Vague Translations, Poor Translations and Mistranslations

[Van]

Vague translation choices, or poor translation choices and mistranslation can be used to pour mistaken or false doctrine into the text. Sometimes the NET translation chooses to translate a pronoun with its antecedent. The hazard of course is if the wrong antecedent is chosen, the inspired text is corrupted.

An "antecedent" of a pronoun is the specific person, place, thing or idea to which the pronoun refers. For example,
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [fn]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
In the above verse two pronouns (that and it) refer to a vague antecedent. The footnote in the NASB identifies that the antecedent is "salvation" but plenty of Calvinist writers claim the antecedent includes faith as a gift. (The other pronoun "it" has been added, thus in italics, to smooth out the sentence.)

Here I think the translators missed a bet, as instead of adding another vague pronoun (it) they could have added in italics "salvation." Thus the verse might be translated as "For by grace you have been saved by means of faith; and that not of yourselves, salvation is the gift of God. An even better translation choice would be to find the actual antecedent of "that" with is "gift." Thus the verse, properly translated might read, "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

Contextually the more specific translation fits:
so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God; therefore salvation is not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

 

[Van]

Sometimes the scope or extent of a statement is not clear. Does "the things" refer to everything imaginable or to only the things contextually in view? 1 Corinthians 2:14 is a case in point. The natural man, referring to the lost that have not been born anew and indwelt, cannot understand "the things" of the Spirit of God. Does this specify "all the things" or "some of the things?" No.

So we must look at the context and how the flow of thought in the passage (explanation) is being presented. Three verses later, 1 Corinthians 3:1, Paul speaks to new Christians "as men of flesh" again referring to the lost without the indwelt Spirit. He uses "spiritual milk" but not "spiritual solid food (meat)." Thus contextually "the things" refer to "the spiritual solid food things." If this was specified with the translation of 1 Corinthians 2:14, a whole basis for mistaken doctrine would be eliminated.

 

[Van]

Another vague translation choice is found in Romans 3:11 which reads "There is no one who seeks for God" or There is no one who seeks out God. Both renderings indicate no one searches for God. But does the verse say no one ever seeks for God? Nope. Or no one seeks for God at all times? Nope. So the scope of the statement must be discerned from the context of the passage, or more specifically how does this OT quote fit into Paul's argument that we are all under sin? The answer is found in verse 12 where all have turned aside. Thus there is no one who seeks for God when turned aside, i.e. sinning. If the verse read, "there is no one who seeks for God when sinning" another basis for mistaken doctrine would be eliminated.

 

[Van]

Beyond vague translation choices, are many poor translation choices. Sometimes the English word's meaning has changed or become obscure over time. At other times the word meaning is so obscure, new or unintended meanings are ascribed to the word. Take atonement or propitiation or redemption or reconciliation for example. One group of believers understand the words to mean something quite different from another group of believers.

Can we (bible believers) reach a common understanding in our computer aided age? Or will we be stuck in the old, you are wrong, I am right age of defensiveness?

 

[Will7]

Beyond vague translation choices, are many poor translation choices. Sometimes the English word's meaning has changed or become obscure over time. At other times the word meaning is so obscure, new or unintended meanings are ascribed to the word. Take atonement or propitiation or redemption or reconciliation for example. One group of believers understand the words to mean something quite different from another group of believers.

Can we (bible believers) reach a common understanding in our computer aided age? Or will we be stuck in the old, you are wrong, I am right age of defensiveness?

I think ease to information can be beneficial but it still comes down to the amount of work people do. I would tend to think that the same issue would still arise. Even with the ease of information, the misunderstandings would still happen, the traditions would still get in the way as well. It would be nice if we could all be on the same page though! I do agree with that.

 

[Dave G]

If the verse read, "there is no one who seeks for God when sinning" another basis for mistaken doctrine would be eliminated.

But it doesn't read that way...
and changing the words on the page to fit someone's private understanding of it is not translation, Van.

That is called "paraphrasing", and to me it does violence to the word of God.

Here I think the translators missed a bet, as instead of adding another vague pronoun (it) they could have added in italics "salvation."

But wouldn't that have superimposed their own private understanding upon the text, instead of leaving the understanding of it up to the reader?

Thus the verse, properly translated might read, "For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God."

Do the extant Greek manuscripts, properly, accurately and faithfully translated into English show what you have stated?
If not, then how can that be considered proper and faithful translation?

Contextually the more specific translation fits:
so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved by means of Christ's faithfulness, thus the gift is not based on you, but on God; therefore salvation is not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Respectfully,
Would it not be better to look carefully at the foundational Greek and translate it as exactly as possible, carrying it over into the English and leaving the context development up to the One who inspired it?

 

[Dave G]

Beyond vague translation choices, are many poor translation choices. Sometimes the English word's meaning has changed or become obscure over time. At other times the word meaning is so obscure, new or unintended meanings are ascribed to the word. Take atonement or propitiation or redemption or reconciliation for example. One group of believers understand the words to mean something quite different from another group of believers.

