Intercultural Gospeling and a Literal Translation of Scripture

[Hevosmies]

Emergent Church, Postmodernism & Deconstruction

Maybe you're reading too many proponents of the emergent church movement, and you should consider reading some of it's detractors.

There are other views on how things should be done.
I think the deconstructionist views of postmodernism have crept too insidiously into the church.

I would recommend giving equal consideration to those with views opposing the emergent church.

If you don't consider some other views, I'm afraid you're going to be neutralized in the mire of deconstructionism.
Think about your own opening post.
Your teachers have you convinced it's virtually impossible to teach people in other cultures, or teach them with current translations... and yet people have been doing those very things perfectly well for a long, long time.
It's a bit nonsensical.

I recommend you devote some serious time, thought, and study, to other views.

...

...



...

Oy vey. i didnt know it was the fake apostate emergent church.

FLEE from that i'd say.

 

[Nehemiah6]

What is this supposed to be?

Proof that culture makes ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

Everyone is in the same boat.

Or should we say everyone is drowning and needs to be rescued.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Romans chapter 1 should be sufficient to debunk the idea that culture makes any difference to the condition of human beings in the eyes of God.

ROMANS 1 (KJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. [Greek = Gentile]

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[dcontroversal]

No. The Bible was written for specific cultures. The Apostle Paul modified the gospel message depending on where he taught. When he approached the Roman leaders, he used things they would understand. When he approached the Greeks, he again adopted to their culture to increase their ability to understand. He was not doubting the Spirit, but rather explaining things in a way that they might understand better. I am not inclined to believe that the Spirit generally gives complete understanding to all people, but likely draws people to the gospel. It is up to us to study in order to teach in a manner that is effective.

I never used the words "all people" but rather focused in upon "one's ability"

 

[GraceAndTruth]

Mission trips. OH yes, Jesus mentioned those. Jesus Christ told the Pharisees "you go hither and yon making converts and you make them twice the sons of hell that you are"

Hmmmm.

 

[GraceAndTruth]

With somewhat of an understanding of cultural differences, I am of the belief that a literal word-for-word translation of Scripture will cause people to misunderstand the gospel. With so many differing perceptions from the many traditions and values people have, it seems that a translation requires significantly more work than first thought. For example, the verse that states that Jesus stands at the door and knocks would be perceived in some African cultures that Jesus is a thief, as in their culture a thief knocks on the door to see if anyone is inside. If one wished to engage in a friendly visit, then one must call out the name and await an answer. Hence, this verse ought to be translated as "Jesus stands at the door and calls."
Another point is that when on mission trips, many people are not highly educated and cannot understand scholarly works that explain the grammatical and historical context of Scripture, so how would one explain things to them in a literal manner and convey the message of the gospel?

I guess they do what the Mormons do.....make up stories like the one about a "new Jerusalem" in Independence, Missouri.........ROLF.......that is so darn cute.

 

[PeaceHopeJoyLove]

I know there are SOME idioms that cannot be translated word for word.

But MOST of the Bible can definately be easily translated to every language on the planet. I speak multiple languages and 99% of the texts I got no problem translating off the top of my head. Very simple, really.

Dog is a dog in spanish and in english.

I definately favor the formal equivelance translations (Notice i didnt say word for word, such a thing does NOT exist) over the dynamic equivelance ones.
Problem with the latter is, they have the ability to just make it up as they go along to make it "easier to understand".

As one Pastor said: I find it amazing that Americans who speak english as their native language cant figure out simple thees and thous. People with university and college education. Unbelievable.

I don't think it is all that easy, and translating words probably is less difficult than translating meaning. I am somewhat able to read in a couple of languages and struggle to translate meaning. One very good friend of mine is a native speaker and has corrected me many times for translating words and not meaning for the audience. I thought I understood it, but I didn't.
Yes, I agree that a person could make up the translation causing it to "be easier to understand," but that would mean he or she has done a poor job of translating. I think it would take a team of native scholars and other scholars to accurately translate anything, basing the translation from the original Greek and Hebrew texts along with studying the culture they lived in.

 

[PeaceHopeJoyLove]

Emergent Church, Postmodernism & Deconstruction

Maybe you're reading too many proponents of the emergent church movement, and you should consider reading some of it's detractors.

