I wonder what the results would be if we did the same survey in AIM. I reckon that on average, Wycliffe missionaries are significantly more tech savvy than AIMers.
I wonder what the results would be if we did the same survey in AIM. I reckon that on average, Wycliffe missionaries are significantly more tech savvy than AIMers.
I recently expressed my consternation at the New King James Version’s rendering of part of Isaiah 49:1 which a colleague had quoted in an email.
The LORD has called Me from the womb; From the matrix of My mother He has made mention of My name.
Having looked into it I found that matrix is the Latin word for the womb, but I don’t know what the NKJV team were thinking when they used it as a revision for the KJV’s use of ‘bowels’ ! I suppose it was probably before the science fiction film came out, but at that time the word matrix for most people conjured up images of difficult maths lessons rather than anything to do with the womb.
Here’s my response to the question which followed – “Which translation do you believe is the best?”:
It is a good question and one that I am asked fairly often when I express my opinions about Bible translation. It is actually hard to give a simple answer since different translations have advantages and disadvantages. I believe that good translation involves paying attention to three criteria – accuracy, clarity and naturalness. These three are not easy to balance correctly, but I would say that some of our English translations do a much better job than others.
Hopefully, clarity and naturalness speak largely for themselves but accuracy isn’t so obvious. Just because the form of a translation is more like the original language (Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic) does not mean that the translation is more accurate. For example it is well known that Paul used some very long sentences in his writing with lots of connecting words holding the phrases logically together (there was no punctuation used at the time). Some have therefore translated using similarly long sentences, but by doing so have made something which is very difficult to read and so obscured the meaning. The problem is that English speakers don’t usually speak in this way, so we find such sentences hard to read aloud or listen to with understanding. To translate what Paul says accurately we need to do our best to decide what he meant his readers to understand and attempt to get our English readers to grasp the same meaning as far as possible. Since English generally conveys meaning using shorter sentences and phrases to indicate the logical relation between them, we will do better to follow the usual English style rather than the Greek style. That being said, someone studying the Bible using a meaning based translation may miss certain aspects of the original languages which are still apparent in a translation which stays closer to the Greek form.
Personally I think we can benefit greatly by looking at multiple translations using different translation philosophies if we are doing in depth study, but for day-to-day reading and public reading in church I think we are better served by the best meaning-based translations. In the our office we are currently reading through the whole Bible in the New Living Translation. In most places the translators have done a good job of making the Bible easy to read and comprehensible, which is more than can be said of many translations.
I personally don’t accept the arguments of those who insist on the King James Version as the only legitimate translation in English. Even in its somewhat modernised forms such as the NKJV, I have less confidence in what I am reading as being close to what God gave through inspiration because of the limited number and quality of biblical manuscripts used to produce Erasmus’s ‘Received Text’ on which they are based. That said, I don’t think there are any areas where significant doctrine is greatly affected.
I do find modern form-based translations such as the ESV, NASB etc. helpful when used alongside of other translations as an aid to understanding the form of the original languages, but I don’t think they should become the standard adopted by evangelicals. I wrote about this a few months ago.
I spent quite a few years using the New Living Translation as my main Bible after having been brought up largely on the NIV and still frequently use both, but I mostly use the NET Bible (Bible.org) as my main Bible text. I find that switching to a new version from time to time helps me keep thinking about what I’m reading especially in familiar passages. I particularly appreciate the NET’s extensive notes on translation issues – though it does make it very fat and heavy to carry. These days I mostly read the Bible online or on my phone which lets me compare several translations.
The question of which translation one uses has become something of a shibboleth for some evangelicals which is a shame. In the end, the best Bible is the one you can read, understand and apply.
Of course much ink both physical and virtual has already been spilled on this subject and not all of it usefully, but if you want a starting place to find more articles and books on the subject you could try this page on the useful biblicalstudies .org website.
I also hope that many of the people who like me express strong views about English Bible translation will apply some of their passion and concern to meeting the needs of the millions of people in the world who don’t have any of God’s word in a language they can understand. This is from Wycliffe UK‘s site:
How many languages have Scripture?
2,479. Of these, 451 have a complete Bible, another 1,185 have the New Testament. 843 others have at least one book of the Bible.
How many languages still need translation?
In addition to more than 1,300 active projects, work needs to begin in over 2,200 languages.
How many people have no Scripture?
