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

Romans10:15
But how are they to preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written: “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!”

What are "feet?" Are they what is used to traverse the gap between those who have the gospel and those who do not? How are the barriers to spreading the gospel crossed. Land barriers, Sea barriers, Language barriers?

 

1 Corinthians 14:27
If anyone speaks in a tongue, it must be by two or at the most three, and each one in turn, and one is to interpret;

You do not need to be a rocket scientist to grasp that to "interpret" is to translate what was said into something understandable by the audience. For example, Acts of the Apostles 9:36

 

JOJ, could you explain what a “dead language” is? My understanding is it is a language no longer spoken. Such are Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek (different languages from the modern versions)

Even though we can study and read them, or even speak to others who have studied them, we are not really speaking as they would in the 1st century because we “fill in the gaps” of understanding with our on modern beliefs.

So, with the OP, we have no choice but to translate because those languages are “dead”, no one speaks them, nor are we able to learn without putting our own experiences into them.

Thanks

peace to you

 

Are you arguing the church should only use oral tradition in teaching and instructions?

Paul wrote many letters and they were copied and shared throughout the early church.

peace to you

 

JOJ gave you a well reasoned, biblically sound answer to your question supporting the use of translations, so your OP has been answered, even if you disagree.

Can you answer a simple question concerning the purpose of the OP?

Are you saying the church should only use oral tradition when teaching and preaching?

peace to you

 

Thank you for clarifying. I glad you don’t believe the church should only use oral tradition.

I am not really understanding your point when you say God doesn’t mandate the church to translate the Bible, but in the next sentence you say there are a few times in history when He did by way of “transitioning” but that’s his business.

Please show me the scripture that says the church should provide a translation only when God decrees it for “transitioning” but that his business?

Peace to you

 

Matthew

28:18 And Iesus came and spake vnto them sayinge: All power ys given vnto me in heaven and in erth.
28:19 Go therfore and teache all nacions baptysinge them in the name of the father and the sonne and the holy goost:
28:20 Teachinge them to observe all thynges what soever I commaunded you. And lo I am with you all waye even vntyll the ende of the worlde.



William Tyndale Bible 1534
William Tyndale was the first man to ever print the New Testament in
the English language. Tyndale also went on to be the first to translate much of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew into English, but he was executed in 1536 for the "crime" of printing the scriptures in English before he could personally complete the printing of an entire Bible. His friends Myles Coverdale, and John [Thomas Matthew] Rogers, managed to evade arrest and publish entire Bibles in the English language for the first time, and within one year of Tyndale's death. These Bibles were primarily the work of William Tyndale

 

Please state clearly your point?

Are you stating there should be no translations?

 

Your incorrect opinion is extra-biblical and inconsistent.

Your own KJV-only doctrine of Bible translation is inconsistent and extra biblical.

You have failed to present as sound and scriptural a case for your human opinions as has been presented against them.

 

You quote no original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles that states what you assert.

John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the makers of the Geneva Bible, and the makers of the Bishops' Bible translated the word of God into English.
Does a consistent application of your own statement suggest that the pre-1611 English Bible translators disobeyed God and took on themselves a prerogative of God alone so that God could not have been involved in the making of their imperfect English Bible translations?

You do not demonstrate from Scripture that God directly gave English-speaking people the KJV in 1611.

Since you suggest that God was the One who gave a Bible in the English language and the one you claim God gave is clearly the KJV, why would God need to borrow and take most of the translating from earlier imperfect pre-1611 English Bibles? Why would God borrow many renderings from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament in making the 1611 KJV? Why do you in effect suggest that God borrowed from those who supposedly violated His prerogative?

 

This brings us back to what Conan posted when he mentioned the Original Preface to the KJV.
The translators provided a wise and responsible statement discussing the purpose and methods of the work they performed in God’s service, grounded in respect for God’s word.

As many already said in different words, the mandate is evangelism.
Though the words and letters vary from one language to another, the message is God’s.
He is faithful to his word and desires all to come to salvation.

Rob

 

With this post you condemn the translators of the KJV, who were by and large godly and good men, led by God to translate the Bible. I too was led by God to translate the Bible into Japanese. Who are you to say I, or any other missionary Bible translator, should not translate the Bible, thus launching me and others out of God's will? It is God who leads the missionary Bible translator. You or anyone else who opposes missionary Bible translation is going against the call of God--an extremely dangerous thing to do.

I would appreciate you answering my post about the Great Commission mandating Bible translation. Since you have not done so thus far, I say at this point that you cannot--you have no answer for the Great Commission.

If a missionary is obedient to the Great Commission, he or she simply must translate the Bible--at a minimum the Biblical Gospel. Otherwise, if the missionary decides to teach the nationals English before giving the Gospel, he or she is disobeying the Great Commission.

Also, again I ask, do you know any language other than English? If not, you have absolutely no standing to speak of Bible translation. Then, if that is so, your whole thread is a farce. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

This post is a rebuke of your opposition to Bible translation. The KJV teaches that if you are wise, you will take it to heart.

 

I would also like JD731 to answer my post about the Aramaic words of Jesus being translated within the Word of God itself. (I doubt that he will.)

 

Take heed to yourself. Do you actually dare to rebuke me and other missionary Bible translators for translating the precious Word of God? God called me. Who are you to tell me God did not call me to translate???

 

You have a correct definition.

Biblical Hebrew and Greek are not as dead as many languages, though, since there are versions still spoken: modern Greek and Hebrew. Therefore, the Biblical versions of the languages still have life, in a way--though they are dead languages. I hope that makes sense!

This is a good point. I agree completely. The OP puts 17th century English as superior to, or at least more important than, the languages God chose to inspire the Bible in. There is no spiritual logic in that.