Can we (bible believers) reach a common understanding in our computer aided age? Or will we be stuck in the old, you are wrong, I am right age of defensiveness?

No we cannot.

Technology has nothing to do with the problem, Van, and it never will.
The problem is much more simple, and much more complicated, than that...

It is spiritual, not linguistic;
and computers cannot help something that is far beyond technological in nature.

Only the Lord can do that.

 

[tyndale1946]

No we cannot.

Technology has nothing to do with the problem, Van, and it never will.
The problem is much more simple, and much more complicated, than that...

It is spiritual, not linguistic;
and computers cannot help something that is far beyond technological in nature.

Only the Lord can do that.

I remember hearing this a long time ago by a preacher that had been preaching over 60 years, who is now with the Lord and I've never forgotten it... If one scripture contradicts another scripture... Then the interpretation is in the reader, never the writer... Keep praying and studying and maybe someday the Lord will clear it... Brother Glen

 

[Van]

It always amazing me of how many claim it is impossible to improve our translation of God's word so that God's message is made more clear. Or that vague and ambiguous translations provide an opening to pour mistaken doctrine into the text. These are pretty basic truths that are being denied.

Is adding words to clarify the text, identified by putting them in italics, wrong? Of course not. But OTOH, sometimes the added words corrupt rather than clarify the verse, for example the "to be" added to James 2:5. It the added words are in italics, but wrong, this creates a poor translation. If the added words are not in italics, this creates a mistranslation.

Translators make choices, thus imposing their own understanding upon the text. Thus those that study their translations need not to have qualms about improving and sometimes correcting their choices in light of context. For example, if a translation choice creates a conflict with another part of the inspired text, a poor or mistaken translation choice is the likely problem.

 

[Dave G]

It always amazing me of how many claim it is impossible to improve our translation of God's word so that God's message is made more clear. Or that vague and ambiguous translations provide an opening to pour mistaken doctrine into the text. These are pretty basic truths that are being denied.

Respectfully, it generally amazes me when people who should tremble at the fact that they are dealing with God's words, and not man's,
support ( or even outright declare ) that we should purposefully add words into the text that, by rights, should not be there.

What's more, what is considered "vague and ambiguous" to some, is not to others.
For example, I have no problem seeing that 1 Corinthians 2:14 is speaking of the lost man, while 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 is speaking of the spiritually immature believer in Jesus Christ.

Neither passage is vague, nor are they ambiguous to me.

Is adding words to clarify the text, identified by putting them in italics, wrong?

Generally speaking, I disagree and hold that words that added in through the use of italics are not genuinely and absolutely needed for clarity.
If they are not warranted by the faithful translation process, then I am convinced that they should not be there at all.

That is why I usually put them in brackets when I quote them.

But OTOH, sometimes the added words corrupt rather than clarify the verse, for example the "to be" added to James 2:5. It the added words are in italics, but wrong, this creates a poor translation. If the added words are not in italics, this creates a mistranslation.

I agree.
But I don't see the words, "to be" added into James 2:5 in my Bible:

" Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" (James 2:5, AV).

Would you please specify which translation you are using?

 

[Dave G]

Translators make choices, thus imposing their own understanding upon the text.

I agree...
They can and often do ( especially these days ) make choices that result in sometimes far differing renderings into English, for example, than that which came before.
But to me, the main difference is whether or not faithfulness, rigid accuracy to the preserved Greek and Hebrew texts, and correct translation technique are adhered to, in my opinion.

Thus those that study their translations need not to have qualms about improving and sometimes correcting their choices in light of context.

But adding words into the text to convey one's own private understanding of the Scriptures is not faithful translation, Van.
Shall we as believers not take heed to the example found in Revelation 22:18-19?

I think it wise that we leave His words alone... past rendering them, as closely as possible, into another language.

For example, if a translation choice creates a conflict with another part of the inspired text, a poor or mistaken translation choice is the likely problem.

Again, do the Greek and Hebrew texts warrant the addition of words not found in them, for purposes of context?
I hold that they do not.

On the other hand, I see that adding words into the text ( as you have done in several threads ) is taking liberties that a God-fearing man should not be doing.
To me that is on you, sir, and I would not want to be in your position...
I will not stand at the Judgment and be responsible for anything less that sticking strictly to His words ( and as closely as humanly possible ) if I were to ever be involved in translating them for my brothers and sisters in Christ.


That said, I wish you well despite our disagreements, and I bid you a good afternoon.

 

[Van]

On and on Calvinists post absurdity. He quotes the KJV which has many added words in Italics, yet claims adding words in italics renders the translation as "not faithful."

Here is a link that documents many places where words are "added" to the English translations to make the meaning clear. And of course, some additions are in error.

https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f4766d57c3ad/content/pages/documents/1327353861.pdf

 

[tyndale1946]

On and on Calvinists post absurdity. He quotes the KJV which has many added words in Italics, yet claims adding words in italics renders the translation as "not faithful."

