Featured What are the specific biblical instructions concerning translating God’s words into other languages

The Translators to the Reader

 

There no specific instructions provided for translation of God’s word into other languages in our Scriptures.
But there are plenty of examples of it being done.

Rob

 

Did you read what the KJV Translators said about their translation? Or do you think them as unqualified?

History of the King James Version
A few of the principal men among those learned translators were these

• Dr. Launcelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, presided over the Westminster company. Fuller says of him: "The world wanted learning to know how learned this man was, so skilled in all (especially Oriental) languages, that some conceive he might, if then living, almost have served as an interpreter-general at the confusion of tongues." He became successively Bishop of Chichester, Ely and Winchester. Born 1555, died 1626.
• Dr. Edward Lively, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, and thus at the head of the Cambridge company, was eminent for his knowledge of Oriental languages, especially of Hebrew. He died in 1605, having been Professor of Hebrew for twenty-five years. His death was a great loss to the work which he had helped to begin, but not to complete.
• Dr. John Overall was made Professor of Divinity at Cambridge in 1596, and in 1604 was Dean of St. Paul's, London. He was considered by some the most scholarly divine in England. In 1614 he was made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry. He was transferred to the See of Norwich in 1618. Born 1559, died 1619.

• Dr. Adrian de Saravia is said to have been the only foreigner employed on the work. He was born in Artois, France; his Father was a Spaniard, and his mother a Belgian. In 1582 he was Professor of Divinity at Leyden; in 1587 he came to England. He became Prebend of Canterbury, and afterward Canon of Westminster. He was noted for his knowledge of Hebrew. Born 1531, died 1612.
• William Bedwell, or Beadwell, was one of the greatest Arabic scholars of his day. At his death he left unfinished MSS. of an Arabic Lexicon, and also of a Persian Dictionary.
• Dr. Laurence Chadderton was for thirty-eight years Master of Emanuel College, Cambridge, and well versed in Rabbinical learning. He was one of the few Puritan divines among the translators. Born 1537; died 1640, at the advanced age of one hundred and three.
• Dr. John Reynolds, who first suggested the work, was a man of great attainments in Hebrew and Greek. He died before the revision was completed, but worked at it during his last sickness as long as his strength permitted. Born 1549, died 1607

• Dr. Richard Kilbye, Oxford Professor of Hebrew, was reckoned among the first Hebraists of his day. Died 1620.
• Dr. Miles Smith was a student of classic authors from his youth, was well acquainted with the Rabbinical learning, and well versed in Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. He was often called a "walking library." Born about 1568, died 1624.
• John Boyse, or Bois, at six years of age could write Hebrew elegantly. He was for twelve years chief lecturer in Greek at St. John's College, Cambridge. Bishop Andrewes, of Ely, made him a prebend in his church in 1615. He was one of the most laborious of all the revisers. Born 1560, died 1643.
• Sir Henry Saville was warden of Merton College, Oxford, for thirty-six years. He devoted his fortune to the encouragement of learning, and was himself a fine Greek scholar. Born 1549, died 1622.
• Dr. Thomas Holland was Regius Professor of Divinity in Exeter College, Oxford, and also Master of his college. He was considered a prodigy in all branches of literature. Born 1539, died 1612.

 

Where in the Bible does it say for us to ever translate any of it?

 

The Great Commission is one scriptural passage that believers have cited as justification for making Bible translations.

KJV defender Thomas Strouse asserted: “The Great Commission requires the translation of the Scriptures into various languages” (Brandenburg, Thou Shalt Keep Them, p. 250). KJV-only advocate H. D. Williams wrote: “Our Lord commanded the church to make His inspired, preserved Words available in other languages (Matthew 28:19-20, Rom. 16:25-27, 1 Cor. 14:21, Jer. 23:28-29)“ (Pure Words, p. 58).

What is one Biblical principle that would apply to Bible translation and one purpose of Bible translation? "And how hear we every man in our tongue, wherein we were born?" (Acts 2:8). "So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." (1 Cor. 14:9). "Write the vision and make it plain" (Hab. 2:2). "Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me" (1 Cor. 14:11). "Understandest thou what thou readest?" (Acts 8:30). “Whoso readeth, let him understand” (Matt. 24:15). “They [the words] are all plain to him that understand” (Prov. 8:9). On such verses as these and others, believers have built one aspect of their views concerning the translation of God's Word.