There are other views on how things should be done.
I think the deconstructionist views of postmodernism have crept too insidiously into the church.

I would recommend giving equal consideration to those with views opposing the emergent church.

If you don't consider some other views, I'm afraid you're going to be neutralized in the mire of deconstructionism.
Think about your own opening post.
Your teachers have you convinced it's virtually impossible to teach people in other cultures, or teach them with current translations... and yet people have been doing those very things perfectly well for a long, long time.
It's a bit nonsensical.

I recommend you devote some serious time, thought, and study, to other views.

...

...



...

Okay, please guide me to some of those books and I will look into them if the library has them available.
I have considered other views to some extent. This is a relatively new theory that I have been studying at university and I am thinking quite a lot about it.
My teachers have me convinced of no such thing. It is rather that our perceptions are different and we each see things differently according to our culture. A literal word-for-word translation will bring about something that is very different than what is meant. Often we propel our own culture as THE only way to see things when that's not true at all, such as the greeting example I gave above. It isn't necessary to say that Jesus stands at the door and knocks. What we do know is that know that Jesus is asking to be let inside, not forcing His way in. So what is wrong with translating it as "He stands at the door and calls" ?
I personally have not seen a reason to throw this theory out, but several reasons to consider it.

 

[PeaceHopeJoyLove]

I guess they do what the Mormons do.....make up stories like the one about a "new Jerusalem" in Independence, Missouri.........ROLF.......that is so darn cute.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please clarify and expand on your premise.

 

[Deade]

I don't think it is all that easy, and translating words probably is less difficult than translating meaning. I am somewhat able to read in a couple of languages and struggle to translate meaning. One very good friend of mine is a native speaker and has corrected me many times for translating words and not meaning for the audience. I thought I understood it, but I didn't.
Yes, I agree that a person could make up the translation causing it to "be easier to understand," but that would mean he or she has done a poor job of translating. I think it would take a team of native scholars and other scholars to accurately translate anything, basing the translation from the original Greek and Hebrew texts along with studying the culture they lived in.

Your premise of a scholastic approach to scripture may be less than ideal. With much of scripture being in parables and hidden in prose, a strictly logical approach might not get the message intended. Even those may mean something different in varying cultures. Too, you are counting on the interpreter to unlock any hidden meanings. It is definitely a can of worms for the average man or woman. It is a good thing God know how to do it, and I am sure He will get enough of it translated to do the job. We have that promise.

Isa. 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

 

[GraceAndTruth]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Please clarify and expand on your premise.

No need, anyone who has studied cults is well acquainted with Mormon "teaching".

 

[Angela53510]

I know there are SOME idioms that cannot be translated word for word.

But MOST of the Bible can definately be easily translated to every language on the planet. I speak multiple languages and 99% of the texts I got no problem translating off the top of my head. Very simple, really.

Dog is a dog in spanish and in english.

I definately favor the formal equivelance translations (Notice i didnt say word for word, such a thing does NOT exist) over the dynamic equivelance ones.
Problem with the latter is, they have the ability to just make it up as they go along to make it "easier to understand".

As one Pastor said: I find it amazing that Americans who speak english as their native language cant figure out simple thees and thous. People with university and college education. Unbelievable.

Dog is perro in Spanish. Not sure what you are saying in your first sentence.

Further, I am working in a PhD, and I understand grammar in modern English, French, German, Spanish, Koine Greek and Hebrew.

I have never had any courses in Early Modern English, especially second person singular. So why in earth would I understand thees and thous? Why would I understand how to conjugate 2nd person singular verbs in 16th century English? That pastor was foolish that told you that.

I can conjugate verbs and cases in all the other languages above. This is not something you make up, or skim lightly. You study it from people who speak and have studied these languages. You don't pick it up accurately by just causally reading it in Shakespeare or a KJV Bible.

My personal opinion is that all the people who have not studied, and say they understand it, are deceiving themselves. I personally have no interest in studying 16th century English, and never will. I have 100's of theology books to study, I prefer to read those.

Finally, a functional or formal equivalent translation ties and fails to stay true to the original language, but not the receiving language. That is why the KJV is so hard to understand. Not just because it is an archaic and obsolete version in English.

