretation instead of languages, there would have been an extra step in the process. "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God" (v. 11).

Seems to me that “How is this different?” is the question you must convincingly answer.

If the claim is that the Galileans may not have understood what they were saying when speaking in other languages at Pentecost, then I concur.

And no interpreter was necessary, yet they were doing at least some of that, but not miraculously, they being those who heard. They were giving witness to the miracle, which was obviously a sort of reverse Tower of Babel. Without this interpretive witness the Galileans just sounded like a bunch of babbling drunks. Not a good thing.

This does not lead to the conclusion that such a gift would not, could not, and therefore did not manifest in the church. Paul’s admonition is that if there were no one there who could interpret for others, then they should not manifest that gift. And such a gift of interpretation would not require understanding the language any more than speaking the language would require it.

We might even go further and say that Paul’s admonition speaks against trying to repeat that Pentecost experience in church. Those who could speak in other languages should not do so all at once, and there must be interpretation so that the message benefits the body of believers.

So far, only a superficial difference has been offered, not one that would indicate a different gift of speaking languages.

 

[John of Japan]

Seems to me that “How is this different?” is the question you must convincingly answer.

If the claim is that the Galileans may not have understood what they were saying when speaking in other languages at Pentecost, then I concur.

I believe they completely understood what they were saying. Otherwise, how could they possibly choose the words with the correct meaning to witness to the unbelievers? This was not inspiration, but simply witnessing for Christ with a miraculous tongue.

And no interpreter was necessary, yet they were doing at least some of that, but not miraculously, they being those who heard. They were giving witness to the miracle, which was obviously a sort of reverse Tower of Babel. Without this interpretive witness the Galileans just sounded like a bunch of babbling drunks. Not a good thing.

"Reverse tower of Babel" is an excellent way to put it. But I'm not sure I understand your point that the hearers were doing any interpretation. They said outright that they were hearing the witness in their own languages.

This does not lead to the conclusion that such a gift would not, could not, and therefore did not manifest in the church. Paul’s admonition is that if there were no one there who could interpret for others, then they should not manifest that gift. And such a gift of interpretation would not require understanding the language any more than speaking the language would require it.

Forgive me for asking, but do you know any foreign language? To me, to speak a foreign language without being able to understand what you yourself are saying is not how language works. I cannot see how God, the Author of language, would work that way, even miraculously.

We might even go further and say that Paul’s admonition speaks against trying to repeat that Pentecost experience in church. Those who could speak in other languages should not do so all at once, and there must be interpretation so that the message benefits the body of believers.

I like how you put this, and that may have been what happened--trying to repeat the Acts 2 miracle. However, I still hold to the position that they were speaking known, learned languages at Corinth. It was a port city, and such cities always have a myriad of spoken languages as sailors come in from different countries.

And remember, Paul said, "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all" (1 Cor. 14:18). It is plain that he spoke in at least Greek, Hebrew, and Latin, but there may have been even more. Yet there is no place in the whole book of Acts or in any of his epistles that records Paul speaking in a miraculous tongue.

So far, only a superficial difference has been offered, not one that would indicate a different gift of speaking languages.

If you have ever actually interpreted for anyone, I don't think you'd be saying this. Interpreting is not superficially different from simply speaking in a language. It's much harder.

I could give many illustrations, but I'll stick with one. I was interpreting in chapel for a seminary prof from the States. This man used an illustration in his sermon about a spittoon. Now, the Japanese do not ever, ever chew tobacco, which is a putrid American custom. There is a word for it, but I had absolutely no idea what that was. Someone told me later that what I interpreted was the Japanese for "a utensil to throw up into." Well, not too far off.

 

[Van]

that does not include ability to translate though for all!

What "that?"

What should be our translation doctrine?
Should we be originalists, seeking to understand what the intended message was to the initial audience? Yes
Should we translate using the word meanings used when written? Yes
Should we strive to preserve the implications provided by the grammar? Yes
Should we alter the message to make it fit better with our presuppositions? Nope.

We have more than two dozen English translations, which sometimes differ in translator choices, and therefore should we seek to determine which choice is best? Of course.

Pay no attention to those who claim they have special knowledge so only the specially gifted can go near any sort of translation study.

 

[37818]

Should we alter the message to make it fit better with our presuppositions? Nope.

But that is what everyone does. Some presuppose their choice of translation captures the original meaning.

 

[John of Japan]

I just have time to put up one more of my outlines on the OP.

God Invented Language
John 1:1


INTRODUCTION: In the King James Bible, the word “tongue” meant language in 1611 (Gen. 10:20, Is. 66:18). Ability in language is a gift of God (1 Cor. 12:8-10). However, the theory of “universal grammar” says that all human beings are born with the capacity to learn and understand any language. You have grammar in you. If God has called you to translate, you can do it with His help.


I. God Invented Language (Gen. 1:3)
A. God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit speak among themselves (Gen. 1:26, Is. 6:8).
B. The universe was made with God’s Words.
C. The phrase “and God said” occurs 10 times in Gen. 1, and 30 times in the Old Testament.
D. Adam was made with a grasp of language (Gen. 2:19-20).
E. God invented the differing languages at Babel (Gen. 11:1-9).
F. Words are so important that Jesus is called the “Word” (John 1:1).

II. So, Language Is Important.
A. A. Good communication with the spoken language is vital to God’s work (1 Cor. 14:6-11): witnessing, preaching, Bible teaching, counseling, raising children, marriage.
B. Control of your spoken language is vital to your Christian life (James 3:1-12).
C. Understanding the meaning of Bible words is vital to your belief system.
1. What does “meet” mean in Gen. 2:18? Hint: not that she “met Adam’s needs.”
2. What does “mansion” mean in John 14:1-2? Hint: the King James Bible uses British English.

III. The Idea of a Universal Grammar
A. Here is a definition for language: “A system of communication by sound, i.e., through the organs of speech and hearing, among human beings of a certain group or community, using vocal symbols possessing arbitrary conventional meanings.”[1]
B. Many linguists have theorized about a universal grammar (UG) down through the years. This is the idea that all humans everywhere have in their brains the possibility of learning and speaking languages.
C. One idea is that UG is “A set of mental structures seen…as genetically inherited by all human beings, underlying and explaining the development of language in their childhood.”[2]
D. We are “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps. 139:14), especially in the area of language. So we should know how we are made in the language part of our soul, especially so we can understand and teach the Bible (Neh. 8:7-8).
E. What does UG have to do with translating the Bible? It means that God created you with a complete ability to understand grammar and meaning. So, if God calls you to translate the Bible, you are completely able to do so effectively and completely.

IV. The Structure of Language. What does this universal grammar include?
A. All languages have nouns.
B. All languages have verbs, though not all have tenses, participles, etc.
C. All languages have adjectives.
D. All languages have syntax: how a sentence is constructed, including sentence order, word endings, phrases, clauses.
E. All languages include semantics, the study of meaning.

CONCLUSION: If God calls you to translate, He has gifted you to do so, and will guide and empower you. His Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, “one called alongside to help.”



[1] Mario Pei and Frank Gaynor, Dictionary of Linguistics (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Co., 1967), 119.

[2] P. H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford U. Press, 2007), 421-422.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks to all who participated, including the dude who calls me a Gnostic and misconstrues what I have written. It's been interesting, and hopefully made us all think.