200 million speak these languages where translation still needs to begin.
In how many languages have Wycliffe been involved in the completion of a New Testament or Bible?
759. Over 107 million people speak these languages.
How many countries are affected by the work of Wycliffe?
Almost 100. This includes work among people who live outside their traditional homelands.
These figures are up to the end of September 2009 and come from Wycliffe International.
From adventconspiracy.org :
I really appreciate the NET Bible as a translation and even have a printed copy with all its helpful notes on translation. But even the best translations have their faults. To my ears at least, this one is hilariously anachronistic: From the NET Bible – Ruth 4:1
Now Boaz went up to the village gate and sat there. Then along came the guardian whom Boaz had mentioned to Ruth! Boaz said, “Come here and sit down, ‘John Doe’!” So he came and sat down.
Have any Americans reading this ever addressed anyone in conversation as ‘John Doe’? For me as a Brit, John Does are almost exclusively unidentified bodies in CSI!
Apparently in an earlier NET version, the kinsman was addressed as “Mr So-and-so” but this was changed because it was felt that “John Doe” better suited the legal setting. I think “Sir” would do just great.
Amazing Grace Baptist Church in North Carolina are planning an alternative to Halloween. Of course lots of churches have been doing that for years, but this one is a bit different. Here’s the announcement from the church’s website:
Shame no one else is invited, I’m sure the fried chicken will be great! However, I wouldn’t bank on finding much evidence of God’s amazing grace among those who gather for the bonfire. Let’s pray that some of them will read and understand their King James Versions at least, and realise that their bonfire is giving off much more heat than light to a world that is dying for lack of the knowledge of God. Sadly they are merely bringing ridicule to God’s name and fuelling the fires of unnecessary divisions among God’s people.
In trying to explain to my nephew (on Facebook) why I have significant reservations about the English Standard Version, I came across this interesting survey by Mark Strauss of the kinds of problems produced by the ESV’s overly-literal translation philosophy.
Here’s part of Strauss’s conclusion:
There is an unfortunate tendency among biblical scholars—who live in the world of Hebrew and Greek—to think they are getting it “right” if they mimic the form of the original languages. The unfortunate result is a tendency to create “half-idioms” (half-English/half-Greek), transferring a few words of the original, but missing its meaning in standard English. This is what the ESV does when people speak “with a double heart” (Ps. 12:2), have “news in their mouths” (2Sam. 18:25), “go in and out among them” (Acts 1:21; 9:28), or “fill up the measure of their fathers” (Matt. 23:32). These are half-idioms—Biblish rather than English.
Some critics have claimed that the only way to protect the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is to translate literally. This, of course, is linguistic nonsense. The translation that best preserves the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture is one that clearly and accurately communicates the meaning of the text as the original author intended it to be heard. The Greek idioms that Paul or John or Luke used did not sound awkward, obscure or stilted to their original readers. They sounded like normal idiomatic Greek. Verbal and plenary inspiration is most respected when we allow the original meaning of the text to come through.
Asking the simple question, “Would anyone speaking English actually say this?” is a good test for standard English. This simple question could transform our Bible versions and bring them in line with the finest translation practices used around the world. We must remember that the ultimate goal of Bible translation is not to give our students a “crib” on their weekly Greek and Hebrew assignments, but to clearly and accurately communicate the meaning of God’s inspired and authoritative Word.
My father-in-law usually reads from the New King James Version and we have had a few discussions over the years about this. Largely I think it is because he grew up using the King James Version rather than a strong commitment to the Received Text. These days I usually avoid returning to the issue because he’s a a godly man, a great father-in-law and he often cuts my grass for me, but I think I’m going to have to pick up the discussion again this week.
Yesterday my father-in-law was leading our church service and gave a children’s talk in which he referred to the angel stirring the waters of the pool of Bethesda. He didn’t read it out but here’s the text from the NKJV:
Realising I hadn’t heard this story since I was small and questioning whether I believed in angels healing people in that sort of way I tried to find the reference by searching the Bibles on my phone for verses with ‘angel’ and ‘water’ in them, but the search came up blank. Checking further in the excellent net.bible.org site, I see that most modern Bible versions omit the verse because it only appears in late manuscripts and often with an asterisk indicating the scribe’s doubts to its originality. The NKJV does have a footnote:
But I’m afraid that just isn’t good enough. My guess is that my father-in-law didn’t notice this footnote, but would be very concerned to be teaching children something which has most likely been added to the scripture, so I’m going to stir the waters again. I hope he’ll still cut my grass sometimes!