For example, take the phrase πυρὸς σωρεύσεις in Greek Romans 12:20. The KJV says "coals of fire," which is really inverted in English, although it follows the Greek. The proper order in English of the genitive is "adjective, noun!" That is because we do not have special endings for the genitive case, whereas Greek, as well as German do.

Instead, KJV follows the Greek placement of the genitive. "Burning coals" is the proper way to translate it in English. We need to use English correctly, and that means not having thees and thous, which are not ever used in modern English and not using the wrong word order in English.

 

[Angela53510]

I think translating scripture on one hand and explaining the gospel to people so they understand are two different things.
Not everyone is going to get it its even hidden to those who are lost.
For example Paul was at a greek forum and pointed to an inscription that said 'to an unknown God' he then used this as a starting point to explain the gospel to this audience of greeks and philosophers.

This is not to say when he was quoting scripture that he changed what it meant. But he would explain it, that is why we have expository preaching. The greeks at the time did have a translation the septugint and many people would read that translation, but it didnt mean the original hebrew was changed or the story changed to make it set in a greek world. Moses did not suddenly become like this emporor and prophets philosophers consulting the oracles of Delphi.

Most times when we read the Bible in translation we can know what it means and thank God there are word for word translations so we get the direct words, and even idioms literally translated for us because the Bible has many word pictures...not someone putting their own cultural ideas on top of it.

No such thing as a word for word translation. Greek is a totally different language than English. Greek has noun cases and this allows very different word order than English.

You would know this if you had studied Greek, instead of using concordance definitions, and internet sites that follow the word order of English, when back translating, instead of using Greek word order.

 

[Hevosmies]

No such thing as a word for word translation. Greek is a totally different language than English. Greek has noun cases and this allows very different word order than English.

You would know this if you had studied Greek, instead of using concordance definitions, and internet sites that follow the word order of English, when back translating, instead of using Greek word order.

Which would you say is better then? Formal equivelance or dynamic equivelance? Which translation is the most accurate in english in your opinion, if you had to choose just one?

I think it depends largely on who is doing the translating Thats one thing that spooks me out from many of the modern versions, we just dont know much of the translators, sometimes they arent even listed, its just translated as some "bible society" or whatever.

 

[Exegete]

One of the idioms that comes to mind - not that I keep a list of these around - is from the book of Job. When God boasts to Satan about how well Job has handled the calamities that have befallen him, Satan replies, "Skin for skin!...A man will give all he has for his own life. But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face." (2:4-5 NIV). From the context of these two verses it would seem that the phrase "skin for skin" would seem to indicate Job's physical body. However, in Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, the phrase means (roughly) "it was an easy challenge and it was easily handled"...and this was after Job lost his herds of cattle, sheep, camels, most of his servants and all of his children!!

Not to change the subject, but it does play into this topic, is the choice of translating words. In these same passages of Job, God asks "have you considered my servant Job." To modern readers, this sounds as if God is offering up Job on a silver platter for disaster. But a better translation of the Hebrew is "have you set your heart on Job" meaning Satan is already the target for his schemes.

 

[Angela53510]

Which would you say is better then? Formal equivelance or dynamic equivelance? Which translation is the most accurate in english in your opinion, if you had to choose just one?

I think it depends largely on who is doing the translating Thats one thing that spooks me out from many of the modern versions, we just dont know much of the translators, sometimes they arent even listed, its just translated as some "bible society" or whatever.

I read the NASB for 25 years. It was stilted, and I don't even agree now, it was as good translation. I spent 2 years reading the ESV, and I decided it was more of the same. Esp, when these two translations use the KJV as their structure, instead of Greek. (This from my Greek teacher who was on the translation committee of the ESV, along with his father, also a Greek scholar.)

I switched to HCSB, and found it a bit too freewheeling the first time. Although I grew to appreciative more. Of course, it is still functionally equivalent, but on the continuum it is closer to dynamic, than the KJV or ESV. I am reading the NET right now, mostly for the footnotes. I have already decided to go back to NIV (Read that a few times) and see what it has to offer. I think it is one of the better translations, in terms of making sense in English. I haven't read CSB, I hear that is supposed to be good. I like functional, closer to dynamic, with scholarly footnotes. Hard to find, I know!