Many and likely most Bible-believers have consistently contended that God's Word should be in the language of the common people. Lawton maintained that “Tyndale, Coverdale and the translators of the Geneva Bible after him believed that the language of English Bible translation should be strong and colloquial” (Faith, pp. 80-81). William Tyndale "perceived that it was not possible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the Scriptures were so plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the meaning of the text" (Foxe's Book of Martyrs, p. 141). Tyndale commented: “For if I understand not the meaning, it helpeth me not” (Answer, p. 97). William Whitaker wrote: "We say that the scriptures should be translated into all the languages of Christendom, that all men may be enabled to read them in their own tongue" (Disputation, p. 211). John Diodati is translated as writing: “Scriptures can and must be translated into all the languages of all nations, so that they may be read and understood by all” (Ferrari, Diodati’s Doctrine, p. 47). One of the Irish Articles adopted in 1615 stated: “The Scriptures ought to be translated out of the original tongues into all languages for the common use of all men” (Bray, Documents, p. 439). Brian Walton wrote: “Because all cannot understand the original tongues; therefore, translations serve as many pipes or channels to convey the living waters of salvation from the fountains to every particular nation and people, that so all may read and hear the wonderful works of God in their own tongue” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 92). Edwin Smith observed: “The desire to enable people to read God’s Word in their own tongue has been the chief motive in studying strange tongues and writing them down” (UnSealing the Book, p. 2).

In his 1876 book on Baptist distinctives, pastor John Quincy Adams wrote: "The correct principle of translating them [the Scriptures] is to make them speak to all nations just what they spoke to those who had them from the hand of God--just what the originals express" (Baptists Thorough Reformers, p. 130). Pastor Alexander Carson wrote: "The readers of a translation ought to have as far as possible all the distinctions of the original" (Baptism: Its Mode and Subjects, p. 317). About the KJV, John Quincy Adams commented: "This being a translation, partakes more or less of the imperfections of the translators; and, in every instance where the original is not clearly and fully translated, it is the word of man, and not the Word of God" (p. 129). Laurence Humphrey (1527?-1590) as translated by Gordon Kendal asserted: “We need to be at pains all the time to make use of words that are customary and proper within the language into which we are translating” (Rhodes, English Renaissance Translation, p. 272).

As Gordon Clark proclaimed: "If we cannot understand or conceive what God tells us to do, of what use is the revelation?" (The Trinity, p. 79). In the introduction of his translation of Jeremiah, Benjamin Blayney, editor of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, asked: “Can any Scripture be profitable except it be understood? And if not rightly understood, may not the perversion of it be proportionably dangerous?“ (p. xv). Laurence Humphrey as translated by Gordon Kendal asked: “For what is the point of language if it is so indistinct that nobody can understand it, so obscure as to be incomprehensible?“ (Rhodes, English Renaissance, p. 272). George Wither (1588-1667) observed: “That is ever best translated, and with most ease understood, which we express in words and phrases suitable to our own tongue” (Rhodes, p. 207). Charles Spurgeon noted: “Unless we understand what we read we have not read it; the heart of the reading is absent. We commonly condemn the Romanists for keeping the daily service in the Latin tongue; yet it might as well be in the Latin language as in any other tongue if it be not understood by the people” (Spurgeon’s Expository Ency., 15, p. 209). Since translation is so necessary to all who do not understand Greek or Hebrew, what legitimate objection can there be to the translation of God's Word into present-day English?

This was the argument of the KJV translators themselves in their preface to the 1611. They wrote: "But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very common people." There is no valid Scriptural reason why God's Word should be frozen in seventeenth-century English than there is why it should be frozen in Latin. As Noah Webster stated in the preface to his 1833 revision of the KJV: "Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God."