Let me clarify that I am not suggesting that this throws into question the authority of Scripture. I will defend biblical inspiration of the Scriptures as originally given but am concerned that translations are not always in line with what God inspired. Textual variations are mostly small, but I recommend you compare a few reliable versions and if possible consider the original language text if you really want to study the Bible well.
My friend Eddie Arthur recently pointed out a helpful response to those who advocate the exclusive use of the original 1611 King James Version, which also deals with the question of the Received Text. I would also want to follow Eddie’s lead in pointing out that while many people spend hours arguing about the merits or problems of our many English versions 200 million people in our world don’t have a single word of Scripture in their language. That’s why Eddie is director of Wycliffe Bible Translators in the UK.
The theme of the service I was leading yesterday was salvation, so I came up with this talk/activity for the children. I’m not always keen on children’s talks, but this one worked well and I think it teaches truth to adults too, so I thought I should pass it on. It seemed particularly appropriate for Father’s day.
Have the children come to the front and lie on their backs with their knees bent and their lower legs resting on the platform/dais – in our building it’s about a foot off the ground but you may need to adapt. Tell them to fold their arms tightly across their chests and close their eyes. Now, tell them that, without standing up or using their arms, they have to get onto the platform. Most will find it impossible, but you may, like me, find that one of them somehow worms their way up, in which case use him/her as your ‘son’, otherwise get an older child or an adult to come up onto the stage to act your ‘son’. Now publicly tell your ‘son’ to go down and touch the eyes of each child to open them and release their arms. As each child’s eyes are opened and their arms freed, reach out your hand to pull them up onto the platform with you. Explain to everyone how we are all blind and bound helplessly by our sin, so that it really is completely impossible for us to truly know God or come to him by our own efforts, but that the Father has sent his Son to open our eyes to the truth and free us from the sin which binds us. God reaches out and saves us so that we can know him and be with him now and forever.
Remember, everything is going on low down, so make sure you explain what’s happening for the benefit of any who can’t see. Any ideas for improvement or comments, whether theological or practical are very welcome.
It isn’t often that I get requests to post things on my blog, but World Vision have clearly understood how viral marketing works to the extent that they have employed the services of a ‘social media planner’. Tim Hoang asked if I could help get the word out about World Vision’s urgent appeal for 5,000 new British sponsors to help children in the developing world. For most of us this is out of sight and out of mind but that should not be so.
World Vision has identified at least five thousand children who need sponsorship in five sub-Saharan African countries – Mozambique, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zambia – countries with among the highest child mortality rates in the world.
Launching World Vision’s Week for Children, British school kids gathered together to make a ‘high-five for health,’ urging members of the public to give just a little to make a huge difference in a child’s life. Each finger symbolises one year of a child’s life and the aspiration to get a child to the age of five. Sadly in 2009 each finger represents one of the five biggest killers of children under five: malaria, HIV and AIDS, pneumonia, measles and diarrhoea.
To understand the scale of the problem, data collated for World Vision by the Social Issues Research Centre (SIRC), an independent not-for-profit organisation, shows a child in Sierra Leone is 43 times more likely than a British child to die between the ages of 0-5, while a child in Zambia is 27 times more likely to die before his or her fifth birthday than a child under five in the UK.
Sierra Leone has the highest rate of under-five mortality in the world. For every 1,000 live births, 262 – a quarter of all children – will die. Even if Sierra Leone were to successfully reduce current rates of mortality by two thirds, in line with the Millennium Development Goals, this would be 15 times the under-five mortality rate in the UK, where six children per 1,000 live births will die.
Through child sponsorship, World Vision focuses on improving the quality of life of children – often the most vulnerable members of poor communities – helping to meet their education, health and other basic needs. This may include things such as providing them with access to clean water, better nutrition, education, improved healthcare and economic opportunities.
“Children in the developing world urgently need our support now more than ever. By appealing to the British public, we can demonstrate that the act of sponsoring a child is one of the best ways in which Britons can help make a difference in the developing world today.” said McLeod.
To participate in World Vision’s Week for Children and become one of the 5,000 Britons to sponsor a child please visit www.worldvision.org.uk or call 0800 501010.