 

[Chester]

With somewhat of an understanding of cultural differences, I am of the belief that a literal word-for-word translation of Scripture will cause people to misunderstand the gospel. With so many differing perceptions from the many traditions and values people have, it seems that a translation requires significantly more work than first thought. For example, the verse that states that Jesus stands at the door and knocks would be perceived in some African cultures that Jesus is a thief, as in their culture a thief knocks on the door to see if anyone is inside. If one wished to engage in a friendly visit, then one must call out the name and await an answer. Hence, this verse ought to be translated as "Jesus stands at the door and calls."
Another point is that when on mission trips, many people are not highly educated and cannot understand scholarly works that explain the grammatical and historical context of Scripture, so how would one explain things to them in a literal manner and convey the message of the gospel?

Here's my response: I get what you are saying - In a mission cross-cultural setting the most important thing is for the people to get the gospel story so they can understand it as clearly as possible when they read the text. I agree 100% with your example of Jesus knocking on the door needing to be translated in some cultures as "Jesus stands at the door and calls". My life work has revolved around getting the gospel to minority cross-cultural peoples.

I think most of the debating going on in the thread here is in relation to English translations: In English for a North American audience I think a more literal translation is usually best.

 

[Lanolin]

Word for word does not mean the same word order. Because different languages have different syntaxes. It just means each word is translated and none is missed out, and if there is no equivalent, it is transliterated. Where words need to be added to make it make sense, the KJV shows them in italics. These are usually linking words that in the original tongues were not needed.

With something like culture, it is not that we have to interpret the Bible through someone elses culture, we need to understand the Bible within the culture that its from, which is when it was written, the middle east culture of centuries ago. Not ours. We can draw from equivalent analogies from our own lives, but thats being expository its not reinterpeting the Bible to make it seem like its 'modern' as its an ancient yet timeless book. It was already ancient by the time of the 1611 kjv translation.

Yes there are some things we cant fathom in todays age like what is a shekel, what is a tare, we dont have wineskins, we dont ride camels. Well most of us dont. So we immerse ourselves in those times and try to understand them, not rewrite the Bible for us and make out like its just something we can adapt.

Btw knocking at the door is something we do, And i think the quibble is a bit baseless because the verse clearly says if anyone hears my voice and open the door...Jesus is not just knocking, hes talking too, when you knock on someons door dont you call them as well?! You knock to let them know you are waiting AT THE DOOR.

 

[PeaceHopeJoyLove]

Your premise of a scholastic approach to scripture may be less than ideal. With much of scripture being in parables and hidden in prose, a strictly logical approach might not get the message intended. Even those may mean something different in varying cultures. Too, you are counting on the interpreter to unlock any hidden meanings. It is definitely a can of worms for the average man or woman. It is a good thing God know how to do it, and I am sure He will get enough of it translated to do the job. We have that promise.

Isa. 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."

Yes, exactly. I am against a single way to approach Scripture because of the many ways it may be taken.

One of the idioms that comes to mind - not that I keep a list of these around - is from the book of Job. When God boasts to Satan about how well Job has handled the calamities that have befallen him, Satan replies, "Skin for skin!...A man will give all he has for his own life. But stretch out your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse you to your face." (2:4-5 NIV). From the context of these two verses it would seem that the phrase "skin for skin" would seem to indicate Job's physical body. However, in Ancient Near East (ANE) culture, the phrase means (roughly) "it was an easy challenge and it was easily handled"...and this was after Job lost his herds of cattle, sheep, camels, most of his servants and all of his children!!

Not to change the subject, but it does play into this topic, is the choice of translating words. In these same passages of Job, God asks "have you considered my servant Job." To modern readers, this sounds as if God is offering up Job on a silver platter for disaster. But a better translation of the Hebrew is "have you set your heart on Job" meaning Satan is already the target for his schemes.

Hmm, interesting!

Here's my response: I get what you are saying - In a mission cross-cultural setting the most important thing is for the people to get the gospel story so they can understand it as clearly as possible when they read the text. I agree 100% with your example of Jesus knocking on the door needing to be translated in some cultures as "Jesus stands at the door and calls". My life work has revolved around getting the gospel to minority cross-cultural peoples.

I think most of the debating going on in the thread here is in relation to English translations: In English for a North American audience I think a more literal translation is usually best.

Ah, yes. Many in a North American culture it may be best to provide plenty of details and scholarly works to research, as they tend to have a more scientific approach anyway. But this probably won't work in a more mystical culture, for example.