 

A logical and sound deduction or necessary consequence from the instructions in several verses of Scripture (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Eccl. 3:14, Rev. 22:18-19) would indicate and affirm that copies would need to be carefully examined, searched, tried, or evaluated to make sure that no additions were made, that nothing was omitted, that no words were changed, and that the meaning of words according to their context was not diminished. The truth stated in these verses could be properly understood to indicate that whatever adds to, takes away, or diminishes (whether intentional or unintentional) would not be the word of God. These scriptural instructions and truths provide sound guidance concerning how to know the words which the LORD has or has not spoken (Deut. 18:20-22, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 23:35, Ezek. 22:28, Isa. 8:20, 1 John 4:1). Would words that go beyond those words that God actually gave to the prophets and apostles be considered the actual pure words of God (Num. 22:18)?

According to the Scriptures themselves, there is such a thing as the possible adding of words in copies or in Bible translations just as there is the possible omitting of words in copies or in Bible translations. It can be properly and legitimately concluded from the Scriptures that God has not directly spoken words added by men and that any words omitted by copiers should be restored (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18).

According to clear scriptural truth, words added by men cannot soundly be considered as being words given by inspiration of God. Since the law or word of the LORD is perfect (Ps. 19:7, James 1:25) and since by definition perfection would exclude the presence of even one imperfection, would imperfect or inaccurate renderings made by men or any errors introduced by men be identical to the perfect words of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles? Since the statues or words of the LORD are right (Ps. 19:8, Ps. 33:4) since the words of the LORD are pure (Ps. 12:6, Ps. 119:140), and since the words of God are true (Ps. 19:9, John 17:17, Ps. 119:160, Dan. 10:21), it can be soundly and scripturally concluded that any wrong words or errors introduced by imperfect men would not be the absolutely pure words of God.

According to scriptural truths, it can be also properly concluded that any errors introduced by men in copying, in printing, or in translating are not words spoken or given by God. Any error introduced by a copier, printer, or whomever in copies and in Bible translations can be and should be corrected. It could also be soundly concluded that any words perverted, diminished, or mistranslated by men are not actual words spoken by God (Jer. 23:36, Deut. 4:2, Jer. 23:28, Deut. 12:32, 2 Cor. 2:17, Jer. 23:16, Jer. 26:2).

Maintaining that errors introduced by men or words added by men are not the pure inspired words of God would be soundly distinguishing between what is holy and pure and what is not, and it is not accusing the word of God given by inspiration of corruption, of impurity, or of error.

 

What was so wonderful about the gift of tongues (other peoples languages) other than present the gospel to other peoples?

To say we are not taught to present the gospel, plainly, clearly and boldly to other nations, is to make a mockery of God's word.

1Co 14:8
For if the trumpet produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?

1Co 14:9
So you too, unless you produce intelligible speech by the tongue, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will just be talking to the air.

1Co 14:10
There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and none is incapable of meaning.

1Co 14:11
So if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be unintelligible to the one who speaks, and the one who speaks will be unintelligible to me.
Tools

1Co 14:12
So you too, since you are eager to possess spiritual gifts, strive to excel for the edification of the church.

To deny translators are not "striving to excel for the edification of those to be called out" is poppycock.

 