Here is a link that documents many places where words are "added" to the English translations to make the meaning clear. And of course, some additions are in error.

https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f4766d57c3ad/content/pages/documents/1327353861.pdf

Ephesians 2:1 And you, who were dead in trespasses and sins:

2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Now you brethren that are avid Bible scholars noticed I left something out because someone on another thread said do you know why some of the word in the KJV are in italics?... Its for clarity sake and left it out and you might as well throw this Bible in the trash... What about you in the text?... hath he quickened... That has to be there if it is not, the Holy Spirit has no purpose and I guess you quicken yourself?... Course some on here think they birthed themselves anyway but that's another subject... And because the italics are added this also applies... I have not found one word in my Bible that is not essential... Then there is this and I live and breathe by it!... Brother Glen

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Dave G]

On and on Calvinists post absurdity.

With respect, I'm not a Calvinist and never have been;
I don't follow the teachings of men, I follow the words of my Saviour alone.

So, if you're going to accuse me of posting what is, to you, as absurdity...
Then please do so knowing that I have no use for John Calvin's ( or John Wesley's ) assistance in believing and understanding my Saviour's words.

God's children have the Holy Spirit for that ( 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 1 John 2:20-27 ).

He quotes the KJV which has many added words in Italics, yet claims adding words in italics renders the translation as "not faithful."

Regarding the "KJV",
I use it exclusively, trust it implicitly and post from it fully knowing that it includes italics...
and I disagree, at least in many cases, with their being inserted into the text;
Which is my right under God.

That also includes the use of italics in other translations, even those in other languages.
While I agree that the use of italics by translators can be helpful, they are not and never were ( at least in most cases that I have run across them in my reading ) God's inspired words...
Neither are they mandatory to the text.


Again, I wish you well, Van.

 

[Dave G]

What about you in the text?... hath he quickened... That has to be there if it is not, the Holy Spirit has no purpose and I guess you quicken yourself.

Glen,
If you'll look carefully at the passage, is not the word "quickened" and the concept of being made alive by God not established in other passages ( and their clear wording ), as well as being further down in that one?
Here...take a look:

" And you [hath he quickened], who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; )
6 and hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
7 that in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in [his] kindness toward us through Christ Jesus." ( Ephesians 2:1-7 ).

As you can see from the text, the fact that God "quickens", or makes alive the believer in Christ is stated further down.
That is why I do not think that the translators having added those words in were ultimately necessary.

However, it does act as an optional "helper", does it not?

Further, are not the words "us" and "his" understood from the text, even though they were added in for clarity by the translators?
I believe that they are, and to me, they are not ultimately necessary for me to understand the text without them being there.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I agree.
All Scripture is given by inspiration;
but I don't see the use of italics as being necessarily inspired by God.

However, if you disagree, then I accept that...
It's not "make or break" for me, it's only a personal preference and belief.

 

[Van]

It seems the Calvinists now accept that sometimes adding words to provide clarity is a good thing, and does not make the verse into a paraphrase. Next, not a single word concerning how their doctrine is poured into vague and ambiguous translation choices. Finally adding words based on context is accepted as well. Thus posts 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 were much ado about nothing...

 

[Van]

Acts of the Apostles 13:48 When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of [fn]the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.

The above verse is poorly translated because "had been appointed" translates a Greek word meaning to make an arrangement by mutual consent as if it meant a unilateral action by God.

So the verse might be translated as "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had accepted direction to eternal life believed.

Poor or vague translations when the meaning can be derived contextually are unnecessary and provide an opening for false doctrine.

 

[Conan]

The words " [hath he quickened] certainly deserve to be in regular type don't they? I'm @ work and don't have access to a 1611 edition. I guessing but feel confident the words were in regular, or black letter type in 1611.

 

[Van]

The words " [hath he quickened] certainly deserve to be in regular type don't they? I'm @ work and don't have access to a 1611 edition. I guessing but feel confident the words were in regular, or black letter type in 1611.

Not sure what you are telling us? Because the words are in italics, I believe they were not in the TR text and were added by the KJV translators. Whether they were following the addition made in prior translations I do not know. And the words are not in the CT either.

I do not know if the words "he hath quickened" are in the Majority Text, but they are not italicized in the online version of the WEB, appearing in regular type as "made alive."

I did find one online source claiming prior translations also added the words:
Bible translations: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Geneva bible 1587, The Beza N.T. 1599,

This same source said the words were added to satisfy a Greek verb tense issue.

 

[rlvaughn]

The words " [hath he quickened] certainly deserve to be in regular type don't they? I'm @ work and don't have access to a 1611 edition. I guessing but feel confident the words were in regular, or black letter type in 1611.

The link HERE will show hath hee quickned in type that would be the equivalent purpose of our italic type today.