Are there any examples of Jesus sinning? And yet he translated Scripture.

~~~~~~~~~~

Here’s a specific example of an event where translation occurred, probably Hebrew to Aramaic

And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up: 6 and Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground. 7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. 8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading. Nehemiah 8:5–8 (AV 1873)

Also Jeshua, Bani, Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites explained the Law to the people while the people remained in their place. 8 They read from the book, from the Law of God, translating to give the sense so that they understood the reading. Nehemiah 8:7-8 (NASB)

 

The Scriptures themselves provide examples that would show that original-language words would be the authority, source, and standard for translated words that translate, interpret, or give the meaning in another language (See Matt. 1:23, Mark 5:41, Mark 15:22, Mark 15:34, John 1:41, Acts 4:36).

Appeals to what was written by a prophet or by the prophets would be an acknowledgement of the authority and standard of the original-language words of Scripture (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31, John 5:47).

Unless the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority, norm, and standard for Bible translations, there would be no sound, true criteria for distinguishing between a good, accurate translation and a poor, inaccurate translation. The original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God and preserved by God would be profitable for correction of any errors made or introduced by imperfect men in translating and in printing.

God is the God of order, and He established the order or primacy [the state of being first or foremost] with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages serving as the one foundation and authority on which Bible translations would need to be based or built. Almighty God gave or laid the foundation on which Bible translations depend. The Scriptures in the original languages obviously preceded any later Bible translations. No other foundation for Bible translations can be laid than the one God Himself laid when He gave the Scriptures in the original languages by the miracle of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20, 2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Pet. 1:21, Eph. 3:5, 1 Cor. 2:13, Ps. 11:3, 1 Cor. 3:11).

According to a sound definition and explanation of the term translation, a translation could be understood to act as a borrower. “The borrower is servant to the lender” (Prov. 22:7). One clear way in which a Bible translation could properly be considered to act as a servant would be in how it borrows, derives, or acquires its own text and its authority from its master or source original-language Scripture text or texts from which it is made (Prov. 22:7). By definition, a translation would be a borrower from its original language texts. As a borrower, a translation would act as servant to the lender or lenders [its original language texts] according to what is stated at Proverbs 22:7. Should what the Scriptures directly state about a borrower be denied or rejected? The specific words of the master original language texts of Scripture should or would determine which different words in another language should be in a Bible translation. The original meaning of the words as used in context in the master original language texts should give rise to which words should be used in a translation of those texts. The different words of a translation are under the authority of the original language words from which they are translated. The exact original-language words that proceeded directly from God set the standard and are the proper authority for what the words of a translation should say (John 12:49, Matt. 4:4). Therefore, it is sound and scriptural to conclude that the preserved original-language words of Scripture have greater authority than the translated words that borrow or derive authority from their underlying source or sources.

Principles or truths derived from an application of the meaning of other scripture verses would also support this truth that a translation acts as a borrower or servant. Since a borrower is clearly described as being a servant, scriptural truths that apply to a servant could soundly and justly apply to a borrower. "The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord" (Matt. 10:24). In like manner, can it be inferred or deduced that a translation, which acts as a borrower, would not be above the master underlying texts from which it is translated? "The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him" (John 13:16). Likewise, a translation is not greater in authority than the original language source or sources [the master text] from which it was made and translated and that gave it its proper derived authority. The lord or master gives authority to his servants (Mark 13:34). The servants do not give authority to the master nor do they have greater authority than the one who delegates authority to them. The person or servant who is sent is not greater than the one who sent him (John 13:16b). In like manner, a translation is not greater than the underlying texts from which it was made. A translation acts as a servant ambassador or messenger that attempts to present faithfully or accurately the meaning of the original language words of its underlying Scripture texts in the words of the receptor language. By its definition and in its clear role as a borrower, a Bible translation can be properly considered servant to the master original-language Scripture texts from which it was made and translated.

 

Right! If God did not intend us to translate the Word of God, why would He have included such passages in the Bible:

1. "Emmanuel" means "God with us" (Matt. 1:23).

2. "Golgotha" means "a place of a skull" (Matt. 27:33, Mark 15:22, John 19:17).

3. "Corban" means "a gift" (Mark 7:11).

4. "Ephphatha" means "be opened" (Mark 7:34).

5. "Abba" means "father" (Mark 14:36, Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:6).

6. "Rabbi" (Rabboni) means "Master" (John 1:38, 20:16). While the original meaning of the word was "great one," it came to mean "master" by common usage.

7. "The Messias" means "the Christ" ("anointed one"; John 1:41, 4:25).

8. "Cephas" means "a stone." (John 1:42).

9. "Siloam," translated as "sent" (John 9:7), means "outflow" in the original Hebrew. (Word Studies in the New Testament, by Marvin R. Vincent, vol. 3, p. 183) John was no doubt going by the common usage of the day here rather than paraphrasing.

10. "Aceldama" means "the field of blood" (Acts 1:19).

11. "Barnabas" means "the son of consolation" (Acts 4:36).

12. "Tabitha" in Aramaic means "Dorcas" in Greek (Acts 9:36), and they both mean "gazelle" in English.

13. "Elymas" means "the sorcerer." (See Acts 13:8 and the entry in A Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T, by Walter A. Bauer, 2nd edition translated by Arndt and Gingrich.)

14. "Melchisedec" means "king of righteousness" (Heb. 7:1-2).

15. "Salem" means "peace" (Heb. 7:1-2).

16. "Abaddon" ("destruction") in Hebrew means "Appolyon" ("destroyer") in Greek (Rev. 9:11).

17. Boanerges" ("sons of thunder") (Mark 3:17).

C. Occasionally in the Bible a phrase is given in a foreign language and then translated. Please look at these cases.
1. "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin" (Dan. 5:25-28, probably in Hebrew) literally means "Numbered, numbered, weighed, divisions." Note however that the king wanted not only a translation but an interpretation (v. 7), and that is what Daniel gave.
2. "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani" (Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34) is translated as "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
3. "Talitha cumi" is translated as "Damsel, I say unto thee, arise," in Mark 5:41, but simply "Maid, arise," in Luke 8:54. This does not mean that Mark has paraphrased. Mark was simply translating in such a way as to show that in the original, "damsel" was emphatic, and "arise" was in the imperative. In other words, Mark also used the Complete Equivalence method in translating. Also, notice that two different translations of one original are inspired! God not only accepts both but inspires both of these translations, since the meaning of the original is preserved in the translation.

 

In the Great Commission of Matthew, we are commanded, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). That is impossible to do without translating the Word.

Some ignorant person might say, "Just teach them English." And all of the time you are teaching them to read the KJV, you are not giving them the Gospel in English, so you are disobeying the Great Commission. And if you then give them the Gospel in their language before teaching them English sufficiently, you are translating the Word of God in the form of the Gospel!!

So, the idea (which the OP did not express) that we should just teach English to a people group so that they can learn the KJV and get saved, is directly disobedient to the Great Commission. Not to mention it is one of the most idiotic ideas ever expressed in reference to missiology (not that the OP expressed that ridiculous idea.... ).

Just in case any reader of this does not know me, I was a missionary to Japan for 33 years, and translated the NT into Japanese from the Textus Receptus--the first such translation ever in colloquial Japanese. (It has been printed, and 5000 copies are waiting to be sent to Japan; it is also in the process of being put into Bible software and apps.)

 

Please tell us you thoughts.

I’d venture to say it is because the Scriptures are not an encyclopedia of all knowledge but a revelation of God that reveals to us the way of salvation.

Rob

 

Huh? Incoherent, like your OP.

Yes, given in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. So I translated from Greek--the language God gave the NT in--into Japanese.

Yes, I did. Anyone who tries to teach English to a people group so that they can then give them the Gospel is disobeying the Great Commission. We are not to wait to give someone the Gospel until they understand our English (which would take many months at a minimum), but must do it right away or we are disobedient. That means we must give them the gospel in their own language.

And no, God is not silent on Bible translation. In each of the examples given above, it is Scripture that is being translated into another language.

Question; do you know any other language but English? If not you are not qualified in any way, shape or form to talk about missiology or Bible translation. Just quit. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

So, when Jesus says on the cross, "Eli, eli, lama sabacthani," is it Scripture? Absolutely!!! And so, when the Bible itself translates it, that is undeniably Scripture translation.

 

Here is a command I obeyed when I became a missionary: "Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge" (Proverbs 22:17).

I took the Word of God to heart, and spent two years, many thousands of dollars, and many hundreds of hours learning Japanese at the Tokyo School of the Japanese Language. So, I applied my heart to knowledge--God's knowledge, because He invented language.

Added to the many hours and dollars I spent learning Hebrew and Greek, this effort qualified me to translate the Bible into Japanese. "But," someone says, "Just teach them English." Anyone who says that has no idea how hard it is to learn a foreign language.

I am currently teaching NT Greek by Zoom to a former CEO of a Japanese company who has answered God's call to be a missionary to his own country of Japan in his 50's. Here is a man who is a leader, has an MA in business, and has studied at Harvard. He's an extremely smart man by any account. However, as I teach him Greek, I am seeing him struggle much! Why not just teach him English? Really?!?

Think about the logistics, also. If I teach English to every Japanese prospect for the Gospel, I would have to teach it over and over. However, since I (one person) learned Japanese, my Japanese prospects do not have to spend all of that time learning English! It is much easier to reach people in their native language than to try to teach them English. That means that more people will hear the Gospel and be saved! That makes God happy. "There is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth"
(Luke 15:10).